Tuesday, 16 June 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:06): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Sentencing Act 1991 to widen the scope of when an emergency worker is on duty for the purposes of that act and the Crimes Act 1958 and for other purposes.

Today is an important day in this state. For too long our emergency services workers have been at threat at work, and this government has done nothing to fix it. In fact, on learning that there was a loophole in the law which saw many of our important emergency services workers left unprotected at law, what did this government do? They referred the matter to a committee, which by the way is the Premier’s true-to-form way of dealing with every problem – referring it to committee.

We only just found out that the government referred that matter to a committee until at least mid-2027. By the time the committee reports, by the time the committee comes back with recommendations, the government considers them and drafting occurs, we are talking about potentially a two-year delay on action. It is not good enough, and the coalition will not stand for it. That is why the coalition today is moving to introduce an urgent bill. This is not just a bill; it is an urgent bill. We need to see action today. We need to make sure that our emergency services workers are protected from now, from today, and not only will the bill that we are moving to introduce commence upon royal assent but any matter that has occurred where there are proceedings underway will be retrospectively included, because we know that there are thousands of emergency services workers who report assault every year. That is just the reported cases – thousands.

Jess Wilson interjected.

James NEWBURY: As the Leader of the Opposition said, that number is growing. I would say to the house: how could you not support a bill that sees immediate action? We have seen a number of cases over recent years where our emergency services workers go to work and take a break, perhaps a lunchbreak. They are in uniform, they take a break, they are assaulted while they are having a bite to eat or having a cup of coffee, and what happens to them? We find out that the court has determined there is a loophole so that assault will not be dealt with under the additional protections that should exist for those workers. There should be a special set of laws that protect our emergency services workers from assault when they are at work. There should be a protection, there must be a protection, and a loophole in the law is not good enough.

To learn that when the government discovered the loophole existed they were going to kick the issue to a committee for over a year – before they report to the government, before any drafting is done – is a disgrace. What it tells us is that this government does not want to close the loophole. And every –

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

James NEWBURY: Well, we will find out shortly, former Minister for Health, because we are going to be looking to see how every single Labor member votes. How will every Labor member vote today? They must support this. How could you not in good conscience support it? How could you not? These laws will commence as soon as royal assent occurs, and they will be retrospective on any case that is currently in proceeding, as they should be. It does not matter when that assault occurred, these laws will cover those workers. Today is a very important day, and we will test whether this Parliament does the right thing by our emergency services workers or if this government plays politics again and kicks this issue down the road. The law is here: just support it. We can do it today, with resolve. We can pass this in Parliament today. You can pass donation laws in one day; you certainly should be passing these. This must be done today.

 Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon) (12:11): The government will be opposing this ill-thought-out bill being proposed to be introduced by the opposition, and I will tell you why. This morning I was doing something that no-one on that side of the house has done, and that was pick up the phone and talk to Danny Hill from the Victorian Ambulance Union (VAU). I know, having met with Danny on many, many occasions, that he has written to the opposition –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is required to be factual, and Georgie Crozier in the other place has contacted Danny Hill many, many times. Tell the truth.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: As I was saying, I have met with Danny Hill on this matter and many other matters over many years, and indeed when I was speaking to Danny this morning I just wanted to clarify with him the union’s position – the union that represents the paramedics in our state. He was very clear that he has written to both the government and the opposition in relation to this matter, and he has not received a response at all from the opposition. That is a fact.

James Newbury: Speaker, I renew my point of order on the member’s requirement to be factual. The member is misleading the house. You are misleading the house.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, that is not the way to raise a point of order, particularly around misleading the house. Member for Macedon, I remind you, and all members, that you are required to be factual.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Just on the matter, it is why I picked up the phone today to talk to the secretary of the VAU, because I wanted to be very clear and I wanted to be factual in this place. The facts are this: a letter was written by the union to the opposition, and they have not received a response in relation to this matter. Let us be clear: there has been zero consultation with the workers that this mob over here purport to be supporting.

Any violence against our emergency service workers is completely and utterly unacceptable, and it is why I have, as I have said, met with the VAU on a number of occasions and why, I know, Minister Shing in the other place is continuing that conversation. It is why we are doing the actual real work on this law – which, remember, was introduced by a Liberal government. It was a bungled law with loopholes in it introduced by the Liberal government. Twice we have had to come into this place to work to fix this legislation that was flawed from the outset, and it is why the decision has now been taken by this government that we will refer this very important matter to the Victorian Law Reform Commission. I note that the member on his feet kept talking about a committee. Let us be clear: this is the Victorian Law Reform Commission. We take this matter very, very seriously, and it is why we will take the time to get it right.

Everyone in this chamber needs to be very clear that when it comes to protecting the rights of our emergency services workers, there is only one party that those workers can rely on, and that is the Labor Party, because we will always stand up for working people. We will not do what those on the other side did when last they were in government. We all remember, and I might say the member for Melton knows full well, that those on the other side went to war with our ambulance employees, with our paramedics – so much so that the previous Minister for Health, Mr Davis in the other place, actually engaged a consultant via the public service to set up a fake union to try and discredit the real union. When it comes to protecting working people –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate on the urgent need for these laws. The member has well and truly strayed from that – on relevance.

The SPEAKER: The member for Macedon will come back to the procedural debate.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: As I said at the outset, the government will not support this bill because it has not been properly thought through and those on the other side have not consulted with the workers who it will most directly affect, and that would never happen under a Labor government. We will always work with our unions.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:16): I also rise to support the member for Brighton’s introduction of this bill, the Sentencing Amendment (Emergency Workers) Bill 2026, and I take up the comments of the member for Macedon in the previous contribution about going to war with emergency services workers. I was in Bendigo on Sunday with over a thousand emergency services workers who are at war with the Victorian Labor government in the seat of Bendigo East because they are upset with this government on the emergency services tax that they like to promote over there. So the government should be aware that there is more than just one group of emergency services workers.

I will go back to the member for Macedon’s comments about those of us on this side not engaging with Danny Hill. Well, that is simply not true. As the member for Brighton tried to point out in his point of order, we have engaged. In fact members of the Nationals well know that we have had Danny Hill in our party room to talk to us about the issues and to talk to us about the concerns. I hope I have not got Danny Hill in trouble in that, but he is someone that we have a lot of respect for. We understand his passion for emergency services workers. It is a passion that is shared on this side of the house, which is why we are trying to introduce this legislation – because we know that this loophole has been used and our emergency services workers deserve protection. They deserve protection, and they deserve to have simple loopholes closed.

This is something that is quite simple. The member for Brighton has a piece of legislation. It is going to expand the definition of what is ‘on duty’ to give the court some clear understanding if an emergency services worker is assaulted while they are on duty – whether they are out getting a coffee or getting lunch or maybe taking a 5-minute break to pick up the kids from school or something like that – to ensure that they are protected. This is quite simple and straightforward, and yet we have got a government putting it off to a review. Why does it need a review?

James Newbury interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: A two-year delay. It is coming from a government that has a bit of form on reviews recently, a government that says, ‘We’re going to change the rules on IBAC, but we’re going to do it in 18 months.’ This is nothing like the complexity that might come from the definition of corruption or the extension of the –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I refer to your earlier rulings about being relevant to the procedural debate, and I would ask you to remind the Leader of the Nationals about that.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals to come back to the procedural debate.

Danny O’BRIEN: This is a very important piece of legislation to close a simple loophole that will look after our emergency services workers, whether they are police, whether they are paramedics, whether they are nurses on duty or whether they are firefighters, including the volunteer firefighters who I was with on Sunday and who have certainly got a beef with the Labor government. And they will have a further beef with the government over the fact –

Anthony Carbines interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: ‘The same old whingers’, the minister calls them. Let the record show that the Minister for Police has just referred to the CFA volunteers and emergency services workers as the same old whingers. Well, that highlights exactly the attitude that this government takes towards our volunteer firefighters and emergency services workers.

That is absolutely disgraceful, Minister, that you would say that, call them ‘the same old whingers’, after what this government has done to them over the last few years, particularly with the fire services reform. But I will come back to the issue at hand.

We have just heard from the government how little regard they have for our emergency services workers. ‘The same old whingers’, the Minister for Police called them. This is an important piece of legislation. The member for Macedon just said she does not support it because this bill does not address the issue. She has not even seen the bill. This is a debate about introducing it so that the government members can have a look at it. I know government members are used to being given a piece of paper from the minister’s office and being told ‘Read that, and don’t stray beyond it.’

A member interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: It is outrageous. You should actually have a look at some legislation at some stage, including legislation that might be introduced by other members of the Parliament, whether that is the opposition, the Greens or anyone else. This government is not interested in that. It is not interested in closing loopholes for our emergency services workers, making sure that they are protected. The heinous acts that some people have committed on paramedics and others, the violence that they have experienced, should not be tolerated. This loophole should not be tolerated. It can be closed. The government could vote for it right now, and it should do so.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:21): I rise to make a brief contribution on this procedural debate, because a brief contribution is all that this political stunt deserves. Any act of senseless violence against emergency service workers, against paramedics, is absolutely deplorable and unacceptable. I think everybody in this house understands that. Every day our emergency service workers bust their gut to respond to emergencies to keep Victorians safe. And then after some incidents of absolutely senseless violence, we have the Liberal Party and the Nationals, the opposition, the clowns that they are, come in here and pull a political stunt like this.

The member for Gippsland South, in the word salad that he just went through for 5 minutes, tried to talk about the fact that they had consulted with the union. We know that they have not consulted with the union on this piece of legislation and on this change. We know that they have not consulted with Danny Hill, because he has told us. They come in here, they pull a political stunt and they do so knowing full well the last time that they were in government they created this loophole. It was them. It was the former Napthine government in 2014 that passed this legislation and created this loophole. They also do so while keeping a straight face, which is the most amazing thing. They went to war with our paramedics when the member for Melton was the secretary. They went to war with our paramedics for four years, and they come in here without any consultation and pull a political stunt like this – and they do it with a straight face. It is absolutely deplorable. We will continue to do everything we can to support our paramedics, to support our emergency services workers and to keep them safe every single day. There is absolutely no way that we should be debating this legislation, because it is nothing more than a political stunt.

 Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (12:24): Imagine you are one of a couple of female paramedics walking down the street – you are just trying to have a short break – but while you are walking along you get assaulted. Both females get assaulted. And when you try to intervene when other women are being assaulted in the street, you get assaulted even more. This happened in Mornington in my electorate. Today we are debating a loophole that has become impossible to ignore, a loophole exposed in Mornington, acknowledged by the government but still waiting for a real legislative fix. That is why I support the member for Brighton’s introduction of this bill today. It is a bill that will close this loophole once and for all. It should have the government’s support, but already they have said, in advance of even having a vote on this, that they will not support this. They have also made false claims that we have not even talked to Danny Hill from the union. The member for Brighton has made it quite clear that Georgie Crozier from the other place has consulted and has talked to Danny from the union.

We are all sitting in this chamber here on this side of the house, but on the government side there are hardly any at all. They do not want to listen to this important debate here today. It is important: Ambulance Victoria recorded over 1000 occupational violence hazards, incidents or injury reports in 2024–25. This is a live and ongoing threat to the people who arrive when Victorians are at their most vulnerable. Kathryn McCormack’s case is why this debate matters. As I raised in Parliament previously, Kathryn was one of two female paramedics assaulted in Mornington in September last year. She was seriously injured and needed surgery and still requires treatment to this day. She had hoped that the offender would be charged with the more serious offence of assault of an emergency worker, particularly because emergency service workers, when they are in uniform especially, face a greater risk. Yet the charge of assault of an emergency worker was withdrawn because the paramedics were not treated as being on duty at that precise moment, while they were on a break. Yes, they were on a break – they were not then treating a patient. But because of this – because of a legal technicality – the law failed to reflect the reality of the job that they were doing.

That failure sits in the legislation itself, but also it ultimately sits with this government, who have failed to immediately fix this loophole. They are looking to fail to do so again today, when we have put forward a reasonable piece of legislation. Under section 31 of the Crimes Act 1958 it is an indictable offence to assault, threaten to assault, resist or intentionally obstruct an emergency worker on duty. The same section imports the narrow meaning of ‘on duty’ from the Sentencing Act 1991. It says they are on duty when they are ‘providing, or attempting to provide, care or treatment to a patient’ – not when they are on shift and available for dispatch, not when they are refuelling, not when they are restocking, not when they are on a break in uniform or carrying a radio or ready to respond, not even when they intervene when someone is assaulting women on the streets of Mornington. That is why this cannot be brushed off as some minor technicality about sentencing. Yes, the government has finally acknowledged that something is wrong. After another shocking attack on a paramedic in Reservoir in April this year, the Premier said the government would ask the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review the definition of ‘on duty’ and ensure there are no loopholes. The VLRC has been tasked with looking at reform; however, as noted by the member for Brighton, the target date for its report is 30 June 2027 – over a year from now. That is not an urgent fix.

This is something that can be fixed today. It can be fixed today by this government supporting this important piece of legislation put forward by the member for Brighton – we must do so. In New South Wales they have closed such loopholes, and in Queensland they have closed such loopholes. The reform should be simple. We must amend the governing definition so that emergency services workers are treated as being on duty for their whole shift, while they are available for deployment or otherwise carrying out operational functions. We must close the gap for breaks, refuelling, restocking, waiting for dispatch and more. This can be fixed by the government supporting this bill today. They should support it, but they have already said they will not, even in advance of voting on it, which is shameful. At the end of the day, this is about emergency services workers. It is about those two female paramedics walking down the street in Mornington who should have been protected.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:29): We have the best paramedics in the world here in Victoria. Luckily, our paramedics do not take the LNP approach to their work. Imagine that: they would rush into a difficult situation shouting and screaming. They would not seek to understand what the cause of the problem is or what the actual issue is, and instead they would ignore the experts around them, like the union, like the legal experts, and –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I renew my previous point of order on requiring the members to be factual. I now have Danny’s text messages.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton will resume his seat. I ask members to be factual when they are on their feet.

Lauren KATHAGE: Thank you so much. As I was saying, I am so glad that our highly skilled and dedicated paramedics do not take the approach of those opposite – choosing a treatment based not on how it will help the patient but on how it will help themselves. That is shocking. Those opposite are choosing a bandaid instead of a bandage. They are choosing to focus just on the leg of the issue and ignoring the rest of the patient. They are not taking a comprehensive view of the issue that needs to be addressed but focusing on themselves.

Luckily our paramedics are nothing like those opposite. They are dedicated, they are highly skilled and they are selfless, and they always have our support. That is why we are taking careful, consultative and thorough measures to make sure that the loopholes created by the Liberals are closed, and not just that but that any other weakness in the legislation is dealt with once and for all, not for our benefit but for the benefit of paramedics, not for a stunt but for certainty.

We know that those opposite like to drop names and talk about facts. But the fact is that what they have sought to introduce today the union know nothing about, because they are doing it for themselves – they are not doing it for paramedics. That is shameful. We will always back our paramedics, and we are doing good, proper work to support them.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:32): (By leave) Just very quickly, the Greens support the principle of non-government members being able to bring in bills, unless the content of the bill is so obviously against the Greens’ values. In this case we will be supporting the right of the Liberal–National parties to first-read the bill. We are the only Westminster system, as we have said before, the only Westminster Parliament that does not have dedicated non-government business time in the lower house. We think that needs to change. We have been very clear about that. For that principled reason, we will be supporting this motion.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (12:32): (By leave) I would just like to quickly echo the sentiments of the member for Melbourne. I support all members in this place being able to bring bills forward for debate unless they are constructed on a basis that is an abuse of the chamber. That is most definitely not the case in this circumstance. This is an important public policy matter, and I think it warrants a proper discussion in this chamber.

Assembly divided on motion: