Wednesday, 18 March 2026

 Gabrielle WILLIAMS (Dandenong – Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for Public and Active Transport) (10:47): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill ‍2026:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill 2026 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

This Bill repeals the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020 (CSV Act), abolishes Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV) and transfers certain cladding safety-related functions to the Victorian Building Authority (VBA). The transfer of cladding safety-related functions to the VBA will allow the VBA to manage the completion of cladding safety-related activities outstanding at the time of the abolition of the CSV.

In this context, the purpose of the Bill is as follows:

• to repeal the CSV Act;

• to abolish CSV and to transfer its property, rights and liabilities to the VBA;

• to make related amendments to the Building Act 1993 (Building Act);

• to provide for an amount of building permit levy in respect of non-regional buildings to replace the amount payable in connection with the Cladding Rectification Program; and

• to make related amendments to certain other Acts.

Human Rights

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this Bill are:

• right to life (section 9);

• right to property (section 20); and

• right to privacy (section 13).

Human Rights issues

Repeal of the CSV Act, abolition of CSV, and transfer of rights and liabilities to VBA

The CSV Act established CSV to identify, manage, and rectify high-risk combustible cladding on residential and public buildings in Victoria and sets out the legal framework to fund, prioritize, and manage remediation, reducing fire risks and protecting building owners. Section 7 of the CSV Act sets out the functions of CSV which includes, among other things, the administration of the Cladding Rectification Program provided for in the Act.

Clause 4 of this Bill repeals the CSV Act.

Clause 5 abolishes CSV and provides that, on the day of commencement of the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Act, the CSV Board is abolished and its members and the CEO go out of office. Further, Clause 5, in combination with the clauses specified below, provides that:

•   all property, rights and liabilities of CSV become property, rights and liabilities of the VBA on the commencement day, subject to any relevant encumbrances (clause 6);

•   the VBA is substituted as a party to any proceeding pending in any court or tribunal to which CSV was a party immediately before the commencement day (see also clause 10, and clause 11, which provides for continuity in respect of evidence); and

•   the VBA is substituted as a party to any arrangement or contract entered into by or on behalf of CSV as a party and in force immediately before the commencement day (see also clause 8, which provides that any reference to CSV in any Act, subordinate instrument, agreement or other document is taken to be a reference to the VBA, so far as it relates to any period on or after the commencement day).

Clause 23 inserts in section 197 of the Building Act – which sets out the functions of the VBA – the function to finalise the administration of the Cladding Rectification Program previously undertaken by CSV under the CSV Act.

Right to life

Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. An ‘arbitrary’ deprivation of life may be described as one that is unreasonable or disproportionate. The right imposes a negative obligation on public authorities to refrain from conduct that causes an arbitrary deprivation of life, and it is possible that it also imposes some positive obligations to take steps to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life and in some circumstances to investigate deaths in which a public authority may be implicated.

Repealing the CSV Act and abolishing CSV, established to administer the Victorian Cladding Rectification Program designed to rectify unsafe non-compliant or non-conforming external wall cladding so as to reduce fire spread risks and protect residents and the broader general public from the fire risk caused by such cladding, could on a broad reading of the right to life, incorporate a positive obligation to take steps to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life, engage the right to life under section 9 of the Charter.

However, in light of clause 23 of the Bill, which sees the VBA absorb the functions of CSV to finalise the administration of the cladding rectification program previously undertaken by CSV, I do not consider the right to life to be engaged. The VBA will upon the abolition of CSV immediately assume the role and responsibilities formerly assumed by CSV under the CSV Act, including the facilitation of cladding rectification work for government buildings and supporting building owners by engaging services for cladding rectification work.

By transferring the functions of CSV to the VBA, the Bill ensures that the cladding safety-related functions under the CSV Bill and that the protective objectives of the Cladding Rectification Program are preserved. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the right to life in section 9 of the Charter is not engaged or limited by this Bill.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely. The Charter does not define ‘property’ and while there is no Victorian authority on the question as to whether an accrued right to bring an action against the State would be ‘property’ for the purposes of the Charter, the Supreme Court has indicated that the term should be interpreted ‘liberally and beneficially to encompass economic interests’.

Adopting a broad reading of the right to property, the transfer of property as well as rights and liabilities from CSV to the VBA is relevant to the property rights of natural persons who hold an interest in the rights and liabilities of CSV. However, as the rights and liabilities of CSV are, in accordance with clauses 5 to 11 of the Bill, transferred to the VBA without altering the substantive content of that liability, no natural person with an interest in such liabilities are deprived of their interest in that liability.

Accordingly, the Bill does not limit the property right in section 20 of the Charter.

Transfer of staff

Clause 14 of the Bill provides that a person who was employed by CSV before the commencement day is to be regarded as having been employed by the VBA. Clause 15 of the Bill deals with the terms and conditions of employment of staff transferred from CSV to the VBA under clause 14.

The transfer of staff occasioned by this amendment is relevant to the rights to freedom from forced work (section 11) and the right to privacy (section 13). However, for the reasons below, I consider that neither right is limited by these amendments.

Freedom from forced work

The right to freedom from forced work in section 11 of the Charter relevantly provides that a person must not be made to perform forced or compulsory labour, which includes all work or service exacted from any person under the menace of a penalty and for which the person has not offered themselves voluntarily (with certain exceptions).

While the provision effecting the transfer of staff will automatically alter a person’s employer without their consent, the person’s ongoing employment is of their own volition. For example, clause 15 expressly states that the transfer of an employee from CSV to the VBA does not prevent the employee from resigning in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employment.

In addition, CSV was established as a time-bound statutory authority for the purpose of delivering the Government’s Cladding Rectification Program. Given this, the staff of CSV would have expected that they may be subject to such a transfer of their employment upon the conclusion of the cladding rectification program. Accordingly, the right to freedom from forced work in section 11 of the Charter is not limited by this Bill.

Right to privacy

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

The right to privacy is a broad right that protects a person from interference in their personal and social sphere, including their capacity to pursue their chosen field of employment and develop and maintain personal relationships in the course of employment. While the right is relevant to matters of employment, it would generally only be considered limited by restrictions on employment that have consequential effects on an individual’s capacity to experience a private life.

Statutory reforms affecting the terms of an individual’s employment are unlikely to constitute an interference with private life of sufficient gravity so as to limit the right to privacy. Clause 14 of the Bill stipulates that a person whose employment is transferred to the VBA will be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable overall than those that applied to them at CSV and will have equivalent entitlement to benefits accrued as an employee of CSV. Moreover, staff is not being denied the capacity to seek alternative employment should they wish to do so.

It follows that the transfer of staff from CSV to the VBA will not result in any material detriment to a staff member’s employment terms, conditions or entitlements. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter is not limited by this Bill.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I consider that to the extent that the Bill engages human rights, the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

The Hon. Gabrielle Williams, MP

Minister for Transport Infrastructure

Minister for Public and Active Transport

 Gabrielle WILLIAMS (Dandenong – Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for Public and Active Transport) (10:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The main purposes of the Bill are to:

• repeal the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020 and abolish Cladding Safety Victoria and the Cladding Safety Victoria Board

• confer upon the Victorian Building Authority trading as the Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC) additional functions to enable the completion of CSV’s trailing activities and administrative obligations

• transfer Cladding Safety Victoria’s property, rights and liabilities to the BPC

• transfer Cladding Safety Victoria staff to the BPC

• repeal the Cladding Rectification Levy and introduce a new element of the Building Permit Levy (BPL), to be applied to class 2–8 buildings in non-regional Victoria with cost of building works of $1.5 million or more, up to and including 30 June 2029, reducing the overall cost of the BPL.

Background to the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill 2026

This Bill represents the successful conclusion of a world-first initiative, set up by the Victorian Government in response to cladding related safety issues, to fight for Victorian consumers by making their buildings safe from combustible cladding. Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV) has worked with stakeholders across Victoria, becoming the only jurisdiction globally to implement a program to rectify non-compliant or non-conforming external wall cladding products on buildings. CSV has developed a risk-based approach, backed by evidence, to remediate cladding issues and contributed to the global improvements to building safety related to cladding.

The Bill also recognises the importance of a sustainable funding model for consumer-focused building reforms and a need to respond to changes in the way our building system operates. Changes to the building permit levy will reduce costs for consumers and builders, while continuing to provide support for reforms to the building and plumbing systems.

Following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in London in June 2017, and several cladding related fires closer to home, the Victorian Government established the Victorian Cladding Taskforce (the Taskforce) to audit privately owned residential buildings to determine the extent of combustible cladding. On 16 July 2019, the Taskforce handed down its final report, which included a recommendation to establish Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV). CSV was established as a standalone agency through the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020 (the CSV Act), with its focus on improving the safety of building occupants.

The Government committed initial funding packages totalling $600 million to establish the Private Residential Cladding Rectification Program (CRP) and $150 million was committed to complete the Statewide Cladding Audit (SCA) and Government Buildings Cladding Rectification Program (GBCRP). In December 2023, additional funding of $109 million, including $95 million through the CRL, was approved to rectify a further tranche of buildings, which had been identified with an unacceptable cladding risk.

In 2022, the Victorian Government approved $40 million for the Cladding Remediation Partnership Program (Partnership Program) to protect a wider range of consumers from cladding-related harm. The Partnership Program provided all in-scope buildings assessed with a lower cladding risk with a pathway to remediation. The Partnership Program also meant that local councils were provided with a consistent framework to support owners of these buildings to mitigate cladding risk at the lowest cost and satisfy any enforcement noticed issued by a municipal building surveyor.

Achievements of Cladding Safety Victoria

Over the last 6 years, CSV has made countless Victorians safe from the dangers posed by combustible cladding. In partnership with stakeholders including building owners, owners’ corporations and Fire Services Victoria, CSV has completed remediation on more than 99% of the highest-risk buildings in the Cladding Rectification Program, dramatically reducing their combustible cladding risk, with the remaining buildings to be completed this year.

CSV has also worked to remove the cladding risk on 130 government-owned and community buildings, including schools, hospitals and buildings of cultural significance, with 3 more to finish soon. The Partnership Program has put in place risk mitigation pathways for 100% of additional lower-risk Class 2 buildings (1,210 buildings).

CSV has contributed significantly to global knowledge on combustible cladding risk and led the way in the development of evidence-based cladding risk reduction approaches. CSV’s methodology, the Protocols for Mitigating Cladding Risk, has been published online and shared widely around the world.

CSV’s ground-breaking approach to identifying, assessing, classifying and treating combustible cladding risk has saved lives, and it has saved building owners hundreds of millions of dollars. At the conclusion of its program of work, CSV will have improved building safety for all of us across Victoria.

I now turn to the Bill. The Bill has 3 sections:

Part 1 – Preliminary

This section contains preliminary provisions for the Bill, including its purpose, commencement arrangements and definitions to enable the operation of the Bill.

Part 2 – Repeal of Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020 and abolition of Cladding Safety Victoria

This part contains provisions for repealing the CSV Act and abolishing CSV as an agency. It provides for the transition of CSV’s property, liabilities and rights to the BPC and for the transfer of any remaining CSV staff to the BPC, ensuring that these staff will be employed on terms and conditions no less favourable than those they were employed under at CSV.

Part 3 – Amendments related to repeal of Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020

This part includes the provisions for the granting of cladding-safety related functions to the BPC, to allow it to complete any cladding safety-related activities once CSV is abolished. It also includes provisions repealing the cladding rectification levy component of the building permit levy and introducing a new, lower, component to the building permit levy in place of the repealed CRL. Additionally, Part 3 provides for several technical corrections to the amendments made to the Building Act by the State Taxation Further Amendment Act 2025, as well as consequential amendments required to other legislation on the repeal of the CSV Act.

Repeal of the Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020

With CSV’s successful programs coming to an end as planned, CSV will no longer need to exist as an agency. This also means that the need for the legislation under which it operates is removed and the CSV Act can be repealed. CSV was always intended to be a time-limited agency, with a clear goal of making our community safer. In conjunction with the government’s consumer-focused program of reforms to the building system, the improvements implemented by CSV have saved lives and protected Victorians from the debilitating debts which would have been incurred had they been forced to self-fund the rectification of combustible cladding-related building work.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the current Cladding Safety Victoria Board, its CEO and its staff, for providing the guidance and leadership required to enable CSV to complete this significant program:

• Rod Fehring (Chairperson)

• Sarah Clarke (Deputy Chairperson)

• Genevieve Overell (Member)

• Jo Pugsley (Member)

• David Webster (Member)

• Dan O’Brien (CEO)

The Bill provides for the BPC to take on cladding-safety related functions, so that it can ensure that any outstanding activities related to CSV’s work are completed. The BPC will also receive CSV’s property, assets and liabilities, and some CSV staff, to enable a successful transition of responsibility to the BPC and retention of the specialist cladding safety knowledge built up by CSV over the past 6 years.

Integrating CSV into the Commission adds to the consolidation of the building and plumbing regulator and a continued focus on putting consumers at the heart of the system.

Amendments to the Building Permit Levy and continued funding for the building and plumbing systems

The Bill amends the Building Act 1993 (the Building Act) to make changes to the Building Permit Levy (BPL), with a significant net reduction in the overall levy amount to be paid.

The Building Act requires all building works that are considered construction, demolition or removal of a building in Victoria to have a building permit and a BPL is payable before the permit can be issued for works valued over $10,000. The BPL was established in Victoria in 1993 and was unchanged until 2017, when it was increased to fund building dispute activities.

The Cladding Rectification Levy (CRL) was then added in January 2020, to fund cladding remediation works on Class 2–8 buildings in metropolitan Melbourne. The Minister for Planning’s review of the levy in 2023 rightly concluded there was still an ongoing need for the levy at that time to complete CSV’s work. However with the approaching completion of the cladding programs, the CRL component of the BPL will soon no longer be required.

While the base rate of the BPL will remain unchanged, a new, lower element of the BPL will be introduced to replace the CRL, which will be repealed. This change to the levy structure will result in an overall decrease in the total levies to be paid on impacted building classes by between 47% and 66%. The levy change, valid up to 30 June 2029, will only apply to Class 2–8 buildings in metropolitan areas with a cost of building works of $1.5 million or more. This means that domestic residential houses (Class 1), buildings of a public nature (Class 9) or non-inhabitable structures (Class 10) and non-metropolitan builds are exempt and will not suffer from any additional financial pressures.

The reduction in costs will benefit both consumers and the building industry, whilst still allowing the delivery of ongoing building reforms, to support implementation of Victoria’s Housing Statement.

Technical corrections to amendments to the Building Act 1993

The Bill also makes several technical corrections in the amendments made to the Building Act by the State Taxation Further Amendment Act 2025. These include clarifying definitions to ensure that all engaged building practitioners are considered for the purposes of calculating the cost of the building work, amending relevant definitions which will change as a consequence of this clarification, and amending section 3A regarding the cost of the building work, to ensure correct interpretation of this clause.

Conclusion

CSV has successfully completed a complex and difficult task in reducing the combustible cladding risk for Victorians. CSV’s leadership, adaptability and application of expert knowledge to rectify buildings with non-compliant or non-conforming cladding means that we can now all feel safer in our built environment.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:48): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

 Gabrielle WILLIAMS (Dandenong – Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for Public and Active Transport) (10:48): I move:

That debate be adjourned for 13 days.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:48): I think the minister is out of order in requesting a 13-day adjournment here. We can see that the government is quite light on with their agenda, but that frankly is their problem. The government would be very aware of the norm in this place to allow two weeks for adequate debate. I think you could go back quite some time and see that that is very much the norm and custom in the house. The minister has provided no information to us previously, and we do not understand any of the reasons it should be less than 14 days – it remains a mystery.

There have been occasions when the opposition has approved adjournment of debate for less than 14 ‍days, and those times were when it had been agreed with us and when there was something of huge importance – I will go back and have a think about it – like monitors for councils. Sometimes that needs to be done very quickly, and bills get moved very quickly through this house and through the other place and get royal assent very quickly because there is an urgency. The Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill 2026 has just been given to us. If they are going to look at repealing something, I do not see that there is an urgency in having to do that, and waiting the standard time is only appropriate.

It appears that the government do not have enough on their agenda at the minute, because we have motion after motion being debated and there are a number of motions on the notice paper that are – how can you describe it – wedge politics, sledge politics, all of those sorts of things. The government is very interested in doing that. But we have got this bill that we need to have time to go through, have a look at and understand what is required. Now, when you have a bill that comes before the house, as an opposition what you need to do is go out to the stakeholders. You have to talk to the stakeholders, they have to review the bill and have a look at what it means for them to see whether it is something that they can get back to us on in time. Very often they cannot get back in time; very often when we have bills and we have gone out for stakeholder consultation, it takes them actually longer than two weeks, because they have to have a look at it and they often have to convene people to talk about it and understand what the issues are. Then when they have done that, they might land on a position, and at that point they will provide that information back to us. Sometimes that can be difficult because the bill will have already been up for those 14 days, and that information comes when the bill is between the houses.

It can be very easy for the government members to say, ‘What’s a day?’ Well, a day can be very important, because when you are trying to get other people together, sometimes it is a little bit like herding cats. It is not so simple to get everybody there. People’s timetables are not our timetables. If we are looking for third parties to make comment and to analyse particular bills – and in this case it is the Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill 2026 – and if we want them to provide information back to us, we have to give them time to get their ducks in a row and to get with their stakeholders, if it is an organisation and they have people that they need to deal with. We have to give them time, and I think it is only fair that we give them as much time as possible. Sometimes two weeks is not enough. When I look at the Building and Plumbing Administration and Enforcement Bill 2026 that we have also been given, it is voluminous. In fact, it is two volumes, and to expect people to actually get through that in two weeks is exceptionally difficult. The Cladding Safety Victoria Repeal Bill is a little lighter than that, but nevertheless there are a number of different groups that have an interest in that. Sometimes it goes a little bit further than what you may think, because we know that there is cladding on many public buildings. Some of these public buildings have been schools and halls. I know that at the apartment block I stay in during parliamentary sittings we have a cladding problem, and that is not sorted out by any means at the minute. We just got a bill a week or two ago to pay for cladding rectification work. So there are a lot of people that will have input into whether or not it is appropriate to be abolishing Cladding Safety Victoria at this particular point, and I think the government should adhere to custom.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (10:53): Well, well, well, yet again we see pointless procedural debates taking place in this place, taking place in our Parliament here – absolutely pointless. And what over? Like, quite seriously, we are talking about a repeal bill, and we are talking about one day; we are talking about one day here, right?

Members interjecting.

Gary MAAS: You just cannot take the opposition seriously when they keep saying they want to debate bills of substance and yet here they are raising a procedural debate in this place. It is absolutely not on. The opposition are arguing over a single day on a repeal bill, and you cannot take them seriously. On that basis, I support the government’s adjournment motion for a period of 13 days.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:54): I rise to make some comments about, again, the government’s lack of transparency in not allowing the normal process of this house to ensure that there is proper consultation on what is arguably one of the most significant elements affecting many people’s homes – those that have purchased homes that now have issues around cladding and rectification, builders and the retrospectivity of many builders and how that will work in the process thereafter, and insurance companies. This is very complex. It is something for which we have been presented with changes that need the proper consultation, and that is what is expected of any government when they are presenting bills to this house – although we are not surprised, because the government has very good form in riding roughshod over community consultation and wanting to fast-track things into this house when it suits them. We know that has not been the case for a lot of other bills and legislation; it has been very light on. As we heard the member for Eildon say today, we have had a very light program. We have had to revert back to sledge motions and really just filibustering to fill in time in an election year. When we are talking about something really important –

Juliana Addison interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: Member for Wendouree, when we are talking about something very, very important in terms of people’s houses and the costs affected in terms of rectification of cladding, which is very, very important to many people, then what we need to do is ensure that there is the proper ability to have consultation with the very many people, residents and industry bodies that are affected by this. A question that needs to be asked is: what is the government hiding? What is the government hiding by fast-tracking something which short-circuits the ability that is normally –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: It does not matter whether it is a day or a week; the process here is very, very clear: this government is short-circuiting a process that has been the process of this Parliament for many, many years. It is not what we normally do; it is not the convention of this Parliament, but it is clear that in this particular instance the government have got something to hide, because if they have not, then they should stand up and say why. Why are they fast-tracking something? What is the government hiding?

This is very, very important. For anybody that is being affected by cladding, they have the right to ask the government why they are fast-tracking something that could affect them, their house, the costs of the cladding and all of the processes that happen thereafter. As we said, we have had a very fulsome look at this, and now what we need to do is – the government is presenting their options – go back to the community and have that consultation. If the government will not allow that, it is clear that this government is hiding something. I think anybody that is affected by cladding in Victoria has the right to ask: what is the Allan Labor government hiding? If they get a big fat bill for the cladding because this government has hidden something, then they should again be blaming the Allan Labor government for it. I just say this again: if the government has got nothing to hide, then allow the process of the consultation period – very simple. If the Allan Labor government has got nothing to hide, then allow the consultation process for Victorians to have their say. That is what we are supporting and that is what we want, so therefore I do not support the government’s bill.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (10:58): Rarely has so much been made about 24 hours – perhaps not since Kiefer Sutherland made a television program about it. This will be the shortest filibuster that anyone has ever seen in this place, I assure the member for Caulfield. I support the motion to adjourn the second reading for 13 days rather than 14. This will be a bill, when it is debated – I note this is a procedural debate – that is seeking to remove law, to simplify the statute book rather than create new complexity. We all understand the reasons why Cladding Safety Victoria came into existence: the disastrous fires of Grenfell in London and similar instances in our own state as a consequence of unsafe cladding being adhered to high-rise buildings. Cladding Safety Victoria has undertaken really important work over a number of years since it was introduced, but the time has come for an update to the legislative framework that affects that kind of planning and construction law in this state. Thirteen days is effectively a fortnight. It provides ample time for scrutiny. I support the government’s motion, and I hope that we can get on and debate the bill.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:00): For those members of this place that have had the honour of being on the front bench – obviously we all aspire to be ministers, but those of us who have been shadow ministers – for a long period of time would fully understand –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Tim BULL: I did have a little go as minister, member for Narre Warren North. The scenario that we face as shadow ministers is we are already given a very restricted timeframe to be able to consult with our stakeholders, and very, very regularly we will send out emails to our large group of stakeholders asking for feedback on legislation. Even when that legislation is relatively benign or straightforward, the feedback that we often get from these groups is, ‘Why is the timeframe so restrictive? Why do you need feedback within five days?’ – or seven days or whatever it is. ‘We actually need time to consult with our membership. We need time to consult with our stakeholder groups. We can’t possibly do that, Shadow Minister, in the time that you have given us to provide you feedback.’ We get that from all of our stakeholder groups that fall under all of our portfolio responsibilities. So I would put that, with this already extremely restrictive timeframe that we are left with of 14 days, there is a strong argument that that should be extended. What we cannot have is any impediment or any reduction in those 14 days, because every day when you need to consult with very large stakeholder groups the length and breadth of Victoria is exceptionally difficult. And that is even when we have legislation that is relatively straightforward or perhaps considered benign, or legislation that we on the opposition side will support, let alone when we get to a topic or a subject that is contentious or is complex.

We know through the various media commentaries and various stakeholder feedbacks that we have had on this particular issue that there is a high level of concern. There are large costs involved. There are implications for many, many, many people about where this will end up. And you can imagine the enormous amount of stakeholder groups that will have an interest in this legislation. We are then forced to go out and, with an even more restricted timeframe, be expected to consult properly, collate all those different views, collate all those many, many different concerns and come back and debate very, very important legislation in this chamber around this issue, which has huge implications, in a restricted timeframe. It is just not fair and it is just not right. We often – and I am sure the shadow ministers here will agree with me – get feedback that ‘Your timeframes that you are seeking for us to provide feedback in are exceptionally restrictive.’

It is a very, very long held convention in this place that we get 14 days. Would we like that to be 21 or 28 days for the sake of the shadow ministry and having to do the work we do between when a bill is introduced into this place and when we have to come back into this chamber and provide a very, very, very firm position? It is an extraordinarily short timeframe. The size of this bill is huge – it is absolutely huge. There is a lot of detail in this to be perused. Imagine sending this bill out to our stakeholder groups and saying, ‘You’ve got now an even more restricted timeframe to be able to report back.’ That is why we are raising these concerns that we raise today. As the honourable member for Caulfield pointed out, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, it makes you wonder why it has been cut short, when this was as simple as getting this done yesterday. It has to be either you are hiding something or a lack of organisation to be able to get yourself organised and adhere to the conventions of Parliament, and that is why we will very, very strongly argue that it should be 14 days and under no circumstances should that ever be compromised.

Assembly divided on motion: