Thursday, 7 April 2022

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:49): I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill that we are debating this afternoon, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022, which has finally got to the house. It is a bill that involves a number of aspects. It is an omnibus bill that will make several amendments to a number of acts. It provides the chief health officer and any other relevant officer with civil statutory immunity if they are acting in good faith, so if anybody is wanting to take court action against the chief health officer, this responsibility in a civil case will be then transferred to the state. It provides the chief health officer with extra powers in relation to the circumstances where they may be able to make an examination and testing order if there are issues or concerns around a public health measure. So if there is an infectious disease or an outbreak of microorganisms in the community that is a risk to the community, then this will give greater ability to get that data. I will speak to some more of that.

It removes the references to HIV and hepatitis C to remove stigma around that aspect, so they will not be specified in legislation. Hepatitis and HIV will be reflected as other infectious diseases are, so it will remove that stigma. It facilitates expanding testing data collection in an effort to improve infectious disease management, identification and analysis, allowing for a more informed and less restrictive response. I will come back and speak to that element. It also makes consequential and miscellaneous amendments to the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, and it also amends the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to redefine ‘prescribed accommodation’ and ‘proprietor’ in relation to accommodation to ensure that proper standards are adhered to for certain labour hire workers. Now, I have sort of just outlined what the bill does, what it aims to do, and it aims to do all of those things, as has been highlighted by the minister in his second-reading speech.

If I could just get to a couple of points, I will go to the first one around labour hire and accommodation. The bill broadens the definition of ‘prescribed accommodation’ and redefines ‘proprietor’ so that there are greater standards, as I said, that will be applied. Now, we do know that there have been a number of issues around labour hire in the agricultural industry, very significant challenges through the last two years over COVID, and there have been shortages. The agriculture industry has been very concerned about that. The government has said that there have been reports of substandard accommodation that has been provided to these workers in the past, and this will give a greater framework and a greater ability for councils especially to be able to monitor this. If there were any grey areas where there was an aversion to registration by any owners of these accommodations, this bill will capture that and fix that problem.

This particular aspect of the bill came out of the Forsyth inquiry in 2016, which made a number of recommendations. This part of the bill specifically does relate to recommendations 9 and 10. Really it will simplify matters, it will ensure that council have a greater ability to monitor and it will also lessen the annual fees. I think there will be a one-off fee from councils that the councils will determine. They will determine fees based on cost recovery through the act. It will also give greater ability for one-off registrations for things like farmstays and Airbnbs in regional areas, so it will simplify registration and red tape. So that is that part of the bill.

If I can go to the area of data collection and sharing of notifiable samples and analysis, what happens currently is that pathology will notify the Department of Health when there is a positive result. If there is a positive test result of some infectious disease or notifiable disease—I think there is somewhere in the vicinity of 72 notifiable diseases that are currently listed—for a pathology or a doctor that does have one of these tests return positive, there is an obligation for that pathology department to pass that result on to the department so that they can then monitor that. What this part of the bill does is it gives an ability to have a greater understanding of what is actually in the community. If there is an outbreak of a particular disease, and those tests go off—somebody presents with symptoms, and they are tested—all of the results that come back negative currently do not go into the department. The department does not really understand how big potentially the issue is. What this part of the bill does is it enables the department to have a greater understanding of the depth of testing around a particular notifiable disease. I think it is a commonsense measure. It will give the department a greater understanding of the trends of what has been happening in the community. This part of the bill will give the department and the secretary a greater appreciation of what is happening, as I said, in the community.

Certainly through COVID we have seen a greater awareness from the community about testing, pathology and the like. I think the community is understanding of public health measures and why we need certain public health measures. Of course we are 94 per cent double vaccinated, one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. We have got more testing capacity in the system, and there are the antivirals that are coming on board. We have got a greater capacity as a global community to manage COVID, and it is a tremendous acknowledgement of the work of scientists throughout the world who have really worked on this over the past two years to have that ability in such a short time frame to get a vaccine on board. Who would have thought in March 2020 that we would have a vaccine and be in this position? I think it is a true testament to those medical scientists and the work that they have done—in particular, the tremendous work that was done in the UK on AstraZeneca, a vaccine that was unfortunately demonised by health officials in this country, quite disgracefully. Nevertheless, we are in this world, and I have to say that we are in such a better position here in Australia and in the world with these tools that we have got on board: vaccinations, antivirals and testing capacity.

It is not March 2020; it is April 2022, two years on. When we are dealing with COVID, we should be looking through that lens, not the lens of 2020, where some still think we need to be, because this virus, as we know and as we have been saying for years, will mutate. There will be variant after variant after variant—and I read today there is yet another variant. That is fine. It is highly transmissible; we know that. But we are vaccinated, and I think there needs to be greater consideration in all of these things, and we need to have a proportionate response in relation to it. The pandemic declaration by the Premier is ongoing—another three months. Well, yes, there are variants and, yes, certainly COVID is not going away; we know that. But as I said, we are in a better position than we were in March 2020, and we do need to be able to manage this. I have noticed that there are members who are managing it. They have in recent days tested for COVID. They are in here participating in a commonsense manner. That is exactly what we should be doing.

It is on the record, and I will say it again: on this side of the house, we think those close contact isolation rules should be reviewed. There are many people taken out of our workforce because they are close contacts who never test positive. That is putting a massive strain on our health system, on our essential services, on our supply chains—on the very areas that this bill refers to. In the agricultural industry there are massive challenges. I would urge the government to hear from some health experts around Australia, not just the hand-picked ones in the Department of Health, and listen to what they are saying about some of these commonsense measures, whether it is close contact rules or whether it is masks on children. I say again, it is nonsensical to have a composite class where half the kids have got a mask on and half have not. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But this is how the government is managing this COVID crisis here in Victoria, and frankly I do not think it is the right way. I think they could do a lot better than they are doing, because it is causing so many issues, and those issues will be here long after this COVID pandemic.

If I can return to this bill, I know that there are other aspects to the bill that I have spoken about, but I do want to come to the point of one area that is quite topical because of the nature of what we have described and where we are at with COVID, and that is providing civil statutory immunity to chief health officers or those who are working in the department and switching that to the state. It is only the civil aspect, not criminal behaviours or events or anything in that regard. I do understand that there are many good health officials who are doing the best they can for the community and they are acting in good faith, so I understand that aspect of this bill and what this is actually saying. I do understand that; I do think that it is important to understand that they are acting under direction from government, from ministers, that policy decisions are being made and that they should have a degree of immunity. It is a bit like those in hospitals—nurses are protected also. They have that protection when they are working in a healthcare setting. They do not need to go out and get their own professional indemnity. The hospital system will protect them, unless there is gross negligence or there is criminal activity that is investigated by the police and found to be so. So we do need to have some common sense here.

But I do want to just raise this, because there is an issue around the chief health officer and proceedings that are currently going on around I Cook Foods. It is something that I have been very interested in for many years. As members in this house know, when Ian Cook approached me in May 2019 and I started to ask questions of the then Minister for Health, something just did not seem to be right. I moved a motion to get an investigation up, which was supported by the house. We had that first inquiry. Of course the chief health officer made statements in that first inquiry, which it took 12 months to then correct in the second inquiry after we were successful in the house with another motion I moved to get that second inquiry up. That is part of what we do; we do those inquiries to try to get to the bottom of things. But I raise this issue because currently Victoria Police has been fighting for months in VCAT an application to produce any documents that relate to the chief health officer and Victoria Police’s investigation into the closure of I Cook Foods. This is happening as we speak—Victoria Police are fighting that. The police are arguing that they do not have to say whether these documents exist or not. Well, if they do not exist, say they do not exist. Why wouldn’t they say they do not exist? Then everybody could move on. But they will not say they do not exist, and they are fighting in VCAT. So this makes this whole issue very murky.

The whole I Cook saga has been exactly that: a saga. It has gone on for too long. We are into the third year. I think the question is: if the chief health officer has been interviewed or arrested or spoken to by Detective Sergeant Ash Penry, why don’t they just tell Victorians that? That is what this is about in VCAT now. Why won’t they just say, ‘Yes, he was investigated—end of story’ or say, ‘No, he wasn’t’? Instead there is this blanket silence. Victoria Police will not confirm whether he was basically investigated—and you are a former police officer, Acting President Bourman, so I am looking at you.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I didn’t do it.

Ms CROZIER: No, you did not do it, but you know what I am saying. Victoria Police are there to investigate, whether he is suspected of doing a crime or not. Breaking the law—a crime—is what this is about, and I think Victorians want to have greater transparency on this issue. I would hope that through the VCAT system and through this very important question of whether there was an investigation or there was not by Detective Sergeant Ash Penry, then let it be known and then perhaps everybody could move on. But the ongoing suppression of this information just keeps this saga going on. There are huge questions to be answered. I think it is incredibly disappointing that that is the case. I say that because I think people want to understand. They want closure with this case—it just keeps going on—and no-one more so than that family.

I will ask some questions in committee. I will not be spending a lot of time in committee, but I do have a few questions to the minister. There is the issue around the recent bill that was passed in this place on sex workers. One of the questions I had during the briefing was around that element. We are looking at what is happening in the community in trying to prevent notifiable diseases spreading, and then we passed in this house that a sex worker does not have to have regular testing to be able to work. I understand the rationale for the government wanting to do that; what I do not understand and where I have some queries is the long time—three months—when a sex worker who is not getting regularly tested could therefore be potentially spreading a notifiable disease. And they do not have to test in that period, whereas they did before because they had to if they were to work. So I understand the legislation that went through and the intent behind why a sex worker does not have to be tested to be able to work, but this bill actually talks about wanting to see where notifiable diseases are being spread. In a three-month gap potentially there could be spread—very unintentionally, but there could be spread—a notifiable disease, a sexually transmitted disease, a disease such as hepatitis C or HIV or an STI. They could be spread through that three-month period. So I will be asking the government about that because that three-monthly check was removed.

Anyway, as I said, I will have more questions in the committee stage. I did want to put those points on the record. I already have made my points, I think. Again I say the opposition will not be opposing this legislation, but there are concerns that have come through stakeholders who have come back to me with their concerns. I will wait to speak to the minister.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:09): I would like to rise to speak quite briefly on this bill. It is a fairly varied bill, but it does deal with notifiable diseases and bloodborne diseases and it certainly looks at the gathering of testing data et cetera. So it does go to various places, as Ms Crozier spoke about just earlier.

But I think the area that I would really like to touch on is the repeal of references to HIV and hepatitis C. I know that there are so many people who will be incredibly grateful about this amendment to this piece of legislation. This just takes us another step towards removing the stigma and discrimination against people who have HIV and hep C, and it is a stigma that can be fatal. It is a stigma that sometimes means people do not seek the help that they need. They get ostracised from their families. We saw that people with HIV, particularly in the earlier days, were not dying from HIV, they were dying from suicide, and they were dying because of the stigma, the discrimination and the shame imposed upon them for contracting HIV. So this is a good development. This is a very positive part of this legislation. As I say, there have been in numerous areas numerous changes to legislation over the last two terms that the government has put forward that go more and more towards removing that stigma around HIV. I am grateful for it, and on behalf of the HIV-positive community I express their thanks for this.

HIV now is treated much like diabetes. It is something you will have for the rest of your life, but it is not what is going to kill you; you are not going to die from it. And in fact most people who are taking the medicine as prescribed will not even test positive. They will have such a low viral load that it will not even show up in a test, and it would be next to impossible to transmit HIV when they are taking the medication, as they are now. We also have things like PEP and PrEP, which are other preventative tools to stop people from contracting it in the first place, or if they feel they have been exposed, they have those tools to help them not fully contract HIV. So this is a really welcome amendment.

I have to say I have been involved around HIV since the late 1980s, and I do not think any of us thought in the late 80s that we would be talking about HIV in the way that we are talking about it today—that we would be talking about HIV not actually being transmissible and people living full lives, never going from HIV to AIDS. Now, that is in this country, and we are one lucky country for that. Many other countries are still struggling with this and we have still got a long way to go globally, but here in Australia we have done a remarkable job to fight HIV.

I would just like to comment quickly, given Ms Crozier’s comments, around testing and sex workers. Now, sex workers were the first cohort of people to be cognisant of the risk of HIV. Long before the community was aware of it we saw the sex worker community become very aware of it and very concerned about it. We saw almost 100 per cent of sex workers using safe sex practices, as I said, back as far as 1987, 1988, in Australia. The Australian sex workers were right at the front of this, from prevention and also looking after their own health through sexual health testing, as they will continue to do under a decriminalised model. Sex workers will continue to look after their health, and I think it also should be noted that there has never, ever been a transmission of HIV from a sex worker to a client—ever—in Australia. There is not one single reported case of a sex worker transmitting HIV to a client or during their work. So it is an unnecessary concern, and it goes I think very much to the judgement and stigma that people place on sex workers, that somehow sex workers cannot be trusted, even with their own health, and that somehow the government must control them because these—most sex workers are female—women are fallen. There is a considerable amount of moral judgement placed on them in this regard. There is nothing to be afraid of. When you speak to all of the transmissible disease experts, from the Burnet Institute even to the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre—they were saying the three-monthly compulsory testing was unnecessary and expensive and sex workers were seeking to look after their own health. They did not need legislation to do that.

The other point I would just like to touch on is—because I am sure Dr Ratnam will be speaking soon; she is putting up amendments in relation to drug checking and drug notifications—as many of you would be aware, she and I have jointly sponsored a bill on pill testing. That sits on the notice paper, and it may be something that we debate before the end of this term. But what we are seeing is a growing amount of evidence—not just international evidence, where pill testing has been undertaken and has been regular practice for many years, even decades, but even within Australia. The ACT has been conducting and supporting pill testing for a number of years now; in fact there will be a festival in the ACT next month where there will be a pill-testing facility established. The concept of pill testing is supported by the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and just about every single alcohol and other drug expert and person who works in that field. So we are going to be seeing festivals come back, thankfully, and I am sure we are all very happy to see that the festival season will hopefully be almost as normal as possible come the end of this year.

What we see from pill testing is it is almost a loss leader, and I have witnessed this not just in Australia but also overseas, where you will have someone coming in, bringing in their pill to be tested. Now, the machine that goes ‘ping’ does the testing and lets them know what is in that substance, and we know that if that substance is not found to be what that person thought it was or is found to be something dangerous, guess what, that person does not consume that substance and that substance is disposed of. But most importantly as part of that process they get to speak to a health practitioner—and it is phenomenal; you cannot get some of the young people out of the tent because they have so many questions around drug use. They have so many questions about the interactions between various drugs, whether that is prescription medication or recreational drugs, as it were. It is that education that happens at that point, and we know that actually it prevents deaths. It is a very sensible approach.

In Dr Ratnam’s amendments there is also an amendment where if a bad batch of drugs were found in our community, then this would require the police to report on that. Now, we saw this in Chapel Street where a number of people died unnecessarily because we did not get out there on the radio and tell people. We did not get out there on the social media to warn people about a very bad batch of NBOMe which was being sold as MDMA, and we saw people die as a result.

Contrast that to about six years ago in the Netherlands where there was a similar, deadly batch of illicit substances going around. Now, they have an early warning system, so of course it went out on the news. It went out on all of the social media networks, and that prevented possibly hundreds—well, hundreds of injuries, if not deaths. We could and we should be doing that in Australia. It makes absolutely no sense that we are not doing it.

So this is harm reduction, and I think when I have listened to debates over the last seven years no-one seems to have opposed harm reduction—except when it comes to illicit drug use. Then it is just this proposal—and it is a preposterous proposal—that we just tell people to say no, that all drugs are dangerous, so you must just say no. It is not happening. And it does not matter how many penalties you put around drug use, the number of people who are using drugs does not decline. What does decline is the safety. What does decline is the ability for that person to seek help. So I think largely this bill is uncontroversial and welcome in regard to HIV and hepatitis C. But certainly I welcome Dr Ratnam’s amendments to this bill, and I commend the bill.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:20): I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022. Education and public health are two of the pillars of a civilised, modern and advanced society. The core function of a public health system is to promote and also to protect the health of people in the communities in which we live, learn and work. Usually public health is not the focus of the community until a crisis, such as what we are living in now, a pandemic—an outbreak of a very transmissible and infectious disease. In fact public health operates on a daily basis in order to keep people healthy and safe and also to help to ensure that we have clean water to drink, safe and nutritious food to eat and high-quality air to breathe. And also public health must ensure that there are many services, a broad range of them, to promote our human health, including vaccines.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the vaccines. There is a very small group of people—and I am afraid that includes some members of this chamber as well—that have been propagating false information about vaccines and vaccination.

Ms Crozier: Who?

Dr KIEU: You can hear some of the statements in the chamber about the vaccines not working. That is wrong. Vaccines do work. They save lives, and they relieve the pressure on our public health system.

We have an act, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, which is the central piece of legislation designed to protect the health and wellbeing of our community. This bill aims to strengthen many of the routine public health functions of the existing act. This bill will address issues identified in the recent review of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2019 as well as constraints in the act relating to testing and data collection.

The bill also delivers on outstanding government commitments stemming from the Victorian inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work and the Small Business Regulation Review (Visitor Economy) Action Statement. The bill will amend the act to allow for the rectification of lower risk prescribed accommodation in order to reduce regulatory burden and costs for the owners of small visitor accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, boutique guesthouses and farmstays. The bill includes accommodation related to labour hire arrangements within the prescribed accommodation framework, and I will go into that in more detail. The bill also expands data collection and further analysis powers to help improve our management and understanding of infectious diseases and the risks to public health. The bill will also expand the circumstances in which the chief health officer may make an examination and testing order for the monitoring and control of infectious diseases so that those diseases can be targeted more and can be responded to accordingly in the case of an outbreak.

The bill is also to introduce civil statutory immunity for officers who are working on and undertaking public health functions under the act. This is to bring Victoria into line with all other Australian jurisdictions which already provide personal liability. Like some other members and particularly Ms Patten mentioned, the bill will also remove the stigmatising references to HIV and hepatitis C. On top of that, the bill also makes a number of minor administrative and technical amendments, including recognising the profession of paramedicine, with the profession now being a protected profession in line with the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

With the time given, I cannot go into all of these aspects of the bill, but I will go into some of them in a little bit more detail—firstly about the standards of accommodation for labour hire. Labour hire workers support critical Victorian industries, including fruit picking and harvesting, and we need to protect the health and the wellbeing of those labour hire workers. Over the last 30 years labour hire workers have developed and formed into a very significant component of Victorian workers, and they are a major contributor to our economy. In 2015, in response to a number of high-profile cases which exposed exploitation of labour hire workers, particularly vulnerable and migrant workers who come to this country to help out with some of the agricultural work, the then Minister for Industrial Relations announced an inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work in Victoria. Through that inquiry the main story was of non-compliant labour hire agencies and workers being provided with inadequate and substandard accommodation, particularly in rural and regional areas, and they did not have a choice about where they wanted to stay or what kind of accommodation they should be housed in.

In some instances the labour hire workers were being housed in substandard accommodation, and the employers could get away with that through some arrangement designed to avoid the regulatory framework. Some of the establishments did not register under Victorian laws, so they could not be regulated and inspected by the local council. So most of those were not required to be registered under the current scheme. Some of the residential houses were not up to standard, with not enough bedrooms. Sometimes the lounge was being used for bedrooms. Even a disused caravan park had been used for accommodating labour hire workers. But the council was unable to get access to the premises in most of the cases because of the difficulty in determining who was receiving payment for the accommodation, due to the lack of regulation. As one rural council very succinctly summarised, the infringements and penalties in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 do not really act as a deterrent, especially if operators are aware of the loopholes.

This bill will respond particularly to recommendations 9 and 10 of the inquiry, and all accommodation will be required to be registered with the local council and meet public health standards. This will prevent overcrowding, this will regulate the number of bathrooms and toilets and this will regulate the maintenance, the cleanliness and the register of occupants.

This bill also strengthens the definition of ‘proprietor’ to better attribute responsibility and accountability to the persons providing the accommodation and better support councils and the Labour Hire Licensing Authority to monitor, inspect and enforce compliance. With the labour hire accommodation providers, they will be able to demonstrate compliance with the amendments proposed by this bill by changing or operating accommodation to meet the required standards, by applying for registration and paying an annual registration fee and by being available for compliance inspections, such as prior to the start of registration and ongoing annual inspection.

I have to bring to the attention of the house that these reforms complement a number of significant investments already being delivered by the Andrews Labor government to support the Victorian agricultural industry to meet the challenges of the workforce. Those investments include the $6 million seasonal workforce accommodation program, a regional workforce pilot project and some recent amendments to the Victoria planning provisions now exempting farm businesses from requiring a planning permit for on-farm worker accommodation for up to 10 people within the farming zones.

I would like to take my last 2 minutes to talk about immunity for public health officers. Public health officers are doing incredible work, as we have seen in this pandemic, to protect our community, and in order to attract and retain high-quality people we need to protect them and identify them. But at the moment there is still a possibility of them being named in litigation, which means that many skilled and talented public health professionals will shy away from these roles. They should not be worried about being sued simply for carrying out the functions of the job they are employed to do, provided the actions they are carrying out are in good faith. There are some exemptions. First of all, the right to a fair hearing will still be protected, as civil liability will be transferred to the state if the officers are acting in good faith. An officer undertaking these important public health functions will continue to remain accountable to a range of safeguards, and also they will be required to comply with the code of conduct for Victorian public sector employees as part of their employment. The immunity provisions do not cover criminal liability, and alleged criminal activities by an officer would have to go through the normal criminal investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution processes. The bill will not be retrospective; in fact it will not impact on the proceedings that are going on at present in the courts or in the legal system.

In summary, the functioning of a strong public health system in Victoria is fundamental to our state’s ability to prevent the spread of disease, to deliver improved and more equitable health outcomes for our community, to reduce hospital admissions and to increase our resilience to future health threats. The amendments in this bill will contribute to these crucial functions, ensuring that the day-to-day activities of our vital public workforce are grounded in contemporary and best practice reform. I commend the bill to the house

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (15:35): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022. Can I commence by commending the Shadow Minister for Health, Georgie Crozier, not only for her contribution to this bill but for the absolute leadership—the health leadership—she has shown in Victoria in the absence of any from the government. Her stewardship for change and her campaigns to ensure Victorians are well looked after have been strong, and I suspect a number of the late-minute decisions that have been taken by government—at late times—have been as a result of Ms Crozier’s campaigning to get things changed. We see it regularly.

The purpose of this bill is to provide the chief health officer and any other relevant officers with civil statutory immunity if they are acting in good faith, moving liability to the state. It also provides the CHO with extra powers in relation to the circumstances where they can make an examination or testing order, it removes references to HIV and hepatitis C to remove the stigma that is associated with them and it facilitates testing data collection in an effort to improve infectious disease management and identification analysis, allowing for a more informed and less restrictive response.

Well, they make decisions pretty quickly here when they need to—when they are in trouble and they are trying to divert from other challenges that are happening in this state. I note that last night the Premier extended the pandemic conditions until midnight on 12 July. There are people in Melbourne today going, ‘What? He did what?’. He keeps saying, on one hand, we are moving through COVID and we are coming back. He and his wife turned up to the opening night of Hamilton. Everyone is getting back to everything.

Ms Crozier: Masks on, masks off, yes.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Masks on, masks off—if you are in a composite class as a kid you are going to wear a mask, but the kid sitting next to you is not going to wear a mask because they are in different grade. It is a total mess. Victorians are saying today, ‘He extended the pandemic regulations to 12 July. On what evidence?’. It is probably the same evidence that was used to put red tape around kids’ playgrounds to stop kids going on the slide. It is probably the same health evidence that put a curfew on between 9.00 pm and 5.00 am every night. That evidence did not exist, and we have seen that in evidence ourselves. When the health professionals have been asked about it, they have said, ‘It wasn’t me who did it. It wasn’t me’. The man who enforces dictatorial rule over this state is deciding some of these things, and today, with the extension of the pandemic regulations until 12 July at midnight, Victorians are going, ‘Why? Show us the evidence around that’. He is saying, ‘Maybe in the future this could happen’. Maybe in the future they could get the budget back to a reasonable position in this state. Part of the challenge in this state is they have run out of money. Can you believe they are looking to borrow money to pay operational expenditures? It is ridiculous. The government will go into denial about that because for them it is, ‘Oh, it’s just money’. ‘It’s only money’, they would say. But they keep forgetting that it is the taxpayers’ money. Hardworking Victorians that are paying their taxes legitimately are watching this government flush their money down the drain or down the West Gate Tunnel or down the North East Link.

Ms Taylor: On a point of order, Acting President, could we come back to the bill?

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Ondarchie has been very much on the bill. He is actually talking about the money and where the money is going.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! This is not the debate part, Mr Finn. Mr Ondarchie, you are borderline there, because I understand that you are talking about the money that has been run up during the pandemic, but can we get more towards the bill rather than the wider issue?

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President. The reason I am talking about money is because one of the purposes of this bill is to move the liability, in a statutory sense, away from the CHO, therefore removing a financial impost on the CHO. So that gives me licence to talk about finance in this state. Anybody who denies the money in this bill is being either inept or foolish. This is about removing financial liability from the CHO, so it does give me licence to talk about finance.

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Acting President, I understand the member’s attempts to try and flout your ruling, but you have ruled, and I would suggest that Mr Ondarchie’s continued contribution is outside the scope of that ruling. I would invite you to ask him to come back to the bill, in accordance with your previous ruling.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you for reminding me of my ruling, Mr Gepp.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, the members of the government might not like what Mr Ondarchie is saying, and I can fully understand that, but the fact of the matter is that he is within your ruling, he is following your ruling and indeed he is speaking to the bill and within the confines of the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie, you are still kind of floating around. Can we just get on with it, please?

Mr ONDARCHIE: I think Victorians have been asking for this government to get on with it for a long time. When it comes to public health and wellbeing, it is all about the money. It is all about making sure there is appropriate money to run the public health and wellbeing system in this state. As we are talking about public health, I draw the house’s attention to a recent bit of feedback I had from a constituent who lives in inner Melbourne—

Ms Symes: You did a survey?

Mr ONDARCHIE: It was not by survey. They rang me directly and they said that over the weekend the fellow in the house suffered a very severe spider bite, one which grew pretty rapidly on his forearm, and he was very worried about how that was going to go. He applied some ice and some things to it to try and cool it down, but he was worried about how this spider bite—he did not know what spider it was—was going to turn out. He said to his partner, ‘If this turns bad, don’t call an ambulance, because one won’t turn up. You need to take me to hospital’. Can you imagine that? Someone in a state of flux, a bit nervous about their partner suffering from this spider bite, then has to coordinate to get them into a motor vehicle and take them to an emergency ward somewhere at a hospital because they do not have confidence that an ambulance will turn up. This is modern-day Victoria. This is getting ridiculous.

Let me draw your attention to a case that was brought to my attention just yesterday. Here is the story: there is a family with four children and their youngest, a three-year-old—running, as they do, through the household—fell and hit their head severely on a coffee table.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, you might not be worried about this child hurting themselves, Attorney-General, but I certainly am worried about this child who hit their head. A three-year-old hit their head on a coffee table and naturally their parents were worried. So the first thing they did, based on ‘Don’t call an ambulance’, as Daniel says, was ring Nurse-on-Call. Nurse-on-Call said, ‘I’ll ring 000 on your behalf’. The government might not want to talk about public health and wellbeing, the title of this bill, but I do. So the nurse-on-call rang 000—

Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President—

Mr ONDARCHIE: This government will do anything to extend this day, including making frivolous points of order.

Ms Symes: I can tell you I have no intention of extending this day, but it is not appropriate to pick out keywords from a bill, like ‘wellbeing’, and apply them generally to issues that are unrelated to the bill. Of course concerns about a little kid’s health are interesting, and I am hoping everything is fine and whatever, but using it as an example on this bill is completely irrelevant. It is actually just not appropriate, Mr Ondarchie.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, the Attorney-General is suggesting that the word ‘wellbeing’ is not relevant to this bill. It is in the title. That is what Mr Ondarchie has been talking about. He has been talking about wellbeing. It is in the title of the bill. It can hardly be irrelevant if it is in the title of the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie, I generally allow everyone quite a bit of latitude, but I think we are getting a little bit of a way off the reservation here. Can we get down to what is actually in the bill and not just to do with the title.

Mr ONDARCHIE: On the point of order—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I have ruled, Mr Ondarchie.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I am talking about the immunity that is being levied to the chief health officer for any decisions they take, and I am telling you the decisions taken in the health system here in Victoria are affecting good, hardworking Victorians. That is why I wanted to make the point about the three-year-old who hit their head and there being no confidence about an ambulance turning up, because this bill talks about removing the liability on the chief health officer.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie, the ambulance crisis is not actually relevant to this bill. Could you please keep within the confines of this bill.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Can I continue?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): You may continue, Mr Ondarchie.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you. I was waiting for the call; I know you are in charge here. This bill talks about people’s health and wellbeing, particularly as it relates to hep C and HIV. This bill talks about that. So let me talk a little bit about people’s health, if I can, and their wellbeing and a government who wants to talk about anything but that at the moment, because the health system is in crisis here, absolutely in crisis. I tell you what, the former health minister is not here, but had the former health minister been here I would have called her Cleopatra, the queen of denial, because that is pretty well what is happening in this government at the moment.

I have to say, Acting President, I will abide by your ruling to talk about public health and wellbeing only, okay? I will abide by your ruling to do that. To answer the Attorney-General’s point of order, the three-year-old is getting better, fortunately—fortunately—but not for the sake of the health system in this country, not for the sake of the health system in this state, where an ambulance took over an hour and 45 minutes to respond to that family. Can you imagine being the mother of a three-year-old who is severely injured—public health and wellbeing, I am talking about, Acting President—

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not know how long we have to keep doing this dance about coming back to the scope of the bill, but nothing that Mr Ondarchie is talking about has any relationship to this bill. I understand that he wants to continue to make a point about the public health system. This bill has specific measures to it, and he should be brought back to the scope of it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie, on the point of order?

Mr ONDARCHIE: No, I would like to just wrap up.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Okay, you may continue.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I will conclude by reminding the house and anybody who chooses to listen or follow the Hansard tomorrow that the government have just stipulated that the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022 has nothing to do with people’s health in Victoria—has nothing to do with the health of Victorians—and that is a damning situation for this state when that is their position. I conclude my remarks.

Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Ondarchie is verballing the government, misquoting them and misleading the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Mr Ondarchie has wound up, so I think the point of order is irrelevant, as Mr Ondarchie is done.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:49): I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022, and in doing so I would like to note that I have seen firsthand the difference that governments can make in people’s lives, and the bill that we are debating today is just another example of the Andrews Labor government delivering on our commitment to improving the quality and safety in Victoria’s health system. Since we were elected in 2014 the Andrews Labor government have worked tirelessly to invest in our health system at unprecedented levels. We are creating stronger nurse-to-patient ratios, building world-class hospitals and legislating for free dental care in schools. We also commissioned Australia’s first royal commission into mental health, committing to completely rebuilding our mental health system from the ground up in the most significant social reform in the state’s history.

The global coronavirus pandemic has shown the world just how valuable and important health workers are, and I would like to take a quick moment to acknowledge and thank everyone who has worked—and continues to work—around the clock to keep our community safe and well during these past couple of years. Might I make special mention of the work of so many community health organisations in my constituency of Northern Metropolitan Region, notably Merri Health, which I proudly served as deputy chair with before my appointment to this place, an organisation indeed very, very close to my heart and which has done such incredible work in Melbourne’s northern suburbs.

The bill before us today amends the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 in order to strengthen public health functions as well as addressing constraints relating to testing and data collection. Additionally, it addresses issues identified in the recent review of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2019. Amongst a raft of other provisions, the bill amends the act to expand testing, data collection and further analysis powers to help improve our management and understanding of infectious diseases and the risk to public health. It will expand the circumstances in which the chief health officer may make an examination and testing order for the monitoring and control of infectious diseases, enabling more targeted and potentially less restrictive public health responses. The bill will also make several minor administrative and technical amendments, including recognising the profession of paramedicine—and what remarkable medical professionals our paramedics are—bringing it in line with it being a protected profession under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The functioning of a strong public health system in Victoria is fundamental to our state’s ability to prevent the spread of disease, deliver improved and more equitable health outcomes for community, reduce hospital admissions and increase our resilience to future health threats. The amendments in this bill will assist the health system in carrying out these crucial functions, ensuring that the day-to-day activities of our vital health workforce are grounded in contemporary and best practice. The bill also delivers on outstanding government commitments stemming from the Victorian inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work and the Small Business Regulation Review (Visitor Economy) Action Statement. The Andrews Labor government has a strong commitment and a strong record indeed of delivering much-needed and extensive reforms and improving the regulation of the labour hire industry, and I know my colleague Mr Gepp has some very profound contributions likely on this matter as well.

In 2015 in response to a number of high-profile cases which exposed exploitation of workers and particularly vulnerable and migrant workers the then Minister for Industrial Relations announced an inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work here in our state. The inquiry received 695 written submissions and heard from 221 individual witnesses over 17 days, with hearings held from November 2015 to March 2016 across regional and metropolitan Victoria. The inquiry found that various labour hire workers in Victoria were treated almost like a second class of worker, including through differential treatment for issues like health and safety.

Through public consultation and hearings we heard so many stories revealing a strong link between non-compliant labour hire agencies and workers being provided inadequate and substandard accommodation. This is particularly common in rural and regional areas, where workers often do not get a choice about whether they want to stay at the accommodation provided by labour hire operators. The final report of the inquiry made it very clear that Victoria’s regulatory framework for labour hire accommodation is failing to capture this substandard accommodation being provided through labour hire arrangements, such as overcrowded conditions and insufficient amenities.

To help clean up the industry we created the Labour Hire Authority. A crackdown on dodgy operators ensured strict and proper reviews of licence applications and a significant take-up of the labour hire licensing scheme. In the last year the LHA, the Labour Hire Authority, conducted 2431 education and compliance inspections across Victoria—and how marvellous those inspectors are—and made thousands of inquiries into non-compliance with workplace laws, such as payments below award wages, unlawful deductions from wages and breaches of occupational health and safety laws. The LHA assessed and reviewed 2435 labour hire licences and applications, resulting in nine application refusals, one licence suspension, 95 licence cancellations and 95 licence variations.

What this demonstrates is how needed the Labour Hire Authority was and the importance of continuing to reform this industry—and with that, this is what this bill does. This bill will continue this government’s reform agenda for the labour hire industry by including accommodation relating to labour hire arrangements within the prescribed accommodation framework, ensuring that labour hire workers who support critical Victorian industries are provided with accommodation that meets public health standards. It will also allow for the registration of lower risk prescribed accommodation, reducing the regulatory burden and the cost for the owner of a small visitor accommodation such as a bed and breakfast, a boutique guesthouse or a farm stay. We have regrettably seen many instances of labour hire workers being provided accommodation that is substandard and intentionally designed to avoid the regulatory framework. It has been seen that a number of these establishments are not registered under Victorian laws and as a result do not fall under local council regulations.

One council in rural Victoria provided evidence to the inquiry that in the past 12 months it had received 35 formal customer requests regarding accommodation complaints. Thirty of these related to suspected unregistered accommodation, with five relating to cleanliness or overcrowding of registered premises. Of the unregistered accommodation, the council found that most were not required to be registered under the current scheme for reasons including non-payment of consideration. They also found that all but one were residential houses. The other was a disused caravan park. Additionally, the majority of these houses had overseas workers living in them who work on blocks. The councils are unable to gain access to the premises in most cases due to difficulty determining who is receiving payment for the accommodation. Other issues identified by a council with the present prescribed accommodation scheme included difficulty in gaining sufficient supporting evidence that prescribed accommodation is being provided, including obtaining evidence of payment and statements from operators that all residents are family members. There we go.

With accommodating a large number of people in a standard residential house not designed nor built to accommodate that number of people, the current regulations have no restriction on the number of bedrooms in a house, meaning that other rooms, such as the lounge room, may be used as a bedroom. Local councils have expressed their concern about the current lack of consequences for operators doing the wrong thing and taking advantage of vulnerable workers. One of them noted there are houses with approximately 20 people living in them, each paying $150 rent per week. That is approximately $3000 income each week. The kitchen had been taken over as accommodation and the residents were cooking in the yard.

As stated by one rural council, the infringements and penalties in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 do not really act as a deterrent, including if operators are aware of the loopholes. To address these concerning findings, the final report of the inquiry included recommendations that the act be amended to broaden the scope of prescribed accommodation to ensure that labour hire accommodation is regulated under a public health framework. This bill responds to recommendations 9 and 10 of the inquiry by ensuring that all accommodation provided to a worker under or in connection with a labour hire arrangement will be required to be registered with the local council and meet public health standards. This will help prevent overcrowding and will regulate the number of bathrooms and toilets, maintenance, cleanliness and the number of occupants. This bill strengthens the definition of ‘proprietor’ to better attribute responsibility and accountability to the person providing the accommodation and better support councils and the Labour Hire Licensing Authority to monitor and enforce compliance.

We recognise that industry will require significant time to prepare, so we will consult with key stakeholders, including the Labour Hire Authority, Agriculture Victoria, Industrial Relations Victoria and councils during 2022 to ensure the regulations are fit for purpose. A targeted communication and awareness campaign will also be conducted to ensure the sector is supported to comply with the changes prior to February 2023, when the regulations commence. This lead-in time is designed to balance the need to supply accommodation for vital industries and protect the wellbeing of workers. Labour hire accommodation providers will be able to demonstrate compliance with the amendments by changing or upgrading accommodation to meet the required standards, such as removing beds to prevent overcrowding, as well as applying for registration and paying an annual registration fee.

The amendments in this bill are not unique to our state. In the United Kingdom accommodation provided by labour hire agencies to workers in the agriculture and shellfish-gathering sectors and related processing and packaging work is regulated under similar provisions. Labour hire workers need to declare whether they provide accommodation or have a commercial arrangement in relation to accommodation. Any accommodation classified as a house of multiple occupation must be licensed and is subject to review and inspection by the local authority, including the fire brigade. Accommodation standards also form part of the requirements for obtaining a licence to operate as a labour provider.

To develop these labour hire reforms the Victorian government has consulted with key stakeholders, including the Labour Hire Licensing Authority, WorkSafe Victoria, Agriculture Victoria, the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, the Municipal Association of Victoria and relevant areas of the Department of Health, including the pandemic legislation reform team. All stakeholders support the legislative intent of this bill. Their feedback will assist us to develop prescribed accommodation regulations and plan for a smooth transition to a regulated environment. Consultation also identified the need for regulators to work collaboratively during implementation to optimise regulatory oversight and compliance.

Something in this bill that I feel quite passionately about is the move to remove stigmatising references to HIV and hepatitis C in the act. The Andrews Labor government has made it clear that stigma and discrimination experienced by people with HIV are completely unacceptable and have no place in our community and no place in our society. Currently under the act the references to HIV and hepatitis C unjustly highlight and amplify many of the historical references that reinforce stigma towards people with HIV and hepatitis C. These specific references long predate the development of effective modern treatments, and removing them is in keeping with modern developments in science. Rather than calling particular attention to HIV and hepatitis C and nor to other diseases, these amendments will make the act disease agnostic and allow these conditions to be more appropriately treated like any other bloodborne virus or medical condition. The amendments will not alter operation of the act, as the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2019 will be amended to prescribe HIV and hepatitis C for the purpose of the act, rather than these diseases being referred to in the body of the act specifically.

This bill also provides statutory immunity for public health officers, and I mentioned earlier in my remarks that this pandemic has shown us the incredible work undertaken by the public health workforce to protect the Victorian community. These public health officials, including the chief health officer, delegates of the chief health officer and authorised officers, all undertake the vital work of delivering public health priorities and carrying out the functions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. Victoria should be doing all it can to attract and retain high-quality people to these roles. However, the possibility of being named in litigation means that many skilled and talented public health professionals have shied away from these roles, and this is something I have heard particularly strongly from our mental health workforce professionals. This is in fact really quite a special amendment, I have got to say. No-one should have to worry about being personally sued simply for carrying out the functions of the job—

A member interjected.

Ms WATT: Why are you all looking at me—because I am fabulous? Hi, everyone.

A member: It’s a great contribution.

Ms WATT: Well, it is pretty special, I have got to say—simply for carrying out the functions of the job they are employed to do and keeping Victorians healthy and safe. I spent this morning with some of the very best people in our medical system, including those creating the new generation of treatments, and I can say it was truly the most profound highlight of my week, only surpassed by meeting mental health professionals in Parkville working with our young people.

In closing, this bill that we are debating today is just another example of the Andrews Labor government delivering on its commitment to improve the quality and safety of Victoria’s health system. Unlike those opposite, this government will always properly fund our health sector and pass key reforms to ensure our health system is simply the best equipped to look after Victorians.

Sitting suspended 4.03 pm until 4.22 pm.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:22): I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022. This bill is making a number of uncontroversial amendments to our public health legislation, and the Greens are happy to support these. We have been spending a lot of time talking about public health and wellbeing in recent years, so it is also a good time to remember that public health and the act are not just concerned with dealing with pandemics or infectious diseases. They also include all the policies that aim to prolong life and health, whether this involves identifying food toxins, promoting sport and exercise, restricting junk food advertising, addressing problem gambling and homelessness or preparing for the extreme heat caused by climate change.

One of the aims of public health policy is also to minimise the harm from legal and illegal drug use. Since the mid-1970s, for political reasons, public health drugs policy has almost entirely deferred to law enforcement drugs policy. Suffice to say this politicised law and order approach to drug use has not improved public health. In fact it has had the opposite effect, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities. Yet despite much of the world, including the leading international law enforcement agencies, finally recognising that drug use is a public health issue requiring a public health first response, we in Victoria still operate under the legacy of law enforcement opinion having disproportionate influence and the final say over this public health issue. So we need to clarify today exactly what Victoria’s harm minimisation strategy for drug use is, and as this is a public health issue, this bill and this act are the appropriate way of doing this, through the amendments that I will now circulate.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW act) sets out a framework for what are known as notifiable conditions. These are prescribed diseases or microorganisms and include things like Ross River fever, measles, salmonella and of course now COVID-19. When a notifiable condition is encountered by a medical professional, the act requires them to notify the Department of Health within a prescribed amount of time, and this allows the department to implement whatever public health response is needed to control or limit the spread of the disease—for example, alerting public health that Japanese encephalitis has been detected in mosquitoes in Victoria.

The bill today makes some changes that seek to improve the way intelligence is shared and gathered. Obviously the Department of Health receiving timely, relevant intelligence on specific threats to public health is the key to an effective response to counter these threats, so we support the proposed changes in the bill. But early warning alert systems for specific batches of drugs circulating save lives in exactly the same way as health alerts for notifiable conditions do. This is not just public health theory; these are the findings of the Victorian coroner and a Victorian parliamentary committee in 2018, and it is the accepted practice of health agencies all over the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States.

Since March 2020 it has also been the policy of the Department of Health, who have been issuing drug alerts to the public when toxic substances have been identified in specific batches of illegal drugs. These drug alerts take an identical form to and are located online in the same place as health alerts for notifiable conditions. However, there is no established mechanism or rule for reporting toxic substances found in drugs to the Department of Health under the PHW act. The drug alerts are also only based on intelligence received from the state’s hospitals under an informal, ad hoc arrangement. This means drug alerts are only issued when the specific toxins found in drugs have already caused enough harm to send a person to hospital and the health worker has had the foresight to think that maybe it would be a good idea to share this information at a higher level at some stage.

Timely, accurate intelligence means public health damage can be minimised, but where our intelligence is either missing, untimely or ignored, trying to contain the fallout is a lot more painful. So I am introducing amendments today to create a consistent approach and codify the informal information sharing that currently takes place between hospitals and the department in terms of when specific substances found in drugs should be notifiable in exactly the same way that currently occurs with notifiable conditions. But the amendments also go further, because waiting for someone to wind up in hospital before we act is far too late.

Victoria Police’s drug strategy is to intercept illegal drugs to limit their supply in the community. This means they frequently come across batches of drugs before or at a very early stage of their distribution and use. They also already frequently have these drugs analysed by a laboratory to determine their composition. However, Victoria Police currently do not share this potentially life-saving drug analysis information with the Department of Health. In fact they refuse to share this information, even when they know that the analysis indicates that the drugs contain substances that would lead to an urgent public health alert being issued if they were uncovered in a hospital. I will speak more about the reasons for this in the committee stage.

To be clear, my amendments do not propose to introduce an early warning drug alert system run by the Department of Health, because this is already in place. My amendments simply clarify exactly what substances in drugs should be notifiable to the Department of Health, the same way that notifiable conditions are, and require Victoria Police, like hospitals, to feed this drug intelligence to the Department of Health in all cases. This bill is about making our existing public health systems work better to save lives. The amendments are entirely consistent with this aim, and they should be supported.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:29): I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022. In Victoria, as we know, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 operates as the central piece of legislation designed to protect the health and wellbeing of our community here in Victoria. Previous speakers have spoken at length about the various aspects of the amendments in the bill before the chamber today, so I do not want to go over all of that ground, but rather I want to particularly concentrate on what I think is a critical aspect of the amendments being proposed by the government today, and that is the area of labour hire. Of course we know that in Victoria and indeed across the nation labour hire has grown exponentially over the last 30 years, and it has now become a significant employer of Victorian workers and by extension is a significant contributor to the Victorian economy. But what we also know is that we have seen and heard a lot about exploitation of workers with the advent of labour hire. This is not to suggest that labour hire firms are the only ones who are guilty of practices that exploit working people, but certainly we know that in this area there have been a lot of problems, particularly with vulnerable and migrant workers.

The house might recall that in 2015 the then Minister for Industrial Relations announced an inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work in Victoria, and it is timely that these amendments come before the house, because we have also heard during the pandemic about some of the most disadvantaged people in our community, many of whom are tied to insecure work. They are buried in the quagmire, I say, of insecure employment and cannot get out. Many of those people certainly did not have a choice during the pandemic. If they did not go out and work, then they did not earn any money and they could not put food on the table—a very basic condition of livability. So it is timely that we are talking about these amendments at this time, still in this pandemic, but importantly linking it back to the inquiry back in 2015, which was significant. I think it was one of the first inquiries of its kind, certainly in Victoria, in relation to this issue, and throughout the country. I will stand corrected, but I am not aware of too many other inquiries that might have existed around that time. I know since that places like the Australian Senate have gone into great detail on some of those matters, even recently, in the past few months. We have heard some pretty horrific stories start to emerge about the treatment of some of those workers, particularly in regional Victoria. In my electorate of Northern Victoria the use of labour hire and casual employment is very prominent in the hospitality area, in the events sector, in the tourism sector and in agriculture in particular, and we are well aware of the perils of insecure work and what it means, particularly for the vulnerable workers who get caught up.

That 2015 inquiry got almost 700 submissions and heard from over a couple of hundred witnesses, and I think there were about three or four weeks of hearings from memory, including in regional Victoria. What they found was that in many ways labour hire workers in Victoria are often treated as second-class citizens—they are not treated by employers as having the same rights as other workers. Often you can pinpoint it, particularly when some of the work is seasonal and those workers have to be brought in from other locations and therefore accommodated. It is in those areas where we find some of the biggest differentials, and that permeates right through in terms of the overall health and safety of these particular workers. The final report of that inquiry made it clear that our regulatory framework for labour hire here in this state was failing to capture the things that were impacting on those critical workers—those seasonal workers, those casual workers, those insecure workers—particularly in areas such as substandard accommodation. We have all heard some of the horror stories that emerged through that inquiry, and they exist today, again because many of the workers that are in these jobs are people who do not have educational qualifications of note, are often migrant workers brought in from overseas locations—certainly pre pandemic—and are treated pretty poorly.

Councils were reporting throughout that inquiry, particularly rural councils, a number of things, including unregistered accommodation. They found that most were not required to be registered under the then current scheme for reasons including non-payment of consideration. Residential houses were few and far between, but the other accommodation that was being used was disused caravans, and workers were being placed in less than desirable accommodation. We note that the availability of housing for seasonal workers continues to be a problem and continues to be an issue, and that is certainly a particular area that I know the government have been focusing on. I will come back and address a couple of those things in a moment.

But what we found very clearly were things like overcrowding, where you might have an accommodation that would normally house, I do not know, four, five or six people, but suddenly employers through their labour hire were cramming 20 or 30 people into these accommodations, then charging them exorbitant accommodation fees and therefore reducing what the workers thought was going to be a reasonable standard of income down to a mere pittance. As we know, particularly with foreign seasonal or casual workers that come in to particularly the agricultural sector, whatever money many of them make they are sending straight back home. Of course they come here on the lure that they are going to be earning a reasonable income, only to find that once they get here they are being placed in accommodation that is of very poor standard and very much overcrowded, not to mention all of the other associated health and wellbeing issues that go with that, including acts of crime—the sexual assaults and harassment et cetera that were still occurring in these places because of the overcrowding.

And we heard from councils repeatedly through that inquiry that the infringements and penalties in the act did not act as a deterrent. They did not deter employers or operators away from using some of the loopholes that existed in the then framework, and the life of a labour hire worker was certainly substandard. So there are a number of recommendations that that inquiry made, and I am pleased that we are dealing with some of those things, and we continue to have a focus on those things. In particular with recommendations 9 and 10 of that inquiry, responding to those recommendations will ensure that all accommodation that is provided to workers or in connection with a labour hire arrangement will be required to be registered with the local council and meet public health standards. No longer can we just pack people like sardines into substandard accommodation, charge them exorbitant fees and think that we can just get away with it because they are vulnerable workers and we think that we can exploit them.

The bill also will strengthen the definition of ‘proprietor’ to better attribute responsibility and accountability to the person providing the accommodation, and we will also support councils and the Labour Hire Licensing Authority to monitor and enforce compliance with these new rules. Those new rules will include the prevention of overcrowding, regulating a number of things—basic things that we probably take for granted in many instances, such as the number of bathrooms and toilets, the maintenance of them, the cleanliness—and registering who is actually residing in those accommodations. We will also give full operational effect to these changes under the act and under the regulations, and they will be amended to prescribe and clearly capture all labour hire accommodation arrangements.

We understand that the industry will require some time to get up to speed, so we will need to continue consultation with the industry and with key stakeholders, including the Labour Hire Authority and organisations such as Agriculture Victoria, Industrial Relations Victoria and councils, throughout the course of this year to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose. There will be a targeted communication and awareness campaign conducted to ensure that the sector is supported to comply with the changes prior to February 2023, when the regulations will commence. This lead-in time is designed to balance the need to supply the accommodation for vital industries as well as protect the wellbeing of workers.

Can I just use the remaining couple of minutes of my time to say that in addition to those things we have not been asleep at the wheel on these matters. We have been very active in the space of worker accommodation, and these reforms will complement a number of significant investments already delivered by the government to support, for example, the Victorian agriculture industry, a high user of labour hire in my electorate of Northern Victoria. We understand that there are workforce challenges, and as well as these reforms, we are meeting some of the other challenges that are on the ground. We have already announced the $6 million seasonal workforce accommodation program, which has backed 13 projects to boost accommodation options, pastoral care and transport services for 2000 workers in key horticultural areas. There is a regional workforce pilot project in Robinvale—and I will be pleased to visit them next week when I am up there—aiming to address key barriers to attracting an agricultural workforce to the town and retaining it by identifying the linkages between work underway and facilitating greater collaboration between stakeholders, in addition to a gap analysis for future intervention. And of course we have also had the recent amendment to the Victorian planning provisions, which now exempt farm businesses from requiring a planning permit for on-farm worker accommodation for up to 10 people within the farming zone. So we have got a number of initiatives happening at the same time that we are introducing these changes, because importantly, there is not just one silver bullet; there is not one answer to some of these very complex areas of public policy. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:44): Indeed I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this bill. This bill is going to provide statutory immunity to the chief health officer. Last year the Liberal Democrats introduced a private members bill that aimed to hold the CHO and other decision-makers accountable for their terrible, not-supported-by-evidence, politically driven directives regarding emergency powers. We proposed prison time for recklessly infringing the rights of Victorians, for issuing directives that were not proportionate and the least restrictive of rights. Granting the CHO immunity goes in the opposite direction to what we want to see. We want to hold you accountable—hold you all accountable—for what you have done, not give you get-out-of-jail-free cards. Regardless of the merit or otherwise of the rest of the bill, this is quite enough to get us to vote against it.

Ordinary Victorians have had more than enough of public health and wellbeing bills. They have had more than enough of the state of emergency, of the government’s pandemic powers, of the government extending the pandemic declaration, of the mandates, of QR codes and vaccine passports and of lockdowns and border closures. We have had enough. You cannot be trusted with the powers that you have. You continue to abuse them and to fight your war of annihilation against the unvaccinated 5 per cent of the population. None of you should have immunity. You should all be held to account.

I do not want to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, I want to repeal it. It is not March 2020 anymore. What this government continues to do to the people of this state is an absolute disgrace. You need to let it go. You need to let us go. I will say it again: the Liberal Democrats most emphatically will not support this bill.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:46): I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022. I do not support this bill at all. I will not support granting immunity to the chief health officer, a delegate of the chief health officer, an authorised officer appointed under section 30(1) or a detention review officer so that they are not personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith. I will not support this. I will not allow them, for the last two years, not to be held to account—not at all. I cannot believe that this government has actually come in here with this, another omnibus bill, attaching other amendments. It sounds well and great when you first read it. It removes the words ‘HIV’ and ‘hep C’. I absolutely, totally agree with that. But you are continually slugging things together, so there is one great thing and then you add something that no-one in their right mind should agree to.

We have never seen the health advice—never. It has always been made up as we have gone along. It has come out of the Premier’s mouth, it has come out of the Minister for Health’s mouth and it has come out of the chief health officer’s mouth, and it has always been made up as they go along. I can assure you that that is the case, because the current pandemic legislation is very clear. You just have to have a look at some of the email trails that are produced. The health minister at night sends an email to the chief health officer, who in the morning makes a direction. So that means that you have the horse before the cart. So in other words, this government, these ministers—

A member interjected.

Dr CUMMING: The cart before the horse, thank you. I knew what I meant. I am happy to continue on, but I appreciate being corrected. It has been very clear all along that there have been many political decisions. I can assure you that you do not have to really go far to see that they have done studies to actually talk about COVID messaging and had study groups to see what messages would actually get people to do what the government wants them to do. There are control messages, baseline messages, personal freedom messages, economic freedom messages, self-interest messages, community interest messages, guilt messages, embarrassment messages, trust-in-the-science messages, not bravery messages and anger messages. It is really clear, you can actually see, how around the world they have actually honed their messages—their ‘trust in the science’ message, ‘feel guilt’ message—to make sure that we comply with something, a vaccine, that does not prevent you from getting it, does not prevent you from spreading it and has created numerous vaccine injuries. People who have presented to hospital with those vaccine injuries have been made to feel guilty that they have those vaccine injuries. Then people have lost their livelihoods because this government has chosen on a whim to decide that somehow we need to be locked down—healthy people need to be locked down—that we need curfews, that we need to shut playgrounds, that we need to continue to have masks on children.

I in this place showed scientific evidence in 2020, in August, that the only mask for the virus is an N95 mask, but you have continued to put masks on children. You have fined people for not walking around with a surgical mask or a cloth mask. There is nothing scientific about it—nothing. But your messaging—do not worry—your brainwashing messaging, your propaganda, is all there to see, and history will judge you.

Professor BS, Professor Brett Sutton, needs to be held to account as well as his staff and the health minister. We have not had an inquiry. We need a royal commission. It is absolutely disgusting to actually come into this place and allow one of them off the hook, or any of them off the hook, for closing down businesses, for wanting people to show their vaccine passports—their medical information. And the federal government is no better than this government-—actually, in the whole of Australia, this state government has been the worst-—for not saving us from the stupidity, from the mandates, from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency gagging our health professionals.

Our children—the suicides—the ones ringing up 000 begging for help: when this government actually put down the mandates last year on 15 October, the suicides after that for teenagers that did not understand why they could not go to their graduation. And in this place I have actually shown there have been many, many medical journals, medical evidence, scientific evidence—proper scientific evidence—to show that the vaccine has an effective rate on children of 30 days. Why? And I have said in this place numerous times I am not anti anyone who wishes to go get an experimental vaccine. Why would you be? It is their choice. It should be their choice. But I am absolutely disgusted at mandating that the general populace cannot actually work or go out into society without having a vaccine that does not stop you from getting it or spreading it. I am completely disgusted. I have been disgusted for the last two years, but this government continues to roll things out that hit another one of my nerves. Not at all should they get off the hook and be given in law statutory immunity for their mistakes, for their failures. Somebody should have been keeping them to account. I would have loved to in this place if this government had been accountable and transparent; they have never been.

The health advisers have refused to answer questions in this place from my constituents and from me as a member of Parliament. They have refused. The minister and the Premier—months. It is absolute arrogance for the Premier, as well as the Minister for Health, to not answer questions within this place, believing that Parliament is not needed because they know everything. And then they are wanting to bury the information that everybody needs. This is next level. It will not surprise me. It should not surprise the community really.

When will this government let go? When will this Premier and the health minister look at the science, stop all the mandates and allow the community to go back to normal? They obviously like the amount of devastation that they have created—the empty streets, the empty shops. Are they going to do anything in the way of reading a bit of science? Seriously, you do not have to be a scientist or a doctor or a GP to be able to read an accredited medical journal and to make your own medical choices. Anytime I am prescribed anything I will go back and look through the list of adverse reactions or side effects or I will go and get a second opinion. I have not even been able to get a second opinion in this place at all because I have not been able to see or be shown anything.

There is no way that that chief health officer or anyone in that department should be let off the hook, not at all. Do not worry. I hope, once the community has the chance to vote in November, there will be somebody in this place that will be able to go through some of the rotten things that I have had to sit here and vote on, remove them all and put something in place to get the people who have done wrong and to have the proper inquiries, because that is what my community want. I have hundreds of emails. I have got T-shirts.

I tell you what, the more you do this, the more you bury things—give the community the information they deserve so they can make their own choices. Seriously, messaging, a communications department. propaganda, rhetoric, lies. I have sat here every day listening to it rather than real science, and it is basic science about your natural immunity. But also many times I have brought up in this place, from the very start, before there was even a vaccine—I absolutely cannot believe these mandates continue on with this government—that there has never been a time that this government has given a wellness message or has actually allowed people to understand how to treat themselves with COVID at home. Time and time again I have brought that up since 2020.

Apparently members of the medical profession are not meant to use their medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even when under threat, which this government is doing. They are meant to solemnly promise to actually look after their patients. I have watched so many medical professionals with 20, 50 years of medical knowledge be silent because of threats of fines. You have done well, government, fining people and threatening them to the point of fear—and they are still walking around with masks that do not work—and sending so many people bankrupt. Yes, I am a bit sad that they have done it again today, but I am not really surprised at the arrogance and the way that they have actually spoken about people who are protesting. The next level is, I guess, the police response to all of this in a health crisis and what this government has made our police force do and other people in the community. Seriously, you have caused authorised officers to go against our own Victorians. Hurry up, November.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September 2021:

I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2022.

I am honoured to speak on this bill today and its substantial amendments, which promote and safeguard the health of individuals in our local communities and endorse the significance of public health.

Good governance in public health is critical when a crisis, such as a pandemic, occurs. And public health works every day to keep people healthy and safe by ensuring we have cleaner water to drink, safe and nutritious food to eat, better air to breathe, and access to a wide range of services to improve human health, such as vaccinations.

The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 serves as the central piece of law aimed at preserving our community’s health and wellbeing. This bill and its amendments reinforce many of these everyday public health tasks—for example, resolving concerns noted in the current assessment of the Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2019, as well as act restrictions relating to testing and data gathering. It also follows through on remaining government commitments made as a result of the Victorian inquiry into the labour hire industry and insecure work, as well as the Small Business Regulation Review (Visitor Economy) Action Statement.

The Andrews Labor government is working to reform the regulation of the labour hire business, including modifications to the act to protect the health and wellbeing of labour hire employees who support vital Victorian industries like fruit picking and harvesting, who often require further protections due to the nature of the insecurity in the industry. This is due to several high-profile cases in prior years that exposed worker exploitation, particularly of disadvantaged and migratory employees.

The Public Health and Wellbeing (Prescribed Accommodation) Regulations 2020 will be revised to prescribe and explicitly capture labour hire accommodation arrangements to give the amendment full practical effect.

Providers of labour hire accommodations will be able to demonstrate compliance with the revisions by:

• changing or updating a facility to meet the required requirements, such as reducing beds to prevent overpopulation

• applying for registration and paying an annual registration fee

• being available for compliance checks, such as a preregistration inspection and an ongoing annual inspection

The modifications in the bill are intended to enable the registration of reduced risk prescribed lodging, decreasing the regulatory burden and expenses for proprietors of small tourist accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, boutique guesthouses, and farmsteads.

Victoria’s visitor economy contributes significantly to the state, and we know those small businesses account for 96 per cent of tourism businesses in Victoria and make Victoria such a wonderful destination to visit. For these businesses, staying on top of regulations takes up a lot of a business owner’s valuable time.

This bill will lessen the regulatory burden on these enterprises by establishing a definition and registration category for ‘reduced risk’ prescribed accommodation.

And it will include accommodation associated with labour hire agreements in the specified accommodation framework, ensuring that labour hire workers who support vital Victorian sectors are provided with public health compliant housing.

The amendments also intend to broaden testing data collection and analysis powers to help improve our management and understanding of infectious diseases and public health risks; and expand the circumstances under which the chief health officer may issue an examination and testing order for the monitoring and control of infectious diseases, allowing for a more targeted and potentially less restrictive public health response.

The pandemic has shown us all just how critical our testing and pathology labs are for public health, which is why enhancing testing data collection and analysis to improve our management and understanding of infectious diseases and public health threats is a welcomed part of this legislation.

The introduction of legislative civil immunity for officials performing public health functions under the act will bring Victoria into line with all other Australian jurisdictions that already provide liability coverage safeguards through their public health legislation.

These public health officials, which include the chief health officer, delegates of the chief health officer, and permitted officers, all work together to deliver public health priorities and carry out the functions of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. It is in the best interests of the public to ensure these essential workers are strictly focused on performing their roles effectively.

The government has made it clear that perpetuating the stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV is completely unacceptable. This is why we recognise the act must be amended to remove all stigmatising references to HIV and hepatitis C from the act. This will be done by focusing solely on HIV and hepatitis C. These changes will make the act disease agnostic, allowing these ailments to be treated in the same way as any other bloodborne virus or medical condition.

The bill also includes several small administrative and technical changes, such as recognising the profession of paramedicine, which is now a protected profession under Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The operation of a strong public health system in Victoria is critical to our state’s ability to prevent disease spread, provide better and more equitable health outcomes for the population, minimise hospital admissions, and strengthen our resilience to future health threats. And we have seen this throughout the past two years with the government’s COVID-19 response.

The changes in this bill will help to contribute to the continuation of this by ensuring that the day-to-day activities of our key public personnel are up to date with the current situation and function as best practice. This is why this bill is essential and common sense.

With these comments, I commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:03)

Ms SYMES: At the outset, for members’ benefit, if people want to ask all their questions in clause 1, it might enable us to move through reasonably quickly, so I welcome that.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister. I have got a few questions, and some of them will be data questions, if you would not mind. I do not expect you to have those answers, but in the second-reading debate we heard from Mr Gepp and others about the workforce shortages in the agriculture sector and how that has impacted Victoria, especially over the last two years. In the Minister for Health’s second-reading speech he said:

The reforms will complement our significant investment to support the Victorian agricultural industry to meet workforce challenges.

I am just wondering if you could provide to the house on notice, probably, what the government sees as the numbers that are currently short in the agriculture sector.

Ms SYMES: Yes, not a problem, Ms Crozier. I will take that on notice and probably seek some information from Minister Thomas.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you very much for that undertaking, Minister. Just another data question: we have been talking about notifiable diseases and highly transmissible diseases, including infectious diseases, that this bill impacts—not only the notifiable diseases but also the Food Act 1984. But I am particularly concerned about reports of the rise of syphilis in the community, and I am just wondering, if the government has the latest figures for Victoria on syphilis cases, if those could also be provided.

Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Crozier for her question. I was also interested in the number of cases of syphilis. There is a little bit of information on the health.vic.gov.au website that certainly raises concerns about the tripling of cases since 2014. There is significant concern in some other states, particularly in remote communities, as well. It is an issue that is of concern. The actual stats I cannot quite see on the website, but I will take that on notice and indeed provide that to Ms Crozier and any other interested members.

Ms CROZIER: Again, thank you very much, Minister, for that undertaking. I agree and note it is on the rise in some remote communities, and clearly it is becoming quite prevalent. To try and stop that terrible disease I think it is important to understand the numbers.

If I could refer again to the minister’s second-reading speech, which talks about the data and the collecting of the data, I understand that the intent of the bill is to understand those trends. It says:

For example, aggregate data about influenza enables us to monitor trends, deliver responses to rising cases, improve how we assess the timing and peak of flu season and improve our preparedness activities.

Now, we are getting a lot of this information, and health experts are talking about COVID. There has been some messaging from the federal government about flu vaccination to ensure that those vulnerable communities, especially those in our ageing population, get the flu vaccination. I am just wondering what the government is doing to improve the preparedness around flu. I say that in the context that we have got COVID happening now, with the cases that are occurring—thankfully we do not have huge numbers in intensive care. But we do know that flu has a massive impact and thousands of Australians die at the peak of flu season. I am wanting to understand the government’s preparedness to deal with the flu and COVID at the same time.

Ms SYMES: Thanks, Ms Crozier. You are raising really important issues, and they obviously are being discussed by government in the context of not having had flu cases for the past two years. That is not what is expected this season. There is evidence of flu already generating, particularly in the south-east of Melbourne—a short, sharp kind of flu that is concerning particularly for our older community. In relation to what is being done, it is obviously outside the bill, but I think it is an important question. I would be happy to ensure that we get you a bit of a run-down from the Minister for Health’s office about the messaging and about what is being done. I think everyone is much more aware of preventing illness than they ever have been, particularly in relation to infectious diseases such as flu and COVID. I will get you a bit more information about some of the messaging and things, but it has certainly been a topic of conversation that the Minister for Health has been having.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you very much, Minister, for that undertaking again. I say that because with what we have been through in the last two years the flu vaccination has been mandatory in some sectors. Is the government considering mandating the flu vaccine? That is the first question I have. And will restrictions be applied if flu numbers get to certain numbers here in Victoria, like we have got with COVID and the pandemic declaration? Is that being considered by government?

Ms SYMES: Not in the way you have expressed it, no, in terms of restrictions and locking people down because of the flu. No, those conversations have not been happening. But in light of concerns about the peak of COVID, the upcoming winter and flu, promotions around ‘Get your third vax booster. Get your fourth if you are eligible. Get your flu vax’—those messages will continue to remain important.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Minister. Look, I ask that with the best intentions because I think people are quite concerned. We know that flu can be as dangerous to the elderly as COVID in many instances, and for people with chronic disease and who are very immunocompromised it can be extremely serious. It can kill people. It kills thousands of people. And I say that because we have had such attention on COVID. We have had these issues. I am just curious: if flu takes off here in Victoria—we have got these numbers with COVID—just how will the government, as the minister says in his second-reading speech, assess the timing and the peak of flu season, which is within weeks?

Ms SYMES: Ms Crozier, I want, I guess, to take the opportunity to rule out any statewide lockdowns in relation to an outbreak of flu. I guess to back that up you would be aware that the pandemic legislation only applies to diseases and illnesses—and I said this a thousand times in the debate—of a pandemic potential. There is a particular term in relation to it having ‘pandemic ability’, and the flu is not in that category.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you very much, Minister, for that clarification. I appreciate that, and I appreciate you providing that assurance to the Victorian community.

If I can move on to an issue around the pathology response, the minister again in his second-reading speech said:

Again, we are very aware of current demand on pathology services and will duly consult to inform implementation.

This is not expected to come into place until next year, but I am just wondering: what was the feedback from pathology around their ability to do this? I am sure they have been widely consulted, but was there any feedback or were there any concerns raised by the pathology departments around this?

Ms SYMES: I thank Ms Crozier for her question in relation to pathology services, and I am advised that we will continue to work with pathology services and laboratories through the department laboratory liaison committee and pathology networks to develop regulations and explore means to reduce barriers, such as streamlined reporting services—so there was broad consultation. The issues in this bill have been kicking around for some time, so this has been well discussed. But there is a commitment to continue those conversations.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that and also that ongoing work so that they can undertake this. This question I have is slightly off mark, but I think it is important. A number of people have referred to the authorised officers in this bill, and they are certainly mentioned in the bill. They are part of the workforce in the department. I think it was Dr Kieu who referred to the public health officers. Of course we had hundreds coming on board through the peak of the pandemic and during lockdowns. As of 31 March it is my understanding that 250 had had their contracts ended, but they are yet to receive their final payment. Minister, I am just wondering: in light of this bill and how it applies to civil litigation and those former authorised officers not being paid—and you will have to take this on notice too: I would love to know the total accumulated entitlements that are required for those authorised officers that have been terminated, if we could have that on notice—could we have an assurance that they will be paid within the expected time frame, seeing it is one week and their contract said that it should be before that?

Ms SYMES: Thanks, Ms Crozier. I am more than happy to follow that up, noting that it is outside the context of the bill.

Dr CUMMING: From what I can understand, Attorney, the government is going to expand the scope of section 113 powers, which are relevant to a person’s right to bodily privacy and autonomy in the way of allowing tests and what it actually is expanding on. This will actually allow for police officers to use reasonable force to detain a person to take them to a place for an examination and for testing orders to be carried out. Obviously it would sound well and good that we have removed a couple of references, such as HIV or hepatitis C, but this is actually broadening it to any infectious disease. What I can understand here is that now this strengthens the powers. Am I right in saying, Attorney, that this strengthens the powers for police officers to detain people and to force them somewhere to get a test?

Ms SYMES: There is no change to police powers by virtue of this bill. In relation to some of the issues you are raising about people’s compliance with examination and testing orders, a person must comply with an order and can be fined penalty units by a court for non-compliance. It means that fines can be issued. This is not a bill that allows people to use coercive force and pin people down. There are other methods to encourage people to comply that could result in penalties for failure to comply.

An authorised officer who is also a registered medical practitioner may enforce an examination order and may request the assistance of a police officer. Police may use reasonable force to take the person subject to the order to a place where an examination or test is to be carried out or to the place that the person is required to be under the order. An examination and testing order can provide for a person’s detention, but detention cannot exceed 72 hours. An authorised officer may apply to the Magistrates Court for a warrant to arrest the person who is subject to the order if necessary to enforce the order. An examination and testing order cannot be enforced with, as I said, the use of force. The act does not permit an assault on any person, such as holding them down, for a test to be carried out.

Dr CUMMING: Attorney, in the statement of compatibility, which is from Martin Foley, our current Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services and apparently Minister for Equality, it says in black and white that this expands the scope of section 113 powers and permits a police officer to use reasonable force to detain a person to take them to a place for examination and testing orders to be carried out. What stops this being in mass force, what stops us from seeing what we have seen in China and why would we want police officers being involved in a health response?

Ms SYMES: As I provided in my previous answer, there is no change to police powers. This is just reaffirming the capacity for health personnel to require the assistance of police.

Dr CUMMING: It says here that it ‘permits a police officer to use reasonable force to detain a person to take them’ to get an examination. Minister, currently, yes, it sounds well and good that we have a test—that is, a RAT that you stick up your nose—but this is virtually saying that they can actually drag people and possibly get any kind of pathology test for any kind of infectious disease at any time. These are setting things in stone. And the minister also talks in his statement about an ‘undetectable viral load’ and the importance of being able to hold people down to get people tested. Minister, is this what the government is proposing?

Ms SYMES: No, Dr Cumming. There are no changes to police powers through this bill. The police already have powers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. You cannot drag people and use force to extract tests and the like. I think what is important for me to run through are some of the protections that are included in the act for people who refuse to comply: the chief health officer must choose the least restrictive measure if alternatives are available which equally minimise the risk to public health; the CHO must facilitate any reasonable request for communication made by a person detained under an examination and testing order; a person arrested or detained must be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason why the person is being arrested or detained; if the CHO ceases to believe that an examination and testing order is necessary, the CHO must revoke the order; an examination and testing order cannot be enforced by the use of force; the act does not permit an assault on any person, such as holding a person down while the test is being carried out; when the CHO makes any decision under the act, they must have regard for the overarching principles of the act, including the principle of proportionality.

The examination and testing powers’ compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is obviously something that was conducted in great detail, and the examination and testing powers in the bill are compatible with the charter. As outlined in the statement of compatibility, the bill engages and is compatible with the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without consent and the right to equality.

Making the CHO aware of any potential risk of transmission serves a public health purpose. It enhances the CHO’s ability to manage people known to have the disease, which increases the CHO’s capacity to effectively respond to the risk. Granting the CHO the power to ascertain likelihood of transmission enhances the ability to manage people already known to have an infectious disease in a less restrictive way, in line with best practice guidelines. By better understanding the transmissibility risks, the CHO can tailor the use of public health orders according to the relevant information, and in some cases orders may not be required at all. In this way the powers to the CHO may safeguard individuals’ rights, as the use of public health orders will be guided and informed by much more accurate risk profiling.

Dr CUMMING: Attorney, I would like you also to be aware—just from the statement that you have made—that Minister Foley, who is the health minister, said, and again I will refer to his statement of compatibility:

The right not to be subjected to unwanted medical treatment is not, however, an absolute right in international … law. It is accepted that it may be legitimate to require a person to undergo medical treatment in exceptional circumstances, including where it is necessary for the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

New subsection 113(1)(d) engages the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent because it expands the purposes for which the Chief Health Officer may make an order to require a person to undergo an examination and/or testing.

In other words, Minister, this is actually interfering with people’s human rights. This government is actually saying that there are times and occasions apparently when you can actually abuse human rights with unwanted medical treatments or unwanted examinations because some chief health officer, like the current one that we have got, can deem it. You are giving him or her in the future these powers. And this government is actually saying, apparently, expansion of these powers would be reasonably justified. You are actually stating that in this government’s mind it is okay to actually go against our human rights and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and others from what I can see. But there is no limit to that. This could be a mass examination. You do not know what the pathology or what the examination could possibly be.

Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, I think that what is missing from your commentary is that these powers already exist. The new section will give the CHO power to make an examination and testing order in a few different situations. It actually already is a power, but what this bill does is bring in the ability to help determine the likelihood of transmission of an infectious disease to better inform the public health response and to keep in step with advances in treatment for infectious diseases. Examination and testing orders are used very infrequently. They are designed to give the department the information it needs to manage the risks to public health posed by individuals with infectious diseases.

The need to expand this power was highlighted in a situation where a person with an infectious disease was being managed for behaviours that were placing others at risks. This included breaching behavioural conditions of their public health order. To assess the risk to the public it was necessary to determine the person’s ability to transmit the infectious disease and at regular intervals. Advice at the time indicated that the CHO could not request tests that helped determine the likelihood of transmission, so therefore it was a more restrictive power that was applied, because the knowledge was not there to ensure that the appropriate response could be taken.

The information about transmissibility of an infectious disease can inform a targeted and, in many cases, less restrictive order for the individual involved. For example, under the new power if a person with a sexually transmitted infection engages in behaviours that may put others at risk, the CHO could order tests to determine the person’s viral load and whether they are infectious to others. So if the person is not infectious, orders would not need to be made to impact on that person’s behaviour.

Dr CUMMING: So in saying that, Attorney, if the chief health officer wants to know if the whole of the Victorian community has HIV, he or she can create the order that everyone needs to actually go and get a blood test to determine that, and now it can be forced according to this. Previously, Attorney, you could only force a medical procedure onto somebody who was mentally incapable of actually making that decision for themselves, right?

Ms SYMES: No, that is not true.

Dr CUMMING: I will take that from the floor, and I will allow you to answer that. So you are saying at this current time a police officer or a chief health officer can actually go and make you get a medical exam of any description or go and make you get a pathology test because they think that you might be infected with something. I am upset with the assertion that you do not believe that I understand the Public Health and Wellbeing Act or that I have read it before. I have read it numerous times over the last couple of years.

Ms SYMES: The powers already exist.

Dr CUMMING: The powers that already exist talk about 28 days and mental health. This is actually inserting examinations, and Attorney, this is why I am using the language that I am using at this time: this is well and good with the current crisis and the current problem—and I understand—but you are also retrofitting something that is not needed, and the way that it is actually put in could be used in the future en masse. And it could be quite the exam that nobody should be allowed to actually mass request.

Ms SYMES: I do not agree with your assertion of what you think this bill is going to result in, Dr Cumming, because there has to be a serious public health risk. There is no scenario that applies where that can be enforced en masse. This is about orders for individuals. The CHO currently has the power to make an examination and testing order in relation to a person who may have an infectious disease and who is, as a result of their behaviour, a serious risk to the public. That already exists; that can be ordered. What this is doing is expanding it so that it gives a more fulsome picture about that risk. The act, for your benefit—or for the house’s benefit; I acknowledge that you said you are quite across it—defines what a public health risk is, and that is:

… a material risk that substantial injury or prejudice to the health of human beings has occurred or may occur having regard to—

the number of persons likely to be affected;

the location, immediacy and seriousness of the threat to the health of persons;

the nature, scale and effects of the harm, illness or injury that may develop;

the availability and effectiveness of any precaution, safeguard, treatment or other measure to eliminate or reduce the risk to the health of human beings …

The current power does not enable determination as to whether a person is able to transmit the disease, so as such this limits the ability to understand and determine if a person is in fact a serious risk to public health. The amendments seek to address that issue.

Dr CUMMING: But, Minister, I understand that. How are you meant to know? But we have normally lived in an environment where people make those medical decisions themselves to understand what infectious diseases they have.

Ms SYMES: That is fine. They can volunteer that, and they do not need an order.

Dr CUMMING: That is right. You are right, Minister. You can volunteer that currently. But what this is inserting is an order from the chief health officer of any particular persuasion from now and in the future as well as retroactively.

Ms SYMES: They can already do that. This just adds a more defined ability to test transmissibility.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Attorney, Dr Cumming has to finish her question.

Dr CUMMING: Attorney, you have answered my question. This is not going to stop a chief health officer enforcing a mass exam of our community for—add the infectious disease: add HIV, add AIDS, add hep B, add COVID or add a new name of a new disease in the future. It does not give me any assurances that it is not going to be invasive, that it is not going to be en masse. It does not give me any assurances that the community will actually be able to freely make those choices. This is enforcement, and then police enforcement, from what I can read from this. And it says ‘undetectable viral loads’. So in other words, you just need to just suspect it—or a possible paranoid health minister or a paranoid Premier.

Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, I have already outlined that the references in the bill are to ‘persons’ and ‘assessed individually’. Your assertion that there will be mass examination is not what the bill says. I would urge you to come back to what the bill says rather than what you think it may mean, because I can assure you that this is about ascertaining the likelihood of a person transmitting an infectious disease. This is about extending examination and testing powers that already exist. It is just making sure that they can be more targeted and ascertain whether the person has an infectious disease and the likelihood that a person with the infectious disease may transmit that disease. It is all about individuals and their risk to others.

Dr CUMMING: But, Minister, you have not said that that is not going to be a mass order. You have not said in this place that that is not going to be a mass order.

Ms SYMES: I will say it will not be a mass order.

Ms CROZIER: One last question. Thank you, Attorney. Just in relation to some feedback I got from the Municipal Association of Victoria, they raised with me the concerns about the proposal to allow for one-off and open-ended registration periods for lower risk prescribed accommodation. Businesses at this end of the market can change their offerings quite quickly, so questions arise about the extent to which they will be aware that they need to notify councils if their activities change, triggering the need for a change in registration status. So the question is: what advice have you provided to the MAV that could be passed on to the councils regarding those concerns?

Ms SYMES: Ms Crozier, a little bit similar to an answer to your previous questions—there has been consultation, and the smart people in the box tell me that they will continue to go back to the MAV as this rolls out.

Clause agreed to.

Committee divided on clauses 2 and 3:

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4 (17:44)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We now move to Dr Ratnam’s amendments 1 and 2, which are a test for all her remaining amendments.

Dr RATNAM: I move:

1. Clause 4, after line 18 insert—

“notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance means a drug, poison or controlled substance that is—

(a) declared to be a notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance by an Order in Council made under section 126; or

(b) prescribed to be a notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance;

poison or controlled substance has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981;”.

2. Clause 4, after line 25 insert—

‘(da) in the definition of notification details—

(i) in paragraph (a)—

(A) for “or a micro-organism” substitute “, micro-organism or a drug, poison or controlled substance”;

(B) for “or notifiable micro-organism,” substitute “, notifiable micro-organism or notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance,”;

(C) for “or micro-organism;” substitute “, notifiable micro-organism or notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance;”;

(ii) in paragraph (b)—

(A) for “or a micro-organism” substitute “, micro-organism or drug, poison or controlled substance”;

(B) for “or notifiable micro-organism,” substitute “, notifiable micro-organism or notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance,”;

(C) for “or micro-organism;” substitute “, micro-organism or drug, poison or controlled substance;”;’.

These amendments create a mechanism for certain drugs, poisons and controlled substances to be prescribed or declared as notifiable in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act in the same way as microorganisms and conditions may be. Clause 4 of the bill is amended to define a notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance and further provides a mechanism for the Minister for Health or the Governor in Council to declare these as notifiable. Exactly what substances, if any, will be declared or prescribed as notifiable under this new condition will of course be determined based on expert health assessment and advice as to their potential to cause serious risk to public health.

These amendments will also establish a consistent framework to specify the details, time lines and manner for notifications. As I outlined in my second-reading contribution, there is currently an informal notification process between hospitals and the Victorian Poisons Information Centre that feeds to the Department of Health’s drug alerts, but this system is ad hoc, inconsistent and without clear guidance to hospitals about what specific substances they should be reporting to the Department of Health. Illegal drugs are usually composed of multiple substances that carry varying levels of risk to health. New and novel synthetic substances are also being developed all the time.

Importantly, these amendments do not broaden the existing requirements in sections 126 and 127 of the act to set explicit requirements for medical professionals and pathology services to notify the Department of Health of notifiable drugs, poisons or controlled substances. This is because there is a current informal arrangement, and we do not feel that the prescribed penalties in these sections for medical professionals or laboratories for non-compliance will always be appropriate in regard to notifiable drugs, poisons or controlled substances. It is therefore more appropriate that regulations determine what notifiable drugs, poisons or controlled substances may also be considered as notifiable conditions to engage these sections of the act for medical practitioners or laboratories.

So all my amendments 1, 2 and 3 really do is replace the existing ad hoc system with a consistent mechanism for the Department of Health to provide hospitals and medical practitioners with clear public health guidance surrounding if, when and how they need to be notified when certain substances are identified in drugs, for the purposes of public health. For those who believe notifiable conditions are a vital part of our public health response, I expect that you will support these amendments.

I will now turn briefly to talk about some aspects of amendment 4 in this contribution, as it is contingent on amendments 1, 2 and 3 passing. Amendment 4 does require an additional group, Victoria Police, to notify the Department of Health when they encounter a notifiable drug, poison or controlled substance in the course of their work. It is important for Victoria Police to notify the Department of Health for exactly the same reason that our hospitals currently do: because this intelligence can be used for the existing drug alerts and potentially other public health responses. In fact Victoria Police in their enforcement role have the potential to provide drug intelligence to the Department of Health at a far earlier stage than hospitals, as well as with all notifiable conditions. Speed is critical in the effectiveness of any public health response.

At this stage our minds may immediately turn to young people and party drugs, but in fact I anticipate that it will be substances found in emerging drugs, vape as well as counterfeit tobacco, alcohol, benzodiazepines and opioids, where early warning intelligence sharing of specific drug threats may be the most beneficial to public health.

I should also note that public health responses can be far broader than just drug alerts. I am aware the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States use drug enforcement intelligence on the whereabouts of fentanyl to coordinate the distribution of the drug naloxone, which is effective in reversing opioid overdoses.

I know the Department of Health would be certainly keen to consistently receive this police analysis about what is circulating in drugs, and I thank the Minister for Health’s office for facilitating some discussions with the Greens about how we could achieve this outside of these amendments. There is only one problem, and it is the real reason why amendment 4 is necessary, and that is Victoria Police seem reluctant to share their analysis of what is in specific drugs with the Department of Health unless they are forced to by legislation. Victoria Police have also made it very clear that they oppose the public health advice from the Department of Health and the department’s issuing of specific drug alerts. I do not believe this is for any operational or enforcement reason—they just prefer a general deterrence public health strategy on drugs. So we have a situation currently where the government is effectively running two separate and contradictory public health strategies in regard to drug harm minimisation at the same time in Victoria. This is an untenable lack of coordination that would be bordering on farcical if it did not endanger lives.

We think that public health policies should be determined by public health experts in the Department of Health, and Victoria Police functions should support this policy. The tail should not wag the dog. But police have been clear that legislation is required for them to comply with the Department of Health’s policy on this issue, so legislation and legislated reporting requirements are the only way to ensure Victoria Police adheres to and supports the Department of Health’s public policy to ensure coordinated, effective, statewide harm minimisation strategies.

Ms CROZIER: I just want to make a few comments. I actually had a very good conversation with Dr Read when he spoke to me about the amendments that Dr Ratnam has just gone through. We had a really excellent conversation around the concerns that he had and why he thought these amendments needed to be moved. We were talking about the issue which you touched on: the very severe nature of what is happening with fentanyl, which is 100 times stronger than many opioids—morphine and the like.

But as I have undertaken, I have asked the government and others about their concerns. I do not think this bill is the right place for these amendments and for these particular concerns that Dr Read has raised around this very severe drug issue. I wish there was more education on the terrible effects of this drug abuse on young people, because what is happening in international jurisdictions and here in Australia around drug use is very, very concerning. I am not sure that the bill we are discussing tonight is the correct bill. We have got the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, which deals with this. Police labs do notify the department. They do that through their mechanism, and I know there are concerns that Dr Read raised with me in relation to that. But it is my understanding that the police have not been fully consulted on this, and I think they need to be brought into this debate on these amendments and understand exactly what it would mean for their members—what they need to do and what the police drug lab would be required to do—and work with the government on that.

On that basis, I do want to thank Dr Read for the very considered discussion we had, and I think it was an excellent discussion. But on this occasion the Liberal-Nationals will not be supporting the Greens amendment.

Ms PATTEN: Certainly the Reason Party will absolutely support these amendments, and I think this is completely the right place for these amendments to sit. We need to treat drug use as a health issue, and if we are going to do that and we are going to say that seriously, then this is the place that we need to say it. To suggest that this is difficult for the police—it would require an email; it would not be difficult. And can I say that five people in Chapel Street, five people in South Metro, may still be alive had this process been in place three years ago—had this process been in place when five people died in Chapel Street from a drug that the police knew was out there and knew was dangerous.

Yes, we are seeing fentanyl coming through our borders. Fentanyl, as Ms Crozier quite rightly places it, is far stronger than something like heroin. But think about carfentanil, which is stronger again. That is what we starting to see out there. We are starting to see these types of early warning programs everywhere.

It is dangerous for us to say, ‘Now is not the time. Could we just tell people, “Drugs are dangerous: just say no”?’. We have been doing that for decades, and can I tell you: people are dying from drugs. People are dying from overdoses. As Dr Ratnam said, some of the highest overdoses we are seeing are from black-market prescription medication. It is from benzodiazepines. The carfentanil that is out there and the fentanyl that is out there, which are being sold a lot in North America, are sold as OxyContin. That is sold as something else. So this early warning system is absolutely crucial. This will save lives.

I cannot even imagine that the police would not support this. In fact the drug law reform inquiry that was done in the last term made this recommendation. We know that the police’s own drug strategy is saying that drug use must be treated as a health issue, not as a criminal one. So the police are saying this now, and we have the opportunity to actually do something that will save lives, that will hopefully change the course of a young person’s life.

As I said in my substantive contribution, we have seen this overseas where police are putting that early warning system onto social media and we are seeing the nightclubs putting it out to all of their patrons and literally saving lives. We could have done that for Chapel Street. We could have done that; we could have not seen those five people die in Chapel Street in South Metro had we had such a system. So I commend Dr Ratnam and I commend Dr Read as well for this amendment.

Mr LIMBRICK: The Liberal Democrats will also be supporting Dr Ratnam’s amendment. We think it is absolutely vita that, if there are poisonous or adulterated substances, warnings be given out and intelligence be disseminated as quickly as possible. As Ms Patten has pointed out, people have died because these warnings were not given out, because there were dangerous substances and that was not widely disseminated. So any method for dangerous substances to be notified to the health department and given out to the wider market so that people are aware of these and can avoid them and take appropriate actions we will absolutely support.

Dr CUMMING: I understand what Dr Ratnam is trying to achieve, but I do not believe that this is the place where you would actually put it. We are talking about the control of communicable diseases. To actually place in here drugs, poisons and controlled substances—I do not believe this is where you would actually place it. We are talking about microorganisms, we are talking about viruses and now we are adding drugs, poisons and controlled substances. I cannot support the amendments proposed.

Ms SYMES: I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you a lot at the same time, Dr Ratnam. The government certainly supports the concept of drug alerts, but as both Dr Cumming and Ms Crozier have identified, this is not the vessel to achieve that outcome. This bill is expanding testing, data collection and further analysis powers to help improve management and understanding of infectious diseases and the risk to public health. The proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the intention of this bill as applicable to ‘Part 8—Management and control of infectious diseases, micro-organisms and medical conditions’ of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

The notification scheme detailed in this particular act is for infectious diseases, microorganisms and medical conditions, and it is designed to work between medical practitioners, pathology services, food laboratories and the Department of Health. It does not have an information-sharing arrangement with Victoria Police for the purposes of drugs, poisons and controlled substances, so to insert this in this bill at this point in time would be a bit messy and would need more work, more consultation and formal arrangements to be set up.

So we are not in a position to support your amendment, but we do acknowledge the public safety risks, particularly to young people. Everything that we can do to ensure that they know what is about on the streets is something that we should all endeavour to do, and that is not something that we are shying away from, but today’s bill is not the way to achieve that outcome. Perhaps we might want to give a little bit more time to consider where that might be best placed and how we can bring about greater improvements in relation to alerts of that nature.

Committee divided on amendments:

Amendments negatived.

Clause 4 agreed to; clauses 5 to 27 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:05): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:06): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same without amendment.