Tuesday, 23 May 2023
Business of the house
Program
Program
That, under standing order 94(2), the order of the day, government business, relating to the following bill be considered and completed by 7 pm on 23 May 2023:
Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023.
We gather today for a sitting of one day, an opportunity for the Treasurer to deliver the budget. I know that many members of the house will welcome the opportunity to get in touch with their community to let them know about the delivery of each and every one of our election commitments. But we have business that we must transact in the house today, and that is of course the energy legislation amendment bill. This bill builds on the important work of the government in helping our emergency services’ and electricity distribution businesses’ efforts following energy emergencies and associated prolonged power outages. I am sure that there are members on this side of the house who are still keen to speak on this bill, and we look forward to it being guillotined later today, so now is the chance to get up on your feet. We hear from those on the other side about how committed they are to wanting to speak on bills, but we do not always see it in action, so again I encourage members of the opposition to take the many opportunities that are afforded to them in this place to get up and speak on legislation. Noting what a significant day it is and that we will be convening again next week for two days with another government business program, I propose that it is in all of our interests, perhaps, to have a short government business program debate today. So I commend the program to the house.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (13:42): The coalition will be opposing the government business program. The minister spoke to the budget that was just delivered and the opportunity for members to go to their community and talk about the budget, and that is certainly the case – that members will be doing that. I know that in line with the minister’s comments about communicating about the budget, one of the issues I will be talking about is the secret hit list on non-government schools that the Treasurer did not refer to in his speech. The government is proposing to introduce a hit list on non-government schools – to remove their payroll tax exemptions.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, as we know, the government business program debate is a narrow procedural debate. The member on his feet is looking to give his address-in-reply, which is completely inappropriate at this time given that we have not yet heard from the Shadow Treasurer. So I would ask that you call the member back to debating –
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Speaker, the minister, in addressing the government business program, spoke to the budget speech and did have some latitude in the way that she spoke to the issue. I would say that it is entirely within order, considering the matter that was raised, for me to refer to the budget speech and the fact that the schools hit list is not in the budget speech.
The SPEAKER: Order! On the point of order, this is a narrow procedural debate on the government business program. I ask members to stay within the bounds of the government business program and not stray into debating bills before the house.
James NEWBURY: Another point that the coalition has been raised repeatedly over recent weeks is the fact that the government has had difficulty in managing the Parliament and managing the program. The government have not been able to fill their agenda, and therefore the coalition has raised repeated concerns that not only is there a slowing of infrastructure in the state but also there is a slowing in the Parliament doing the work that it should be doing and considering proposed legislation, and that the Parliament has been filling its time with motions.
Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.
James NEWBURY: As the minister interjected and spoke to in her contribution to the government business program, the Parliament may consider a motion later this afternoon. We know that in the last sitting week, the government suggested that we would be dealing with two motions during the week and instead we dealt with four. Noting that the minister has confirmed that we will be debating potentially a motion later today, I would note that one of the motions that could be considered is the education motion. I know that I will certainly be looking forward to an opportunity to raise the 54 election commitments to schools that have not been included in the budget speech. That is an opportunity I think we will all share – the school funding that was promised in the election that has not been delivered, with 54 schools left out.
The coalition is deeply concerned that the Parliament and the government’s management of the Parliament is grinding to a halt in the same way that infrastructure is grinding to a halt. The coalition is concerned that the government does need help in managing the Parliament, and I can put on record the growing relationship between the Leader of the House and me in terms of working through the program and working through how the house operates and put on record my regard for the Leader of the House. But I know that the Leader of the House at the end of the day is unfortunately only able to put through the Parliament what the ministers complete, and we know that the ministers are not completing enough work and so they do not have enough to put through this chamber. That is an issue that has been raised repeatedly. I think it is now becoming quite obvious to Victoria at large that the government is having problems with managing the Parliament, and on that basis and the fact that we are dealing with a bill that was only given a six-day layover, the coalition will be opposing the government business program.
Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (13:47): Well, that was laughable. It was laughable for a number of reasons, not least being that the Manager of Opposition Business seeks to draw into question the management capabilities of those sitting on this side of the chamber. I do not know if anyone has caught a newspaper in recent times or maybe logged onto the interwebs. Have we caught any stories recently about the toings and froings in the Liberal Party? It is almost like disorganisation is sort of a mantra in the joint, and –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I certainly cannot call people out for straying a little bit, but that was straying a lot from the motion before the house, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. The Speaker did implore us all to stick to the government business program, and I bring the member back to it.
