Thursday, 5 February 2026

 Jordan CRUGNALE (Bass) (15:03): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Health Safeguards for People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics Bill 2025. The bill represents a profound step forward in how we uphold dignity, fairness and bodily autonomy for some of the most overlooked people in our community. This is legislation that has been needed for a long time, shaped by courage, lived experience and an unwavering push for recognition and respect. At its essence this bill is guided by a simple but powerful principle: every person deserves the right to make decisions about their own body.

People born with variations in sex characteristics, variations in chromosomes, hormones or physical traits, are part of the natural diversity of human biology. These variations occur in up to 1.7 per cent of births. Most are not harmful and do not require any urgent medical intervention, yet for decades children with these variations were subjected to irreversible medical procedures long before they could meaningfully understand or express an opinion about what was being done to them. These were not medically urgent decisions. These were decisions often driven by discomfort with difference, a desire to fit a child into a binary that did not belong to them or a belief, now long debunked, that conformity would ease the child’s future.

Many clinicians acted with care and good intentions. Many parents were trying to do what they thought was right. But the impact of these interventions is not abstract; it is deeply personal and often lifelong.

The Victorian government committed to reform following the (i) Am Equal report in 2021, which was informed directly by people’s lived experience. That report and the decades of work that preceded it make clear what the consequences have been. People live with chronic physical pain, infertility, loss of sexual function, psychological trauma and an enduring sense that their autonomy was taken from them. The Missing Voice report reinforced these stories, revealing pain that is real, documented and impossible to ignore. As advocates like Anna Brown have said so clearly, too many people are still dealing with the outcomes of decisions made without their involvement, decisions that did not need to be made at all in childhood. This bill responds to those voices and, importantly, honours them.

This bill does not ban treatment, it does not impede urgent care and it does not deny parents their role or diminish the expertise of clinicians. Instead it establishes a thoughtful, balanced framework that ensures major decisions that are irreversible and not medically necessary are treated with the seriousness they deserve. It introduces strengthened informed consent safeguards, treatment plans that reflect best practice and an independent expert panel to review cases that raise significant ethical complexity and clear consequences for knowing or reckless breaches. It is a system shaped alongside the very people it is intended to protect: intersex advocates, clinicians, families, psychologists and human rights experts. It balances transparency and protection with the real-world needs of families and practitioners.

Urgent life-saving treatment is unaffected by these reforms. If intervention is needed to prevent serious harm, it can and will proceed. Where treatment is not urgent and the person cannot provide informed consent because they are an infant or a young child, this bill ensures decisions are made carefully with independent oversight, accurate information and support for parents navigating a complex and often unexpected situation. The strengthened informed consent requirements ensure families receive clear explanations of risks, benefits and alternatives, including the option to defer treatment. They require clinicians to use consistent criteria to assess capacity to consent, and they guarantee access to support services so families are not left navigating uncertainty alone.

People with lived experience told us how isolating and overwhelming this time can be, and this bill responds by building supports around them. Victoria will become only the second jurisdiction in Australia to enshrine protections like these in law, placing us at the forefront of national reform. Advocates like Morgan Carpenter have described these protections as vital, overdue and a reflection of genuine support for intersex people, and they are right. For parents, this bill does not take away their role. Parents remain crucial decision-makers. If treatment is proposed through an approved plan, parents still provide consent. What this bill ensures is that parents are no longer left making decisions in the dark, pressured, misinformed or without awareness of long-term consequences. It provides clear pathways for review, internal and external, when disagreements arise, ensuring fairness and accessibility.

For clinicians this bill offers clarity and safeguards. Many clinicians already practise in ways that align with the principles set out in this legislation. They want a system that offers certainty, ethical structure and independent support in difficult cases. The oversight panel made up of specialised experts will review proposals for irreversible or significant interventions where the patient cannot consent. This reduces the burden on clinicians, ensures consistency and reinforces the highest ethical standards. Treatment plans, whether general or case specific, will streamline best practice. General plans apply to common variations with established guidance. Individual plans apply to less common or more complex cases, and together they ensure quality, safety and transparency.

The offence provisions in the bill are narrow, carefully drafted and essential. Those with lived experience have been clear: a system without accountability is a system that risks repeating past harm. Good faith clinicians have nothing to fear, of course. The offence applies only to knowing or reckless breaches.

Some people ask whether it is better to make irreversible decisions earlier in childhood, when the child is too young to remember, but memory is not the measure of harm. Many people grow up to experience physical and psychological impacts that last for decades. What matters is consent – meaningful, informed consent – and that is what this bill protects. This bill does not restrict people who can consent from accessing any treatment they choose, and it does not stop or delay necessary medical care. It ensures that only non-urgent, primary, cosmetic or binary motivated interventions are deferred until the person most affected can understand the risks and benefits and make the decisions themselves.

We have reached this point because of the extraordinary advocacy of people like Tony Briffa, a proud intersex person who was in the gallery earlier and an elected representative, who have worked for decades so that children will grow up with the right to make decisions about their bodies when they are ready. Tony has said that this legislation protects a child’s right to make deeply personal decisions themselves when they are mature enough. These reforms honour that vision.

This is a bill built on listening – listening to those who have lived through damaging practices, listening to clinicians who want clearer guidance, listening to families who want support. It reflects compassion, human rights and a belief that equality must be lived in practice, not just in principle. Respect our bodies, trust our voices, give us the same right as anyone else to decide what happens to us. I commend the bill to the house.

 Steve McGHIE (Melton) (15:11): I rise today to contribute to the Health Safeguards for People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics Bill 2025. This bill is about children and their health and welfare, and of course this is not about blaming anyone. This is about greater protection for children, and certainly greater protection for their parents and support of the parents and support of the medicos that have to make these difficult decisions or give this difficult advice on decisions in supporting the parents and the children.

Firstly, I would like to start by thanking the lived experience advocates from InterAction and Equality Australia who came to speak to us last year in this place towards the end of the year. I really appreciated the opportunity to learn a lot more from those members of the intersex community and to be far more educated about the history of intersex advocacy and the unique challenges that this diverse community faces and the complexities in regard to this particular issue, and hearing some of the contributions today and some members making references to, I think, Herald Sun front page stories back in 1983. It does not seem that long ago, but it seems like it was the Dark Ages with those stories of what was referred to. I am pleased that we have moved along, even though it has taken some time.

I also wish to acknowledge the decades of advocacy that have led us to this moment of bringing this bill into the house and debating this bill and the needless hurt and trauma that those have experienced in the intersex community over many, many years – in some cases lifelong trauma for some individuals. I just want to extend my admiration for the courage that the intersex community have shown by coming forward and advocating strongly over many, many decades. It is amazing, and again, it is not only the advocacy but the education that they have imparted on those in the community that are ill informed and ignorant of the circumstances that have affected our intersex community.

About 1.7 per cent of people are born with red hair. I do not know if you know, Acting Speaker Marchant, but just as many people are born with variations in sex characteristics. I think someone quoted before that about 1500 people a year may be born with variations in sex characteristics, and they are also known as being intersex.

Just like how all redheads are different, it is important to remember that there are at least 40 –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Steve McGHIE: Are you all right, member for Mordialloc? I think you actually might have dyed your hair, have you? It does not look as red over here. It is important to remember that there are at least 40 known innate variations in sex characteristics that fall under the umbrella term of intersex. These variations are natural, and most people will not require medical treatment or surgeries. But unfortunately, many people with innate variations in sex characteristics have been subjected to needless cosmetic surgeries to fit a binary and medicalised view of how the body should look. Again, it is life-changing and traumatic for many, many of our members of the intersex community. Lived experience advocates have told us that these surgeries were often unnecessary. We know that through some of the contributions today and the advocacy over many years. They were certainly deferrable, and of course some of them are irreversible.

It is supposed to be that medicine does no harm. It is meant to be about making a person’s health and welfare better. I suppose in one way what we would say is that some of these surgeries have destroyed some individual’s lives through these traumatic changes and experiences. It has caused much harm to many in our intersex community and certainly affected their health in many, many different ways. Many of those surgeries are deferrable. They often do not need to be performed on a newborn. They can be deferred to when the child is growing or when the person can make an informed choice about their own body as an adult, so you give them the opportunity. It is their body, and they should be the ones that make those decisions with the proper level of information and education about their situation.

As I said before, these surgeries are irreversible. Once the surgery is done, it cannot be undone, unfortunately. As detailed in the Equality Australia’s The Missing Voice report – and I know some members have referred to that and that it is a must-read – many intersex people who have undergone these surgeries and treatments have experienced lasting impacts of negative self-image, lifelong pain, the need for further surgeries, the loss of reproductive function and just the ongoing trauma, let alone the mental health trauma and the mental health outcomes for many, many of these individuals. For our intersex people who have not undergone surgeries or medical interventions, these people and their loved ones are often left in the dark with misinformation or even a lack of education or a lack of information and minimal to no psychological and peer support. It is crucial that they should have access to that psychological assistance.

People born with innate variations in sex characteristics have told us that they want to make their own choices – and they should have the right to do that – about what happens to their bodies. It is their bodies, and everyone should be able to make the choice of what happens to their bodies, including being able to give informed consent to medical treatments that will impact them for the rest of their lives. This bill ensures that people born with innate variations in sex characteristics will be protected from unnecessary medical treatment and harm by introducing informed consent safeguards.

The introduction of an independent oversight panel is important, and the introduction of individual and general treatment plans is really important. The consequences for noncompliance with these measures go a long way to protect individuals and support them in their situation. It means that people with innate variations in sex characteristics will be able to have autonomy over their bodies. It means that parents and guardians of children born with variations in sex characteristics will have access to information and support, and that is crucial.

It will mean that doctors will be supported, with clearer guidelines to ensure they are delivering best practice care. Of course we cannot just assume that doctors are well informed, well educated, in regard to this type of situation. We know we have the greatest medicos within our fantastic hospitals here treating our children, but not everyone is an expert in this area.

The other thing is about the informed consent. Those measures are outlined in the criteria that a person must meet when a doctor considers whether they have the ability to give consent. The person and their parent or guardian must be provided with specific information about the particular variation in sex characteristics, what treatment is available, the advantages and the disadvantages and the complications of that, what treatment may be required into the future, and again, the advantages and disadvantages of deferring or not receiving treatment. But also, along with that, and we made reference to it before, is the mental health support in regard to all of these aspects of this type of consideration and surgery, if required. The doctor must also consider the individual’s capacity, which is really important.

I know there have been some great contributions. I just want to go to the recent amendments from the opposition; I do not think they are necessary. Clinicians have been involved all the way through the process of formulating this bill. This is a really important bill, and I am pleased that it has been brought to the house this week. I am totally supportive of it, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:21): I too rise to speak on the Health Safeguards for People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics Bill 2025. I will start by telling a quick story, because I love telling stories here, and I have got many to tell today. I am just a bit disappointed that my great friend Tony Briffa is no longer in the gallery to hear this contribution, because she was a mayor in my electorate of Laverton, mayor of Hobsons Bay, and did a tremendous job. Tony is a tremendous person, so I hope, Tony, that you are listening to this, because this one is for you. What I am going to tell you about this story, just quickly, is that the young man who wrote my speech and contribution this afternoon said, ‘You need to speak on this bill.’ It is not usually the kind of bill I speak about. I speak about lots of energy bills, transport bills, other sorts of legislative reform. And he said, ‘This is a really important bill, and it is really important to people like Tony. It’s about Tony.’ I have not spoken to Tony for ages. I have not seen Tony for a long time. And I said, ‘Tony?’ And he said, ‘Tony Briffa. She made history.’ I am going to talk a bit about Tony in just a moment.

I do want to go to the member for Lowan’s amendments – the Shadow Minister for Mental Health, I believe – that were put forward in this place by those opposite. The only time I feel like intersex Victorians have been mentioned in this Parliament – and this will be my eighth year – by those opposite, has never been through advocacy. It has never been through the advocacy of people like Tony. It has never been through their understanding. It has never been through their leadership. It has been reduced to things like footnotes and clauses and legal technicalities that are just read out during the passage of government bills, like the member for Lowan has read out here today. The only time the Liberal–One Nation misinformation coalition – and I am going to say that all year, all the way to the election, because it is a misinformation coalition – have ever chosen to go further was when the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council used intersex people as part of a broader culture war argument, and that was not to support them, that was not to listen to them but to dismiss them.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would suggest that the member on her feet at the moment is impugning a colleague in the other place. My understanding is that that must only be done by substantive motion. I would ask you to counsel the member on her feet accordingly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): On the point of order, I did not hear a member’s name. I will ask the member to come back, with reference to the point of order, though, to not impugn members.

Sarah CONNOLLY: Intersex people, when they are talked about in this place by those opposite, have been described as a factional minority, which is an advanced, rigid, chromosome-based definition of womanhood that simply does not reflect the biological reality. It erases the lived experiences of people like Tony, a tremendous local westie who has fought her whole life to have a bill like this come before this place. Those opposite have a message with the amendments that the member for Lowan has just put forward. That message to intersex people is ‘You can exist but you should not count.’ It says to people like Tony ‘You should not count’ – not in our public language, not in health and pregnancy care, and not in who is recognised as a woman or who is recognised as a mother. That is not respect, that is exclusion. And it deeply concerns me that members here in this place and in the other have gone on to suggest that a government advertising campaign – and we all remember that – encouraging applications from women, Aboriginal Victorians, people with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, LGBTIQ+ people and intersex Victorians was somehow discriminatory against the broader community. Encouraging inclusion is not discrimination. Do you know what it is? This is why it is foreign to those opposite: it is leadership. It is leadership, and by God that is what this state needs. That is what the intersex community needs. That is what Tony needs – Tony and the many, many friends that Tony has and the people that Tony speaks for.

But this is not a new pattern. We know this is not a new pattern. When those opposite were given the opportunity to support a simple, practical reform that would have allowed intersex Victorians to amend the sex marker assigned to them at birth – a change about dignity, accuracy and, by God, personal autonomy – what did the Liberal–One Nation misinformation coalition do? They opposed it. That tells us everything that we need to know, that tells Victorians everything that they need to know on 28 November this year. On this side of the house, every single one of us believes intersex Victorians deserve more than to be spoken about when it suits them in an argument. We know they deserve to be respected, they deserve to be recognised, and by God they deserve to be protected – protected from some people, like those opposite. They deserve to be protected in our laws, in our language and in our community. This is the very stark difference between a government that governs for everyone and an opposition that chooses division over dignity.

For once in this place I would welcome a discussion on the LGBTIQ+ community – including our intersex community, with wonderful people like Tony here in this room – that does not come from the gutter with the gutter lines and the gutter ideology that come from those opposite. That is all I am going to say about the member for Lowan. I am totally shocked that she is the Shadow Minister for Mental Health. I thought a bill like this would improve the mental health of great westies like Tony and many, many others. Now, we talk about Tony and the intersex community making up a small part of our population. I think that is a no-brainer. I have got notes here; it is 1.7 per cent. Now, when the young kid in my office was like ‘You need to speak about this and stand up for Tony,’ I said to him ‘1.7 per cent of the population’. And he said, ‘Well, do you know’ – and I do not think folks here know – ‘there are more intersex folks in the world than there are people with red hair?’ I thought that was an incredible fact, and I said to him, ‘You know what, let’s go ahead and speak on this bill.’

