Thursday, 7 March 2024

Bills

Emergency Management Amendment (Port of Melbourne) Bill 2024

Introduction

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (09:34): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Emergency Management Act 2013 in relation to emergency risk management arrangements for the Port of Melbourne and for other purposes.

The main provisions of the bill are as follows: the bill seeks to amend the definition of ‘critical infrastructure’ in section 74B of the Emergency Management Act 2013 to include the Port of Melbourne and the definition of ‘major critical infrastructure’ at section 74B to include the Port of Melbourne. The bill further seeks to amend section 74J(2)(a) of the act to provide that the Victorian register of critical infrastructure must contain the Port of Melbourne.

In Victoria the Minister for Ports and Freight or the Governor in Council decides whether or not to or remove items from the register of critical infrastructure. The Port of Melbourne is in reality the single most critical infrastructure asset for our state. This bill is much needed as the Port of Melbourne has seen major disruption due to cyber attack, industrial action and protests, with little action from the Allan Labor government. The bill is necessary because while the port may in fact be included in the register of critical infrastructure, this information is difficult to obtain. More importantly, the port’s inclusion on the register must not be left to the discretion of the minister or subject to an executive order.

The bill that I introduce will ensure the Port of Melbourne’s status as significant critical infrastructure is explicitly recognised in law. This bill is critical to amend the register to mandate the inclusion of the Port of Melbourne. Robust arrangements to protect the security and operation of the Port of Melbourne are vital, and there should be no possibility that the port could be removed from the register if in fact it is already included.

The bill I introduce recognises that any disruption to the port like we have seen in the last few months affects every single Victorian to the tune of a $4 a week per household increase to the cost of living per year. Recently the Treasurer of Victoria has stated that disruptions to the Port of Melbourne were nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for South-West Coast, introducing a bill is not an opportunity to go into the detail of the bill. It is a procedural debate about why the bill would be introduced. I would ask you to stick to the procedural debate.

Roma BRITNELL: This bill is important, and it seeks to amend the register to ensure the government is always keenly attuned to the importance of the Port of Melbourne to Victoria’s supply chain and economy while also ensuring the appropriate action is taken to protect critical supplies passing through the port.

This bill is critical as independent research demonstrates that the recent disruptions to the Port of Melbourne resulted in a $84 million a week cost to the economy – hence much greater than a minor inconvenience. The criticality of this bill, which seeks to stress the vital importance of the Port of Melbourne, is clear in the view of –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the member on her feet I think is defying your ruling. As you have indicated, it is a narrow procedural debate, and the member should constrain herself to talking about why this bill should be introduced on a day when we have a very full business program of government business that has already been agreed to by this house.

The SPEAKER: The member for South-West Coast had not strayed from the procedural debate after I ruled. I remind her that it is a procedural debate.

Roma BRITNELL: The criticality of the bill, which seeks to stress the vital importance of the Port of Melbourne, is clear. In fact during the recent industrial dispute 100,000 containers at one point were sitting off the coast, unable to be unloaded. Many of these containers held goods that are vital to manufacturing or critical to Victorians – for example, insulin. This bill I introduce will help ensure that this critical infrastructure is not held to ransom like it has been by protesters in recent weeks. This bill is critical as Victoria Police were sadly not backed by the Allan Labor government during the recent disputes and were prevented from acting in a timely manner. In fact nowhere else in the world is so bereft of laws, such as move-on laws, that are needed to support the police.

The urgency of this bill is clear as Victoria is dependent on imports and exports. In fact there are only 12 days of fuel available in this country, so any disruption to the Port of Melbourne is much greater than just a minor inconvenience. This bill is needed as it will ensure the Port of Melbourne has the status it needs. The bill is urgent as the Allan Labor government must recognise how fragile the supply chain and logistics industries are. Clearly the Premier and her ministers are ignorant of this important fact.

In summing up, the Port of Melbourne needs to be added to the Victorian register of critical infrastructure. This bill is much needed. If the port is already listed as critical infrastructure on the register, the Allan Labor government must explain their complete lack of action during recent disruptions. Victorian households and businesses suffered immensely during these disruptions. The Allan Labor government should act – or decide whether they can act – and they should be deeply ashamed. Due to incoming vessels, further protest action at the Port of Melbourne is likely from tonight onwards. The Allan Labor government needs to act today.

Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (09:39): I can only assume that this pitch today made by the member for South-West Coast is really a pitch to the Liberal Party to become their new deputy leader.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a tight procedural motion, not an opportunity for the member to display how grubby he is.

The SPEAKER: That is not a way to raise a point of order, Manager of Opposition Business. The member for South Barwon knows that this is a procedural debate, and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order during this debate.

Darren CHEESEMAN: I think we have just seen another deputy leadership candidate here on his feet. The reality is if the Liberal Party wish to introduce bills and have those bills carried through this chamber, they need to go and win elections –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for South Barwon has deliberately defied your previous ruling.

The SPEAKER: The member for South Barwon will stick to the procedural debate.

Darren CHEESEMAN: The reality is if you want to be able to bring bills to this place and you want to have those bills succeed, the simple reality is you need the numbers, and the way that you get the numbers in a democracy is that you go out and you win seats and you bring more seats to this chamber than what the other side does. And this of course is a point that I have made on quite a number of occasions. All bills need to go through a proper process where you seek advice from the relevant departments and where ministers bring propositions to the cabinet and then ultimately to the chamber. That is how you go about legislating in this place. Now, we know of course that the Leader of the Opposition is under tremendous pressure in this place, and there are all sorts of people who are seeking to knock him off, and there are all sorts of people who are seeking to be –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is an outrageous abuse of relevance on the procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for South Barwon will come back to the procedural debate.

Darren CHEESEMAN: The procedural debate is very clear. If you want to bring a bill to this chamber and you want it to succeed, the reality is you need to have the numbers in this place – that is a very clear principle – rather than grandstanding, which we see week in, week out from those in the opposition; that is, time wasting and taking every opportunity to frustrate the government in getting on with our important legislative program, a program that we have time and time again taken to the Victorian people through elections. We have an important agenda this week to get through, and we do not want to see this chamber having its time wasted, denying the opportunity of the government to get its legislation through. We know there are all sorts of pressures over there amongst a whole lot of different people –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 110, and I would put to you not only that the member is now defying your ruling but that this is tedious repetition.

The SPEAKER: Procedural debates by their nature can be repetitious. The member for South Barwon will come back to the procedural debate.

Darren CHEESEMAN: As I say, there is all sorts of pressure over there and there are all sorts of people that are trying to get the numbers. What we know of course is the leader is a dead man walking.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, under standing orders 119 and 120, I am deeply concerned that the member just used the word ‘dead’ in relation to a member of this place. Considering the increase every year of the danger to members of Parliament and what they experience, I am extremely concerned that that word is both unparliamentary and objectionable, and I would ask you to counsel the member.

The SPEAKER: I will take the point of order on notice, Manager of Opposition Business.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (09:45): Look, I am quite concerned. If the words of the member for South Barwon genuinely represent the views of the Labor government, we are in a one-party state. We are in a one-party state where no party other than the Labor Party is allowed to introduce ideas for debate in this place. No party other than the Labor Party is allowed to introduce legislation and propose it to the house. Now, whether a bill is ultimately passed or not of course depends on the will of the majority in this chamber – that is democracy. But I say to the member for South Barwon: gagging people from even introducing ideas to discuss is not democracy, that is dictatorship. And that is what the member for South Barwon has just argued for. It reflects poorly on him, and it reflects very poorly on an arrogant, tired Labor government that has been in power for too long and believes the only voice that matters is its own.

This is a bill that is important, because the Port of Melbourne is one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure. It is our trading gateway to the rest of the world, yet we have seen it shut down because of protests for various reasons. We have seen protests over foreign affairs. We have seen protests over climate change, and there is the threat that Extinction Rebellion are apparently going to let loose in Melbourne again next week. That is why it is important that this bill from the member for South-West Coast be introduced today and be considered today. Our critical infrastructure is just that – it is critical ‍– and the government will not even clarify whether the Port of Melbourne is designated on the Victorian register of critical infrastructure. The member for South-West Coast has got every reason to question whether it is, because if it is in fact already on that register, why hasn’t the government used the powers that flow from that to protect the operation of the port?

We have seen it shut down in various guises for various reasons over recent months, and the danger is that it is going to happen again, potentially as early as next week. I was going to say I would hope that nobody here would support the efforts of the Extinction Rebellion protesters, but we know the member for Melbourne has already said that she does actually support them. I could not disagree more with her. But particularly in the light of the fact that a poor woman had to give birth on the side of the road because of the absolute outrageous selfishness and irresponsibility of those protesters, I would hope that even the member for Melbourne might reconsider her position in relation to supporting Extinction Rebellion. They have made clear threats that they are going to be taking action again in Melbourne next week, and that is why it is important that we protect our critical infrastructure in the face of such threats.

This government has absolutely refused to give police move-on powers despite the fact the Chief Commissioner of Police made it quite clear he would like to have them back. So if the government will not at least give the police move-on powers – and they should – then how about we actually debate a bill about protecting the Port of Melbourne, about protecting one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure? We cannot allow the Port of Melbourne to be shut down by protests, be they environmental protests or protests about foreign affairs. Obviously there is a legitimate right to protest under industrial law, and this does not affect that. So I am sure for all those opposite who are worried about what their union paymasters will say, do not worry about that – legitimate industrial action is still protected under these laws, but we are talking about illegitimate protests, protests designed to shut down our critical infrastructure.

The Port of Melbourne – there could not be a more important trade thoroughfare for this state. It used to be the biggest port in the country. I think since Labor has got into office we have lost that mantle to Sydney, which is a great shame. Of course the Port of Melbourne used to be publicly owned, but the great socialists opposite decided to privatise it, so it is now in private hands. But that does not mean that the government does not have a responsibility to protect its operations.

The member for South-West Coast has done exactly the right thing in seeking to introduce a bill to protect the Port of Melbourne – to protect it ahead of Extension Rebellion protests coming in as early as next week. For the government to seek to deny the opportunity to debate this bill shows you they are not interested in debating ideas, they are not interested in democracy, they genuinely think Victoria is a one-party state – and shame on them for thinking that.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (09:50): I do not think anyone in this house, except perhaps for the members of the Greens party, doubt the criticality of the Port of Melbourne, and it is a shame to see them siding with those who seek to shut it down. Can I just dwell briefly upon the irony of the members opposite, the members of the Liberal Party, the heirs to Peter Reith and Peter Costello – and I believe the Shadow Attorney-General was in the Treasurer’s office for a time – the heirs to those gentlemen, coming in here talking about the Port of Melbourne being shut down when they were the ones who locked out the stevedores in 1998. The idea that they should come in here, lecturing us as the government about the criticality of the Port of Melbourne –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Greenvale will come back to the procedural debate.

Iwan WALTERS: Thanks very much for your guidance, Speaker. I will dwell upon the procedural motion at hand. As I say, I do not think there is any doubt about the significance to our economy of the Port of Melbourne, which is already designated as critical infrastructure. The member for South-West Coast has come in here seeking to railroad the government business program, which was agreed to on Tuesday. We are looking forward to an important debate in this place about the regulation and operation of private security in this state and the County Court. While there is no doubt about the criticality of the infrastructure that the Port of Melbourne represents, it would be I think taking the debate too broad to discuss the history of the Port of Melbourne and the impacts of Sir John Coode in deepening the Yarra to enable the Port of Melbourne to become our nation’s most significant port. But I do want to just dwell upon the fact that we have a government business program that was agreed to in this place. That is not to diminish the significance of the Port of Melbourne, but there is a way of addressing these issues.

The Minister for Ports and Freight is working tirelessly with stakeholders, including the port operators and the Maritime Union of Australia, to ensure the safe operation of the port. Victoria Police have been working closely with the minister, with other arms of government and with their federal counterparts, and it is disappointing to hear the Shadow Attorney-General and the member for South-West Coast verbal and criticise our police force. The Minister for Police has made it very clear that he is working closely with the Chief Commissioner of Police, and all powers which have been requested have been provided. So I back in the minister –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, standing order 188: personal reflections are unparliamentary, and the member just made a personal reflection against the member for South-West Coast.

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

Iwan WALTERS: While there might be more movements in and out of the Leader of the Opposition’s office than the Port of Melbourne –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker: relevance.

The SPEAKER: The member for Greenvale will come back to the procedural debate before the house.

Iwan WALTERS: I think the key point here is that there is a government business program that was agreed to on Tuesday that the people of Victoria have elected us to discuss and debate. The provisions of the government business program include the debate that I alluded to before regarding the regulation of private security, which is an incredibly important issue in our state. We have marked 20 years since the death of David Hookes in 2004, the rationale for the Private Security Act 2004 having been brought into this place at that point. There are an array of issues in the private security industry that require fixing, that require attention and that require improved regulation. That is why the government has brought that bill on for debate today in this place. It is an important piece of legislation.

It does not mean that the Port of Melbourne is in any way not critical infrastructure and not a significant piece of both our state and national economy, but there is a way of doing things in this place. The Minister for Ports and Freight is working tirelessly to ensure the integrity of the port, working with stakeholders like the Maritime Union of Australia, Dubai Ports World, who operate the port, and others to ensure that it is not shut down. I would urge all members of this place to ensure that we are advocating for the Port of Melbourne. I reflect particularly upon the Greens party in this place and suggest that they take a lead from others and seek to ensure that the port is not shut down and that it can continue to be the main port of entry for so many goods in and out of Australia and a key part of Victoria’s economy and critical infrastructure.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (09:55): I rise to support the member for South-West Coast’s private members bill to protect our ports. The Shadow Minister for Ports and Freight has been a strong advocate to ensure that our ports stay open and are able to trade. But what we have seen is our ports hijacked by these left-wing loonies, who do absolutely nothing, who want to stop vital freight being able to end up in Melbourne. What does that mean in terms of cost? We all know that this vital freight not coming through can cost – back to our cost of living – up to $4 a week for every single householder. That is what happened when we saw our ports being held to ransom for days, and the government did absolutely nothing and the minister did nothing.

The member for South-West Coast has a very, very important job to hold this government to account in bringing a private members bill to the table, and that is what opposition does. I remind the government that it was only a few months ago that the member for Berwick brought a private members bill for machetes. The government back then called it a stunt, but now what we have is the government responding to our call, on machetes, to bring legislation forward. I would hope that when it comes to this particular legislation they will vote for this private members bill today that the member for South-West Coast is putting forward – or at least, if they do not, they will act pretty quickly to protect our ports, because every single day that our ports are not protected costs every single Victorian taxpayer in a cost-of-living crisis. If this government care about cost of living, they will ensure that ports are able to operate.

We see in other states that the police are able to break the protesters down and ensure that vital freight gets to where it needs to go in terms of being unloaded – not here in Victoria. What we are seeing is now the Chief Commissioner of Police Shane Patton saying that we need laws because the government are not providing them. We need to ensure that we have the powers so Victorians can feel safe and also vital infrastructure like the ports is able to operate. This opposition has been very up and about when it comes to providing opportunities for the government to actually do something.

I remind those in this chamber that yesterday we spent 4 hours talking about grammatical errors in a bill – 4 hours trying to fix grammar in a bill. What is more important, ensuring that vital infrastructure gets unloaded from our port or fixing some grammar in a bill? I am all up for ensuring that the grammar in a bill gets tidied up, but let us prioritise the work in this chamber. I think most Victorians would be absolutely horrified to think that this government has run out of ideas and has got to fix grammar in bills rather than bring vital bills into this house to ensure that the community feels safe, that vital infrastructure gets unloaded and that we are able to tackle the cost-of living crisis which we have in this state because of the Allan Labor government.

It is a classic example. You can see it costs $84 million per week to the Victorian economy, the Port of Melbourne being held to ransom, with 50,000 containers not being able to be unloaded because of the four-day picket line. We have heard Extinction Rebellion and others want to do it again and again and again. We have seen certainly, when it comes to the Zim containers, Palestinian protesters up and about saying that these had critical weapons – I mean, heaven forbid. They had agricultural product that was going from Victoria, as an export, to other countries – actually, not even Israel.

What do we have – we have the left-wing loonies wanting to hold our ports to ransom. If this government cares about the cost of living, if this government cares about trade and investment and if this government cares about restoring confidence in our economy, what it will do is support the member for South-West Coast and ensure that we promptly debate this bill and ultimately support this bill. It would send massive confidence to all of those people that are trying to trade and invest here in this state if this government would actually do something and our police could have the powers to respond. At the moment our police are working with one arm tied behind their back because this government will not give them the powers to do anything. When the police commissioner says on radio that they desperately need the powers to act, that should be an absolute example that this government is not giving them the powers that they need. We are at an absolute all-time low when it comes to community safety, and this government needs to finally do something about it.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:00): It is great to rise on the procedure debate, and – shock, horror – we will be opposing the member for South-West Coast’s position for a couple of reasons. It goes to a couple of points around procedural interventions that have been made over recent weeks. The previous intervention that we had around machetes, that procedural intervention, was against the position of the chief commissioner about powers that were put forward and things that were said. This is the inverse now, and what we see in the procedural motion is that whatever is in the clip – so whatever is in the news of the day – becomes then the going theme of whoever will offer up their ideas and streams of consciousness to the house. It is not normally the way that governance goes. Normally you take a considered and measured approach, like considering whether the provisions under part 7A of the Emergency Management Act 2013, which have been explicitly designed to deal with emergency risk, are appropriate. Are they in place? They are used as part of that vital and critical infrastructure protection, and I think the member for Greenvale covered that off really critically.

To see how this plays out, because the chief commissioner of course put Extinction Rebellion and others that are disrupting our state on notice, I think is a better approach – to be considered in the way that we bring bills, considered in the way that we put legislation forward, which has all elements of involvement, including from the maritime union, Victoria Police, the stevedores and everyone working towards a greater outcome. That is how you do considered policy, not procedural debates that then waste the time of the Parliament, where after a little while we discover the huge gaping holes that have not been consulted right, like we have seen in other procedural debates and interventions. They surely have not gone through shadow cabinet, because some of them you could drive a truck through. You go, ‘What’s the real intention of this then?’ I think it is more about platforming individuals, because those that front up with the procedural motions have a vested interest in that. You notice the member for Brighton trying to get a bit more airtime as he goes through –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion before us.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mordialloc, come back to the motion before the house.

Tim RICHARDSON: Earlier in this week there was a concern around the time that was allocated on a particular bill around the State Electricity Commission. We saw a lot of discussion around people wanting to front up and make their contributions on that bill. Then, when 5 pm hit, the whole speakers list fell to pieces. It was vacated, completely gone. There were 5-minute contributions. So for the actual contributions that were made, the time that was allocated was greatly sufficient despite those protests.

Then we see these procedural interventions that stop members from making their contributions on bills that have been put forward for the two weeks, that have been shown to communities and that people expect us to front up and speak on. It is not the way you govern. It is not the way that you bring forward considered things. It is not to say that members cannot bring their private members bills. The Greens have. The member for South-West Coast has brought forward a procedural intervention, and we will vote on whether the procedural motion goes forward. I do not want to predict the vote, but I have got a sense of how it might go, like the other procedural interventions before. But it has had a crack. It has been put on the notice paper. The member for South-West Coast has platformed, and if that is a pitch to go for deputy leader, then I am the number one ticketholder. I was number one for the member for Eildon. I thought, ‘Harshly done, but go for it. Have a crack.’

The SPEAKER: The member for Richmond, by leave. Is leave granted?

Leave refused.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Noes (56): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, 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, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, 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

Motion defeated.