Will FOWLES: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am more than happy to talk about the government business program because it is fair to say I think that the government is getting on with business, not just with the delivery of the budget for the financial year ending 30 June 2024, as has been foreshadowed by both contributors already on this narrow procedural motion, but also in relation to the bill, which we will be debating later today. Now, the contents of that bill I do not seek to anticipate, of course, but what I would say is that the opposition worked themselves into a high state of froth about the time between the introduction of this bill and the debating of the bill when we had this discussion last week, and I hope that they have used that time to prepare a bunch of scintillating speeches on it. I fully anticipate that all 20-odd Liberal members and eight or nine National members will be getting up and giving fulsome contributions about this bill, a bill they were so concerned about having the time on and so concerned about needing to debate at length. I just hope that they have managed to gather up the various strands of their arguments about this and are going to put to us over the course of the day some scintillating speeches on the subject matter at hand.
It remains the case that as much as the Manager of Opposition Business might seek to categorise the timing of bills in this place as being a function of ministers working, not working or whatever, it is just dross. It is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding – do not worry about it – because when the Manager of Opposition Business has a go about infrastructure grinding to a halt, I do not think he has taken a look at the Dublin Road level crossing in Ringwood East or the Bedford Road level crossing in Ringwood or the level crossing removals underway in Pakenham or the level crossing removals underway in various other parts of the state –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, as much is it pains me to draw attention to the fact that the member is now showing up his own minister in his contribution, I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are not an opportunity for debate. The member to continue on the government business program.
Will FOWLES: or the new station in Boronia or any number of infrastructure investments occurring right across the state –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Back to the government business program, please, member for Ringwood.
Will FOWLES: I have only referred in that way, Deputy Speaker – just by way of explanation; I am not calling into question your ruling – because the Manager of Opposition Business had a go at describing the government’s infrastructure program as stalling, and I am rebutting him on that point. Nonetheless, this is a government business program that reflects the nature of this week – the short week – that reflects the very busy legislative agenda of the government, that reflects the very busy infrastructure program of the government and that reflects the very busy work of all members on this side of the chamber out there now talking about the very important initiatives that are contained in this budget. As much as those opposite might not like the fact that they are not in a position to write a budget, they do have to accept the lived reality that we are cracking on and getting it done and doing what matters for Victorians.
Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (13:52): The opposition will be opposing the government business program, as the member for Brighton pointed out – a government business program that has one amendment bill and a number of motions to debate. I am sure there will be some scintillating debate, particularly from my colleagues in the Nationals, who have been jumping over one another even though we were only given six days to properly consult on the Energy Legislation Amendment (Electricity Outage Emergency Response and Other Matters) Bill 2023.
This is a narrow procedural debate, so I will try to keep things narrow. Not only – and we have mentioned this on a number of occasions – are we disappointed that we do not get to go into the consideration-in-detail stage on bills, but with six days to properly consult on the one bill that is on the government business program, there is concern with that. Another couple of motions are possibly up for debate later on – obviously there is the Education State motion and the nuclear motion that was raised last week. I am sure we will have plenty of scintillating debate on that motion, one that I and a couple of other National Party colleagues are looking forward to debating.
When we talk about things slowing down, with only one amendment bill to debate, things are slowing down. You can make data sing any way you want, but the practicality on the ground is – when you start to dissect the budget that we have just received – things are slowing down. We are running out of money. We are broke. Infrastructure is absolutely grinding to a halt, because –
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Mildura is doing what her colleague the member for Brighton did, straying into the budget debate, and I might say we have not yet heard from the opposition spokesperson for the Treasury, who did not take the opportunity, like predecessors have, to get straight up on the budget.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We are trying to keep it to a narrow debate on the government business program. Please come back.
Jade BENHAM: I will try and narrow the debate on this bill. We will no doubt be able to debate how things are slowing down in a number of aspects during the course of today’s business program. But I will keep this brief because it is such a brief business program that the government has presented today, and for that reason the opposition are opposed.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (13:55): It is with some pleasure that I rise this afternoon to make my contribution to the government business program. I always think the budget day, which is of course an annual event here in this Parliament, provides an opportunity for the government of the day to set forward a very important document for the running of this state. In the context of this chamber it is really the pre-eminent day of the Victorian Parliament, which happens in or around May of every year. I must say I listened very intently to the Treasurer’s contribution – a significant part of the budget day – and what I noticed and paid particular attention to was whether the Leader of the Opposition would take the opportunity to stand on his feet, once the Treasurer had completed his contribution, to make his contribution to this debate.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the member, and that is saying something. I would ask you to bring the member back to this tight procedural question. This is not observation time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to resume, on the government business program.
Darren CHEESEMAN: On the government business program, as I said, the Treasurer rose to his feet earlier today to make his contribution on the budget, and I wondered whether the opposition leader would have the courage to stand on his feet –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is now defying your ruling. It is disappointing. It is true to character, by the way. I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for South Barwon, I think you pretty much repeated exactly what you said before. It would be appreciated if you did not do that again and came back to the government business program in front of the house.
Darren CHEESEMAN: Terrific. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will of course move on. This is a significant day, and we have continued through the course of the sitting weeks early on in this parliamentary calendar to deliver through the government business program all of the reform that we took to the people of Victoria last year. Indeed in delivering that, the government increased its electoral majority at the last state election, and what that effectively means is that the government continues to have the mandate of the Victorian people to set the government business program.
The point that I made the last time that I contributed to a debate on the government business program – and I again take the opportunity to reinforce it – is that if you are given that great gift of government by the Victorian people, you get the opportunity as a consequence of that to set out the legislative program of this chamber. Again we come to this chamber in this sitting week with some very important work that I look forward to contributing to and that I know all of my colleagues look forward to contributing to. Every single week that we come to this chamber with our government business program we hear the opposition squawking on that they never have the opportunity –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, for the third time I ask you to bring the member back to the question. I am not sure that the member can reflect on the character of any other member in this place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member had been speaking on the government business program and strayed slightly towards the end.
Darren CHEESEMAN: They continue to squawk on. We continue to get on with it.
Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (14:00): I will stay on the topic of opposing the government business program, because there is so much to say on such a topic – because it continually occurs in this place that the debate that should be taking place and the time and the respect to have the Parliament operate the way it should are just being ridden roughshod over by this government. Now, just for those who do not understand, normally there is a two-week process where you introduce a bill, and before debate occurs, you have a two-week time frame when you go out to your community, because this is a place of the people, the people’s house, and the people want to know what we do in here. That is called consultation, and that process has been a tradition for decades and decades – until we see this very arrogant government, who cannot get themselves organised and run out of things to do and so introduce bills without the process being respected and give no time for that consultation, like we saw with the last bill that was introduced, with only six days allowed to consult with our community.
Some of you may not find electricity very exciting. Some of you may think this is not an important bill. But in my community electricity is a very important discussion because of the increased costs, the lack of security and the fear people have – people who run dairy farms or who have businesses like the abattoirs, the dairy processing factories or the aluminium plant, who rely heavily on secure, reliable, affordable power. And what we saw and what we are debating in this Parliament this week is a bill that talks about the way the outages are managed, because that is now, under this government, the subject we have to address.
As I say, the government may not think consultation is important, and that is why they introduce bills and do not allow a respectful amount of time for us to take these pieces of legislation to the community who will be affected by them so that the community can give the feedback – because I guarantee you, the 88 of us in here are not experts on every subject, but our communities certainly have the information, the expertise and the knowledge for us to be hearing from them so we can have informed debate and not have unintended consequences. That is why the process of democracy exists. And why is it that we have a government that continually rides roughshod over democracy? It is because they have become arrogant. They have been in for so long that they do not think they need to talk to anyone, they do not think consultation is an important part of the process anymore. Well, what are we seeing? We are seeing chaos, we are seeing nothing from this government other than running the state into a significant debt. In fact the word ‘broke’ is coming up quite a lot lately, and we have not seen that since the Cain–Kirner years, but what we are seeing right now is a much bigger debt, a much bigger hole, than we saw then, so my goodness we are in trouble.
Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, we seem to be straying a long way from government business.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member to continue on the government business program.
Roma BRITNELL: Thank you. I will. That leads me to the fact that we have been asking in this Parliament for a very long time now for respect of the process so we can do the role we are asked to do, and that is represent our communities. We asked in the last Parliament, so many times, to go into consideration in detail so that we could actually debate the bills and have the minister at the table go through clause by clause so we could get a better understanding of the unintended consequences that we know will happen if we do not have a proper debate, but oh no. How many times did that request get refused? In the whole four years I think we did that once or maybe twice; it could have been twice. That means this government think they have got it all right. But that is not true either, because we saw many times where they had to amend their own bills because they had not got them right.
So a bill that comes into this place with six days to debate it shows pure arrogance, and that is from a government who will not listen to a community – like they have not listened to my community about how desperately in need we are of roads funding. And what have we seen in this budget? Road cuts. I cannot believe they have cut the roads funding again.
Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker – sorry; what has this got to do with the government business program?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. Back to the government business program. The Speaker has previously ruled on pre-debating.
Roma BRITNELL: Thank you. In the last 9 seconds, I will leave it with the fact of the matter that this government has ruined the state of Victoria – we are broke.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.