Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (09:40): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to require the installation and maintenance of automated external defibrillators in certain buildings, places and vehicles and for other purposes.

I rise in support of this motion that the bill be introduced and debated. This is a procedural question. I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate it. The house is not being asked today to pass the bill. It is not being asked to endorse every provision or even to reach a final view on its merits. It is simply being asked to allow the bill to be introduced, made available to members and considered through the ordinary parliamentary process. That distinction matters, but members should also understand why this bill deserves the opportunity to be heard. The principle behind it is straightforward: automated external defibrillators save lives. We know this. Ambulance Victoria tells us that early defibrillation is critical, that anyone can use an AED and that every minute matters when someone suffers a cardiac arrest. Around 21 Victorians suffer a cardiac arrest every day. Ambulance Victoria’s latest data shows that when patients are first shocked using a public AED 63 per cent survive. Where there is no bystander CPR or AED use, survival is just 7 per cent. That is not a marginal difference, it is the difference between someone going home to their family and never going home at all.

The problem is that an AED can only save a life if it is there when it is needed. A defibrillator locked away in a building across town is no help to somebody whose heart has stopped. A defibrillator that nobody can find is no help. A defibrillator that is inaccessible when a venue is full of people is no help at all. This bill responds to that practical reality. It would require AEDs to be installed where Victorians actually are: in schools and tertiary institutions, retirement villages and residential care facilities, caravan parks, large commercial buildings, theatres, concert halls, sporting venues and other designated places. These are places where Victorians learn, work, exercise, gather and live. They are places that can accommodate hundreds or thousands of people. They are places where sooner or later a cardiac arrest will occur. The bill would also require AEDs in key emergency services vehicles, putting life-saving equipment in the hands of people who may arrive before an ambulance. Cardiac arrest happens suddenly. It can happen to anyone of any age or level of fitness, often without warning ‍– in fact perhaps typically without warning. When it happens, there is no time to wait until the defibrillator can be brought from somewhere else. The equipment must already be there.

To speakers following me in this debate: please do not insult the intelligence of this house by saying that the motions on the notice paper are more important than the debate on this bill. They are not, so please do not insult our intelligence. Get up, own the position, say ‘We’re the government. We get to do what we want’ – say that – but please do not pretend that the motions on the notice paper are more important than the installation of automated external defibrillators, which save lives. There is nothing on the notice paper that is a life-saving matter, and for that reason I think it is very, very important that we have this debate, that we consider this bill, that we do the work of this house in the name of Victorians.

An independent member representing a community is able to do more than just simply comment on proposals brought forward by the government. Non-government members can and should identify ideas that deserve to be considered by the house. This is one such idea. It is worthy of consideration. I know that members of the government and that members of the opposition are privately supportive of this measure, so why not at least have the debate rather than burning the day on sledge motions or other rubbish that is just there to run down the clock? Why not have a substantive debate about a matter that actually affects the lives of Victorians? There are genuinely life-saving measures contained within this bill, without anticipating debate, and they are important matters – matters that ought to be debated by the house.

I accept that the government has an important role in setting the legislative agenda, but it should not have an absolute monopoly on which ideas Parliament is permitted to examine. There can be no greater act of arrogance than simply saying the sole source of good ideas in this place belongs to members on the government benches. The other thing is that allowing this bill to be introduced does not bind the government to supporting it. It is simply the entry to the debate – a debate that this house should have, a debate that is meritorious, a debate that is worth having. If the government does not wish to support this bill, I say this to the government: if there is an opportunity to save lives of Victorians and a better way to handle the instance of cardiac arrest and the first response to it, then give us that idea and let us know what it is. This is a proportionate, sensible and well-considered bill that very much ought to be debated by the house.

 Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (09:45): There is absolutely no disagreement in this chamber about the importance of automated external defibrillators or the difference that they can make when somebody suffers a cardiac arrest. We know that when someone suffers a cardiac arrest every second counts. What I do want to say is that good intentions do not remove the responsibility to make good law. This bill proposes a sweeping mandatory scheme across Victoria; that is what it proposes. It requires AEDs in a very broad range of buildings and places such as caravan parks, gambling and performance venues and commercial buildings. These are substantial new obligations affecting government, councils, community organisations, education providers, businesses and our transport operators. They also involve ongoing responsibilities for maintenance, signage and reporting, backed by significant penalties for noncompliance. These are just some of the implications of this bill, but the bill proposes that these requirements come into effect and commence from 1 January 2027. A proposal of this scale needs so much more than a headline. It needs proper consultation, coordination and responsible decision-making. It needs proper consideration of where AEDs will have the greatest impact, how devices will be maintained and replaced, how accessibility will work in actual practice and what the cost will be and who will bear it. It is for these reasons that I do not support the motion put forward by the member for Ringwood.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (09:47): The Greens will be supporting this motion. We support the principle of members of the crossbench and opposition – non-government members and non-ministers – being able to introduce, first read, debate and have their bills voted on, but we also support a lot of the substance of what the member for Ringwood has put forward. Back in June my colleague in the other place Dr Sarah Mansfield, Deputy Leader of the Greens, raised an adjournment matter for the Minister for Health that was on this very topic. She was seeking a commitment from the minister to introduce mandatory requirements for AEDs, automated external defibrillators, in public spaces and venues. She noted that every day 21 Victorians suffer a cardiac arrest and only one in 10 currently will survive. We know these are not abstract statistics. Each one of those people is a parent, a child, a neighbour, a colleague, a friend, a sister, a brother, an aunty or an uncle whose life could have been saved if they did have faster access to the right equipment.

We know a cardiac arrest occurs when the heart suddenly stops pumping blood effectively around the body, and time in that situation is everything. For every minute that CPR is delayed, the chance of survival decreases by 10 per cent. Even if you survive, the risk of permanent neurological damage increases. When a bystander is able to administer CPR and deliver a shock from an AED before emergency services arrive, the chance of survival more than doubles, so that is huge. That is the difference a defibrillator makes. Currently, without that intervention, the survival rate sits at just 5 per cent. With access to an AED and early CPR, we know from the Canadian model and from international experience that survival rates can reach 50 or 60 per cent. From 5 per cent to 50 or 60 per cent is absolutely huge; it is not just a marginal improvement.

So what is stopping us? The technology does exist. It is proven, it is accessible and it is actually very easy to use these. If anyone has used one of these devices, they really are very, very simple to use. They are very automatic. They give you the instructions when you open them of how to do it. Anybody can use them, and they are very safe, accessible, life-saving devices. What we need now is the political will to ensure that they are available where Victorians are. We have had some fairly famous examples in the city, for example, of large public venues where people have had heart incidents where their lives could have been saved by early access to an AED or where they were saved by early access to an AED.

My colleague Dr Sarah Mansfield called for legislation to ensure that this happens, and she noted that that legislation also provides indemnity to bystanders who attempt to use an AED in good faith, removing one of the most cited barriers to public use, so that is not an excuse not to do this. There is also the work of St John Ambulance; they have written a letter to the minister calling for something like this as well. They are proud to support more AEDs out in the community, and they are calling for greater public education, community involvement and increased uptake. The thing is, AEDs only work if they are there. They only work if they are physically present. They only work if they are accessible, available, visible, it is obvious where they are and they can be accessed quickly, because as we said, even 1 minute matters critically. Every single minute without access to an AED reduces the chance of survival by 10 per cent. These need to be accessible 24 hours a day. They need to be clearly signposted. We very much urge the minister to commit to exploring a mandated, staged approach to AED installation across public venues in Victoria, because in a cardiac arrest every second counts and every defibrillator saves lives. I think this is something that the government should very much consider.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (09:51): I rise to speak to this procedural motion in relation to a bill that the member for Ringwood is seeking to introduce, and at the outset I want to acknowledge that the intentions in this bill, were it to be introduced, are worthy. This is an issue I think there would be unanimity across the house upon. Cardiac health is something which is particularly important to me and my family, and I suspect to all of those across the house. Each of us will have been touched, whether as MPs or as family members, by instances of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, undiagnosed perhaps, which can result in catastrophic outcomes where undiagnosed heart conditions that people have result in very sudden cardiac arrest. That is why this government, since 2014 – and I note the member for Pascoe Vale, as an adviser to former Minister Eren, assisted with this work – has rolled out 1400 AEDs at public spaces across Victoria. The idea of rolling out more is a worthy one. But that good intention does not compromise the need for substantive work to be done in thinking through the implementation of the provisions of a bill such as this.

One of the issues that I have got concerns about is the idea that this bill would take effect on 1 January 2027. That idea of conferring very significant obligations upon a whole range of organisations, from local councils to sporting clubs to businesses, is I think challenging. For a bill of this nature that deals with really substantive and important things – and the member for Ringwood is right that these things matter – I would suggest that consulting more widely, ensuring that there is an opportunity for people to discuss and consult on these issues before the tabling of the bill is probably the better way go so that we are not suddenly sprung in dealing with this on the floor of the Parliament in the morning.

The member for Ringwood has spoken on this bill already; I am speaking on it at the moment. While I do not think any of us object or have any issues whatsoever with the intention of the bill and the need to ensure that more Victorians survive sudden cardiac arrest and issues like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy that might be undiagnosed, my contention is that consultation is important. It is solely for that reason that I oppose this motion.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (09:54): Well, if people want to see where democracy has gone here in Victoria, they only need to come and watch these particular speeches. You can actually look at the members from the Labor Party giving speeches about the importance of the bill that the member for Ringwood wants to introduce, then they will vote against allowing a debate in this place. That is what it has come to here in Victoria. The member for Ringwood should be entitled to put forward a bill that we could at least have the debate on. Whether it is the Greens, the independents or the opposition, what we have seen too often in this place is when we have tried to introduce legislation, including on keeping people like Paul Denyer behind bars, the government votes against it and then comes back within a month or two and goes, ‘Hey, I’ve got a good idea, we’ll do what they did, but we’ll call it our own.’

That is where democracy is here in this state. This government have continually blocked any good idea from the other side of the aisle at every step of the way. And that is disappointing and not in the best interests of Victorians. It simply does not pass the pub test. And what is worse is whilst we are talking about the importance of a bill like this where we are talking about saving people’s lives, what did the government introduce? The government introduced sledge motions to have a go at fake claims around cuts here in Victoria. They want to come in here with their fake ideology, their fake claims about what the Liberals and Nationals may or may not do, but they will not allow an open and honest debate on legislation that could potentially save someone’s life.

I put it to every person in this house that someone knows someone who has had to have CPR and has seen the outcomes when it is negative, when you lose someone. As a former copper I can tell you I have been to those scenes, and they are horrible when you think someone’s life could have been saved. I note the member for Rowville is not in here at the moment, but we know that at one stage in life if it was not for these electronic devices, his wife would not be here. That is a fact, and that is why you can come in here and debate these things. For the member for Ringwood to get shut down, then have to get up with point of order after point of order to try and introduce this important bill and then for the government to say, ‘Yep, really important. We all understand how it will save someone’s life. We understand the impact. We know where these could be used. We know the positives of them, but we don’t want to have a debate on them’ is not where Victorian democracy should be.

We have had 12 years of this Labor government – 12 years where they think they know everything, 12 years of a government who continuously put absolutely ridiculous motions on the notice paper, a government who after 12 years come in here and want to bag the opposition because they have got nothing to talk about from their 12 years in government. If we want to talk about something from 12 ‍years of government, let us listen to the Insurance Council of Australia today, where they have had an increase in crime under the watch of the current minister and the –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I simply ask that contributions relate to the procedural motion before the house.

The SPEAKER: The member for Berwick to come back to the procedural motion.

Brad BATTIN: I am very much on the procedure. How many motions are on this paper or have been on this paper in relation to crime? There have been plenty. If we want a debate about what should and should not be on this notice paper, let us start talking about the motions that this government is putting forward around trying to call out fake things from the opposition at the same time that they will not talk about the real things from their side.

Anthony Carbines: On a further point of order, Speaker, I renew my point of order to be relevant to the procedural motion before the house.

Brad BATTIN: On the point of order, Speaker, it is absolutely relevant to what is in here. It is about the government business program. It is about the member for Ringwood introducing a piece of legislation and also all of the motions that this government is putting forward for this particular paper.

The SPEAKER: The motion is about the introduction of the bill that the member for Ringwood has introduced, so that is what you need to speak to.

Brad BATTIN: Speaker, I will take your guidance on that, and we will talk about the piece of legislation that the member for Ringwood wants to introduce. The member for Ringwood has come into this place again to try and introduce legislation, as has happened on more than one occasion on this side of the house. We will see yet again in 12 minutes time the Victorian Labor Party, with their absolute height of hypocrisy, come in here and say, ‘We’re all about democracy. We all believe that every person in Victoria should have a voice and everyone counts.’ But what they have done today is highlight that the people of Ringwood do not have a voice in this place, because it will be shut down by the Victorian Labor Party each and every step of the way. What we need to do is ensure that if pieces of legislation come into this place, good ideas from either side of the house, we at least have the courage to debate them. If you have not got the courage to debate this, that is a message to Victorians: this Labor government has simply given up.

The SPEAKER: Members should not use the word ‘you’. It is a reflection on the Chair.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (09:59): I rise to oppose the introduction of a bill by the member for Ringwood. I do want to acknowledge, as others have done, the importance of automated external defibrillator technology. I want to acknowledge the work of St John Ambulance Victoria, particularly in this place, and I want to acknowledge, as others have done, that cardiac arrest and heart disease touch many people and many families. But I would like to put very simply that this is not a new idea. In fact St John Ambulance have put this idea around a lot. And this is not something that does not exist already in this state. The Victorian government has rolled out AEDs in a wide number of locations. This is merely a proposal to expand that. And I would put to you, Speaker, and to the house that this really is a health budget allocation question, not a question of legislation but a question for the Minister for Health and the Department of Health to determine where best to put their funds. As we know, in the health area there are many, many areas in which we would love to see additional funding, and there is always the challenge of thinking about where best to do that. We have been unlucky in this house recently to know people affected by cancer and by MND. There are many different areas of health research where we could think about putting additional funding. I put it to you that this particular matter put forward by the member for Ringwood is best dealt with in the lead-up to the 2027–28 budget.

Assembly divided on motion: