PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) - Parliament of ...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 18 JUNE 2019

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

The Honourable LINDA DESSAU, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor

The Honourable KEN LAY, AO, APM

The ministry

Premier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. DM Andrews, MP

Deputy Premier and Minister for Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. JA Merlino, MP

Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. TH Pallas, MP

Minister for Transport Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. JM Allan, MP

Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. BA Carroll, MP

Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Solar Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. L D’Ambrosio, MP

Minister for Child Protection and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. LA Donnellan, MP

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality and Minister for Creative Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. MP Foley, MP

Attorney-General and Minister for Workplace Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J Hennessy, MP

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Ports and Freight . . . . . . . The Hon. MM Horne, MP

Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. GW Jennings, MLC

Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, and Minister for Suburban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. M Kairouz, MP

Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J Mikakos, MLC

Minister for Water and Minister for Police and Emergency Services . . . . The Hon. LM Neville, MP

Minister for Jobs, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. MP Pakula, MP

Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, and Minister for Fishing and Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. JL Pulford, MLC

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Veterans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. RD Scott, MP

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Small Business The Hon. A Somyurek, MLC

Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Resources

The Hon. J Symes, MLC

Minister for Training and Skills, and Minister for Higher Education . . . . The Hon. GA Tierney, MLC

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women and Minister for Youth

The Hon. G Williams, MP

Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. RW Wynne, MP

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms M Thomas, MP

OFFICE-HOLDERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

Speaker

The Hon. CW BROOKS

Deputy Speaker

Ms JM EDWARDS

Acting Speakers

Ms Blandthorn, Mr J Bull, Mr Carbines, Ms Couzens, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Edbrooke, Ms Kilkenny, Mr McGuire, Mr Richardson, Ms Spence, Ms Suleyman and Ms Ward

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Premier

The Hon. DM ANDREWS

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Premier

The Hon. JA MERLINO

Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition

The Hon. MA O’BRIEN

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party

The Hon. LG McLEISH

Leader of The Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Opposition

The Hon. PL WALSH

Deputy Leader of The Nationals

Ms SM RYAN

Leader of the House

Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business

Mr KA WELLS

Heads of parliamentary departments

Assembly: Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Ms B Noonan

Council: Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr A Young

Parliamentary Services: Secretary: Mr P Lochert

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

Member District Party Member District Party

Addison, Ms Juliana Wendouree ALP Maas, Mr Gary Narre Warren South ALP

Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Bendigo East ALP McCurdy, Mr Timothy Logan Ovens Valley Nats

Andrews, Mr Daniel Michael Mulgrave ALP McGhie, Mr Stephen John Melton ALP

Angus, Mr Neil Andrew Warwick Forest Hill LP McGuire, Mr Frank Broadmeadows ALP

Battin, Mr Bradley William Gembrook LP McLeish, Ms Lucinda Gaye Eildon LP

Blackwood, Mr Gary John Narracan LP Merlino, Mr James Anthony Monbulk ALP

Blandthorn, Ms Elizabeth Anne Pascoe Vale ALP Morris, Mr David Charles Mornington LP

Brayne, Mr Chris Nepean ALP Neville, Ms Lisa Mary Bellarine ALP

Britnell, Ms Roma South-West Coast LP Newbury, Mr James Brighton LP

Brooks, Mr Colin William Bundoora ALP Northe, Mr Russell John Morwell Ind

Bull, Mr Joshua Michael Sunbury ALP O’Brien, Mr Daniel David Gippsland South Nats

Bull, Mr Timothy Owen Gippsland East Nats O’Brien, Mr Michael Anthony Malvern LP

Burgess, Mr Neale Ronald Hastings LP Pakula, Mr Martin Philip Keysborough ALP

Carbines, Mr Anthony Richard Ivanhoe ALP Pallas, Mr Timothy Hugh Werribee ALP

Carroll, Mr Benjamin Alan Niddrie ALP Pearson, Mr Daniel James Essendon ALP

Cheeseman, Mr Darren Leicester South Barwon ALP Read, Dr Tim Brunswick Greens

Connolly, Ms Sarah Tarneit ALP Richards, Ms Pauline Cranbourne ALP

Couzens, Ms Christine Anne Geelong ALP Richardson, Mr Timothy Noel Mordialloc ALP

Crugnale, Ms Jordan Alessandra Bass ALP Riordan, Mr Richard Vincent Polwarth LP

Cupper, Ms Ali Mildura Ind Rowswell, Mr Brad Sandringham LP

D’Ambrosio, Ms Liliana Mill Park ALP Ryan, Stephanie Maureen Euroa Nats

Dimopoulos, Mr Stephen Oakleigh ALP Sandell, Ms Ellen Melbourne Greens

Donnellan, Mr Luke Anthony Narre Warren North ALP Scott, Mr Robin David Preston ALP

Edbrooke, Mr Paul Andrew Frankston ALP Settle, Ms Michaela Buninyong ALP

Edwards, Ms Janice Maree Bendigo West ALP Sheed, Ms Suzanna Shepparton Ind

Eren, Mr John Hamdi Lara ALP Smith, Mr Ryan Warrandyte LP

Foley, Mr Martin Peter Albert Park ALP Smith, Mr Timothy Colin Kew LP

Fowles, Mr Will Burwood ALP Southwick, Mr David James Caulfield LP

Fregon, Mr Matt Mount Waverley ALP Spence, Ms Rosalind Louise Yuroke ALP

Green, Ms Danielle Louise Yan Yean ALP Staikos, Mr Nicholas Bentleigh ALP

Guy, Mr Matthew Jason Bulleen LP Staley, Ms Louise Eileen Ripon LP

Halfpenny, Ms Bronwyn Thomastown ALP Suleyman, Ms Natalie St Albans ALP

Hall, Ms Katie Footscray ALP Tak, Mr Meng Heang Clarinda ALP

Halse, Mr Dustin Ringwood ALP Taylor, Mr Jackson Bayswater ALP

Hamer, Mr Paul Box Hill ALP Theophanous, Ms Katerina Northcote ALP

Hennessy, Ms Jill Altona ALP Thomas, Ms Mary-Anne Macedon ALP

Hibbins, Mr Samuel Peter Prahran Greens Tilley, Mr William John Benambra LP

Hodgett, Mr David John Croydon LP Vallence, Ms Bridget Evelyn LP

Horne, Ms Melissa Margaret Williamstown ALP Wakeling, Mr Nicholas Ferntree Gully LP

Hutchins, Ms Natalie Maree Sykes Sydenham ALP Walsh, Mr Peter Lindsay Murray Plains Nats

Kairouz, Ms Marlene Kororoit ALP Ward, Ms Vicki Eltham ALP

Kealy, Ms Emma Jayne Lowan Nats Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Rowville LP

Kennedy, Mr John Ormond Hawthorn ALP Williams, Ms Gabrielle Dandenong ALP

Kilkenny, Ms Sonya Carrum ALP Wynne, Mr Richard William Richmond ALP

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS

ALP—Labor Party; Greens—The Greens;

Ind—Independent; LP—Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals.

Legislative Assembly committees

Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee Ms Addison, Mr Blackwood, Ms Connolly, Mr Eren, Mr Rowswell, Ms Ryan and Ms Theophanous.

Environment and Planning Standing Committee Mr Cheeseman, Mr Fowles, Ms Green, Mr Hamer, Mr McCurdy, Mr Morris and Mr T Smith.

Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee Ms Couzens, Ms Kealy, Mr Newbury, Ms Settle, Ms Suleyman, Mr Tak and Mr Tilley.

Privileges Committee Ms Allan, Mr Guy, Ms Hennessy, Mr McGuire, Mr Morris, Ms Neville, Mr Pakula, Ms Ryan and Mr Wells.

Standing Orders Committee The Speaker, Ms Allan, Ms Edwards, Ms Halfpenny, Ms McLeish, Ms Sheed, Mr Staikos, Ms Staley and Mr Walsh.

Joint committees

Dispute Resolution Committee Assembly: Ms Allan, Ms Hennessy, Mr Merlino, Mr Pakula, Mr R Smith, Mr Walsh and Mr Wells. Council: Mr Bourman, Mr Davis, Mr Jennings, Ms Symes and Ms Wooldridge.

Electoral Matters Committee Assembly: Ms Blandthorn, Ms Hall, Dr Read and Ms Spence. Council: Mr Atkinson, Mrs McArthur, Mr Meddick, Mr Melhem, Ms Lovell and Mr Quilty.

House Committee Assembly: The Speaker (ex officio), Mr T Bull, Ms Crugnale, Ms Edwards, Mr Fregon, Ms Sandell and Ms Staley. Council: The President (ex officio), Mr Bourman, Mr Davis, Ms Lovell, Ms Pulford and Ms Stitt.

Integrity and Oversight Committee Assembly: Mr Halse, Mr McGhie, Mr Rowswell, Mr Taylor and Mr Wells. Council: Mr Grimley and Ms Shing.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee Assembly: Ms Blandthorn, Mr Hibbins, Mr Maas, Mr D O’Brien, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Mr Riordan and Ms Vallence. Council: Ms Stitt.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Assembly: Mr Burgess, Ms Connolly and Ms Kilkenny. Council: Mr Gepp, Mrs McArthur, Ms Patten and Ms Taylor.

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country .................................................................................................................................... 2143

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS John Setka .................................................................................................................................................................... 2143 Ministers statements: level crossing removals .......................................................................................................... 2144 Peter Marshall .............................................................................................................................................................. 2144 Ministers statements: level crossing removals .......................................................................................................... 2146 Murray Basin rail project ............................................................................................................................................ 2147 Ministers statements: Solar Homes package ............................................................................................................ 2149 Coal power stations ..................................................................................................................................................... 2149 Ministers statements: Victorian Pride Centre ........................................................................................................... 2150 Murray Basin rail project ............................................................................................................................................ 2151 Ministers statements: regional employment ............................................................................................................. 2153

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Murray Plains electorate ............................................................................................................................................. 2154 Yan Yean electorate .................................................................................................................................................... 2154 Rowville electorate ...................................................................................................................................................... 2154 Mount Waverley electorate ........................................................................................................................................ 2154 Ferntree Gully electorate ............................................................................................................................................. 2155 Nepean electorate ........................................................................................................................................................ 2155 Brighton electorate ...................................................................................................................................................... 2155 Tarneit electorate ......................................................................................................................................................... 2155 Evelyn electorate ......................................................................................................................................................... 2156 Narre Warren South electorate ................................................................................................................................... 2156

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR Breach of privilege ...................................................................................................................................................... 2156

BILLS Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill 2019 ........................................................................ 2157

Introduction and first reading ................................................................................................................................ 2157 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Amendment Bill 2019 ................................................................................................. 2157

Introduction and first reading ................................................................................................................................ 2157 PETITIONS

South Gippsland water ................................................................................................................................................ 2158 Toorak Road, Kooyong, level crossing ..................................................................................................................... 2158 Ripon electorate state forests ...................................................................................................................................... 2159

COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee .......................................................................................................... 2159

Alert Digest No. 8 ................................................................................................................................................... 2159 DOCUMENTS

Documents ................................................................................................................................................................... 2159 BILLS

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2019 .............................................................................................................. 2160 Council’s agreement ............................................................................................................................................... 2160

Appropriation (2019–2020) Bill 2019 ....................................................................................................................... 2160 Appropriation (Parliament 2019–2020) Bill 2019 .................................................................................................. 2160

Royal assent ............................................................................................................................................................ 2160 State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2019 .............................................................................................................. 2160

Royal assent ............................................................................................................................................................ 2160 Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2019 ................................................................ 2160 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 ................................................................................................. 2160

Appropriation .......................................................................................................................................................... 2160 MEMBERS

Mr Dalidakis ................................................................................................................................................................ 2160 Resignation .............................................................................................................................................................. 2160

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Program ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2161

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Ella Ebery ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2167 Kenneth Jeffery ............................................................................................................................................................ 2167 Ella Ebery ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2168 Asylum Seeker Resource Centre ............................................................................................................................... 2168 Firefighters legislation ................................................................................................................................................. 2168

Dorothy Reading, OAM ............................................................................................................................................. 2169 Jayshree Ramachandran, OAM ................................................................................................................................. 2169 Kristy McKellar, OAM ............................................................................................................................................... 2169 East–west link .............................................................................................................................................................. 2169 Fairhills High School .................................................................................................................................................. 2170 Broadmeadows electorate revitalisation .................................................................................................................... 2170 Sandringham electorate graffiti .................................................................................................................................. 2170 Mordialloc electorate transport infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 2171 Gippsland South electorate surf lifesaving clubs...................................................................................................... 2171 South Gippsland Water ............................................................................................................................................... 2171 Charlie Pavlou .............................................................................................................................................................. 2171 Murray Basin rail project ............................................................................................................................................ 2172 Megan Taylor ............................................................................................................................................................... 2172 Chloe Stewart ............................................................................................................................................................... 2172 Macedon Youth Advisory Council ............................................................................................................................ 2173 Forrest Soup Festival ................................................................................................................................................... 2173 Colac Sudanese community ....................................................................................................................................... 2173 Nepean electorate community engagement .............................................................................................................. 2173 Paul Tysoe .................................................................................................................................................................... 2174 Arnolds Creek Primary School .................................................................................................................................. 2174 Joy and Les Joyce ........................................................................................................................................................ 2174 Ken and Judith Edwards ............................................................................................................................................. 2175 Rachael Davies ............................................................................................................................................................ 2175 Sudan ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2175

BILLS Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019 ........................................................................... 2175

Second reading ........................................................................................................................................................ 2175 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Orders of the day ......................................................................................................................................................... 2204 BILLS

Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019 .................................................................................................................... 2204 Second reading ........................................................................................................................................................ 2204

ADJOURNMENT Ice Meltdown Project .................................................................................................................................................. 2232 Early childhood education TAFE courses ................................................................................................................ 2233 East Beach, Port Fairy ................................................................................................................................................. 2233 Forster Road, Mount Waverley, shared-use path ..................................................................................................... 2233 Morwell electorate projects ........................................................................................................................................ 2234 Workplace manslaughter legislation.......................................................................................................................... 2234 Wire rope barriers funding .......................................................................................................................................... 2235 Family Drug Treatment Court, Broadmeadows ....................................................................................................... 2235 Western Highway duplication .................................................................................................................................... 2236 The Grange P–12 College........................................................................................................................................... 2236 Responses ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2237

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Tuesday, 18 June 2019 Legislative Assembly 2143

Tuesday, 18 June 2019

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 12.01 p.m. and read the prayer.

Announcements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

The SPEAKER (12:02): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which

we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and

elders from other communities who may be here today.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

JOHN SETKA

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): My question is to the Premier.

United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall has described calls for John Setka to step down as leader

of the CFMMEU as just a witch-hunt. The Premier has previously stated there can be no excuses or

second chances for perpetrators of family violence. Given the appalling conduct of John Setka and

Peter Marshall’s support for that conduct, why won’t the Premier act to sever all Victorian government

ties with these two union thugs?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:03): Thank you very much, Speaker, and I thank the

Leader of the Opposition for his question. He has asked this question in different ways over the last

few sitting weeks, and I have been very careful to adhere to the guidance that you have provided,

Speaker, in relation to matters that are not yet finalised before the courts.

In terms of comments that were made—shocking comments, appalling comments—in relation to

Rosie Batty, someone that I know well, someone who has addressed this house, someone who

humbled us by being in this house talking about her personal experience, I make no apology

whatsoever for being fully supportive of the action that has been taken against Mr Setka in relation to

his membership of the Australian Labor Party, no apology whatsoever. Comments were made on

Friday, an apology was called for by me and widely reported on the Saturday and he was gone from

the Labor Party on the Tuesday after that long weekend had finished. That is appropriate. To be drawn

into a commentary on matters that are not yet finalised is inappropriate.

Mr M O’Brien: Speaker, this is a point of order relating to relevance. The Premier has been asked

will he make sure the Victorian government severs ties with two people who have behaved appallingly

and disgracefully. Given the Premier’s own comments, I ask you to bring him back to the question:

will he sever government ties with these two union thugs—yes or no?

The SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point of order. The question was a lengthy one. The

Premier is being relevant to the question asked.

Mr ANDREWS: As I was saying, Speaker, my position on this matter is very clear, and in the

wake of comments made that I think are appalling comments in relation to a wonderful, fantastic

Victorian and Australian, Rosie Batty, I make no apology for that position at all.

In terms of other matters, I think it is inappropriate for us to be drawn into commenting, let alone

acting, on matters that are not yet finalised. That is the fact of it, and that is in full accordance with the

guidance that you, Speaker, have provided to me and others.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:05): The Premier belatedly—

belatedly—described John Setka’s conduct as disgraceful and appalling. If the Premier’s words are to

mean anything—anything at all—will he now direct his government to sever all ties with the

CFMMEU so long as John Setka remains its secretary?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS

2144 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:05): The Leader of the Opposition talks about ties and

relationships and partnerships and things. I think he is a bit confused when it comes those matters. In

terms of this government’s credentials and the record that each and every member of this

government—

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition!

Mr ANDREWS: Well, having established a royal commission, and to the best of my knowledge,

leading the only party that remains committed to the full implementation of all 227 recommendations,

might I say with the greatest of respect for the Leader of the Opposition, I will not be lectured to by

him on these matters.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: LEVEL CROSSING REMOVALS

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:06): I am very pleased to rise to update the house on

the tremendous progress the government is making in the removal of dangerous and congested level

crossings. There are four such dangerous and congested level crossings in Melbourne’s north, set to

be removed in full delivery of our commitment in the first instance to 50 gone by 2022 and our

commitment to 75 gone by 2025. This is creating thousands of jobs and allowing us to run more trains

more often. Where we get the opportunity to upgrade signalling or power or build new stations with

better access for every Victorian, we are taking those opportunities, embedding skills and local content

and all of those other things to make sure that we deliver on this agenda.

I was so pleased to be out with the member for Pascoe Vale to celebrate important level crossing

removals where big and important steps have been made towards that end: Reynard and Munro streets

in Coburg, Bell Street as well and of course Moreland Road in Brunswick. These will be part of a

more than 2-kilometre stretch of sky rail. That is the best engineering advice, that this is the best way

to deliver the removal of these deathtraps that hold up something like 68 000 drivers a day. They are

dangerous. They have to go.

They are a part of that agenda, that broad agenda, of 50 and then 75. As I will remind all honourable

members, 29 of these level crossings are already gone. Despite the opposition of some, they are already

gone, with more on the way. I would say, particularly to those opposite, of the preferred engineering

treatment in Noble Park, that if it is good enough for Noble Park and it is good enough for Coburg,

then it ought to be good enough for Kooyong. We make no apology for getting rid of level crossings,

something others talk about but only Labor delivers.

PETER MARSHALL

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:08): Class hero—what a class hero

you are. That is something—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition not to converse

across the table. The Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to ask a question; otherwise he can

pass that opportunity up.

Mr M O’BRIEN: My question is to the Premier, and I refer the Premier to Professor Caroline

Taylor, who reported on bullying, harassment and sexual assault at the CFA and later told the Age

newspaper, and I quote:

Many female staff, firefighters and non-fire fighting staff, relayed experiences to me … of reporting sexual

assaults and receiving phone calls from people connected with the union, threatening them directly about

things that would be done to them if they went any further with their report. These women were absolutely

terrified.



Now that the Premier has reluctantly agreed to have John Setka removed from his government board

position, will he now also exclude United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall from any further

involvement with the Victorian government or its agencies?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:09): The prevalence of unacceptable attitudes and

criminal conduct in any organisation—particularly organisations that have a sacred public trust to keep

us safe, whether it be fighting fire or any of our emergency services—is of great concern I think to every

member of this house. And it ought not be a matter of political contest that a different culture, different

practices and therefore different outcomes for women and for all Victorians should be a priority; it

should be a priority for all of us, not just in our fire services, both career and volunteer, but also in other

emergency services. We, for instance, have seen Victoria Police on a very significant journey of cultural

change. I have confidence that all of our emergency services—from board level to management and

membership in a broad sense—are absolutely committed to driving that cultural change.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I think the Premier is now debating the question

because I referred to findings of a very respected professor, Professor Caroline Taylor, referring to

sexual assaults and threats made by union members in the CFA, and I asked the Premier: will he now

exclude Peter Marshall, the man responsible for that union, from any further engagement with the

Victorian government? The Premier is debating the question. He is not answering it. I ask you to bring

him back to answering it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier had begun by responding in a relevant way to the question

that was asked. It was a long question. The Premier.

Mr ANDREWS: Thank you very much, Speaker. As I was alluding to, in the hope that this would

not necessarily be a point of political argument—it seems I was wrong to assume that—matters of

poor conduct, potentially illegal conduct, prejudice, appalling attitudes and attitudes that are simply

unacceptable, that notion of cultural change and driving those attitudes out of our emergency services

and all environments is a commitment that we have—

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, I reinforce the point of order by the Leader of the

Opposition that the Premier is debating the question. It was a very explicit question, given the evidence

that was talked about, that he exclude Peter Marshall from any further involvement with the Victorian

government or its agencies. And the tone of what the Premier is talking about is set by the leadership

of this state. He is the leader of this state and his actions will determine what happens in these agencies,

and he needs to walk the talk rather than just talk the talk.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. As I said, it was a very long question

and the Premier is being relevant to it.

Mr ANDREWS: The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question in relation to commentary

made by a very well-respected Victorian—well, a report—where I do not think that an individual is

named as having been responsible for that. He then takes those conclusions and asks me to take

specific action against an individual. I am answering—


Mr ANDREWS: Well, and the notion that there is a long list of different appointments and roles

and direct connectivity, if you like, between the government and any union—


Mr ANDREWS: The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to make a point, a political point, and

I am not responding to that. I am responding to the fact that this government’s record and this

government’s commitment to changing culture in all of our emergency services is well known, well

understood and ought not be underestimated even by those as cynical and political as the Leader of

the Opposition.



Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:13): At the height of the CFA

enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) negotiations, Peter Marshall threatened to put an axe through

Jane Garrett’s head. What will it take for this Premier to call out the appalling behaviour of thugs like

Peter Marshall?


The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to reframe that question so that

it pertains to government business. I give the Leader of the Opposition that opportunity.

Mr M O’BRIEN: At the height of the CFA EBA negotiations, Peter Marshall reportedly

threatened to put an axe through Jane Garrett’s head, Jane Garrett being the minister responsible at the

time. In light of this clear intimidation of a government minister—a female government minister—

what will it take for this Premier to call out the appalling behaviour of a thug like Peter Marshall?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (12:14): Whilst I in no way trivialise the subject matter,

the core issue that the Leader of the Opposition raises, he has not had a great day on calling out

behaviour himself today, I do not think. But nonetheless, I would simply, in answer to the Leader of

the Opposition, make the following points: we established a royal commission; we have committed to

implement every one of its recommendations; we have provided record funding, more than the rest of

the nation combined. What is more, I would direct the Leader of the Opposition—and directly relevant

to the question asked—to the comments made by Ms Crozier in the other place, where she called

dealing with those recommendations, faithfully implementing them, a financial impost and not one

that she would sign up to. We will not be lectured to by the likes of him.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is completely debating the question. The

question related to his action, or lack of action, against Peter Marshall, who threatened to put an axe

through the head of one of his ministers. They are not related. It is not family violence. This is

workplace bullying, and the Premier is being called to account.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do ask the Premier to come back to answering the question.

Mr ANDREWS: The royal commission into violence against women is very much about these

sorts of issues. If the Leader of the Opposition needs me to explain that, well, it says a bit about him,

I think.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: LEVEL CROSSING REMOVALS

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (12:16):

I am very pleased to once again talk about the big benefits that come from getting rid of dangerous

and congested level crossings across the suburbs of Melbourne. Not only are those communities safer,

not only is there less congestion, not only are we creating jobs, we are also pleased to report on the

travel time savings that Victorians are enjoying as a result of these level crossings being gone, and

gone for good.

We saw some media reports on the weekend in the Sunday Herald Sun that the removal of the nine

level crossings between Caulfield and Dandenong has cut travel times in half during the morning peak

at some of those locations—half—saving trip times of up to 15 minutes. So not only, as I said, has

removing these level crossings made these communities safer, it has made them less congested and

most importantly it has made a real difference to people’s lives. Now people can get to where they

want to more quickly. They can have the confidence in knowing that they will not be held up by up to

15 minutes.

And of course we remember a time—and, sadly, Speaker, that time continues for those opposite—of

opposition to these level crossing removals, which continues from those opposite. They continue now,

as the member for Oakleigh remembers well.



Mr Dimopoulos: That’s right.

Ms ALLAN: They continued to fight very hard to block the removal of these level crossings

between Caulfield and Dandenong. They wanted people to stay stuck in traffic in those communities

of Oakleigh, in Noble Park, along that corridor. Well, we had a different view. We wanted to save

people travel time. We wanted to remove level crossings, and pleasingly that opposition to these level

crossings has failed and people now have a quicker and smoother journey. Of course we want to bring

those travel time savings to another community. The people of Hawthorn and Malvern will also get to

enjoy similar travel time savings when we get rid of that dangerous and congested level crossing at

Toorak Road. And guess who opposes this one? The Leader of the Opposition once again.

MURRAY BASIN RAIL PROJECT

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:18): My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure.

I refer to the minister’s admission that the Murray Basin rail project will run out of money once

remedial track works are done, with stages 2 and 3 of this project still incomplete. Why is this project

in country Victoria to be left unfinished because the minister has botched it, while Melbourne projects

have billions of dollars thrown at them when they actually run over budget?


As I am sure you could appreciate, Speaker, I may have anticipated this question from the Leader of

The Nationals, the member for Murray Plains, because of course this is yet another one of those

projects—I am glad the member also asked about metropolitan projects—that those opposite talked

about for years. They sat around thinking about what it could have looked like to get on and deliver

this project, and then did absolutely nothing about it—nothing. Just like they promised Rowville rail,

Avalon rail, Doncaster rail—


The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members on both sides of the house to cease shouting across the

chamber; otherwise members will be removed from the chamber.

Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the minister has been going for half her

time and has not even got near the question—


The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is entitled to make a point of order

in silence.

Ms McLeish: I did exaggerate a little bit.


Ms McLeish: The minister’s arrogance is absolutely on display at the moment, but this is an issue

that is very important to regional Victoria. The nub of the question is about regional Victoria. She is

doing everything that she can to direct this to metropolitan issues, and I ask you to bring her back and

get her to stop debating the issue.

Mr Merlino: On the point of order, Speaker, 43 seconds is not half of 3 minutes.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order.

Ms ALLAN: I am very pleased to continue answering this question because, as the member may

have observed last week at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing, this was a matter

that was canvassed, and I am going to provide the same information to the member that was provided

to that Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing. As I explained to the committee last week,

whilst this project had been talked about for some time by those opposite, it has taken a Labor

government to get on with the delivery of this project. It took a Labor government to get the funding



from Canberra to help deliver this project—half the funding for the Murray Basin project is coming

from the federal government. Of course it took a Labor government in 2016 to get that money from

Canberra—something those opposite failed to do.

We have also got on and completed stage 1. Stage 2 is largely complete, which is providing more

freight opportunities for that community. But what we have also discovered through the completion

of the works on stage 2 is two things that have become apparent with the completion of this project.

One is the issue with the quality and the condition of the Manangatang line. You could theorise that

one of the challenges we have got with the delivery of the rail freight network upgrades in this part of

the world is the fact that a former Liberal-Nationals government sold off our rail freight network. That

was after a period of time of running it down, and then they sold it off.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is debating the question. I would ask you to

bring her back to answering it.

Ms ALLAN: On the point of order, Speaker, there is no debate that the former Liberal-Nationals

government sold off our rail freight network, there is no debate that they closed country train lines and

there is no debate that they also wanted to sell off V/Line. I am happy to have that debate with the

member for Ripon on a question of fact.


The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ripon is warned. The Minister for Transport

Infrastructure to come back to answering the question.

Ms ALLAN: As I said, the condition of the Manangatang line has been of particular concern, and

the government received some advice from V/Line recently that without an urgent injection of

maintenance funding the Manangatang line would need to close before this coming grain season.

Given that there is some optimism that this will be a good grain season, the view of the government

has been to do that urgent maintenance work whilst at the same time going in and looking once again

at what further work needs to be done to complete the Murray Basin rail freight upgrades; that is a

conversation I have had and will continue to have with the federal government as Labor gets on and

does projects in country Victoria you can only ever dream about.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:25): The minister blamed inadequacies in the business case—a

business case that she signed off on and actually boasted about—as the cause for this project not

proceeding as announced. Why won’t the minister take personal responsibility for botching every

single stage of this project?


I am delighted the member for Murray Plains has talked about the business case, because guess who

also signed off on that business case? That would be the federal Liberal-National government and

Infrastructure Australia. If the member for Ripon wants to debate facts, there is another fact for you.

That is why—


The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Euroa is close to being removed from the chamber.

Ms ALLAN: They were never this loud when they were in government and had the chance to do

this. They were never this vocal. You were never this vocal on these projects.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on debating the answer, the question is very much about

the minister taking personal responsibility for botching this project. The minister is the responsible

minister and the project manager, and we ask her to take some responsibility for what was a great

project that has absolutely been wrecked by this minister.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister was being relevant to the question asked.



Ms ALLAN: The Premier and I were just reminiscing that we were standing in the electorate of

Ripon with the then federal deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, to talk about the partnership we

were delivering on this project. That is why we will continue to work with the federal government on

how we can deliver this upgrade but also continue the work that the Andrews Labor government is

doing in regional Victoria.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SOLAR HOMES PACKAGE

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister

for Solar Homes) (12:27): I am absolutely pleased to update the house on the next phase of our

landmark Solar Homes program. From 1 July the next phase of the rebates for solar panels, rebates for

batteries and hot water systems and no-interest loans will kick off, and the Labor government is

absolutely delighted—a $1.3 billion program that will see 770 000 Victorian households take

advantage of solar power over the next decade, creating 5500 new jobs as we drive down energy bills

and reduce carbon emissions. This morning I was absolutely delighted to have joined—

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, it is all very well to talk about new jobs created, but the

minister needs to take some responsibility for the dozens of jobs that have been lost because of the

surprise cut that was put on by this government—


The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I warn the member for Warrandyte.

Ms D’AMBROSIO: As I was saying, I was absolutely delighted to have joined the Premier this

morning and the member for Northcote at EnviroGroup. This is a fantastic business—15 years

going—

Mr T Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew has been warned.

Ms D’AMBROSIO: and it is absolutely delighted and ecstatic about the next phase of this

program. And why is that? Because it will create new jobs and put on more apprentices as we develop

this sector. Over the coming financial year this program will deliver an extra 40 000 rooftop solar

rebates on owner-occupier homes and deliver for the first time, I think, in the country 2000 rebates on

rental properties so that renters—tenants—can now enjoy the benefits of this program. It will fund

6000 households to get solar hot water systems and deliver solar battery rebates for 1000 homes, and

of course with the no-interest loans available to them.

We have actually also simplified the application process to give industry certainty with the release of

rebates on a monthly basis and importantly delivered for Victorians a point of sale at the retailer end

so that Victorians can get those rebates without actually having to apply. We promised to deliver this

program— (Time expired)

COAL POWER STATIONS

Dr READ (Brunswick) (12:29): My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and

Climate Change. Last week the Combet report was tabled in Parliament. The report provides the

government with recommendations for setting targets for reducing Victoria’s climate pollution for

2025 and 2030. Under even the targets proposed in this report, at least one of Victoria’s coal power

stations must close by 2030, yet the Premier and the minister for energy have repeatedly claimed in

this place that Victoria’s coal power stations will operate until their licence end dates, the earliest of

which is 2032. With the release of the Combet report, will the minister now plan for the closure of at

least one of Victoria’s coal power stations before 2030?


for Solar Homes) (12:30): I thank the member for the question. They are actually incorrect in terms of



the recommendations that are made in that report that was tabled in Parliament and presented to

government as recommendations to government. We make no apology for setting strong emissions

reduction targets: net zero emissions by 2050. We have been also very clear that we need to have

interim emissions reduction targets as we move to that end point, and certainly we will consider and

reflect on the recommendations made and consult widely and deliberately with a whole range of

stakeholders right across the state as we move towards finalising what our actual emissions reduction

targets—the interim targets—will be by March next year. We have been very clear about this.

For those opposite who might want to wish away, as they do, and not actually understand that you

actually need to take communities with you when you talk about game-changing and economy-

changing reform, which is what this government delivers, you actually need to have those

conversations right across the state.

Let us be clear about what our government’s agenda has been, and that is of course about promoting

the new energy technologies that will sustain our future, our economy and communities right across

our state over the coming years. We have actually delivered significantly on those commitments whilst

at the same time reducing power bills, whilst at the same time reducing carbon emissions and growing

those jobs of the future here today.

Those opposite might want to wish for things to happen overnight. They can click their heels and wish

that they were in Kansas perhaps, but the fact is this: you need a government that actually has the

robust ambition and the dedication to take communities with it, and that is exactly what this

government’s agenda has always been from the day that we won in 2014, and that will be the

continuation of the way we conduct ourselves to ensure that we drive the emissions reductions that

Victorians expect us to do, ensuring that no communities are left behind. That is the hallmark of our

government, and we will not let communities down.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (12:33): I am pleased to hear the minister say that we need to bring

communities with us. Last Tuesday I visited Yallourn power station, and I thank the staff for their time

and their frank discussion about the station’s future. I was heartened to see that, unlike the government,

the power station management is already planning for the post-coal transition of its workforce. So I

ask the minister: what are the government’s plans for the transition of this workforce and will it bring

it forward ahead of 2030?


for Solar Homes) (12:33): I thank the member for the supplementary question, and I think there is a

contradiction in this question, because frankly he will have noticed that these assets were sold off

many, many decades ago by those opposite here.

We stand ready to have discussions with any organisation, with any community, about what the future

looks like. But let us be in absolutely no doubt: there is only one party and only one government that

ever works with communities and businesses to plan for the future, and that is this government, a

Labor government, under this Premier. And that is exactly what we will do. We have got our plans in

place to grow our renewable energy to ensure that we have got the energy supply of the future, putting

downward pressure on carbon emissions and of course people’s power bills and creating the jobs that

people will need. The people of the Latrobe Valley can be in no doubt, and they are in no doubt: it has

only ever been a Labor government that has delivered for them in managing any transition, and that is

what it means to take communities with us.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: VICTORIAN PRIDE CENTRE

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for

Creative Industries) (12:35): The journey to modernity takes many forms. Former US vice-president

Joe Biden recently commented that one of the greatest human rights challenges of our time still to be

resolved is the rights and freedoms of LGBTIQ people around the world to be who they are, and here

in Victoria we take that issue very seriously. Our $15 million commitment to Victoria’s, and indeed



Australia’s, first Pride Centre is but one reflection of that. It was with great pride yesterday that I joined

with the board of the Victorian Pride Centre and IBM Global in fact to sign a commitment of support

from IBM to that project and to support the foundation of Victoria’s first Pride Centre. That reflects

IBM’s living of their values and as they put it ‘Making sure that everyone, regardless of who they are,

has the opportunity to participate in our society’.

So it comes with great surprise that perhaps not everybody supports the notion that inclusion and

diversity should be part of our society. I am intrigued to hear the debate from those opposite when it

comes to rights today because we have seen in public policy debates in recent times some terrible

homophobic slurs on people trying to promote the issues of inclusion. There is a time in everyone’s

political life when they have to stand up and take leadership. There is a time in every public policy

issue whose time has come, as reflected in our Pride Centre, for leadership to be taken. And rather

than pretend that issues are ‘fake news’ and that somehow or another these events did not happen at

the Liberal Party state conference on the weekend—terrible homophobic slurs—perhaps instead it is

time for leadership from those—


The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat.

Ms Ryan: On a point of order, Speaker, I did want to make the point that the minister I think has

strayed into attacking those opposite. Of course we agree with his sentiments.


Ms Ryan: We absolutely agree with his sentiments. Speaker, I also just wanted to make the point

that I had the pleasure of being a guest at the Victorian Liberal Party state conference on the weekend,

where the Pride branch was honoured with—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Euroa will resume her seat. Points of order are not an

opportunity for members to make speeches.


The SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled on the point of order. There was no point of order.


Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:38): My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure.

Minister Pulford told the Parliament in February 2016:

On Murray Basin rail, unlike the former government, we have finished the business case. We have provided

the business case to the commonwealth government.

…

That is part of Labor’s legacy …

Why is Labor’s legacy a project that is not even half built and what has been built will need to be fixed

because of botched contract management by the minister?


I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question once again. It is an opportunity to once again

make it very clear that this is a project that the Labor government is delivering. It is the Labor

government that is delivering it—


The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is entitled to be able to answer the question.

Ms ALLAN: not the Liberal-National government, who only talked about these sorts of projects;

not the Liberal-National government, who when they had the gift of being in government shut train



lines, sold off the rail freight network and cut funding for V/Line. Unlike that government, we get on

and deliver projects, and we also understand that in delivering projects from time to time there will be

challenges with those projects. And you know what? We do not turn our back—


The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms ALLAN: There is no challenge with a train line that is closed. There is no challenge with a

train line that has been sold off to a private operator. Those challenges from that period of time speak

to some of the issues we are having with the Murray Basin project today, and that is why we have

been very clear in talking about the completion with stage 2. It is not correct, as the member for Murray

Plains has alleged—stages 1 and 2 of this project are largely completed. We have seen the upgrading

of the trunk Mildura line. We have seen the reopening of the previously closed Maryborough to Ararat

line. We have seen the axle tonne loading increased on those lines. We have seen speed limits lifted

on those lines as well.

Mr Walsh interjected.

Ms ALLAN: I am glad the member has interjected on 15 to 20 kilometre speed limits, because

those are some of the challenges we have got on the Manangatang line right now, where trains on

those lines need to operate under extreme conditions, which means they run at significantly reduced

speed. When given the challenge of having to make the choice between getting in there, keeping the

Manangatang line open for the coming grain season—not leaving those grain growers stranded on the

corridor—when given that advice and given the choice about either doing nothing or addressing that

challenge, we grabbed that challenge and decided to get in there, invest the money that is needed now

to do the Manangatang line works whilst at the same time going back and looking at the remaining

stages of the project and looking at what is necessary to get the rest of this job done.

I was very clear on this matter last week at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I have been

very clear on this matter since then about our determination to get this project completed. It does come

with some challenges. They are not challenges we turn our back on, unlike those opposite who

preferred to cut those country lines when they became too much of a challenge.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:41): The Rail Freight Alliance describes the current state of the

Murray Basin rail project as ‘A half done project, leaving freight paths compromised and the work

that has been done to date has left the track in a worse state than before’. How can the minister in any

conscience leave this project unfinished and botched, or is it simply that, as the Rail Freight Alliance

said, ‘Once again rural Victoria has been hung out to dry’?


The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for South-West Coast.


One of the activities we undertook last year was to consult and meet very carefully and closely with

industry groups, including, might I say, the Rail Freight Alliance, about how to complete the remaining

stages of the Murray Basin project as a result of some of the issues that arose during the completion

of stage 2. We told industry at that time that part of what needed to be done was to go out and walk

the remaining sections of the track to make sure that the advice we were getting was advice that the

government could rely on to deliver the remainder of the project, and that is exactly what has been

done. I appreciate—


The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals!



Ms ALLAN: I appreciate the politics that goes on in this space behind this issue. I appreciate that

not everyone in this part of north-western Victoria is a rock-solid Labor voter, but that does not deter

us from getting on and doing the right thing, which is to get this job done properly, as opposed to those

opposite—


The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ripon!

Ms ALLAN: who when given the chance walked away from this project by closing rail lines.

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial

Relations) (12:43): I rise to update the house about Victoria’s record low regional unemployment rate.

There is of course only one path to economic vitality in regional Victoria, and that is together with an

Andrews Labor government.

When we were first elected in November 2014 Victoria’s regional unemployment rate was 6.6 per

cent. Today it is just 4.2 per cent. That is the lowest in the nation, and that is the lowest on record. Let

me emphasise that—ever, ever. That is the lowest level of unemployment in regional Victoria. We

have got over 62 000 people who have found jobs under Labor since we were elected; 80 per cent of

those jobs are full-time jobs. That is the equivalent of the combined populations of Warrnambool and

Mildura. With more than $13 billion spent in our first term on these projects and programs that matter

most to regional Victorians, the government is delivering for our regions.

We are building regional infrastructure, like our $1.7 billion regional rail revival and upgrades to every

regional passenger train line in the state. We are delivering jobs by basing services in our regions, like

Regional Roads Victoria and the new Labour Hire Licensing Authority. And of course we are

delivering jobs in our regions by giving regional businesses a competitive edge by reducing the payroll

tax rate to the lowest rate in the country, at just over 1.2 per cent. And with even more investment in

regional Victoria in the budget, we are only getting started. An Andrews Labor government has

delivered real growth, infrastructure, services and jobs for our regions, and the only fake news today

is that the coalition stands up for regional Victoria.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, I raised a matter with you some weeks ago in relation

to a constituency question that was supposed to be answered by the Minister for Energy, Environment

and Climate Change. The matter related to the circumstances under which the minister apparently had

supplied the answer to that question to her agency Parks Victoria, who subsequently passed it on to a

member of my constituency. I seek still to understand how that happened—how an answer that was

supposed to come to this Parliament, as a result of my question, instead went by that circuitous route

and also how it possibly was the case that the answer that was supplied to my constituent that way was

different to the one that was actually provided to this Parliament. So there are two issues there: one

being why an answer was provided to her agency and subsequently to my constituent instead of to me

and this Parliament, and secondly, why the two answers differed. It has been some weeks since I raised

that with you, and I am wondering whether you could tell me why those two incidents occurred.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that point of order. I was of the understanding and

memory that I did respond to that point of order at a later stage, but I will check and let the member

know.

Mr Battin: On a point of order, Speaker, I have raised questions on notice that have not been

answered by the government. They are questions 574, 573, 572, 571, 570, 569, 568, 567, 566, 565,

564, 563, 562, 561, 560, 558, 557, 556, 555, 554, 553, 618, 617, 616, 615, 614, 613, 612, 611, 610

,609, 608, 607, 606, 605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598.

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS


The SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Gembrook to supply those question numbers to the

clerks as well.

Mr Wakeling: Also on a point of order, Speaker, I wish to raise that questions 238, 478, 479, 480,

481, 482 and 483 remain unanswered.

The SPEAKER: Questions on notice?

Mr Wakeling: Questions on notice.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Ferntree Gully. We will follow that matter up.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, questions 441 and 440 remain unanswered. They are

questions on notice.

The SPEAKER: I will follow those questions on notice up with the relevant ministers.

Constituency questions

MURRAY PLAINS ELECTORATE

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:48): (775) My constituency question is to the Attorney-General.

When can the families from my electorate who have raised concerns with the Attorney-General about

the delays in receiving birth and marriage certificates expect a resolution to their issue? These people

have booked holidays and paid for holidays, and they need these birth certificates and/or marriage

certificates so they can actually apply for a passport. This is putting enormous stress on these families,

who do not have their birth and marriage certificates. They are worried they are not going to have them

in time to actually get a passport. When can they expect an answer from the minister?

YAN YEAN ELECTORATE

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (12:49): (776) My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads and

Minister for Road Safety and the TAC in the other place. Can the minister advise how wildlife rescuers

and Whittlesea council can increase the number of kangaroo warning signs on their roads, such as

those successfully installed in Nillumbik? We have all experienced a larger number of kangaroos in

the local area, posing road safety and animal welfare problems. I want to commend the rescuers, who

are doing a great job, but seeing how we could get the signs would be an improvement.

ROWVILLE ELECTORATE

The SPEAKER: I call the father of the house.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (12:49): (777) I could ask the honourable member to withdraw that

‘offensive’ comment, but I would find myself in a very, very difficult situation if it is based on fact!

My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, can you confirm that

under Labor’s new fire services legislation, CFA volunteers in a Fire Rescue Victoria area will only

be called upon to assist paid FRV staff on a call-out, and even this will be subject to ‘operational

requirements’, words that have been agreed to by the United Firefighters Union? In areas such as

Scoresby and Bayswater, local volunteer brigades were the first brigades called out. Now, under

Labor’s new FRV bill, this responsibility will be removed and transferred to paid FRV firefighters. In

my Rowville electorate, there is a huge concern amongst the highly trained and experienced volunteers

at Scoresby, Rowville and Bayswater fire stations that they will be called out less and less often. Where

they used to play an active role, paid FRV staff will dictate what they can do. ‘Operational

requirements’ is just going to be used as an excuse to shut down volunteers.

MOUNT WAVERLEY ELECTORATE

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (12:51): (778) My constituency question is to the Minister for

Mental Health, and I ask: how is the Andrews government supporting people in my electorate who

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS


live with acute mental illness? I have been contacted by a family in Mount Waverley who are very

familiar with our local mental health system. A young woman from this family requires ongoing

support and care from our acute mental health system, and this includes ongoing visits to Box Hill

Hospital and Upton House. Over several months I have spoken to the grandmother and mother, and I

know they will be very interested in the work this government is doing to support those in our

community who require these services. I would also like to remind people that submissions to the

Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System are still open. I encourage all of my

constituents and everyone here that has come into contact with our mental health system to please

allow their stories to be heard.

FERNTREE GULLY ELECTORATE

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:51): (779) My question is for the Minister for Public

Transport. I have been approached by many residents throughout the Ferntree Gully electorate who

have raised concerns regarding bus services that service the Knox community. Many residents have

raised concerns about a lack of frequency of bus services, they have raised concerns regarding the

number of services that are available and they have also raised concerns about the inadequacy of the

connection between bus services and trains, particularly at Ferntree Gully railway station. So my

question to the Minister for Public Transport is: what is the government doing to improve bus services

for residents within the Ferntree Gully electorate?

NEPEAN ELECTORATE

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (12:52): (780) My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy,

Environment and Climate Change. Could the minister please update me and my constituents on recent

developments surrounding the master plan of Point Nepean National Park and on the work being done

to preserve the national park for the long-term future of our Mornington Peninsula? During the last

federal election, the federal member for Flinders continued to falsely allege that he had saved the

national park from the wrath of the Howard government, who wanted to sell off 770 acres. In fact, it

was Labor Premier Steve Bracks that saved it from being sold off, instead seeing it designated a

national park in 2009. Minister D’Ambrosio launched the master plan a few years ago, starting the

next phase of Labor support for the national park, and we look forward to this also being a legacy of

the Andrews Labor government.

BRIGHTON ELECTORATE

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:53): (781) My constituency question is to the Premier. I ask the

Premier whether it is government policy to block members of Parliament from joining public tours of

the medically supervised injecting room at the North Richmond Community Health centre. For some

time I have suspected that the government may open a second injecting room on the edge of my

electorate or in St Kilda. Such a centre would have an immediate and direct impact on my community.

For that reason I recently sought to join a public tour of the North Richmond centre. Disappointingly,

the centre advised me in writing that Minister Foley had instructed that the minister must personally

approve any member of Parliament joining a public tour. I would appreciate the Premier informing

me whether Minister Foley’s totalitarian approach of impeding members of Parliament from joining

public tours is government policy. And, Speaker, I seek leave to table the written confirmation from

North Richmond Community Health centre that Minister Foley has blocked MP access to the centre.

The SPEAKER: The member can make that document available to the house.

TARNEIT ELECTORATE

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (12:54): (782) My question is for the Minister for Transport

Infrastructure. Minister, the Metro Tunnel project is the key to unlocking the full potential of our public

transport network. Everything from additional train lines to extra services on existing lines is

dependent on the construction of this tunnel. The immediate benefits that this tunnel will bring are

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR


obvious, in that it will make traversing Melbourne’s CBD much easier, as well as providing a direct

rail link between the Sunbury line in Melbourne’s west and the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines in the

south-east. So my question is: what are the benefits that the Metro Tunnel will bring to commuters in

the outer-west, in particular commuters on the Werribee line and the regional rail link?

EVELYN ELECTORATE

Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (12:55): (783) My constituency question is to the Minister for Police

and Emergency Services. Minister, on behalf of the Coldstream community and the volunteer

firefighters of the Coldstream fire brigade, can I ask whether funds from the 2019–20 CFA capital

asset budget will be allocated to build the new fire station in Coldstream? If not, I ask on their behalf:

when will it be built? Minister, the Coldstream volunteer fire brigade, is in urgent need of a new station

so it can be best placed to protect the growing community in Coldstream, Yering and surrounds. For

years now the brigade has been told by CFA management that a new station will be built on Crown

land on Killara Road, which has been specifically set aside for the CFA for a new station. The captain

of the Coldstream CFA has said:

We’ve had two or three false starts, but last year—

being 2018—

we were told plans would be drawn up by July this year—

being 2019.

From where I sit, I think they’re spending money on integrated or FRV or fully manned stations.

NARRE WARREN SOUTH ELECTORATE

Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:56): (784) My constituency question is for the Minister for

Youth and concerns the scout hall in Narre Warren South. Minister, what are the government’s plans

for the upgrading of scout halls across Victoria and especially in Narre Warren South? I have been

contacted by constituents who are looking forward to the prospect of having a new hall to call their

home, as announced in the Victorian budget 2019–20. The Narre Warren South Scout Group is

growing substantially and currently has over 100 members who contribute to our community. The

new hall will give the group more space to grow as they endeavour to provide young people with a

place to have fun, develop resilience and learn new skills. I look forward to sharing the minister’s

response with the Narre Warren South community.

Rulings by the Chair

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

The SPEAKER (12:56): Before moving to introduction of bills, I want to respond to a point of

order that was raised by the member for Polwarth on 6 June, which was the last sitting day before this

sitting week. Technically standing order 102 prevents the Chair from hearing points of order after the

interruption of business for the guillotine. However, the matter was raised and so I will rule on it. The

member’s point of order sought to draw my attention to an alleged breach of privilege. This provides

me with an opportunity to remind members of the proper method for raising allegations of breach of

privilege.

Since 1978 the practice of the house has been that a member making a complaint of privilege does so

by writing to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity setting out a prima facie case. The Speaker then

considers that on a confidential basis, and if a prima facie case is made out, grants the member

precedence on the next sitting day to move a motion referring the matter to the Privileges Committee.

While standing order 104(4) allows members to speak on a matter of privilege that has suddenly arisen,

in effect it remains only as an emergency procedure—for example, for a matter of privilege that

suddenly arises during the course of debate. May, page 274, states that:

BILLS


When a contempt is committed in the actual view of either house, the house may proceed at once …

For a matter to be raised under standing order 104(4) there would need to be a sudden occurrence,

most probably within the precincts, of an apparent serious nature and likely to cause immediate

disruption, molestation or other serious harm to the members or to the house itself.

Since 1978 it does not seem that the Assembly has used this provision in its standing orders. I can see

that the member for Polwarth might argue that he thought this matter fell into that category, but in my

view it did not have to do with an immediate issue before the house.

If a contempt or a breach of privilege is committed in the ‘actual view’ of the house, the house still

might proceed at once. Standing order 104 permits a member to speak on a matter of privilege that has

suddenly arisen. In effect, it remains only as an emergency procedure.

Finally, this ruling does not in any way prevent the member for Polwarth from raising that matter with

me in the normal way.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, we accept your ruling, but we do make the point that we

still maintain that this was an emergency situation. We had the issue of the Public Accounts and

Estimates Committee sitting the very next day and there were no other options for the member for

Polwarth to be able to raise the matter in the Parliament than the way he did. So whilst we accept your

ruling on it, we still maintain that he had no other choice but to raise the matter in that context.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for those comments. I have issued a ruling.

Bills

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Introduction and first reading

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (12:59): I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996

to provide for a person to alter the record of a person’s sex in the person’s birth registration and to further

provide for the issuing of a document acknowledging a person’s name and sex, to make consequential

amendments to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Corrections Act 1986, the Serious Offenders

Act 2018 and the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 and for other purposes.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:00): Could the Attorney-General give a brief explanation of the bill,

please?

Ms HENNESSY: I am more than happy to do so. This essentially is a bill that removes the legal

requirements for there to be things like surgery for the purposes of a person changing their gender

identity on a birth certificate. For those that sat here in the previous term of our Parliament, it is a bill

that reflects what will be familiar to those who sat in the previous term as well. It makes a range of

consequential amendments in respect of the impacts and various checks and balances in, as I said, the

Children, Youth and Families Act, as well as the Corrections Act and the Serious Offenders Act 2018.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.

FLORA AND FAUNA GUARANTEE AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Introduction and first reading


for Solar Homes) (13:01): I move:

PETITIONS


That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 to promote

Victoria’s biodiversity by establishing objectives and principles of the act, imposing additional obligations to

consider biodiversity in decision-making, improving transparency and accountability and making various other

amendments to strengthen the act and to make consequential amendments to other acts and for other purposes.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:01): Could I ask the minister for a brief explanation of the bill, please?

Ms D’AMBROSIO: The bill improves the management of threatened species by giving effect to

a consistent national approach for the listing of threatened species, which is referred to as the common

assessment method.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.

Petitions

Following petitions presented to house by Clerk:

SOUTH GIPPSLAND WATER

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria

The Petition of residents in the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the concerns Of the Corner

Inlet community regarding the proposal of South Gippsland Water to relocate it’s corporate Office from

Foster. The petitioners are concerned at the economic impact this will cause to Foster and District and the

impost of a greenfield office construction on all South Gippsland Water customers.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly urges the Andrews Labor Government to

immediately stop any such relocation and ensure South Gippsland Water remains in Foster.

By Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (1054 signatures).

TOORAK ROAD, KOOYONG, LEVEL CROSSING

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria:

The Petition of residents of Victoria draws to the attention of the House:

1. The Victorian State Government, through the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) has

announced the removal of the rail crossing at Toorak Road and has proposed that a section of the Glen

Waverley rail line is to be raised by way of a “sky rail” bridge.

2. The local community supports the removal of level crossings—provided that the development of the

removal method is achieved with due diligence, follows fair and reasonable due process, and is not

imposed upon the local community.

3. The local community has not been properly informed of the reasons for the government’s decision to

construct a “sky rail” at Toorak Road, despite using “rail under road” at Burke Road (Glen Iris). The

community believes it should be informed about the rationale behind this decision, and be provided with

all information pertaining to cost, timeframes and construction methodologies.

The petitioners therefore request the Legislative Assembly of Victoria to—as a matter of urgency—

provide the local community with the following information:

1. A copy of the Environmental Effects Statement (EES) for the removal of the Toorak Road level crossing.

If an EES has not been prepared, please provide the LXRA’s Assessment Against Environment Effects

Statement Referral Criteria relevant to the Toorak Road project.

2. As determined advocates for a “rail under road” solution we request a copy of the Options Assessment

Report for Toorak Road removal and the rationale for the decision to install a “sky rail”.

3. Future plans and rationale for the method of level crossing removal at Glenferrie and Tooronga Roads

4. Fully detailed cost analyses, time and engineering studies used to determine/compare the construction

methods relevant to Toorak Road, Burke Road, Balcombe Road (Mentone) and Union Road (Surrey

Hills).

By Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern) (1058 signatures).

COMMITTEES


RIPON ELECTORATE STATE FORESTS

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria

The Petition of residents in Victoria calls on the Legislative Assembly to note that:

VEAC is conducting an investigation into various State Forests in Ripon. The residents of Ripon are opposed

to any land use changes in Ripon resulting from the Central West VEAC investigation.

Ripon has a large outdoor enthusiast community that enjoys access to current State Forests, including

bushwalkers, horse riders, prospectors, 4WD clubs, and other clubs and organisations.

We, therefore, call on the Government to ensure that access to all current State Forests within Ripon is

maintained for currently allowed activities.

By Ms STALEY (Ripon) (112 signatures).

Tabled.

Ordered that petition lodged by member for Ripon be considered next day on motion of

Ms STALEY (Ripon).

Ordered that petition lodged by member for Gippsland South be considered next day on motion

of Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South).

Committees

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 8

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (13:03): I have the honour to present to the house a report from the

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, being Alert Digest No. 8 of 2019, on the following bills:

Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019

Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Bill 2019

Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform)

Bill 2019

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Amendment Bill 2019

Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2019

Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

together with appendices.

Ordered to be published.

Documents

DOCUMENTS

Tabled by Clerk:

Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning

Schemes:

Casey—C253

Knox—C175

Latrobe—C116

Moonee Valley—C179

Mornington Peninsula—C210

Stonnington—C221

Wyndham—C235

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

BILLS


Building Act 1993—SRs 40, 41

Confiscation Act 1997—SR 43

Corrections Act 1986—SR 46

Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997—SR 44

Livestock Disease Control Act 1994—SR 42

Residential Tenancies Act 1997—SR 45

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998—SR 39

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rules 37, 39, 42, 43, 44

Victorian Environmental Assessment Council—Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine Environment

together with atlas and summary (three documents).

The Clerk tabled the following proclamation fixing operative dates under Sessional Order 16:

Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Act 2019—Parts 2 and 3, Division 1 of Part 9 and

ss 39, 42, 44 and 46—5 June 2019; Part 5, the remaining provisions of Part 8, and Division 3 of Part 9—1

July 2019—(Gazette S215, 4 June 2019).

Bills

STATE TAXATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Council’s agreement

The SPEAKER (13:05): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2019 without amendment.

APPROPRIATION (2019–2020) BILL 2019

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT 2019–2020) BILL 2019

Royal assent

The SPEAKER (13:05): I inform the house that on 12 June 2019 I presented to the Governor the

Appropriation (2019–2020) Bill 2019 and the Appropriation (Parliament 2019–2020) Bill 2019, to

which the Governor gave the royal assent.

STATE TAXATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Royal assent

The SPEAKER (13:05): I also inform the house that today the Governor gave the royal assent to

the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2019, which was presented to her by the Clerk of the

Parliaments.

MINERAL RESOURCES (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2019

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Appropriation

The SPEAKER (13:05): I have received messages from the Governor recommending

appropriations for the purposes of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment

Bill 2019 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

Members

MR DALIDAKIS

Resignation

The SPEAKER (13:06): I have received the following letter from the Governor:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


I advise that on 17 June 2019, I received from the Hon Philip Dalidakis, his written resignation as a Member

of the Victorian Legislative Council.

I have today informed the President of the Legislative Council and the Premier of his resignation.

Business of the house

PROGRAM


I move:

That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills

be considered and completed by 5.00 p.m. on Thursday, 20 June 2019:

Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019

Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019

Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019

Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

I have just a few short comments on the government business program that I have just moved, and I

look for the enthusiastic and unanimous support of all in the chamber, because it is a government

business program that contains four quality bills that are about continuing to push forward and pursue

the government’s strong legislative agenda, which sits alongside our very strong agenda in policy

reform and project delivery as well. That is why the four bills that are before you are a combination of

implementing policy commitments and election commitments, and specifically I refer there to the

Public Holidays Amendment Bill, and also making important reform based on advice through various

processes, and I point there to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019.

I would also like to draw the attention of colleagues to the take-note motion on the budget. That

remains an opportunity again for members of the house who have not had the opportunity, to rise

enthusiastically and talk positively and strongly about another great Labor budget. As the member for

Macedon said, there is a lot to say, and she might want to reflect on that in her contribution shortly.

There is still a lot more to be said about the budget of the Andrews Labor government—the first budget

of our second term—that is again continuing that theme around delivering on each and every one of

our election commitments and supporting communities right across the state.

With those few observations and comments, as I said, I look forward to the enthusiastic response of

the chamber to this government business program motion, as it is the final government business

program motion for this session of Parliament, as we head off for a modest winter period before we

come back refreshed and renewed to continue to implement policy, pass legislation and most

importantly deliver election commitments. With that, I seek the endorsement of colleagues for the

government business program that I have just moved.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:09): Unfortunately, despite the enthusiasm of the Leader of the House,

we will be opposing the government business program. On the surface of it it looks reasonably

straightforward. On Tuesday we have the ability to be able to debate the Owner Drivers and Forestry

Contractors Amendment Bill 2019, we have the ability to debate the Public Holidays Amendment

Bill 2019 and we also have the ability in between to debate the take-note motion on the budget papers,

and then tomorrow we have the ability to debate the Superannuation Legislation Amendment

Bill 2019 and the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent) Bill 2019, and those four

bills are for the guillotine, with the budget papers and the take-note motion on that.

But I point the house to a number of notices of motion that are incredibly important to the opposition,

which we believe should be part of the government’s program to debate. I point to motion 60, which

has been put on the notice paper by the member for South-West Coast, and I think it is so relevant and

it is so necessary that we debate this particular motion. It states:



That this House refers an inquiry to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee into the dramatic increase in

regional road toll deaths in 2019 and for the committee to consider—(1) the 86 per cent—

I am sure these numbers are not quite right at the moment, because this was given notice on 28 May—

increase in the year to date regional road toll (43 deaths in 2018 to 80 deaths between 1 January–20 May

2019); (2) the effectiveness of the Toward Zero campaign …

So I think that as part of the government business program it needs to include some of these motions,

because the road toll is of great concern to every single member of Parliament in this Parliament, and

we need to see something done. There was a summit the other day. We are still waiting for what

outcomes have come about. The Leader of the Opposition at the state Liberal Party conference on the

weekend made very clear policy announcements about increasing the drug testing to get these drug-

affected drivers off the road. That is why we think that notice of motion 60 needs to be put on the

government business program.

In addition to that the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Malvern, also put on

motion 57 that we should, in regards to the government’s push to abolish the law reform, road and

community safety joint investigatory committee, re-establish it as a law reform, sentencing and

community safety joint committee, because, as we have seen, the attacks and the offences committed

against women in this state are just totally and utterly unacceptable and we need strong parliamentary

leadership. And we need to ensure that this Parliament addresses the issue that has been put forward

by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Malvern: that we re-establish this committee to be

able to get real reforms and to be able to look at the current sentencing laws and practices, especially

in the matters of family violence homicide, which makes up part of that next motion, number 58. So

it is for these reasons that we will be opposing the government business program—because we believe

there are a number of important motions that really need to be addressed in this state.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (13:13): I am delighted to join the debate and support the Leader of

the House’s motion. There are four bills before the house that will be dealt with today, and these bills

cover a wide range of issues. They in part go to fulfilling an election commitment in relation to Grand

Final Friday, but it is also about responding to the work of the 58th Parliament in relation to the labour

hire inquiry. It also speaks to the government getting on with the job of delivering good government

to this state. So for me it is a great privilege and it is a great pleasure to be in a position to be on this

side of the house, rising to support the motion that is before us.

I listened to the member for Rowville’s contribution, and I appreciate the sincerity with which the

member spoke about these issues. I think I would say in responding to some of those issues canvassed

by the member for Rowville that the standing orders of this place have been in place for some period

of time in relation to government business being debated as a priority in this place. So it really is the

case that these matters, government business, do take priority in this place but there are other avenues

that are available to members to explore the issues that the member canvassed.

As I have indicated on many occasions I had the great privilege of being the chair of the Public

Accounts and Estimates Committee in the 58th Parliament, and I know that in recent times PAEC has

just wrapped up and there were plenty of opportunities for these matters to be canvassed. You had that

great opportunity for members to question ministers about their portfolio responsibilities. I am sure

there were plenty of opportunities for these matters to be canvassed if that is what the member wanted

to do.

Indeed if I look at the other place, the other place is a house of review, and we have discussed in the

past the principle of exclusive cognisance, of separate but equal chambers, and there are many

opportunities when these matters could be canvassed and discussed by the other place and those

members may wish to do that through the committee system in the other place. It is a very well-formed

committee system in the other place. So there are those opportunities, and I think that, really, you are

probably more likely to get a clearer idea or a clearer understanding about some of these aspects

through that estimates process. I look forward with great interest to reading the report of the 2019–20



budget estimates when that is tabled later this year. I am sure there will be many, many great passages

in there which will cause me a great deal of pleasure in reading. I do not hold up much hope that the

member for Gippsland South will have had much to contribute in these matters, but you never know

in this game. You never know, he might well surprise you.

So it is an important business program that is before this house. I do note that this is the last opportunity

for us to be speaking on this matter in the autumn session of 2019. It is interesting: I was talking to my

colleague, the member from Macedon, and I do note that—and the member for Rowville would recall

this because he was of course a member here—the program debate is actually a relatively new

phenomenon. I believe it was instituted in the first term of the Kennett government, or it might have

been the second term. Indeed Phil Gude, who was the member for Hawthorn and the Leader of the

House at the time, would just simply put the motion and then sit down, and it was invariably the case

of the opposition fielding five speakers or six speakers to make a contribution in relation to that

program. So in the annals of parliamentary practice and procedure, this is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is a new form of debate, but it does enable us to try and have a clear government business program

that outlines the priorities and the objectives of the government and it does enable these matters to be

dealt with in an efficient manner so that they can be guillotined at 5 o’clock. Look, it is an outstanding

government business program. It truly is a great joy to be able to be on this side of the house and to be

able to speak on a motion like this, and I commend it to the house.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (13:16): I am pleased to rise on the government business

program which, as the member for—

Mr Wells: Rowville.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Rowville—I still think Scoresby, sorry—has pointed out, we will be opposing,

and the father of the house made some very good comments as to why we should be debating a number

of other issues. I welcome the commentary from the member for Essendon, who for some reason I

always seem to have to follow in any debate in this place.

Ms Allan: It’s your destiny, Danny.

Mr D O’BRIEN: It is my destiny to follow him, yes. But, member for Essendon, I say you were

being wistful about your non-appearance at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee this year

and I point out to the house that there is a vacancy for Chair, and if you would like to come back, I am

sure you would be very much welcome on PAEC. The Chair who was the Chair until yesterday was

very good. He had a few issues, but he has now moved on. But the issues that we want to debate this

week include the motion of the member for South-West Coast, and some of these issues were in fact

canvassed in PAEC over the last couple of weeks.

In particular notice of motion 60, given by the member for South-West Coast, talks about at

number (4) ‘the maintenance condition of country roads and their contribution to the road toll

including the impact of cuts to regional road maintenance since 2015’. Now, as the member for

Rowville said, the road toll is a serious concern, and that is why the member for South-West Coast put

that motion on the business list. I note the comment from the member for Essendon that this place

gives government business the priority—that is right—but that should not be to the exclusion of all

other things that the government does not want to talk about, and this is certainly an issue. The member

for Rowville listed some of the statistics in the motion, but in fact there is an update. The rural Victorian

road fatality figure so far this year is 92 versus 51 last year—that is an 80 per cent increase. That is

just a horrific figure, and it is an issue of real concern.

As I said, the motion of the member for South-West Coast was about maintenance. We heard—to our

surprise, I must say—in the PAEC hearings last week that the repair of roadside barriers, whether wire

rope or otherwise, is actually also now being funded partly from the roads maintenance funding, not

just by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC). Now, we are not opposed to wire rope barriers,



but we are concerned about the rollout of them, their placement and now of course the maintenance

of them being funded in part from what should be fixing potholes and what should be fixing shoulders

and bad parts of our country roads. That is a significant concern to my community, and I know that is

something we would like to be debating this week. And in that context it is important to note the

$2.9 billion that is being ripped out of the TAC under the government’s budget, which we will also be

debating this week if we get time. That is a significant concern, and it is one that was raised consistently

through PAEC last week.

I briefly just turn to—it is not mentioned on the government business program, but I am expecting the

government to make some decisions with respect to—the South Gippsland Shire Council. Certainly

the performance of the shire over the last few years has been a significant concern to me and to many

of those in my community. There has been dysfunction, there has been infighting, there have been

accusations of bullying. That has resulted in the minister appointing a monitor and then most recently

appointing a commission of inquiry. That commission of inquiry has now reported, and I believe the

minister will be acting on it this week. Unfortunately I think it is time to accept that the council cannot

continue in its current form. I believe the council should be dismissed for a period and administrators

appointed until we can get a new council in that can provide some confidence to the community that

they will deliver good local governance. So again that is an issue that I think will be coming up this

week, but I support the father of the house in his position on this government business program.

Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (13:22): I rise in support of the government business program, as

outlined by the Leader of the House. In joining with my colleague the member for Essendon I too do

not want to diminish the significance of our road toll, and as a government we are committed to doing

all that we can. It was our government of course that established the Towards Zero target with the

Transport Accident Commission and other road safety partners. But I did want to mention that it is

also our government that is implementing the $100 million fixing country roads program, and indeed

it is our government that is spending more on regional country roads than we have ever seen before.

Now, this is an important and full program. We have a number of bills before the house. As the Leader

of the House noted, these are in response to inquiries and election commitments. There are two that I

want to draw your attention to. The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Amendment (Consent)

Bill 2019 is a very important piece of legislation. It responds directly to an inquiry that was

commissioned by the Andrews government some 12 months ago. Conducted by Michael Gorton, it

was a review of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, and the interim report has been

delivered. Any legislation in this house that seeks to advance the equality, freedom and safety of

women is one that I will always be in support of and I am very proud of our record of achievement in

this area. This will be an important debate and certainly one that I look forward to contributing to.

Of course we also have the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019. Now, that is another debate that I

am looking forward to, because I know very clearly on this side of the house that we understand the

importance and significance of ensuring that hardworking Victorians are rewarded for their work and

are given time off to spend with family and friends. Certainly in my region we are real beneficiaries

of the newly created Grand Final Friday. The streets of Daylesford and the streets of Kyneton are full

on those days as people come to our region to enjoy all that we have to offer.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, you might be able to give some guidance. It

appears that the member is using points of debate about a bill that is going up for debate in this house

over the course of this week rather than sticking to the motion. I would ask for some guidance on

whether that is the case.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do ask the member for Macedon to speak to the motion before the

house without going into too much debate.

Ms THOMAS: Certainly. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Well, as I said, it is a debate

that I am very much looking forward to, and I will be interested to observe the dance of those on the



other side of the house as we see their flip-flop on this issue—because are they for Grand Final Friday

or are they against it? This will be an opportunity to really find out where those on the opposite side

of this house stand.

Of course, as the Leader of the House already noted, there is still an opportunity for members to get

up on the take-note motion on the budget. I have already spoken on the budget. I used up my

15 minutes. I would have loved to have asked for the indulgence of my colleagues to give me another

maybe half an hour, indeed such is the magnificence of the budget and all that there is to talk about.

So I certainly encourage all members to get up and outline the many ways in which the 2019–20

Andrews Labor government budget is delivering for all Victorians right across the state—great

investments, particularly in regional Victoria, something that we can all be very proud of. So I

commend the government business program to the house.

Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (13:26): With the house’s indulgence I will make a brief contribution to

the government business program motion. Yes, we do have four bills to go to guillotine on Thursday;

I do not need to go through and list those again. Importantly it has been a number of weeks since the

Appropriation (2019–2020) Bill 2019 was brought into the place, and it has since gone off to the upper

house. My observation is that on this side of the house we have about a dozen members, and I am

aware of the Independent members from Shepparton and Morwell, who have yet to speak in relation

to the budget papers take-note motion. I appreciate what the member for Macedon was saying just a

little while ago about time and that government members would like to make contributions in relation

to their respective districts about that budget. I do not know whether we will get to do so this week

before we go into the winter recess—the first half of the first quarter of this Parliament—but hopefully

with the house’s indulgence we can work together and give each and every member an opportunity to

speak to the take-note motion on the budget papers before we go into the winter recess.

As the Manager of Opposition Business rightfully articulated and detailed, there is a motion in relation

to the significant spike in the road toll that we are experiencing in Victoria, particularly in country

Victoria. I do not take the opportunity too often to mention the member for Macedon, but an area she

would be particularly familiar with is Sandy Creek where we saw a tragic fatal accident. A

hardworking young man, working on a Saturday morning, was on his way home to his wife and was

tragically killed where the pavement drops down into a spoon drain. He crossed into that and into a

tree—into a bloody widow maker—and to this day nothing has been done about that particular section

of road.

That is only one of the 150-odd—

Ms Britnell: One hundred and fifty-one.

Mr TILLEY: One hundred and fifty-one—thanks for that—tragic deaths on our Victorian roads

just this year alone.

Working with the Government Whip we have tried to ensure the smooth running of this place. One of

my observations is we have pairing arrangements and those sorts of things to make sure that the

government business program and the government’s bills see passage through this place, but the

member for Burwood could not even grace the chamber during question time. There was no discussion

about pairing arrangements or anything like that.

A member interjected.

Mr TILLEY: Well, he was not here.

Mr T Bull interjected.

Mr TILLEY: That is business between me and the Government Whip, and nothing has been said

about it.



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Benambra, through the Chair.

Mr TILLEY: Thanks, Acting Speaker—Deputy Speaker, my apologies. Certainly since the

commencement of this Parliament I and the Government Whip have had those negotiations in good

faith, and when even the media come out of their little hidey-hole at that one time of the day you would

expect and anticipate that each and every member that has the privilege to serve their respective

districts would turn up here, particularly during question time.

On that note and without going into detail on the road toll, let us hope that in the future as part of the

government business program and legislation and any legislative change we see those types of

initiatives introduced into this Parliament. Importantly, in the interim, we should certainly be debating

the motion from the member for South-West Coast in support of the coalition. On that note, let us get

to work and let us see how we proceed through the rest of the week.

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (13:31): (By leave) I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on this

matter. I will be supporting the government business program because I do not see that the issue of

lack of opportunity to speak in this place actually creates a reason to oppose the government business

program. There are four important bills that need to be discussed, but there is definitely an issue around

the lack of opportunity for those who are Independent members. The National Party has six members

and the Liberal Party is now a smaller group. It is difficult at times to get to your feet and say things.

There was a time when in this Parliament there was general business and that generally took place on

Wednesday mornings, sometimes I think for up to half a day. I know I have had discussions with the

government at times about reintroducing general business so that those of us in the Parliament more

broadly who want the opportunity to speak on matters could do so and so motions such as that put

forward by the member for South-West Coast might also be debated more openly.

There are many issues in our electorates that warrant much more airing than we get the opportunity to

give them in this place, and while we need to debate the bills I think there are times when it is pretty

clear that there is insufficient time to canvass other issues. The issue of water in my electorate and

right across northern Victoria is a major issue that rarely gets any mention in this place. Often there

are missed opportunities to advocate for our community in relation to the impact of the Murray Darling

Basin plan and the very devastating effects of the removal of water in northern Victoria. When you

couple that with the price of water, the lack of transparency in the water trade, the drought on the

whole eastern seaboard and a combination of issues that are having devastating effects in regional

areas this needs to be debated. There is absolutely a very sound argument for reintroducing general

business into this house, as it used to be.

I have found very little support for that on this side of the house in the past, but given the situation we

find ourselves in now perhaps there might be more of an inclination to support working towards a

situation where we do have some general business in this place. I would urge the government to raise

this matter and perhaps refer it to the Standing Orders Committee as a genuine and valid issue to be

debated before that committee with hopefully a recommendation to come back to this place.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 55

Addison, Ms Fregon, Mr Pallas, Mr

Allan, Ms Green, Ms Pearson, Mr

Andrews, Mr Halfpenny, Ms Read, Dr

Blandthorn, Ms Hall, Ms Richards, Ms

Brayne, Mr Halse, Mr Richardson, Mr

Carbines, Mr Hamer, Mr Scott, Mr

Carroll, Mr Hennessy, Ms Settle, Ms

Cheeseman, Mr Horne, Ms Sheed, Ms

Connolly, Ms Hutchins, Ms Spence, Ms

Couzens, Ms Kairouz, Ms Staikos, Mr

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Crugnale, Ms Kennedy, Mr Suleyman, Ms

Cupper, Ms Kilkenny, Ms Tak, Mr

D’Ambrosio, Ms Maas, Mr Taylor, Mr

Dimopoulos, Mr McGhie, Mr Theophanous, Ms

Donnellan, Mr McGuire, Mr Thomas, Ms

Edbrooke, Mr Merlino, Mr Ward, Ms

Edwards, Ms Neville, Ms Williams, Ms

Eren, Mr Pakula, Mr Wynne, Mr

Foley, Mr

Noes, 27

Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Smith, Mr R

Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Smith, Mr T

Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Southwick, Mr

Britnell, Ms Northe, Mr Staley, Ms

Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr D Tilley, Mr

Guy, Mr O’Brien, Mr M Vallence, Ms

Hodgett, Mr Riordan, Mr Wakeling, Mr

Kealy, Ms Rowswell, Mr Walsh, Mr

McCurdy, Mr Ryan, Ms Wells, Mr

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

ELLA EBERY

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (13:40): I want to acknowledge the life of Ella Ebery, who passed

away recently aged 103. Ella was born at Slaty Creek, just north of St Arnaud. She married Jack Ebery,

a shearer, and they spent their early years travelling with their shearing team throughout outback New

South Wales. At age 63 Ella began editing the North Central News in St Arnaud, something she

continued for the next 34 years until the age of 97 when she was reluctantly made redundant,

considering she had many more years left to do the job.

I got to know Ella very well in my time representing St Arnaud in the old seat of Swan Hill. You

would not find a more passionate advocate for her town or for regional Victoria. She used the power

of the pen and the newspaper to advocate for a better deal on many things, including a new nursing

home for St Arnaud and saving a nearby hospital. When the then minister, Rob Knowles, opened the

new nursing home he said, ‘You would not have had this facility but for the persistence of Ella Ebery’.

In 2000 Ella won the prestigious Victorian Country Press Association Shakespeare Family Award for

excellence in editorial writing. At 101, Ella was reportedly the oldest driver in Victoria, something

that she took on with pride in her little red car she drove around town, even though some people did

try and take her licence off her. Ella Ebery was truly a formidable woman, who made a real difference

for St Arnaud and for regional Victoria.

KENNETH JEFFERY


for Solar Homes) (13:41): I rise to mourn and pay tribute to Mr Kenneth Jeffery, who sadly passed

away on 31 May 2019. Amongst Ken’s many achievements, I think the one that defined him was as

the Epping CFA captain, having joined the CFA as a volunteer more than 60 years ago. Ken, through

many roles during his years of dedication and commitment to the CFA, helped build the brigade into

the formidable organisation it is today. As a trainer, he particularly loved seeing the success of young

people he trained, and many current CFA volunteers are grateful for his influence on their work.

I first met Ken 20 years ago in his role as the organiser of the ANZAC Day memorial march and dawn

service on behalf of the Epping RSL. This was just another role that Ken took on and made his very

own. His reciting of the ode was a very moving and heartfelt rendition and it was certainly the highlight

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


of each dawn service. As an ex-serviceman himself, Ken just loved to serve his community and

enjoyed the camaraderie of the other RSL members. He once said:

I’ve never been a person to make a big fuss about things; you do what you do for the community and you

don’t go looking for awards.

But the community did appreciate his work and Ken was awarded the City of Whittlesea Senior

Citizen of the Year in 2014.

I want to give my sincere condolences to Ken’s wife Glenda; their children, Kirsten and Trisha; sons-

in-law, David and Ross; and their four grandchildren. Vale, Ken Jeffery, who will be dearly missed.

Certainly his legacy will live on, but things will never be the same.

ELLA EBERY

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (13:43): Ella Ebery, 23 December 1915 to 16 May 2019, newspaper editor,

local government councillor and mayor, wife, mother and community champion. Ella Robinson was

born on a sheep farm outside Slaty Creek without power or running water. At 22 Ella married Jack

Ebery, a shearer, and they travelled outback New South Wales where Ella cooked for the shearers in

conditions we would not recognise today—a hard life. The Eberys went on to raise two children in

St Arnaud. Ella reports she felt trapped with the unceasing housework and the limitations prescribing

her life and that of other women of the time. It was at this time that the depression that plagued Ella

throughout her life surfaced. Whenever Ella felt there was no purpose she battled this depression. Ella

went on to find solace and inspiration in writing. In 1981, aged 67, she got the editor’s gig at North

Central News, a job Ella retained until 2013 and one she did not retire from by choice. I first met Ella

when I was a candidate. I vividly remember, having not made an appointment to see her, she hooned

up in her car next to my mobile office and began her interrogation. I went on to visit her many times

both at her home and later at Kara Court. She was a difficult woman—and I say that in admiration.

Had she been born 40 years later, she would have been editor of the Age. She transformed her

community for the better because of her life. Vale, Ella Ebery.

ASYLUM SEEKER RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Equality, Minister for

Creative Industries) (13:44): Globally 70 million people are currently forcibly displaced from their

homes. Some 52 per cent of this figure are children. These are the modern face of refugees in our

world—a significant torrent of tragic humanity washing around the planet. In the Australian context

we should see this not as a challenge but rather as an inspiration for public policy renewal. Since white

settlement in Australia, and particularly over the last 100 years, the story of refugees in Australia and

Victoria has been one of inspiration and opportunity, which is why yesterday I was honoured to join

the member for Footscray and friends from across our Parliament at the Asylum Seeker Resource

Centre headquarters in Footscray to announce our government’s $3 million investment in support for

so many of the 11 000 people currently awaiting their asylum seeker status in this state to be

considered. Since the Morrison government’s harsh and deliberate cuts and the use of some 6000 of

these people and their imminent destitution as a public policy tool, it has been up to the Victorian

government to enter and fill this space. For a federal government to remove the grand total of $35 a

day from the support of these people as well as make it illegal for them to get housing assistance and

work assistance— (Time expired)

FIREFIGHTERS LEGISLATION

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (13:46): This statement condemns the Andrews government’s

Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform)

Bill 2019 for causing division amongst our emergency services and undermining the role of our CFA

volunteers in protecting their local communities. Victoria’s most recent fires in Bunyip and areas

across Gippsland are a prime example of why our highly skilled and experienced CFA volunteers

should not be reduced to assisting paid staff on call-outs. We know that a lack of volunteers is affecting

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Victoria’s ability to conduct controlled burns. In a letter from January this year the CFA cited a lack

of volunteers able to assist with controlled burns, which is vital in preventing fires. Reports indicate

that the scale of the recent Bunyip bushfire could have been avoided if backburning had been done.

After the terrible fires in Bunyip, the Gippsland Department of Environment, Land, Water and

Planning figures reveal that Labor had overseen a 75 per cent reduction in controlled burning. In a

heartless response, the Premier and his Labor MPs were not at all apologetic about this and even sought

to discredit fire-affected residents who called for more controlled burning. While the coalition carried

out controlled burns on more than 700 000 hectares of public land during their time in government,

the Premier has thrown up his hands and made excuses. As a result, in 2017-18 only 64 978 hectares

of planned burning was completed by the Andrews government.

DOROTHY READING, OAM

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for

Planning) (13:47): It is with profound sorrow that I rise to inform the house of the passing of Dorothy

Reading, OAM, our good friend and comrade, ALP stalwart and mentor to many. As honourable

members may know, Dorothy was Peter Batchelor’s much-loved and loving partner. Peter was a

longstanding member and minister in this place. Dorothy and Peter retired at the same time in 2010

and were inseparable, travelling together and spending time with their grandchildren. Dorothy and

Peter were on a holiday in South Australia to see the splendour of Kati Thanda, otherwise known as

Lake Eyre, in full bloom. Sadly Dorothy became ill on the trip and passed away in Royal Adelaide

Hospital on Wednesday, 12 June. In this time of sadness and sorrow, it is important to celebrate

Dorothy’s life and enormous achievement. She was generous with her time and her mentorship of

many younger women, encouraging them and passing on advice and sharing her knowledge.

Dorothy was awarded an OAM in 2017 through her work at Cancer Council Victoria and for her

voluntary community work and active participation in the Australian Labor Party. Dorothy worked as

a director for over 25 years at Cancer Council Victoria and was the key driving force in the

establishment of the Quit, BreastScreen, PapScreen and SunSmart campaigns—life-saving programs.

Dorothy shunned the limelight, not because she was uncomfortable with it but because she saw herself

as a part of a team that got things done. Dorothy was a force to be reckoned with, and I extend my

condolences to Peter, Lachlan and Ryan, and their families.

JAYSHREE RAMACHANDRAN, OAM

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (13:49): Can I, firstly, congratulate Mrs Jayshree

Ramachandran, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the performing

arts through Indian music and dance. Jayshree has been awarded a number of awards including the

Sir John Monash award for multicultural champion and also an award for excellence in promoting

Indian arts.

KRISTY MCKELLAR, OAM

Mr WAKELING: I would like to congratulate Ms Kristy McKellar, who was awarded the Medal

of the Order of Australia for service to the community through social welfare initiatives. Kristy has

not only spoken in this house on the issues of family violence, but I have also had the pleasure of

working with her for many years on issues that she was facing personally, and I congratulate her on

her achievements.

EAST–WEST LINK

Mr WAKELING: Residents throughout Knox are gravely concerned at the outrageous response

of the Premier in refusing to work with the federal government to construct the east–west link. It is a

road that is vitally needed, and it is a road that is clearly supported by the Knox residents. I call on the

government to put down their guns and work with the federal government to deliver this important

project.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


FAIRHILLS HIGH SCHOOL

Mr WAKELING: I was pleased last week to host the Leader of the Opposition in a visit to Knox

to visit Fairhills High School, where we had the opportunity to speak to the principal and to identify

the great work that is being done at that school, but also the urgent need that that school has for school

upgrades. I call on the government to work with the school and provide funding that is urgently needed

to upgrade this very important school at Knox.

BROADMEADOWS ELECTORATE REVITALISATION

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (13:50): I am expecting good news soon for the revitalisation of

Broadmeadows. A deal is imminent, I am informed, to pave the way for the redevelopment of the

town centre and provide the opportunity for hundreds of car parks at the Broadmeadows railway

station. This is part of the big picture strategy I have been pursuing long and hard to bring new

industries and jobs to Broadmeadows. It has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being

reinvested in the Ford site and a commitment from the Australian government to a city deal for

Melbourne’s north and west.

The impasse that must be resolved now is between VicRoads and Hume City Council on a crucial

blockage to revitalisation—the loop road at Camp Road. Freeing up this land is important for

economic development, unlocking the value of the town centre, providing the opportunity council

wants to provide hundreds of car parks and the future of the Broadmeadows railway station. Today I

have been informed that the parties are close to ending five years of dispute and announcing a deal.

Redevelopment of the Ford site is also critical to delivering new industries, businesses and jobs. I am

delighted that the company proposing to spend $500 million on stage 1 of the redevelopment of Ford

sites was inspired to invest after attending the conference I organised in Broadmeadows last year with

the Business Council of Australia:

‘Leadership, particularly from Broadmeadows MP, Frank McGuire and the federal government, has helped

secure the new investment and planning the region needs to thrive,’ Business Council chief executive Jennifer

Westacott said …

in a media release yesterday. I thank the business community for its support and will continue my

strategy of collaboration between the three tiers of government, business and civil societies to deliver

results where they are needed most.

SANDRINGHAM ELECTORATE GRAFFITI

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (13:52): More than three weeks prior to the beginning of the

Sandringham line closure on 21 May I wrote to the Premier and six senior statutory office-holders. I

sought assurances that this Labor government, its contractors and its agencies would use this rare

opportunity to safely access the railway line and clean up graffiti along this train corridor. I received

no substantive response. But far from being disappointed by the inaction of government, I instead

convened a citizen army—local residents united with a common purpose—to clean up this blight of

graffiti. Just over a week ago, this citizen army cleaned up to 30 metres of fence line destroyed by

graffiti, and they did this without the assistance of the Andrews Labor government. And so, I wish to

commend the community action of Richard Cadman, Yolanta Cadman, Terry Reynolds, Phil Lovell,

Phil Badman, Geoff Bramsbury and Ken Beadle.

Whilst I am disappointed that the government has let this great chance to beautify Sandringham’s

entire rail corridor go begging, I am so very proud of these community members. The few who have

mocked their efforts, such as those sitting on the opposite side of this chamber, have no idea of their

persistence, their sense of altruism and the genuine humility with which these people go about their

tasks. It is inspiring that they feel no need just to simply say, ‘We say what we do’; they just go about

doing it.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


MORDIALLOC ELECTORATE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (13:53): This Victorian budget has confirmed the important

upgrades to level crossing removals and more funding for the Mordialloc Freeway. We are seeing at

the moment the biggest transformation along the Frankston line since it was first built back in the late

1880s. Chelsea level crossings were confirmed in this budget as having the full funding for those level

crossing removals. Tens of thousands of vehicles pass through the Chelsea area each and every day.

It is a community that I live in, and I love this local area and it will see these level crossing removals.

It goes in addition to Bonbeach, Edithvale, Mentone and Cheltenham.

When we are trying to get people home safer and sooner to their families that project, the Mordialloc

Freeway, is so vital to those efforts. The environment effects statement has come to a conclusion. That

is before the minister at the moment. My community eagerly awaits the outcomes of that assessment

and then the assessment of the federal government.

This project has been talked about for decades and it will take tens of thousands of vehicles off local

roads, getting people home safer and sooner to their families. But best of all and the most exciting

element of this is the ability for people to be trained on these projects, people that are doing a TAFE

qualification, who are trainee engineers, cadets or apprentices—10 per cent will be trainee engineers,

cadets or apprentices—and that is people getting their go on one of these major projects. It could be

local residents in my community who get those skills, get that learning and then go on to other major

projects across Victoria.

GIPPSLAND SOUTH ELECTORATE SURF LIFESAVING CLUBS

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (13:55): It was a pleasure to attend the presentation night for

Seaspray Surf Lifesaving Club recently and pay tribute to the lifesavers who give up their time to keep

us safe on the beaches. It was a privilege over summer to have my own children take part in the Nippers

program at Seaspray, a program I can highly recommend for its training of children in beach safety,

in friendly competition and most of all for encouraging kids to have fun. But what most impressed me,

though, was the involvement of many of the teenage surf club members, who helped out every week

as water safety officers and helpers, giving great encouragement and serving as excellent role models

for our nippers. Congratulations to president Amanda Castle and all the club on another successful

summer.

Meanwhile, the state government should be doing more to support the Venus Bay Surf Life Saving

Club as it seeks to expand to cater for growing demand. Venus Bay was named national surf club of

the year in 2017, and its 540 members need new space. So far it has been overlooked for funding, and

its time the Andrews Labor government stepped up and provided assistance for this great club.

SOUTH GIPPSLAND WATER

Mr D O’BRIEN: I am proud to have today tabled over 1000 signatures on petitions calling on the

state government and South Gippsland Water to not proceed with their proposed relocation of the

corporation headquarters at Foster. Such a move would be a big economic and social blow to Foster,

and the Corner Inlet community has rallied against the proposal. I have already raised this matter with

the Minister for Water, seeking her intervention, and believe that both she and the authority should

take notice of the community’s views. We do not believe this move is justified; it will not only

disadvantage Foster but will potentially add significantly to the water bills of all South Gippsland

customers.

CHARLIE PAVLOU

Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (13:56): I rise to pay tribute to Charlie Pavlou, a Northcote

local and lifelong Labor member, who passed away on 3 June at the age of 91. He is one of those

postwar migrants who built our multicultural country. He arrived in 1952 from Cyprus and came from

the same area as my grandfather. Charlie has been a friend to my family for almost 40 years, a mainstay

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


at every event, and he passionately supported my campaign for Northcote. As a keen follower of

politics in his native Cyprus, he joined the Labor Party in 1956. In 1972, when ethnic branches were

allowed, Charlie transferred to the first Greek-speaking branch, and he earned his 40-year medallion

in 2012. He loved the party and was ever-present.

His second great love was his community. He was a founding member and gave the Cyprus

community his time, effort and wisdom. When Cyprus was divided Charlie kept the hopes of Cypriots

alive for reunification and continued to believe that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could live together in

peace.

Charlie was heavily involved in the media and worked for Neos Kosmos and Pyrsos since their

beginnings. He became the go-to as a translator of Labor Party materials for Greek constituents and

members, often refining their message. Charlie was a wordsmith, something he shared with his

beloved wife, Katie, herself a published poet.

People like Charlie show us why we must pursue and nurture multiculturalism .To Harilaos, as he is

known in Greek, I say thank you and rest easy; and to Katie and his two children, Dimostenis and

Elleni, my deepest condolences.


Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (13:58): This week I was shocked and disappointed to hear that the

funding allocated to the Murray Basin rail project had been exhausted, even though we are barely at

the end of stage 2 of that project. The project is absolutely critical to primary industries, particularly

grain, in my electorate. The Sea Lake and Manangatang lines must be standardised and upgraded so

that grain growers on those lines, who are so critical to the Victorian economy, can get their product

to port.

We have heard the reasons why the funding has been exhausted. I am aware of the claims that the

project was never properly scoped in the first place, that corners have been cut in the materials used

so far, that the project has come up against unexpected issues and that funding has been wasted

unnecessarily. We know that there will be finger-pointing and blame, but in the middle of the political

fallout are the hardworking farmers from my electorate, who do not care about which side of politics

is to blame. All they want is to be able to do their job and make their very honourable living. We all

want that for them.

I acknowledge Minister Allan’s commitment to use the remaining funds to make sure the

Manangatang line is at least workable for the upcoming harvest season, but I want to make sure the

government knows that not finishing the Murray Basin rail project is not an option. I would like to

remind this house that the people of north-west Victoria will not be treated like second-class citizens.

We are Victorians too, and the Murray Basin rail project must be finished in full as originally planned.

MEGAN TAYLOR

Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (13:59): Congratulations to budding fashion designer 22-year-old

Megan Taylor of Gisborne on being named Kangan lnstitute’s Inspirational Student of the Year.

Megan suffers from a debilitating condition known as hypermobility spectrum disorder, yet with her

advanced diploma completed Megan is now studying towards a bachelor degree. Well done, Megan.

CHLOE STEWART

Ms THOMAS: Congratulations to Kyneton’s own Chloe Stewart, who at 23 has been named by

Bowls Australia as the number-one ranked women’s lawn bowler in the nation. Well done, Chloe.

Kyneton is very proud of you.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


MACEDON YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

Ms THOMAS: Congratulations to Maddi Condron, Miranda Johnson-Jones, Oliver Bagin, Molly

Spencer-Stewart, Sean Doherty, Joel Blanch, William Morris, Shaylyn Blyth, Tara Kankindji, Kate

McIntosh, Laura Crozier, Marlon Toner-McLachlan and Santino D’onghia on being selected as the

inaugural members of my Macedon youth advisory council. Last year I promised that if re-elected I

would create a youth advisory council to provide a platform for the perspectives and priorities of young

people across Macedon and to empower young people in my community to take action, show

leadership and learn about government and its processes. Aged 16 to 21, from eight different towns

and as graduates or current students from every secondary school in the electorate, I am proud of the

diversity of views and experiences on the council. I was so impressed with the depth of discussion at

our first meeting, and I know that we will have a very productive time together over the next

12 months.

FORREST SOUP FESTIVAL

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (14:01): I wish to give a huge shout-out to the Forrest Lions Club and

the Forrest community, who have again staged a major festival in the Forrest Soup Festival. Small

communities do well hosting food and wine, music and other regional festivals, but the real test of

success is when they can develop a strong point of difference. And who does not want a bowl of hot

homemade soup on a cold wintry Queen’s Birthday long weekend? The Forrest Soup Festival, headed

up by president Emma Ashton and a committee of eight, has been guided by years of soup

development by local organising matriarch Delwyn Seebeck, who has helped develop the festival over

the past 14 years, during which I have judged on two occasions.

The small township of Forrest normally hosts 200 people, but the population swelled to over 7000 this

past weekend as people flocked to the region to sample soup and a great range of bespoke local

produce, ranging from beer, chocolate, jams, spreads to all manner of other goods.

COLAC SUDANESE COMMUNITY

Mr RIORDAN: On the same weekend I was pleased to join the Colac Sudanese community and

South Sudanese community leader Ring Mayar on Sunday, 9 June. The Sudanese community has had

a presence in Colac for over 10 years, and the local community is very proud of its contribution to our

area. It was an important gathering, discussing all manner of settlement and community issues.

Thank you to Diversitat local coordinator Caz Gatti for bringing everyone together. Local Sudanese,

led by community leader James Tut, were able to hear directly from local government, police and

service providers. It was a great opportunity for locals and newcomers alike to learn about housing,

health, education and work opportunities in the region.

NEPEAN ELECTORATE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (14:02): It has been six months since I was elected as the member for

Nepean, and it genuinely has been such an incredible experience so far—getting to meet people who

I would never have ordinarily met and traversing parts of the Mornington Peninsula where I have not

spent as much time as I would have liked. I have lived there my entire life and yet there is always a

new pathway to explore and always a new person to meet. I have tried to make myself as accessible

as possible, which is why I started my Ask Me Anything tour, which saw me at Sorrento last week,

Dromana the week before that and Rosebud prior to that.

This has been such a success in offering people a genuine chance to grill me, meet with me and ask

me to find more information for them on the multitude of issues they often raise with me. I have visited

all 17 schools; opened a civic reserve; toured Point Nepean National Park twice; opened a men’s shed;

had Greta from Rosebud Secondary College do a week-long work experience program; picked up

rubbish at three beaches; done Q and As with Lions clubs, Sorrento Community Centre and U3A

Southern Peninsula, in Dromana; and there are many, many more to come.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


I have also tried to accept every single invitation people have offered me, only declining when there

have been clashes. I also occasionally try and answer the phones at the office myself because it always

catches people by surprise. This happened the other day. ‘Chris Brayne’s office’. ‘Hi, yeah, is it

possible to speak to Chris sometime over the next few months about an issue?’. ‘Well, this is Chris’.

‘The Chris?’. Has anyone else done this?


Mr BRAYNE: Yes? Anyway, thank you to the people of Nepean for giving me this opportunity.

We are not wasting a single minute in this job.

PAUL TYSOE

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (14:04): Like so many who admired the work of former Whittlesea police

service area commander Inspector Paul Tysoe, I was shocked to learn of his sudden passing in early

June at only 58 years old.

A lateral thinker and an exceptionally good judge of character, Paul had integrity, compassion and

determination. He played a major leadership role during and after Black Saturday as the Nillumbik

police service area commander, which was when we first met. When he moved to Whittlesea, Paul

was pivotal in establishing the now operational Mernda police station and he fought to acquire a larger

block of land to allow for future expansion. A clever user of social media, Paul presented problems in

community forums and pages and engaged locals to coming to their own solutions for a safer

community. I know that his police staff loved him because he backed them and he encouraged their

development. Paul was also a big supporter of Whittlesea Neighbourhood Watch, and he believed in

young people.

I am committed to having Paul’s contribution acknowledged through the naming of a facility in his

honour, in consultation with his family. My deepest sympathy goes to his wife, Pauline; his sons, Scott,

Josh and Luke; their wives; and his much loved grandchildren, whom he spoke of often. His siblings

and parents have lost a much-loved brother and son. Vale, Paul Tysoe.

ARNOLDS CREEK PRIMARY SCHOOL

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (14:05): I rise to inform the house that on Wednesday, 27 February, I joined

the member for Mordialloc and parliamentary secretary for schools, Tim Richardson, principal Frank

Pawlowicz and student leaders from Arnolds Creek Primary School at the official opening of Arnolds

Creek Primary School’s sensory garden. Apart from being fun, gardens like this one are designed to

activate all senses. Learning does not just happen when you are in the classroom. We do not want

anybody to miss out on that kind of learning. But we all have different abilities, and that is why spaces

like the sensory garden are really special.

The garden design draws on Aboriginal and Japanese cultures. The design shows how cultures can

mix so successfully in our region—what we can achieve together. When we celebrate the things we

have in common and respect each other’s differences, we will be able to do terrific things together,

and I think that is a wonderful message to share with Arnolds Creek Primary School students.

This project was funded through a $200 000 Inclusive Schools Fund grant. Everyone, regardless of

their ability, can enjoy this space and learn new things. That is why the Andrews Labor government

thinks it is really important that more schools can have great spaces like this. We created something

called the Inclusive Schools Fund. This pays for things like the new sensory garden and other great

projects in other schools all over Victoria. I congratulate Arnolds Creek students, the school

community and principal Frank Pawlowicz.

JOY AND LES JOYCE

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (14:07): Last week I was welcomed into the home of Joy and Les

Joyce to congratulate them on their diamond wedding anniversary—60 years together, six children

BILLS


later and still going strong. Well, I call that a pretty awesome love story. I arrived at the Joyce’s Tarneit

homestead with a bouquet of flowers and a big smile and was warmly welcomed by Shane, their son,

and his wife Debra, who had organised the entire visit. See, Les and Joy did not know I was coming

or that Debra had arranged for commemorative congratulations to be sent and signed from the Premier,

the Governor of Victoria, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and even the Queen.

While reading through these special messages, the couple started to get teary. And I must confess my

own eyes were not dry—Les cuddling into Joy’s neck and telling her with such heartfelt sincerity

‘I love you so much’ brought such warmth to my own heart, I was almost lost for words. We chatted

and shared stories about love and life for over an hour: stories of how Joy first met Les through her

father’s interest in Les’s convertible, and of how Les was in love from the very first moment he laid

eyes on Joy, a love you can still see in his eyes today when he looks at her.

Les and Joy have had a long life together, with ups and downs along the way, as all couples do, but

with unwavering commitment and love, like high school sweethearts. I thank you, Les, Joy, Shane and

Debra, for welcoming me into your home and for sharing such a beautiful experience.

KEN AND JUDITH EDWARDS

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (14:08): In the coming days, Ken and Judith Edwards will be leaving

Moonee Ponds to live in Williamstown. Ken and Judith have been members and strong supporters of

the Labor Party in my community for decades. Ken and Judith have worked tirelessly for our party

and our movement, attending street stalls and railway stations, letterboxing, doorknocking and

providing guidance and advice for Labor members for Essendon, going right back to Barry Rowe.

Ken and Judith embody everything that is good and decent about our party. They are kind and

compassionate, they are strong and industrious and they have an intelligence and a wisdom that they

have shared with Labor activists in my community. I have no doubt that the move to Williamstown

will not see their commitment to our party diminish, but this move does present me with the

opportunity to thank them both for everything that they have done.

RACHAEL DAVIES

Mr PEARSON: Soon Rachael Davies will be leaving Team Essendon, and I want to place on the

record my thanks for her labours and endeavours over the past few years. Rachael is a woman who

possesses great values and has a bright future in front of her. I am not sure whether she will go down

the path of a career in Parliament, the public service or the community sector, but what I do know is

that wherever she goes, she will make a wonderful contribution and I am so pleased and fortunate to

have had the opportunity of working with her.

SUDAN

Mr PEARSON: Sudan is currently experiencing a crisis. There have been months of peaceful

pro-democracy protests in Sudan, which have led to the President stepping down. In the last few weeks

severe violence has erupted in Sudan. I stand with the members of our Sudanese community and my

thoughts are with all community members and families impacted by the crisis in Sudan. The resilience

and strength of the people of Sudan is nothing short of admirable.

Bills

OWNER DRIVERS AND FORESTRY CONTRACTORS AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr PALLAS:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (14:10): It gives me pleasure to rise to contribute to this

important debate on the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. Can I just

BILLS


start off by placing on record my thanks to the staff in the minister’s office and also to Industrial

Relations Victoria for providing the opposition with their briefing and responding to questions as they

have arisen through this discussion. I also wish to just place on record my thanks to the various

community groups and sector organisations that have provided feedback to the opposition on the bill

that is currently before the house.

I wish to indicate from the outset that the opposition will be not opposing the bill that is currently

before the house. However, there are some concerns about the bill, which I will seek to place on the

record, and concerns we have regarding the way in which the government has developed the bill. But

I think it is important to state from the outset that will be not opposing this bill.

As you would be aware, this bill certainly has had a history in this house. Certainly it was dealt with

in the previous Parliament, but like many bills it was not actually finalised. So we are pleased to see

the bill now back before the house today.

We are concerned at the government’s appetite for imposing red tape, and whilst it is important to

ensure that legislation that deals with the operation of industry is reviewed and reflects the needs of

the modern operation of industry and takes on board new technologies as they arise, and the bill does

deal with that issue with respect to the economy, we are concerned about the way in which some of

these matters are being dealt with.

This bill amends the act which was originally introduced into this house back in 2005. Back in 2005

the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Rob Hulls, stated, and I quote:

… the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Bill 2005 will ensure these small businesses are better

informed, better skilled small business operators, and have better protections from harsh practices and

unconscionable conduct by hirers. Measures in the bill are carefully targeted at ensuring fairness, while

providing for competitive and efficient markets. Support for collective negotiations and a fast, low-cost

dispute resolution process will provide a fairer balance in the market power of these small businesses and

their hirers.

That was taken from the second-reading speech back in 2005. So that provides a framework in which

this legislation has operated since then, and it has operated since then with the support of the sector.

Just after the act was introduced, the federal government moved to protect independent contractors

through the Independent Contractors Act 2006, and in 2009 the commonwealth introduced further

protections for independent contractors against adverse actions and the like, with changes back in 2009

with the amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009. The current government is now claiming that it needs

to amend the act to account for changes in the industry since 2005 but has not made any mention of

these federal reforms.

The amendment bill, amongst other things, seeks to change the definition of a ‘freight broker’ to cover

new platforms such as Uber Freight, which is not operational but we understand is potentially going

to come into the marketplace within the state. It will enable arbitration through the Small Business

Commission, it will allow hirers to transmit information electronically, it will require hirers to pay

invoices within 30 days unless the hirer and contractor agree otherwise and it will penalise hirers who

fail to comply with mandatory provisions within the act.

In terms of the legislative regulatory impact statement process, we have concerns with the way in

which the government has managed this. We understand through the briefing that the government

prepared a legislative impact assessment prior to the bill, but the government has failed to release this

important documentation to the Parliament. Members of Parliament who are not familiar with the

transport industry will therefore be unable to ascertain if the bill will have any impact on their

community or the costs or benefits relative to these changes. I think it is important that the next speaker

on the bill is able to place on record in detail how this bill will seek to impact on the community or

certainly join with the opposition’s calls for this document to in fact be made public. I think it is

important that this information is made available to the house.

BILLS


The Australian Logistics Council made this point in its submission when they said:

Should the Government elect to extend regulation in this area itself, a full regulatory impact statement should

be published for public comment prior to any final decision so the community can be assured that the standard

public interest test used when considering legislation that may restrict competition has been satisfied, that is:

(a) the benefits outweigh the cost of the restriction to the community as a whole; and

(b) the objective can only be achieved by restricting competition to that extent is satisfied.

And they went on to say:

Finally, as should be the case with all regulation, there needs to be a clear ability for the regulations to be

enforced by knowledgeable authorised officers in a consistent and sufficient manner, thereby ensuring a level

playing field for all industry participants.

So I think it is fair to say that the sector would like to call out that this information and the report need

to be made available in terms of its impact.

We also learned that through the genesis of this bill there was a review of the principal act back in

November 2016. This was done around the same time—I think it is important to point this out—as the

labour hire inquiry, which is now subject to legislation, was subject to a review that was instigated by

Anthony Forsyth. As many of you know, the Forsyth inquiry was an inquiry which made a range of

recommendations—mind you, the recommendations that Mr Forsyth had actually identified did not

necessarily marry up with what we see in the labour hire act; let us put that issue to one side—but that

document of the Forsyth review was a public document. Members of Parliament, members of the

community, industry associations, employers, employees and unions had the capacity to access that

information, and that is certainly not the case in regard to this. Again, it is important that this review is

not kept under lock and key and it is imperative that the government makes this information available.

In Western Australia, when the Owner-Drivers (Contracts and Disputes Act) 2007 was reviewed in

2014, that information was publicly released. The opposition has made submissions for a freedom of

information request to try to get the Andrews government to release this information, but much of the

information was blacked out or redacted. I mean, this is about ensuring that information that has led

to legislative change is made publicly available, so it is important that the government is ensuring that

it is open and transparent in the way in which it is conducting its reviews and that information is then

made available to the public. Clearly if there is sensitive or confidential information and that

information has been provided in good faith and cannot be made public, the community would

generally accept that. But when there are general issues around conduct of the sector and ways in

which the sector can be improved, the way in which the current act of Parliament can be improved, I

think it is important for transparency that that information is made available.

We have been aware that the Australian Logistics Council, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and

Industry, the Australian government, the Australian small business ombudsman, the Transport

Workers Union, NatRoad, the Australian Trucking Association, VicForests and even the CFMEU

have made submissions, and I think given what has transpired over the last month we would all be

very interested to see what the CFMEU under the leadership of Mr Setka had to say on this important

issue. But again, I look forward to the next speaker providing an explanation to the house as to why

that information was not made available and what actions the government will be taking to make sure

that that information is made publicly available.

It is unclear from the terms of reference if the government’s review accounted for the existence of

federal legislation—namely, as I mentioned before, the Independent Contractors Act and the Fair

Work Act of 2006 and 2009 respectively. These two pieces of federal legislation came into existence

after the original 2005 bill, as I said, and each contains provisions mirroring those in the Victorian law

to protect against unfair contracts and unconscionable conduct. The Victorian chamber stated that:

Protections for independent contractors are also provided in other Commonwealth legislation including the

Fair Work Act 2009 which provides protections against sham contracting, and the Independent Contractors

BILLS


Act 2006 which provides for a national unfair contracts scheme for independent contractors where they can

ask a court to set aside a contract if it is found to be harsh or unfair.

Now, as we know, there are a range of situations where there have been issues of commonwealth-state

relations when it comes to industrial relations legislation. We had the commonwealth powers bill that

recently went through this Parliament, and in fact again the issue of federal-state relations was raised,

given that the federal government had written to the Victorian government indicating that they would

not be providing referral legislation for that act to be enacted. There are clear issues for the operation

of federal and state regulation when it comes to industrial relations. The Kennett government ceded

industrial relations powers to the commonwealth, and that is a position that has stood the test of time.

It is broadly supported by all sides of the house, so it is imperative that we have a full understanding

of how any Victorian legislation which deals with industrial relations—with the regulation of

employment and contractor relationships—operates in contrast with the federal system.

Another area which is unclear in the bill is the operation of this bill in terms of the way in which it is

regulating, effectively, contractor relationships. It is a matter of history more than anything—as I said,

the principal act has been operational for 14 years. But this bill basically seeks to require purchasers

of a service from an independent contractor to provide information to that contractor about the charge

rates that will be applied which take into account all of the costs associated with the operation of the

business. Clearly for operators in the sector it is supported, but again it raises a whole range of

anomalies, if I may say, in the sense that similar provisions are not provided in other contracting

arrangements. For example, for anyone that utilises the Jim’s Mowing franchise, the purchaser is not

obliged to ensure that all of the costs of that contractor are incorporated in the bill that they provide.

Again it is a matter of history, but it is something that has been raised with me by the broader

community in terms of the operation of the principal act.

There are elements of the bill that I think are certainly going to improve operations for drivers and

forestry workers in this sector. One is the opportunity for the transmitting of information electronically,

such as via email or website; another is changes to ensure owner-drivers are paid within 30 days of

receiving an invoice. Receipt of moneys is the lifeblood of small businesses. There are numerous

examples of small businesses and independent contractors whose businesses have fallen over by virtue

of the fact that people did not pay their bills, so any action that can be taken to improve that to ensure

that there is a greater opportunity for moneys to be transmitted within a month is certainly going to be

beneficial for contractors. Equally, the provision of information electronically with a rate schedule is

also eminently sensible, and it takes on board the operations of a modern economy.

This move was obviously supported by the sectors, and I do wish to place on record comments such

as those of the Victorian Transport Association, who welcomed this move to reduce financial pressure

for drivers and said:

It is also in line with industry best-practice and the Business Council of Australia’s Supplier Payment Code.

Clearly industry associations who work in this sector see this as being of benefit.

The opposition does have concerns about the potential operations of the new penalties and

enforcement regime. Again, because of the fact that the information in the review is not public, we are

unaware as to whether or not there is widespread non-compliance with the act. So it is unclear for us

to understand how widespread non-compliance is in terms of these new changes and therefore make

a determination as to whether or not a new regulatory regime of greater inspections is going to be

needed given evidence of high levels, or higher levels, of underpayment or unscrupulous activity by

hirers of drivers.

In any event, there are many ways the government could address issues with non-compliance. It could

have improved information and education to industry. The government could have pushed for a

national law reform or a code of practice, but it has not. Certainly we would be concerned that this is

going to potentially lead to greater red tape with more penalties. As one politician once said:

BILLS


If it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidise it.

We need to ensure that we are introducing legislation that on the one hand is seeking to protect and

support industry but on the other hand is not overly imposing a cost impact on industry where there is

not an identified need. I do not know the level of non-compliance. I do not know the level of problems

associated with this because that information was not available to the public. Nevertheless, under this

bill, as we know, those who hire owner-drivers will be slapped with penalties of up to $4000 just for

failing to give an owner-driver the right paperwork. I think what is important is to ensure there is

education in place and that there is information made available to the sector. They are issues that I

wish to place on record for the government, to ensure that this does not lead to higher levels of

regulation and red tape and that we are not potentially going to see greater penalties meted out simply

for failing to meet an obligation under an act of which some of the operators may in fact be unaware.

As was indicated, the government is seeking to regulate future digital freight platforms such as Uber

Freight, and they are doing this by defining them as freight brokers and making them subject to all of

the paperwork requirements within the act. That in and of itself might be deemed to be eminently

sensible, and I am not making any comment either way on whether or not Uber Freight should or

should not be covered. It is interesting that the government is seeking to regulate it, given the fact that

the government is currently conducting its own investigation or inquiry into future regulations of the

gig economy. As we know, the gig economy is principally focused on the utilisation of app-based

services such as Uber, Deliveroo and a whole range of other services. As we know, employment

relations are governed at a national level, and Fair Work Australia—as its predecessors back to the

Industrial Relations Commission have done—has made determinations on employment relationships

and has made determinations across the journey that some relationships fall within an employer-

employee relationship and others fall within an independent contractor relationship. We have seen this

of late with decisions relating to both Deliveroo and Uber, where you have had differing definitions

of those employment relationships, one looking at potentially employment relationships and the other

talking about an independent contractor relationship. The only similarity between the two though is

that they both are involved in a service that utilises an app-based facility.

So whilst that is important, the government has effectively pre-empted its own inquiry. They have

said, ‘We want to set up an inquiry where Victorians, where stakeholders, where users can put forward

a submission to an independent inquiry of government and that independent inquiry will make a

determination of what regulation they believe, if any, should happen in the gig economy’. That I

presume would then be presented to government and the government would then take that information

to determine any legislative changes it wishes to put in place. Despite that, the government has pre-

empted that process by including Uber Freight in this act.

That can only mean one of two things: either the government believes that Uber Freight does not

technically fall within the gig economy and it actually believes it is excised from the whole gig

economy process or it has predetermined its own position on what it is going to do with the gig

economy, because you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, ‘We’re going to sit back and wait

for an inquiry to be handed down’—and we have heard the Minister for Industrial Relations on Tom

Elliott talking about this issue, where issues were put to him about the gig economy and he said there

was an inquiry in place and he wanted to let the inquiry do its work. So you take the minister at face

value on that issue, but in the next breath we have legislation before the house which is actually

regulating part of that sector. So I place that on the record to say that the government needs to explain—

and it will be interesting to hear the clarification and explanation from the next government speaker

on this important issue—why in fact the government has sought to do this: why it has sought to

regulate the gig economy for the purposes of freight and transport operators using the gig economy

but in the next breath is saying, ‘We’re actually not going to regulate for the gig economy because we

are waiting for an inquiry to be handed down’.

The other thing is that these changes may deter hirers from using small owner-drivers or deter new

entrants to the Victorian transport industry, which could potentially mean fewer jobs and fewer

BILLS


opportunities. The government has said this bill will be fantastic for the transport industry, but there

have been other commentators, like NatRoad, for example, who have said:

We remain satisfied that the voluntary components of the current statutory scheme work well and the need to

mandate penalties for failure to provide a written contract, for example, will adversely impact business. The

bill—

currently before the house—

would establish penalties for administrative matters, something that we want to move away from, particularly

when it comes to the review of the Heavy Vehicle National Law. To introduce penalties for administrative

matters at a state level doesn’t make sense.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said obligations under the act:

… impose costs on businesses that engage owner drivers, including:

Costs associated with understanding their obligations.

Administrative costs associated with establishing and maintain systems to provide an information

booklet to owner drivers.

Record keeping costs to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Act.

As you can see, there are concerns that have been put. VicForests said:

The introduction of compliance and enforcement arrangements is unnecessary and any increase in the

regulatory burden will distract contractors and owner operators from their critical business tasks. Having safe,

stable and financially viable businesses must remain the focus of small business without the distraction of

increased regulatory requirements.

So as I said, it is imperative that the government is working with these sectors to ensure that the

concerns I have just highlighted, which have been raised by associations that represent employees in

that sector, are adequately dealt with.

We have had the issue associated at a federal level, which is the issue of safe rates and the Road Safety

Remuneration Tribunal. As we know, this was an action that was put in place at a federal level which

was deeply opposed and was actually overturned at a federal level, but we were informed at the bill

briefing that the bill would not mandate rates of pay for owner-drivers. It was effectively a requirement

to provide information, not a mandating of rates. Whilst this is technically true under the act, when the

government announced its review into owner-drivers back in November of 2016, it—unfortunately

for the government—linked it to the now-defunct Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Indeed when

we consulted groups on this amendment bill, the spectre of a return to that was of grave concern, and

I think it is important that, whilst we have been briefed that it does not apply in terms of mandating

rates, it was foolish that the government in fact made links back in 2016 to that.

Having said that, in the context of the fact that it is not going to mandate rates, the government has,

however, introduced a tip-truck policy through the Department of Treasury and Finance. Under that

policy, the policy in fact does the complete opposite to what I have just said in terms of the mandating

of rates, because what the tip-truck policy of the government mandates is that it will ensure minimum

rates of pay for contractors on any Victorian government-funded construction project. So on the one

hand the government has said that the act of Parliament before the house was not about mandating rates,

it was about mandating the provision of information. So on the one hand we have been told, ‘The

information in the bill is simply just about ensuring that information has to be provided, but we’re not

going to be mandating actual rates’. On the other hand the government has put in place a policy that

says any private sector operator, any private hirer, any private contractor who is seeking to do any work

which involves a government-funded construction project, is in fact required to sign up to a minimum

rate of pay, which is the complete opposite to what is operating under the provisions of the act.

So I think the government needs to come clean on this issue and state that in fact, whilst on the one

hand it is saying this bill is not about mandating rates, the government through its own policy is

dictating to the private sector minimum rates of pay if they choose to have a government job, and that

BILLS


clearly is an issue that the government needs to provide an explanation of as to how it can justify that

when that provision is clearly at odds with what is stipulated within this act of Parliament. I note the

former minister, the member for Sydenham, is in the house, and I would be interested to hear the

former minister, who may well be speaking on this bill, and she may be able to provide some

explanation on these issues that I have just outlined.

In summing up, as I said, the opposition are not opposing the bill, but we do remain concerned about

some of the processes that have been followed in terms of the bill that we see before the house. Yes,

requirements regarding 30 days and the provision of information are eminently sensible, and they will

be helpful for small business. But having said that, there are issues about the fact that information was

not provided in terms of the review that was undertaken—unlike what has happened in states such as

Western Australia—and there are concerns that have been raised as to why Uber has been incorporated

when in fact it goes against exactly what is happening in terms of the government’s own review. So I

think it is important that if this bill is to be implemented the government can clearly articulate to the

sector how this is not going to impose greater regulation, not going to impose greater costs, because

at the end of the day we are talking about small operators who are trying to make a buck, to do a job,

and we are talking about many of the hirers who are hiring many drivers, and we want to ensure that

we are working with industry and not against industry, because the more hirers that are willing to

engage drivers the more beneficial it is not only for those that drive trucks but, more importantly, for

the Victorian economy. With those comments, I place the opposition’s position on the record.

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham) (14:40): I rise to speak on the Owner Drivers and Forestry

Contractors Amendment Bill 2019, a bill that will change the freight industry in this state for the better.

One thing that the opposition failed to mention in the 30-minute contribution that they just put on the

record was that at the heart of all of these amendments and changes are our key concerns around safety

and compliance. That is what every one of these amendments goes to the heart of.

Why would you say that having regulation around payments and timing of payments has something

to do with safety? There is a clear link between these. There have been many studies done around

Australia to show that there is a direct link between the pressure drivers are under to earn a dollar, the

uncertainty they face about what is going to be in their pay packet at the end of the day or about the

hours that they are going to have to work, and the safety of not only themselves on the road but also

those that share the road with them.

The unfortunate fact is that the most unsafe workplace that remains all around Australia, not just here

in Victoria, is in the cabin of a truck. That is where more people die in their place of work than

anywhere else. Unfortunately when you put the radio on morning after morning you hear of the

fatalities that have happened. There are too many lives lost, particularly on our country roads, with

either logging trucks or long-distance drivers and even short-distance driving that has required those

drivers to be on the road for many hours straight without a break. Some of the regulation that we are

talking about today, some of the amendments that we are talking about, will help improve that

situation, but there is still a long way for us to go.

I commend the Treasurer, who is also the Minister for Industrial Relations, for his work and

commitment on this bill and also for the investment he has made in assisting in the rollout of this bill,

which was committed to in previous budgets going forward. What this bill does is introduce a position

where we are providing more information to the industry, with time frames attached to that

information, to give a better understanding of the cost structures around the contracting arrangements

and also of the contracts and how they are enforceable. Having this information readily available to

drivers before they enter a contract will assist them in assessing what acceptable rates are and also how

the contract will apply, and of course it will allow for better informed negotiations.

The principal act does not apply to drivers who are legally defined as employees but rather to those

under contract arrangements, which cover many, many drivers in this state and beyond our state’s

borders. Where it does apply is to all forestry contractors and to owner-drivers who operate up to three

BILLS


vehicles, including bicycles, where the owner of the business drives one of those vehicles. The act

provides basic protections. Two of the key information requirements are for hirers to provide

owner-drivers and forestry contractors with a copy of the applicable rates and costs schedule for their

vehicle class and an information booklet three days before entering into a contract. It also sets out a

framework for effective dispute resolution to address the information imbalance and unequal

bargaining power of many owner-drivers and forestry contractors with hirers.

About two and half years ago now Industrial Relations Victoria undertook a review of the Owner

Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 to see how we could make complementary changes that

were suited to the industry in going forward with the objective to identify whether changes were

needed and to improve the position of owner-drivers and forestry contractors in this state, while

ensuring there is still competitiveness and a fair operating environment for our small businesses here

in Victoria. During that period 25 submissions were received and open consultations were held with

employers, transport associations, unions and owner-drivers directly as well as members of the

transport and forestry industry councils. Because these submissions were provided to the government

in confidence—and that allowed individuals to make submissions openly expressing their views as

well—these were not published on the government’s website. That mechanism was there to protect

individuals.

Certainly the amendments represent a very good balance of the submissions that came in to address

the changes that have occurred in our freight industry since 2005 and seek to further improve the

position of owner-drivers and forestry contractors by removing the barriers that restrain these small

businesses from achieving a fair go in the workplace.

In summary the bill amends the act to establish a compliance and enforcement framework, including

the introduction of penalties for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the act, which

also include the provision of a written contract and an information booklet. Really what that does is

help to underpin that safety and compliance element.

There are also amendments to promote best practice across the industry and to ensure that information

goes out to all levels of business. The bill clarifies the definition of ‘freight broker’ to ensure that

contractors employed through third-party contracting platforms like Uber Freight are covered. That

was a big consideration during this, because quite frankly there was no inquiry into the gig economy

at the time and all parties were informing government that there was a move for this sort of freight

broker to be growing in business and size in Victoria. So in the void of not having a broader gig

economy inquiry at the time it was considered that there needed to be a definition in the act around

this. Now the act will be amended to require a hirer or freight broker to provide, again, the rates and

costs schedules annually rather than each time the contractor is engaged.

The bill amends the contracting arrangements and requirements of the act to ensure that invoices are

paid within 30 days unless there is a dispute over the amount payable. This is a really important

element of these changes because this supports many, many thousands of small businesses out there

around giving them some certainty.

As well there are amendments to the dispute resolution procedure to specify that the Small Business

Commission can arrange arbitration where the parties to the dispute agree. The amendment will also

introduce a fast, low-cost, confidential and binding dispute resolution process for the parties in the

dispute. The only mechanism that has been available in this situation in the past has been VCAT,

which can often be untimely and also not very low cost for those that are pursuing that.

Amendments to the act also include a provision that will trigger the requirement for hirers to provide

tip truck contractors in the building and construction industry with the information booklet and

applicable rates. With the amount of work that is going on in this state it is so important that we address

the issue around our tip truck drivers being supported, again, with safety and compliance and a bit of

certainty as well.

BILLS


I have got to put on the record my absolute disappointment at the federal government’s move a number

of years ago now to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal at a federal level. I think this was

a very key element in cleaning up the transport industry when it comes to safety on our roads and fair

rates of pay for thousands of people that depend on this industry for an income.

Finally, can I just acknowledge the work that is done year in and year out by our Transport Industry

Council here in Victoria and give a big shout-out to the current chair, Phil Lovel, not only for all of

his work as chair of this committee but for all that he has given to the transport industry, and to some

of our key representatives on there: Richard Scougall from Ai Group, Chris Fennell and Mike McNess

from the Transport Workers Union, Eric Henderson from VicRoads, Steven Wojtkiw from the

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Carina Garland and Luke Hilakari for Victorian

Trades Hall Council, Peter Anderson and Glen Cameron from the Victorian Transport Association

and of course our Industrial Relations Victoria secretariat Paul Coats and Marcelle West. Thank you

for giving the time that you give to the industry and for also keeping a close eye on these amendments

and giving feedback. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:50): I rise to make a contribution on the Owner Drivers and

Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. I suppose no contribution from the other side of the house

would be complete without some criticism of the federal government, and the member for Sydenham

has not disappointed me here. There just always has to be a whack somehow at the coalition federal

government—and in this case about an issue of road safety. What intrigues me is that it is the Labor

Party that has actually got rid of the Road Safety Committee of this Parliament. If the other side was

actually fair dinkum about road safety in this state they would still actually have a road safety

committee in this Parliament that would actually be looking at road safety issues. So I think the words

from the member for Sydenham are rather hollow when it comes to road safety given the Labor Party’s

track record on the Road Safety Committee of this particular Parliament.

We have tragically seen a significant increase in the fatalities on roads in Victoria so far in this 12-

month period, and I think both sides of the house would love to see the numbers declining year on

year rather than increasing, and one of the things that would actually help do that would be to have a

road safety committee of this Parliament that could actually look at those road safety issues rather than

just talk about and criticise the federal government on those particular things.

The member for Sydenham and former minister also talked about the issue of the 2016 review into the

Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 which supposedly these amendments are based on,

but one of the things with that inquiry and with the submissions that were made to it is that no-one

knows what was actually in those. As the former minister said, they are confidential to the government.

If the government is actually serious about what the logic is behind these amendments, it should

actually make those public. You can redact the name and the information of the people that put them

forward. There is no issue about the confidentiality of the actual name of the person or the business

that puts them forward, but I would have thought the content of those submissions would be useful for

both sides of politics and would be useful for the industry in judging this legislation against what

people actually said, because no one knows.

As we know, knowledge is power. The Labor Party is great at making sure no-one else actually knows

what is going on with the things that it does—in this case with this particular piece of legislation. We

actually do not know that these legislative amendments that are before the house relate back to the

submissions that were made, and I think it just shows the arrogance of this particular government and

how they are actually going about things. I would urge the government to release that report and to

release those submissions with the names of the people submitting or the businesses submitting

redacted—I accept that—but at least let us have the information that is out there.

I suppose particularly from the point of view of harvest and haul contractors there have been comments

made around certainty in contracts and certainty in payments and also the stress that is on small

business owner-drivers in making a dollar and what they have to do to survive. I think if you talk

BILLS


particularly about the forestry contractors—the harvest and haul contractors in the forestry industry—

the greatest thing that would give them certainty, the greatest thing that would take stress out of their

lives and the greatest thing that would mean that they could actually be profitable in the future would

be certainty around their work. We saw this government go for over 12 months without actually having

a timber release plan or an allocation order, so there was no certainty of work for that particular

segment of the owner-drivers and forest contractors in this particular state.

I can remember visiting Traralgon with an upper house member for Eastern Victoria Region, Melina

Bath, where we met with a group of harvest hauling contractors who had just signed a new five-year

contract with VicForests. As part of that contract they had been required to go and buy new machinery

to make sure they had the safest and the best machinery. One particular contractor there that we met

with had spent over a million dollars on a new harvesting machine and had bought several new trucks,

and a new truck and trailer are probably close to half a million dollars each as well.

This particular businessman had invested $1.5 to $2 million into his business based on a five-year

contract and he had been stood down by VicForests because there was no timber release to actually

do that work. So again, if the former minister, the member for Sydenham, is serious about making sure

that there is certainty in owner-drivers’ lives and there is certainty in contractors’ lives, it is incumbent

on the government to actually make sure the timber is there, that these harvest and haul contractors

can actually make a dollar and know they can invest with certainty, that they will have work for the

full five years of their contract, rather than being stood down or told by DELWP, ‘Go and do some

fire recovery work; we can’t give you timber at the moment to do this work, but go and do this work’.

That lasted for a short period of time, but then there was this huge uncertainty for them again.

No discussion about forestry harvest and haul contractors would be complete without paying some

tribute to the former upper house member Philip Dalidakis, who resigned yesterday. Before Philip

came into Parliament and before he had some other jobs with the Labor Party, he was actually the

executive officer of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries and someone who was an absolute

champion of the forest industries and the harvest and haul contractors there. I pay tribute to what Philip

did on behalf of that sector. There are those of the view that Philip lost his cabinet spot in the changes

after the 2018 election because he was actually a champion of the forest industry. The view that some

people have put forward is that he did not get to stay in the cabinet because he actually stuck up for

the forestry industry, whereas those from the green and the left side of the party actually wanted to

make sure the forest industry closed down here in Victoria.

So I pay tribute to Philip for what he did for the forestry industry, both when he worked for the

Victorian Association of Forestry Industries and also, as I understand it, for how he was one of the

very few voices, if not the lone voice, within the Labor Party and particularly in the cabinet who was

actually standing up for the forest industry and the 22 000-something jobs right across Victoria—the

forest industry, the harvest and haul, the timber mills, the processing, the furniture industry, the truss

industry, the house-building industry—all those people that actually rely on the native timber industry

here in Victoria. It was good to have a champion. I wish him well with his new job with Australia

Post, but I would hope—I would desperately hope—that there are some voices on the other side of

this house who will stand up for the timber industry rather than see it continually decline under this

particular government, because there is a real risk of that.

As our lead speaker spoke about on this particular piece of legislation, there are provisions in this

legislation that allow an owner-driver contractor to be offered a contract on the terms negotiated by a

negotiating agent, even though the owner-driver contractor did not appoint that particular agent. There

are concerns from the industry that this may clear the path for the likes of Transport Workers Union

organisers to actually bully hirers into taking TWU-approved terms. We do not want to see that sort

of situation in the transport industry. We want to make sure that there are plenty of hirers and there are

plenty of people wanting to be hired to make sure there is competition in the transport sector.

BILLS


The last thing I would like to finish off on is this requirement to pay invoices within 30 days unless

there is a dispute or unless the parties have agreed otherwise. I think one of the challenges that small

business have, both dealing with large business and particularly dealing with government, is that they

do not get paid. I constantly get people coming into my office in Echuca, where they have dealt with

large contractors from Melbourne who have come into the regions and won a contract and have beaten

everyone else when it came to price. They employ subbies and then they do not pay them on time or

they actually go broke and do not pay them at all. I think that is a real tragedy for a lot of small

businesses, that they are put under severe pressure by big business and by those with government

contracts who actually do not pay them on time or do not pay them at all. So I think that is a good

change there, where you can make sure that contractors and subcontractors are actually paid on time.

Our lead speaker also talked about the issue of electronic forms of information and the use of new

technology. I think one of the exciting things that is being developed in the future is this whole concept

of the blockchain system, where you have actually got full transparency from the start to the end of a

supply chain or a production chain or whatever and you can actually guarantee payment through that

particular system. As I said, one of the greatest challenges for small business, apart from the work they

have to do, is actually making sure they get paid for that work because if they do not get paid, they

obviously go broke very quickly, and big business and the government are notorious for not paying

people on time or not paying at all. The opposition will not be opposing this particular piece of

legislation.

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (15:00): It gives me pleasure to speak on this really important

bill, the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. I also want to commend the

former minister and member for Sydenham both for being the lead speaker on the government side on

this bill and effectively for bringing this to the attention of the government and the Parliament and for

commissioning the review in 2016 and shepherding this through. The Treasurer has had the last leg of

the relay, but really if it was not for the former minister, who is in the chamber, this would not be

where it is today, and I commend her for that. She very eloquently described why this is so important.

The impact of this bill, should it proceed through the Parliament and successfully be enacted, will be

extraordinary. In fact in many respects we will not see some of the benefits of the bill because it will

be accidents that have not happened and safety that has permeated the industry, which hopefully will

come out in statistics. It is a very, very important bill not only for the drivers themselves but, by all

accounts, for the public. As the former minister described, you turn on the radio and you hear the most

devastating stories of fatal accidents involving owner-drivers.

The bill has by all accounts come out of a strong process of consultation with key bodies, including

obviously the unions—the Transport Workers Union has been integral in this process—employer

groups and industry associations, including the Transport Industry Council and the Forest Industry

Council. Just on that point, I would like to further address some of the criticisms, as I think the previous

speakers have on our side. Firstly, I am glad the opposition is supporting the bill. But on their criticisms

about the submissions not being made public, our primary resolve is to get good public policy

outcomes. You get good public policy outcomes in this context when you provide people with the

safety of anonymity, particularly on a very contested issue like this, where they can raise safely with

government the issues that they have experienced and on occasion may name their hirers or people

who they rely on—their business relationships. They should be able to do that safely without being

outed. A whole range of repercussions could befall these brave owner-drivers who shared their stories

with the government. I think that is a very good reason to keep their contributions in confidence, as

they expected when they made them to the inquiry.

I would also like to acknowledge my colleague and mentor in this capacity, the Treasurer, for his

shepherding towards the end of the process of this bill, and Industrial Relations Victoria (IRV) for

their outstanding work on this.

BILLS


This government is a government of reform. It is not just about level crossings and infrastructure

investment, although that is a huge brand of this government. It is about reform across the board,

whether it be in industrial relations, whether it be in social policy. In this area it is a reform that is so

overdue and so warranted; reform to support public safety and owner-drivers’ safety, but also reform

to support small business. We are the party of small business. The other side are the party of big

business. I say that as a former small business owner, and there are many on this side. We are the

proud party of small business. We do not just let owner-drivers battle it out with the goliaths of the

world. This is an area of market failure, where this government has seen fit to address that market

failure with the most light but appropriate intervention, which is transparency, market information and

support, and obviously a scheme whereby issues and disagreements can be resolved in a far more

expeditious process through the small business commissioner.

This bill is very, very important to address that sort of market imbalance between owner-drivers and

their hirers, and also one that will continually become relevant in an increasingly on-demand economy

and world.

The bill includes amendments to cover for those falling within the categories, as we have heard, of

Uber Eats and Deliveroo drivers—anyone that basically carries goods, not people. We are amending

through this bill the definition of ‘freight broker’ to clarify that it includes contractors employed

through third-party platforms, and increasingly global third-party platforms. As the former minister

said, it even includes bicycles. It is a bill that is for now but also for the future, and it is very, very

much about safety, as the minister talked about.

Owner-drivers and small businesses through this bill will gain accurate information around their

operating costs and the commercial relationships with hirers. By having this information at the onset,

before they accept the job, they will be able to ensure that they are able to make that job work for their

business model and that the potential contract that they are about to sign onto will provide a sufficient

rate to cover their operating costs so they are not then forced to make up lost ground, as it were, putting

themselves and the public at risk of injury or fatality.

This bill also goes further. It provides, as I think the previous speaker said, transparency according to

a 30-day payment schedule or other payment schedules by agreement if they are fair and reasonable.

These are all things that matter to an owner-driver from the perspective that they are usually run on a

very light model. Usually the owner-driver themselves does the paperwork and bookwork. They may

have a bit of a helping hand, but there is not a lot of fat in these businesses where they can spend hours

and low human resources working out the cost model of their business or the benefit of a particular

contract, whereas often our hirers do have that capacity—that is the difference.

The bill will ensure that vehicles can be properly maintained. Therefore because of the life cycle costs

of the operating model of that particular owner-driver it will ensure road safety. It will also improve,

as I mentioned earlier, dispute resolution. Rather than having the laborious process of VCAT, we are

going to empower the small business commissioner to arbitrate in these matters, and I think that is also

very, very important.

There is a clear link—and this is a big part of the impetus of this bill—between road safety, particularly

given this cohort of drivers, the cost pressures they are under and the power imbalance between them

and their hirers. This is exactly what this bill seeks to address, as I have said, in a way that provides

transparency and empowers those owner-drivers to make good business decisions—decisions that are

also for their own and the public’s safety.

Now, just on that point, I wanted to just add my words to what others on our side have already said

about the other criticism, despite the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill, which I think is

wise—I do not think they can do anything other than support it because it was such a big public issue.

But the lead speaker on their side talked about how somehow it is a strange concept that we on the one

hand would put up this bill, which does not mandate a set of cost schedules or fees, but on the other

BILLS


side as a government purchasing goods we set minimum standards for these owner-drivers in the

context of procurement. I do not see any problem with that. We are legislators and policymakers in

this context and we are also procurers of a service in the latter context. In that context we seek to pay

fair compensation to people who do business with the state of Victoria. As a taxpayer and citizen, I

think that is entirely important, but we do not also mandate that with the rest of industry. We hope

through both our intervention as a procurer of services but also as a legislator in terms of this bill that

we lift the standard of industry across the board and by doing so we lift the safety of the Victorian

public. I commend the bill to the house, and I commend the work of the former minister, the current

Treasurer, the IRV, the industry and the unions who engaged with us in this.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (15:10): I am pleased to be able to join the debate on the Owner Drivers

and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. There are couple of things I will say before I get into

the content of the bill. But this bill, as we know, was introduced into Parliament, I think, in August last

year. In the lower house it was debated, and it has been almost 10 months since that time. It got stuck

in the upper house—the government were unable to pass it during the last Parliament. And we have

seen it come back mid-year, so it cannot have been high on the list of priorities to bring this one back.

The bill itself proposes to make quite a number of changes to the Owner Drivers and Forestry

Contractors Act 2005. I am going to spend most of my time talking about the forestry contractors,

because that is an area that I am very familiar with and is certainly important to my electorate.

But I do want to touch on a couple of the points that I think are fairly important that this bill is looking

to address. First of all, the requirement to pay invoices within 30 days of receipt I think is important.

We are understanding here that people working in this sector are essentially small businesses and, as

such, cash flow is extremely important, so to have invoices paid in a timely manner is very critical. If

some of those invoices are very large—and they can be—it is all the more important, because we are

talking about small business operators who need to keep a roof over their heads and make sure that

they can provide for themselves and their families.

Certainly in the forestry contractors area this is really about the harvest and haulage sector. There are

a number of issues that are facing this sector at the moment. They have particular concerns about their

future, and I will touch on that shortly.

The heart of this bill I think is that it aims to strengthen the act to support owner-operators. It is

important to recognise, as I have mentioned, that owner-operators are basically responsible for their

own income, and that is really important to them. Being responsible for your own income actually has

a number of risks, and it is so important that people that are working in this space understand their

rights and their risks and where their finances will be exposed. Being paid in a timely manner, whether

that is from a large organisation, from people holding government contracts or from the government

itself, is really important. It is equally important that people working in this space are able to make

informed decisions in deciding whether or not to enter into those contracts, and actually what it does

mean once they enter.

I want to now just focus on the lack of transparency of the government. The previous speaker said that

we are supporting this bill. Actually the coalition is not opposing this bill, and I think the member for

Oakleigh may have realised that there is a difference. We do have a number of areas of concern, and

one of the areas of concern is the lack of transparency around the review that was done of the act,

which the government has claimed this bill is based on. That review of the act was done in 2016. That

review has not been released, so the question is why has that not been released. Information in that

review should provide a greater understanding of how this bill was put together and what are the

important issues—I think obviously there is something to hide. We are told that the review found

widespread non-compliance, but we have not seen the evidence to support that, so it is a little bit

difficult to know. Apparently the government have also completed a legislative impact assessment

into the costs and benefits, but that also has not been publicly released. That is one of the concerns.

BILLS


I want to just focus now on the forest contractors’ point of view, because I have a lot of people in my

electorate who rely on harvest and haulage as their key business. They are extremely worried about

the future of their businesses. There are a number of issues. We have had a failure by this government

to act and provide certainty around timber allocations and around the forestry agreements, and that has

really just not been good enough because we have people who have not known from year to year

whether they will have the work the next year. Sometimes when they undertake the work they want

to do it more efficiently and invest in new gear. That machinery, that gear, is extremely expensive. If

you are going to be forking out $100 000 or several hundred thousand dollars, you want to know that

you are going to get a return on your investment, and with the lack of certainty in this area people

working in this field, the families, are extremely stressed. I talk very regularly to people who are

extremely stressed. We have people who have had changes made to timber allocations. They may

have had an allocation to deal with the ash and then they have got to change their milling operations

to that of mixed species. This means they have to change a whole lot of procedures, the way they do

things, and it is certainly not a cheap exercise.

Not so long ago—in April actually—I attended a timber release plan briefing for the forestry industry

at Powelltown, a very small town in my electorate that has historically been and is known as being a

timber town. This briefing was conducted by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

staff. I commend the DELWP staff who were there. There was quite a number of them and they did

well to facilitate engagement and draw out the key issues affecting the timber industry. I was also

impressed that the acting regional director for Port Phillip, Stephen Chapple, was in the audience, and

he listened intently. I do hope the work that was undertaken at that session was actually fed back to

government, because there was some very important information that I think the government has been

overlooking.

The attendees at that session were exceptionally passionate. I think the department may have been a

little bit surprised about the degree of passion that was there and about how hurt and concerned these

people are for their future. One of the questions that was put to DELWP employees at the end of the

night was, ‘Look, this is our opportunity. When is it that environmental groups will have these sorts

of workshops?’. They were given the response that they have an open door to the minister’s office. So

you can imagine how concerned and upset these workers were. A lot of them were haulage guys, a lot

of them were millers and some of them were the families of those workers. They were extremely

worried. They think it is the green groups, the environmental groups, that are getting the ear of the

minister and not the timber workers. So we have got, on the one hand, the government saying, ‘We’re

reviewing this act because we want to make things better for owner-drivers and forestry contractors’,

but on the other hand what they are showing is anything but that. They are really showing a lack of

faith in this sector, and it is extremely distressing and disappointing that this has happened.

On top of the uncertainty around the timber allocations and forestry agreements, we have also had a

lot of green activists hold up work at the coupes and have had work suspended. What this means then

is that if you do not do the work, you do not get paid. So we have a whole lot of people operating in

this space, in the forestry contractors’ space, who cannot earn money. They are sitting there waiting

because we have had activists running in front of the machinery, which is extremely dangerous to

operations. It slows down and sometimes stops the harvesting, which is obviously what the activists

want. But at other times they have tied themselves to the machinery or tied themselves to trees. I think

these are extremely irresponsible acts, and I do not think the government have acted quickly enough

to get on top of this.

A lot of it is in the name of the Leadbeater’s possum. I think the numbers of Leadbeater’s possum are

far greater than the green activists would have you believe. I know that at a minimum it is about 2500

to 10 000, but if you listen to government workers on the ground, they will say that those numbers

could be as high as 20 000. It was not long ago, perhaps a year ago, that I was driving home one night

along Melba Highway, just near the Kinglake National Park, and lo and behold out in front of me ran

a little Leadbeater’s possum. A week later I went to download the image from my dash cam and found

BILLS


out that my images only went back five days, so I was unable to use that. But the numbers are there.

We have activists using this as an excuse to stop forestry at a time when the demand for timber has

never been so high. We have unprecedented growth in Melbourne. People love the warmth of timber.

They want timber stairs, timber floors, and they love timber furniture. This is not pine. People are not

after pine furniture. They are not after the blue gums that are used for fibre; they want some fine grade

timber to be harvested. That demand is there. The government really has to recognise this and make it

easier for the industry.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (15:20): I am delighted to join the debate on the Owner Drivers and

Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. At the outset I think it is important to acknowledge the

outstanding contribution made by my friend and colleague the member for Sydenham. I have known

the member for many years. She has been a quiet achiever of the labour movement. The member for

Sydenham I remember played an integral role in the early 1990s when affirmative action targets were

adopted by the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. I was at that conference at Monash University in

about 1993 or 1994.

The member for Sydenham is a very modest person. She is a very serious and considered person, and

she has always conducted herself to the very highest standards. She has been a strong advocate for

women in our party and in this place. She has been a strong advocate of the labour movement, both

inside and outside of this place. It is no surprise to me or to those who know the member for Sydenham

that she was an integral part of developing this legislation. She played a key role in the development

of this legislative response, because it goes to her very core and essence. The member for Sydenham

has always been a proud member of our party and of our movement, and she has been a passionate

advocate for the rights of women and the rights of workers. I think the member is very thoughtful in

the contributions that she makes. She is very sincere and quite a serious person, but she is not a showy

and flashy person. I just think it is important to place this on the record because sometimes when you

have got people like the member for Sydenham, because they are not flashy and because they are not

showy and because they are not self-promoters, what they do is sometimes forgotten and it is

sometimes not noticed or recognised or applauded. It should be, because she should be very proud of

the contribution that she has made in this place, that she has made in advancing the cause of women

in the labour movement and that she has made in advancing the cause of the labour movement more

broadly. She has made an outstanding contribution, and I have no doubt that the member for Sydenham

will continue to make an excellent contribution in this place in the years to come.

The reason why we are bringing forward a bill like this is that on this side of the house we recognise

that there is market failure evident and present in this sector. The reality is that our nation is in the

economic doldrums. The most recent GDP data shows that the economy grew by 1.8 per cent. This is

at a time when you have got significant company profits and you have got significant shareholder

returns occurring. But the problem is that workers are struggling—workers are not being fairly paid—

and you are looking at widespread and systemic wage stagnation that is occurring. When you have got

a set of circumstances where workers are not being properly remunerated and where they do not feel

that they have got a level of job security, this has a significant impact on the economy.

If you think back to before the GFC, our economy was growing consistently at well over 2.5 per cent

to 3 per cent. Year in, year out we were growing quite significantly. These figures, and these are

national figures—they are not state figures—show that the Australian economy is struggling. I am

pleased to indicate that if you look at the recent budget figures, both in terms of gross state product

here in Victoria and state final demand, that is not the case. That is partly due to the strong economic

injection that the state government is making in relation to its capital works agenda and its

expansionary agenda. The long-term average of capital investment in Victoria from 2006 to 2014 by

the public sector was $4.9 billion. Across the forward estimates it is well over $13 billion here in

Victoria. If you look at the size of the public sector relative to the state economy, we are about 25 per

cent, so I am not suggesting that by having this expansionary policy we have got a controlling impact

on the economy. We are not a command and control economy. But what we are seeing is a very large

BILLS


injection occurring, and that is providing a degree of confidence throughout the economy, and the

economy as a result is growing quite significantly here in Victoria. But we need to make sure that

where there is market failure like we are seeing—where you have got this level of uncertainty, where

you have got owner-drivers who are being disadvantaged—the state takes action to address it.

Preparing for this bill I was recalling a conversation I had at the Melbourne Business School when I

was studying my MBA about 15 years ago. One of the Harvard case studies related to an air freight

business in America, in Colorado. The workers were overwhelmingly women who would go out in

the dead of night to pack and sort packages, and they were being paid the princely sum of something

like $7 an hour. I remember raising it with the lecturer. I said, ‘I do have an issue with the hourly rate

of pay’. The lecturer, who was a Canadian chap, said to me, ‘Do you think they’re being paid too

much?’. I responded emphatically, ‘No. If you’re getting up at 2.00 a.m. to sort packages in Colorado,

you should be getting paid penalty rates because that is what the appropriate thing to do is’.

But it did strike me that people tend to sometimes look at these things through a different lens, and

unfortunately what we are seeing at the moment is that the interests of working families—working

people—and people who work in blue-collar industries are not being adequately represented and there

is not a fairness that is being applied to the way in which workers are remunerated. That is why we

need to act; it is as simple that. If you did not have market failure in this place, there would be no need

to act and we would not be here having this conversation. The fact of the matter is that you have got

owner-drivers who take on a significant amount of debt or tie up a significant amount of their capital

in order to buy their property, plant and equipment to run a job, and as a consequence of that they need

to have some level of security about the way in which they are remunerated. That is why we have

brought a bill like this to this place—to ensure that that is in place. You need to make sure that there

is an appropriate compliance and enforcement regime in place, which this bill addresses, because there

is not much point looking at trying to have an appropriate regulatory regime in place without there

being suitable penalties in place where there are incidents of non-compliance.

I am pleased to see that the bill also empowers the Small Business Commission to look at resolving

disputes. Again when I think of the Small Business Commission I think of my friend the former

member for Footscray, the Honourable Marsha Thomson, who introduced that legislation in the first

term of the Bracks government as a way of trying to provide an honest broker to resolve disputes

between smaller business operators and larger corporations. So this is an important legislative

measure.

I am also pleased to note that the transport and forestry industry councils will play a key role in looking

at the way in which this act is administered and the regulations that are developed. That is a fair and

appropriate measure to ensure that you have got the ability to make sure that the regulatory regime is

appropriate.

This is an important piece of legislation. Bills like this are the reason why I joined the labour movement

and why I believe in the power of parliamentary democracy. It is about making sure that workers are

properly and fairly represented and remunerated and it is about making sure that where there is market

failure there is a role for the state to step in. I am really pleased that we have brought this bill before

the house, and I commend the member for Sydenham for her extensive commitment to our party and

our movement. This bill does her justice.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (15:30): I rise to make a contribution on the Owner Drivers and

Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. I would just take up a little bit of commentary that has

occurred on the other side of the house. I noted when I was sitting in my office that the member for

Oakleigh, who was speaking on the forestry contractors bill, commented, ‘We are the party of small

business and great supporters of small business’. I would like to invite the member for Oakleigh down

to have a yarn to Robbie Brunt, Richard Pelz and Andy Westaway, a couple of logging contractors—

big burly boys—in my electorate who at the moment, because of lack of security of supply to their

BILLS


industry, I do not think are thinking this government is the great friend of small business that the

member for Oakleigh would make it out to be.

The member for Essendon mentioned that these owner-operators borrow a lot of money to invest in

plant and equipment and they need certainty around their remuneration. What he failed to mention

was that in relation to the forestry industry they also need great certainty around their access to resource

and some security around their supply contracts. So we come in here and we talk about some of the

things that are fluffy and feel good for the mob on that side, but when we get down to the real stuff of

what is impacting on these businesses in rural and regional areas, the Robbie Brunts, the Andy

Westaways and the Richard Pelzes, who are important employers in their own town, are getting

absolutely shafted by the lack of resources and the lack of supply and security.

There are some changes in this bill that will be welcomed by the sector, such as the respecification of

the purposes of the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005, which include promotion of

transport industry best practice, education and training. There are some others that were covered off

by the lead speaker on our side. That is the reason why we will not be opposing this bill.

But I would like to talk in relation to this bill about some data around the timber industry in Victoria.

I am very disappointed to see there are no Greens members in the chamber to talk about the forest

industry and there are no Greens speakers listed to talk about this very important bill. That is very

disappointing. But I want to put on the record again some data around the timber industry here in

Victoria. Plantations are an important part of our resource. We hear this all the time and I do not think

anyone would disagree with that, but they are not a replacement for our existing native timber industry.

These two industries need to go hand in hand.

Of the 7.8 million hectares of public native forest in Victoria, 94 per cent of that is unavailable or

unsuitable for timber harvesting—94 per cent. This figure is not something that has been produced by

the timber industry. This figure has been produced by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. Only

6 per cent is available to the industry. That is proof that timber harvesting is permitted in only a very

small area. It is around 0.04 per cent that is harvested per annum. Now when you think about that 6 per

cent, compare it to countries like Finland which harvests 83 per cent, Sweden 78 per cent or Norway

68 per cent, and they harvest that timber sustainably. But that is the percentage of their forest area that

is indeed open for harvesting, and America’s is well over 50 per cent as well.

I want to get into why we need a native timber industry in Victoria in addition to growing our plantation

timber. Now appearance-grade timber, the high-quality timber, cannot be grown in plantations viably.

This is a high-quality timber that our marketplace demands. Supporting this, we had a gentleman,

Professor Rod Keenan, from the University of Melbourne, who stated:

Victoria’s current plantation crop is generally not the right mix of species and has not been managed to

produce products for construction, flooring or joinery.

There is a reason why that mix is not being grown in our plantations: because, as the Poyry report

pointed out, it cannot be grown viably. He also said:

Moving to a plantation-only timber industry in Victoria has been suggested as a way to transition out of native

forest harvesting.

However, there are not enough plantations in Victoria to produce the volume of timber required to meet the

community demand …

The argument would have to be, ‘Well, let’s have more plantations’, and we agree with that—

absolutely, let us have more plantations—but they are not going to grow the appearance-grade timber

that our industry and our consumers demand.

The point is also made that Victoria and Australia are net importers of timber—can you believe that

in this country we are net importers of timber?—and a component of these products is obviously

BILLS


imported from native forests in other countries. So when we refer to plantations being unable to

provide appearance-grade timber, that clearly shows plantation timber cannot be a direct substitute.

The Poyry report also found that if sawlogs were not available, appearance-grade timber would be

replaced by imports. This of course would come from countries with less oversight and countries with

less governance than we have here in Victoria. The report stated that hardwood plantation sawlogs,

even if they are grown unviably, do not have the same wood qualities as native forest sawlogs and that

Victoria’s hardwood plantation estate is based around blue gum, a species which is not grown for its

appearance-grade quality. So if we remove the ability to harvest high-quality timber and it cannot

come from plantations, it is going to be replaced by imports.

Tim Johnston, the CEO of the Victorian Association of Forestry Industries, outlined this pretty well.

He said that consumer demand for certain products made it impossible to transition to an entirely

plantation-based timber industry, and he is right. He said that the plantation estate and the native

forestry estate were two separate and distinct resources. He said it was not a case of either/or, we need

both, and he is right. On top of the Poyry report, the Deloitte Access Economics report found that if

native timber harvesting ceased, substitutes would be imported—reinforcing what was in the Poyry

report. The reason given is that plantation timber is only suitable for paper and lower grade products

and is not a substitute for native timber.

When we have greater levels of imports from countries with less oversight because you have closed

down the native timber industry here in Victoria, we will have people marching up and down on the

front steps of Parliament House saying ‘You are threatening the habitat of the orangutan’. Now, we

cannot have the best of both worlds. We have got a well-managed timber industry here in Victoria

with high levels of oversight. If you want to close that down, we are going to import appearance-grade

timber from countries that do not have that oversight. But these people who normally sit up here just

behind me, that are not here now, live in this little dream world of butterflies and fairy floss and

rainbows where everything is going to be fantastic. They are not in touch with the reality of life and

how things are on the ground.

I also want to mention another aspect of the Deloitte Access Economics report related to firefighting,

particularly in the Central Highlands area, that showed that firefighting would be far more difficult

without the native timber industry to call on. This is the industry that provides the machinery to the

front line of our fires when they break out. We are also advised, funnily enough, that the biggest threat

to the Leadbeater’s possum is fire, not the timber industry—the biggest threat is fire, and that is

recognised. That is the advice we get; that advice is right.

So here we are looking at closing down the industry that in the time of need in a fire will provide the

greatest protections to the Leadbeater’s possum. It is another case where it does not have to be

either/or. We can have a native timber industry and we can look after our native species in the other

94 per cent of our forests that the timber industry does not access. We can have a balanced approach

like, as politicians and parliaments, we have to have balanced approaches in a whole range of sectors.

With practices all over the world that are not environmentally friendly and that are causing destruction

in areas that really should not be decimated, we should not be attacking an industry in a state and a

country that does have high levels of oversight, that does have social conscience and utilises in this state

in particular 6 per cent of the resource that is available to it. I mentioned earlier Finland, 83 per cent;

Sweden, 78 per cent; Norway, 68 per cent—that is the area of forest in their country that is available to

the timber industry. We need to support our contractors, and I call on the government to do so.

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (15:40): I am delighted to speak on the Owner Drivers and

Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. As some of you in this place may know, in my previous

career I was a small business owner, also a member of the Labor party—go figure—and also an IT

consultant. One of our clients which I assisted in serving for well over a decade was the Transport

Workers Union. I was fortunate enough to see how hard the leaders and organisers of the TWU fight

BILLS


for their members and for safety on our roads. When I first started working for the TWU the secretary

was a man by the name of Bill Noonan, and I note that last August the previous member for

Williamstown—his son, Wade Noonan—spoke passionately on this bill. I would have been assisting

the TWU in my previous capacity when the original legislation came in in 2005 before the Parliament,

and I am proud to add my voice to their cause today on this much-needed amendment.

This bill at its core seeks to ensure that our Victorian roads are safer by ensuring thousands of owner-

drivers, forestry contractors and on-demand workers are paid a living wage. This bill will ensure these

workers will no longer be vulnerable to exploitation or forced into unsafe practices by economic

pressures down supply chains.

The bill also expands the act to cover third-party contracting platforms such as Uber Freight and Uber

Eats, which are to be included in the definition of ‘freight broker’. So whether you are driving a B-

double hauling timber or riding a bike running dumplings with soy sauce, this bill provides comfort

for small business owner-drivers.

The big ticket items here are the prevention of undercutting joint agreements and penalties for non-

compliance; payments being made to owner-drivers within 30 days of invoice receipt; a new low-cost

binding dispute resolution process at the Small Business Commission; and providing information for

small business owner-drivers and forestry contractors to understand the revenue and costs of the

business they are starting, with a framework for the regulation of contracts between owner-drivers,

forestry contractors and their hirers.

The purpose of this bill, as I said, is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Owner Drivers and

Forestry Contractors Act 2005, which was introduced by the Bracks Labor government, another

delivering Labor government—we have had a few of those. Before this act was introduced workers

were facing more and more increased demand on their work while simultaneously seeing less and less

come home in their back pockets. This provided basic protections for owner-drivers by recognising

the power imbalance between owner-drivers operating one to three vehicles versus big companies and

big hirers, and aimed to improve the protections of small business drivers

The amendments in this bill seek to address changes that have occurred in this industry since 2005. If

owner-drivers and forestry contractors can cover their operational costs and maintain their vehicles,

we will have greater safety for drivers and for our road users. It sounds fairly simple, but for anyone

who has run their own small business, day to day is rarely simple. We do not want drivers being forced

into situations where they need to work additional hours to cover operating costs. This bill seeks to

remedy this problem which is occurring now. As the previous member for Williamstown mentioned

12 months ago, and it is still relevant today, long-haul driving means an exposure to multiple risks:

long working hours, sedentary roles, poor access to nutritious food, social isolation, shift work, time

pressures, low levels of job control and of course the biggest risk of all being fatigue. But if you are a

small business owner-driver you can add running the books, negotiating contracts, chasing payments,

managing cash flow and the list goes on. Just because you get home does not mean you stop working.

Now, being paid fairly can be the difference between being able to put food on the table for your kids

that week or not. And if you are not being paid fairly, it may force some to push that maintenance for

their truck one week further out, and this is obviously something we cannot advocate for as a society.

Improving the protections available to small businesses—namely, owner-drivers in the transport

industry and haulage contractors in the forestry industry—means a lot for our drivers. Drivers do a

dangerous job when they keep Australia moving, and it is important that the right protections and

workers rights are in place for them. Especially important here is the amending of contracting

requirements in the act to require the payment of invoices within 30 days. I know that members from

both sides have mentioned this being a very good thing.

Having worked as a small business owner, I understand that what you really want to do is actually do

the work. When starting a small business you are most likely living month to month, and that gets

BILLS


even harder when you do not know if the money is coming in 60 days, 90 days or even longer. Our

owner-drivers want to drive and earn a living. Chasing a hirer for a payment 120 days overdue means

you are not earning. Arguing over a contract means you are not driving and you are not earning. These

are the problems that this bill seeks to remedy.

Starting up businesses is hard, and this amendment bill will ensure that new drivers and forestry

contractors have a better understanding of the costs of the new job they will be undertaking. Our

owner-drivers need this bill and their families need this bill. This bill is not only about establishing a

framework for compliance and enforcement but also ensuring this framework is used by introducing

penalties for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the act. These amendments ensure

owner-drivers and forestry contractors better understand cost structures, the importance of negotiating

fair contracts and running successful small businesses.

This amendment bill will clarify the definition of ‘freight broker’, ensuring contractors employed

through third-party contracting platforms like Uber Freight are covered. The act will now require a

hirer or a freight broker to provide the rates and costs schedule annually rather than each time the

contractor is engaged. It also amends the act to clarify that contractors have the option of being covered

by the same terms and conditions of an existing contract that has been jointly negotiated while at the

same time retaining the ability to negotiate their own contractual arrangements. This is important to

ensure consistency and in order for start-up drivers to be able to forecast their finances.

This bill will also amend the functions of the Transport Industry Council and the Forestry Industry

Council to specify that they can provide advice and make recommendations to the minister on

promoting industry best practice, education and training. These councils are made up of members from

industry, employee associations and government, and they are responsible for making

recommendations to the minister on industrial relations and on commercial practices affecting owner-

drivers and forestry contractors.

As a previous small business owner, I understand the trials and tribulations of trying to settle a dispute

over accounts. The last thing you need to do is end up in court or VCAT. It is costly, it is stressful, you

do not want to be there. The process is not just costly; it also takes so much time and you are not

earning. For owner-drivers who have disputes with hirers, this new amendment creates a dispute

resolution procedure which specifies that the small business commission can arrange arbitration where

the parties to the dispute agree. This means drivers can now have a faster low-cost, confidential,

binding dispute resolution process for parties in dispute.

This bill strengthens the initial act from 2005 to ensure that issues that inevitably affect the wellbeing

of drivers are considered and addressed. It understands the owner-driver’s role is essentially that of a

small business owner and seeks to implement basic rights to even out the playing field between owner-

driver and hirers. I do not know if there is one person in this room who would be impressed to have to

wait a random 30, 60 or 90 days to see their pay roll in. Enshrining basic protections around payment

due dates is incredibly important. The owner-drivers and contract drivers industry needs education,

enforcement and compliance, and this bill will deliver it.

The people making recommendations to the minister need to be people who speak on behalf of these

workers and who understand their roles. Amending the bill to specify that the Transport Industry

Council and the Forestry Industry Council can provide advice and make recommendations to the

minister on promoting industry best practice, education and training is also incredibly important, as I

said.

These reforms will hopefully see improvements for owner-drivers—I think they will. Drivers should

be getting paid on time, drivers should be safe at work and drivers should be getting paid fairly. The

Transport Workers Union have worked hard and advocated at every opportunity to drive safer

outcomes for their members and the industry. I would like to congratulate John Berger, his staff,

BILLS


organisers, delegates and members of the Victoria-Tasmania branch for their tireless efforts in making

their members safer.

But let us also note that every one of us that share the roads with our owner-driver mates are also safer

because of this bill. Ensuring that contractors can cover their business costs and maintain vehicles will

result in greater safety for all our road users as drivers will not need to work additional hours,

potentially breaching fatigue laws or road laws to cover the cost of running their business. I commend

this bill to the house.

Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) (15:50): I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution on

the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019. At the outset, I would like to

acknowledge that I certainly support all the comments made by my colleagues on this side of the house

on this particular bill, and it is so pleasing to have such support from my colleagues, who understand

very much how the transport and forestry industries do work in this state.

This bill aims to amend the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005, which was originally

a bill that was introduced by the Bracks government. That bill led to the establishment of a Transport

Industry Council and a Forestry Industry Council. I was a founding member of the Forestry Industry

Council in 2005 and 2006, representing the Victorian Forest Harvesting and Cartage Council and the

chair at that time was Neil Pope, a former member of this house as member for Monbulk. The

composition of that council consisted of representatives from VicForests, the Victorian Forest

Harvesting and Cartage Council, the CFMEU forestry division and plantation companies. That council

aimed to protect contractors by providing them with advice on appropriate rates. There was a schedule

of rates that could be referred to during the preparation of a tender. It was not like an ambit claim from

the union or a log of claims, and it was not mandatory, merely a guide.

Some in this house may know that I spent over 30 years in the timber industry as a harvesting and

haulage contractor and was a fourth-generation member of my family to be involved in the timber

industry, so I feel I am qualified to give some background on the lead-up to and introduction of the

original legislation in 2005. When I first started in the industry a typical logging crew would consist

of a hand faller and a dozer operator. Once the faller had felled the tree, the dozer—usually a

D6 Caterpillar or equivalent—would drag the logs to a landing, which consisted of a ramp constructed

and located beside the road. The dozer would roll the logs up the ramp and onto the truck. It was a

very simple operation with minimum outlay and minimum overheads, but trust me: it was very hard

and dangerous physical work.

Then around the mid-1970s contractors introduced wheel loaders for the task of loading trucks and

then from about 1988 followed the lead of the Tasmanian industry and began to move away from

wheel loaders to excavators for loading, debarking and stockpiling the logs at the landing, which were

now increasingly being dragged by rubber-tyred skidders. The dozer was principally used for road and

track construction and the establishment of mineral earth boundary trails around the area to be

harvested. The industry was gradually becoming more sophisticated, production was increasing and,

most importantly, safety was also improving. However, the biggest risks were still present—having

our chainsaw operators and tree fallers still exposed to elements such as falling limbs and unforeseen

incidents. The only answer was to get these employees into the safety of a machine.

New technology had been developing fast, and for almost 20 years mechanical harvesting had been

deployed very successfully in the smaller-diameter timber grown in plantations. The hardwood timber

industry began a significant transition from about 1998, adopting new technology which enabled the

industry to move away from traditional hand-falling and manual crosscutting to mechanical

harvesting. This was a groundbreaking period for the hardwood industry in Victoria, and as contractors

adopted the new equipment it increased productivity significantly but, more importantly, greatly

enhanced the safety of the forest worker. But naturally, this new, modern, highly technical and

industry-specific equipment was very costly. Harvesting contractors had moved from one machine to

BILLS


multiple machines. A typical harvesting crew with a capital cost of around $150 000 many years ago

was now costing more than $4 million to set up.

Of course the same was happening in the haulage sector, as trucks became bigger and more powerful

with increased capacity, and the introduction of B-doubles more recently has seen the capital cost

increase enormously. My first new truck, purchased in 1974, cost $20 000. Today the outlay for the

truck with the biggest legally allowable carrying capacity will be at least $500 000.

As I have said, over this time productivity has increased but through the late-1990s and into the early-

2000s it was becoming increasingly difficult for forestry contractors to cover their capital outlay and

get a reasonable rate of return. That is why the Bracks government in 2005 saw the need to assist by

passing legislation that put in place a Forestry Industry Council that would provide advice to forestry

contractors on rates specific to the machines they were using and the volumes they were contracted to

harvest and haul. But of course there are plenty of other risks to a forestry contractor’s viability such

as the radical Greens who influence government policy, and the ferals who break the law, trespass on

logging coupes, compromise the safety of themselves and the forestry workers and prevent

hardworking, law-abiding citizens from going about their lawful activities.

We witnessed this type of illegal action just recently when a bunch of ferals invaded a logging coupe

on Ballantynes Saddle about 20 kilometres east of Noojee. For 11 days the harvest and haulage

contractors and their employees were denied their right to work and earn an income. The sloppy and

recalcitrant attitude of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Resources (DJPR) in this instance was

an absolute disgrace. Normally authorised officers would be deployed to this protest within 24 hours.

The protesters would be asked to leave, and as is normally the case the protesters would refuse, which

then triggers a call to police to alert search and rescue that they are required to dismantle a tree sit and

a machine lock-on.

Within 48 hours this type of protest would be removed and the timber harvesting would be resumed

after a thorough check of the machines for vandalism and the coupe for any devices that had

deliberately been planted by the ferals to cause harm to forest workers. This latest protest took

264 hours to end. The lack of action of DJPR was blamed on a shortage of authorised officers, but this

was obviously not the real reason for their recalcitrance because they were offered qualified authorised

officers by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and VicForests and declined those

offers of assistance, showing a complete lack of regard for the forest workers and their families.

While there are some concerns with this bill, such as the Uber blue transport and the compliance and

enforcement elements of the bill, the majority of industry do support it. On that basis we will not be

opposing the bill.

I should also mention before I close that Philip Dalidakis, who has just announced his retirement from

the Legislative Council, has been a long-time supporter of the industry. He was CEO of the Victorian

Association of Forest Industries for some years and a great supporter of the industry, based on a great

understanding of what the industry actually does do and what it does to ensure that Victorians have

access to high-quality, high appearance-grade timber, and also understands the industry can survive

on the area that it has to harvest without any compromise or threat to threatened species. It is sad to

see him go. I know he has been a very proud and very strong supporter of the industry in cabinet while

he has been a minister, and I want to thank him for the time that he put into speaking up for the industry.

He will certainly be missed by this Parliament from that point of view and from this side of the house

on that point of view.

The Forestry Industry Council and the Transport Industry Council have an important role to play. They

do have an opportunity to do their best to make sure that contractors who invest a lot of money in

equipment in both of those sectors are not taken advantage of, they are not cut short in terms of the

terms and conditions that they work under, and that they have the support of government because of

BILLS


the information that those two groups actually pass through to the minister. So I think from that point

of view it is a very important role.

As I said, I was a member of the inaugural Forestry Industry Council for two years, and it was a time

when the industry was transitioning and changing and it was a time where rates were really struggling

to keep up with the investment and the capital outlay. But since that time it has improved, and I think

the role of the Forestry Industry Council in particular has played a major part in that catch-up and I

guess also in ensuring that contractors have the ability to create the safe places of work that it is

incumbent on them to supply. So from a safety point of view it is extremely important. You cannot

make a safe place of work if you cannot afford to buy good machinery, and you have to have good

rates and be paid regularly to be able to afford good machinery with the latest technology, which does

enhance safety and productivity. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (15:59): It is with some pleasure that I rise tonight to speak

on the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019, and I do so having had, through

my father, a connection with the forestry industry. We moved to Australia in the late 1980s, and my

father commenced work shortly after that at the University of Melbourne school of forestry located

out at Creswick. The University of Melbourne and its school of forestry was one of the primary places

in which the forestry industry engaged the necessary research and training skills to ensure that that

industry grew and developed and that the necessary reforms were put in place to make sure that the

forestry industry remained sustainable.

Through my father’s connections we of course got to know many of his colleagues and many timber

workers and very much got to see firsthand the reform and the change that was taking place through

that industry. As quite a number of the speakers have touched on, the practices of the logging industry

of course have changed greatly over the last 20 to 30 years, particularly in terms of the introduction of

mechanisation, which not only enables timber to be harvested, it enables it to be harvested in a safer

way.

We as road users also have I think a right, and that right is to be able to access our roads and to do so

in the knowledge that contractors, that road users and that trucking companies are treating their

workers in a fair way, that they are not being underpaid and exploited in terms of overtime and the

like. We say that because we not only agree as an Andrews Labor government with the principle of a

fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, we also want to see our roads being a safe place, or as safe as

possible, and having fatigued drivers under great stress to work more hours than what is safe to be able

to provide for their families is not only unfair for those in that industry but also very unfair and unsafe

for the rest of us as road users.

This bill very much goes to addressing some of the shortcomings of the 2005 act, which I think is a

good act, but unfortunately the enforcement mechanisms do not exist within it, which means that the

legislation in many ways prior to these reforms did not have the necessary regulatory teeth to deal with

exploitation. These arrangements that we are proposing to be introduced have, as I understand it, been

through a detailed consultation. Industry largely supports it. I note that the Transport Workers Union

were involved in the consultation, and I think these arrangements will make it much fairer for those

workers.

As has been noted, Labor has been a champion of small business, and the nature of the logging

industry, the nature of the construction industry, is that the majority of workers in those industries are

employed as contractors and usually through small business. We want to make sure that there is an

opportunity for small business to deal with large industries in a fair way so that the contracts that are

on offer are fair, that those that are asked to sign contracts to provide a business service are

compensated fairly and adequately for what they are doing and that those arrangements are put in place

in a way in which those small businesses do not unnecessarily have to exploit workers or indeed have

themselves as owners of small businesses to work dangerous hours. That of course creates enormous

difficulties for all of us as road users.

BILLS


Labor has a very proud tradition of standing up for small business, standing up for people who work

within small business and standing up for working families. These amendments build on our historic

values that we have as not only a party but a movement. When we are provided that opportunity of

government, we put in place legislation that drives fairness.

We know that in the logging industry to establish a business is not a cheap thing to do. The equipment

is expensive; it is complex. We want to ensure that those individuals that take that business risk, make

that investment and create that opportunity do so in a way in which they can earn fair money for what

they do and can pay people fairly for what they do and that provides all of us as road users with a safe

set of circumstances where we do not see fatigued workers operating big, expensive equipment when

it is not safe to do so.

I am very proud to have made just a small contribution in terms of this. Labor, as I said, has that history

of standing up for small business, standing up for workers and standing up for road users. This bill very

much builds on Labor’s legacy. I hope this bill passes. It is pleasing to hear that certainly in this chamber

there appears to be some level of bipartisan support. I would like to see more bipartisan support in terms

of the concept of safe rates, not just in the trucking industry but in many other occupations. I will not

hold my breath. But I do look forward to seeing this bill pass this place, pass the Council in due course

and be implemented in a timely way. And I look forward to noting, hopefully, that our roads become

safer, that wage injustice in this industry is turned around and that we see continued cooperation

between small business, workers, government and the industry as a whole to ensure that this particular

occupation is profitable going forward; that there is not small business exploitation, worker exploitation

or unnecessary fatalities on our roads. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (16:09): I am pleased to contribute to the Owner Drivers and Forestry

Contractors Amendment Bill 2019 and acknowledge that members opposite are not opposing the bill.

I thought we might just start, before we get to some of the detail, by just touching on the workplace in

general that we are referring to here, particularly for owner-drivers. If we look at the Transport

Accident Commission website, 16 June 2019, we see at the moment our road toll—or lives lost, as we

are inclined to talk about it today, is 150—150 lives lost here in Victoria, up 53 per cent from the same

time last year.

That is a salient point for a lot of reasons. It reflects the danger for owner-drivers, like many others

who use our roads, but they do so as their workplace—it is a dangerous workplace, and that is

something we should not forget. I also want to acknowledge that in some of the discussions we have

as members of Parliament in relation to roads, as you would know, Speaker—Rosanna Road, for

example—owner-drivers, particularly when it comes to haulage and freight, can sometimes be

demonised when their task or their role is to get goods to and from shopping centres, supermarkets

and other places that are right in the heart of suburban and metropolitan Melbourne and the electorates

that many of us represent. They do so on the infrastructure that is available to them. Part of the

investments and the work with regard to projects like North East Link or other projects in our

community that the Andrews government is committed to is about providing better, safer, more

appropriate transport links and networks for many in that industry and particularly for owner-drivers.

What we need to be focused on, its message in part to our community, is that there is an expectation

that government can provide an appropriate and safe workplace and that the Parliament does that. That

means investment in rail and road transport infrastructure that is safer and more in tune with modern

standards for what is required for owner-drivers and that reflects an understanding of what more we

can do to deal with the lives lost on our roads, particularly when we have seen an 80 per cent increase

in rural road fatalities this year alone, some 41 more deaths than this time last year, which is again a

reflection on where a lot of the owner-driver haulage work happens—in regional communities, where

they are taking, bringing and transporting natural resources, as we heard today.

There have been contributions from many members—I have sat through this debate—particularly

from Mount Waverley, from Sydenham, certainly of course from over in Narracan and from across

BILLS


the chamber, members who have distinct engagements and experience. I am sure you will hear also

from the member for Tarneit in relation to their engagement with the transport industry—with all

sectors of it. We have got people involved in haulage—four generations of a family involved at the

heart of that work, members who advocate themselves in their workplaces and whose families have

advocated for the work of people who are owner-drivers and work more broadly in the transport sector.

That reflects also I think on why we have been able to get to a point today where the bill is not opposed

by those opposite. It picks up on the work our government has done in a broader nature around the

labour hire industry in particular, and then we get to the nuts and bolts and how that applies for owner-

drivers in the workplace.

One of the key aspects of the bill that I wanted to reinforce in my broader contribution, in trying to

come at it from some different angles, is that one of the key market failures the bill seeks to address is

a lack of information for small business owner-drivers and forestry contractors to understand their

operating costs in the commercial relationship. Why is that important? Because having that

information before entering into contract negotiations ensures contractors are better placed to

determine whether an offer will fully cover their operating costs, provide a return for their own labour

and provide a return on their business investment. If you get that wrong, owner-drivers at that point

are under huge pressure; they are suddenly under pressure to cut corners, under pressure to put

themselves at risk through fatigue, through stress, through financial stress, and under pressure to meet

deadlines and to meet contract arrangements that are impossible to meet. It is trying to unpick those

pressures, unpick those difficulties that I think has been part of the success of the collaboration we

have had from stakeholders and industry in relation to the bill.

As was stated by the Minister for Industrial Relations:

If owner drivers and forestry contractors can cover their operating costs and maintain their vehicles, this will

result in greater safety for all road users.

That reflects back on the lead speaker for the opposition. I just want to draw out his concerns in relation

to some of the submissions that were made in particular proposals reflected in the bill based on the

discussions and submissions made by key stakeholders through the review process set up by the

Minister for Industrial Relations. Some of those were in confidence, and there has been some criticism

from those opposite as to not making more of that information directly available to the house for

discussion, but I think we have got to understand also the parliamentary committee system and the in-

camera evidence that is given and the submissions that are given. And I think given that there is an

acknowledgement from those opposite that there is wide industry support for this bill and for getting

to the nub of these often commercially sensitive issues and the examples perhaps that have been used

to draw out how we frame legislation that tries to address these issues, I think we do also have to be

careful where there is not always a capacity to provide that level of detail.

We have got to trust that if the intentions are clear about trying to drive better outcomes and better

legislation and better drafting of that to really get to the nub of the pressure points in this industry for

owner-drivers and forestry contractors—and if people are prepared to come to the table in confidence

and provide that information to the owner-drivers and forestry contractors review process set up by

the minister—then I think that is to be commended, and there is a mechanism to use that in the right

instances. I think this is one of the right instances where we have been able to do that.

I know at different times, as many of us would know when doorknocking around our electorates,

particularly on a Sunday afternoon, across West Heidelberg it will be the owner-driver washing their

vehicle—not because it is just a nice pastime and a bit of time out in the front yard; it is because they

have got to get themselves sorted and organised, because they are back out there first thing Monday

morning or later that Sunday night, and that has been a small part of their not-quite-time-out and they

are gearing up for another heavy and busy week.

It is about also acknowledging that for many of us here we are in a pretty safe workplace most of the

time compared to what I have outlined and what people in some other industries have to endure to

BILLS


make a living depending on where their workplace is. It is also about understanding that when we put

on high-vis in different places in our electorates it is more to inspect the work of others than it is to get

our hands dirty ourselves. We understand our advocacy and the role that we play, but I think it is also

about understanding that there are many people that we meet in our communities who make a living

through some very serious and challenging hard physical work and on top of that have to overlay the

financial stress and pressure of running a business, not just for themselves as owner-drivers but often,

as the legislation outlines, it does apply to drivers who operate up to three vehicles. Where the owner

of the business drives one vehicle, they also have responsibility for other employees, in a small number

of cases of course, and they also feel an obligation to their families.

So I think what we have been able to do here is picking up again on the work of the former Deputy

Premier and former member for Niddrie, Rob Hulls—work that came into this Parliament back in

2005—and the revision and the work in understanding which has often been touched on by the

Transport Workers Union and their leadership, from John Berger and others, that it is a constantly

evolving and changing industry. It is absolutely critical that this Parliament understands that and seeks

to be as nimble as possible in reflecting that and advocating and advancing the interests not only of

workers in the more general sense but of owner-operators in their workplace, understanding the

contribution that they make and unpicking and hopefully defining in a much better way in our

legislation how we can better provide the legislative support to unpick those contracts to provide

greater understanding and information so people can make just decisions, operate in a just workplace

and get just outcomes. That is what is driving this legislation. I commend all those that have been

involved in it, and I absolutely commend the bill to the house.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (16:19): I am so pleased to rise and speak in favour of the Owner

Drivers and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019, a bill reflecting the changing nature of

industry, commerce and workplace relations in the digital age. These changes will ensure the

protection of hardworking Victorians operating their own small business as owner-drivers in the

transport industry and those working as harvesting and haulage contractors in the forestry industry.

I would like to acknowledge the dedicated members of the Transport Workers Union and their

advocacy on behalf of their members that has helped make this bill possible. I have witnessed firsthand

their tireless efforts and ongoing commitment to the Safe Rates campaign, where the TWU have

continually highlighted the importance of reform and the need for action on issues this bill will address.

We all have a collective responsibility in this place to ensure the people we represent are working

under fair and safe conditions, free from exploitation.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts undertaken by the honourable member for Sydenham, who

oversaw as the Minister for Industrial Relations in the previous government the owner-drivers and

forestry contractors review and the Victorian inquiry into labour hire and insecure work. This bill is a

testament to the dedication and energy that both the honourable member and her team put into the

future of Victorian workers regardless of the industry they work in. It would also be remiss of me not

to mention the honourable member’s role in establishing Wage Inspectorate Victoria, which this bill

grants compliance and enforcement oversight to with regard to sections of the transport industry.

The Bracks government first brought in the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act in 2005, and

to many that may seem not a long time ago, but in reality much has changed in the past 14 years. We

have seen the digital age take hold, completely transforming our communities, our industries and the

way this economy works. More subtle within this transformation has been a change in the balance of

power affecting working people, and let me say that when our laws and our regulations fail to keep up

with the economic conditions of the time, our markets, our industries, our people and our economy risk

falling behind, unable to reach the equilibrium of their full potential. We soon see market failures, and

I cannot emphasise it enough when I say market failures are the only thing trickling down. We see this

now with our owner-drivers working under subpar conditions—conditions that much of the time fail to

take into account tangible operating costs and the intangible ripple on-costs of fatigue and overwork.

BILLS


This affects thousands and thousands of small businesses across Victoria, the owner-drivers operating

these businesses and their families, who are just trying to make ends meet. That is without even

mentioning the flow-on effects to other businesses caused by the shrinking of disposable incomes.

Before the Andrews government first introduced this bill last year it was estimated that there was a

huge amount of pay and productivity lost by small businesses, which is why this government is

committed to ensuring that working conditions are improved, that owner-drivers and small business

owners are profitable and productive and that the balance of power is shifted to where it is fair and

equitable, so those operating a small business get a fair and reasonable return on their hard work and

investment. As it stands, owner-drivers are responsible for the maintenance of their own vehicles and

the running of their own businesses. A fair and reasonable expectation in the modern digital economy

is that there is a demand for their service—a service they are willing to provide.

In these circumstances, though, we are seeing an imbalance of power that has taken root due to a lack

of information and understanding. Owner-drivers and forestry contractors are not trained in accounting

or contract law or even really in how to operate a small business. This makes getting a full picture of

the costs involved in running their businesses difficult to obtain, because operating costs do not just

factor in the cost of fuel in getting from point A to B. Insurance and depreciation are just two examples

of costs that are relevant for an owner-driver to determine how much they are really earning for a job.

This bill will play a significant role in remedying this by ensuring that owner-drivers and forestry

contractors are provided with the information they need to understand their legal rights, their

obligations and the profitability a job could yield. By mandating that hirers provide owner-drivers and

contractors with a copy of applicable rates, a cost schedule for their vehicle class and an information

booklet at least three days before entering into a contract, individuals will have the knowledge to make

informed decisions about what their time and their labour is worth. They will be equipped to assess

the overhead costs of their business with a better view of what is and what is not profitable.

The risks of business failure, financial hardship and insolvency are all too real for small business

owners, which is why this bill legislates a 30-day period in which invoices must be paid. As I have

already mentioned, there are a lot of costs that come with operating a small business with your own

vehicle. There is maintenance, fuel, repairs, insurance, depreciation et cetera, so it is understandable

that many owner-drivers enter into serviceable debts to keep their vehicles up and running. Serviceable

debts are standard practice for small businesses in general, so why should it be any different for owner-

drivers? Now, problems arise from this, as they do for any business, and that is when revenue and cash

flow fail to keep up with debt repayments, because revenue can look really good on paper but if

invoices are not paid on time it can throw cash flow and the balance sheet of a small business

completely out of whack. This bill guarantees adequate breathing space so owner-drivers can finish a

contract and get paid on time, so they can pay what they owe.

What about road safety? Well, we talk about it all the time—about the Transport Accident

Commission and being careful over long weekends—but many so often forget about the transport

workers. Part of what brought this act into existence under the Bracks government was the coroner’s

investigation into tragic incidents that had occurred within this industry. As I keep saying, there is an

imbalance of power between owner-drivers and those contracting them for work, and when you factor

in prime contractors and subcontractors, there is very little bargaining power left, which can result in

very, very dangerous outcomes. Many drivers work some of the longest hours on our roads; they are

usually up before dawn. We know for a fact that driving long hours increases fatigue significantly and

subsequently results in a much higher risk of accidents. By giving people information that they need

to assess the profitability of a contract, they can spend less time on the road working themselves simply

to cover the operating costs of their business.

Another important aspect of this bill is of course compliance, by establishing the proper framework

and the introduction of penalties for those failing to comply with the mandatory requirements. Wage

Inspectorate Victoria will be provided with funding of up to $5.5 million to accommodate new powers

BILLS


for enforcement, and this will allow the inspectorate to monitor compliance with this act and with new

regulatory requirements. New penalties will be introduced for the proposed criminal offences, ranging

from 25 penalty units or around $4000 for a body corporate down to around $800 in any other case.

Our workers and drivers deserve no less, as these protections help deter misconduct in the industry.

The bill also provides for arbitration measures for contractor-driver disputes, allowing them, by

consent, to seek binding resolutions from the Victorian Small Business Commission, relieving some

of the pressure on VCAT and giving businesses and drivers an easier avenue for dispute resolution.

I am also pleased that for the first time this bill will give the same protections to tip truck owner-drivers

and give their owner-drivers the same benefits as other drivers covered by this act. I am proud to say

that the Andrews government recognises the importance of tip truck workers and the hard work they

contribute to the Victorian economy. That is why last year the government made it a priority to ensure

that they received mandatory minimum pay rates and improved work standards. This bill continues

that work and enforces further protections for tip truck owner-drivers in their dealings with contractors

by placing them on an equal footing with owner-drivers and forestry contractors.

The importance of truck drivers and the work that they do in Victoria’s economy cannot be overstated:

1 in 33 men are truck drivers nationwide, comprising 3 per cent of all male workers, and that is without

even considering the growing number of women that have joined the transport industry. The 2005

Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act did not foresee the modern economy; the likes of Uber

Eats and Deliveroo did not exist. So for the modern protections these amendments offer to modern

working Victorians, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (16:29): I have great pleasure in joining the debate on the Owner Drivers

and Forestry Contractors Amendment Bill 2019 and particularly following my colleague seated behind

me, the new member for Tarneit. I wholly endorse what she had to say on the bill, particularly in

relation to the contribution and the work done during our last term by the member for Sydenham

during her great tenure as the Minister for Industrial Relations that laid the preconditions for bringing

this bill before the house. The member for Sydenham has a very long history of standing up for workers

in all industries, particularly vulnerable workers. We first met working at Trades Hall longer ago than

I care to remember, but I think it is a testament to her that it is all types of workers, including owner-

drivers, that she is concerned about. I was very pleased to see that she drove the inquiry into insecure

work in the last Parliament. This had a particular impact for residents in country Victoria, where unions

and regulatory bodies do not necessarily have the same penetration to advise vulnerable employees.

I was in this place when the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Bill was introduced in 2005, and

the member for Tarneit was correct that that was as a result of some coronial inquiries. She mentioned

the huge hours that these workers can be required to work just to make ends meet and to fulfil contracts

that they have entered into with much larger entities. The bargaining power is certainly very uneven.

I take delicious pride in the fact that we are now treating these vulnerable contractors better and giving

them access to the Small Business Commission. The Small Business Commission was another

initiative of a Labor government, and it means that there is a body that can resolve business-to-business

disputes. It beggars belief that the party of business had not thought to do that; it was the party of the

labour movement that sought to do that to protect vulnerable people.

For those of you who like to get out and travel in regional Victoria and who may have been affected

by road trauma, have family members or friends working in this industry or have indeed been bereaved

due to people being injured or losing their lives in this industry, the community of Alexandra hosts a

beautiful, beautiful truck drivers memorial in the centre of that lovely town. Every year on the Queen’s

Birthday weekend they have the truck and ute show and they actually have a commemorative service

and add plaques for anyone from that industry who has had the misfortune of losing their lives in the

preceding 12 months. I think for anyone impacted by road trauma in any way it can be particularly

difficult, but when it has been in the course of someone’s work and maybe their family have lost their

business it is particularly significant. So I want to again thank the community of Alexandra for their

BILLS


great care and passion for this memorial, for this cause and for looking out for this community that is

not often thought of.

The member for Ivanhoe talked about when he is out doorknocking on a Sunday afternoon and

invariably sees an owner-driver washing his truck ready for the next week of work. I know you,

Speaker, are in the northern suburbs where we have many that work in this industry. With our

proximity to freeways, especially the Hume Freeway, it is an appropriate place for people to work,

and because I have people living on larger blocks, it can be a good place for owner-drivers to reside.

I want to now turn to the modern, now digital, economy that has seen the rise of Deliveroo and Uber

Eats. I must say I was disappointed with the recent decision—I think it was only about a week ago—

that says that Uber drivers are contractors and not in fact employees. In my experience I have seen many

vulnerable people who have been working as Uber drivers. It is quite concerning. There is one woman

in particular who is well known to me. I actually did not know that in addition to her major job she had

been working as an Uber driver as well. She had a shocking experience when picking up a young

woman who was fleeing her drug-affected boyfriend, who was pursuing them on foot and then came

after them and crashed into the rear of her vehicle. It was completely shocking and frightening. She was

very uncertain about what her rights were when it came to having her vehicle fixed and whether or not

this person might have found out where she lives. It was all round not a great situation.

With this digital disruption many young people are seeing the lure of working in this environment,

and this bill is actually a really good thing that puts an onus on those engaging people in these

circumstances to actually provide a copy of the applicable rates and cost schedules for their vehicle

class and an information booklet three days before entering into a contract. Many of these food

delivery drivers could be very early in their driving careers. They may have only just purchased a

vehicle. If they are under 25, they may find it very, very difficult to get insurance. I must say I have

never actually taken an Uber myself; I do not even have the app installed. I just do not like the idea of

exploiting someone’s labour. I also have not used any of those delivery platforms to deliver food to

my home, although I must say I was pretty shocked when I discovered that my stepdaughter had gotten

Uber Eats from McDonald’s one school holiday weekend when in fact we live two blocks from the

McDonald’s, so we are not having any more of that at our place.

I think that particularly because it is young people who may never have worked in a unionised

workplace they could be really subject to exploitation. I know you are aware, Speaker, of that because

we have La Trobe University and RMIT in our area and we have many overseas students who live in

the northern suburbs. Because their visas allow them to work, but for only 19 hours a week, there have

been many examples of unscrupulous employers who have employed people under contract conditions

and exploited them and not paid them properly. We would all recall seeing the appalling situation of

7-Eleven, who still do not seem to have mended their ways and given proper redress to the many,

many employees they exploited.

The bill before the house, with the great work of the previous Minister for Industrial Relations in

bringing this bill before the house, with the labour hire inquiry and ensuring that tip truck drivers are

included in this, shows again how this government, as part of the labour movement, is really committed

overall to safety but also to balancing out the playing field. We believe in the economy because it

generates jobs and gives people income, but where there are people that have unequal power, whether

it is a small business in a large shopping centre or a young Deliveroo or Uber Eats driver in Doreen,

Mernda or Diamond Creek, wherever it is, we believe in supporting those people so that they can

support themselves and so they can support their families. We do not want to go down the path of the

US where you have a huge, huge working poor. I prefer an economy like ours and a Labor government

like ours that brings forward progressive legislation to the house. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr SCOTT (Preston—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Veterans) (16:39): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.



Motion agreed to.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

Business of the house

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr SCOTT (Preston—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Veterans) (16:39): I move:

That the consideration of order of the day, government business, 2, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr PAKULA:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (16:40): I am pleased to rise on the Public

Holidays Amendment Bill 2019 and to do so in my capacity as the shadow Minister for Small Business

in the coalition. One of the joys—some would say the few joys—of being opposition leader is being

able to pick your own portfolios. One of my predecessors, Ted Baillieu, was very keen on the arts and

was shadow minister for the arts. Another one of my predecessors, Denis Napthine, was very, very

keen on racing, particularly around Warrnambool carnival time, and was the shadow minister and later

the Minister for Racing.

I was happy to pick up small business because small business is an area that I am very passionate

about. It is the backbone of not just the state’s economy but also a lot of our communities. In many

ways I think small businesses are the essence of what we should be striving for. They are people who

get up every morning, they work hard and they take a risk so they can give opportunity to others. They

give opportunity to others for employment. They provide services to their community, and they do

that often at great risk to themselves economically, but they make a huge difference. So I think small

business is an essential part of the state, and I am very proud to speak for those small businesspeople

in my capacity as the shadow Minister for Small Business.

Moving to this bill, the purpose of this bill it says is to make provision for certain public holidays in

Victoria. The government is putting in legislation, rather than the past practice of gazetting a number

of public holidays. Those public holidays include Easter Sunday; the Friday before the AFL Grand

Final, otherwise known as grand final eve public holiday; and Christmas Day when it falls on a

Saturday or Sunday.

The government might have you think that they are the great friends of Christmas by securing

Christmas Day as a public holiday, but that was not always the case. I refer to an article from the Age

newspaper of 8 November 2016 under the heading ‘Premier rejects Christmas’ by Josh Gordon and

Richard Willingham, and I quote:

The Andrews government has come under fire over a ‘Grinch-like’ decision not to make Christmas Day—

which falls on a Sunday this year—a public holiday, potentially depriving thousands of shift workers of extra

penalty rates.

Despite insisting that Easter Sunday should be a public holiday, the Victorian government has ruled that

Christmas this year will not be given the same status.

That means workers will get normal Sunday rates on December 25, rather than extra holiday pay.

The article goes on:

BILLS


But after a review undertaken at the end of last year, the Government concluded that the existing arrangement

will remain in place: where Christmas falls on a weekend, the public holiday will happen on the next available

weekday—in this case on Tuesday.

The move has provoked a furious reaction from unions, with Small Business Minister Philip Dalidakis

accused of ‘sucking up’ to the business lobby after a backlash over the grand final eve public holiday, which

has been estimated to cost the state economy more than $800 million.

…

‘Mr Dalidakis is the Grinch of the Victorian state government,’ Trades Hall secretary Luke Hilakari said. ‘To

be consistent with every state and territory we must have a public holiday. To not do so would be mean and

Grinch-like’.

It is great to see that that wonderful defender of John Setka, Luke Hilakari, thinks he can tell other

people what is right and what is wrong. Mr Hilakari would not know the right thing to do if it bit him

on the backside, because anyone who stands by John Setka is morally compromised, and Luke

Hilakari is in that category, can I say. To go on, the article says:

Mr Dalidakis said he saw ‘no reason’ to change the existing arrangement.

‘We are a pluralistic society and … the Victorian public do receive an additional public holiday for Christmas

Day, but when it falls on a weekend, the penalty rates that they receive on that weekend will be the rates of

pay that they receive.’

So it was not all that long ago that the state government and the then Minister for Small Business,

Innovation and Trade were saying, ‘No, we don’t believe that when Christmas Day falls on a weekend

public holiday pay rates should apply’.

Mr Angus interjected.

Mr M O’BRIEN: You do wonder what Australia Post does, member for Forest Hill. Of course

maybe this is part of the explanation for why Mr Dalidakis is not only no longer a minister but not

even a member of Parliament. Clearly he dared to cross the comrades at Lygon Street. He dared to

stand up, as he saw it, for the interests of small business and as a consequence of that, and I think a

few other times when he crossed the Premier, he got kicked out of the cabinet at the first available

opportunity and he has decided to pack up his swag and go and earn a lot of swag with Australia Post,

according to the newspapers.


Mr M O’BRIEN: Well, that is right. His Christmases have come at once. He is getting a lot of

penalty rates at Australia Post from the sound of it.

So we do have a little bit of cynicism about this bill that is being brought forward. Before people want

to accuse me of rewriting history, I note my press release as shadow Treasurer on 7 November 2016.

I said:

Only Daniel Andrews would believe that the day before the AFL Grand Final is more of a ‘special day for

family’ than is Christmas Day.

We have been very concerned about the government’s double standards and hypocrisy on these issues

for many, many years. Apart from Christmas Day when it falls on a Saturday or Sunday being

legislated as a public holiday, this bill also, as I mentioned, enshrines Easter Sunday and the grand

final eve public holiday. Now, the government did take those to the election in 2014, and that is

acknowledged. As part of implementing those two public holidays the government commissioned

through PwC a regulatory impact statement on proposed new public holidays in Victoria. That was

commissioned by the former Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.

I quote from the executive summary of the PwC report. It says:

The benefit of this additional leisure time equates to between $156 million and $312 million annually …

BILLS


So of course you give people a public holiday and a lot of people do not work on those days and they

get extra leisure time. PwC assesses that to be between $156 million and $312 million annually. But

it then goes on to say:

The lost production (or economic cost) from the new public holidays is estimated to be between $717 million

and $898 million annually.

So what PwC has said, on the government’s own commissioned report, is that there is quite a

significant net cost to Victoria’s economy as a result of these new public holidays. That is not

necessarily an argument for them or against them, but it is certainly a cost that needs to be borne in

mind. As shadow Minister for Small Business I would not be speaking for that constituency if I did

not point out that much of that cost does fall on small businesses because they are less able to absorb

those additional costs than are big businesses. Big businesses can usually look after themselves. They

are big enough, they have got broad enough shoulders, they have got enough resources—they can

manage things. It is the small businesses that really tend to feel the burden of any extra costs.

The executive summary goes on and says:

The new public holidays would also result in increased wage payments of between $252 million and

$286 million annually to those people who work on the public holidays. This amount represents a transfer

from employers to employees, rather than a net impact on the Victorian economy.

So clearly business will pay more; employees who work will get less. What the report does not seem

to estimate though is how many people actually miss out on income because their businesses close on

those days. There are businesses that simply cannot afford to pay additional public holiday pay rates,

and casual employees do not get the benefits of a public holiday. They do not get paid to not turn up

to work if they are casuals; they just miss out on a day’s pay altogether. Again that is not an argument

necessarily for or against this bill, but it is a reality, and it is a cost that needs to be factored in because

when we are assessing the costs and benefits of any changes to public holidays and we look at the

impact on workers, there are some workers who do better out of a public holiday, because either they

get a day off or they get increased penalty rates for working on that day, and there are other workers

who just miss out. They miss out because their business is closed, they are a casual, they are not entitled

to a paid day off and they just lose a day’s income. So I think we need to think of the impact on all

workers of changes of this nature.

The PwC report concludes:

Overall, the estimated costs of the new public holidays outweigh the quantified benefits …

The other factor which was not really focused on by PwC in its report is the cost to the public sector

of these additional public holidays. Why does that matter? Well, that matters if the government does

not fund public sector agencies for the additional costs and as a result the community misses out. The

classic and most important example arguably is public hospitals. If public hospitals are required to pay

significant additional wages for operating on a new public holiday but the government does not fund

them to do that, then the gap means fewer services, the gap means fewer procedures, the gap means

longer waiting lists than you would otherwise have. This government has failed to fund public

hospitals adequately for the costs of these new public holidays, and that is appalling. People should

not have to have a surgery delayed, and they should not have to wait longer on a waiting list because

this government wants to produce new public holidays but then will not actually pay for them. You

have to do it fairly; you have to do it at both ends of the equation. If you want to produce a new public

holiday, that is fine, but then you have got an obligation as a government to make sure that public

hospitals are not out-of-pocket and that their patients do not miss out as a consequence.

So this is a big problem in terms of this government’s implementation of new public holidays. They

have not done what they said they would do. When they went to the 2014 election they had a cursory—

a derisory—amount they said the new public holiday would cost them in terms of additional funding

for public sector agencies. That was nowhere near enough to actually cover the real cost of these

additional public holidays.

BILLS


I would be very interested in the debate as we go through it: will the government make a commitment

to increase the funding to public hospitals with the passage of this bill? I suspect the answer is no. I

suspect we will get a whole lot of rhetoric from those opposite about, ‘Who doesn’t mind a day off?

Why do you not like public holidays?’. No. You know what? We like public hospitals as well, and we

like public hospital patients, and we think they deserve to be treated fairly and they do not deserve to

have their procedures delayed because this government has underfunded its promises when it comes

to public holidays.

We are not opposing this bill. This bill does not actually impose new public holidays. It regularises

existing practice. Existing practice is to gazette these particular public holidays, and implementing them

through this bill is simply another way of observing them. The bill itself does not impose any additional

burdens, but it does give me an opportunity to discuss the fact that there are always costs and benefits

and they need to be weighed up fairly. But it also does allow me to canvass that this government has

failed public hospitals, failed police and failed other public sector agencies who have not been properly

budget funded for the additional staff costs that these additional public holidays provide.


Mr M O’BRIEN: Look, the members who have been here for 5 minutes might be better off

listening and understanding the consequences of their actions, because when they vote for bills which

impose additional costs on public hospitals without the funding to go with it, all they are doing is

condemning public hospital patients to longer waiting lists. And if they think that is funny, then let

them laugh about it. We will be the ones who will always manage the finances. That includes if we

impose an obligation—we will pay for it.

Members opposite have absolutely failed public hospitals in this regard. They have not provided the

funding. What about the doctors and nurses? Everyone else gets penalty rates. Do they expect doctors

and nurses to not get penalty rates for working on a public holiday? No, of course not—they say, ‘Get

their penalty rates’. Well, where is the money coming from? Where is the money coming from,

because it is not coming from your budget. And until this government is prepared to put its money

where its mouth is, until this government is prepared to back public hospitals with proper funding of

public holidays, this government is a sham, and its position on this bill is a sham. This is the same

government that was happily saying, ‘We don’t want to see Christmas Day as a public holiday’ two

years ago, until it necked the minister. They now turn around as though they are the great heroes of

public holidays on Christmas Day. It is—

Ms Kairouz interjected.

Mr M O’BRIEN: You could argue the minister has been asleep for a while, but the minister has

certainly been asleep during my contribution, because otherwise the Premier rejects Christmas—

Ms Kairouz interjected.

Mr M O’BRIEN: I can read it into the record again, Marlene, if you like—I would be very happy

to do it. This government needs to put its money where its mouth is. We are not going to oppose this

bill, but we will use the debate to point out the absolute hypocrisy of those members opposite. If you

want a public holiday, that is fine, but do not make public hospital patients pay for it, because otherwise

you are jibbing the people who are most vulnerable in our society.

Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (16:57): I also rise to speak on the public holidays legislation.

Now, of course everybody is entitled to proper wages and conditions, something that we do not see

any support for when it comes to those on the other side of this house. The problem I think is that this

legislation is supportive of working people, supportive of people having a decent and fair standard of

living.

BILLS


When we talk about, for example, public holidays that are at Easter, it is really important that we look

at all of the holidays during Easter and that they are properly recognised—whether it is the Sunday

public holiday, whether it is the Monday public holiday—and that no matter where you work or what

industry you work in, you are also entitled to penalty rates. I know for some people the Easter holidays

are a very, very sacred time of the year. It is a very religious time for many people who want to spend

that time with their family and their friends and to engage with and practise their faith. If people are

required to work during this time, this is something that there ought to be penalty rates for, in some

ways to discourage a lot of places opening during this time but also in the event that people are required

to work during that time, so that they will get some sort of penalty rates and compensation for working

those very family-unfriendly hours.

Also, the Andrews Labor government in its first term made a very, very strong commitment for an

additional public holiday, which was to be the Grand Final Friday public holiday. We know that some

people may talk about, ‘Why do we need it for the grand final?’, but I guess it is always important to

have a reasonable number of public holidays for people, and in fact I think the grand final holiday has

been something that has been demonstrated to be a great windfall for the state of Victoria. The state

has been able to work in terms of tourism to try to get more people into the state to celebrate and to

watch the grand final. I notice that the former minister for sport and tourism is in the chamber, and of

course he did a great lot of work around promoting the grand final weekend and the public holiday to

allow for a whole lot of extra festivities and events to draw people into the state or into Melbourne to

celebrate the grand final. Having a long weekend also meant that there were a lot of Melburnians and

people from across the state that would move into other areas for holidays for that great long weekend.

There were many comments from restaurateurs and tourist operators who, whilst originally being a bit

sceptical of the grand final long weekend, actually came out and basically made comments that they

were overwhelmed and surprised at how successful this long weekend for the grand final has been.

This legislation enshrines that Grand Final Friday in legislation rather than as a gazetted day. I know

from way back in my trade union days the old situation where often companies would try to really

dupe workers when it came to things like Christmas Day. For example, if Christmas Day or Boxing

Day fell on a Saturday or Sunday, there was a situation where if you had to work on that Saturday or

Sunday, you would not get penalty rates or recognition of the Christmas public holiday because they

would say that there was a Monday in lieu of that public holiday. Therefore if you actually worked on

the Christmas Day you received no penalties or compensation, yet if you worked on the Monday that

was not Christmas Day but was in lieu of Christmas Day, you did, which of course was a ridiculous

anomaly and a way that some employers were interpreting the legislation that really I do not think

anybody for a moment would have thought was the correct situation.

A lot of these problems that have been addressed within the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019

are the product of the Kennett Liberal-Nationals government way, way back then. As we know, they

were cutting not just penalty rates but also various working conditions from people. It has taken some

time to start looking at and seriously addressing those terrible, terrible, dark days of the Kennett Liberal

government and make sure that we put a little bit more fairness back into the industrial relations scene

where working people are given some of their rights and penalties back.

This is of course in great contrast with what is going on federally, where we again have a federal

Liberal government that is trying to attack working conditions and workers’ wages on a federal scale.

Of course this is pretty well the modus operandi of the Liberal Party. They do not provide good

conditions or believe that workers should get fair and reasonable conditions. And as we know, even

the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and many other very large financial institutions have

already expressed concern over the way that wages have stagnated across the country. Of course this

is seen as a bad thing because we need those wages going into the economy to stimulate demand, and

from there to stimulate the production of goods and services which people pay for.

BILLS


So this Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019 is really important. It will help a number of working

people in terms of providing the proper compensation or acting as a deterrent for certain activities to

be held particularly on public holidays that are considered religious and for religious observance.

Maybe I will leave it at that. That really is the main content of the legislation. Again it is another step

that the Andrews Labor government is taking towards making a fairer Victoria and in this case fairer

for those who must work on public holidays.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (17:05): I rise to make a contribution on the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019. As we know, Victoria is the public holiday capital of Australia, with 13 public

holidays, as opposed to New South Wales, which has got 11, and down to Western Australia with only

10. We are winning that race, if that is the race that you want to win, and I am not sure small business,

or all business, really wants to win that race.

This legislation, although it will not increase current public holidays, will enshrine the public holidays

that we currently have into legislation, moving from being gazetted to legislation. The days we are

talking about are Easter Sunday, the grand final eve holiday and Christmas Day when it falls on a

Saturday or Sunday—not, obviously, when Christmas Day falls on a weekday.

This government has displayed consistently that it is happy to pass on the cost to small, medium and

large businesses. As we know, small businesses feel it the most. Certainly I know that from a local

perspective in a regional community. Labor have a history of increasing costs on small business,

whether that is labour costs or whether it is energy costs or licensing costs—and the list goes on. But

there is even the public service increase in costs that we are seeing through this bill. This is still a cost

to the community. It is an opportunity cost, or an economic cost, as the Leader of the Opposition spoke

about, and when we think about what we could do with that money that is being forgone, what it is

costing us for bureaucrats and public servants and what we could do with that for new schools or new

roads, we certainly know that new roads, or better roads, in regional Victoria might help to keep the

road toll down. There are other ways that we could be investing that money, and public holidays come

at enormous cost to all Victorians. I certainly know small businesses in the Ovens Valley continue to

ask why this government is hell-bent on increasing costs to do business. I tell them that clearly it does

not care about regional Victoria and it does not care about small business.

If you are not happy with my comments, look at VCCI, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and

Industry. They have slammed the amount of public holidays that we have in Victoria and said the cost

is nearly $10 billion over 10 years. At $1 billion a year, again it is passing the buck, and businesses

are really stuck between a rock and a hard place—whether they remain open and pay the higher penalty

rates or they close the doors and they pay employees not to turn up. But as the shadow minister, the

Leader of the Opposition, said, when you close the doors for the day the ones you are hurting the most

are casual employees, and that is not a win for them either. There is a quote from VCCI that says:

At a time when the cost of doing business in Victoria is rising, this legislation puts jobs at risk.

They are the jobs that I am talking about, for the casuals on public holidays but other employees as

well, because of the cost of doing business, particularly in regional Victoria. It is not just VCCI that is

talking about excessive costs; PwC have also estimated that public holidays cost up to $1.2 billion

annually. We have another situation where there is a lack of consultation with small business and

businesses about these public holidays as this government kowtow to their union masters and just push

ahead, again increasing costs for business.

Regional businesses large and small continue to tell me that doing business is unaffordable. For

example, even the contract labour laws that are coming in in October will be another nail in the coffin

for small to medium-sized businesses. Businesses in the Ovens Valley—and it does not matter whether

you have got a clothing shop in Cobram, a fuel station in Yarrawonga, a coffee shop in Wangaratta or

a pub or bakery in Myrtleford or Bright—all tell me that this cannot go on. We have got a government

that are building infrastructure in Melbourne, and they are catering to Melbourne’s business needs and

BILLS


spending most of the budget in Melbourne but ignoring our regional seats. That imposes further costs

on regional communities, and it is simply unsustainable. I think the government need to consider this

as they push ahead in some of these areas, because they might be supporting some of their mates here

in Melbourne, but we were told, and we keep getting told, that this is a government that is going to

govern for all Victorians. Well, clearly small businesses and businesses medium to large are still

Victorians as well.

I am not against workers getting and enjoying public holidays, but in today’s flexible working

relationship with employers there has to be a limit. There must be a limit. When Labor continues to

ignore those pleas for a fair and just framework, and where business employers and employees can

negotiate better outcomes, I think it is important that we allow them to do that.

As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted, small businesses are essential to Victoria’s economy.

What I know is that when you extrapolate that into regional Victoria, they are even far more essential.

They are the backbone of regional Victoria. So again we pass on extra costs, and it does not seem like

much to somebody sitting in this place, but small businesses do it tough in regional Victoria. They

make up a much larger part of the local economy, and we have to do what we can to assist them, not

keep pushing costs on them.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition highlighted that this legislation was not required. We heard a few

years ago that the minister said that legislation was not required, and now we have seen a backflip.

Again we can certainly see who leads this government. It is certainly led by the union masters. Hence

this backflip has come, and it is at an economic cost to our communities and clearly it is unsustainable.

This government needs to stop passing the buck to small and medium businesses. As I said, you said

you would govern for all Victorians. You have got to understand that people in regional Victoria and

small, medium and large businesses are Victorians as well, not just the people who you think are voting

for you, because I think what you will find in some instances is that what you are pushing through is

certainly hurting small businesses, and we are seeing that in regional Victoria.

You need to come to regional Victoria to see and listen to some of the businesses that I listen to, and

you will hear that it simply is unsustainable. I think this legislation fails them—small businesses that

just cannot sustain extra costs all the time. I think you really need to get out of Melbourne, come to

the regions and listen to the businesses before you make decisions like this, because clearly you are

not governing for all Victorians.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (17:12): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019, and I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the member for

Ovens Valley. If I understand the member’s contention, he is effectively saying that we should not pay

public holiday rates and that we should try and lower wages, because by lowering wages that is a good

thing for business and so therefore we all benefit. I think that was the member’s contention. It flies in

the face of what we know is happening in the economy at the moment, which is that we have got wage

stagnation. The notion that you tackle wage stagnation by cutting people’s wages further is just

nonsense. You just cannot be serious. When you have got people in a small community earning a

decent wage, do you know what? They are likely to spend it locally. Right? This is nonsense from

those opposite.

There was a US car manufacturer—he might have been the CEO of General Motors—and he took the

head of the auto workers union through the factories in the 1980s when robotics was first being

introduced. He said to the union leader, ‘Well, you’re not going to have too many members when we

start automating the processes here’. And the union leader said, ‘And who are going to buy your cars

if there is no-one earning a wage?’. This is just rubbish from the National Party. Some of the poorest

people in our community live in regional areas, and you have these snoozers doing the bidding of the

vested interests of regional Victoria at the expense of regional workers. That is what they come here

for. Some of the poorest communities in our state are in regional Victoria, and you have these people

who purport to represent the country and all they are interested in doing is depriving working people

BILLS


in regional Victoria of a decent wage. They want to try and push them into poverty. That is what you

have come for. You try and say you are the friends of regional workers. You are not. You are just

doing the bidding of the moneyed interests in regional Victoria. That is who you are, and you are not

honest enough. You will talk a good game, no doubt, out in your community, about defending the

rights of people in regional Victoria, and you come here and you sell them out. The first chance you

get, the National Party, you always do it. You have done it for decades. You sell out regional workers.

Mr Hodgett: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it might be time to draw the member’s attention

back to the bill.

Mr PEARSON: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this is about the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019. I was subjected to—he could not even serve out his time in terms of selling

out regional communities—8 minutes of drivel from the member for Ovens Valley about the

importance of driving wages down, and I was taking up that debate in responding to those issues.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): Thank you, member for Essendon. It has been a

wideranging debate. I would ask the member to continue with the amendment bill.

Mr McCurdy: On the point of order, Acting Speaker—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): I have already ruled, so I will continue. The member

for Essendon will continue on the amendment bill.

Mr PEARSON: Thank you. So a bill like this that we bring to this place is vitally important

because it enshrines the rights of workers. It does not matter whether they live in Ascot Vale or

Flemington, it does not matter whether they are living up in Wangaratta, this is about making sure that

workers get a decent wage for their labour, and that is why we have brought a bill like this before the

house. We always know that whenever we—the Labor Party—bring forward legislation that protects

the rights of workers it is consistently opposed by the National Party. Right? Always. They will always

do the bidding of the Liberal Party in regional areas, and they will always come into this place and

oppose what we are trying to do. Now the point I was trying to make earlier was that, and I am sure

the member does not really read the financial press and does not really follow what is going on in the

economy, but if he did he would know, the national economy grew by 1.8 per—

Mr McCurdy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, what the speaker is saying has got nothing to

do with the bill here. He is just making criticisms of what we do on this side of the house, and now he

is accusing me of not reading financial articles or anything to do with that. Now, he has accused me

of—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): The member for Ovens Valley, just back to the point

of order.

Mr McCurdy: That he needs to get back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): Thank you. I will remind the member for Essendon,

it has been a wideranging debate, and I would ask him to continue on with the bill.

Mr PEARSON: Thank you, Acting Speaker. So the Public Holidays Amendment Bill is vitally

important, because it is about enshrining the rights of workers to get penalty rates paid to them when

they offer their labour on Grand Final Friday. The reality is that unless you have these levels of

legislated protection, what you will see is that wages will be driven down, because that is what those

opposite want to have happen, and the problems in relation to wage stagnation will continue.

Before I was interrupted, the point I was trying to make was that the national economy grew by 1.8 per

cent in the 12 months to March of this year, and one of the single biggest reasons why we have got an

economy in the doldrums is because of wage stagnation. The point is that a bill like this is vitally

important, because it ensures that people who work on those public holidays can get paid fairly and

BILLS


reasonably, and the reality is that if you are on a low wage, you spend the majority of your income.

There are not too many people on 50 grand a year squirrelling away 50 per cent of their income. If

you are on 50 grand a year, chances are you are spending 50 grand a year. Now, when you spend that

money, that goes into the economy, and that creates that level of economic growth. What we are seeing

at the moment—because we have got downward pressure on wages, which is clearly supported by the

member for Ovens Valley—is a significant impact on the economy.

So let us be clear about this: a bill like this is vitally important because it ensures that we live in a

civilised society. I do not want to see our state or our nation going down the path of some other nations

where workers are compelled to work for a pittance. Today in the United States of America, strip away

men who are on very high incomes and look at working-class white Americans. The life expectancy

of a working-class white male in America now is the same as a male in Pakistan. That is what you are

looking at when you drive down wages, when you rip people off and you ensure that they are not able

to earn a decent income. That is what you have happen. It is working people. It is people in my

electorate who will be ripped off. It will be people in my electorate, my community, who will suffer.

People in the member for Ovens Valley’s electorate will suffer when you deprive people of the right

to earn a good wage.

You bring forward a bill like this for one reason: because you want to protect wages for working

people. One of the proudest moments in my life was when I was 14 and I got a union card. That was

one of my proudest days because I felt like I was making a contribution to this great movement. This

is what I believed in, and the reality is my father worked in small business. He ran a butcher shop for

25 years, and the only time we really got to spend with each other was on public holidays. If he had

been working for wages and he was required to work on a public holiday, he should have been getting

paid fairly, and that is what a bill like this is about. This is about making sure if you work on a public

holiday, you get a fair reward for that. This is going to be on the statute books now. It is going to be

up to a future government to determine whether it wants to support a bill like this or not. This is really

vitally important because this is the hallmark of a civilised society.

And when you have got people like those opposite talking about an impost on business, talking about

trying to drive down wages, their vision of the future is what we are seeing in the Rust Belt of America.

That is what they want to impose on this state. That is what they want us to become, and we will not

become that, Acting Speaker, because we have got protections like this on the books. It will be a test

for those opposite come 2022. What are they going to say? Are they going to say, ‘We’re going to rip

up this legislation’? Are they going to turn around and amend the act and strip these public holidays

out, or are they going to support it? Because that will be telling.

We have been really clear. We took to the election last year that we would enshrine Grand Final Friday

in legislation, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have been entirely consistent with this. This

is about fairness. It is about doing the right thing. It is about supporting working communities and

working people, something the National Party do not understand.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (17:22): Today I rise to speak proudly on the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019. The bill will enshrine in legislation Easter Sunday and Grand Final Friday as

public holidays. It will also legislate for an additional public holiday when Christmas Day falls on a

Saturday or Sunday. This helps right a wrong, as the Kennett government introduced the Public

Holidays Act 1993, which had the practical impact of abolishing Easter Saturday, Easter Tuesday and

Melbourne Show Day as public holidays.

Here I call on the lines of William Shakespeare to describe those darker days of the Kennett

government, and I am quoting from Richard III:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this son of York;

And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house

BILLS


In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths—

and so on.

I have helped William and William has helped me over the years, and we have rewritten this slightly.

This is how it now reads:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this son of Mulgrave;

And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house—

and so on and so forth. We have liberated that. Sorry, William!

This bill will also ensure penalty rates for those days are preserved, guaranteeing workers are properly

remunerated for working unsociable hours so that the rest of us can enjoy time with friends and family.

This legislation was an election commitment. It will allow greater certainty for Victorians around their

holiday plans for the forthcoming year and will make it harder for a subsequent coalition government

to reverse these public holidays—no more winter of discontent.

Following the election of the Andrews Labor government in 2014 we have seen strong growth in the

labour market, with employment increasing by 15.1 per cent, or 442 300 workers. The majority of this

job growth has been in full-time work, up 313 600 workers. We have the second lowest

unemployment rate in Australia. Since these public holidays have occurred through gazettal Victorian

small businesses have gone from strength to strength. Victorian small businesses are the most

confident in the nation, with the number of small businesses growing at a yearly rate of 3.6 per cent,

well above the national average. The creation of these public holidays also saw an enormous boost to

regional tourism, with many families taking the opportunity to travel to regional Victoria and enjoy

all that it has to offer.

It will be interesting to see whether the opposition will finally support this important bill. Does the

Leader of the Opposition, despite the many benefits afforded by these public holidays, stand by the

view he expressed in 2014 that ‘Daniel Andrews is again sending the message that Victoria will be

closed for business under Labor’? But the issues are much deeper and go to the core of our being as

human beings and citizens of Victoria. Let me explain why I believe this is not just about business

making a profit or sweeteners at election time and so on.

Rebecca Huntley in the latest Quarterly Essay, titled ‘Australia Fair: Listening to the Nation’, quotes

the Australian Election Study findings that the proportion of Australians who agree that ‘people in

government can be trusted’, by which they mean politicians—us, I am afraid— and the public service,

had declined from 51 per cent in 1969 to 26 per cent in 2016. Australians see corruption everywhere

and believe that almost everyone has a self-serving agenda. They are always on the lookout for the lie,

the rip-off, the hustle, whether it be from a telemarketer, a tradie, a minister of government or minister

of religion. When you think about it, this bill from the Andrews government rises above all these

perceptions. It is about what is good for people, not simply business and profit interests.

Sigmund Freud was once asked what is the essential essence of a happy life. He replied that it was to

have success in love and work. Let me speak of work. Last November I had been in my 10th year as

a retired secondary school principal when the people of Hawthorn gave me this wonderful gift of their

trust in my intentions and abilities. This has been a wonderful experience, notwithstanding that people

ask if I am sorry not to have undertaken this political journey 40 years ago when I was 30. The answer

is a resounding no! Whatever the undoubted value of this new role, I know how much I just loved that

job of 30 years as a principal, even with its inevitable ups and downs.

This is my point: how fortunate was I to be in work I adored. Rarely did I find myself clockwatching,

eagerly looking forward to 5.00 p.m. or the weekend. So many Victorians are far from being in that

situation for a variety of reasons and circumstances. What does this have to do with public holidays,

you may ask? Everything, I suggest. They can be therapeutic, these public holidays, for those finding

BILLS


little satisfaction in their toil. They are not only a wonderful source of diversion but they provide

opportunities to sit still, smell the roses, reflect on one’s experience and think ahead to the future.

Take that gift of the great Australian summer period from Christmas Day on 25 December to Australia

Day on 26 January, when even the great ABC goes on holiday. For large numbers of us that is a

fantastic chance to enjoy time in a different situation to the work scene, with family and friends,

reflections and lessons on the past and our thoughts and dreams of the future—what a tonic. Think of

all the extra casual employment, especially for younger people in service industries, often but sadly

not always on penalty rates. It is such a great time of year, thanks partly at least to some well-placed

public holidays.

Public holidays are so important in our national and personal psyches. I have spoken about the

wonderful Christmas Day to Australia Day period, with the personal opportunities for growth of

various kinds. Then comes Labour Day, carrying a variety of connotations for workers and their rights,

followed by Easter, enabling a four-day break for most, and Anzac Day, causing us to pause on those

sad and proud moments in our history. The sovereign’s birthday in June for me is a reminder we must

continue to examine what it means to be an independent nation as we move to becoming a republic

and our own head of state. Then nearly four months later it is the AFL Grand Final and Melbourne

Cup. I would not describe myself as mad keen about football or horseracing, but I know lots of people

around me are. Indeed growing up in Sydney I remember public examinations halted for the running

of the Melbourne Cup.

For a while after migrating to Melbourne in my late 20s, Victorians thought of me as quite strange and

eccentric. I just have time for one story. I remember once during the grand final of 1977, when I was

a resident at St Mary’s College at Melbourne University, I was going into the common room to get

some milk. I said, ‘Is there any milk?’, and people screamed and yelled at me, because it was the last

moments of the dead heat between Collingwood and North Melbourne, if you remember, in the fourth

quarter. People thought I was an absolute weirdo. I have had other experiences as well, when people

said, ‘Only you would ring someone during the fourth quarter of an AFL Grand Final’. Well, I have

learned; I have moved on from there. I have heard other tragic stories of people who could not go to

the grand final parade because school was still being held—in 2000, I think some poor Essendon

supporter told me.

Football is such a part of the cultural fabric of Victoria, being that it originated here in the 1850s,

attracts such huge crowds and is a weekly obsession for many people—not me. Also at the grassroots

level the game plays an important role, with thousands of participants at suburban and country clubs.

What is important are the values of family life that are greatly strengthened by these provisions in our

working and social life. This is not just about obsessing about alleged losses to business and profits,

nor is it just about acknowledging important events in our state and nation. It is about enjoying quality

of life in a civilised part of the world.

Ms COUZENS (Geelong) (17:32): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019. As we have heard, this bill will enshrine in legislation Easter Sunday and

Grand Final Friday as public holidays. It will also legislate for an additional public holiday when

Christmas Day falls on Saturday or Sunday. The Andrews government has twice gone to an election

on this issue and committed to enshrining these holidays in legislation, and that is exactly what we are

doing in this place today.

I am not as learned as the member for Hawthorn, but what I can say is, ‘We are Geelong, the greatest

team of all’, because we are now looking at—and I do not want to mozz it—getting to the AFL Grand

Final, and Geelong will be electric if that happens. I know my constituents of Geelong—Geelong

being a footy town, as it is called—will be very much looking forward to the Grand Final Friday

holiday. They may be spending time with their family, they may be going to the grand final parade or

they might be going away for a weekend, but I think it is important that we let people enjoy that public

holiday, and in particular if the Cats are playing in the grand final. It does provide certainty for people

BILLS


not only in Geelong but right across Victoria. I know leading up to grand final day in our last term

people were often asking the question, ‘Are we having Grand Final Friday this year?’. So there was

some uncertainty each year, but obviously this will now enshrine that so it is part of legislation and

becomes law.

We know when Geelong plays a home game our economy booms. Everything is booked out, our cafes

and restaurants are full, the sights around Geelong are full of people—until of course the footy starts—

and it is an enormous boost to the Geelong economy. So we know how important it is. We also know

that there are many businesses in Geelong that promoted themselves as being open on Grand Final

Friday because they know how important the football is in my community, in the electorate of

Geelong. As I said, it is a footy town, and people are very committed to their football. So to have the

opportunity to have the day off, businesses know that people will come. Every grand final day that we

have had since coming to power in this place, we have seen Geelong completely flooded with people.

People come from all parts of Victoria to visit Geelong. I think the recent stats show that day trips have

increased by 14 per cent and overnight trips by around 57 per cent. So we know what is happening

when we have this fantastic public holiday. I want my constituents to be able to enjoy that day, to

enjoy whatever they want to do with their families.

On the argument about penalty rates, when I talk to small businesses in my community who have said,

‘We’re going to stay open. We’re going to provide a service to visitors to Geelong and locals that live

in Geelong’, they charge a surcharge, just like they do on any other public holiday, and they promote

themselves as being open so that people can go to their restaurant or cafe or whatever they have got

on offer. So Geelong is booming on Grand Final Friday.

We also last year through the work of the then Minister for Sport, the member for Lara, started the

grand final footy festival down at Cardinia Park. It was the first time it was put on last year, so there

was some uncertainty about how many people might be around, and it was promoted on radio and in

the local paper. There were literally thousands of people there lined up. I was handing out free footies

to kids on the day, and they were lined up continually for almost 2 hours to get those free footballs,

and they were not just locals; they were people visiting from other parts of Victoria who were enjoying

having the weekend in Geelong. So I think it is really important that we continue this and that we do

enshrine it in legislation.

We know that people are working longer hours these days; they are working harder. To give them the

opportunity to have an extra public holiday that runs into a weekend gives them more time to spend

with their families. It is really important that families have time together, and we know that. I know I

hear from constituents about how difficult it is for them to make ends meet, how they have to work

harder and how they have to work longer hours. We know some people work two or three jobs to

make ends meet, so to have that extra day, whether they are having time with their family or going to

the footy or whatever it may be, or whether they are working on the day getting penalty rates, it is a

great opportunity for those people to earn some extra dollars but also to spend time with their families.

I think this legislation is extremely important. I know how important it is for my community, and I

know how outraged they would be if we did not enshrine it in legislation. It is very important. In saying

that, I think the arguments that the opposition put forward are not strong arguments. If they went to

Geelong and said that they did not support this legislation, I hate to think what the people of Geelong

would do, because it is really important to them to enjoy that time away.

Since these public holidays have occurred through the gazettal, Victorian small businesses have gone

from strength to strength. We know that, and I hear that in my own community. I spoke to small

businesses in Geelong and I spoke to the Geelong trades hall and their affiliated unions to get a picture

of how they see it and how important it is to them. Yes, there will be those that are not happy about it,

but I think the vast majority of businesses and I know 100 per cent of workers think it is a fantastic

opportunity, and we should be doing as much as we can in Geelong to promote that weekend and have

BILLS


these footy festivals and things like it that attract people to Geelong but also give the Geelong people

the opportunity to enjoy that long weekend.

We know that the Liberals do not value time off for workers across Victoria. They are saying they are

not going to oppose the legislation, but leading up to the election there was not a lot that came from them

about making a commitment to enshrining this legislation. We know it was the Liberals that took away

public holidays in the past under the Kennett era. They did not hesitate to take our public holidays away,

and that was to the detriment of workers. So I do think it is really important that we continue to support

this legislation to have the people of Victoria able to, as I said, go to the Friday festivals and enjoy the

display that we have here in Melbourne. Some people from Geelong do go to that and enjoy it; other

people do different things. As I said, they can now go to the Geelong footy festival that we have.

This is very important legislation. We have consulted key organisations on this. There has been a lot

of support from right across Victoria and I am sure in other regional centres they feel the same—that

this is a great opportunity to boost their economy and get people into their communities spending

money, spending time at their restaurants and cafes and booking up their hotel accommodation—so

that all regions have the opportunity to benefit from this important piece of legislation. I look forward

to this year’s Grand Final Friday. I think we will be celebrating in Geelong—I would hope. I do not

want to mozz it. Go Cats! I commend the bill to the house.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (17:42): A dad joke in me says, ‘The cat is out of the bag’ and

the member for Geelong will regret her words; she might have put the mozz on the Cats, but we will

see how we go. This is an important bill, the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019. If we are carrying

on the theme of footy, when the opposition first put forward their opposition to this bill and this policy

you could not have greater supporters of a hopeful Gold Coast Suns-Greater Western Sydney grand

final, because that probably would have impacted on some of the tens of thousands that turned out for

the grand final public holiday, but what we saw in the implementation of that policy was crowds and

crowds out for when the Tigers obviously broke their premiership drought and—lo and behold—the

Collingwood Football Club again fell short on grand final day.

This is a policy that goes to the heart of the values that you put on the work of your labour and the

recreational time that you spend with family and friends. I came in here today and I was optimistic. I

thought maybe the opposition in their flip-flopping on this policy would finally come to redemption—

they would come into this chamber and say, ‘Look, we got it wrong the first time. We got the policy

wrong—the setting—we were a bit miserly’. Jeff Kennett, the former Premier, took away Show Day.

How miserly was that? That was not a popular move. His former adviser then, the former Leader of

the Opposition, maybe in the spirit of solidarity and comradeship backed in former Premier Jeff

Kennett and said, ‘Don’t worry, I oppose the grand final public holiday’. Then come forward to the

lead-up to the state election, when we had a ‘Well, it’s embedded’ kind of policy. Well, no. We have

got no-one on that side willing to get up and talk about its importance or oppose it. We have got

nothing. We have got no position from them on it.

We have got the member for Croydon doing the chamber duty here as the shadow, but I reckon he

would not be in here if he did not have to be in here; that is how far away they are running from this

policy, because it is very popular out in communities. When you look at what was afforded and put

forward in 2015, this was the end of Victoria as the jobs engine economy as we knew it. It was going

to be, ‘The sky is falling in’. As soon as Grand Final Friday came forward the state of Victoria would

be in a state of ruin. We would see job losses. We would see a mass exodus out of Victoria and there

would be great problems in our economy. Well, right now the federal Treasurer is absolutely backing

the Victorian economy because it is the only thing keeping them from recession in Canberra. So I

reckon he would be saying, ‘Look, if you want to put a public holiday forward there, go for your life,

mate, because we just want you to keep doing what you’re doing’. Because what doing what we are

doing looks like is 450 000 jobs, a lot of them—hundreds of thousands of them—full-time jobs. It is

opportunities that we have never seen before in Victoria. We are seeing an infrastructure boom in our

BILLS


forward estimates that is greater than the commonwealth is delivering in a decade, we are seeing

confidence in the business community and we are seeing people investing in Victoria. That is the story

of Victoria, and all those that put forward an alternative view have been shown to be probably over-

egging that issue. Also Victoria is really doing incredibly well as the engine room of our economy.

But, look, we will see when we come forward to vote—we have still got until Thursday. We will see

where the opposition land on this and whether they support working people.

This is a bill and this is the introduction of legislation that delivers on an Andrews Labor government

election commitment in two respective Parliaments and in two elections running up to them. It shows

what value you put on time with family and friends and the value that you put on the work that people

do. These particular public holidays and where they sequence in the calendar are really important.

Obviously Show Day broke up the year before Melbourne Cup weekend. We see research after

research talking about the benefits of getting a proper work-life balance, with recreational benefit,

family time, time with friends. People are more productive if they are able to strike that balance and

break up the year and spend that time to maybe get away with family and friends. That is what the

Grand Final Friday public holiday does. It allows people to enjoy everything that is to offer in the great

city of Melbourne, one of the most livable cities—and six or seven years running the most livable city

in the world. It allows people to enjoy what we love about Melbourne: coming together in the tribes

and spirit that we have of our football colours and all the flavours that come forward in Melbourne.

But also it is an opportunity for families to get out on the road, to go and check out our regional and

rural communities, and the member for Geelong summed up how important the Grand Final Friday

public holiday is for people who are coming to visit her community in Geelong, and it is the same for

any regional member. That is why if people from our rural and regional communities on all sides of

the house were really being true to themselves they would be saying, ‘Well, we see those visitors come

to our communities. We see the benefit realised. Those businesses get an extra day to really put

forward their hard work and their toil in terms of people visiting those communities in regional

communities’. I know that certainly my family has taken that opportunity to get that respite from a

working week, and I know that so many of my community use the Grand Final Friday public holiday

to break up the year and are looking forward to that opportunity now.

The other really important thing I think to place on the record is that around Christmas time and around

Easter time a lot of us have got some time off with family, but there are a lot of people in our

community who are working very hard on behalf of others. I refer to our emergency services workers,

who do an incredible job. Each and every year they are out there protecting and supporting others—

people who have critical medical incidents or need to present to emergency departments. That does

not stop on a public holiday. That does not stop on the weekend or public holidays. All the people who

work shift work or work a number of jobs to make ends meet—that does not stop because it is a

weekend or Easter comes around or Christmas comes around. They are doing all they can to either

support and protect their community or make ends meet. I want to put on the record our great thanks

and appreciation to them. In their work and effort we should recognise that they are making a

sacrifice—a sacrifice that the majority of people do not have to make with their families and their

communities. We put on the record our thanks and appreciation to those who work during those times

to keep our state ticking along.

Also I know that the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association have been very strong in

their campaigns on this particular issue—that its members should be properly remunerated and

supported in their work and in their efforts. I think that is really important in this bill. I know that they

have campaigned for it. They approached me about that and briefed me on that important legislation

as well, and I agree that they should be compensated and supported if Christmas falls on a weekend

and that Easter Sunday should be a public holiday, and we should recognise that.

That is the contrast in values on this side of the house. Meeting our election commitment to support

working people is a chain of values that we put forward: it is public holidays to support working

BILLS


people, it is fighting against cuts to penalty rates and it is fighting against the erosion of workers’ rights

and conditions. That is what the state Labor government does in supporting and protecting

communities and working people. So this bill enshrines Labor values.

Despite those opposite and their suggestions at the time that they would abolish this public holiday in

the gazetting of public holidays and the fact that they said that the state of Victoria would grind to a

halt, that this would be a disaster and that we would see job losses and see our state go backwards—it

would be nice to have an acknowledgment from those opposite that all those things have not come to

fruition—we now see the engine room of our state, the Victorian economy, powering Australia. The

engine room of jobs creation in our state, of business confidence, of investment attraction, has come

to Victoria. That is our story that we tell. But in that as well we realise that working people should get

a fair day’s rate of pay for a fair day’s work, that we should have 13 public holidays out of 365 days

or 366 days in a leap year and that we should recognise that we should break up the year to make sure

that people get that respite, get that recreational time and get all that critical, valuable time with family

and friends or to get away into our regional communities. That is so very critical and important, and

that is what leads to better productivity. When we support and we empower our workforce, we see

more confidence and more business growth in Victoria—in spite of all that negative rhetoric from

those opposite.

This is a good bill. I wait with bated breath for Thursday. Goodness me, drum roll: do we think those

opposite will finally get on board? Will the Leader of the Opposition finally come into the confessional

and say, ‘I was wrong. My predecessor who I rolled was absolutely wrong’? Can he actually front up

and say, ‘Nup, this is a good public holiday’? Let us see what the member for Malvern says. I will not

hold my breath. This is a great bill, and I wish it a speedy passage through the Parliament.

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (17:52): I was doing some googling, as the kids say, when preparing

to speak on this bill—

Mr Hodgett interjected.

Mr TAYLOR: A bit of googling, and I thought, considering some of the history of public holidays,

it was important to take the DeLorean and go back in time to really understand this issue—to really take

a deep dive. Not too far back, a significant day in history was 26 September, and it is relevant to this

bill as well—a very important day in the historic calendar. It was 26 September when Francis Drake in

1580 completed the circumnavigation of the world, for those who might not have known, and in 1680

there was a tax revolt in Gorinchem due to a tax on cereal—can you believe it? And 26 September

2014, around the same time he was sharpening up his infamous side letter writing skills, was when the

now opposition leader stated, ‘Daniel Andrews is again sending the message that Victoria will be closed

for business under Labor’, in relation to the Grand Final Friday public holiday. How I am sure the now

opposition leader wishes he too could jump back in the DeLorean with Marty McFly and Doc to rescue

his comments on that ever-so-fateful day! Because history has told us many things—many, many

things. In the context of this debate it is clear the opposition are no friends to small business, and they

are also not a friend to the worker. But this has been known about those opposite for many, many years

and I am sure will continue for many more. As my brother often says to me, though, ‘Tell me something

I don’t know’. Let me tell you: the Victorian public sure do know it.

Well, the poorly judged comments continued, because on 5 October 2015 the member for Bulleen

stated, ‘I think it’s pretty clear that a coalition government would find it very difficult to keep it’, when

speaking on the Grand Final Friday public holiday. How terribly those comments have aged, and also

I think the member for Bulleen forgot which city he was living in—Melbourne, the proud home of

AFL and the home of the grand final, though those Sydneysiders would like to take it, I am sure.

However, we have locked that bad boy in for many, many years to come. It is the home of the grand

final. For Melburnians it is a sacred tradition that is etched in stone. A public holiday on the Friday

beforehand, as a result of this legislation, should it pass both houses, will be entrenched in legislation

BILLS


to ensure all Victorians can enjoy a day of fun, rest and relaxation—#RandR—and get involved. And

might I say: go the mighty Tigers.

Mr Hodgett: Hear, hear!

Mr TAYLOR: I am sure the member for Croydon can agree on that. Thank you, sir. Feels like a

lifetime ago, 2017, but maybe not as long ago as 2015, as the member for Bulleen might now be

feeling. Victorians work hard, and they deserve to get a break too. Whilst there have been many

disparaging comments made by those opposite, there has also been the odd backflip at the

eleventh hour. During last year’s election campaign—I am sure we all remember that one; it feels like

yesterday—the then opposition leader and member for Bulleen stated:

We didn’t originally support it but we accept it’s now part of the calendar—

20 September 2018. That is fence-sitting at its finest, I dare say. And it turns out splinters abounded

last November for the member, and voters did not leave the member for Bulleen wondering as to their

support for the public holiday in question, nor any other part of the massive reform agenda put to the

Victorian people.

Whilst those opposite have dithered, fence-sat and everything else in between, this government has

remained steadfast and committed to this legislation and to backing workers, as we have always done

and always will. This legislation will enshrine Easter Sunday and Grand Final Friday as public

holidays and will also legislate for an additional public holiday when Christmas Day falls on a

Saturday or a Sunday. This will make sure that no future government can just arbitrarily take away

from working people what they deserve: a fair go and time to enjoy with family on those really special

days. This will keep us at 13 public holidays, which is comparable to other states, although not as good

as ACT—we might get there one day. With increasing productivity and increasing employment, there

is no doubt that Victorians deserve them.

There have been many comments, once again made by those opposite, about how terrible this

legislation is and how it will hurt the economy. That is just absolutely not true. But really, are we

surprised that they are misleading the people once again about something like strong economic growth

under our watch? There are countless benefits to the economy, and to regional tourism as well for

those many who have taken the opportunity of time off to visit our beautiful regional centres and

getaway destinations.


Mr TAYLOR: Absolutely, like Daylesford, Ballarat and the like. The member for Wendouree can

attest to the crowds flocking out her way.

Mr Brayne interjected.

Mr TAYLOR: Absolutely, and down to Nepean as well, the member states. For all the comments

about the impact on jobs, well, I have heard nothing from those opposite about the record growth and

employment right across the board, about 450 000 jobs. And I will tell the member for Ringwood:

450 000 jobs now created under this government. How good is that? Often you hear these numbers

and you wonder, ‘What percentage of this is really full-time, secure work?’. The reality is that 70 per

cent of those jobs are full-time, secure work, and that is next level. We also have the second-lowest

unemployment rate in the country and record low regional unemployment rates.

Victorian small businesses: though those opposite would like to pretend that we are not a friend of the

small businesses, absolutely we are. At every step those opposite have tried to denigrate small

businesses and have tried to confuse and muddy the waters. Victorian small businesses in fact are the

most confident in the nation, and the average yearly growth of small businesses is at 3.6 per cent, well

above the national average. Who would have thought that giving folks a day off to spend time with

BILLS


families would result in such a generous boost to the economy as they get out into the economy and

spend money? Those opposite would not have, and they still do not think it would.

It is a bit sad that I have to spell this out so explicitly to those opposite: it turns out that giving workers

a fair go, investing and not cutting, actually delivers for Victorians. And again when we look at

history—I do like the odd history lesson here or there, as much as the member for Hawthorn, who

departed from the chamber recently, after giving a rousing speech to this chamber—


Mr TAYLOR: No, departed from the chamber, not departed. Absolutely not—he is still with us.

Absolutely. Thank you very much for pointing that out though. I did say the chamber. When we look

at history again, as I have said, and I will say it again: the Liberal-Nationals are no friends of the

worker. Let us jump back in the DeLorean, get to 88 miles per hour and head back to 1993. Let us get

back there because the Kennett government introduced the Public Holidays Act 1993.


Mr TAYLOR: I don’t have a skateboard—never will and never have. Back to 1993 and the Public

Holidays Act had the practical impact of abolishing the three public holidays at the time. Like then,

up until now, this approach by those opposite of not protecting public holidays and in turn everyday

Victorians is an assault on working people and an assault on fairness. Without this legislation there is

every chance that there will be a repeat of 1993, and we simply cannot let that happen. They closed

down railway lines, they closed down schools, they closed vital infrastructure and they will take our

public holidays away from us. For everyday workers—our retail workers, people who choose to work

on the weekends and do the good work for us—they deserve a fair go, and we will always back in

those workers and all workers. As well, because Christmas Day is sacred and getting time off with

loved ones is so important over that period—as is Easter Sunday—we will make sure those people

who choose to work over those times are looked after.

I provided some small history on those comments from those opposite. There is a lot of fearmongering

and a lot of dog whistling about how we are going to see all these ghost towns. Instead we have seen

regional tourism at its finest. Through all the success of it, I will be interested to see where the current

opposition leader sits on this, and the opposition in general. We have seen and heard their comments

etched in the bylines of the Murdoch media and the backflips listed in Fairfax, so I will follow their

vote on this very, very closely, because I can tell you that those people in my community of Bayswater

have told me loud and clear, as across all electorates: ‘Don’t take my Grand Final Friday away from

me. We work hard and we deserve to enjoy some time off’.

On Grand Final Friday I have spoken to many locals who have ventured out to the Daylesfords and

Ballarats of the world, into the city, our local cafes and shops, and even some people who have enjoyed

a bit of quiet Netflix with the kids. Whatever it is, they absolutely deserve it. These public holidays

are here to stay. This government will make sure of it, while those opposite continue to bicker and do

nothing for workers and do nothing to reward the good work of the Victorian people. They are still in

the DeLorean, heading back to the 1950s, where a lot of their values still exist, and still rejoicing in

the glorious days of Kennett’s cuts—or so they would believe they were. They will never be a friend

to the worker or small business, and they will never take workers rights seriously. Go the Tigers.

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (18:02): I rise today to speak in support of the Public Holidays

Amendment Bill 2019. This is an important bill for Victorians. It makes provision for certain public

holidays, they being Easter Sunday, the Friday before the AFL Grand Final and Christmas Day when

it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday. The Andrews Labor government committed at the 2014 and 2018

elections to enshrine in legislation the aforementioned public holidays. I am proud to be supporting

this legislation, which delivers on those election commitments. I would really like to thank the Minister

BILLS


for Local Government and Minister for Small Business for presenting this bill. I also thank the former

minister in the 58th Parliament for his work on preparing the bill.

The Public Holidays Amendment Bill is another example of how the Andrews Labor government is

living its values and delivering on its commitments to Victorians. This legislation enshrines

arrangements that are already in place, so in effect we are locking in the status quo. By enshrining the

public holidays of Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and Grand Final Friday in law, we are also helping

to protect the penalty rates of thousands of Victorian workers who are required to work on these days.

I believe that days like Christmas Day are times to spend with family, friends and the people you love,

but if you do have a job that requires you to work on that special day, your pay should recognise that

sacrifice. It is only fair.

I would really like to take this opportunity to recognise the many people in our community who do

work on public holidays and who work unsociable hours to protect us, to keep us safe, to care for us

and to provide emergency services. Your contribution is so important, and I thank you for your service.

Without enshrining Christmas Day as a public holiday in law, under another government it could mean

that when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday, which it will in a couple of years, Victorians like nurses,

like firefighters and like police officers would not get paid penalty rates but their colleagues who would

then work on the substitute Monday would, and that is not fair. Whilst there have been critics of these

arrangements since they have been put in place, Victoria, as previous speakers have clearly explained,

has become the fastest growing economy. So we have got our levers right in terms of workers’ rights,

productivity and support for small business. We have got a really good mix, and that is why our

economy is strong.

This is a government that supports working Victorians. However, the public holidays we enjoy have

only been enacted by gazettal; to date they are not law. This makes it easier to reverse them so that

they impact on important family time and work-life balance and prevent many who do work on those

days from being compensated for it. We know that these public holidays could be up for grabs; we

have experienced it all before. The member for Bayswater was just talking about his DeLorean

experience, back to 1993, but I am a bit older than the member for Bayswater. I was at uni in 1993

when Jeff Kennett was elected, and I remember Easter Saturday, Easter Tuesday and Melbourne Show

Day being taken away from the Victorian community.

It is also important to note that the Public Holidays Act 1993 does not interact with the Shop Trading

Reform Act 1996. Therefore this bill is not going to impact Victorian shop trading hours, which are

defined as ‘ordinary shop closing times’ in the Shop Trading Reform Act. As the daughter of a small

business owner, we need to provide shop owners and small business operators with certainty, so let us

be really clear. Victoria’s restricted trading days will continue to only be Christmas Day, Good Friday

and Anzac Day until 1.00 p.m., but the other days are not impacted.

As many of you know, I am a history teacher, so I really like to have a think about where these public

holidays come from. Why do we have them? What do these public holidays represent? If you think

about the 13 public holidays we celebrate in Victoria, it really does give some insights into our cultural

values as a society as well as reflecting historical events that are significant to us as a state and as a

nation. These are important days that should be enshrined in law, and this is what we are going to do.

We start the year by welcoming in the new year on 1 January with a public holiday, and a few weeks

later we enjoy another public holiday as we mark Australia Day, although this is now quite

contentious. Labour Day falls on the second Monday in March in honour of the movement for better

working conditions and the 1856 campaign by the stonemasons at the University of Melbourne for an

8-hour working day. On the anniversary of Gallipoli in 1915 we honour not only the service of the

Anzacs in the Great War but all the Australian men and women who have served our nation in times

of war and peace. We celebrate the Queen’s Birthday as a public holiday on the second Monday in

June, in recognition of our sovereign’s birthday, although some republicans like me might prefer that

we had a separate celebration for something else about us as a nation.

BILLS


In Melbourne and other parts of Victoria, on the first Tuesday in November there is a public holiday

for the race that stops a nation—the Melbourne Cup. I note that in Ballarat we have previously enjoyed

a public holiday for the Ballarat Cup, but in more recent years the City of Ballarat has nominated

Ballarat show day in November for our public holiday.

Reflecting the Christian traditions of many Australians, we mark the most significant Christian

festivals of Christmas and Easter with public holidays. However, Christmas Day and Easter Sunday

are not properly protected, and no matter what your faith, or if you have no religion at all, these are

great days when you can celebrate with your family and spend time with your friends. The changes

that we will introduce with this bill will allow Victorians from across the state the time to celebrate

these important dates in our calendar with family and friends. These public holidays are a reflection

of many of the traditional values and what contributes to who we are. Therefore what a great idea it is

to also have a public holiday on the Friday before the AFL Grand Final, in the state that is the home

of Aussie Rules.

The Andrews Labor government is proud to support Grand Final Friday. But it is not just for footy

fans; it is a chance for Victorians to spend time with family and friends, and a big boost for businesses

and tourism operators across our state. For those Victorians who are required to work, we will look

after you too. The legislation will protect it as a public holiday in law.

I am certainly looking forward to Grand Final Friday this year. I will be attending this year’s grand

final parade with Mike, Jo and Sophia to cheer on our Geelong Cats on the eve of this year’s grand

final. I cannot think of a better way to spend the last Friday than watching all the Cats coming up

Collins Street on the night before they win the flag. I am sure, as was suggested by the member for

Bulleen, that Melbourne could be a ghost town on that day, but I am actually a bit more worried about

Geelong being a ghost town, as tens of thousands of passionate supporters make their way up the

highway to Melbourne to support the mighty Cats.

Working families want certainty about their work rosters, to make holiday plans and manage their

work-life balance. These amendments will assist those people by allowing greater certainty for

Victorians around their work rosters and in planning their holidays for the forthcoming year.

I have always enjoyed working and having a job, and I believe that public holidays are very important

to working Victorians. This bill enshrines in law three public holidays: Easter Sunday, Grand Final

Friday and Christmas Day. While I was at school and at university I particularly loved working in

retail as a casual and as a part-timer when I was a member of the Shop, Distributive and Allied

Employees Association. My retail work included working at Thomas Jewellers at Ballarat, as an Easter

casual at Darrell Lea at Chadstone and as a long-term part-timer at Myer Melbourne for five years.

My part-time contracted hours of work at Myer were across Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Easter

Sunday was not a public holiday; therefore I was required to work as per my contract. So while my

family in Ballarat celebrated Easter together, I was required to be at work in Melbourne. I believe that

making Easter Sunday a public holiday is important to allow many Victorians to celebrate Easter with

their families and friends. I think this is fair and reasonable.

I am proud to support the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019, as this legislation will give working

people certainty in the future as we enshrine Easter Sunday, the Friday before the AFL Grand Final

and Christmas Day when it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, making sure they are permanently

protected. Hardworking Victorians do deserve these holidays. In 2014 and again in 2018 we promised

to lock these public holidays in, so I am so pleased to be one of the 55 members of this government

and to have the opportunity to deliver another election commitment to our community. I commend the

bill to the house.

Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (18:12): I am very, very pleased to finally be able to stand

here and speak on the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019. As our Premier so often says: we say

what we will do, and we do what we say. The ALP issued a media release back on 22 April 2014

BILLS


promising to make Easter Sunday a public holiday, and the ALP also made very clear before the

election that it intended to make the Friday before the AFL Grand Final a public holiday as well. They

were clear election commitments, and in those circumstances and in that context there is a very clear

mandate for this bill.

This government is delivering on its promise to enshrine Easter Sunday, Christmas Day when it falls

on a Saturday or a Sunday and Grand Final Friday as public holidays in law. With this legislation we

will make sure that people are permanently protected when they work on these days. Indeed some

people may well be surprised that these days are not currently public holidays, but in fact it is a battle—

albeit some years are easier than others—to routinely have these days gazetted by the government as

public holidays year after year. This bill means that that will no longer be required.

Indeed this is a great result for those who have long campaigned for this outcome. In particular it is a

victory for the union movement and a victory for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees

Association, the SDA. The SDA consists of more than 50 000 members in Victoria, and the

overwhelming number of those members work in retail and fast-food establishments. SDA members

have an interest in the matter of Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and grand final day as public holidays,

and as a former organiser and industrial officer of the SDA, I know firsthand how hard the union and

particularly the delegates and the members have worked towards this outcome for the betterment of

their fellow workers in shops, in petrol stations and in fast-food outlets across the state. Indeed my first

role at the SDA was as a casual organiser—casual not in nature of employment but casual in that I

worked the hours that most casual employees work: Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Fridays,

Saturdays and Sundays I would spend meeting with our members, meeting with our delegates—

Ms Staley: Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Ms BLANDTHORN: Perhaps that is an indication of why the member for the Institute of Public

Affairs also does not like sharing her breakfast table with someone who speaks from the unions. I was

going to talk about this later in my speech, but I will address it now, given that the member for the IPA

has gotten to her feet and tried to cut down my time. I was talking about the time that I spent with the

shop assistants union, working for those workers—usually workers who were on the lowest pay rates

in our society, often vulnerable workers, often female workers. But one of the things that became

apparent to me when we were pursuing penalty rates cases, and in particular public holiday cases, was

that there would always be those employers whose argument against the penalty rate or public holiday

was that they themselves did not want to work on a public holiday because the public holiday was a

sacrosanct time for them to spend with their own families and that therefore they would have to pay

somebody a penalty rate to work instead of them. So they were on one level acknowledging that the

time was sacrosanct and time that they would like to spend at home with their families but on the other

hand begrudging that they should pay the workers in their business more to work that time instead of

them.

Indeed I have spoken about this in the past, but Mark Kenny in the Sydney Morning Herald did a bit

of a survey once. He looked at the various employer organisations and he rang them on a public

holiday, the IPA included. He rang the IPA, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry

Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and even the small enterprise body the

Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, known as the COSBOA. And guess what?

Nobody answered the phone. He continued that:

The avowedly free-market IPA is, of course, a muscular advocate of labour-market deregulation and would

do away with centrally established pay rates entirely. But call on Sunday to speak to a person and you get a

machine.

Their weekends are also sacrosanct. So there is a bit of a double standard there.

BILLS


But returning to the bill and what the bill actually does, the amendment does not affect the existing

public holiday on Christmas Day when it falls on a weekday, and the amendment also does not affect

the existing public holidays on the Monday after Christmas Day if Christmas Day is on a Saturday or

the Tuesday after Christmas Day if Christmas Day is on a Sunday. When penalty rates were first

introduced Sundays were treated the same as public holidays, attracting the same rates and benefits

for workers. But now, thanks to the wind back of penalty rates under successive Liberal governments,

Victorians working on Christmas Day on a weekend miss out on increased rates of pay, and the current

legislation only provides for public holiday rates on a substitute day during the week. That means that

when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday Victorians do not get public holiday rates but their colleagues

who work on the substitute Monday do. It is just unfair, and it is exactly why we are introducing these

new laws.

When we think about Easter Sunday most people are surprised to find that Easter Sunday is not

currently legislated as a public holiday. Traditionally Easter Sunday was not a public holiday because

Sundays were treated the same as public holidays, both in respect of shop trading hours and also in

terms of award entitlements. There was as such no need to call out Easter Sunday explicitly as a public

holiday. With the legalisation of shop trading on Sundays and the extension of the award spread of

hours to include Easter Sunday, Easter Sunday is unfinished business, as said by the SDA.

It is important to think about the reasons why we might make Easter Sunday a public holiday. First of

all, as various people in this place have alluded to, both those who are of a religious mindset and those

who are not see Easter Sunday as an important day for them to spend with their family. Easter Sunday

is also recognised as a public holiday in many overseas countries—Norway, Poland, Iceland, San

Marino, Greece, Romania, Lebanon, Egypt, there is a list of them that goes on—and given that my time

has been cut I will not go through all of them. But right across the world Easter Sunday is seen as a

public holiday. Indeed Easter Sunday is a public holiday in New South Wales, and the world has not

fallen in there. Victorians are overwhelmingly in favour of Easter Sunday as a public holiday, as are the

members of the SDA. As I said, more than 50 000 members in the relevant areas of employment were

surveyed, and 96 per cent of SDA members wanted Easter Sunday as a public holiday.

When we come to Grand Final Friday, this was also a commitment of the Andrews Labor ticket going

to the election. It was well and truly put on the table that this was something that we would fight for

in this place. It came into effect, and despite the warnings of those opposite, the world did not fall in.

I think on the first one of those, at the cafes and the ice-cream shop in particular in my part of the

world, the lines were out the door. Small businesses did very well, and as other members in this place

in more regional parts of the state have attested to, they have also done well in their communities.

This is a great Labor bill, as was the one before this, but I want to particularly pay tribute, as I have

said, to those at the SDA who have fought very hard for a very long time for this to come into effect.

Recently we lost a great legend of the trade union movement and the labour movement in Bob Hawke,

but at the 100th anniversary of the SDA, Bob Hawke said this about the SDA, and I think it sums up

where we have got to on this bill:

Basically what a trade union movement should be about, is first of all and fundamentally of course, acting to

improve through time the wages and conditions of employment of its members. This is the fundamental.

It goes beyond that. It involves concern with their wider welfare.

He went on, but in the end he said:

And if you look at all these elements, and the question also of international connection, this SDA meets all

those requirements, passes ... every respect with 10/10.

Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:22): It gives me great pleasure to rise and to speak in favour

of the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019, and I do so right after the member for Pascoe Vale, who

has been a fantastic union official in her previous life and has spoken about the importance of this bill

in codifying these public holidays.

BILLS


The purpose of this bill is to try to deliver on the government’s election commitments at both the 2014

and 2018 state elections. The government has twice committed—as I said, in 2014 and 2018—to

enshrine in legislation the public holidays that we now know as Grand Final Friday as well as Easter

Sunday and Christmas Day. This legislation will deliver on those election commitments. In lay terms,

the proposed bill will codify in legislation Easter Sunday and Grand Final Friday as public holidays. It

will also legislate for an additional public holiday when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday.

This bill locks in what is already the status quo. Make no mistake, this is already current practice.

These arrangements are in place. What the legislation will do, though, is allow for greater certainty for

Victorians, especially around their holiday plans for the forthcoming year. It will also give those

workers, many of whom are under an award or a collective agreement, the certainty required to a

well-earned break or to negotiated higher rates of pay that working on a public holiday might bring.

This bill will also help to provide certainty to employees and employers in informing the minimum

conditions for employee entitlements in awards or as a basis standard in negotiating collective

agreements. As a former National Union of Workers official I remember there used to be great

uncertainty with gazetted public holidays about whether weekend rates would have to be paid and

whether the public holiday loading would have to be paid. It would cause a lot of uncertainty not only

for employees but for employers as they tried to staff a workforce in that tremendous confusion.

At present, of course, the public holidays have been enacted by Government Gazette. Gazetted

holidays make it far easier for a subsequent government to reverse those public holidays, and holiday

time with family and friends is something important and something that this government wishes to

recognise and now seeks to lock in. Victoria currently has 13 public holidays. This is comparable to

other states. So the codification of these holidays into legislation makes sense. I think that it is also

interesting to note that whilst these gazetted arrangements have been in place, Victoria has become

Australia’s fastest growing economy. Since the Andrews government took office we have seen strong

growth in the labour market, with employment increasing by 15.1 percent or, to quantify that in real

terms, by 442 300 workers. The majority of this job growth has been in full-time work, which is up

by over 313 000 workers. We have the second lowest unemployment rate in Australia.

Since these public holidays have occurred through gazetted holidays, Victorian small businesses have

in fact gone from strength to strength. Victorian small businesses are the most confident in the nation,

with the number of small businesses growing at a yearly rate of 3.6 per cent. This is well above the

national average.

As I have said, the bill locks in the status quo by establishing in law those three public holidays, and

we can see that the benefits of this bill will far outweigh any negatives or indeed any scaremongering

that might have been put out there in the past by the opposition. We are the party that values time off

for hardworking Victorian workers. We were not the ones that removed Show Day, Easter Saturday

and Easter Tuesday as public holidays. We also were not the ones who peddled lies about what the

effect would be of having these days as public holidays. The cries of Melbourne becoming a ghost

town on these public holidays, particularly Grand Final Friday, were proven to be yet another empty

scare campaign—a complete fallacy. The truth is the AFL Grand Final attracts many viewers, more

than the race that stops the nation, the Melbourne Cup. It is significant therefore that we have a

legislated public holiday that celebrates our national game, our national pastime, which is, of course,

at home in Victoria.

The creation of these public holidays in fact also saw an enormous boost to regional tourism, with

many families taking the opportunity to travel to regional Victoria and enjoy all that it has to offer.

The lived experience of these public holidays has shown that both the population as a whole and the

business community benefited from the opportunity for greater leisure time. But you do not have to

take it from me: PricewaterhouseCoopers undertook a regulatory impact statement in connection with

our commitment for Grand Final Friday and Easter Sunday, and that was done back in 2015. A second

regulatory impact statement was undertaken in 2017 in connection with the Christmas Day public

BILLS


holiday announcement. They are both available through the Office of the Commissioner for Better

Regulation.

The 2015 regulatory impact statement found that the Grand Final Friday and Easter Sunday

commitment would deliver leisure time to Victorians of an equivalent economic value of between

$156 million and $312 million. It also found that tourism to regional Australia could see economic

benefits of between $17 million and $51 million annually. While the regulatory impact statement

found that the economic benefits of the new public holidays were outweighed by the costs, it also

acknowledged that there is the potential for wider benefits to accrue to families from coordinated

leisure time.

These changes have allowed, and will allow, Victorians from across our state time to celebrate

important dates in our calendar and enjoy some well-earned downtime with family and friends.

Consultation for this bill has been undertaken with key stakeholder groups, including the Victorian

Trades Hall Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and

Industry, as already detailed through those two regulatory impact statements. This proposal has of

course been taken to two state elections and we received an overwhelming mandate at both elections.

Hardworking Victorians deserve the opportunity for greater coordination of leisure time through the

legislating of three public holidays into law: Grand Final Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day.

These changes cement the status quo in law and ensure that no future conservative government can

unilaterally reverse the public holidays that Victorians have recently embraced and have grown to rely

upon. The bill is being introduced to remove the confusion and uncertainty, to include the currently

gazetted public holidays and to provide some clarity for future incidents of Christmas Day falling on a

weekend. It is important that we recognise and compensate Victorian workers fairly when they are

required to work on these significant public holidays regardless of which day of the week they fall on.

It is about certainty and clarity for employers and especially for employees. Most importantly, it is about

achieving a work-life balance for all Victorians. For these reasons I commend the bill to the house.

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (18:31): I am delighted to rise today to contribute to the debate on

the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019. This will implement the government’s election

commitment and enshrine in legislation Easter Sunday and the Friday before the AFL Grand Final as

public holidays. It will also deliver an additional holiday when Christmas Day falls on a weekend.

Of course everyone remembers the decision to make the Friday before the AFL Grand Final a public

holiday. It was welcomed with so much enthusiasm by people who work hard for their money—

people who work at the supermarket near me, those at the bank, the early childhood educators, the

people who work at our local council and so many of my community who enjoy spending time with

their families, because time with families is such a precious thing. As a community people are working

longer hours than ever before. People in the area I serve often travel a long way to get to work. There

are lots of young families in Cranbourne who toil hard from Monday to Friday, and the time they have

with each other, especially the time with their young children, is especially valuable. This legislation

recognises the importance of people who work hard.

I remember standing at the side of the netball court—a place where I might be accused of leaving the

political bubble—with my apolitical friends, in fact with many conservative friends, and I remember

so clearly their horror at the criticism being directed towards this additional public holiday. So many

people I knew took this criticism personally. Of course many people thought that this new holiday

replaced the Show Day holiday that we had all grown up with—that amazing and sweet day for

parents, the opportunity to enjoy spring and of course the opportunity to visit the Royal Melbourne

Show. And like most people in this chamber—some of my colleagues are too young to remember

being Jeffed but only need to read about him—I remember with clarity when Jeff Kennett took our

public holidays off us, because of course it is in the Liberal Party’s DNA to deny people their rights at

work. The idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is anathema. And at that netball game just a

BILLS


few years ago the condemnation was universal. How could anyone think that they did not deserve a

holiday to be with their family?

On those days when the former Leader of the Opposition derided the principle of the public holiday

even my most fervent conservative supporters asked, ‘What are those wowsers thinking of?’. Their

anger was sealed when their teams were playing in the granny. That first year I found myself surrounded

by enthusiastic Hawks fans using the grand final parade as a further chance to indoctrinate—I mean

teach—their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews about their team with great fanfare.

But of course it is the people with more control over their lives that most often get to choose to have

that extra time off. It is inevitable that the people I represent who are employed in roles where there is

less choice and more toil who most celebrate the additional time, because the opportunity to work for

pay is a fundamental driver for the economy and government has a role to play in people’s lives—to

legislate so that the community is paid fairly when they do take time away from their families to serve

the community when they would otherwise be expected to be at home with their families.

I remember that first time in 2015 when that public holiday was first available. The prophets of doom,

the wowsers, said that it would not work. The city would be a ghost town, we were told. There would

be nobody at the grand final parade because the city workers—those at the banks and the big financial

institutions and the telecommunications companies and the public servants—would not be in town to

line the streets. Well, we all know what happened: the people who normally work in the city, those

who commute from Cranbourne Monday to Friday, work in their offices and return home, all

reappeared in the city on that sunny Friday, but instead of wearing their suits and their leather shoes

they wore jeans and comfortable shoes and footy gear. Most importantly, so many of them were with

their families—with their partners, their children, their great-aunt who is a slightly crazy Hawthorn

supporter—and they all enjoyed the day in the city. It was teeming with people. I remember that day

vividly. I spent it with my children, I walked my dog and it was sweet. But this is about so much more

than a day off; this is about people’s fundamental right to be compensated for their time away from

their families.

I would like to touch on the other public holidays that are being enshrined in this bill before us today.

I would like to add my voice in commending this bill for recognising the people who work on Good

Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. We should be aware of the work they do. This is a

fundamental right that ought be recognised, because not every day is equal. If a person works at the

local servo and allows the rest of us to purchase ice and petrol on Christmas Day, that person ought be

compensated. And of course it is for the benefit of the economy. When people have time with their

families, they often go away for weekends, spreading the benefit through the economy. We know that

long weekends benefit our rural and regional cousins. Our coastal towns, our beautiful mountains and

our food tourism benefit enormously.

One grand final weekend I travelled to Daylesford with my family. We had lunch in that beautiful part

of the world, at the Farmers Arms, and the town was buzzing. I am sure the member for Macedon, if

she were here, would be aware that her community is much busier on those precious long weekends.

It is absolutely true that football is not at the centre of everyone’s universe and neither is horseracing

nor is the Queen, but that does not mean that we do not enjoy celebrations that capture the essence of

our state—what makes us different, our very unique elements and the reason we are so much better

than the wowsers north of the Murray. In Victoria there are no ridiculous lockout laws and the city is

safe because it is buzzing with energy. There are people making the most of their time. On public

holidays they spend their money at cafes in ways that benefit the business owners.

In honour of my friend the member for Nepean I would also like to celebrate all the terrific things people

do in Cranbourne when they are given a public holiday. Of course the number one place of interest is

the Cranbourne gardens, the jewel in the crown of my community. The gardens feature something for

everyone. Casey Fields is the centre of the universe for so many of us. It is not just the home of the

Casey Demons and the Cranbourne Football Club but also a top-notch BMX track, and, who would

BILLS


have thought, it is a place where people can undertake some recreational fishing occasionally. I see

families from across the community enjoying amazing picnics at this perfect place. No discussion about

the beauty of my community would be complete without mentioning the slice of heaven around

Lynbrook at Banjo Paterson Park. Come and see for yourself on your next public holiday.

Before finishing I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who do work on public holidays

to keep us safe. I come from a family of nurses. My brother, sister, sister-in-law, aunt and beloved and

recently departed mother-in-law, Sandra Bell, have over their lifetimes worked hard in public hospitals

on days when we were all enjoying a meal with the family—most recently my beautiful niece Zara

Jane has taken on this role. We all know it is a vocation. I would like to pay credit to them and to Zara,

who missed Christmas Day last year with us, her family, to care for those who needed her in the busy

metropolitan tertiary hospital where she works.

I would like to pay credit to all who care while we enjoy our Christmas puddings, particularly in

Cranbourne. I would like to acknowledge the local fireys, some of whom I met on Monday with the

member for Frankston. They stand by ready to respond when we need them. I would like to take the

opportunity to acknowledge our police—again with a recognition of those who serve Cranbourne. We

know you would rather be with your families on important days, but you are looking after us. And of

course there are our paramedics. I often find myself in conversation with a local paramedic and discuss

how she would like to be with her children when they open their gifts on Christmas morning. These

people deserve our thanks. They also deserve public holidays. I commend this bill to the house, and I

wish it a speedy passage.

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (18:40): I am here to speak on the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019.

It is an opportunity to speak about what has really been a massive success and which ensures these

holidays are enshrined in our law. The bill will enshrine Easter Sunday and Grand Final Friday as

public holidays. It will also legislate for an additional public holiday when Christmas Day falls on a

Saturday or Sunday. These were election promises back in the 2014 state election. On balance, making

these days public holidays stacked up, but I am biased because the Mornington Peninsula is one of the

biggest beneficiaries of public holidays. There are a huge number of businesses in Nepean, for whom,

if they had it their way, every day would be a public holiday. Whenever there is a public holiday droves

of cars line the freeway on a Thursday night trying to get down to some of the best attractions the

country has to offer. Let us talk about them.

The beaches are the biggest drawcard. When you have as much coastline as we do on the peninsula

you often forget what a luxury it is to have it. I cannot imagine living in an area where the beach is

more than 5 minutes away, but of course there are many, many people who do. It is these people who

use their public holidays to experience that rare thrill of visiting the beach. Whether it is Gunnamatta

Beach, the Sorrento back beach, Dromana beach, Rye beach, the Rosebud pier or my favourite beach

in the world, Balnarring Beach, there is plenty on offer. You can even visit the beach where Prime

Minister Harold Holt went missing all those years ago. It is a remarkable feeling being down there

looking out at Cheviot Beach. It is such a landmark in our political history, and what better time to do

that than on a beautiful public holiday, because many people never have the chance to absorb our

political history in the weekday rush and weekend exhaustion.

Cheviot Beach is of course part of the Point Nepean National Park, an icon of our great country and

in my electorate. We have two national parks in Nepean. Point Nepean National Park is one and the

Mornington Peninsula National Park is the other, or as it is more commonly known, Cape Schanck. I

was last in Cape Schanck in February and ended up getting chased by a kangaroo which had been

observing me from afar. Being in the national parks gives you an opportunity to escape noise and the

busy work lifestyle and experience peace and quiet. What else could you ask for on a public holiday?

And it is only 50 minutes out of Melbourne if you take Peninsula Link in non-peak time.

Now, if nature is not your bag but you still want to experience relaxation, Peninsula Hot Springs is

your next site. What better way to spend a long public holiday weekend than down at the hot springs?

BILLS


There are plenty of members here that I am sure are crying out for a good soak. I am yet to have a

meeting with the owner—


Mr BRAYNE: He is loving it. The member for Ringwood is loving that one. We are off. I am yet

to have a meeting with the owner of the hot springs, but he has advised me that when I do the meeting

will need to be conducted in the hot springs. As someone who prefers to conduct meetings in a suit,

this will be a new one for me.

The Baths Sorrento is obviously a culinary icon, with a view that is standard for us on the peninsula

but breathtaking for everyone else. There are of course hundreds of eateries on the Mornington

Peninsula, but Sorrento baths is one of the first sights you see when you hop off the Searoad ferry for

those of you coming from the Bellarine Peninsula. The owners, James and Helene, are committed

locals who put money into the playground at Sorrento Primary School. When you spend money on

the peninsula, that money so often gets placed back into the community.

The number of breweries on the peninsula keeps growing, and because you have got a long weekend

you can well and truly drink up. Just to list a few I have already visited, there is Bass & Flinders

Distillery, which is a small-scale maker of spirits and liqueurs. It uses local ingredients where possible,

utilises traditional production methods and has a great visitor experience with tours and tastings.

JimmyRum is an up-and-comer producing a variety of craft styles of rum, all made with high-quality

Australian ingredients at their distillery in Dromana—a shout-out to Jimmy from JimmyRum. There

are honestly so many. I visited the St Andrews Beach Brewery a short while ago, which has the best

atmosphere and apparently is located close to Andy Lee’s holiday home, so maybe you might catch

Hamish and Andy there.

You ought to stock up on plenty of fresh produce while you are spending your long weekend down

there. We have some of the best farm gates in the state. A farm gate is of course a farm that sells its

produce directly on site. I have visited a few of them. Torello Farm is a 28-acre farm in Dromana.

They grow, using biodynamic methods, a wide variety of vegetables and tree-ripened fruits in their

orchard of 100 trees. They sell everything they grow through the farm as well as preserves and take-

home meals. Mossy Willow Farm is another one that operates on Saturdays. Mossy Willow uses

organic sustainable farm practices to grow crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and

eggplants—great produce to purchase on a long weekend. We also have some great general stores that

sell local produce and give a great opportunity for tourists to meet Peninsula locals. Flinders General

Store and Merricks General Wine Store are just two to note.

Our southern peninsula is becoming steadily more known for breweries, but what everyone knows us

for is wineries and, boy, have we got the best in the biz. Montalto produces award-winning Mornington

Peninsula wine from six sites across the peninsula. It is also on a breathtaking site. Point Leo Estate is

another amazing site, which also has an extensive sculpture park. These are just two of the many,

many amazing wineries to visit.

What about for the kids? Because what we have to remember is that when there is a public holiday that

also means no school. What are the kids supposed to do? Sunny Ridge Strawberry Farm—not to be

confused with Sunnyside, which is a nude beach on the peninsula—is great in that not only can you

purchase strawberries and multiple strawberry products but you can also wander around the farm and

pick your own strawberries. Next time you have a public holiday bring the kids down and get to Sunny

Ridge.

The Eagle is another comparatively new addition to the hundreds of tourist opportunities down on the

southern Mornington Peninsula. The Eagle is a gondola ride that carries passengers between the base

station in Dromana to the summit of Arthurs Seat, passing high over the beautiful Arthurs Seat State

BILLS


Park. The enchanted maze is right next door, so catch the Eagle up and then explore the mazes, the

tree surfing and the zip line.

At the end of the day you could also visit the Dromana drive-in. As a former employee, I have been

well documented in talking up the Dromana drive-in. It is one of the few drive-ins left in this country

and indeed the world. It is also family owned, having been kept in the same family for the entirety of

its lifespan. Is anyone else looking forward to Toy Story 4?

Ms Addison: Me.

Mr BRAYNE: Right. Staying overnight is no trouble either, because while you could come down

for that one public holiday day, the best thing about a public holiday is that it creates a long weekend.

Make it a peninsula weekend. We have accommodation for all different experiences. Obviously there

is the RACV Cape Schanck Resort, which despite the controversy has been able to cater for the ever-

increasing demand of people trying to come down to the Mornington Peninsula. Ace-Hi ranch is a

Western-themed adventure park set on 200 acres and offers really unique overnight accommodation.

You have to check it out—you have to. Also, a shout-out to Ron, who owns Ace-Hi. We also have

some great caravan parks—Amberlee caravan park, Kanasta Caravan Park and many, many others.

If you are coming down to the peninsula and do not want to eat out—though I do not know why you

would not—even our Dromana Ritchies IGA is world-renowned. In fact Dromana Ritchies won the

IGA International Retailer of the Year at the 2019 IGA global awards. When our local supermarket is

award-winning globally, you know we get the basics right.

Public holidays give families and couples an opportunity to spend valuable time together. The

memories we will remember will often be the trips made with those we love. Public holidays show

our values as a society. Yes, work is rewarding and can give us a sense of purpose, but we must rest

and remind ourselves of the things that matter in life—time with the family and of course time on the

Mornington Peninsula.

Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (18:49): Acting Speaker, I do not particularly know how to follow that

and some of the other fine contributions in this chamber over the last hour and a half, which included

references to a DeLorean and a whole range of other things, and I look forward to being down with

the member for Nepean at the Peninsula Hot Springs at some point soon on a public holiday. But I rise

in support of the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019, and what a fantastic bill this one is. It is a

great Labor bill. Not only does it enshrine in legislation Easter Sunday and Grand Final Friday as

public holidays, as my colleagues have noted, it will also legislate for an additional public holiday to

be given should Christmas Day fall on a Saturday or Sunday. This bill is just another example of the

Andrews Labor government delivering on a promise we made to Victorian workers last November. I

want to reference the words of the member for Essendon, who noted that we as a government take a

worker’s rights seriously. It is the Labor Party and the labour movement that have stood up for workers

for generations, and make no mistake: this is an important reform for Victorian workers.

I note, and one of my other colleagues noted this earlier, that more than 150 years ago workers downed

tools and marched to this site right here to demand 8 hours of work, 8 hours of play, 8 hours of sleep

and 8 bob a day. They understood the importance of rest to rehabilitate both the mind and the body

and to engage in family and recreational pursuits. I find it no coincidence that just weeks ago the World

Health Organization included burnout as an occupational phenomenon in its most recent classification

of diseases.

Let us be very clear: workers should have the right to rest and recreation, and when that right is forgone

then they deserve to be fairly compensated. Public holidays are a time to be spent resting or enjoying

recreational activities with family and friends. They are an opportunity for people to get a hard-earned

break and to do all the things that the member for Nepean mentioned just a moment ago, which

sounded decidedly exciting.

BILLS


I know that those opposite might prefer that workers in this state actually have no rights, that every

worker would be at the beck and call of the boss at any point. Indeed I want to take just a minute to

reference the framework behind this. The neoliberal economic framework that underpins and has

captured the opposition’s economic thinking is one that promotes contracting out and temporary

employment, stripping workers of their rights using the guise of flexibility and freedom. This is an

amoral approach to industrial relations and economic theory. It does not consider the place and status

of the worker. It has no regard for their wellbeing.

Thus the extension of this theory is one that creates poorer conditions for everyday workers. Those

who adopt the economics of neoliberalism do not think that honest, hardworking Victorians deserve

time off, because they do not see the need. We have seen this play out because the Liberals have a

chequered history when it comes to public holidays and workers rights. As has been mentioned before

by a number of my colleagues, we all know it was the Kennett government that led the charge when

it introduced the ironically titled Public Holidays Act 1993, which abolished Easter Sunday, Easter

Tuesday and Melbourne Show Day as public holidays. More recently, the positions of those on the

opposition benches have been so numerous on this issue it is almost difficult to keep track. But I do

not remember any of us sitting in this chamber over Easter or during Christmas. Indeed most of us

likely were at home with our families or perhaps away for those periods, and there is absolutely no

reason why every other Victorian should not enjoy that same privilege.

I am proud to say that under the Andrews government the rights of workers and the opportunities to

work in this state have been core business. We have a strong record of looking after and looking out

for Victorian workers by helping to create the fiscal environment within which our economy can

flourish. There was somewhat of a laughable cacophony of criticism and fear from the top end of town

and their usual ambassadors with regard to the supposed detrimental impacts of these public holidays

when they were first implemented. Indeed I recall people prophesying the creation of a ghost city. To

those people clearly the insight of Nostradamus has not been passed down. Then we had just

recently—just a few hours ago in this chamber—the opposition leader making a bizarre reference to

this bill somehow compromising the public health system here in Victoria. I would have thought it

was the Victorian Labor Party, with our massive infrastructure projects with respect to hospitals and

the financing of specialist appointments across the state, that was the champion of public health.

What we can accurately relay are the extraordinary statistics as they relate to growth in the labour

market. You might think, ‘How extraordinary are these statistics?’. Under the Andrews Labor

government employment has increased by 15.1 per cent, or more than 442 000 workers, since Labor

took office in 2014—no mean feat. Yet as we know it is not just about the quantity of jobs created, it

is also about their quality. On this note it is a delight to report that the majority of job growth in this

state has been full-time work, up by more than an additional 313 000 workers. As a result of our

commitment to employment and workers’ rights Victoria now has the second-lowest unemployment

rate in Australia, and that is a very good thing. It is a good thing because we know that secure work is

the foundation upon which a decent life can be built. By having a full-time job or a permanent job, fair

wages and comprehensive entitlements—including the right to rest or to be fairly compensated when

you work on rest days—Victorians are able to plan for their future. They can buy the things they need,

they can save for a home deposit, they can plan for a family.

While some would have us believe that public holidays and penalty rates destroy small business, the

facts are clearly to the contrary. Indeed the reality is that Victorian small businesses, under this Labor

government, are the most confident in the nation, with the number of small businesses growing at a

yearly rate of 3.6 per cent, which is well above the national average—again Victoria leading the nation.

Additionally, the Andrews Labor government has undertaken an extensive consultation period with

input from key stakeholders including Trades Hall, the Australian Industry Group and the Victorian

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as conducting two thorough regulatory impact

statements. This proposal has been now taken to two elections, and twice we have received a

ADJOURNMENT


resounding endorsement of our agenda. It has been resoundingly endorsed by the people of Victoria,

who value their public holidays.

This bill is good for workers, it is good for business, it is good for Victoria, and I commend the bill to

the house.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (18:59): I rise to speak on the Public Holidays Amendment Bill 2019. This

bill amends the Public Holidays Act 1993 to include the following days as public holidays in Victoria:

Easter Sunday, the Friday before the Australian Football League Grand Final and Christmas Day when

it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday. This amendment does not affect the existing public holiday on

Christmas Day when it falls on a week day. The amendment also does not affect the existing public

holiday on the Monday after Christmas Day when 25 December is a Saturday or the Tuesday after

Christmas Day when 25 December is a Sunday.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.

Adjournment

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:

That the house now adjourns.

ICE MELTDOWN PROJECT

Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) (19:00): (785) I raise a matter for the Minister for Mental Health,

and the action I seek is that he make funding available to the volunteer community support group the

Ice Meltdown Project. This volunteer community support group, headed up by Janice Ablett and

Megan Waddell, has saved hundreds of lives, but sadly it may be forced to close its doors if

government funding is not made available so it can continue its addiction support program.

Since the program’s inception it has been funded by community groups, service clubs, philanthropic

trusts and individuals. Recently a local business donated office space, giving them a lifeline of hope

that a permanent centre could be found to operate ongoing support programs for their clients. The Ice

Meltdown Project is currently recognised as a referral agency by the court system, the Department of

Health and Human Services, and Corrections Victoria.

Janice and Megan are concerned that by 30 June there will not be enough funds to take on new clients

and that the program will disappear once existing clients have finished their treatment. It is

disappointing that while over the last four years the Andrews government has delivered $2.9 million

into 74 ice and drug addiction programs not one cent has been received by the Ice Meltdown Project.

It is also disappointing that stage 1 of the Ice Action Plan has not received ongoing funding in this

year’s budget, which means the community ice action grants will cease. As Janice and Megan have

explained, $106 000 per year would deliver the program to 50 participants, and I fully support Janice

when she asks, ‘What price do you put on a life when $106 000 could save 50 lives per year?’.

Janice Ablett was awarded an Order of Australia medal on Australia Day for her amazing work in our

community, which has assisted so many people affected by addiction, including family members

struggling to come to terms with the impact of that addiction.

I have raised this issue in this house a number of times over recent years, but nothing has eventuated.

I cannot thank Janice and Megan enough for their commitment and perseverance and for what they

have achieved for those battling addiction. However, crunch time is now here, and the Andrews

government has the option to save lives in our community or turn its back on a program that has been

extremely successful. I call on the minister to seriously and urgently look at this program again and

allocate funding so that it can continue to assist those in our community who are genuinely trying to

beat their addiction and return to a normal life as productive members of our community.

ADJOURNMENT


EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION TAFE COURSES

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (19:02): (786) My adjournment matter this evening is to the

Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for Higher Education, and the action I seek is for the

minister to update my residents in the Mordialloc electorate on the Andrews Labor government’s

policy of providing two additional TAFE courses to the 50 free TAFE courses to support the rollout

of universal three-year-old kinder. We know thousands of Victorians have benefited from the free

TAFE policy that has literally changed lives. We have removed the cost barrier for a number of people

to getting the skills they need for the job that they so desperately want. And who would have thought

that we would see thousands and thousands of people take up this opportunity that has all been through

that policy of the Andrews Labor government?

We made another commitment to Victorians leading into the 2018 campaign, and that was to provide

universal three-year-old kinder. This is a landmark social policy. It will be transformational to the

future opportunities of the citizens of our state. There is nothing more important than making sure that

your postcode and your circumstances are not a determinant for your opportunity. The estimates are

that we will need 6000 teachers and educators to undertake this wonderful policy, and what could be

more exciting and more fantastic than to educate kids in three-year-old and four-year-old kinder and

set them up for the future? Victorians going through free TAFE could be at the very epicentre of this

very important policy. I ask the ministers to update my community on how my residents can access

free TAFE for early childhood education and the rollout of this important policy.

EAST BEACH, PORT FAIRY

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (19:04): (787) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for

Environment, Energy and Climate Change, and the action I seek is substantial investment to stop the

threat of rubbish from a disused landfill site spilling into the ocean at Port Fairy’s famous East Beach.

Minister, this is one of the biggest environmental issues that is being faced in my electorate. The former

Port Fairy landfill site in dunes west of the township was closed in 1994, but erosion has caused a

continued problem of rubbish from those landfill sites ending up on the beach and in the ocean. A 120-

metre rock wall was built in 2014 and is working somewhat, but the Moyne Shire Council says climate

change, the rising sea level and increasingly severe sea storms will expose any weakness in the current

management approach and could lead to waste spilling onto the beach and into the ocean.

Last week the council voted to spend another $1.5 million on what it calls ‘short-term measures’ to

further secure the site. Now, the problem is, Minister, millions of dollars are being spent on short-term

measures and I and members of the community fear that short-term measures are not enough to stop

rubbish spilling into the ocean. No-one knows what is buried in those dunes; it is a throwback to times

when we did not take environmental concerns into consideration, as we do now. Everything was

simply dumped into landfill.

In 2015 the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change, the member for Bellarine, visited and

said that no further action would be needed. That is clearly not the case, and there is a responsibility

for the state government to step in and provide funding given that one of the areas is a state government

site. Funding is needed to address this environmental disaster waiting to happen. The Moyne shire has

a plan—one that was conveyed to me ahead of the state election, and I know it was conveyed to the

minister or her representatives. The problem is the council does not have the financial capacity to carry

out its plan. Minister, you have $500 million sitting in the Sustainability Fund. Rather than propping

up your budget bottom line, shouldn’t you be spending this money on projects which improve

environmental outcomes? In my mind, stopping unknown rubbish spilling into the ocean and spoiling

one of Victoria’s best beaches is the perfect project to spend some of this money on.

FORSTER ROAD, MOUNT WAVERLEY, SHARED-USE PATH

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (19:07): (788) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for

Roads and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, and the action I seek is for the minister to visit my

ADJOURNMENT


electorate of Mount Waverley to see the condition of our roads and view the progress of the Forster

Road shared-use path. I was delighted to announce in April that works have started on the Andrews

Labor government’s $2.6 million Forster Road project. We are delivering a brand-new shared-use path

for pedestrians and cyclists along Forster Road as well as new pedestrian lights near Wilga Street to

help boost road safety. My community, particularly those who are keen cyclists, will soon have a safer

and easier way to travel through Mount Waverley. This is a key section of the Clayton to Syndal

strategic cycling corridor, and I am proud to see our government deliver this project as part of our

$100 million Safer Cyclists and Pedestrians Fund. There is always more to do in road safety, and I

know my community would appreciate a visit from the Minister for Roads, so I ask the minister to

visit Mount Waverley and the Forster Road project to discuss options to improve other important roads

and intersections in my electorate, and I thank the minister for her support.

MORWELL ELECTORATE PROJECTS

Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (19:08): (789) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Jobs,

Innovation and Trade. The action I seek is for the minister to meet with local business owners,

investors and developers who have approved projects within the Morwell electorate and for the

minister to hear firsthand of their ongoing frustrations and concerns given these same projects continue

to be delayed. The minister would then become very acutely aware of the significant number of job

opportunities that are being lost in my electorate.

High unemployment in my electorate sits over here on one hand, yet on the other hand we have

approved projects that sit idle, and it is very frustrating and disappointing. The Lake Narracan precinct

plan is one such project. It was endorsed by council way back in December 2015. It would encompass

more than 3000 housing lots, but it currently sits idle. Again, it is just very frustrating from not only

the developer’s perspective but also from the community’s. We have the Morwell north-west

development plan, which was actually endorsed by council way back in 2010 but is another example

of land that sits idle due to offsite infrastructure barriers such as water, sewerage and roads. Of course

many of those same services the government’s own departments and agencies are responsible for.

I have raised this issue before, in question time in August of last year, and the former Minister for

Industry and Employment responded at the time on this same issue, saying, ‘We will do everything we

can to support the region’. Way back in 2016 the Premier stated that the government would ensure that

projects in the Latrobe Valley were ‘fast-tracked’. Well, that is simply not the case; it is not occurring.

We had a red tape commissioner’s report on the topic of reducing red tape and regulatory barriers to

growth in the Latrobe Valley; we have had Mesh Planning do reports into infrastructure barriers.

Despite all of this there has been absolutely no progress at all on these already approved projects.

The Queensland government have an initiative called the Catalyst Infrastructure Program that invests

in infrastructure which unlocks development, generates construction activity and creates long-term

employment, but there is no such equivalent here in Victoria. I put out a policy suggestion prior to the

election called the Latrobe essential services fund that would allow agencies and departments like

VicRoads and Gippsland Water to attract funding to build this off-site infrastructure. I call upon the

minister to meet with our local developers and business owners.

WORKPLACE MANSLAUGHTER LEGISLATION

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (19:11): (790) I direct my adjournment matter to the Attorney-

General, and the action I seek is for her to provide me with a detailed update on the progress of the

development of the workplace manslaughter legislation and the work of the implementation task force,

as it is an issue that I care deeply about. This is an issue of great significance to many members of my

community following the workplace deaths of Charlie Howkins and Jack Brownlee in Delacombe on

21 March 2018 when they were crushed under tonnes of loose earth following a trench collapse.

I note that the first meeting of the workplace manslaughter implementation task force occurred on

28 March 2019, chaired by the member for Sydenham and including representatives from business,

ADJOURNMENT


unions, industry and victims’ families. I wish to recognise the contribution of and pay tribute to Dave

and Janine Brownlee and Lana Cormie as victims’ families representatives on the implementation task

force. To have Jack, a most precious son, and Charlie, a beloved husband and father, killed in such

tragic circumstances and then do all that you can to prevent others from being killed at work is

admirable—thank you.

The workplace manslaughter laws that we promised to introduce will help make sure that every

Victorian makes it home to their loved ones. I look forward to being updated by the Attorney-General

on this most important matter.

WIRE ROPE BARRIERS FUNDING

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (19:12): (791) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads

and Minister for Road Safety and the TAC in the other place. The action I seek of the minister is that

she urgently quarantine funding from VicRoads’s usual maintenance fund so that these funds are not

used for ongoing maintenance and repair of the wire rope barriers that are being rolled out. In the

Colac Herald of Thursday, 18 April, after many questions and public questioning the Transport

Accident Commission (TAC) and VicRoads made it very clear to the public at the time that all barrier

repairs and maintenance were covered for the life of the barrier from the contributions of the Towards

Zero action plan.

Last week in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) hearings we heard very clearly

from the director of VicRoads that this in fact is not the case, that in fact VicRoads and the department

had misled the community, who have had ongoing concerns about the much-published and much-

vaunted 3500 hits last year to the wire rope barriers, which the government has used as a justification

for this extravagant and excessive rollout of road safety measures when in fact everyone in country

Victoria knows if the potholes are not fixed, if the edges are not safe, if the roadside maintenance is

not kept up, then people are just not going to be safe on the road no matter how much you spend. The

VicRoads director made it very clear that the repairs are not being funded by the TAC as was reported

in the Colac Herald of Thursday, 18 April 2019, and has been continually repeated in ads and

expensive marketing by VicRoads. In fact the director made it very clear that funding for potholes,

road edges, roadside maintenance and clearing—general day-to-day safety measures—will have to be

diverted to maintain the wire rope barriers.

The wire rope barriers are unsafe when damaged. As I said in PAEC last week, travelling down the

highway I have lost count of the amount of damaged and broken wire rope barriers that now litter—

up to four rows of them per roadway—in east and west directions on the Princes Highway west, and

that is just the road that I go on regularly, let alone the road to Ballarat, the Geelong freeway and other

major roads around the state. This is a growing and out-of-control cost problem, and the minister and

the government must assure country road users that their basic road maintenance and safety are not

going to be adversely jeopardised and put at risk because of the government’s current obsession with

this one particular technology. The facts speak for themselves: the road toll is sitting at 80 per cent

higher than it has been for 14 years, and that is after nearly a billion dollars has been spent on this one

particular technology at the expense of basic road maintenance— (Time expired)

FAMILY DRUG TREATMENT COURT, BROADMEADOWS

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (19:15): (792) My request is to the Attorney-General. The action

I seek is for the Attorney-General to join me to visit the Family Drug Treatment Court in

Broadmeadows. The Andrews Labor government will invest $8.1 million in the Family Drug

Treatment Court in Broadmeadows to help parents struggling with addiction to get their lives back on

track and to return to their families. The Family Drug Treatment Court will help up to 30 parents a

year address drug and alcohol dependence and keep their families together, supporting some of our

most vulnerable people.

ADJOURNMENT


This investment will be part of a bigger strategy that I am also working on as the Parliamentary

Secretary for Crime Prevention to help address the causes of crime. I would like to acknowledge and

commend the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, who is at the table, and the record

investment the Andrews Labor government has made in fighting crime and increasing public safety

and security, and I look forward to working collaboratively to help deliver more results to cut the crime

rate in Victoria in the future.

WESTERN HIGHWAY DUPLICATION

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (19:16): (793) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Transport

Infrastructure. The action I seek is that she deliver the full funding for the duplication of the Western

Highway to Stawell over 2019–20. At the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings the

Minister for Roads confirmed that the duplication project—and for this bit I am talking about between

Ararat and Stawell—was not going to go ahead because it was not a priority of the Labor government.

The minister said at PAEC that the state budget was about delivering on the Labor government’s

election commitments and the Labor government’s priorities. However, the federal coalition Morrison

government has delivered $360 million in federal funding to finish this road to Stawell, and the state

contribution would be a further $90 million. In terms of road building, this is one of the cheapest roads

that a government could build, yet this government is saying that it is not interested in the $360 million

on the table from the federal government to complete the final section of this road.

This is a project of national significance. The Western Highway is the road from Melbourne to

Adelaide. It is a very dangerous road that carries a large amount of freight. The section from Ararat to

Stawell is now in very poor condition. The reason it is in poor condition is that there has been an

expectation that this road would be funded, so essential maintenance work has not been done on this

road. It has been added to by the fact that the Buangor to Ararat section has been stalled for four years

through protests and the failure of the government to renew its planning permit. However, that is not

the section I am referring to in this adjournment matter. I am referring specifically to the section where

the federal government, under the advocacy and leadership of Dan Tehan, the federal member for

Wannon, has delivered $360 million to get this road finished to Stawell. This is a road on which even

this year we have had fatalities. This has contributed to the significant increase in the road toll in

Victorian country areas this year.

This is a road that needs to be fixed, and it is absolutely beyond belief that this government is saying

it will not accept the $360 million on offer from the federal government to complete the road to Stawell

just because it is not their project. That is disgraceful, and I call on the minister to reverse that position

and get on with delivering this road.

THE GRANGE P–12 COLLEGE

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (19:19): (794) My adjournment matter is directed towards the Deputy

Premier as the Minister for Education. The action I seek is that the minister join me in my electorate to

visit The Grange P–12 College in Hoppers Crossing. As part of this year’s budget The Grange has

received a total of $9.5 million to refurbish older classrooms and upgrade the school’s science facilities,

an investment that will make all the difference for many at this school. We know that when governments

invest in upgrading school facilities it is the students and teachers who benefit from a better learning

environment. The Grange is one of the older schools in the Tarneit electorate, and in an electorate where

new schools are being built every year it is easy for these older schools to fall behind. That is why I am

glad that this government is committed to not only building new schools but also investing in existing

ones to ensure our kids have the first-class facilities they need and deserve.

The Andrews Labor government has spent more on schools across Tarneit in a single year than those

opposite did in their entire term. The Grange is but one school that has benefitted from this

government’s commitment to ensuring that every student in Victoria receives a quality education, and

ADJOURNMENT


I would welcome a visit by the minister to my electorate to see firsthand the teachers and students who

will benefit from this much-needed investment.

RESPONSES

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services)

(19:20): A range of members have raised a number of issues for different ministers, and I will pass

those issues on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow.

House adjourned 7.21 p.m.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) - Parliament of ...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) - Parliament of ...