Wednesday, 18 October 2023

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (10:16): I would like to make a contribution on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee 2023–24 budget estimates report. I refer to page 149 and the timber harvesting transition and worker and industry support package. Recently the timber industry harvest and haul contractors in my electorate got the details of this so-called transition package in draft form, and it is clearly a proposal that has been put together to meet a specific budget rather than to deliver the right outcome for these timber workers. I mean, if the people who put this package together think that this is going to be even close to being adequate, they are idiots. It is going to go nowhere near meeting the needs of these families.

I will give you a couple of examples of why it is unfair. Firstly, the compensation for loss of income is absolutely woeful. It would have been far better to work off the precedent that was set for the Gippsland Lakes commercial fishermen where they were given three years of their average income as a base for their departure package before they got into their nets – I guess the comparison to timber workers is their machinery, but as a base it was three years of their average income. In relation to machinery compensation, you will not believe this. It says the government will pay the difference between the 2020 market value of a piece of plant and the equipment auction value. You read that and you think that is okay, but then you go onto the next clause and it says the department reserves the right to pay less than the full difference to meet the available budget of the package. The criteria have clearly been designed around a budget – and machinery over 10 years old is not going to be compensated for. It is worth a lot of money, but it is not even included in the machinery compensation package. It is a disgrace, and it is proof that the minister has put together this package based on a capped budget and not looking after the best interests of these timber workers in a fair manner.

Secondly, one of the options presented to contractors is to enter into longer term contracts to undertake forest and fire management works with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. Righto, you have got to put in an expression of interest if you want to work for DEECA. But they do not know what the remuneration is, they do not know what the work is and they do not know where the work will be. How can they put in an expression of interest without knowing what they are going to be paid, where the work is or what they are expected to do? They only find that out after they have put in their expression of interest. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Thirdly – and these are just three examples – the government has said that for redundant employees they will provide the opportunity to participate in training over 10 business days but then they said it will be at no cost to the state, so the harvest and haul contractors have got to pay for the retraining of their own workers when the government said in its initial media release that it would pay for the retraining of workers. The whole package is shameful. It falls well and truly short of the most basic expectations. Thank goodness it is in draft form, because the minister needs to go back and revisit this and make sure that she designs a package that does not fit within a budget. The former Premier said he would provide what was required. The government needs to provide what is required to these timber industry workers.

I also want to quickly move on, before my time is up, to page 91 of the same report, which refers to transport infrastructure. I want to put on the record for the Minister for Public and Active Transport the need for basic services like a buffet car on the long-haul train services from Bairnsdale, and I am sure the member for Polwarth would agree for services on his side of the state as well. We have recently had passengers coming into my office saying, ‘We actually don’t want the old N class carriages replaced by VLocitys, because the N class carriages have a buffet. We don’t want them replaced if we’re going to have these new carriages without a buffet. We want to be able to buy a cup of tea and get a sandwich on the 3½-hour journey into Melbourne.’ I recently travelled on this train. I went on the morning service that had the buffet. It was well frequented. It was appreciated by passengers on the train. Many of them were using it. It was a service that was available 40 years ago, and we should be restoring those basic services on our long-haul carriages.