Tuesday, 29 July 2025

Bills

Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Colin Brooks:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (16:48): I rise to speak on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025, and from the outset can I thank the minister’s staff and the department for their willingness to put on a briefing for the coalition and to follow up on any questions we asked in that bill briefing.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the Local Jobs First Act 2003. This is a program that was established in 2003 and requires contractors on government-funded projects to actively support local businesses, workers, apprentices and trainees. It has two key components: the Victorian Industry Participation Policy (VIPP) and the Major Project Skills Guarantee (MPSG). The Victorian Industry Participation Policy applies to government projects valued at $1 million or more in regional Victoria or $3 million or more in metropolitan Melbourne for statewide tenders. It requires companies who are tendering for work to include a local industry development plan and embeds a 10 per cent weighting in tender evaluations for industry development. The Major Project Skills Guarantee, on the other hand, applies to any publicly funded construction project valued at over $20 million and requires contractors to ensure that at least 10 per cent of total labour hours are performed by Victorian registered apprentices, trainees or cadets.

In 2018, following on the establishment of this program in 2003, the office of the Local Jobs First commissioner was established to oversee and promote compliance with these requirements under the Victorian industry participation policy and the Major Projects Skills Guarantee. Essentially we are looking at the policy in terms of making sure that for major government projects, both in regional Victoria and here in metropolitan projects, when they are put out for tender there is a requirement for local content in terms of the supplies but of course in terms of sourcing labour as well when it comes to local apprentices, making sure that we are using the skills here in Victoria and particularly, where we can, engaging small and medium-sized businesses that are Victorian based, Australian based, and of course the definition does go as far as being New Zealand based to be part of major government contracts and to give those firms and those businesses an opportunity to not only provide skills but supplies and content for those projects.

The bill before us today makes further amendments to the Local Jobs First Act aimed at enhancing compliance measures, including through additional enforcement powers for the commissioner and new civil penalties and other consequences for noncompliance with the scheme. The bill will require suppliers to meet their commitments made in their Local Industry Development Plan. Those commitments are already required under the existing act, and what this bill before us today does is look at how there can be tougher penalties, if you like a greater compliance regime, to apply to the Local Jobs First and industry policy so that those commitments are taken up by the contractors. It will also bestow new powers on the Local Jobs First commissioner, including additional investigation and reporting powers, a new power to conduct site inspections, and a role to advise and support contracting parties to resolve noncompliance issues.

Finally, the bill establishes two new avenues to penalise suppliers for noncompliance. First, it establishes something called a deprioritisation scheme, which is a process which allows the commissioner to penalise a company in future tenders for government work if they are deemed to have been noncompliant in previous jobs. So when a project reaches practical completion, the commissioner may issue a deprioritisation notice to a supplier if the supplier does not submit a completion report within 90 days of practical completion or the completion report indicates that the supplier did not achieve one or more of its Local Industry Development Plan commitments. Secondly, it introduces a civil penalty mechanism to enable the commissioner to apply to a court for a civil penalty order, or a fine in other words, and these are significant fines of up to or around $20,000 for an individual and around $100,000 for a corporation for those suppliers who fail to meet their obligations under the VIPP and the MPSG. As I said, the bill does take quite a punitive approach in terms of the maximum penalty of 100 penalty units for an individual and 500 penalty units for an organisation, equivalent to approximately $20,000 and $101,000 respectively.

I will be moving a reasoned amendment to this bill on behalf of the coalition today, because we do have serious concerns about some of the measures contained in this bill. Now, let me state very, very clearly to the house that nobody in this place would argue, I would hope, against the logic of promoting local industry development within government projects. It is appropriate for government-funded projects, wherever possible, to incentivise local job creation and local businesses, and they support our apprentices and trainees with opportunities to learn their trade with on-the-job experience. But this bill is not about whether or not we support the Local Jobs First program but whether or not we support punitive action being taken against businesses that are not able to meet their industry development targets.

It is very important that when we have government-funded projects – and in Victoria we have seen over the past decade major projects and increased spending in terms of public sector infrastructure that is looking to, as much as possible, find opportunities to incentivise local job creation and contract local businesses to be part of the delivery of those major projects. That important on the major projects that we see not only here in Melbourne – whether that might be major train projects, like the Metro Tunnel, major road projects, like the North East Link, the West Gate Tunnel – but also in regional Victoria, where we know there are small businesses, medium-sized businesses and often family businesses that are struggling under immense pressure. To provide opportunities to be part of government projects – projects that are funded by the taxpayer – provides that job creation and provides the incentive for people to remain in those regions, to be part of those local communities, and for local businesses to provide supplies, manufacturing opportunities, innovation opportunities and to really value-add to major projects that are funded by the taxpayer here in Victoria.

But unfortunately the government has not made the case for change when it comes to the bill before us today. They have not provided the case studies or examples of businesses flouting their noncompliance. They have not made the case that projects are consistently departing from their local content requirements, that local apprentices are being denied work on government sites, that subcontractors are missing out on government work. They have not provided one single example of where the current framework has failed. In fact in response to questions from the Liberals and Nationals members about data on previous breaches and civil actions against contractors that has led to this so-called policy response before us today, the department advised and the government advised that they are not aware of any breaches or actions in relation to specific jobs first deliverables.

The coalition has consulted with suppliers to government, and I will share their feedback for the benefit of the chamber. But before I do, I want to thank my colleague the member for Narracan – in his absence I would like to thank the member for Narracan – for helping us to consult industry on this bill and really bringing to the table a number of contacts he made throughout his previous experience in the building industry and in regional Victoria in particular, because the member for Narracan of course has his own lived experience as a builder tendering for government work. I look forward to his contributions on the bill later today. But the feedback we have received from industry has been stark. We have been told that where local requirements are able to be met, they are generally being met across industry. Where they are not being met, it is typically because they are unable to be met, not due to the lack of effort or imagination on the part of the tenderer. But instead of working alongside the industry and taking into account market conditions, this bill introduces a great big stick with which it is going to whack businesses, and particularly regional businesses, here in Victoria.

I am particularly concerned to hear feedback about the difficulty many businesses operating in regional areas face when it comes to meeting the requirement that 10 per cent of total labour hours be performed by Victorian-registered apprentices, trainees or cadets. I want to be very clear that the coalition is very supportive of this target, which provides a very important opportunity to make sure our apprentices have the opportunity to get that on-the-job training that they need and deserve to be able to pursue their careers. But what we are concerned about is this government is proposing to penalise businesses that, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet that requirement.

I want to make a number of points here. First, we have had strong feedback in relation to the limited number of apprentices, trainees and cadets available to work on sites in regional areas. Being an apprentice in a regional area is a different kettle of fish than here in Melbourne, in metropolitan areas, particularly because of the significant distances involved in travelling between jobs. We know there are broader issues when it comes to trying to find jobs in regional Victoria and when it comes to the supply of housing and local infrastructure. All the things that we often take for granted here in Melbourne are not always readily available in regional Victoria, and that has to be taken into account, so what we are seeing is apprentices leaving for metropolitan Melbourne and in particular the lure of the Big Build here in Victoria. Speaking of the Big Build, we know that the price of building things in this state is under significant upward pressure. We know that under the Allan Labor government and under the past 10 years of Labor in this state we have seen nearly $50 billion worth of cost blowouts when it comes to government projects – $50 billion of taxpayer money has gone in waste – because this government is unable to manage budgets and unable to manage major projects. The Big Build continues to cost the Victorian taxpayer every single day.

When it comes to this bill, we need to be aware that the threshold amounts for projects that are captured by the industry participation policy or the Major Project Skills Guarantee are not indexed. As I said earlier, the VIPP applies to government projects valued at $1 million or more in regional Victoria or $3 million or more in metropolitan Melbourne or statewide tenders, and the MPSG applies to projects valued at over $20 million. What that means is that increasingly more and more government projects will be subject to the Local Jobs First Act 2003, so more companies will be liable for penalties under the bill if it passes this Parliament. I want to reiterate that it is not the targets that we are concerned by; it is the fact that the government wants to give itself more power to beat up on regional businesses that are already doing it tough. We have been told that the increased compliance costs associated with this bill will disproportionately impact smaller businesses that do not have the capacity of larger contractors to absorb the additional cost. Further, we have been given feedback that the increased regulatory burden will require more staff and administration, favouring large firms while placing extra pressure on small operators who are the backbone of industry.

Let me just speak to some of the feedback we have received. I refer to Master Builders Victoria, who stated about the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025 that the proposed changes are likely to:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

create more burden than benefit for many small and medium builders.

As part of that they noted that it was deeply disappointing and that:

genuine industry consultation on these reforms has been so limited.

They said they received an email from the department referring to a meeting held on 17 June 2024 as part of the department’s so-called targeted consultation. When we asked the government for a list of stakeholders that had been consulted as part of these reforms – because we were told there had been very thorough consultation and that industry had been brought through this journey and had been able to contribute, provide feedback and were comfortable with the changes – unfortunately, not surprisingly, there was a reason why that could not be provided: it was confidential. So we do not have any visibility as the opposition as to how many businesses, industry associations and unions were consulted as part of the proposed changes before us today. Master Builders Victoria stated that as part of the department’s targeted consultations that informed the development of this bill:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

In our view one meeting over a year ago does not constitute genuine or adequate industry consultation in relation to reforms of this scale and impact.

Feedback from their members highlighted the following concerns with this bill: as I have said, the increased compliance costs will disproportionately impact smaller businesses that do not have the capacity of larger contractors to absorb the additional cost, and in addition to the compliance costs, the increased regulatory burden will require more staff and administration, favouring large firms while placing extra pressure on small operators who are the backbone of our industry.

We on this side of the chamber know how tough our small, medium and family builders are doing it in this state as a consequence of the policies of those opposite, which are making it harder and harder for those businesses to continue to operate in this state – increased labour costs as a result of the inflationary impact of the government’s Big Build and the $50 billion worth of blowouts on those projects. We have seen over the past three years a number of family builders collapse in this state, leaving many aspirational first-time home buyers unable to complete their homes as a consequence of the pressure on the building industry in this state. When I look to the master builders for their feedback on the bill before us today, I come to this point that they make:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

We consider it manifestly unfair to impose enforcement and financial penalties on head contractors who are unable to meet the local requirement due to insufficient workforce diversity and availability or product availability for the project. The introduction of enforcement risks severely disadvantaging regional areas where there are simply not enough firms available to meet the requirements.

For that reason we are moving a reasoned amendment highlighting the fact that the bill before us today will only place an additional burden, an unfair burden, on regional businesses that are doing everything they can to make sure they meet the various requirements under the Local Jobs First program but there simply is not the supply of labour or the supply of supplies available to them to meet those requirements through no fault of their own.

One of the other concerning aspects of this bill is that the process by which the commissioner is required to take into account mitigating circumstances before applying penalties to noncompliant businesses is insufficiently robust. Suppliers will be reliant on a benevolent commissioner to appropriately use their discretion when either applying for a civil penalty order or initiating a deprioritisation process to mark a company down against future tenders. There needs to be much greater clarity in the bill before us today and guardrails around the application of these penalties to suppliers who may be noncompliant due to circumstances, as I have said, well outside their control. As I have said previously, this is not a matter of a lack of commitment to local industry but a case that local subcontractors or apprentices are not always available in all areas at all times to meet these requirements. It would be deeply, deeply unfair to be penalised in these circumstances, and the bill is insufficiently clear about what are grounds for penalty action for the commissioner to take. That is why I am moving a reasoned amendment on behalf of the coalition. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(1) addresses the potential financial impact on Victorian businesses, particularly small operators in rural and regional areas; and

(2) provides a forecast of the budget impact of the measures contained in this bill.’

I will come back this to shortly.

As I highlighted, the second aspect of the reasoned amendment that I just moved on behalf of the coalition relates to the appalling lack of transparency from the government in terms of the cost to implement the measures in this bill. Under questioning from the coalition members during the bill briefing, departmental and ministerial staff were unable or unwilling to provide any detail around the forecast budget impact of the measures contained in this bill. It stands to reason that increased auditing, compliance and enforcement activities would require greater resources for the office of the Local Jobs First commissioner, particularly in terms of headcount. We are talking about expanding powers so that the Local Jobs First commissioner is able to investigate and inspect sites, so it stands to reason that you would expect that if the government is serious about bringing in this reform, there would be greater resources put behind the commissioner’s office.

Perhaps this would not be so concerning in normal times, but Victoria’s budget is in such a dire state that it is incumbent upon us all in this place to carefully consider the financial impact of any piece of legislation we are asked to pass. Let me just put some facts on the record: net debt will reach $194 billion by 2028–29 as a result of the past 10 years of financial mismanagement in this state. That equates to an annual interest payment of $10.6 billion, $28.9 million a day in interest repayments or $1.2 million an hour. The opportunity cost of this debt is absolutely staggering, as the Age has in fact has pointed out, and we have seen today plans for the Allan Labor government to siphon off funds from education, health care and public transport into a fund to fill that black hole to fund their pet project that is the Suburban Rail Loop. But as the Age pointed out, Victoria will spend $36 billion over the next four years in interest. That amount could help cover the projected cost of the entire first stage of the Suburban Rail Loop, yet we are paying that in interest repayments.

As I said, that is a project that the government still has not explained how they plan to fund. It has a line item in the budget that literally says ‘TBC’, and every year over the forward estimates there is no detail as to how it will be funded. But every dollar spent on debt is a dollar that cannot be spent on our schools, on our hospitals, on our ambulance service, on housing or on infrastructure. So in this context, given the Labor government’s abysmal track record when it comes to managing money, it is entirely reasonable to ask for greater clarity around exactly what the measures in this bill will cost and how they will be paid for. That is why the coalition’s reasoned amendment moves that this house does not consider this bill until the government provides a forecast of the budget impact of the measures contained in this bill.

I have outlined the coalition’s concerns in relation to the bill before us today. We do not have an issue with the local content requirement when it comes to taxpayer-funded government projects. It is important in terms of local job creation and it is important in terms of encouraging our manufacturing industry and our innovation sector to make sure that we are looking locally, that we are looking here in Victoria – and as I said, as the definition applies to Australia and even New Zealand – for the skills, for the labour and for the supplies on government-funded projects. But what we have seen once again is the government putting forward a bill without the detail as to how it will be implemented, putting forward a bill that looks to put greater pressure on businesses in regional Victoria in particular, which are already doing it tough. We hear time and time again that businesses cannot keep up with the pressure the government is putting on them in this state, whether it is our tax system – looking at the increased number of taxes on our business, we have seen payroll tax continue to increase, the COVID debt levy and the mental health levy, all on our businesses at a time when they can least afford it.

We now have a situation where we have the government putting in place land tax hikes on our businesses in this state. We have a situation where this government continues to hike up WorkCover charges on this state. These businesses in regional Victoria cannot keep the additional financial pressure coming, and the bill before us today will only increase that pressure. It is a big stick that does nothing to actually ensure that local businesses in regional Victoria have the support of this government. I say again: we cannot keep having bills come into this place and legislation come into this space where we do not understand the budgetary impacts. Victoria’s budget is in an appalling state – $194 billion of net debt in the coming years. $1.2 million every single hour will be paid by the Victorian taxpayer in terms of the interest repayment – $50 billion worth of cost blowouts. Yet we have another bill coming in here that does not identify how it will be paid for. How will these additional powers of the Local Jobs First commissioner be resourced? Will there be an additional headcount? What will be done in terms of site inspections? What greater resources are needed to actually implement this bill? Until we understand the budgetary impacts, it is not acceptable that we are asked to come to the table and support this piece of legislation. The Victorian taxpayer deserves better than a government that continues to disregard the value of its taxes.

Before I finish I want to reiterate the coalition’s support for the objectives of the Local Jobs First program. It is absolutely worthy that we foster local industry and local job opportunities through government projects. Unfortunately, as I said, as with much of the legislation that Labor bring to this place, they have failed to make a compelling argument for why these changes are necessary. They have failed to fully examine and appreciate the potential financial impact to Victorian businesses that this bill could have. They have, as so often they do, neglected to consider the impact on the people and small businesses of regional and rural Victoria, and they have failed, as per usual, to ask the most basic questions about what these measures will cost and how they will be funded. The Liberals and Nationals will always support sensible reform, and we support the aims of the Local Jobs First program. We understand why we need to incentivise job creation and manufacturing support in this state when it comes to local businesses, but we cannot support a bill that does not answer the basic questions that Victorian industry would expect us to ask.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (17:18): I am delighted to rise today to speak in support of the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025, a vital piece of legislation that builds on our government’s unwavering commitment to creating good, secure jobs for Victorians and ensuring that public investment delivers maximum benefit to our local communities. Before I get into some of the details and some of the facts and figures, I do want to start off and reflect on some of our projects. The lead speaker for the opposition did talk about debt, I guess decrying the debt that has been used to fund some of our most important and long-overdue major infrastructure projects. If we look at the debt, there has been a proportion of debt that was accrued during COVID, and I do not think that anyone who went through that period and businesses and households were arguing at the time that they should not be supported. There are a significant number of major projects, and almost every electorate probably has stood to benefit from the investment that we have made in infrastructure projects, whether it is the West Gate Tunnel, Metro Tunnel, North East Link, Suburban Rail Loop or level crossing removals, to name just a few.

A meeting that I had with a local constituent says a lot about where the Liberal Party is today. I was just coming back from shopping actually, and he followed me in the street. He said he had made up his mind, he was finally joining the Liberal Party. I said, ‘Oh, okay. That’s all right. Now, why have you made that decision?’ He explained that he had never been politically minded, but he had decided to join the Liberal Party. He said, ‘I just want the infrastructure not to be built.’ He felt that the best way to get infrastructure not built was joining the Liberal Party, which I think says a lot about where the Liberal Party stands on a lot of these matters.

It was very interesting to reflect back this morning when were doing the condolence motion for Brian Dixon, a member of the Bolte and the Hamer governments, and even reflect on some of the words that he had used in his inaugural speech about using the power of government and the revenues of government and the financial power of government to invest in the future for Victorians. I think that we could all learn a lesson from that. I think that our government for 10 years – for almost 11 years – has really taken that to heart in terms of investing in the infrastructure for the needs of the population both today and in coming years.

How is this related to the current bill at hand? Obviously all of these major projects require a significant amount of local content. I was very fortunate to be out at the North East Link site earlier last week to see the absolutely astounding progress that they are making on that project, particularly on the tunnelling between Bulleen and Greensborough. I know for my community in Box Hill that is going to be a game changer when it comes to getting to the northern suburbs and getting up to the airport. It is fantastic that we have local manufacturers and local suppliers that are supplying to that project and making sure that the whole supply chain has a significant local component, and it is only legislation such as the Local Jobs First Act 2003 and that entrenchment in legislation and in projects over a long period of time that has really reinforced that local jobs creation, retaining Victoria as a manufacturing and construction base and an engine room for the entire country.

Since we came to government in 2014 more than 900,000 new jobs have been created across the state, and this is the highest number of new jobs that has been created by any state in Australia during that period. It is a testament to the investment that I have mentioned not just in infrastructure but also in education, health and industry development. Our total employment has reached almost 4 million people, with both the participation rate and the employment share hitting record highs.

I just want to also reflect on some of the other numbers particularly in relation to the Local Jobs First policy and how that has been applied. Since December 2014, since the government was first elected, Local Jobs First has applied to 396 strategic projects – 222 in the metropolitan area, 83 in regional Victoria and 91 statewide projects. We are having a combined value of almost $200 billion and supporting over 60,000 local jobs. The Local Jobs First commissioner is currently responsible for 299 strategic projects. The Major Projects Skills Guarantee has been applied to 480 projects, employing almost 20,000 apprentices, trainees and cadets. A total of 27.7 million hours for apprentices, trainees and cadets have been committed, of which 21.9 million hours have been worked. This includes 129 regional projects, which employed over 3000 apprentices, trainees and cadets. I think this just goes to show how much of an impact that this is having right across the community. If you are talking about those sorts of numbers, about 60,000 jobs, and on the range of projects that you are talking about right across Victoria, it is affecting every single community. Every single community is going to have businesses and manufacturers who are employed somewhere on the supply chain.

There would be rarely a week that goes by if I am doorknocking or calling people in the electorate that I do not have somebody who is in some way connected, particularly to the Big Build but in other ways connected to government projects and government services, and there is no doubt that this has been helped along by the Local Jobs First policy. There it is. It is clear that the Local Jobs First policyhas been working, and it is important that where there is an opportunity to strengthen and reinforce that policy, as was committed to at the 2022 election, we take that opportunity and make those changes.

I want to go through again some of the changes that are proposed in the bill. The bill does introduce new powers for the Local Jobs First commissioner to conduct audits, issue compliance notices and refer serious breaches to relevant authorities. This will ensure that commitments made by suppliers are not just aspirational but also enforceable. There were comments made by the lead speaker for the opposition, as well as by some of the members opposite during the government business program debate, about where perhaps the supply of workers or the supply of materials is unavailable and therefore companies are not able to be compliant with the legislation. The legislation already allows for that variation in the contract to occur, for the company to notify the commissioner about the changing circumstances and the difficulty that they are encountering, because sometimes that may in fact be a real issue. But we cannot create a situation or do not want to lead to a situation where agencies and employers, particularly major contractors, are not fulfilling their end of the bargain just because it is easier, cheaper and simpler not to do so.

As part of the changes to the legislation, agencies will also now be required to publish annual reports detailing their performance against Local Jobs First targets. This will include data on local content, apprenticeships and engagement with small and medium enterprises. Transparency will drive accountability, and this measure will help ensure that public procurement delivers real outcomes.

Finally, I just want to reflect on the strengthening that the bill provides to support priority cohorts, including young people, women in trades, First Nation workers and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. There are a number of changes in this bill. It is very important that it strengthens our Local Jobs First policy. It is working and the legislation will strengthen it further.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (17:28): I rise today to speak on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025. The bill proposes changes to legislation introduced back in 2003, which requires contractors on government-funded projects to actively support local businesses, workers, apprentices and trainees. On the surface the principle is one that we do support on this side of the house, but this bill goes a lot further than that, and we do have some serious concerns, particularly for small businesses, as we heard from the member for Kew. They are behind her reasoned amendment, which is very practical, with a particular impact on regional contractors.

At its core the bill hands sweeping new powers to the Local Jobs First commissioner. These powers include the ability to carry out site inspections, conduct investigations, enforce compliance and issue a range of civil penalties for noncompliance with local industry development plans. One of the most concerning changes is the proposed deprioritisation scheme, which could see local businesses blacklisted from future government work. These penalties could be enforced by the courts, regardless of whether the business did everything it could to comply. Just to be clear, we do support the goal of giving local businesses every opportunity to win government work, but this is not the way to go about it. We will oppose this bill in its current form because right now it is all punishment, no support and limited reward. I do think that we need to support the member for Kew’s reasoned amendment. As it is, it supports jobs, it supports businesses and it supports regional Victoria to thrive.

We have received strong feedback from industry groups like Master Builders Victoria, who have said what so many of us already know, in particular about the impact of closure of businesses in regional Victoria. In most cases local targets are being met, but where they are not, it is usually due to real structural challenges like regional skills shortages and certainly not a willingness to try and comply. You cannot punish a small builder in Benalla because they cannot find a local subcontractor when the workforce simply is not available, but that is what this bill does in its current form. The enforcement regime being proposed does not take these factors into account. There is no clear pathway for the commissioner to consider mitigating circumstances before hitting a business with a penalty, and there is no fair process to determine whether a shortfall was genuinely beyond a business’s control. This is especially dangerous for smaller operators like local family businesses who do not have compliance teams or administrative capacity, and I have heard from so many local businesses about these challenges lately. They are already battling rising costs, labour shortages and an endless, suffocating amount of paperwork, and the last thing they need is to be penalised for failing to meet unrealistic targets.

We also have to question the government’s complete lack of transparency when it comes to the cost of implementing this bill, which we heard about from the member for Kew. When asked what the expected budgets and impacts were, there was absolutely no modelling, no finance and no data. But it is straightforward – we know this. If you are expecting the commissioner’s responsibility to include inspections, investigations, complaint handling, issuing penalties and facilitating dispute resolution, it is going to cost money. It is going to cost taxpayers. Where is that money coming from? Let us hope it is not more taxes, because there are also concerns over why we are investing in new enforcement powers when the department confirmed it was not aware of any past breaches or civil actions related to Local Jobs First requirements. The question has got to be asked: what problem is this legislation actually fixing? From where I stand and from what I am hearing across our region, the bill does not look like smart reform; it looks like bureaucratic overreach, but there are no surprises there.

That is why our side has put forward these reasoned amendments – amendments that would allow fairer processes for assessing compliance, particularly in regional areas, where conditions are different. We would support clearer, more practical guidelines to reduce confusion for small businesses, but we cannot and will not support a bill that does set them up to fail. That is the real disconnect here – instead of helping regional businesses succeed, the bill threatens to punish them for circumstances entirely outside of their control. We need policy that reflects the reality on the ground in regional Victoria. We need legislation that works with our local businesses and not against them, and this is what our reasoned amendment does.

Just last week we saw the devastating impact of business closures in my region. ForestOne, a major employer in Benalla, announced it will be closing its sawmill and particle board operations. This is expected to result in 140 local job losses in a community that cannot afford to lose a single one of them. These facilities produce essential materials for construction and everything from benchtops to flooring to plywood. They are shutting their doors not because they gave up but because weak markets and low prices are met with absolutely no support from government. In a statement issued by the executives, it said:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

Skyrocketing compliance costs, unreliable power and enormous state government tax burden is making it too hard to do business in Victoria.

They are shutting their doors – 140 jobs – and this is one of so many businesses that are just absolutely drowning under the weight of the tax regime in Victoria. It is right across Victoria. It is not just regional Victoria either; it is also Melbourne. New data from ASIC shows that more than 4200 businesses collapsed in the past year. That is a 48 per cent increase on the year prior. Over the past few weeks I have listened to small businesses across the electorate, in Euroa, Kilmore, Benalla and Broadford.

I have spoken to builders, cafe owners, manufacturers, wineries and tradespeople, and they are telling me the same thing. They want to grow and they want to hire and invest in their towns, but they are constantly held back by government.

[NAME AND QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I was sent a message this morning by Tracy, a business owner in Heathcote, who said:

Ask businesses to share what their power bills are and what their state taxes are just to show the pressure they are under. But without our businesses, we do not have a local economy, because that is who gives us jobs.

They are dealing with endless fees, delays and hoops to jump through just to keep their doors open. The message is simple: get rid of red tape and do not add more.

I recently visited Broadford paper mill, an iconic site that has been operating since the 1890s. It employs 37 people and remains the only manufacturer in Australia producing angle board for our fruit and veggie growers. They are now focusing on their investment in Queensland. Why? Because Queensland is doing what Victoria refuses to do: it is cutting red tape, it is lowering costs and it is welcoming business. The mill is facing thousands of dollars in land tax due to split titles, a six grand charge for a modern slavery certificate, monthly power bills jumping from $12,000 to $16,000 and layers upon layers of regulation from every tier of government. And meanwhile we are importing all white and copy paper from overseas – make it make sense – often from countries with absolutely no environmental standards. This is not environmentally friendly, and it is certainly not good economic policy. This is not paperwork, it is government constantly getting in the way of economic growth. If we want to protect jobs, we have to stop punishing the people who create them. Too often I hear from business owners when they are already at breaking point, forced to step away from their work to voice their frustration and desperation.

But I want to meet with them early, and I want to ask them what we can do now on our side of the house to make better conditions in Victoria, because the Allan Labor government certainly is not listening. That is what brought me to meet Simon Meyer of Mitre 10 Kilmore. Since taking over in 2018 Simon has doubled the size of the business and now employs 30 locals. They work with some of the biggest builders in the country. From the outside it looks like a hardware store, but behind the scenes they are bringing local employment and housing to our region. Another example is ATG group in Seymour, with modular classrooms. Some of them can be seen at Seymour College. They are reducing construction times and improving outcomes. There are also hospitality leaders like Kim Short of Red Lion in Kilmore, Munari Wines in Heathcote, Kilmore Wellness Centre led by Travis Sullivan, and Suzanne and Jim Gall of Faithfulls Creek in Euroa. I will continue to listen, because this is what our community needs and this is what it deserves: a government that listens and supports business growth in Victoria.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (17:38): It is a pleasure to rise on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025, a really important piece of legislation adding to this government’s significant record in supporting local content and jobs in our state. I am going to take the Parliament through some of the stats that we find ourselves confronting as the engine room of the nation’s economy, putting jobs and skills and training at the heart of everything that we do, because these government projects, some 396 strategic projects in fact – 222 in metropolitan Melbourne, 83 in regional Victoria and 91 statewide – are the backbone of how we support the jobs of Victorians and train the next generation with our skills guarantee.

But before I go a little bit more into that, the member for Kew has come back almost on command, which is great. She has come back after a great contribution that talked a lot about different things and the reasoned amendment that I will get to in a minute. But the member for Kew put a rhetorical question to the Parliament and said, ‘Well, who would be opposed to local job content? Who on earth would be opposed?’ Well, I have got an answer for the member for Kew: it is Liberals. That is who is opposed to local content. You do not have to go further than the heroes that those opposite lord over, the New South Wales Liberal crew, to find Korean trains costing $2.3 billion that were funded without any local content or creation. It was Liberals, it was for some of those opposite their heroes: Mike Baird and the then member who became Premier and Treasurer, Dom Perrottet. Those heroes outsourced the trains to Korea and then they did not fit. Remember that? Remember that saga that was put forward? It took a Labor government being elected in New South Wales to put local jobs and local content back on the register. But I thought, ‘Well, maybe I’ll go a bit further. I’ll go into a bit more detail for this bill preparation.’ You can imagine I have spent hours just agonising over the content and detail.

I went back to the archives and I thought, ‘How many strategic major projects’ – I have said before, there have been 396 from the Andrews–Allan governments – ‘did those opposite have in their four years?’ Now, it is a quiz. Anyone can interject and come up with a number.

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: One says, ‘Four.’ That is just a little less generous. It was eight strategic projects. I wonder about the commissioning of stickers at Southern Cross station to try to find the airport – and yes, those opposite have their heroes, like the former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. Remember that? Remember the absolute hero of the member for Kew there? I do not know how many strategic projects were put forward. Maybe I will give a bit of credit to the former Treasurer. With AUKUS I think there might have been a local jobs component to that, but the member for Kew and the member for Sandringham are a bit of a double act over there with their lack of appreciation of the importance of local job content.

I read this reasoned amendment, which is not as long as we expected from the member for Kew. Normally there is a bit more density to this, but I will go through it. It says:

addresses the potential financial impact on Victorian businesses, particularly small operators in rural and regional areas …

That is a way of trying to outsource this bill and local content creation into the never-never. That is a consult into the never-never and never support local jobs and content in our state. And it adds:

provides a forecast of the budget impact of the measures contained in this bill.

Well, the budget impacts are shown right here, with the investment just over the last 11 years. Some $190 billion has supported 60,000 local jobs. That is 60,000 Victorians who are making a crust on major infrastructure projects who did not have the job before, because I say again, that number was eight strategic projects of local content. I mean, remember the member for Bulleen was hoping to rezone things and create all this wonder of cities everywhere, left, right and centre – dare we forget Fishermans Bend? That might have been one of them if it ever had seen the light of day. Maybe one of them, or the east–west link – remember that? Remember that one that they took to, what is it, six elections, or seven elections? Where is that whole thing, I am just wondering. The time clock is about July now or August, just 15 months out from a state election. It is time to justify the east–west link again, isn’t it? Isn’t it time to turn on the east–west link justification again?

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker –

A member interjected.

Brad Rowswell: I will get to my point of order in the fullness of time. As much as I have regard for the member for Mordialloc, and as much as he and I are often seen as – the joke goes, Acting Speaker, and you may be aware of this, that if Simon Love, the member for Sandringham and the member for Mordialloc were in the same room together, people would not know the difference. Setting all of that aside, and as much regard as I have for the member for Mordialloc, I would like the member for Mordialloc, with your guidance, to demonstrate to the house what point in the bill he is actually referring to, because on relevance, it is quite clear that the member for Mordialloc is way off track. He sees the member for Bulleen, a distinguished member, a former minister in this house, sitting at the table, and sees it as an opportunity to attack a former distinguished member. On relevance, please, I would encourage you to give the member for Mordialloc a bit of guidance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): If you could please come back to the bill, member for Mordialloc.

Tim RICHARDSON: I was going to go on the point of order, but you have ruled. If the east–west link was not a strategic project of those opposite, in a local content frame, on a local content bill, I do not know what this bill then is about, because that is literally a major infrastructure project that we are requiring local content on and narrating the need for local content. But anyway, I digress from that because I think there are eight strategic projects that I would love for those opposite to maybe account for or name – we have got 396, so it would take me a few weeks to get through the significance of those, but there are many in the electorate of Mordialloc.

One of those was the Mordialloc Freeway, one that employed hundreds of per cent over its targets in support of veteran communities and First Nations communities in its Local Jobs First approach. Its 10 per cent cadet and traineeship requirements were substantially exceeded, and they dominated those targets and numbers. This is where you can make a project that is over $500 million invest back into the community and require local content. The level crossing removal programs along the Frankston train line have substantially benefited communities. Remember that we have got obviously local content and procurement all the way through to 2029 with the Frankston line being level crossing free. Each and every one of those level crossing removals is a strategic project, a significant contribution to our community

Just the other day I met one of the chaps who was out there on the Suburban Rail Loop site. They were previously on the Parkdale site. They had a four-week-old bub, and the most beautiful conversation we had, looking at the SRL site, was when they said, ‘You know what, Tim? I could imagine my son being on this major infrastructure project and being able to work with my lad in the future.’ And I thought, ‘Well, do you know why that is the case? Because we have a government that looks intergenerationally in its investment, not at what is the latest thing to do.’ The member for Kew criticised one of the most strategic, significant projects in the Suburban Rail Loop. If you only ever listen to the Herald Sun and 3AW, you might have thought that this had 5 per cent approval. No, it has got majority Victorian approval because they see that not acting is actually being negligent in the duties that we have to Victorians. You cannot build any more lanes on Warrigal Road, you cannot add any more to the Monash Freeway or to EastLink and not have significant impacts and not get people where they need to go. We need to invest in heavy rail. We need to do it now.

I know those opposite in their commentary – and I have listened intently to the member for Bulleen. He has gone from being opposed – to shelving it – to the other comment, which was almost like it was a nice-to-have. You know, it is like the extra gift in your stocking you might have, a bit of a nice-to-have on Christmas. No, this is a strategic infrastructure project. Maybe he has charged back into being the number one seed in 2026, and there will be a bipartisan approach to the Suburban Rail Loop to get around it. He has done a few selfies, which have got hundreds of thousands of views, in tunnels in New South Wales. This is an offer across the aisle to the member for Bulleen: join us on the rail commute. Get in the tunnel with us. It will be fantastic. It will be fast, it will be efficient. I reckon it would even get your heart beating. It would just get you up and about. Then the local content, because it will be generations that need to deliver this massive and important project – the local content, the job creation, is massive. But it is not just in rail infrastructure. Just think of the 59,000 jobs that will be created out of the re-establishment of the amazing State Electricity Commission. Just think of all the jobs in those strategic projects and where they interact with government and the people who are getting that opportunity to train up and skill up in Victoria.

This bill and its intention here is about making sure that one of the biggest investors meets the requirements of training the next generation, supporting jobs and making ends meet in Victoria for so many. This is what it is all about, and this is what this bill delivers. It is well and truly in our values as a Labor government, and under the Allan Labor government we will keep investing in our state’s future and supporting the jobs of those Victorians that underpin our wealth and prosperity.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (17:48): I must say, I do enjoy the member for Mordialloc. He is very entertaining. He is like Hey Hey It’s Saturday in the chamber. It is live, it is impromptu and it is without notes – not scripted.

A member: If Red Faces was still around, he’d get a gig.

Matthew GUY: There might be that. He gets the chamber going, and I enjoy it. In fact some of the comments I want to make on this bill are very similar and in line with the member for Mordialloc. I was pleased that he was actually starting to talk quite a bit about local content, because I think that is central to certainly parts of this bill. I think the member for Kew eloquently put why we on this side of the house feel the need to move a reasoned amendment to the bill to certainly improve it, but with the base point being that we do not oppose the local content and local content provisions, whether it is seeking it in government contracted work or, importantly, in government work itself, which is a point that I want to talk about.

I did note the member for Mordialloc quite correctly talked about trains and rolling stock – oh, dear to my heart is talk about trains and rolling stock. So I would love to talk, like the member for Mordialloc, about rail and rolling stock and local content, because I find it fascinating that in this bill this government wants to penalise private industry for being misleading about whether they have actually got local content or the extent of local content or not. Yet if we walk to the front of the Parliament, you will see big signs on the side of trams, or indeed in Parliament station the side of trains, which say ‘Made in Victoria for Victoria’. It is interesting. Some of these signs I think I have seen in government press releases, others on some of the rolling stock that is running around on the Victorian rail network – most importantly on the high-capacity trains, which are new, and they will service the Metro Tunnel when it opens.

The high-capacity trains the government is in many ways spruiking as Victorian-made vehicles, which is interesting because they are actually made by CRRC, which is the Changchun rail company in China – a Chinese train. They make rolling stock. They are the biggest in the world. They make them for South Africa, they make them for Argentina quite a bit, actually they make the Pyongyang metro and now they are supplying for Melbourne. When something arrives as a chassis and then a good portion of the rest of it – not all, but a good portion – is in flat packs and is assembled in Victoria, should the government be able to then say it is made in Victoria by Victorians – when it is arriving in flat packs, delivered to a factory and then put together? I do not knock that at all. It is better doing that than having the whole unit come from overseas – not at all. But I would like to talk about how we used to do things in this state – under, I might add, both parties – compared to where we are now when it comes to local content.

That is just the high-capacity trains. It is the same with the Siemens trains, which were made in Germany and ordered under a previous Labor government. They were all done in Germany. They did not even meet the requirements on the loading gauge, on the width. They did not meet the brake requirements. This was a German train ordered under a previous Labor government. Or dare I talk about the X’Trapolis, which is the largest number of trains in terms of vehicle volume on the Melbourne network. Again, the Labor government spruik in their press releases that they are made in Victoria, and yes, they are assembled, from memory, in parts in Ballarat – great, no worries. I do not knock that. On the contrary, it is great news. However, X’Trapolis is not a Victorian product. In fact if you go to Valparaíso in Chile you will find two-car X’Trapolises operating on the Valparaíso metro, and they are X’Trapolis 100s, identical to what you see operating in Melbourne. You must ask: are we exporting trains? Given that the Labor government says these are made in Victoria, are we exporting trains to the Valparaíso metro in Chile? I am hoping to go and see them in a couple of weeks time. No, we are not, because they are a French vehicle. The government, under its provisions, can say, ‘Made in Victoria,’ but it is not; the majority of it is constructed elsewhere and assembled in Victoria.

I do not knock for one moment the concept of putting together or assembling, providing local jobs as much as we can, and I certainly do not knock, in industries such as rail rolling stock construction, that we want to be able to do this. But do not pass a bill through the Parliament to penalise the private sector, which is what this bill is doing, when the government is doing in fact quite the opposite. As I said, whether it is the Siemens trains or whether it is the X’Trapolis 100s – the first 10 three-car sets were entirely French-built when they were delivered under the Bracks government. The high-capacity trains, which as I said, the government spruiked as being Melbourne made, might be Melbourne assembled, but the trains are from CRRC in China. Again, I do not knock the quality of vehicle or quality of assembly or whatever. That is no problem. But do not say they are one thing when they are not.

That is trains. What about buses? Under the government’s plans to put EV requirements on bus contractors, what we are seeing is that our bus construction companies, particularly in the Minister for Public and Active Transport’s seat, such as Volgren, cannot provide what the government wants in terms of EVs – or they will not be able to. You will not get companies ordering them, so you are going offshore to Brazil. Hopefully I might go and see those soon too, with the member for Narracan maybe, over to Marcopolo in Caxias do Sul in southern Brazil, where they make thousands of buses, and we might have to import them to meet the EV requirements. But the government claim they have got local requirements on buses, which they now do not and they are about to sacrifice. Yet this bill we are debating is actively penalising businesses those who do the same.

We have talked about buses. We have talked about trains. Let us talk about trams. The A- and B-class trams, the older ones, were all built by Comeng down in Dandenong in the 1980s, and they were ordered mainly by the Cain government, to their credit, but also the B-class later by the Kennett government. But what we find now is that under successive Labor governments a number – not all – of those new trams have been, like the trains, coming from overseas, whether it is the D-class trams, which were from Austria, or the C-class trams from La Rochelle in France. Again you have got the government claiming one thing and then penalising others for doing something completely different.

In the past, when large, large volumes of trains have been ordered – like the new deal for country passengers, which was ordered under a Liberal government – they were rolling stock that was entirely built in Victoria. The N-car carriages, which have just recently been retired, were all built in Victoria. They were built and ordered by a Liberal government. The A-class locomotives, which were refurbished B-class locomotives, were refurbished in Victoria with motors from Adelaide in South Australia. They came in from northern Adelaide and into Victoria. The N-class locomotives which then hauled them, the 25 units, were Victorian made. When we ordered, under the Kennett government, XPTs to replace the diesel-hauled stock, they were built in Dandenong to replace what were then diesel-hauled rolling stock in the past. So we have had an industry that has built quite a deal of rolling stock in the past.

Now, my view is that a lot of that should be reinvested in. Reinvesting is maybe not assembling it and then claiming you are building the whole unit in Victoria; maybe it is actually a bit more than that – particularly if you are then going to penalise private business and say, ‘Well, you’re not doing something that you’re claiming, so we’re going to haul these ridiculous fees at you,’ which the member for Kew has talked about, when the government itself is doing the same thing. The government itself is indeed doing exactly the same thing. As I said before, whether it is Volgren buses in the transport minister’s own seat; whether it is the ordering of high-capacity trains, the majority of which arrive in a flat pack and are assembled in Australia but are actually a Chinese product; whether it is X’Trapolis 100s, which are actually a French product assembled in Australia; whether it is the Siemens Nexas train that came in the delivery under the Bracks government, which is a German product; do not roll up as Labor MPs and have a go at everyone else in the world and say, ‘Oh, your mates in New South Wales’ – actually, how about yourself?

But that is the problem with this bill too, because again this government is talking about everyone else but not looking at themselves. In fact the biggest offenders we are finding in terms of local content are probably the government. If they were really keen about local content, then maybe, like they are doing with VLocity railcars – they are not a bad product; they do not suit long haul, the interior, but they are actually not a bad product – they are building them in Victoria. Why don’t we do from scratch with suburban trains what we are doing with that? I just simply say, when the state government comes into the chamber and seeks to put even more regulation on private businesses – particularly private businesses that are paying more tax at any stage of existence than they have been ever before under this government – and then want to penalise businesses for claiming that they are not getting local content when in many cases they cannot actually supply that local content, because it does not exist, because of the tax regime of this government, then I would say the government are the worst offenders and should stop behaving like the hypocrites which they actually are.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (17:58): I too rise to make a contribution to the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025, and in doing so I know that I am making a contribution to the Allan Labor government’s commitment to strengthen the Local Jobs First Act 2003. It is interesting, following the member for Bulleen – and what a fabulous performance that was, one that I am sure his partyroom colleagues are taking particular note of. As we all know, there are a fair few jitters in that party room at the moment. But back to the bill: we know it enhances the powers of the Local Jobs First commissioner, unlocks opportunities for more Victorian jobs and business on Victorian government projects and clarifies local content requirements. It puts Victoria first by prioritising Victorian workers, businesses and our state’s future by ensuring that money invested here remains here. Throughout our time in government we have been using our buying power to prioritise local jobs and businesses across the myriad of projects that we have completed and continue to build. From level crossing removals and the Suburban Rail Loop to new school builds and new hospitals, this government is investing in the projects that our state needs while creating the safe, secure jobs that will benefit Victorians and actually support business and industry right across the state.

There is a vast difference between the opposition and the government in that the government will always do what it says it is going to do. The fact that we are delivering on this amendment bill confirms an election commitment that we made back in 2022. But it is interesting when you look at what the Libs say and what is actually occurring. I heard the member for Kew in her contribution and indeed the member for Euroa saying that there was this massive burden that would be created on regional contractors, that small regional businesses would struggle to meet the bureaucratic requirements, that there is so much red tape and that this would exclude them in fact from major projects. But the truth is the policy objectives which will now be enhanced through this bill will actually encourage the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises which are based in regional areas in projects undertaken and funded by the state.

We have heard from the opposition that this bill will actually create extra red tape and further costs for business and hence we need the reasoned amendment that has been put forward by the member for Kew. Actually, the code will promote further job security and workplace equity and diversity for workers. It recognises good employers by ensuring that only businesses that treat their workers fairly are rewarded with major government contracts or business grants, and the code complements other initiatives to promote local secure jobs and support ethically and socially responsible businesses, including Local Jobs First.

Indeed the proof is in the pudding when you have a look at the application of the current Local Jobs First Act from back in 2003, brought in by the Bracks government, ensuring that future generations would be looked after when it came to local content and local jobs, building for the future. I am so happy to say that from December 2014 through to July 2025 Local Jobs First has been applied in 396 strategic projects, 222 of them in metropolitan Melbourne, 83 of them in regional Victoria and 91 of those statewide. There was a combined total value of $190.39 billion, which supported over 60,000 local jobs. The Local Jobs First commissioner is currently responsible for just under 300 strategic projects. Between its introduction in 2016 and 30 March 2025 the Major Projects Skills Guarantee was applied to 480 projects. It employed over 19,000 apprentices, trainees and cadets. A total of 27.7 million hours of apprentices, trainees and cadets have been committed, of which 21.9 million hours have been worked, and this includes 129 regional projects, which employed 3139 apprentices, trainees and cadets. It is the reason why we need to have this type of regulation. You cannot let the system regulate itself when it comes to skills training. We know how loosey-goosey it gets when that is the case, because we know that employers in the private sector just will not invest in future skills training. There is a commitment in this to allowing this to occur, and as I said, the proof is in the pudding.

Through strengthening compliance and enforcement outcomes, this bill will boost jobs and maximise the use of local content in the state’s infrastructure projects and other procurements. It will reinforce Local Jobs First in the development of and support for critical sovereign capabilities. It will integrate local businesses into supply chains and raise the awareness and use of local suppliers by major contractors.

The bill does put Victoria first – our workers, our businesses and future generations, importantly. It will ensure that money invested here stays here, creates jobs here and supports local businesses here.

It is really interesting when I look at the period between 2010 and 2014. Under the Local Jobs First Act 2003 – I am talking about those Baillieu and Napthine years – between 2010 and 2014 there were only eight projects throughout that time that were declared strategic with mandatory local content set. Either they could not even have enough projects to fill that gap or they used the definitions to their advantage to restrict it to only eight projects in that time. We know that the opposition only care about cutting, closing and cancelling, while this government in its time has invested in projects that create jobs and will bring benefit to future generations – and benefit to future generations is something we care very, very deeply about in my electorate of Narre Warren South.

In Narre Warren South Local Jobs First projects have included the Thompsons Road and Berwick-Cranbourne Road intersection upgrade, which is using 94 per cent local content. The Casey Hospital emergency department expansion is preferencing solutions that maximise the use of local materials, finishes, products, goods and services in construction, including furniture, fittings and equipment, wherever possible. Early learning centres and schools have been built in the outer south-east, particularly in Cranbourne North in my electorate, with our new school opening there next year, Kala primary school – spelled K-A-L-A, for the benefit of Hansard. The works at the early learning centres and new schools opening in 2026 are prioritising Victorian pre-construction services, construction and furniture, fittings and equipment. The reforms follow extensive consultation with unions, industry associations and other key stakeholders, with the aim of creating more good local jobs, strengthening regional opportunities and giving Victorian small and medium-sized businesses a fair go right across the state of Victoria – through our urban fringes, well into the city and of course throughout regional and rural Victoria. With the current uncertainty in the global environment, it is more important than ever that we prioritise local jobs, local industry, local workers and local materials, and I am very proud of this government and its investment in this bill. I commend it to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (18:08): I rise to speak on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025. The nicest possible way to describe this bill is that it is half-baked. In fact it is really just window-dressing. I heard the former speaker say that there was investment, but when we asked the government and the department how much investment, they actually could not answer that question at all. This bill seeks to paint a very thin veneer over gaping cracks and damage this tired Labor government has done to our manufacturing and primary resources industries. When you actually read the bill – and I would encourage members of the government to actually read what is in their bill that they are speaking on today – you quickly find that it will actually do nothing to ensure local content requirements on government-funded projects will actually be complied with. The so-called new enforcement and investigation powers are akin to slapping any contractors who fail to comply with a wet lettuce leaf. For over a decade this tired Labor government has allowed contractors to treat local content requirements as a joke. On this Labor government’s watch – and the minister is sitting at the table – we have continually seen materials imported from overseas on project after project, at the expense of local jobs and manufacturing businesses here in Victoria. As someone who comes from the manufacturing industry, I find this devastating.

The government’s obsession with its Big Build projects, which have blown out by more than $40 billion, has allowed contractors to thumb their noses at contractual obligations and allowed foreign suppliers, big foreign-owned corporates, to undercut and take away contracts from local suppliers. And what has the Labor government done in response? Absolutely nothing. It has just stood by and allowed costs to skyrocket, with head contractors that are foreign owned and local jobs to be lost. Is it really any wonder why Victoria’s net debt is forecast to keep increasing and skyrocket to a record, staggering $194 billion. Is it any wonder that unemployment in Victoria now stands at 4.6 per cent, the highest in the country, and has been the highest in the country for some 13 or 14 months now. So much for this government’s much-touted fiscal strategy, of which none of its measures have been met.

This tired Labor government has completely lost its way. As of today, the government’s Local Jobs First policy requires that government projects must have a minimum of 88 per cent local content, yet this policy has been completely ignored and never been achieved by this Labor government. According to the latest annual report of the Local Jobs First commissioner, the government has only achieved an average of 76 per cent of local content in government projects. That is more than 10 per cent less than what this government has promised but failed to deliver. The most recent figures are even worse: of the 133 projects commenced in metropolitan Melbourne in the 2023–24 financial year, there is only an average local content of 61 per cent; of the 71 projects completed in metropolitan Melbourne, there was only an average local content of 67 per cent; of the 138 projects commenced in regional Victoria, there was only an average local content of 65 per cent; and of the 97 completed projects in regional Victoria, there was only an average local content of 69 per cent. Now, what these figures show is that this government is consistently failing to meet its local content target by almost 20 per cent despite being in power for 10 long years. This is utterly embarrassing and demonstrates how hopeless and negligent this Labor government has been in allowing its local content requirements to be completely ignored, with Victorian jobs suffering as a result.

The figures get even worse when you look at the statewide project figures. Of the 63 projects commenced, there was only a local content average of 54 per cent. Even worse, of the 20 statewide projects completed, there was an astonishing local content average of 35 per cent. This Labor government should be utterly ashamed of these figures, but they should come as no surprise, because back in 2017 when the former Premier Daniel Andrews announced the West Gate Tunnel Project, he promised that that project would consist of 92 per cent local steel. You can go back and check the media release in April 2017. On 2 April 2017 the then Premier promised the West Gate Tunnel would be open in 2022. Well, we are in 2025, halfway through 2025, 3½ years after from the promised completion date, and we still do not have a West Gate Tunnel that is open. Also, we have a situation where they did not comply with their own obligation to use 92 per cent of local steel. Just two years after that media release, it was announced that 33 000 tonnes of Chinese steel would be pumped into the West Gate Tunnel, accounting for about 17 per cent of the total steel used. The announcement was labelled a disgrace by the Australian Workers’ Union, a Labor union, who said it felt like a bombshell to those in the industry who had been making investment decisions based on Labor government promises that were then broken. This was just another example of Labor breaking its promises, failing to deliver. At the time the now Premier Jacinta Allan, then transport infrastructure minister, said that she was very disappointed by the decision to break the local content promise of 92 per cent Australian steel and said that government would be ‘looking at all our options under the contract’ and did not rule out penalties. What happened? Absolutely nothing.

There have been no consequences for the multimillion-dollar contractors who work on government-funded projects and continue to breach local content requirements. When we asked specifically during the bill briefing if there have been any actions taken in terms of penalties or otherwise for contractors failing to comply with local content requirements, the department said there had been none. So all the Premier’s commentary about disappointment and exploring options – nothing. Instead, on the Premier’s watch Victorians were left with a project that is 3½ years late and costing them $12 billion, which is double what the original cost was.

Last year we saw another repeat of the Labor government paying lip-service to its own local content requirements. In October 2020, local steel manufacturers were devastated after learning the government had allowed 11,000 tonnes of steel from China to be used on the North East Link. Local steel fabricators, who said they had been promised the contracts, said they would have no choice but to cut jobs and downsize. This government is absolutely duplicitous and has destroyed local manufacturing. The proposed new enforcement regime in the bill is an utter joke. The government has been spruiking a new penalty regime, but this regime has nothing to do with penalising contractors who fail to comply with local content requirements. Rather, penalties are for if they have failed to comply with an information request or an inspection notice. There are absolutely zero penalties under this bill if a contractor fails to comply with their content obligations. It will do nothing to ensure local content obligations are met.

Also there is a deprioritisation notice – it is worthless in this bill. When we pressed the department on what the consequences of a deprioritisation notice would be, all the department could say is that they would be a matter to be taken into account when the contractor tendered for another project. The department was quick to say that this contractor would not be banned. So what does the deprioritisation actually mean? It is an utter joke.

This government is not serious about protecting local content; all it cares about is the media spin. If the government was serious, then it would be prepared to tell the Parliament and the Victorian people how much all these new compliance powers will cost Victorians to enforce, which is precisely why the member for Kew has moved the reasoned amendment, which I support. When we asked the department how much additional funding would need to be allocated to the Local Jobs First commissioner to undertake these new inspection and compliance functions, the department was unable or unwilling to provide any details at all on how much these new bureaucratic functions would cost the budget and Victorians, and let us not forget, it does nothing to ensure or enforce compliance with local content obligations.

The fact the government cannot or will not provide these cost details speaks volumes. Either the government have failed to properly cost how much these measures will cost in the budget or how many additional resources are required or they are just simply failing to be transparent with Victorians. Either way, the government are yet again attempting to play Victorians for fools, and we will call them out and hold them to account every day of the week. This bill is another media slogan. It does nothing to protect local Victorian jobs. It does nothing to enforce the government’s own obligations on local contractors for their local content requirements. It is devastating that they have taken the opportunity to introduce a bill without any costing, any detail and with regulations that are on the never-never, and really it is pure spin.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (18:18): I want to talk about the difference between talk and action. Talk and action are actually different – to talk is one thing, to act is another – and I think those opposite need a lesson in the difference. I first met Mel when she was up a ladder, an apprentice sparky on the Mernda community hospital site since the very beginning, gaining invaluable skills to become a fantastic tradesperson in our state. She spoke of the pride she felt contributing to building a hospital in Mernda. Speaking to Daryl onsite about who had been working there, he said that they had been exceeding the Major Projects Skills Guarantee (MPSG) with their apprentices. They had six apprentices working on the Mernda community hospital at that time. Mel was there as a second-year sparky. They also had plumbing apprentices and mechanical – people developing skills while we develop our community. What a fantastic thing that this government is doing. But it is not just Mel that I know on that site.

At the Whittlesea community market, a mother approached me. She was very excited. Her son Chris was going to be starting a preapprenticeship at the Mernda community hospital – a local schoolboy developing fantastic skills. Now we can call him ‘Chris the Chippie’. How good that we have a pipeline of work for students to see and know that they can develop skills and contribute to their community. That is just one project – just one project in my community.

There is a difference between talk and action. If the Liberals had been in power when this bill was introduced, it would not have made any difference, with the exact same bill. That is because they did not have local projects. They do not have projects for people to be employed on. That is the difference between talk and action. In fact I do remember that the Liberal Party wanted to stop the Mernda community hospital from being constructed. They wanted to rip up the contracts – I recall that – in 2022. That is why I was saying earlier that 100 per cent of zero is zero. If your target is 100 per cent but you do not have any projects, well, well done to you.

I have also met with Nick at the Wallan East primary school. He is the project manager there, and he spoke about the great pride he has knowing that his children are going to see the work he has done on schools all across the state. He said they are a little bit sick of hearing it – ‘Oh, Dad, not another school’ – when they drive past. But the local jobs mean local pride, and it is a local vision for children of what they can be. Nick knows that you cannot build a school with talk, but talk is something that my father-in-law is pretty good at. Mike is a diesel mechanic, and in the same vein, every time we drive up the Calder: ‘I built that. I built that bit of road.’ He has been so proud of it ever since he worked on that project with Cooks. We have the jobs because we have the projects. Those opposite can talk all they like, but we are the ones that are acting.

Some talking might have benefited the member for Evelyn and the member for Kew if they had bothered to speak to each other before speaking on this bill, because they are actually saying the opposite thing. The member for Kew said that we have been penalising businesses in Victoria. That is what the member for Kew said. The member for Evelyn said we have just been a wet lettuce and we are not punishing businesses. I think they need to get on the same spreadsheet, as it were. The member for Evelyn said local content requirements are flouted, while the member for Kew said there is no evidence that businesses have not been meeting the requirements. I suggest that they talk and then act, because action is what the people of Victoria want to see, not more talk from those opposite, who do not know how to deliver.

I want to give an example of what the difference is between talk and action. We heard a shocking statement from the member for Kew backed up by the member for Euroa, and they spoke about beating up on regional businesses. Well, I will tell you what, I have still got mud on the boots that I am wearing right now – apologies to the local Parliament house cleaners – from a sod turn at a local school with funding from our government. I was so happy to see the team there from Raysett Constructions from Riddells Creek. I had seen them at another building sod turn a couple of years prior that had also received funding from this government. ‘You again,’ I said. ‘You keep getting a lot of work. Well done.’ Sitting here and listening to those opposite I thought, ‘Oh, I’ll just have a quick check of their website – see what sort of work this regional business, which apparently is suffering so much from our government, is getting.’ I will tell you what, if you go by the Seymour hospital, the Sunbury early parenting centre or a dozen schools across Victoria, there are so many fabulous things that this regional business is contributing to. I do not want to put words in their mouth, but surely if you asked a regional business if they would prefer to be operating under this government, which has a continual pipeline of projects, or under those opposite, who could only rustle together eight projects under such conditions, I think I know who they would choose, especially when you factor in the reductions in payroll tax for regional businesses that this government continues with. I think that the choice is very clear.

The local content requirements are important, and it is something that we absolutely stand by and we absolutely back, because we are in the business of creating jobs. We are in the business of creating jobs through our projects and through our pipeline of work.

Another big project I was at recently, actually last week, was the North East Link M80 completion. If you have ever been on the M80 and got to a set of lights and said, ‘Hang on, wait. What? Why is there a set of lights here?’ we are fixing that with the M80 completion project. I spoke to one of the big bosses there. He was a civil engineer. He is not originally from Victoria, but he moved here roughly 12 years ago. Do you know why? He literally said to me, ‘Because this is where the projects are.’ The talent of a highly skilled civil engineer was drawn to Victoria. He has lived locally ever since, and his son, who has been raised here and schooled here, has started university as, yes, a civil engineer. We have created a pipeline of projects, which means that young people, or all people across Australia, see the opportunity and the potential of being in Victoria. This is where people want to be.

If I just list some of the projects that these rules apply to, it is a long list. I cannot hold it up because that would be considered a prop, but I can say Yan Yean Road upgrade project, Plenty Road upgrade project, North East Link early works, North East Link, Bridge Inn Road upgrade and Epping Road upgrade. We have got the Mernda rail extension project, the kindergartens on school sites and the early learning childcare centres – there is a fantastic one at South Morang. If I continued to list all of the projects, I would run out of time.

But I do not want to do that, because I do want to point out just one little Russian doll, I think they are called: the school upgrade at Whittlesea Secondary College that we are delivering, with the new STEAM centre and trade centre for young students, like Chris the chippie from Whittlesea. Whittlesea Secondary College will have fantastic new facilities for young people to see and develop skills to work on projects that will require young people like Chris the chippie to work on those sites. So you see that it is a self-reinforcing and self-supporting policy that continues to strengthen that pipeline of not only projects but talent in Victoria.

I know that there are so many families that rely on these projects and the fantastic, secure jobs that come with a Labor government. We know those opposite do not value jobs. It seems one of their main concerns about this bill is that if it passes there might be some more people that get a job. They are worried we might have to hire people if we do this, and they are a bit worried about hiring too many people. They do not actually want those people to have jobs. I think that shows how small-minded they are – that they are focused on the tiny drip of year by year instead of looking at the intergenerational projects being delivered by this government and the intergenerational benefit of supporting apprentices into good, paid jobs.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (18:28): I am pleased to rise today on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025. I think what is important to start off with is what the definition of ‘local content’ is, because this is where I have a real problem with this bill. The definition of local content is anywhere in Australia or New Zealand; that is the definition. So when we talk about local jobs I think of regional Victoria, and I think of what happens in the way this is set up now. I am the only person in this chamber that has had to work to this. My brother still works to this at the moment. What increasingly frustrates regional builders is that when we talk about local content it is not postcode driven, it is Australia wide. If you are in regional Victoria, whether you are in Warragul or Warrnambool, for example, there is nothing more frustrating than seeing a Melbourne city builder come into regional Victoria and bring all their subbies with them. If you want to weight projects – if you want to have a weighting on projects to create jobs – then weight them by postcode and weight them by LGA. If a builder comes into regional Victoria and employs a local plasterer and employs a local electrician, that should carry more weight – not city builders coming into regional areas and bringing in all their workforce with them and then everything goes out of the town again. That does not create jobs in regional Victoria.

I have employed many apprentices over the years between my father and me – I have got no idea how many, but it is a lot. Apprenticeships are important, but all this bill is doing now is whacking builders that literally cannot meet the compliance of what they are after. We are talking penalties of I think $20,000 for individuals and $100,000 for businesses if they cannot meet it. In regional Victoria it is hard to meet it. This is the problem with the bill. This is one of the reasons why we put forward the reasoned amendment and why we are opposed to the bill, because they are not factoring in all of Victoria. It is all right in the city; you have got plenty of opportunity to meet the requirement. But in regional Victoria we do not have that opportunity, and that is problematic. My brother is still a regional builder. He cannot meet the criteria, just cannot. If he has to meet the criteria, he has got to drag in subbies from Melbourne to meet that criteria. That is taking jobs away from locals, so why would he do that? And it is going to be more expensive.

When you tender a project, you actually want to be competitive. You want to win the project, because it takes you three weeks to tender a project and can take up to six depending on the size. That is a lot of time and money invested in something that you know you may not win. This is the problem. The government does not get construction. They do not get how it works, and this is why I have a problem with this bill. When we talk about local content, I tell you what, if the government introduces a bill on local content and says we will give more weighting to the builder that employs people in that local government area, I will support that bill every day of the week, because I am sick and tired of seeing in my local area where you get the city builders come in, build it, and everything goes with them. It does not create opportunity, does not create employment. They are employing apprentices, but they are not local apprentices. Why don’t we start putting more weight on these tenders when they are actually LGA specific, not ‘Australia and New Zealand’? That is a problem with the local content. That is a very big problem.

If anybody has ever had to fill out the paperwork on a government project, it is phenomenal. It takes you days. That is at the front end, and then you have got to do it at the back end, and a lot of small and medium builders do not have that capacity. It is really quite simple. Look, if you are a Hutchinson, if you are a Lendlease, if you are a Multiplex and you are doing a billion-dollar tunnel, okay, you have the staff behind you. You have got hundreds of office staff to deal with the paperwork and deal with purchase orders and deal with all the other crap you have got to go through, and you will have probably two or three people sitting there doing these reports. Smaller regional builders do not have that. And I always get a little bit bemused by those opposite when they get up and speak on a bill, but they actually do not do the real research. The real research is sitting down with stakeholders like Master Builders and hearing their input. There will not be one MP over that side that sat down with Master Builders on this bill – probably other than the minister, but no-one else. Do your own research, listen to industry, listen to what industry is saying about this.

The one thing they said when I sat down with Master Builders on this bill, which I did for about 2 to 3 hours, was if the government were actually serious about this, they would put in a mechanism that could train builders, especially small to medium builders, to deal with the Industry Capability Network, the reporting part of it. The bigger builders, your Hutchinsons et cetera, are all over it. They have the staff. The smaller builders are the ones that actually employ people directly. The bigger builders are all using labour hire now. It is the smaller builders and the medium builders creating the opportunities for the future generation. The bigger builders are going labour hire. They will have high admin staff but very few onsite staff. So rather than whacking the living suitcase out of these builders, why don’t we start to encourage them? Why don’t we start to train them in how it all works? That is where you are going to get better results. That is where the government will achieve better results.

To just turn around and bring another stick in to whack the builder – every bill that has been brought into this Parliament since I have been here has just decided to whack the building industry again. There has not been a bill that has come in to encourage the building industry. You have got builders frustrated, builders going broke and no support from government, and this is just another bill that whacks builders. It is not about local content. It is not about local jobs. It is about increasing fines again, because a builder may not be able to achieve the results that the government wants. Give them a break. You can only whack this industry so much before you do not have an industry. It is that simple.

I do not care about the big builders. They can look after themselves. I could not give a toss. I do not care. The multiplexes, all of them – I do not care. I care about the small to medium builders. When we talk about local content, I had this conversation with the Deputy Premier and Minister for Education about school packages coming out into regional Victoria: ‘We’re going to use tier 1 builders. We’re going to package up six at once. It’s going to go to tier 1s and they’re going to build them because they can do them cheaper.’ Well, I will call BS on that every day of the week, because I have priced against bigger builders and I wiped the floor with them every time. But here is the problem. Here is the attitude: ‘We’re going to use tier 1s to build schools in regional Victoria.’ No, do not do that. Sure, package it up with the tier 1s, but let the local guy actually have a crack at it, and if he beats the tier 1 on that school, give him the job: ‘Sorry, Mr Multiplex. You missed out on that one.’

If the government wants to start to look after this industry, the government has to stop whacking the hell out of it. Every bill that has been brought into this Parliament this year has been whacking builders. How about you start to encourage builders? Let us really get down to local jobs by LGA. Weight it heavier on a builder that is going to employ local subcontractors – because if you employ the local subcontractor, he will put on the local apprentice. It is no use dragging apprentices from Melbourne. They go back to Melbourne – they do not stay in Warragul; they drive back down the highway. If you want to create employment opportunities, if you want to create better opportunities in regional Victoria, if you want to have a better building industry and if you want them to report on this, provide training and encouragement. Stop whacking them left, right and centre at every opportunity you get. This is all the government has come up with this year – this term. There has not been anything encouraging in construction. We have seen building legislation after building legislation go through this place that just, again, fines people. My suggestion to the government is: listen to the reasoned amendment, because it does talk about regional. But geez, stop whacking the living hell out of this industry and start to encourage them.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (18:38): Thank you to the member for Narracan for his very passionate contribution. I have great respect for him. Unlike the member for Narracan, I have not spoken to the MBA about this, and I plan to probably never speak to the Master Builders Association. However, I have taken the time to speak to unions – shop stewards, delegates, OH&S delegates – and also workers, the people who do the job each and every day. I have got to say that they are excited about this bill because ultimately it means additional jobs – it means bread on their tables – and that is the thing that is most important to them. As many members on this side of the house have said in their contributions, jobs matter, and that is part of what has attracted so many people to Victoria over the past 10 years since our government has been in power. We have created jobs in Victoria that are well-paid jobs where you are respected in your workplace and you can go to work and be safe.

This bill is about local jobs, and there is proof in the pudding. If you look at the stats, from 2014 to 10 July this year, the Local Jobs First Act 2003 has been applied to 396 strategic projects across Victoria. When you compare this to the Baillieu–Napthine years of 2010 to 2014, there were only eight projects that were declared strategic, with mandatory local content, across all of Victoria. That is a stark contrast. I move that over to the many apprentices and trades men and women I have met with, and from level-crossing removals through to hospitals and schools that have been built, the local jobs act has delivered for locals, and that is what matters.

Now, this bill, the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025, delivers on Labor’s 2022 election commitment to strengthen the Local Jobs First Act 2003. This legislation before us today will enhance the powers of the Local Jobs First Commissioner, it will unlock opportunities for Victorian jobs and businesses on Victorian government projects, and it will strengthen the local content requirements to meet the Victorian people’s expectations.

By way of background, and to touch on a previous Labor government’s progressive work in this area, the Local Jobs First Act 2003 was delivered by the Bracks Labor government and is focused on promoting employment growth by expanding market opportunities for local industry and encouraging industry development. The act is Australia’s longest-standing industry participation legislation and has been supporting Victorian businesses and workers for over 20 years. Victoria is party to the Australian Industry Participation National Framework 2001 which defines ‘local’ as Australia and New Zealand. The act encourages the use of Victorian businesses and workers in government procurement processes and sets minimum requirements for local content and the use of apprentices, trainees and cadets on these projects that meet Local Jobs First thresholds. Under the 2003 act the minister must, unless exemption is granted, determine minimum local content requirements for strategic projects valued at $50 million or more. The local content must be no less than 90 per cent for a strategic project that is a construction project, 80 per cent for a services project and 80 per cent for the maintenance phase or operations phase of a strategic project. The policy must be applied by all Victorian government departments and agencies for any type of project with a value of $1 million or more in regional Victoria or $3 million or more in metropolitan Melbourne or for statewide activities.

With the passage of this amendments bill today all bids for Local Jobs First projects will now be required to provide a Local Industry Development Plan which clearly identifies local content job commitments, including opportunities for apprentices, trainees and cadets within the project. The amendment in this bill clarifies that suppliers are required to comply with their commitments to local content, jobs and the major project skills guarantee that at least 10 per cent of labour hours on large projects are completed by apprentices, trainees and cadets, and of course this is great for our young people wanting to get into trades. This resolves a current ambiguity in the act and will support and strengthen compliance and enforcement measures in the bill.

The bill provides Victoria’s Local Jobs First Commissioner with an explicit investigation function to complement the commissioner’s existing compliance functions and strengthen the process for identifying potential compliance breaches. It also clarifies that the commissioner can receive and investigate complaints in relation to the compliance with the act, Local Jobs First policy and the Local Industry Development Plan as well as many other matters which the commissioner considers relevant for the purposes of the performance of their function or powers. Further, the bill creates a general function for the Local Jobs First Commissioner to report to the minister and a power to make a non-binding recommendation to agencies on specific systemic issues. This will greatly improve the effectiveness of the commissioner’s investigatory role and the ability for the commissioner to highlight the compliance concerns to the minister.

The bill introduces a civil penalty framework in relation to the commissioner’s information-gathering powers and new site inspection power. The commissioner can apply to a court for a civil penalty order if a supplier fails to comply with an information notice or an inspection notice. The bill also introduces a new deprioritisation scheme: if a supplier does not deliver on the local content requirements per commitments in its Local Industry Development Plan and cannot provide a satisfactory reason why, then the commissioner may deprioritise the supplier from future government work. The deprioritisation scheme is not a blacklist; instead it aims to disincentivise noncompliance with suppliers’ Local Industry Development Plan commitments and provides agencies with the information on suppliers’ poor past performance on Local Jobs First applications on projects. The act currently allows the minister to determine local content requirements for a strategic project – for example, one with a budget of $50 million or more, such as the minimum percentage of value of the total content of strategic projects that must be local content.

Strategic projects are Victorian government projects valued at $50 million or more and other projects as declared by the responsible minister. Further amendments within this bill include increasing opportunities for Aboriginal and regional businesses.

A lengthy consultation process was undertaken during 2023 and 2024 on the reforms in the bill before us today, including with key industry associations, contractors, union bodies and government departments and agencies. It is intended that the bill will commence in two stages, with some provisions commencing before the end of this year and the remaining provisions commencing on 1 July next year, 2026. This will allow time for changes to be communicated to stakeholders and provide sufficient lead time for updates to be made to the Local Jobs First policy, guidelines and contract model clauses, as well as the preparation of regulations. The bill includes specific transitional provisions in relation to the deprioritisation regime to ensure that it will not apply to existing Local Jobs First projects that are already underway. As such it is possible that the deprioritisation provisions could apply to a project that is in the tender submission or evaluation stage at the time of commencement.

As I was saying before, between December 2014 – soon after the Andrews Labor government first came into office – and 10 July this year Local Jobs First has been applied to 396 strategic projects across Victoria. That holds a combined total value of $190.39 billion, supporting over 60,000 local jobs. That is a huge effort, and it does not just happen. Over 60,000 local jobs is just unbelievable and something that we in this place should all be incredibly proud of.

The Local Jobs First commissioner is currently responsible for 299 projects. Between its introduction in 2016 and 30 March 2025 the Major Projects Skills Guarantee has been applied to 480 projects, employing 19,197 apprentices, trainees and cadets. That is life-changing for so many families. A total of 27.7 million hours for apprentices, trainees and cadets has been committed, of which 21.9 million hours have been worked. This includes 129 regional projects, which employed 3139 apprentices, trainees and cadets. So while those opposite may say that we are not looking after the regions, the proof is absolutely in the pudding, and these stats simply do not lie.

While the Liberals only care about cutting, closing and cancelling, we have invested in projects that create jobs and that will bring benefit to future generations, all while setting and continuously improving the requirements to prioritise Victorian business participation and local job opportunities across Victorian government projects. Local jobs matter. This bill matters and it is important that it passes, and it will have my full support.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (18:48): Today I rise to make a contribution on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025. The bill is for an act to amend the Local Jobs First Act 2003 to clarify the obligations of suppliers and agencies under the Local Jobs First scheme and provide additional enforcement powers for the Local Jobs First commissioner. This bill introduces new civil penalties and other consequences for noncompliance with the Local Jobs First scheme, provides for additional Local Jobs First policy objectives and clarifies references to the Local Jobs First policy and associated obligations and guidelines. The act saw the establishment of the Local Jobs First commissioner, who is responsible for overseeing systemic and project-level compliance with Local Jobs First policy by both agencies and suppliers.

We have had some passionate speakers in the chamber today, and it was really great to hear from the member from Narracan, obviously as a former builder, and some of the things he contributed were so relevant. I also want to share a little bit of my experience as a former educator. I had a lot to do with small business, running some business programs through TAFE. As you know, I have a very long-term business background, 28 years in my own business, and my husband over 45 years in his business, so we understand the challenges when it comes to actually fully running your business. I think this is one of the things, when you look at trades and industries, where they have got their hands on the tools but they often do not have their hand on the lever of how to run their business. One of my roles as an educator was actually helping them manage that and with what that looked like. And do you know what it looked like – it looked like a huge challenge, because they are so focused. If you talk to the member for Narracan, they are so focused, building their houses and doing what they need to do. We see businesses fall over because they do not know how to run a business to the capacity that is needed, particularly when it comes to small business. So it is so critical that we do not put up these barriers, these challenges, these infringements that punish them. We need to educate and we need to support businesses more than ever.

We are seeing businesses in Victoria closing – the numbers are phenomenal – and we need to work harder to really help businesses, not put in place penalties and infringements that make it harder for them to get through their day to day. In my electorate we have so many fantastic building organisations. I have a few close friends that work or run businesses in the building industry. I have a girlfriend who also works in finance. A lot of her work is to do with building industries, and we talk about the collapse of industries and what that means. What does that mean to regional communities when we have a large organisation that shuts down or falls over? It is the small tradies, the small businesses, that are often the backbone to those communities. People know who they are, they trust them and when they go with that particular building organisation they know what they are going to get. One of the things that the member for Narracan said was that the definition of local jobs has never been more important than in what we are discussing here today.

We do have some concerns with the bill. As the member for Kew discussed at great length in her leading contribution on the bill, some of those concerns are around some of the things I have alluded to. The bill includes the introduction of new penalties for the commissioner to use where there is noncompliance. This could lead to suppliers being deprioritised for government tendering, as well as financial penalties for noncompliance. We heard that those penalties are significant. We need to make sure that these concerns are understood, and the concern is the potential impact on Victorian businesses, particularly smaller operators in regional and rural areas. The deprioritisation and civil penalty schemes could unfairly penalise businesses who are unable to meet local content requirements or local industry development plans due to industry circumstances beyond their control. That could be a lack of supplies, skill shortages, a lack of staff, and we hear that all the time. It does not matter what industry you go to at the moment, there are staff shortages and there are skills shortages.

In response to questions about data on previous breaches and civil actions against contractors that has led to this policy response, the department advised that it is not aware of any breaches or actions in relation to specific Local Jobs First deliverables. Where they are not being met, as I said, there is typically a good reason, such as skill shortages in regional areas where local subcontractors cannot be engaged. We do find there may be shortfalls in some of these contracts that may not be able to be delivered locally, but we should be doing all that we can to assist that to happen, not penalising these industries and businesses. The increased compliance will disproportionately impact smaller businesses that do not have the capacity of larger contractors to absorb the additional costs, while the regulatory burden will require more staff and administration, which in effect will favour larger firms and place extra pressure on already financially strained smaller operators.

Under Labor we have seen continued rising cost pressures, which is resulting in businesses facing soaring energy, insurance, rent, wage, tax and compliance costs and regulatory burden and red tape. There are so many businesses, as I said, closing down, and the ongoing increase in the costs of running a business has been relentless, with tax after tax and increasing costs. We should be doing all that we can to assist businesses. Recent data has indicated that over 129,000 businesses closed in Victoria during 2024, including small enterprises, with an average of 530 closures per day. As we have seen, more than 3000 Victorian businesses have relocated interstate. These figures are alarming, and that is something that is happening in our state right now. Victoria does have the reputation of being the most expensive state to do business, and that has to change. We simply cannot afford to keep losing businesses. We are seeing more and more businesses relocate out of Victoria, as I said, and move interstate. The increased compliance alluded to through this bill will disproportionately impact smaller businesses that do not have a large capacity to absorb additional costs.

Another area of concern we have on this side of the house is that there are no details regarding the cost to the budget for these changes. During the bill briefing, departmental and ministerial staff were unable to provide any detail around the forecast budget impact of the measures contained in this bill. I find it quite astounding that we have something before us but we do not know how we are going to afford to pay for it. With the current financial position of Victoria at the moment, how can we have a bill in front of us that does not have any idea of what that cost is going to look like?

Roma Britnell interjected.

Kim O’KEEFFE: I think they need to come to my business course. I think we need to talk about that – how we actually manage a budget, how we manage a business and how a business can thrive and survive in this state. It stands to reason that increased auditing, compliance and enforcement activities would require greater resources for the office of the Local Jobs First commissioner, particularly in terms of employees. How many is that, what does that look like and what is the cost? Labor is refusing to acknowledge this fact or provide any modelling around what these measures will cost to implement. If the government is trying to strengthen an office at the same time as reducing red tape, what does this mean for Victorians and what is the cost?

Under Labor we have seen continued rising cost pressures, which is resulting in businesses facing soaring costs and ongoing taxes and charges, and we need to make sure we start working better when it comes to business, particularly when it comes to regional and local businesses. The Local Jobs First commissioner is responsible for compliance within the program requirements, and this includes new powers and functions, including additional investigation and reporting powers to conduct site inspections with notice and an explicit role to provide advice and support contracting parties in the resolution of noncompliance issues. The bill creates functions of the commission to also report to the minister any time on any matter in relation to the act itself.

In the few minutes I have got left I just want to say that I do support the reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Kew that addresses the potential financial impact on Victorian businesses – particularly, as I have said, small operators in rural and regional areas – and that provides a forecast of the budget impact of the measures contained in the bill. These are not big asks, they are commonsense requests, and I am really hoping that the other side of the house listens to this, because the impacts on small businesses in Victoria are already being felt. We need to make sure that we know what this cost looks like. The building industry are seeing increasing costs, labour shortages – as I said, they have been tough times. We are seeing housing development and we are seeing local businesses working so, so hard to meet demand. But it is challenging, and there has probably never been a more challenging time in Victoria when it comes to owning and managing a business.

Just finally – I have got a minute left – I want to talk a little about tradie that I had a bit to do with when I was doing some of my training. He was dyslexic and he felt he did not have a future. Times were really tough for him. The expectation from others, particularly within his family, was that being a tradie was not a good career. It was a fantastic career, and it was a career that he thrived in. To this day I often think about him, because he went on to be a part-owner of a business. He went on to mentor. That is a big thing when it comes to local businesses and particularly regional small businesses – you are a mentor. The difference I saw in that young fellow by being mentored by a tradie, by a business owner and then going on to have that opportunity – I think that is what we should be aspiring to in this place. We should make sure that people can thrive and survive but also that they can have a successful financial business and that people can have fantastic careers.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (18:58): I rise to speak on the Local Jobs First Amendment Bill 2025 and to have a few minutes to speak about jobs, jobs, jobs. Certainly we are a government that are about job creation and supporting jobs in this state, because we know that it is more than just a pay cheque; it is that foundation for a great life lived with dignity, security and stability. It is a chance to build something. You build something not just for yourself but also for your family and your community. A lot of the discussions and debates that we have had today have been around what a job means for someone. In my personal experience, my husband is actually a plumber and has worked on many construction sites and hospitals within the CBD of Melbourne – some big, big projects. When we drive around the state he always says to the kids, ‘Look at that. I built that’ and ‘Look at that. I helped build that’ and ‘That hospital, I put the medical gas line in there.’ He is so proud to tell the kids what he has helped build in this state. He is now an apprentice-teacher – he has apprentices at a TAFE – and he gives that same pride to his students. They will be able to say what they are doing matters. There is a pipeline of important work for them to do, and they will be able to drive around this state as well and point to things and say, ‘I built that. I helped with that,’ and it is an absolutely proud moment to say that and to have a career that is meaningful and contributes to this state. That is what this bill means in real-life terms. It means having a roof over your head and having a pay cheque come in but also actually having the dignity of work.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.