Tuesday, 17 February 2026

 Jess WILSON (Kew – Leader of the Opposition) (15:31): I rise to speak on the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. Can I thank the Treasurer’s office from the outset for their cooperation through the bill briefing, as always, and for following up, when we had a series of questions, with the detailed information that they provided. This is a very detailed bill that takes in entities and different agencies from right across government and many different portfolios, and I thank my shadow ministers for their input into the bill before us today.

This bill amends several pieces of legislation to implement part of the government’s response to the Independent Review of the Victorian Public Service, more commonly referred to as the Silver review. This piece of legislation was introduced into the Parliament before the Silver review was handed down, but the government has confirmed that this is just the first tranche of implementing the Silver review. According to the government, this bill does this by abolishing, reforming and consolidating a number of public entities and boards. It also implements a range of other related and unrelated reforms. I think it is important to remind ourselves why we are here today considering this bill, a bill that seeks to abolish, a bill that seeks to merge, a bill that seeks to consolidate, a number of public entities and boards, essentially to reduce full-time staff numbers in the public service and reduce costs. The reason why the government is seeking to make these changes is because the government has mismanaged the finances in this state for more than a decade. This government has so mismanaged the books for more than a decade now that they have had to initiate the Silver review to find opportunities to reduce the public service, to cut agencies, because of their own financial mismanagement.

Victoria’s net debt is increasing by $1.7 million every single hour. Every single hour Victoria’s net debt grows by $1.7 million because of the financial mismanagement of the Labor government.

Of course it is projected to reach a record $192.6 billion by 2029. And what does that mean? It means that Victorians will be paying more than $1 million every single hour just on the interest bill to service that debt – more than $1 million every single hour just to pay the interest on Labor’s record debt. That means every single hour this government could employ 10 police officers, 11 paramedics or nine teachers with the interest bill under this government’s record debt. This is money that should be going to frontline services. This is money that should be ensuring that we are keeping our police stations open, not seeing more than 40 of them with reduced hours or closing. This is money that should be ensuring that it does not take longer today than it did a decade ago to get an ambulance in this state. This is money that should be ensuring we have the best funded public schools in the country, not the worst funded under the Allan Labor government. For our police officers, our teachers and our paramedics to deliver the essential services that Victorians rely on, they need to be properly funded. They need funding to increase year on year. There are fewer police on the beat today than when the Premier became the Premier, yet crime has increased 29 per cent over the same period. How does that equation work? Fewer police under this Premier, crime has increased: these are the consequences of a decade of financial mismanagement under this Labor government.

And now we know, on top of the blowouts on the Big Build – more than $50 billion; on top of the waste that this government has become accustomed to every single day – $600 million to cancel the Commonwealth Games, $200 million of which is going to Glasgow to host the Commonwealth Games; $13 million on machete bins when knife crime continues to increase under the Labor government; on top of the $200,000 on pot plants, not even to buy the pot plants, just to rent them – this is a government that knows no bounds when it comes to wasting taxpayer money – $15 billion on this government’s watch, on this Premier’s watch, has been going into the pockets of criminals, bikies, organised crime figures, underworld figures. Fifteen billion dollars of Victorian taxpayer money has gone from Big Build sites into the pockets of criminals, and what makes it worse is the government knew about it. The government knew that this was happening on government-funded construction sites, and the government did nothing about it. This Premier knew that there was corruption on government-funded construction sites, and she turned a blind eye.

The Premier claims that she referred this to IBAC, knowing that IBAC did not have the powers to investigate. So either the Premier did not know what IBAC’s powers were and is therefore incompetent, or she did know and knowingly made a referral that she knew would go nowhere. But it does not matter, because IBAC told the Premier that they dismissed the referral. What did this Premier do? Absolutely nothing, because this Premier is not interested in getting to the bottom of the rotten culture on these government sites. Why – because the Labor Party is benefiting from it. We have seen today revelations of, at the last election, donations from criminals, from those linked to organised crime, from those linked to underworld figures, going directly to the Labor Party.

Is it any wonder why this Premier continues to cover this up? This is the largest corruption scandal in the history of this state, and what does the Premier say: ‘It’s got nothing to do with me. It’s not my responsibility. It’s everyone else’s fault.’ Well, Premier, you are the leader of this state. This is your responsibility. This happened on your watch. You were the minister in charge of major projects, of the Big Build, for years. This happened on your watch, and you continue to cover it up.

This government knows no bounds when it comes to covering up corruption. We have seen it time and time again – IBAC reports coming out identifying corruption at the very core of this Labor government. We had the former commissioner come out in the past few days to highlight that this Premier’s –

John Lister: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I understand there is a little bit of lenience, but it has been quite some time since the bill was addressed in the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution. I am looking forward to hearing their thoughts about the entities legislation amendment bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): There is no point of order.

Jess WILSON: I understand why those opposite do not want to talk about the $15 billion worth of corruption that has happened on their watch – $15 billion into the pockets of criminals. What do you say to the Victorians who have been victims of crime while your government has let money go into the pockets of criminals and criminal syndicates? Yes, we are very quiet now. This government has overseen the largest corruption scandal in this state’s history, and this Premier is refusing to do a thing about it.

The Premier today took the opportunity to praise the Fair Work Commission and say that this is an important independent body. But it was highlighted that the same independent body, the Fair Work Commission, in Senate estimates confirmed that Victorian government officials have said that $15 billion is a conservative estimate in terms of the money that has been funnelled into criminal syndicates in this state. The Fair Work Commission confirmed that, an eminent integrity expert, but of course when it does not suit the Premier, it is everyone else’s fault.

Let me come back to the bill before us. The reason why we have this bill before us is because of this government’s financial mismanagement for a decade and the $15 billion of taxpayer money that they have allowed to go into the pockets of organised crime – of bikie gangs. This is why the government had to commission the Silver review in the first place. This is why this government is failing Victorian on crime, where we have seen rising crime rates year after year. Finally we hear from this government that they realise there might be a little bit of a problem – that Victorians do not feel safe in their own homes – but they have had to be dragged to that position. We have had to see crime increase year on year. We have had to see violent crime increase, home invasions, night after night. I know that we on this side of the chamber have received the CCTV footage of people breaking into homes with knives, with machetes, night after night. And how did it happen? Because this government weakened the bail laws in this state. They are still weaker today than they were when this government changed them three years ago.

This is a government that has lost its way. This is a government that is not putting the priorities of Victorians first. It is okay to put the priorities of the CFMEU first; the Premier will go and defend them every day. But when it comes to ensuring that people are safe in their own homes – no, we will actually see the number of police fall while crime increases. It is the same when it comes to our healthcare system.

Data last week shows the waiting list continues to grow under this government. 64,000 Victorians are waiting for elective surgery. Time and time again under this government we have seen the elective surgery waiting list grow. More recent data has shown that for those who are waiting for category 2 surgeries, which are meant to be treated within 90 days, over 40 per cent in Victoria are not being treated within 90 days. What is the comparison in New South Wales? About 4 per cent – unbelievable under this government. Dental surgery: in New South Wales it takes about a week to be seen for general dental care; in Victoria, more than five months.

Paul Mercurio: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am listening carefully to the member’s debate and I am looking through the bill, and I cannot see any relevance to what is in the bill from what the member is actually saying at the moment. I would love you to bring her back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will rule on the point of order. It is a wideranging debate. There is no point of order.

Nick Staikos: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I appreciate that lead speakers have a certain level of latitude, but I think it is incumbent on lead speakers to at least once refer to the bill. It is right here. The bill is the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I also appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition has rehearsed a speech that she wants to give, but perhaps now is not the opportunity for that. The Leader of the Opposition should be referring to the bill that is currently before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak): I will make the ruling on the point of order. On the point of order, there is no point of order, but I do ask the member to come back to the bill.

Jess WILSON: I will come back to the speech before me. As I said at the outset, the reason why the Silver review had to take place in the first place is because the Labor government has mismanaged the budget. The interest bill being more than $1 million every single hour in this state means that the government cannot fund these entities anymore. It means that the government is cutting the public service. That is what is in the bill before us today. This is a bill that cuts the public service. Why – because this government cannot manage money. And why can’t this government manage money? Because they have stood by and seen $15 billion of taxpayer money funnelled into the pockets of criminals in this state.

In the bill before us today I want to flag a number of concerns from the opposition, particularly when it comes to the abolition of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board. The bill amends the Financial Management Act 1994 to abolish the VGPB and transfer all of its functions to the Minister for Government Services. The government has contended that other regulatory measures influencing procurement have been implemented, which means the board is no longer needed. Well, the board can no longer be paid for; that is the actual essential point to all of this. But it simply beggars belief that in the midst of the state’s worst ever corruption crisis the government is coming into this Parliament with a bill that seeks to reduce oversight of government procurement.

We know that this government has no interest when it comes to securing value for taxpayer money – this government fails Victorians every single day – and we know that the Victorian government and the Premier have ignored the red flags and that she is far more interested in putting on her high-vis vest and putting on her hard hat than she is with safeguarding the public money that goes to fund these sites. But this is another example of where the government is seeking to reduce oversight of government spending and of government procurement processes. It is supposed be handed over in a situation where we are debating the removal of an oversight mechanism on government procurement. As I said, we know the Premier has turned a blind eye to rorts of government projects – $15 billion has gone into the pockets of criminals.

She has overseen systemic vulnerabilities that she has allowed to be exploited at scale. The coercion, the unlawful payments and the entrenched corruption tell us that the corruption is not incidental. It is not isolated; it is structural, and it has flourished under this Premier’s watch. That is why we see before us in the bill today another example of this government seeking to remove IBAC’s oversight of government procurement decisions and of infrastructure projects. It is remarkable that in the very week we have seen that $15 billion of taxpayer money from government infrastructure projects has gone to fund criminal syndicates in this state for drug peddling on these sites, we see the removal of an oversight body that goes to the very heart of procurement of infrastructure.

I also want to turn to a number of elements in this bill that seek to change the way we govern the mental health system. In doing so, I do want to acknowledge the work of the member for Lowan, who has been very active in working with the sector and ensuring that their views are heard by the coalition. The bill amends the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 to restructure the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission by reducing the number of commissioners from four to one. It also alters the commissioner’s role, expected qualifications and reporting arrangements. Now, I understand that while the Silver review contemplated reducing the number of commissioners, the Silver review did not specify a reduction to a single commissioner, which is exactly what this bill does. I understand that was a decision that was taken by the Labor government to reduce the number of commissioners to just one, not a recommendation by the Silver review. The bill also restructures the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing by reducing the number of board members and directors and amending their qualification requirements. Again, these changes do not align with any recommendations made in the Silver review. These are decisions that have been made by the Labor government outside the process established by the Silver review.

We have serious concerns about these proposals. They do not have the support of the mental health sector, and in fact they go against many recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. I am particularly concerned that this bill diminishes the importance of lived experience for important roles in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and I know that the member for Lowan has done an extensive amount of work with the sector on this very issue. It also reverses the relationship between the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the government so that the government will now be sitting in judgement of the work of the commission. The member for Lowan has communicated to me the broad concerns of many mental health stakeholders. These measures undermine the narrow role of Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and wind back key recommendations that were made by the royal commission. These are changes put forward by the government that are outside the scope of the Silver review and work directly against the recommendations made by the mental health royal commission. The royal commission expressly recommended that commissioners have lived experience of mental illness and/or psychological distress. These measures do not align with any recommendations of the Silver review. Unfortunately the government, when we had our bill briefing, could not justify them or explain why they are necessary, and they certainly have not justified them or explained why they are necessary to the mental health sector.

There are a number of further changes contained in this bill that do not have their origins in the Silver review. I want to go to the amendments to the Local Government Act 1989 and the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, where the bill proposes to pare back the Essential Services Commission’s advisory role in relation to local government rate caps. This change effectively removes the requirement for the minister to seek ESC advice before setting rate caps and other associated monitoring, while retaining ESC responsibility for monitoring actual compliance. Now, like the abolition of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board, this is another move to remove scrutiny of government decisions by impartial umpires. At a time where this government continues to operate with unprecedented cost shifting to local governments, removal of scrutiny of rate cap decisions could easily undermine confidence in the rate-capping framework.

The bill also amends the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 and the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 to shift the responsibility for price regulation of the commercial passenger vehicle industry from the Essential Services Commission to the responsible minister. Finally, it amends the Accident Towing Services Act 2007 to remove the Essential Service Commission’s role in conducting four-yearly reviews of accident towing service charges, replacing these with a ministerial-directed review and an amended CPI-based calculation. I will again flag the coalition’s concern that this bill continues to remove oversight and scrutiny of decisions that will affect the price paid by Victorian households for various services and rates. Given their role as a specialist independent regulator, there is merit in requiring the minister to seek ESC advice before deciding if council rates or CPV charges should be increased. Once again I note these changes that relate to removing oversight and ensuring that ministerial discretion grows were not recommendations of the Silver review. These were not included in the Silver review. These are changes that have been put forward by the government outside the scope of the Silver review. I go back to where I began: at a time when this government has been exposed over recent days and for years now for covering up corruption in this state, a government that has overseen a $15 billion payday for criminals in this state, we should be seeing more oversight when it comes to ministerial decision making, not less.

This bill contains more examples of this government’s decision to avoid scrutiny at all costs. At a time when we have seen the largest corruption scandal in this state’s history we should be looking to more scrutiny of decision-making. We should be ensuring that we are putting in place independent agencies that have the ability to ensure that they are providing independent advice. We know this government does not respect independent advice. We have independent integrity agencies today calling for greater powers from this government, saying they are not able to investigate the largest corruption scandal in this state’s history, because the anti-corruption watchdog IBAC does not have the powers to do so. When IBAC makes the request to the Premier, to the government, to say, ‘Give us the powers to get to the bottom of this corruption scandal,’ what does the government say? ‘No, we are not going to give IBAC those powers.’ This government knows no bounds when it comes to turning a blind eye to corruption. The bill before us today just continues to highlight that after a decade of financial mismanagement in this state, after a decade of turning a blind eye to corruption, this government is now seeing cuts to government services. They are reducing the number of public service jobs in this bill. This government is cutting the public service because it has mismanaged the books for a decade.

The coalition will seek to move a number of amendments to this bill in the upper house, textual amendments, to the points I made today around the mental health concerns that we have, the lack of oversight and scrutiny and the removal of those bodies. $15 billion has been ripped out of the pockets of hardworking Victorians – a $5000-per-household corruption tax in this state, $5000 for every Victorian household, ripped out of their pockets and given to criminals, to bikies, to organised crime figures. This is the legacy of Premier Jacinta Allan. She was the minister responsible for the Big Build, she is now the Premier of this state and she knew it was happening. She knew it was happening on government-funded Big Build sites and did nothing – nothing.

And now that this information has seen the light of day, what does the Premier do? She continues to do nothing. It is like she could not care less, because it is not her money, it is Victorians’ money. Five thousand dollars for every Victorian household has gone to fund criminal syndicates in this state. This government should be ashamed that Victorians have poorer services for it, that crime continues to increase on their watch because we do not have enough police on the beat and we cannot keep our police stations open, that they have seen the waiting list grow for elective surgeries and that it takes longer today to get an ambulance than it did a decade ago. Under this government we have a Premier that continues to refuse to take responsibility. What I say to Victorians is: while this Premier continues to cover it up, I promise to clean it up.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (16:01): I rise in support of the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025, but I do so with a sense of disappointment, because I think this was the first opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition as Shadow Treasurer to really set forth what her alternative fiscal strategy might look like. I listened for 30 minutes, and I do not think we heard that articulated. I am still not entirely sure what the Liberal Party’s position on this bill is.

Members interjecting.

Iwan WALTERS: I am deeply gratified that the members opposite are much more animated by my contribution than their own leader’s, but I would also make the point that in her contribution the Leader of the Opposition actually took no firm position on this bill other than to say that textual amendments will be moved in the upper house. I do not know what those are, so I cannot comment upon them. But I will note that there was no position really taken on this government’s good governance and efforts to reduce overlapping spending on entities which are not focused on frontline service delivery. The Liberals talk a good game outside of this chamber about the need to be fiscally prudent, and yet nothing in that speech actually went to the point of this legislation or gave an indication as to whether the parties opposite will join us in that endeavour.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, while the member is reflecting upon not sticking to the debate and the bill before us, I ask the member to come back to the bill. It is just an odd debate to talk about fiscal strategy in entities legislation which does not actually talk about fiscal strategy.

Michaela Settle: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, there is no point of order. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition an extraordinarily wideranging contribution going everywhere but the bill. For the member for Lowan now to object is pretty extraordinary.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): There is no point of order. The range of debate has been set through the opening speech.

Iwan WALTERS: What that speech rested upon was a lot of ad hominem attacks on the Premier and the invocation of an unsubstantiated number in a part of a report that could not be stood up. I heard a lot about that number. What I did not hear anything about was the $11 billion in unfunded cuts that have been proposed by the Liberal Party and the National Party. These are real cuts that have been articulated but without any sense of where they are going to be funded and how they are going to hurt communities – communities like mine.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this debate does not go to attacking the Liberal Party for their policy positions. I ask you to bring the member back to the legislation before us.

Michaela Settle: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I would again point out that the Leader of the Opposition chose to use her entire speech to discuss things that did not relate to the bill, so there is no point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The opening contribution went to financial management and compared and contrasted financial management, so the member is being relevant to the debate and may continue.

Iwan WALTERS: I am concerned about the risks to my community of a scattergun, unthinking, unfeeling chainsaw approach to fiscal management, the Javier Milei school of government, and I am interested to see who on that side will be wielding the chainsaw come the campaign. Who will be in charge of DOGE? Who will be the Elon Musk on that side, because there is Liberal–National confusion at every turn on fiscal bills, and I contend that this is indeed a fiscal bill, because it gets to the point of spending of public money in this state.

In the same breath they propose more spending. They criticise the government for not spending more on particular projects – disproportionately in their electorates, I might add – while also critiquing every single taxation measure and every single revenue measure. The numbers do not add up, and to paraphrase TheThick of It, this kind of free-range, no-consequence nonsense might be hugely entertaining when you are in opposition –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I understand there is some latitude, but we are now over 4 minutes into a 10-minute contribution, and all that he has done is attack the Liberal Party. I ask you to bring him back to the entities legislation, which he has not mentioned once during his contribution.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): There is no point of order.

Iwan WALTERS: When you are in opposition it might be entertaining, but when you are in government – or you aspire to be – you actually have to make decisions and trade-offs and be clear with voters –

Emma Kealy: Speaker –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Lowan, it has been the same point of order and I have ruled repeatedly on it, so I am saying that my original ruling stands, unless you have a different point of order.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, I would like this decision reviewed by the Speaker – and this passage – because it is completely out of line with the requirements of the standing orders of the house, and it is outrageous that such political commentary is allowed to continue when the name of the bill has not even been mentioned within the contribution of the member on his feet. We have an obligation when we are debating legislation to stick to this, and this is a precedent of the house. It is a precedent of previous Speakers. I ask you to consider your ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Thank you, member. I am sure the Speaker is available if you wish to see her at any time.

Iwan WALTERS: Those opposite can obfuscate; they can invoke points of order, but at some point this year they are actually going to have to be clear with voters about the realities and implications of their spending plans. Where are those $11 billion in cuts going to come from? Are they going to result in thousands fewer doctors and allied health staff or the fewer elective surgeries that the Leader of the Opposition talked about? Forget fewer schools opened – we will be back to the Kennett days of closures and forced amalgamations. Maybe the Upfield line will not run on Sundays; it will be converted to light rail. Either way, it will not be people in Kew carrying the can for cuts. It will be Kalkallo, Craigieburn, Coolaroo and Campbellfield. It will be Roxburgh Park, Meadow Heights and Westmeadows picking up the pieces of their indiscriminate slash and burn, which has not been properly articulated.

The Leader of the Opposition in her contribution on the entities bill also made what I think is quite a remarkable suggestion: that the Silver review is a manifestation of poor government. That is an insight into what a future Liberal government – perish the thought – might actually result in. The Silver review is about ensuring that public money is spent as efficiently and effectively as it can be. Many theoreticians and academics about public administration, like Christopher Hood, have talked about the inexorable capacity of government to expand. It is a bit like the exercise of painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge – a responsible government needs to ensure that there are no overlapping entities and that money is not being duplicated in its expenditure, and that is what this bill does. Bringing back a lot of those functions from unelected quangos into government agencies with ministerial oversight I contend increases the accountability. It increases the democratic oversight of spending. Entities like the Victorian Government Purchasing Board, a relic from the Kennett era, would be abolished by this bill. But the spending decisions do not disappear off into a vacuum; they become the responsibility of a minister who is accountable and responsible to this place and to the people of Victoria. That is democratic oversight and accountability.

The bill in its entirety implements a series of amendments to reduce duplication across government while also clarifying roles and responsibilities within the public sector. It is a manifestation of good government, ensuring that money can be spent on service delivery, not on administrative tasks which can be discharged more efficiently by other entities or within government departments themselves.

I want to reflect briefly on the importance of ensuring that we have that sense of democratic oversight of public expenditure.

There is a lot of academic literature about that quango issue that I talked about previously, the quasiautonomous non-government organisations, which are taxpayer-funded bodies, like those reflected in the bill, which are effectively bodies doing work outsourced from government departments. This bill brings that back inside government departments where appropriate, but it also removes the duplication that can exist unnecessarily. That is what I am concerned about. I want to ensure that the money that is raised by the taxpayers of this state is spent on service delivery.

I also want to draw the house’s attention to a couple of other claims in the Leader of the Opposition’s initial contribution – around police numbers, for example, noting that we have more police in this jurisdiction than in any other. I think it is important that we are clear about that point, because to do otherwise would be to mislead the people of Victoria.

The Silver review did find that there were some entities and boards whose functions are no longer needed and whose functions overlap with the existing work of core departments. There is, as I said, a need for periodic review to ensure that public money is being spent as efficiently as possible and that it is having the policy effects that this Parliament desired when it voted for the appropriations bills that fund those services. It is a form of good government to ensure that we are regularly reviewing where money is being spent and to avoid duplication. I heard in the Leader of the Opposition’s speech a suggestion that in doing so that is somehow a reflection of poor fiscal management. So it leads me to presume that the counterfactual would be that – again, perish the thought that those opposite ever find themselves in the Treasury benches – they would never review government spending. They would allow government to grow and grow in perpetuity without any heed to the duplication that might exist across different functions of government. I think this is a worthwhile bill that streamlines government and makes sure that money is being spent where it is needed most – service delivery.

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (16:11): I would like to respond to the member for Greenvale, who questioned what we would cut. I can tell you what we would cut: we would not have strippers on Big Build sites. I reckon that we could clearly cut a few bucks out of doing that. I reckon that when you need to bring in strippers to motivate male construction workers just to turn up for their job, that would be a bloody good place to start, and it is a disgrace that you will not stand up for that and call it out.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member for Lowan to resume her seat.

Emma KEALY: We have got $15 billion of wasted money, corrupted money, that Labor are not taking any stand at all to cut out.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member should resume her seat when asked.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on the use of unparliamentary language, in that statement there was a curse that was pretty offensive.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I anticipate that this will be a heated contribution, and I ask people to be mindful of their language and keep things in a somewhat good manner.

Emma KEALY: I return to the legislation, but it is a pleasure to be able to respond to that, because we do not hide behind cutting out production. In fact we want to implement a royal commission to get to the bottom of it, to follow the money and to get those criminal bikie gangs, to get the CFMEU and to get other unions who donate to Labor to pay that money back. We must see those taxpayer dollars that have been corrupted and rorted paid back to the government as a matter of priority.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do not believe that we have heard mention of the bill as yet from the speaker on her feet, despite her previous objections.

Tim Bull: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, you determined in the previous contribution this was a wideranging debate, and the member just mentioned that she was referring to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Yes, it is incredibly wideranging.

Emma KEALY: Back in 2021, about five years ago, we saw the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System hand down its final report.

Michaela Settle interjected.

Emma KEALY: It was about five years ago, and I take up the member for Eureka, who is falsely claiming that we were against it. We were in joint –

Members interjecting.

Emma KEALY: I know exactly how I voted. I voted in support of every recommendation, and I ask the member not to interject if that would be all right. But we actually have supported them every step of the way. What is revealed in this legislation that is before us today is that the government is walking back key recommendations to make sure there is effective oversight on the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. This legislation specifically undoes recommendation 44, which was to establish the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I will quote what the royal commission said:

The Royal Commission recommends that the Victorian Government:

establish an independent statutory authority, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, to:

hold government to account for the performance and quality and safety of the mental health and wellbeing system;

support people living with mental illness or psychological distress, families, carers and supporters to lead and partner in the improvement of the system;

monitor the Victorian Government’s progress in implementing the Royal Commission’s recommendations; and

address stigma related to mental health.

The legislation before us today directly undoes the work that was put into the introduction of the original act back in 2022 and is exactly opposite to what the royal commission recommended the powers of the commission should be. This is reflected in the introduction of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill 2022. It actually states:

The Commission will be empowered to hold government to account for the performance, quality and safety of the mental health and wellbeing system; the implementation of recommendations made by the Royal Commission; and ensuring the mental health and wellbeing system supports and promotes the health and wellbeing of consumers, families, carers and supporters and the mental health and wellbeing workforce.

And yet, when we go through the amendments and the clauses that are in this legislation, it directly undoes the commission’s responsibilities and powers in relation to oversight of the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. In fact the clauses in effect flip the system so the commission now reports to the department rather than to the Parliament. We have a situation where the government are the ones who set out what should be the priorities of the commission, whose job was outlined to implement the royal commission’s recommendations, and instead the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission are neutered on many fronts to limit the amount of information that they can access.

It is not about just limiting the amount of information they can access, though, it is also limiting the amount of information that they publish. That is quite clear within the clauses. If anybody who has a passion for mental health could look at that, I recommend that you do, because it is deeply concerning. Clause 116 specifically says the commission’s monitoring and reporting function is limited. You look then to further in this clause and see that the commission’s function to advise and report to the Parliament and ministers is limited. We see this over and over again. We look at clause 131; it is designed to limit the commission’s obligation to include in its annual report a report on performance, quality and safety. It takes out all reference to implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. We look further down this clause: it removes the power for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to include any other information determined by the commission in its annual report, so the oversight body that is supposed to be monitoring government to ensure they are implementing the royal commission recommendations, which were to take place over 10 years, is now being cut five years into its reform.

This is why the mental health sector are so distressed and angry with the Allan Labor government. I remember being down at the Royal Exhibition Building when this report was tabled. There were people from across the mental health sector who were invited to be part of that. There were people with lived experience who had opened up – and some, with courage, for the very first time – to share their experiences of working within a mental health system that did not support them, that did not listen to them and where they did not feel heard. They were promised by the Labor government that they would be heard – that they would be front and centre of the reform of Victoria’s mental health system. But all we ever saw from Labor was an implementation of a new tax. We have seen now a walk-back so that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is a toothless tiger. It cannot even get information out of the department as it currently stands, and yet its powers are being further diminished through this legislation today.

We also look at how the commission can possibly work with a reduced number of commissioners, when it was highlighted by the then Minister for Mental Health how important it was that we had four voices on the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, including the voice of people with lived and living experience. This was also said about the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing – a co-chair position where there would be somebody who had experience in the sector, somebody with lived and living experience. All of those intentions and promises that were given to people with lived and living experience have now been dismissed by the government, which no longer prioritises mental health in this state. That is absolutely disgraceful, in my view, because you have let down Victorians who need support more than anything else. They need hope to know that when they need support they can access somebody. But instead in Victoria we see services diminish. We are seeing waitlists get longer for mental health and wellbeing support, particularly in rural and regional areas. We see the broken promises of Labor for mental health and wellbeing locals around the state. For me they were mental health and wellbeing locals for Horsham, Hamilton and Ararat that were promised.

We have not even got any money flowing through that yet. It is not designed. The interim regional boards that were established to provide a local voice to provide mental health support and guide government have been disbanded. We look at so many aspects where we were overpromised and government has underdelivered, and we now have a catastrophic outcome in that Victoria’s suicide rate is higher than ever. It is a shameful day in this Parliament that we have a government that would seek to diminish the oversight and the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations and actually remove reference to it in the governing legislation.

I am so sad for people within the mental health system, those who are now coming forward, because they have always been of the left, and they cannot see a pathway forward under this government. I urge the government to reconsider these sweeping cuts to the powers of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. We need to have a commission that reports to Parliament and that provides oversight over how we reform Victoria’s mental health system, but diminishing and taking away their powers and ensuring that they report to the department rather than have oversight of the government is an appalling disregard for what the royal commission found during their deliberations over what they heard from people who have worked in and experienced the sector. I urge the government to reconsider these drastic cuts, because you are not going to deliver the mental health and wellbeing system that Victoria needs and deserves if you go through with these drastic cuts to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (16:21): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise and make a contribution on this piece of legislation and indeed in favour of this piece of legislation. It has been a lively debate so far. I had the opportunity from my office in the annexe to listen to the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution at the beginning of this debate, the Leader of the Opposition that also insists that she is the Shadow Treasurer; I mean, it does not say much for the trust that she has in her teammates, does it? Given the given the absolute group of deadbeats that they are, I understand why she would keep the shadow treasury. I thought you might call a point of order at me for calling you deadbeats. But anyway, it is no surprise that she does not have any trust in her teammates.

It was a contribution – I will not say it was a pleasure to listen to it, because quite frankly, it was half an hour of utter dross. Not once did the Leader of the Opposition, who is debating a bill in her own portfolio, get anywhere near the substance of this piece of piece of legislation. Either she has not bothered to read it or be briefed on it, or she did not understand it. What is that line from Billy Madison? Everybody in the room is now dumber for having listened to it. It did not go anywhere near this piece of legislation. It was just a contribution that you may be able to get a couple of Instagram clips out of or send out on YouTube as a bit of an ad.

This piece of legislation is a responsible savings package that we can take to the budget to make sure that our spending as a state, as a proportion of gross state product, is in a good, proportionate place, as it should be, and that our budget stays healthy and that we remain in budget surplus, as the Treasurer delivered in May last year. But it is a responsible savings package that also makes sure that we keep frontline services and frontline workers funded exactly how they should be funded, because that is what Labor governments have always done. Labor governments build hospitals and hire nurses; they do not shut hospitals and sack nurses. Labor governments build schools – indeed 100 brand new schools. The member for Melton as part of his member statement earlier spoke about – was it the seventh school in five years?

Steve McGhie interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Five in 7 years. I think I have got more in Tarneit; I think I have had about six in the last four or five years.

Labor governments build schools and hire teachers and make sure that they are paid well and looked after and have good working conditions and good working hours – unlike the Liberal Party, who, every single time they get into government, close or amalgamate schools and sack frontline workers. This is a responsible savings package that does not go to any of that. It makes sure that those frontline services that Victorians rely on every single day are still fully funded so that we are providing Victorians exactly what they need and that those frontline workers that deliver those services are still employed, are still paid well and still have good working conditions. That is what this package does.

Whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or Shadow Treasurer or whatever hat she is wearing on any particular day, or the member for Lowan – regardless of who is making the contribution – I have not heard anybody explain to the house or explain to the Victorian people the cuts that they will make to fill the $11 billion budget black hole.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member on his feet has varied somewhat from the bill, and I ask you to bring him back to it.

Michaela Settle: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, as you have ruled, this has been a wideranging debate, and I think the member is within that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The debate so far has been wideranging, based on the opening contribution. However, members may like to start slowly –

Cindy McLeish: That doesn’t set the tone for the entire one; that just sets hers.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Thank you for your assistance, member for Eildon. Members may like to start moving back towards the debate, although it has been wideranging.

Dylan WIGHT: I feel like I am pretty close to the bill. I am certainly closer than the Leader of the Opposition, who told us what she had for dinner last night and went for half an hour on absolutely everything but the bill. But I will not digress too far.

As I said, this is a responsible savings package because this is a government that knows and wants to make sure that it is spending taxpayers money efficiently, effectively and responsibly. Obviously getting some of those public service employee numbers back towards pre-COVID levels is incredibly important. Obviously the public service increased during those years, and it is important through this responsible savings package to get back towards those pre-COVID levels. I spoke about making sure, obviously as a government – and all governments – making sure that spending is under control. You cannot just spend and spend and spend and spend and spend. Spending as a proportion of GSP has to be in a reasonable and proportionate place. What is helping that? Obviously this savings package will help that, but what is also helping that is that Victoria is the fastest growing economy anywhere in Australia.

Anybody that watches the news or reads the paper knows that Australia as a whole has a bit of an economic growth problem at the moment. Depending on who you would like to listen to, that could be because of productivity or it could be for some other outside reasons not pertaining to governments in Australia. But there is an economic growth problem in Australia – everywhere but Victoria. There are several things that we can bring that back to, but making sure that our spending is proportionate to our GSP is incredibly important, and having both this savings package and the incredibly strong economic growth and economy here in Victoria – with people in jobs and with projects happening, with all of that going on – is exactly how we do that.

As I said, our focus here in Victoria will remain on those core services that Victorians need, and they may be in health care. Out in my area in Tarneit the community is serviced by the Werribee Mercy Hospital. At the Werribee Mercy Hospital this government has invested over $100 million to completely rebuild the emergency department so it can take twice as many patients per year, and that will be open very shortly.

Obviously there is education as well – we are the Education State, we know that. Like I said, we build schools, we do not shut them. We hire teachers, we do not sack them. As I said, in my electorate we have several brand new schools, but we have also upgraded schools in Hoppers Crossing, which is a more established area in my electorate – Hoppers Crossing Secondary, The Grange and Mossfiel Primary School – because we know that infrastructure matters when it comes to education and that kids need to be able to go to world-class educational facilities to learn every day, because the environment that kids learn in matters. We know that as a government; they do not. Between 2010 and 2014 Tarneit was exploding as a population – not one new school and not one school upgrade under those opposite. Now they like to trot themselves out to the west and pretend that they care. They have never cared, and they never will.

Of course cost-of-living support is incredibly important to this government, whether that be free public transport for kids under the age of 18 or seniors on the weekends or whether that be school breakfast clubs. In so many schools in my electorate every single student eats breakfast at school because for so many of them, if they did not get breakfast at school, they would not have breakfast and they would go hungry.

This is a government that is focused on what matters to Victorians – education, health care and cost-of-living support – whilst those opposite are just sitting in shadow cabinet dreaming up what they can cut if they ever get the gift of government ever again.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:32): I would also like to make a contribution on the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. As others have canvassed, the bill sets out to demolish, gut or merge public entities which play crucial roles particularly in protecting our natural environment and overseeing our mental health system, and they are the two elements that I am going to focus on in my speech today. We have heard government members talking about this bill reducing duplication across government, clarifying roles and responsibilities in the public sector or streamlining reporting requirements, but really, instead of achieving these aims, the bill will actually make the government and polluters less accountable. I want to talk a little bit about that and some of the concerns that we have with it.

The bill abolishes several independent expert environmental bodies, and this will weaken Victoria’s environmental framework and policy, it will weaken our knowledge base and it will weaken environmental protection in our state. It means that decisions about how to protect public land will often now be left entirely to political whims and political decision-making rather than independent bodies, and I think that is something that we should all be concerned about, particularly those who do care about protecting our natural environment. In the mental health space it will silence the voices of people with lived experience in shaping our mental health system. I understand that Labor wants to claw back a few million dollars, particularly ahead of an election, but the long-term implications of cutting these essential and independent agencies will have far-reaching implications for Victoria for generations to come, and I think that they are short-sighted.

I will start by talking about the bill’s attacks on the environmental bodies, because the state of Victoria’s environment is dire at the moment. We are in an extinction crisis. Up to one-third of our plants, birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals are threatened with extinction. The last Victorian nature report card, the state of the environment report, shows things are actually just getting worse. Over 80 per cent of our biodiversity indicators, in that report, were assessed as poor or unknown. That is a pretty horrific number: 80 per cent of our biodiversity indicators are either poor or unknown. That should be a warning sign to the government, not a sign to gut or disband our environmental agencies. The bill will merge or abolish the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council, Recycling Victoria and the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority. Unfortunately, we have seen lots of attacks on nature over the last little while by this government. Since 2023 the Labor government has sacked hundreds of core staff members across the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, across Parks Victoria and across the Victorian Fisheries Authority. It also meant cutting more than 100 forest and bushfire staff across the state in 2024.

We have also seen Labor ignore or reject key environmental inquiries – for example, Labor’s own duck-hunting inquiry or the independent review into the Wildlife Act 1975, which was shelved and never released – and they still have not responded to the parliamentary inquiry into biodiversity decline, despite it being several years overdue. Now as part of the Silver review it seems Labor wants to cut another 350 jobs from DEECA, targeting Agriculture Victoria, Solar Victoria, the First Peoples Group and bushfire and forest services. And then this bill will abolish four core nature bodies. I do not think this is just about cutting fat; I think we are actually now cutting into the bone of our environmental protection agencies.

The government also plans to get rid of rid of Sustainability Victoria. Unfortunately, that will not require new legislation; they can do that on their own. But that is a 20-year old body that delivers really practical programs to help schools, businesses and households reduce energy use and waste. I am sure many of the members in this place have benefited. Their schools have benefited from the ResourceSmart Schools program and other programs that Sustainability Victoria runs. We also know that the government is considering abolishing the Scientific Advisory Committee, the Gippsland Lakes Coordinating Committee, the National Parks Advisory Council and the Reference Areas Advisory Committee.

I think this is something that all fair-minded Victorians who care about protecting our environment should be very concerned about. It is not just the Greens who are saying that today; four major nature advocates went out and condemned this bill as well as Labor’s future plans. The Victorian National Parks Association, the Wilderness Society, Environmental Justice Australia and the Victorian Protected Areas Council have all come out calling on the government to scrap this legislation and to retain these vital environmental bodies that have protected nature in Victoria for decades.

Let us talk about the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, or VEAC. The bill would abolish VEAC and transfer its functions to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria. VEAC has been around for 50 years. It has been an expert voice on creating new national parks and protected areas. It is where the government refers plans to an expert body that can actually do the work to come back and recommend which areas should be protected and do that detailed work. It was instrumental in the creation of Gariwerd national park in the Grampians, Alpine National Park, the box–ironbark national parks, red gum parks, marine national parks and of course the new central west parks that were recently put into legislation. Now Labor plans to abolish this independent council of experts and replace them with a single government staff member. And no shade on the commissioner – I am sure she does a fantastic job in so many areas; I have met with her a number of times, and I very much respect her work – but it should not be a replacement for this independent body of experts that has a real track record in doing really important work when it comes to recommending protected areas.

The bill also removes key provisions like the mandatory duty for departments to act in accordance with government-accepted recommendations and leaves hundreds of gazetted areas in a kind of legal limbo. It weakens our knowledge base, it weakens transparency and it reduces community input. Fundamentally, removing VEAC leaves vital decisions on the management of public land down to short-term political pressure rather than expert advice, and we have seen recently that Labor has fallen prey to these small groups of vested interests, who have had disproportionate influence over environmental policy. If you just look at their decision not to ban duck hunting, even though Labor’s own inquiry said that we should ban it, and the abandonment of new national parks in some of the previously forested areas, these are small groups of vested interests having disproportionate impact over Labor policy. I think that that is poor government, and we do not want to see any more of it.

One of the other bodies that this bill seeks to get rid of is the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council. This was created under an act in 2018 to provide independent advice on marine and coastal issues to the Minister for Environment. Now, eight years later, Labor seems to think it has finished its job.

The bill leaves Victoria with no dedicated voice to hold the government accountable on things like coastal erosion, algal blooms, gas decommissioning, oil spills and the climate impact on Victoria’s coasts. The spokesperson for the Victorian Protected Areas Council Geoff Wescott came out and said:

A new Marine and Coastal Strategy is due next year and the very body that has historically had carriage of this critical implementation report has just been removed. Its disappearance risks gutting the entire Marine and Coastal Act.

The government appears to be scared of independent expert advice and community input. It has politicised the public service to the extent that they are probably afraid to give independent advice and yet single individuals in the public service have been tasked with highly political roles under the intended changes.

I think that that is pretty damning and pretty concerning. It has material impacts, getting rid of independent advice, and it carries real risks. We recently saw South Australia get hit by an absolutely devastating algal bloom, and if an algal bloom like this hits Victoria’s oceans, which unfortunately, with the way climate change is going, is not a small risk, and there is no independent expert body to look into it, to provide advice, we might see the kinds of alleged cover-ups that we have seen in South Australia, where there has been really very little action or investigation of that algal bloom.

We are seeing these huge impacts on our coasts due to climate change – not just bushfires but flash flooding on the Great Ocean Road and coastal erosion in places like Inverloch. We have also seen Labor invite gas companies to drill in our marine and coastal environments off the Otways and off the Gippsland Basin. So we are seeing a lot of pressures on our coastal environment from mining, from climate change, from new developments, from illegal fishing, from erosion, and yet Labor wants to get rid of the independent voice that holds the government accountable on environmental issues.

The other body that the government wants to get rid of is the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority. It wants to transfer some of those functions to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, DEECA. The point of, as we understood it, setting up the MLRA in Morwell in 2020 was to have an independent, trusted local body working alongside the community in the rehabilitation of mines. As we understand it, they have done a great job in those 5½ years. But the job has only just started – has not finished yet – and Victoria has not even started shutting down the final three polluting brown coal mines in the Latrobe Valley, much less begun rehabilitating those mine sites. It is going to be a huge job, and losing the MLRA’s independence, their dedicated local staff members and those relationships that they hold could be devastating for the Latrobe Valley. You cannot simply take the trust built and then just replace it with DEECA here in Melbourne. Rehabilitating those mines will be a very long and difficult process. It will mean significant impacts on the local community and their environment. Just think about the phenomenal amount of water that is going to be needed to fill those mines as well.

While we are talking about environmental agencies and water, I actually want to make some comments about an issue that is coming up a lot in my electorate related to water use, which is data centres. It is something that we have not had a chance to canvass here in the house but is very much related to some of the issues that are coming up in this bill. Right now Victoria already has around 57 data centres. In November Jacinta Allan, the Premier, announced that she wanted Victoria to be Australia’s ‘data centre centre’. But there does not seem to be any kind of interrogation about whether it is a good idea for the government to approve dozens of power- and water-hungry data centres in the middle of our cities and across our regions and what the cost of this would be to our communities. Data centres require enormous quantities of water and energy – water and energy that they drain from our rivers and our grid here in Victoria. In other places governments often require these big overseas tech companies to build their own renewable energy alongside the data centre so it is not putting a huge burden on the existing power supply and to create their own infrastructure to use recycled water. But here in Victoria we are not asking the big tech companies and billionaires to do that. In fact at the moment these facilities are only able to use drinking water from our rivers, which are already under huge pressure and only going to be more so. Even New South Wales requires data centres to invest in their own water and energy infrastructure, but not here in Victoria. Why?

The Victorian Labor government is also letting huge data centres take up precious space in the middle of our biggest city. NEXTDC is currently planning Australia’s largest data centre in Fishermans Bend, which is just a couple of kilometres away from the CBD. Why would we give prime inner-city land to data centres when we are in the middle of a housing crisis? Maybe AI chatbots and Mark Zuckerberg’s weird virtual avatars can live in data centres, but real, actual humans cannot. They need real, actual homes. And rapid growth in data centres also risks slowing our transition to clean energy, because even though we have increased renewable energy supply here in Victoria, our coal consumption and use – the burning of coal – has not actually decreased as quickly as it should have. In part that is due to the incredible increase in energy demand that exists in Victoria, including through these big data centres. The predicted surge in data centres even forced the Albanese Labor government to revise and downgrade its already weak climate targets, which seems kind of unbelievable but is actually true. And the thing is, there are not even a lot of jobs in data centres. The Labor government here seems to be chasing this short-term sugar hit, trying to attract big overseas tech companies to come to Victoria. But once the ribbon is cut on these data centres there are hardly any jobs in them, so why are we letting them take our precious inner-city prime land? Why are we letting them use our drinking water and put incredible pressure on our energy system, for big overseas tech billionaires to make mega profits when Victorians seem to get very little benefit in return? I do not think we should be sacrificing our drinking water, our energy and our prime inner-city land just to supplement the profits of big tech billionaires.

These are the kinds of decisions that are being made here in Victoria, and we have very little independent oversight because we are gutting so many of our environmental agencies. Another agency that is being deleted from Victoria is Recycling Victoria. That is supposedly being rolled into the Environment Protection Authority. It seems the government has already forgotten that Recycling Victoria was established to overcome the purported inefficiency of the old system and to streamline the role of state government agencies and improve system-wide leadership and oversight of the waste and recycling sector. In 2021 Recycling Victoria replaced the previous seven WRRGs, the waste and resource recovery groups, which coordinated and facilitated the delivery of waste and recycling across their regions, and each of these groups had its own board, its own staff and its own approach to working with local councils and businesses. According to the government back then this system created confusion amongst recycling businesses and councils and was ill equipped to respond to the global challenges facing the waste and recycling sector, and it required a streamlined approach and statewide policy goals. But by rolling Recycling Victoria into the EPA – and I assume we are asking the EPA to do more with fewer resources – the government risks enfeebling Recycling Victoria’s core purpose: to oversee the waste, recycling and resource recovery sector and support the development of a circular economy, so we remain really concerned about getting rid of this group.

In my final few minutes I want to talk not just about the environment but about the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is also under attack and being removed in this bill. Following the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System the commission was legislated into existence to hold the government accountable for the performance, safety and quality of the mental health system and the rights of people affected by mental illness. Alarmingly, the bill will reduce the number of its commissioners from four to one, and this comes in the wake of the government slashing the commission’s funding in last May’s budget. At the time the commission’s chair, Commissioner Treasure Jennings, said that this reduced level of funding, alongside the plan to cut the number of mental health commissioners, would make it impossible for the organisation to do the work it was established to do less than two years ago. And to make matters worse, the bill also removes all requirements for lived-experience representation on the board of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing. This board was set up in response to an interim recommendation of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and it was set up to:

… drive exemplary practice for the full and effective participation and inclusion of people with lived experience across the mental health system …

Just a few years on from that royal commission it is pretty disheartening to see that the government is already turning its back on those recommendations that it once said were incredibly important and that it wholeheartedly supported. Now it seems that they do not support them anymore, just two years later.

We need a strong, independent, well-resourced public service to hold the government to account, to provide frank, fearless and independent advice, to listen to the experts and to ensure that our government meets the needs of our communities not just now but into the future, when we consider the environment.

There are really clear, practical ways to raise the revenue we need to fund a good life for everyone without capitulating to the short-term politics of quick-fix solutions like cutting these important agencies. There are solutions that are on the table. We have put many solutions on the table – a big bank tax, for example, maybe slicing off a little, tiny bit of the profits that some of our biggest banks make to fund the things that we all need. There are other ways that we could charge polluters more, for example, to pay for the damage that they cause to nature to fund some of these agencies. We do not think that the way that the government is cutting some really important agencies, which are independent and are filled with experts, in favour of rolling them into the department and into the public service is the right way to go about it.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:51): I want to pick up on a point about data centres. There is one in Port Melbourne called Equinix. I visited Equinix with the Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for Climate Action. They have actually deployed 1 megawatt of rooftop solar. They also have mechanisms for allowing airflow underneath. They pre-emptively took advantage of the Victorian energy upgrades program, so I hope that allays some concerns, because actually our government is very conscious of cutting emissions and costs. Equinix has taken advantage of the government’s Victorian energy upgrades program. I just want to allay some of the concerns raised by the member for Melbourne, and I thank her for raising the issue for the chamber, because it is very good to be able to allay some of those concerns right here and now.

There were also matters raised about the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. Should the bill be approved in its current form, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission would move to a single-commissioner model. Moving to a single-commissioner model is about sharper accountability and clearer leadership. It reduces duplication and strengthens responsibility. I do want to go a little further to some of the specific concerns raised. It does not remove the commission’s powers, independence or oversight functions. The commission will continue to report to Parliament, because it was alleged, I think by the member for Lowan, that this aspect would be taken away, so I am just allaying concerns. That is the point of debate, that we can actually discuss these matters. The commission will continue to report to Parliament, publish findings and hold government and services to account, as it rightly should. The commission will continue to have, as part of its legislated functions, a leading role in developing and elevating lived experience into leadership through the sector.

There were further, can I say, allegations that somehow we had walked away from our commitment to the recommendations of the royal commission. I must say that nothing could be further from the truth. When you look at our government’s record, no other jurisdiction is doing as much to reform the mental health system as Victoria. We are not wasting a minute building a system that works for all Victorians, no matter where they live. We have already delivered significant reforms to grow our workforce, deliver new acute beds and new services, improve infrastructure and embed lived and living experience across our reform work.

I had the pleasure of seeing some of that in my electorate as well, in the Albert Road clinic. It has actually got another acronym, but anyway, it is in Albert Road. I visited there with the Minister for Mental Health. Certainly having those with lived experience, that peer-to-peer health focus, is very healing. You get that feedback directly from those who are receiving that care, so it is certainly very much being embedded into our mental health system.

If we are looking at the key achievements – because I do want to counter some of the concerns raised by those opposite – more than $600 million has been invested to support, retain and grow this important workforce, commissioning 2500 FTE since 2021. We have delivered more than 170 acute beds for adults, young people, women, older Victorians and Hospital in the Home beds. When it comes to capital, we have established a Mental Health Capital Renewal Fund, which received another $10 million in the 2025–26 budget.

The commission said we need a dedicated hub in each region, and we have gone further. Five alcohol and other drug and mental health hubs are already operational around the state, with another eight in the pipeline. So I really thank the opposition for raising this issue, because we can actually speak to those matters delivered. It is actually very helpful of them.

More than $140 million has been delivered to put consumers and carers front and centre of reforms. We have delivered 22 locals across 24 locations, supported over 32,000 Victorians with free, easy-to-access mental health care and support close to home without needing a GP referral or Medicare card. We expanded multidisciplinary social and emotional wellbeing teams to Aboriginal community controlled organisations across Victoria and awarded 63 scholarships to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students undertaking undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications in mental health related disciplines. We have delivered three children’s locals, we are delivering a youth prevention and recovery care centre in every region and we are undertaking foundational reforms, including age streaming and improving Headspace integration.

As you can see, contrary to some of the concerns raised by those opposite, we are absolutely and fundamentally committed to continuing to roll out mental health reform in this state, and it is already well underway. I do think it was a little bit rich the member for Lowan questioning our position on this when in fact those opposite did not want to pay for it. It was all very well to say, ‘Yes, we support mental health, but we don’t want to pay for it.’ So, yes, I found that to be a little bit rich.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Albert Park needs to be factual. She is misleading the house at the moment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): That is a matter for debate. She is responding to points of debate raised by a previous member.

Nina TAYLOR: Anyway, I was just speaking to support for the levy, which was backing in the mental health reforms. Those opposite were not keen to support that. I am just putting facts on the table. Anyway, that is the purpose of the debate.

When you look at where Victoria is at, there are more frontline services for Victorians than before the pandemic. Compared to 2019, there are 671 more police and protective services officers, an increase of 4.1 per cent, an extra 3890 teachers in our government school system, an increase of 9 per cent, and an extra 10,282 nurses and midwives, an increase of more than 30 per cent. I guess the fundamental question for the chamber is: what would happen with those opposite when it comes to delivering or cutting? This is what we are really talking about here when we are fundamentally looking at these issues. I know the Leader of the Opposition has already put forward freezing government fees, changes to stamp duty for first home buyers, repealing the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, abolishing the short-stay accommodation levy and introducing a payroll exemption for high-fee non-government schools. The issue is: how will that be paid for? And this is –

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this has been a reasonably wide debate. However, the member for Albert Park has veered a very, very long way and is now going on some completely other tangent. I would ask you to, at least in the last 2½ minutes –

Michaela Settle interjected.

Cindy McLeish: No, I’m still going. You can’t stand up while I am still going. No, I’m not going to finish. I’m going to wait for you to sit down.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member for Eildon to continue.

Cindy McLeish: I have lost my train of thought now. She has not mentioned the bill at all. I ask the member now to actually concentrate on the bill in the last 2 minutes.

Michaela Settle: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, we listened to the lead speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, who failed to mention the bill until 15 minutes in and set up what is a wideranging debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): It is a wideranging debate. We are trying to creep back towards the bill after a wideranging opening contribution, and I ask the member for Albert Park to assist me in that.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for your guidance. I would proffer that I have been speaking to what the bill will deliver with regard to mental health reforms, so that is speaking to the bill. I just put that out there for consideration, because there were contrary arguments put as to what might occur were this bill to go ahead. That is why I had to speak to that issue, speaking specifically to elements of the bill and the reforms we have in front of us, just to be really clear on that front.

Another thing I did want to state is that there were points made about our police force, and I would like to say that we actually have more police in Victoria than any other state. We can factor in an investment of $4.5 billion, increasing police by 3600. The opposition leader did speak to this matter, and that is why I am rebutting the matter, and the member might want to hear back the speech of the opposition leader to note why this is relevant to the current discussion. I will say with Taskforce Hawk, this has resulted in more than 70 charges laid against 15 alleged offenders so far, so to suggest that nothing has been done is absolutely incorrect and wrong and false. On that note I do commend these changes to the house.

One final note that I did want to say is economist Saul Eslake said in the Australian Financial Review on 4 February 2026:

It’s not a good look for the opposition to be advocating cutting government spending and then opposing individual measures that are intended to cut costs.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (17:01): I am very pleased to rise to make a contribution to the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025, and I guess the title says it all: it is about consolidation. I think what we need to consider here is the origin of this bill. What is happening? What is the backdrop? What is the context here? The government commissioned Helen Silver AO to conduct a review of Victoria’s public service, beginning 20 February 2025, virtually 12 months ago, to be completed by 30 June, and we know that the government sat on it for a very long time before it was finally released on 4 December. In the meantime, around budget time there was an interim report that was delivered. Why was this report commissioned? We had a government with debt spiralling out of control; the government had no idea what to do, how to curb it. Spending also was not controlled. Costs were rising, and in the absence of knowing what to do, because taxes and fees and charges had been increased beyond belief, the government had to start looking for cuts and looking in its own backyard.

I want to draw the house’s attention to what the Premier said at the time when that review was introduced. She said the review, led by Helen Silver AO, will ‘zero in on waste and inefficiency’. What a laughable matter that is at the moment, when we have $15 billion of money that has been funnelled into organised crime gangs and syndicates and outlaw motorbike gangs – that we have had $15 billion channelled down that way into these illegal organisations and illegal activities and the government was looking to channel here into the waste and inefficiency in the public sector. The Premier then went on to say that this is what we need to do to have good schools, good hospitals and safe communities and to help with the cost of living. I put it to the Premier and to everybody else on the government benches that if they want to tackle waste and inefficiency, owning up to the $15 billion that has been channelled into the wrong areas would be a good start, because we know waste and inefficiency are not areas of priority for the government, and they should be.

In the backdrop of what was happening in the economic context of Victoria and how sad the state has been, the Premier commissioned the review by Helen Silver, and some of the things that we found in this report were no surprise. It is very complex; in fact it is overly complex. It is very fragmented. The public service is top heavy, and there are more than 500 public entities and thousands of boards and committees. What does this mean? This means a lot of duplication and slow decision-making. We hear it all the time about the way the bureaucracy moves – that when you have got level on level of different parts of an organisation and government and reporting mechanisms, it does slow things down. The Silver report looked at savings of about $5 billion, and that is only a third at best of what has been rorted on the Big Build sites. The government say that they have planned to implement the majority of the recommendations from the Silver review, and this in fact was the first tranche. What we understand is that seven recommendations are being acquitted here. The bill amends some 26 different acts, so it is quite significant from that point of view. It is also looking at abolishing six entities, Recycling Victoria among them.

I want to draw the house’s attention again to the fanfare when Recycling Victoria came into being. The minister for environment at the time, on 27 October, really talked it up, and now here we are. Recycling Victoria started on 1 July 2022, so only a few years ago, and now this bill brings about the abolition of the head of Recycling Victoria and confers relevant functions to the EPA. That has significant ramifications. I think the government may well have been better advised to bring Helen Silver on at the time, when they were implementing agency after agency and new departments, to ask: actually what will the consequences be, and how will that play out economically for the public sector and the decision-making processes? We have got Sustainability Victoria, we have got Recycling Victoria and we have got the EPA, and a lot of these functions seem to get on top of each other. I think the government really should have a look at what they are doing and analyse the implications for that prior to doing some of these things.

There are a number of other entities being abolished – the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council. The Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority is being abolished and subsumed by the state. The Victorian Public Sector Commission advisory board is being abolished. The government purchasing board is going to be abolished and subsumed by other areas. The road safety camera commissioner is also going. There has already been some debate that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is going to have a reduction in the number of commissioners. The member for Albert Park can try and paint that in every light that she can; however, the reality is there will be a reduction of the number of commissioners. It did not specify how many it was going to be reduced to, and there were other changes. Some of these things were part of the Silver recommendations. The changes being made to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission go beyond what was identified by the Silver review, and there are a number of other changes that are being made here that were not subject to the Silver review – the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing, which I have touched on, the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, the Essential Services Commission, the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser and Parks Victoria, where we are seeing some staff transferred.

There are a couple of things that I do want to mention, and as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we will be moving some textual amendments in the other place around the Essential Services Commission. We want to see that they retain the rate-capping and commercial passenger vehicle advisory roles. We think that is important. With regard to the mental health and wellbeing commissioners, we would like to see those retained as well – and the Victorian Government Purchasing Board. I just want to touch base firstly on the Essential Services Commission. Removing the independent umpire from scrutinising potential council rate and commercial passenger vehicle charge increases runs the risk of vested interests hiking costs on Victorian residents and consumers by going direct to government. The removal of their advisory role in the establishment of local government rate caps could undermine community confidence in the rate-capping framework, and these ESC changes were not in the Silver review.

As has been canvassed, the changes to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing do not have the support of the sector and go against key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. Government can talk up all they want what they are doing in mental health; we are not seeing a lot of outcomes there at all.

This bill here diminishes the importance of lived experience, so those that have had mental illness and psychological distress or been a family member or carer, in responding to important mental health challenges and reverses a relationship between the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the government so that the government now will be sitting in judgement on the work of the commission. I am not sure what the former minister James Merlino would think about some of this, because he was very, very strong in his advocacy here.

This diminishing of the role of the ESC and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner and the abolition of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board are examples of the government’s determination to avoid independent scrutiny. We have seen that this week with the Premier’s comments about IBAC. We know they do not have the powers that are needed. We know they need greater teeth and powers to follow the money, and the Premier wants to ignore these facts and ignore that they are underfunded. I think that the government could do a lot more in this space.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (17:11): I too rise today to speak to the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I do so knowing that this is absolutely in line with our state Labor government’s priority of delivering high-quality public services but in a financially responsible manner. It does so following the government’s commissioning of an independent review, the well-known Silver review, which zeroed in on the ways our government can better ensure that the public sector delivers its essential services while reducing some inefficiencies that may be within it. We called for the review and the review has given its report, and now we are trying to streamline delivery of those services with those world-class efficiencies.

The review found that some entities’ functions overlap with the existing work of core departments or they are no longer required. So this bill will acquit recommendations from that review and implement savings committed to in the 2025–26 budget that aim to improve effectiveness in government spending so that we can invest in those things that matter most to Victorians. I know that my constituents in the fantastic electorate of Narre Warren South want not only a government that is effective but a government that is pragmatic and fiscally responsible as well – one that manages money wisely while investing in and strengthening the essential services that Victorians rely on each and every single day. They expect steady, sensible leadership that builds up our frontline health, education and community services.

Certainly in the time that I have been in this place, Narre Warren South has seen brand new hospitals, brand new schools in the area, new trains, level crossing removals and a vast amount of public infrastructure, including new freeway builds in the outer south-east. These are the sorts of things that are being delivered whilst we are putting these pragmatic, fiscally responsible reductions in place. The public service should be focused entirely on providing Victorians with good schools, good health care, safe communities and real help with the cost of living.

One thing we do know is that there will not be reckless frontline cuts like we have seen in the past from others – cuts that we know the opposition need to fill that massive budget black hole of theirs, one that they have created. Importantly, frontline workers are excluded from the scope of this review. Unlike those opposite, we will never cut nurses, we will never cut teachers, we will never cut police officers or child protection workers. Where possible, we will always prioritise better use of resources, we will reduce duplication and we will realign policy and program functions to ensure priorities are delivered to the highest possible standard, rather than reducing staff.

We will be able to consult with staff and their unions, and this will be taken undertaken by the relevant department if any staff impacts occur as a result of a proposal. The government’s priority is to ensure continuity, clarity and confidence throughout the process for staff, partners and the Victorian public.

We know that Victorians rely on the public sector and essential frontline services. That has been made very clear to all of us, whether that is the teachers that help our kids learn, police officers to keep our communities safe or nurses who support us in times of need. At this point I would like to thank all our hardworking public sector staff across my community and of course throughout Victoria. But I reiterate that the changes in this bill do not cut these frontline workers. They do not cut those frontline services. This is about getting back to basics and focusing on the services that matter most to working families.

Tim Bull: They’re cutting my local DEECA offices in Bairnsdale – they’re gone.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Order! Member for Gippsland East!

Gary MAAS: Well, we know what plan those opposite would have, and that it claims to repair Victoria’s budget and reduce debt. But we all know what the plan is, and that plan we know is code for cuts in frontline services instead of sensible savings like those that are contained in this bill. We have got your track record. We have seen their track record before.

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: Well, let us talk. Let us remember cuts to schools.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Order! Member for Gippsland East!

Gary MAAS: Let us remember cuts to hospital. Let us remember cuts to TAFE. We have seen that. But in fact this government has built over 100 new schools. We have built a hundred in the last two terms. This year we built one in my community, in the great suburb of Cranbourne North, one of the greatest growing suburbs in Victoria. We have upgraded and built state-of-the-art hospitals. How great is the new Cranbourne Community Hospital? Let us include an expansion to Casey Hospital in my electorate and further works on the way for a new emergency department as well. And we do not cut TAFE, we actually make it free.

These are the things that this responsible bill will continue to allow – that free TAFE policy, there have been more than 225,000 students who have benefited from that since it began in 2019, getting the skills they want, getting them for free and contributing to the Victorian economy. Those opposite have talked a lot and have so far announced at least $11.1 billion in unfunded commitments, and we know what that means: a real budget black hole that requires explanation.

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: Oh, I am coming to that. Just wait your turn. But they have given no indication as to how their announcements will be funded, nor have they fessed up to the fact that to fund these measures they will have to cut essential services.

Jade Benham interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Mildura, you are up next.

Gary MAAS: It is possible that they do not have a plan because they are too busy fighting with themselves. I actually heard the member for Mildura on the radio yesterday fighting about One Nation and what that might mean for her party, for the coalition.

Jade Benham: Yes – and what did I say? Don’t leave things out, now.

Gary MAAS: Well, the question was put to you. The question was put to them –

Jade Benham: And what did I say?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Order! Member for Mildura!

Gary MAAS: Well, you are getting very touchy. The member for Mildura is getting very touchy, kicking the can down the road. We all know what you are going to do. We all know what the coalition is going to do when it comes to One Nation.

While they are doing this, we are leading a really strong economy in Victoria, one which ensures that we can continue investing in the things that actually matter to Victorians. The budget at the end of 2025 confirmed this. The economy is forecast to grow by 2.25 per cent this financial year, supported by business investment that has grown faster than any other state over the past three years. Victoria itself continues to lead the nation in job creation, with more than 300,000 jobs that have been added over the past three years. Unemployment is at 4.7 per cent, a historic low. And just out of interest, just in today’s Guardian –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Member for Gippsland East!

Gary MAAS: If I can quote economist Saul Eslake, an eminent, well-respected economist – hardly one that we would normally quote on this side of the chamber – when he talks about costs in construction between states and nationally, he points to Victoria as being cheaper than New South Wales and the national figure. That was between December 2014 and September 2025; Victoria comes in as the lowest when you compare that to New South Wales and to the national figure. So I am not quite sure where this $15 billion comes from, because it certainly has not added to inflationary pressure in the state of Victoria.

There is a difference between responsible economic management and an opposition that is offering wild and crazy cuts that would impact and hurt families across the board. It is really simple: we build; they cut. I commend this bill to the house.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:21): If I did not laugh, I would cry, honestly, hearing terms from the other side like ‘fiscally responsible’, ‘world-class efficiencies’, ‘reckless frontline–’. The only thing that is reckless –

A member interjected.

Jade BENHAM: The recklessness from the other side is reckless incompetence and the inability to use calculators. You do have to give those on the other side one thing. They are all on message, and they are all singing from the same hymnbook and ignoring the biggest scandal in Victoria’s history: that $15 billion has been funnelled into the pockets of bikies and organised crime on government worksites, those government worksites that the member for Narre Warren South was just talking about – schools, trains, infrastructure. Meanwhile, the regions are going without. So please do not lecture us in this place about being fiscally responsible and ignore what has been coming out in this state in the last week.

Like I said, if I did not laugh, I would cry because of the state of Victoria at the moment, particularly in the regions, which are really doing it tough. Within this bill we are talking about the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which was mentioned by the member for Lowan earlier and the member for Eildon only a few moments ago. I would not call it a talent; it must be quite a trait to have when you can stand up and pretend that there is nothing to see here, and meanwhile Victorians and families cannot get the mental health support they need. This bill continues to give the finger to the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. Recommendation 44 was to establish that statutory authority, and this bill undermines that. The restructure of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission reduces the number of commissioners from four to one as well as amending the commissioner’s role, expected qualifications and reporting arrangements.

I will tell you why we are so passionate about this. I have had a family in my office this week. This is certainly not the first one this year even; I have dealt with this system time and time again from a carer’s point of view. The failure of local and regional mental health systems is already at breaking point, and this government has done very little to meet the recommendations of the mental health royal commission, which is an absolute shame and disgrace in this state. When I have people coming into my office in tears, crying because they cannot get the support that they need in the regions, I have to sit there and tell them, ‘Well, that same government is also now cutting that commission that was put in place to improve things for Victorians.’ That is what we are faced with in the regions.

I am going to tell you a story about Ian, because giving these cuts real-life context is really important. I had Ian’s family come into the office. They told me that over the past at least 28 days – but it probably started around November, post surgery – the family repeatedly sought help as they watched Ian’s mental health deteriorate to the point where he was no longer able to care for himself. Despite multiple presentations to Mildura Base Public Hospital’s emergency department – on the first one he presented himself because he recognised that he was unwell, and there was also ongoing contact with mental health services, police welfare checks and GP involvement – no effective treatment plan or continuity of care was ever provided. Over the continuing weeks what followed was an alarming pattern of inaction and responsibility shifting, despite the clear signs of paranoia, delusion, agitation and inability to self-care, even absconding behaviour in extreme heat – and we have had in excess of two weeks over 40 degrees – and complete reliance on family members for 24-hour supervision. The mental health services had to repeatedly decline to intervene. Family carers were told to manage him at home; Ian lives alone. They were advised to focus on ‘self-care’ and instructed only to return to emergency if they could no longer cope.

They came to me because they could no longer cope and could not get the support and help that they needed. Mental health services refused to act without MRI results, then they failed to intervene even once after those results were obtained and showed no abnormalities. The family was told that it would be unsafe to admit Ian and yet was given no alternative pathway to help. At no point was there ever a treatment plan, an outpatient support plan or any meaningful duty of care established, and the toll that has taken on family members has been incredibly immense. So to tell them that I can raise this, I can certainly ask questions, I can reach out to the minister, but guess what, this government, this coming sitting week, is actually going to amend the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and take those commissioners down to one, which completely undermines the work of the royal commission once again – and we see this time and time and time again.

The email that I originally received made some excellent, articulate points:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

This situation raises serious concerns about how people experiencing severe mental illness are managed in regional Victoria.

This is not unique to my electorate; this happens all over the regions and no doubt in the city also. It goes on to say:

It raises concerns about how people who are experiencing severe mental illness are managed in regional Victoria, particularly when they do not neatly meet admission thresholds but are clearly unsafe and deteriorating.

And the author requested that I raise the broader concerns about access to timely mental health care in Mildura and similar regional communities, because, as the member for Lowan stated earlier, suicide rates in this state are at an all-time high. So for this government to flick the finger to the royal commission and do this to the sector – and meanwhile the sector are screaming out for more support; they are incredibly upset and have been for a long time – is just mind-blowing. Meanwhile we have members in this place talking about how they are not going to cut frontline services through this bill. While we have $15 billion of taxpayer money going into the pockets of bikies and organised crime, there are some efficiencies that we can certainly use.

That is why when I got up to speak on this bill, first of all, I said you have to laugh because otherwise you would cry. And I did cry with Ian’s family last week, because it is a simple fact that the regions and the people simply do not matter to this government. They simply do not, and that is illustrated every single day. We see it every single day.

That is why we get so passionate – I will use the term ‘passionate’ – listening to the debates that come from the other side. I get that it must be very, very hard to stick to the message and read from the talking points when they do not believe them themselves. Because I tell you what, if they believe what is coming out of their mouths half the time, then we have a bigger problem than we originally anticipated, because they are blatantly misleading and gaslighting the Victorian public, and they know it. The anger on the ground is palpable – absolutely palpable. When you actually get out into your communities and talk to people, the anger on the ground is at boiling point. Is it any wonder there are fringe parties trying to make a play to oust this rotten, stinking Labor government in Victoria?

 Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (17:31): I also rise to make a contribution on the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. It is a piece of legislation that will reform a number of different agencies in the public sector. Before I go on to that, I do want to respond to some of the claims that were made by the member for Mildura, particularly in relation to this government’s treatment of mental health. Do we need to do more on mental health? Absolutely. This is why we look back on the royal commission, which recognised that we have a huge problem and that we need to do a lot more.

Since the royal commission was announced and started to be implemented, we have invested more than any other government in mental health support, particularly at the front line. We have invested more than $600 million to support, retain and grow the workforce, commissioning 2500 FTE employees since 2021. We have delivered more than 170 acute beds for adults, young people, women, older Victorians and Hospital in the Home. That includes some additional mental health beds at Box Hill hospital, which has a significant mental health unit. As the member for Mildura said, this is across the state. It does not discriminate based on postcode and it does not discriminate based on your level of economic standing. It can strike anyone. Members in here have talked about their own mental health challenges that they have faced.

We have also as a government established a Mental Health Capital Renewal Fund, which received another $10 million in the 2025–26 budget for mental health and alcohol and other drug ED hubs. The commission said that we needed a dedicated hub in each region, and we have provided five hubs already that are operational, and another eight are in the pipeline. We are putting our money where our mouth is in terms of mental health supports, and that has happened from day one of the announcement of the royal commission.

There are two particular instances that I want to go back to and reflect on. The first one was when the royal commission was presented. Many members would remember that was done at the Royal Exhibition Building, and it was an opportunity for those with lived experiences and the commissioner and the Premier to speak – it might have been the Acting Premier at the time – as well as the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that was at the time. I think it was five or six opposition leaders ago. I distinctly remember the presentation of the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about our transport infrastructure projects as a way of trying to, I suppose, deflect from mental health.

I felt that was a really inappropriate way of actually addressing what was a serious issue. We had announced the royal commission and we were trying to really shed a light on the mental health challenges that so many Victorians suffer. Then I look at the funding. Obviously several months after that it came out of the royal commission that we needed to put through legislation to fund these mental health supports, and we did so by developing a hypothecated fund that was attached to the payroll tax for the largest businesses in the state, which was opposed by those opposite. Those opposite can talk about how there is not enough funding in mental health and decry any form of cut, even if it is a cut to an entity which is not a cut to the frontline services in mental health. But if they were to pursue this purpose of not wanting this payroll tax, this levy, to go towards all of these mental health services, the staff, the support hubs and all of that support network, then where is that money going to come from? Now they are calling for more money, and I think that call is a good one. Where possible we should be supporting more funding into mental health. But it is not going to come through larger cuts to revenue, which are being proposed by those opposite.

I do want to get back to the broader pieces of legislation and entities that are identified in this bill, and I also want to refer back to the initial Silver review, which is the basis for why we are going through this process of consolidating the entities. The Silver review found that Victoria currently has more than 500 public entities and 3400 boards which the report said were costly and unwieldy. As you would expect, it also concluded that these arrangements come at a substantial direct and indirect cost to government, with public entities estimated to have a total of around $35 billion in annual operating expenditure.

There is a real sound reason and justification to be looking at, as any government should on a regular basis, what is the most appropriate and efficient way to be running the government and be running the agencies and all the programs that it delivers. Looking at those entities, many of the entities were set up and created for a specific purpose and often to really focus in on a particular area at a particular time. Once they are established and once they have an established operating pattern, it can make sense to actually subsume and consolidate those agencies into other agencies that perform a similar role and have staff in place that can continue that operation. For example, I know there was some talk before about Recycling Victoria. The work that Recycling Victoria has done is very important, and I think the message of recycling – the whole cycle of recycling, if I can use that term – has been a very important priority of the government. But it makes sense at this stage to wrap those services and those functions into an organisation like the Environment Protection Authority Victoria. This will help clarify the roles, it will reduce the fragmentation and it will strengthen the end-to-end regulation of the waste and resource recovery sector.

This is, I would say, the reason and the focus of all of the recommendations in the Silver review: looking at the government as a whole and looking at all of the agencies that we have and saying, ‘Well, at an administrative level, how can we do that better? How can we run those services and functions of government more efficiently, particularly on the administrative side?’ By doing this, the value of savings that would come out of this program has been talked about; we want to avoid reducing frontline services because, as was talked about in the debate about mental health, we need to make sure that we retain the budgetary position to protect those mental health frontline workers, to protect our education frontline workers and to protect our police frontline workers. In conclusion, this is a strong bill, and I support it.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (17:41): I also rise to address the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. In doing so I acknowledge the contribution on behalf of the opposition by the member for Kew in engaging with stakeholders and taking the lead on this bill from an opposition perspective. I note her work and that of her office in engaging with colleagues, and I note the work of those colleagues.

As has been noted by a number of other speakers, this is a far-reaching bill, a wideranging bill, covering many, many different areas of government responsibility. This bill seeks to amend matters relating to the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2021, the Environment Protection Act 2017, the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001, the Marine and Coastal Act 2018, the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Forests Act 1958, the Land Act 1958, the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, the National Parks Act 1975, the Wildlife Act 1975 – my goodness – the Reference Areas Act 1978, the Public Administration Act 2004, the Financial Management Act 1994, the Road Safety Camera Commissioner Act 2011, the Ombudsman Act 1973, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, the Local Government Act 1989, the Essential Services Commission Act 2001 – I will come back to that; that is one that I would like to park for further comment – the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 and the Accident Towing Services Act 2007. Did you know about that, Acting Speaker Mercurio? It is disorderly for me to ask a question of you, but I ask perhaps rhetorically. I did not realise we had an Accident Towing Services Act until such time as this bill was introduced.

A member interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: You learn something every day. Here we are. It amends the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Act 2024 – yes, we know about that, and I will be coming back to that one as well – the Great Ocean Road and Environs Protection Act 2020, the Sustainability Victoria Act 2005 and the Climate Action Act 2017. So a number of acts, many of them known and many of them unknown, being amended as part of this consolidation and other matters bill proposed by the government.

I would like to concentrate my attention on just a couple of areas of this bill being considered by the house today. The first is in relation to the proposed abolishment of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board and its replacement by ministerial and departmental oversight. Now, in relation to this in particular, I acknowledge that the VGPB, Victorian Government Purchasing Board, does have responsibility within the Department of Government Services, DGS, for whole-of-government procurement, but that does not include procurement relating to Big Build projects – construction-related work. I am saying this as I hold shadow portfolio responsibilities for the government services portfolio.

I think that in practice what Victorians might assume when they hear that the government has in fact a Victorian Government Purchasing Board is that there are an adequate framework and an adequate set of controls in place to ensure that hardworking Victorian taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck. Hardworking Victorian taxpayers might be disheartened to hear that as part of these changes proposed by the government today this Victorian Government Purchasing Board is in fact being abolished and replaced with ministerial and departmental oversight.

I think hardworking Victorian taxpayers and families would also be keen to understand what checks and balances this government has in place to ensure that their hardworking Victorian taxpayer dollars are achieving best bang for buck. Applying a private sector mentality to procurement processes just for a second, there is purchasing power and there are a number of other frameworks and processes in place which ensure that in the private sector best bang for buck is achieved. I think that is a standard principle – perhaps not articulated as well as it could be, but a standard principle nonetheless – which should be applied to government and which I think Victorian taxpayers apply through an expectation lens to government.

I also think it is highly curious that the established purchasing board is now being replaced with ministerial and departmental oversight. I think there are legitimate questions, especially considering the events of the last week, that Victorian taxpayers may very well have. Is ministerial and departmental oversight really the best place to house what was a body, an organ of government, a quango? I heard the member for Greenvale refer to it as a quango, and it is. Not many people know it is a quango. I do, and so does the member for Greenvale. It is one of the reasons I like him. Is ministerial and departmental oversight, given the events of the last week, in fact the best way to ensure best taxpayer bang for buck? I just raise that as a question. I do not think it is, is my answer. I actually think that the procurement function within the Victorian government should not be housed within the Department of Government Services at all. In fact I think that the Department of Government Services is not the right place for this important function of government to be housed. I would suggest to the government that, if I was to wave a magic wand and have that influence upon government at the moment, it should be housed within the Department of Treasury and Finance. I see the member for Werribee looking at me intently at the minute. That suggests to me that he is next on his feet and he is just looking for an opportunity to just needle me in some unfair and perhaps unparliamentary way, but I do not mean to reflect upon him before he has had the opportunity to do so. I think that it should be housed within the Department of Treasury and Finance, and I think that should be something that the Labor government considers.

I am concerned by the proposed changes to the structure and role of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing. I am concerned that the government does not have the support of the sector to go against key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. I do commend the contribution of my colleague the member for Lowan in that regard, and I would encourage the government to reconsider the changes as proposed in this bill.

I did say at the start that I would be coming back to the Essential Services Commission. I do believe that removing the independent umpire, the ESC, from scrutinising potential council rates and commercial passenger vehicle charge increases does run the risk of particular interests hiking costs onto Victorian taxpayers and consumers by going directly to government without that independent umpire in place.

I do believe that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis where Victorian families are finding it hard to make ends meet and being pulled and pushed and stretched in every other direction and life is becoming harder for them and not easier, it is important to have an independent umpire for them to go to plead the case to and to be judge and jury over such potential cost increases that Victorian taxpayers and consumers may face. I do also note that although the government have gripped all these changes up through the prism of implementation of the Silver review, this particular change relating to the ESC was not actually contained within the Silver review, which is interesting. We have seen the government do this on a number of occasions before.

In conclusion, as has been flagged by previous speakers on this side, we will not be opposing this bill. But I do encourage the government to get their procurement practices and processes right, and I have a question mark over whether what is proposed in this bill is actually good for Victorian taxpayers.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (17:51): The member for Sandringham was correct, I am up next to rise and speak in support of the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I promise the house that I will remain parliamentary, as I always do, despite the aspersions from the member for Sandringham.

It should be the priority of every level of government to deliver quality public services in a financially responsible manner, so that is why we are doing it. We are reducing inefficiencies so that we can continue to invest in the things that matter to Victorians and continue the mandate that this government was elected on. This includes scaling back programs where the original aims have been achieved, such as in some of the cases that I will read through in a moment, but also looking at where that level investment is no longer required, programs are no longer required or where in some cases there is duplication, which I will come to in a very big way. This government knows where its heart and priorities are. They are in good schools, such as recent upgrades that we are starting at Manorvale Primary School in my electorate; better transport, like the route 194, connecting new and growing communities around the west of my electorate; or greater investment in our healthcare system, like the expansion of the Werribee hospital emergency department.

Labor’s investment in the things that matter to Victorians is important, and it is important that we continue to review how we deliver these in a fiscally responsible manner. The Silver review, as many speakers have spoken about, goes a lot to how we can avoid this duplication, how we can avoid programs that are doing things that are now being done in other spaces or may not necessarily be required. It is a hard thing to do to have these sorts of reviews and ensure that frontline services remain well funded and continue but also make sure that we look into the public service, which is a big beast and something I have had a lot to do with over the years. It is a big beast with lots of different elements to it that we can streamline and make more efficient. In fact I would say this is probably the most small-‘l’ liberal thing a government can do and the champions of the free market – or supposed champions of the free market – on the other side should be all for it. I do note that the member for Kew and the member for Sandringham have said that they do not oppose this bill in this house, although they will move amendments later on. I think it would be very nice if they came clean with what those amendments will be and what they will look like. But I will return to the bill itself and what it means.

This bill will abolish, reform and consolidate a number of different public entities. It will streamline a lot of that Victoria public service work that is done, look at subsuming different residual required functions for the Crown, improve the consistency of certain acts, repeal a couple of acts that have been spoken about at great length and put in place other reforms for other purposes. Some of the different amendments that we are looking at are around the Recycling Victoria program and what that looks like; the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council and the functions that they do; the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 and how that works; the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority; the Victorian Public Sector Commission Advisory Board, which sounds very Kafkaesque, if I may add; and of course the Victorian Government Purchasing Board, which, after 15 minutes of contribution by the member for Kew, was what she eventually landed on as part of her chief criticism of this bill as it stands, although she does not formally oppose it.

One of the issues identified through the Silver review is duplication of functions. The member for Kew referred to the winding up of this purchasing board. They related this board’s functions to what we have seen in the news around construction industry procurement allegations. I do thank the member for Sandringham for acknowledging that the procurement board does not have those construction procurement functions, as it is a thing. We did go through an interesting thought bubble. I appreciate it; that is why I was so gripped by what you were saying.

I do want to reflect a little bit on the focus of this purchasing board and what that means. With a small amount of research, the member for Kew would have found before her contribution that it did not deal with construction, despite the connection, albeit tenuous, that she was trying to make. It is a remnant of a previous Liberal government era, an era that still wants to direct the member for Kew on her political decisions, unfortunately, as we have seen in the paper – you know, warming up Jeff Kennett every now and then. The soon-to-be-wound-up board is guided by principles in their policy of these four things: value for money, accountability, probity and scalability. Just keep those four things in mind. The duplication is blatantly obvious when you look at procurement policies between other departments. I have had a bit to do with this particular procurement policy: the Department of Education procurement policy. That cites the four things that we need to ensure are value for money, accountability, probity and scalability. It sounds familiar. I looked too to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. I have always got to remember that one; it used to be called the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning when I was in the game, but they have changed the name. The four things that they need to look for in their procurement policy are value for money, accountability, probity and scalability. It sounds familiar. There is a literal duplication of policies that this old purchasing board was probably one of the pioneers of, which is very important to acknowledge. However, it is now happening in every one of our departments. No other state has a standalone procurement board like the one we are seeing being wound up through this bill. The member for Kew has cited budget repair and reducing debt as their priority; here we have a bill that does exactly that. I would think that those champions of economic liberalism would support such efficiencies, considering that they are literally duplicating functions. I know it is not only in the wording of their policy, it is also in a lot of the checks and balances that go through these internal department processes for procuring government services that are obviously non-construction, as we have established here.

It is important to remember that as we look at finding these efficiencies in the public service – and before I go on I would like to acknowledge all of our Victorian public service workers. I know many of them very well, not just teachers but many of those here in Spring Street, Collins Street, Exhibition Street and all the other streets around Melbourne where we have our VPS workers. I do acknowledge the hard work that they do. There are VPS workers and people as part of our public service that perform frontline services that we rely on. These changes are sensible and support our plan for responsible fiscal management. Those different five pillars that we talk about, particularly about being in operational surplus this year and moving to reduce that ratio of gross state product to debt ratio, all of those are really important.

Today there are more frontline services for Victorians. There are more police and PSOs since we have been in government. And you know, each time they bring up the old FTE data where they cherrypick one date to another, I would like to remind them that it was this government that funded 3500 new police, and we see around 50 new recruits out onto the streets from the academy every round that they do. We have got an extra 3890 teachers in our government school system delivering that frontline education that we need out in our community, particularly in our growing suburbs. We have got more nurses and midwives, an increase of more than 30 per cent. I do fear for what would happen to these frontline services under a government led by those opposite.

[The Legislative Assembly report is being published progressively.]