Thursday, 5 March 2026

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (14:54): I rise once again, as I was fortunate enough to get up to talk on this motion just before the lunch adjournment. We were going through why we are standing in here debating a motion on working from home when, realistically, we should be talking about the bill coming forward. We would love the opportunity to be able to debate the merits of working from home, not only for those individuals who will have the opportunity to be working from home but also for the operators of businesses that need to have it clear in their heads what the process is going to be moving forward for this to be achievable and what are going to be the roadblocks. We know that sometimes when bills come in there are unintended consequences. We have had it previously when the timber industry was shut down; the unintended consequence was losing the white paper manufacturing from Maryvale near Traralgon, my hometown. What are the unintended consequences going to be here?

We can have a motion which is probably working out to be a sledge motion against the coalition on this side, but we really need to be spending our time debating the pros and cons so that if this is going to go ahead we do get it right and know the issues that may come up. We need to know so we can actually have a harmonious transformation to be able to head that way, if that is what it is going to be. But we do not know, because all we have is a motion coming forward that there will be a bill coming in to enable work from home – something nice and shiny that the government can hold up, but once again with no substance. We need to know what is going to be in there and whether the government have once again just done a release to say they are going to be enshrining in law that you can work from home but they have not got any of the legalities about what it is going to mean to be able to achieve that.

If people are going to be working from home, are they going to be hit with the burden of another tax, because they are spending two days a week – compulsorily or if they want to – working from home? And small businesses need the opportunity not just for this bill to pass but to digest what this means for the workforce right across the lands here in Victoria. I know as a former small business owner and plumber, it will be very hard for a plumbing business to have people work from home a couple of days a week. You might be able to have your office staff work from home, but what does that mean? What is going to be the impact? Are we setting ourselves up, by being able to work from home, to make some of these jobs become redundant because bosses, in their wisdom and in their future planning, think, ‘Do we actually need this workforce?’ These are relevant, valid questions that we should be asking in the chamber – not putting up a sledge motion and wasting everybody’s time in here.

I think the government side of the chamber has lost interest in it. I think this side of the chamber has lost interest in it, because we need to be spending our time wisely. The Labor government tells us that we should be debating motions on their merit, but here we are once again standing in the chamber on a Thursday debating a sledge motion, when we should be being very proactive. This does not affect a lot of us in here, I would not think, because we need to make sure that we are out on the beat engaging with our community. But it probably affects every single Victorian that has a job and is working, whether it be from home or whether they need to go into work.

Is it going to mean that my local coffee shop barista has two days working at home? Am I going to have to drive past the barista’s driveway and have him run out and give me my coffee in my car? Does it mean that? We do not know. Will I have to wait for his toasted sandwich maker to do my croissant? We do not know. This is why we need to debate these things. Yes, they are frivolous and silly things to say, but these are questions that may pop up – the unintended consequences of what we do in this chamber. I know that I cannot run a plumbing business from home. I need to be out and about in the community to be able to do it. We are getting to the point where we do need some clarification and have the bill come in. We want to debate it. We need to debate these bills coming in because they do have merit. There are going to be pros and cons in doing it, so we need to make sure that we are ticking all the boxes as we go through.

But as I said, once again on a Thursday we are wasting the chamber’s time. I feel that we are wasting your time having to sit in the chair and listen to frivolous debates, going from one side of the chamber to the other, Speaker, when we could be doing real work that is going to make our Victorian community’s life easier to partake in, whether it be at work or at home. As I said, we have Tuesday, we have Wednesday, we get to Thursday and we have one of these motions put up. I know the government always says, ‘Why aren’t we debating what’s on the government business program?’ We have got the TAFE motion, which I am sure a lot of colleagues on this side here would love to talk about. I am sure on the other side too they would love to talk about TAFE and what that means. We need the opportunities to be able to stand in this place and talk about things that are going to matter to the Victorian public and talk about what it is going to mean for my constituents in the Latrobe Valley. We need the opportunity to be able to do that. What matters in my community and what matters in other people’s communities is not a sledge motion against the coalition. Speaker, even though it is International Women’s Day and I do wish you a happy International Women’s Day, we should be debating something else.

 Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (15:01): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.