I do want to talk in the short time that I have left about Tony. Tony Briffa is a former mayor of Hobsons Bay – a great mayor. We had lots of great conversations. I remember when Tony came up here to speak with the then Minister for Equality we had a great conversation about rights, about Tony’s rights and the importance of continuing to push forward and break down barriers. As I said, as the member for Laverton, I had the pleasure of meeting with Tony on many occasions, as have my colleagues, I am sure, the member for Point Cook and the member for Williamstown. Tony has always been outspoken and so public about her lived experience, as she was an intersex person. Tony was born with a rare condition called partial androgen insensitivity syndrome. This condition is one of those 70 possible sex variations that we have been talking about here today and that this bill is about.

I cannot stop smiling when I say this. Tony is a really proud advocate for our LGBTI community and intersex people across Melbourne’s west but also here in Victoria. Tony has spent decades campaigning for visibility and for acceptance for intersex Australians. Visibility and acceptance – that says it all. We understand that on this side of the house. We stand for visibility and acceptance, regardless of who you are and regardless of your gender, your sex or your intersex. We understand that everyone deserves to be included, and that is leadership. That is having a truly fair and dignified state. That is about improving Victoria, which is already a great state. But it is reminding people to have tolerance and to treat people with fairness and dignity, because at the end of the day we are all people and we are all here for the same reason. People like Tony just want to be seen, and they want to be accepted. This bill is about making things a whole lot fairer, and I commend it to the house.

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (15:32): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:32): I do wish to speak to this motion, and I would like to draw to the house’s attention that the opposition has just been advised that the government intends to move away from this bill to debate a sledge motion in this chamber and to spend an hour and a half of this Parliament’s time dealing with a sledge motion. We have just been formally advised. What a pack of grubs they are.

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, there are a number of points there, but the point of order that I raise, Acting Speaker, is that we are not yet on the question that the member is debating, we are simply debating the adjournment of this particular item.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Alison Marchant): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: There is no point of order, that is right, because the coalition has been advised of the reason why the government wants to adjourn off this bill. Can you believe they want to adjourn off this bill so they can move to a sledge motion? Doesn’t that say everything about the values of this government, to move to a sledge motion? I look forward to debating the government’s sledge motion, because if the government wants to come back from summer and switch on the nasty switch, I tell you what, I am going to be the first speaker on that motion and I am going to go very, very, very hard, because this government has switched on the nasty switch. The Premier has exposed herself completely. The Premier has shown who she is. It was hidden. We knew it was there. She has come back from summer, and here she is for all to see.

We oppose moving from this bill because we know, as the government have formally advised us, they intend to move to a sledge motion. They have formally advised us. I am not making it up. They have advised us they want to spend an hour and a half of their time. You can understand why government members are excited about it. What more could they want than to go straight into the mud, the pack of grubs they are?

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is disorderly to reflect on other members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is disorderly to reflect on other members. We are on the adjournment debate. I am very happy to be here, and I am very happy to hear the member for Brighton continue.

James NEWBURY: It is the nicest thing anyone has said to me today, Deputy Speaker. To catch you up, so to speak, on what has just occurred, the government, as you rightly said, has just moved an adjournment motion after formally advising the opposition they intend to spend an hour and a half of this great Parliament’s time on a sledge motion. To bookend the week, we start on a motion at the start of the week that shows the best of this Parliament, and then to end the week, what does this government do? Attempt to move an adjournment –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is shouting across the table. Members have microphones in this place. We do not –

James Newbury interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order, although – and I am not making rulings here – I am just here, and I would appreciate that.

James NEWBURY: I will use my voice. I will not be shut down in using my voice by the government. The government should not be reflecting on how I use my voice. I will use my voice, and I know they are embarrassed about being called out for what they are about to do. I know why they are embarrassed, because we have gone from what is best about this place to start the week – and by the way, the lead speaker on this motion listed on the notice paper is the Attorney-General. I tell you what, when it goes bazooka to bazooka, I am the first speaker. I am going to be here for the Attorney, and I am going to be watching, and I am going to be rating, and I am going to be ready to speak straight thereafter. I am going to be looking forward to this one. But I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, it appals me that we start the week with something so good about this Parliament that shows the best side of this Parliament, and then we end the week with the government moving to the most grubby, slanderous behaviour. It says everything about this government. I am absolutely sure the previous speaker is ashamed to have to be moving the motion because the Leader of the House is too gutless to move it herself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I encourage members not to impugn other members.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (15:37): Can I start by thanking the member for Brighton for acknowledging how important it was that we started the week acknowledging the suffering of Victorians, because at the start of the week he did refer to it as a mismanagement of time. So I am glad that he has had time to reflect and to recognise that that was incredibly inappropriate.

Why I think it is so important for us to move to this motion is we have to counteract the anger and the extremism that we are seeing coming from those opposite.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the government claim that they were not moving to a sledge motion. I do appreciate the member now confirming the government does intend to move to a sledge motion. Thank you, member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order because I do not think it was a point of order. The member for Yan Yean is giving context to the adjournment.

Lauren KATHAGE: I think question time today really confirmed how important it is that we spend time calling out those people who continue to peddle misinformation, who continue to amplify extremism and who continue to push to the side the vulnerable people of Victoria who deserve our voice, who deserve our respect and deserve our protection. That is why it is so important that we adjourn to come to this motion, because those opposite need to own up to the impact of their language. Frighteningly for Victorians, they need to own up to what the policy impacts will be if they carry through with their threats.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural motion, which I spoke to quite tightly. This is not a debate on what the government intends to try and sledge later today.

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton just belled the cat. He has referred to and described the motion that he does not want to go to in his contribution and then again in that point of order. The member for Yan Yean is entitled to counter that view in her contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the adjournment debate members are allowed to give context of why they agree or disagree with the adjournment without going into the detail of the motion that we have not got to. I have not heard that yet. I do not uphold the point of order.

Lauren KATHAGE: For members of my community, they want us to be focused on their priorities, not spending time on fringe issues. That is why it is so important that we ensure that we pull the opposition back to thinking about Victorians and to being focused on the priorities of our communities and not those of the fringe. My concern is that in moving to the fringe we are going to see from those opposite a power policy that hurts my community.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance to the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Yan Yean was straying into the debate on the motion, I believe, if she could come back to the adjournment, or reasons for there to be or not to be.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. I am impelled by the urgency of my community’s desire for cheaper power prices, open and free education and accessible health services – all the things that this government is working towards. We need to take the time now to adjourn so that we can discuss the motion and hear from those opposite that they care about those priorities as well, because all we are hearing from them at the moment is that they want to stand up next to extremists and continue to put at risk the cheaper power that we are producing through renewable energy and that they will put at risk the safety of our kids at school by having members openly talk against having safe libraries for kids at school. That is why it is so important that we adjourn and speak about this motion.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance. You are saying you do not want to talk about that anymore.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue on the adjournment.

Lauren KATHAGE: This is an opportunity for those opposite to say clearly to the Victorian people that they will not stand with extremists.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:42): I rise to speak on this very narrow debate with, as you can probably tell by the tone of my voice, some disappointment, really. It is the first sitting week of the year. It is the final year of this term of Parliament. It is the Thursday of the first sitting week, and here we are with a few hours to go and the opportunity to be speaking about the things that matter to our community, our Victorian community – the things that we could be working towards and building towards to build a better community and to build cohesion in our community. But no, the government have on this occasion, and many other occasions during the course of this sitting week, resorted to the lowest common denominator, in my view, as they are doing now, by seeking to adjourn this debate and to move to what the member for Brighton has referred to as a sledge motion, and I agree with him – the lowest common denominator.

You wonder why members of the Victorian community look to the vocation of politics, they look to people in this place, they look to politicians, and sometimes they shake their heads. When politicians act in the way that the government intends to act, by adjourning this debate and going on a full-frontal attack on the opposition – I am sure that the attack that it intends to launch on the opposition will be delivered in varying degrees and varying rates of success and there will be a sharp blow here and wet paper bag over there and everything in between – how does that build confidence in our democracy? How does that build confidence in the impression that Victorians have on the people in this place? My view is that everyone, every member of this house, has an obligation to do what we can to elevate within the Victorian community the impression that the people of Victoria have on who we are and what we do. I just think, as I am seeking to articulate now, that by adjourning this debate and by going to one of the government’s notices – and there are a number of them here – all sledge motions, all motions that I am sure will frankly bring out the worst, not just from the government side but from the opposition side in reply.

This does not do us, as community leaders and as community representatives, good. This does not seek to build trust in the Victorian community within the political class; no, it further denigrates it, it further destroys it. The opportunity that the government has – I take that back. It is not just the opportunity. The obligation that this government has is to do better and to do what the Victorian people want us to do for them, and that is to focus on the things that matter to them, not that seem to matter to us in this moment, at this time or in this place, but to focus on the things that actually matter to Victorians outside of this chamber and to seek to reflect in here what matters to Victorians outside this chamber. The conversations that are happening around kitchen tables, the conversations that are happening in the car on the way to school or from school pick-up, the conversations that are happening between husband and wife or within families, within communities or in sporting clubs or having a beer on a Friday night at the local bowlo – these are the things that matter to Victorians, not the grubbiness that we are seeing here, seeking to adjourn debate so we can go to a sledge motion.

My goodness, credit to the government – they have got a few of them, and they are all here. No doubt during the course of this year, an election year, on a number of occasions the government will seek to do exactly what they are doing now. I do not think we should adjourn debate; I think we should do what is right by Victorians. I think we should listen to Victorians’ needs and respond to them. I think we should be better than the position that I am sure the government will have some success in in just a few moments time. I think that is an obligation which not just government members and not just opposition members or crossbench members but every member of this chamber has, and anything less than that is a bloody disgrace.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:47): I think something that is really important to consider in this situation, when we are wanting to foster unity and to surmount division, is that when they have members of the opposition who are peddling conspiracies, this is not good for democracy. That is why it is really important to be able to debate these important issues for the benefit of good and decent Victorians who want to make sure that children and future generations can feel safe and supported in our wonderful state of Victoria and not have, for instance – and I will pay respect to members of the opposition who on the one hand will march at Pride and truly honour that event, but on the other hand we have other members of the opposition who will be quite overt in terms of their anti-trans position. We know also there was a petition against the rainbow libraries toolkit.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, that is a disgraceful slur on the opposition – absolutely disgraceful. Name them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, that was not a point of order.

Nina TAYLOR: The point that I am making is that if there are those who are wishing to perpetuate what are actually very unhealthy, unsound, ungrounded and what we might otherwise term extreme positions, which can be extremely harmful –

James Newbury: On a point of order, this is an adjournment motion, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a point of order. I bring the member for Albert Park back to the adjournment motion.

Nina TAYLOR: Duly noted. I am simply substantiating the reason as to why, further to the procedural element of this motion, it is important that we adjourn debate due to the substance of the matters which we are seeking to debate for the betterment of Victorians, not only current but future generations. As I stated from the outset, we have seen some particularly disturbing episodes in our state. We have seen some behaviours which have been particularly untoward. We see – I am not accusing the opposition of this per se, so let me be very clear about this – sovereign citizens and otherwise, people who fundamentally do not appreciate or respect the premise of democracy. So it is upon us to utilise our roles as representatives to affirm what is sound, reasonable and rational and therefore to be very clear with the broader community as to what is fundamentally supporting our democracy and, by contrast, what would be termed extreme behaviour.

For instance, seeking and publicly saying that to attend a One Nation rally –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is defying your ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was starting to go into one of the motions on the notice paper, but that is not the question before the house. The question before the house is to adjourn, or not to adjourn – that is the question.

Nina TAYLOR: Duly noted, and I respect your ruling, Deputy Speaker. I am simply explaining and validating the purpose for adjourning debate, because you cannot say we want to adjourn debate for the sake of it. You have to of course validate the purpose that underpins it, and we are extremely concerned on this side of the house to see a perpetual narrative by certain members of the opposition which undermines the premise of our democracy.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is now the third time I have been forced to take a relevance point of order. The member should be sat down.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not be sitting the member down. The member was actually giving context at that point, and I encourage her to continue in regard to the adjournment debate.

Nina TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Duly noted, Deputy Speaker. I note that in this house we have a unique and privileged opportunity whereby to be able to debate for the betterment of the community matters which are also of importance to them. For good and decent Victorians I think you will find that, for instance, they unequivocally voted for the SEC, so to continually have renewables undermined by those opposite is not helpful.

 Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (15:52): I note the mirth on your face, Deputy Speaker, as the last contributor finished her regular sort of boring diatribe. I too note with the same amount of mirth, Deputy Speaker, that the contributions and excuses proffered by the government on why we should stop their very, very, very thin legislative agenda this week to adjourn what should have been still nearly another hour and a half of sensible debate on policies and legislation going forward that would make Victoria strong and could potentially help repair the failing budget. We could even actually be having a debate here today about how we might in fact solve the housing crisis, for example –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: or the crime crisis, or we could talk about the crisis on country roads. We could be having a legislative agenda that could provide to Victorians some hope for this failing state that we all sadly live in now, where debt is worse than Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland combined, all of those things. But no, we have not got that. This government is so light on. They have had, what, two months off. They have had holidays, and they have turned up with two pieces of legislation to talk about in a week, and they have decided they want to adjourn. The question is they want to adjourn, and perhaps they want to adjourn because they want to rush something through that could make Victoria a better place. It could be a rush through so that we can figure out what we can do with all these leftover machete bins. Or we could sort of go, well, how can we get some more train carriages on the Warrnambool line, for example, where this government in the last couple of years has halved the amount of seats. It is pretty extraordinary to spend $485 million fixing a train line to end up with half as many seats. I mean, that is a conundrum that we could be debating today. How could we solve that quite bizarre problem of this government’s own making? That could have been a useful piece of legislation –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: or the police shortages. I mean, I actually have an electorate that is about half the size of Belgium – can you believe that? – and we have no 24-hour police station. It might have some fires and floods but we have no police station open outside of business hours. Can you imagine that?

We do not have enough police in Victoria to maintain the police presence that we have had for the best part of 150 years. In fact Colac is the oldest inland settled town. I know there might be a Ballarat member arguing that Buninyong is, but that is a fight we can have another day. We might be talking a day here or a day there.

A member interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: We can have that debate – that might be more useful. We have had a police presence since 1842 in the electorate of Polwarth, yet this government is not coming with a solution. How on earth have they managed to unwind the best part of 170 years worth of police presence?

Roma Britnell interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: No, there are no solutions there. They want to adjourn their Legislative Assembly agenda so that they can go and have a discussion that is just focused on sledging. It is a word that the member for Brighton often uses, and I think it is a word that is very apt for today’s attempt by the government to pad out that –

Roma Britnell interjected.

Richard RIORDAN: Nasty. It is nasty. It is nasty that you would want to take away the focus from the good people of Victoria, take away from the issues in Victoria to focus on a nasty, cheap little debate – or a series of debates, because they have got quite a few here – of no value to Victorians whatsoever. We would not, after this adjourned debate, end up with a better Victoria. No, we will end up with a nastier Victoria if we adjourn this debate. If we adjourn this debate to go on to the government’s filibustering sledge motion, we will be left a poorer state than we are already. It is pretty hard to imagine that we could sink to lower depths. We have seen the calibre of the Premier’s tenor this week, where she has regularly spoken of misinformation. The only misinformation is coming from this government. Obviously the two months over Christmas were not used to create a good legislative agenda. They were used for focus groups. They were used for focus groups to come up with words like ‘misinformation’, and we do not need to talk about that this afternoon.

Assembly divided on motion: