Thursday, 19 March 2026

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (10:05): I just acknowledge the previous speakers from Tuesday and the opportunity to sum up on the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025. I will canvass a few points that are important to go over regarding the intent behind the bill, the type of which is quite unusual, I suppose. We have the statute law reform bills, which cover a lot of topics, but I recognise this has caused some challenges with the range of areas that it covers. Obviously there has been a lot of interaction with individual shadow ministers and different representatives from the crossbench depending on their areas of interest, and different ministers have been in conversations as a result of the interface with the amendments in particular portfolios. So I do appreciate that there has been some complexity with this legislation. It may have made things a little complicated, but I appreciate the will that people have brought to the spirit of the intent of this legislation. It is relatively uncontentious in terms of its purpose, but it is important and it is a feature of a lot of work that I have been leading for some time.

To ensure that the public sector is appropriately focused on delivering essential services, as Treasurer I commissioned an independent review of the public service, the Silver review. This was to give advice to government to really zero in on any waste and inefficiency and focus on entity consolidation for the benefit of Victorians. The review found that there are some entities and boards whose functions are not or are no longer required or whose functions overlap with the existing work of core departments or have been superseded by others. Consolidating functions into departments does enable clearer lines of accountability and makes government less complex for people to navigate, which I think is really important. The 2025–26 budget included a range of savings and efficiencies consistent with the objectives of the Silver review, some of which were part of her interim report which she provided to the cabinet. This included things such as ceasing or scaling back programs where the original aims have been achieved or where the level of investment is no longer required or indeed justified and programs that no longer represent the best value for money.

I must point out at this point in time it is not necessarily implying that things are not good. If government did everything that was good, you would be diluting all of your resources to things that are good. What you must do is focus on the things that are a priority, the things that make the real difference and the things that have the most impact. Otherwise you are mediocre and you are not providing the best service where it is most needed. This is the theme; this is what has driven some of these difficult decisions. They are not necessarily the most popular decisions for people that might feel that they liked that part of government. But if you look at the bird’s-eye view, the overall picture of how governments should service the community, it is really important to prioritise and really get behind and resource those that have the highest impact.

There does seem to have been a little bit of confusion about whether some items in the bill were flagged through the Silver review or not. I do want to make it clear that government do not just rely on an independent review to do their important work. It informed a lot of the work of course, but in deciding to close an entity or delete overlapping department functions, this should be a core responsibility of government that we should do annually at least, or every day in our work. When you identify something that perhaps could be spent in a better way or have a different and more impactful effect on the community, that is what we are here to do.

That is where the bill comes in. It sits squarely within the government’s focus on providing high-quality public services in a financially responsible manner. This is what the bill is about. It is not about cutting services, it is not about removing oversight; it is about streamlining government functions and maximising the efficiency of the service to the public. We are making sure we are laser focused on what Victorians want from government – good schools, good health care, good safe communities and real help with the cost of living, without cuts to frontline services. We will never make cuts to the frontline services that families rely on. I know that many MPs would share these views. I know that you are out there speaking to your communities. You know what their priorities are. They are those – schools, health care, safety and cost of living. They are the issues that we are all talking to our communities about, and they are what this bill is trying to ensure the government are focused on. Families of course, particularly after this week, are watching every dollar they spend. They expect government to do the same.

The bill aims to reduce waste and inefficiency so we can invest in the things that matter. The changes proposed in the bill are sensible and support the government’s plan for responsible fiscal management. I acknowledge that there has been feedback from various members in the chamber and from stakeholders regarding some of the proposals in the bill, and I do thank them for that constructive engagement. We have listened to the feedback, and we have done considerable work to allay any of the concerns.

I particularly want to acknowledge and thank Minister Stitt, who has done a mammoth amount of work on the mental health changes in the bill. As a result of this, the government has a number of amendments to move. Once they are printed, I will circulate them during clause 1 in the committee. I would note that I cannot table them right now, but they have been circulated and discussed, so there should not be any members that have not received those. Minister Stitt will join me in committee to be able to answer any questions on mental health.

I have had some conversations, particularly with opposition lead Mr Welch, and we acknowledge that there are a variety of topics in this bill. What we are proposing to do for the benefit of members that wish to engage and participate in the committee stage is that we are going to attempt to bring some order to the questions in terms of starting. Thank you, Minister Stitt, for agreeing to join me at the table, which I will seek leave to do once I am down there. We will start with mental health questions, and then we will move to general questions like we would normally do during clause 1. Then I think the agreement of members would be that any sorts of other questions that are on the bill, we will also acquit during clause 1. Of course we can take it pretty slowly and make sure that we are all clear on where we are up to with what is a diverse bill.

I also do want to acknowledge the work of the clerks and the table office in relation to dealing with numerous amounts of content and amendments and developing up the run sheet, which will help guide some of the amendments in particular. I think I will do everything else at the committee table. Thank you again to those that have contributed to the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (10:15)

Jaclyn SYMES: I seek leave for Minister Stitt to accompany me at the table. As discussed, this bill has a variety of topics, but one of the topics is mental health, and the Minister for Mental Health, being in the chamber, would be best equipped to deal with those questions.

Leave granted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will commence with questions, and as soon as we have the amendments the Treasurer will circulate them.

Richard WELCH: While we wait for those, shall I proceed with some other general questions? I do not have any specific questions on the mental health aspect.

Jaclyn SYMES: Given my proposal for Minister Stitt to deal with mental health questions, can I see if the crossbench have got any questions in the mental health space? The opposition have indicated they have no questions for mental health, so if you guys would like to do that, then we can excuse her and get back to the remainder of the bill.

Richard WELCH: Ministers, could you advise of the consultation the government had with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and also the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing on this bill?

Ingrid STITT: Obviously the changes are as a result of a process that the Treasurer has led and are publicly available, but there has been consultation with, in particular, the lived-experience peak bodies as a result of the bill being tabled in the Assembly last year. There have been ongoing conversations with those peak bodies as the bodies that speak for lived experience in this state.

Richard WELCH: Could you advise of the government’s reasons to make the changes to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and also to the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing in this bill, given that the Silver review only referenced the commission in passing?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Welch, the amended bill is really about updating the governance structure of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission by moving from the four-commissioner model to a commissioner and deputy commissioner model, and it introduces a deputy commissioner to support the commission in performing its functions and requires that at least one of the commissioner or deputy commissioners has lived experience. This is because, since the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, there have been overlapping roles and an overly complex governance structure, and that has limited accountability and decision-making. These reforms are all about streamlining leadership and governance and making the commission more responsive and effective, and moving to a commissioner and deputy commissioner model strengthens that accountability and reduces that duplication. It is obviously important that the commission maintains its independence but also has the ability to deliver on its core functions.

In relation to the collaborative centre, again, this is about updating the governance of the collaborative centre by reducing the minimum board size from nine to five members, including the chair, and moving from a co-CEO model to a single-CEO model. These changes streamline decision-making and improve efficiency. The amended bill will help the collaborative centre operate more effectively and ensure that lived-experience representation remains a key component of the governance of the collab centre board.

Richard WELCH: Several stakeholders have expressed concern that the bill’s changes to the commission’s responsibilities and powers will restrict its important industry oversight role. Can you guarantee the commission’s ability to obtain data from government entities will be unchanged if this bill passes as is?

Ingrid STITT: These are some of the issues that will be dealt with with the house amendments that I am hoping are now being distributed or nearly in the chamber. The amendment does increase the commission’s information collection powers to help them better fulfil their functions and exercise powers under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022. The house amendment that Minister Symes will bring provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health must provide information requested from the commission to assist in their functions. I want to acknowledge the conversations that have been happening both with the opposition and with the crossbench about reaching an agreed position on the data functions of the commission and the ability for the commission to access data from the department.

Georgie CROZIER: If I can just continue on with that line of questioning – apologies, I was not here at the start, Minister. I just want to get a couple of things, and you may need to take them on notice. According to some stakeholders the deliverables of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing are unclear. They do not know what the VCC is supposed to achieve. A lot of the supervision training is provided by other organisations. It was meant to be a one-stop shop. Can you explain to the committee why that has changed?

Ingrid STITT: Can I just clarify, you were asking in your question about reporting, but you are actually asking about the training function of the collaborative centre? All right. I am sure I am not telling you anything you are not familiar with, Ms Crozier, but I think it is probably worth touching on the role of the collaborative centre in the system. The Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing was a key recommendation in the interim report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and it is the translational research agency which brings together new research and best practice in mental health care. It was established under the act, and the collab centre structure includes lead partnerships with the University of Melbourne and the Royal Melbourne Hospital as well as a larger number of consortium partners across academia and health services delivery to ensure ongoing connections between research and practice in the mental health sector. In terms of the recent changes that were made with bringing the Centre for Mental Health Learning into the work of the collaborative centre, that occurred on 1 July 2025 and fulfils one of the key recommendations of the royal commission – recommendation 58, sub recommendation 4 – to enable the Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing to coordinate learning and professional development activities across the whole mental health and wellbeing workforce. That is an important change, and I do want to reassure the chamber that this is a key focus. I have asked my department to ensure that the collaborative centre is delivering on high-quality workforce training and development programs that meet the needs of our modern mental health workforce. I have asked my department to ensure that this occurs.

Georgie CROZIER: You might need to check on this, but how many people have been trained by the collaborative centre, given that collaboration that you have just spoken of?

Ingrid STITT: That may be one that I will need to take on notice and see if we can get an answer for you to during clause 1.

Georgie CROZIER: Just in relation to that training, how does it compare with the Centre for Mental Health Learning?

Ingrid STITT: There was a process of bringing over the operation into the collaborative centre, and I am advised that the collaborative centre is finalising a three-year strategy of workforce development activities by mid-2026 which will guide development and training functions for the future of the mental health and wellbeing workforce. Again, I have asked my department to ensure that that includes consultation with the relevant unions in relation to that training strategy.

Georgie CROZIER: Another one, just on notice, about data: how many educators have been trained? You said there is a three-year workforce development program. How many educators will be provided in that program?

Ingrid STITT: Are you talking about the workforce of the collaborative centre to deliver on training?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes.

Ingrid STITT: Okay. I think we will have to take that one on notice, Ms Crozier, if you do not mind. I have got details of other global figures, like 43.9 EFT staff – sorry, that is the commission; I withdraw that. Can I just clarify: do you mean the number of staff employed to run training?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes. And how many educators.

Ingrid STITT: Educators within the team?

Georgie CROZIER: Within that program.

Ingrid STITT: Okay. I will take that on notice and see if I can get you that information.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you very much. I know some of those are data and you will not have that, so I appreciate that. Just on that, I suppose a breakdown of how many are in metropolitan Melbourne and how many are in regional areas, if you would not mind as well.

Ingrid STITT: We can certainly try.

Georgie CROZIER: Just in relation to the total capital expenditure, I understand that the centre is building a rooftop garden. There are questions around why that is needed and what the cost is of the total capital expenditure – the total cost of the build and why there is a need for rooftop garden.

Ingrid STITT: I am not aware of any plans to construct a rooftop garden, but I think it is probably important to give you a clear indication of my expectations of the collaborative centre, and that is that they deliver high-quality workforce training and develop programs that meet the needs of our workforce. As I have indicated, I have asked my department to ensure that that occurs, but I am not aware of any plans to construct a rooftop garden.

Georgie CROZIER: Could you provide the committee with a budget for how much the build will cost?

Ingrid STITT: It is outside the scope of the bill, Ms Crozier. It has not been a build. We will need to take that on notice in terms of the capital expenditure, but it is actually a fit-out; it was not a build of their building. I am happy to take that on notice, but it is not in the scope of the bill before us today.

Georgie CROZIER: I appreciate that response, but I think it is important in light of some of the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders, so if you could, that would be helpful. Is the government walking back any changes it would make to ensure that oversight is stronger? Is that correct or not?

Ingrid STITT: In relation to which entity? I would say neither, but I just want to get some clarity from you, Ms Crozier, about –

Georgie CROZIER: Sorry, the collaborative centre.

Ingrid STITT: No. In relation to the collaborative centre, we are making sensible changes to the board number and the make-up of the board. I would contend that that does not change in any way the remit of the collaborative centre. In answer to a previous question from Mr Welch about the ongoing structure at the collaborative centre, we are moving from a co-CEO model to a single CEO model. I think that is a much more streamlined governance structure for an organisation of the size of the collaborative centre. The board will move to a minimum of five positions, with some house amendments around lived-experience board positions being carved out within that five. If the board increases in size in the future, then so too will the number of lived-experience members of the board. But this is very much about streamlining the governance arrangements of the collaborative centre. I think it is important to note one of the co-CEO positions is currently vacant and has been for some time anyway.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We might just pause there because the amendments have arrived, so we might get the Treasurer to circulate her amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: I appreciate those that have done the work to get the amendments in a form that I can table. I appreciate people’s patience and also their work. I ask that they be circulated.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, could you clarify for me, please: the mental health family violence coordinator roles were meant to be renegotiated, but there has been no communication around ongoing funding. The Centre for Mental Health Learning were concerned around that aspect. Is that the case?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Crozier, can I just clarify with you: are you talking about actual roles at the collaborative centre?

Georgie CROZIER: Well, could you clarify for me? Are those family violence coordinator roles in the collaborative centre being renegotiated, and is there funding for that?

Ingrid STITT: It is certainly something that is outside the scope of the bill before us today.

Georgie CROZIER: I think it is part of that employment package that we were talking about earlier.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, and there were the learning components that came over on 1 July last year. They are really operational issues at the collaborative centre. There have been some discussions between my office and the Health and Community Services Union about some of the union’s concerns around the learning and development elements of the collaborative centre, and I have already given them an undertaking that I will be happy to meet with them and work through those issues.

David LIMBRICK: Before I start my questions – I only have a few questions – I would just like to clarify for myself and for the house what has happened here with the mental health and wellbeing commissioners. The original bill proposed scaling back from four commissioners to one commissioner, and then the house amendment which has just been circulated would change that to a commissioner and a deputy commissioner, if that amendment was to succeed. Can the minister please just confirm if my understanding of that is correct?

Ingrid STITT: One hundred per cent correct, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that, just to make sure that we are on the same page. Can I first clarify: what is the current salary of the existing commissioners?

Ingrid STITT: It is an independent statutory authority, so their salaries are in accordance with the arrangements overseen by the remuneration tribunal.

David LIMBRICK: Does the minister have a number on this, approximately?

Ingrid STITT: I am just going to check with the box.

The current commissioners are in the band 2 senior executive service range, which is between $295,000 and $430,000 per annum.

David LIMBRICK: If we said the midpoint of that is around $350,000, then we are looking at about a $1.4 million total cost for the current arrangement. Is that in the ballpark?

Ingrid STITT: I would agree with that assessment, yes.

David LIMBRICK: If the government in the original bill, as unamended, thought it sufficient to go from four commissioners to one commissioner, that would result in savings of approximately $1.1 million or something in that range. Why is the government now proposing a house amendment to bring that up to a commissioner and a deputy commissioner when the government originally thought that a sole commissioner would be sufficient?

Ingrid STITT: The answer to your question is that the decision to bring forward a house amendment to add a deputy commissioner to the structure is not based on a cost consideration; it is based on me listening carefully to the lived experience of peak bodies, who were concerned that if we moved to a single commissioner model the voices and the input from the lived-experience community would be diluted. I have listened carefully to that, and I have agreed that by having a commissioner and a deputy commissioner we can achieve two things: we can achieve a more streamlined governance arrangement, but we can also maintain the voices of lived-experience consumers and carers. The issue there is really one of the key tenets that came out of the royal commission.

David LIMBRICK: Is the minister implying that a commissioner without lived experience is unable to perform their job competently?

Ingrid STITT: No, I am not implying that, but I have listened to some of our key lived-experience peak bodies in the state, and they have made some compelling arguments about why there ought to be a lived-experience component to the leadership structure, so that is why the house amendment is coming forward in the way that it is.

David LIMBRICK: What are the proposed job functions of the commissioner and the proposed deputy commissioner? What will their responsibilities actually be?

Ingrid STITT: The bill does not prescribe distinct internal functions for the commissioner and deputy commissioner, respecting the fact that this is an independent commission and they need to determine their own internal governance arrangements, but the commissioner retains clear statutory accountability, while that flexibility is also preserved to allow the commission to allocate responsibilities in a way that best reflects the skills and expertise of both of the office holders. This approach also does ensure that lived experience can be embedded in the leadership, regardless of which role fulfils that requirement under the act, should the amendments be successful.

David LIMBRICK: Who will appoint the deputy commissioner, and who will the deputy commissioner report to in the new organisational structure?

Ingrid STITT: Once the bill receives royal assent, should it pass the procedures of the Parliament, there will be a recruitment process that will be undertaken. But the deputy commissioner’s powers are limited to those delegated by the commissioner. As I indicated earlier, the commission is an independent oversight entity, so it would not be appropriate for the legislation to prescribe what those specific roles and responsibilities ought to be, but both of the appointments have to go through a Governor in Council and cabinet process.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that answer. Just to clarify the appointment process, are we saying that the commissioner will not be the person appointing the deputy commissioner? Is that correct?

Ingrid STITT: No, they will not be appointing the deputy.

David LIMBRICK: Isn’t it unusual to have the deputy leader of an organisation not appointed by the leader of that organisation, like in most organisational structures?

Ingrid STITT: No. Perhaps in the private sector, but not necessarily when it comes to various statutory authorities and entities, and it is very common to have a Governor in Council appointment process.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, you responded to Mr Welch’s question in regard to consultation around the bill, in particular the changes to the mental health proportion of the bill. To go into a bit more detail on that, did this consultation include the leadership teams of any of the impacted organisations, and if so, which ones?

Ingrid STITT: Given the need to progress these reforms in a timely way, broader engagement with the Victorian Collaborative Centre and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will continue to be undertaken through the implementation and transition planning, but consultation was intentionally targeted at key lived-experience peak bodies, specifically VMIAC, Tandem and Self Help Addiction Resource Centre (SHARC), reflecting that they have the mandate as the peak bodies and an established role in the sector as very strong advocates.

Rachel PAYNE: Did the consultation include any people with consumer or carer lived or living experience in the mental health sector?

Ingrid STITT: Consultation included consumers and carers with lived experience of mental illness through engagement with their peak bodies VMIAC, Tandem and SHARC.

Rachel PAYNE: We have throughout this process of engagement with stakeholders heard quite a bit of criticism regarding the consultation process. So I want to broadly put it out there: will the government and you, the minister, commit to ensuring greater transparency and improved consultation with the mental health sector in the future?

Ingrid STITT: The government is always committed to ongoing transparent engagement. As Minister for Mental Health, I do take that seriously, and I hope I am seen by the sector, broadly, as someone who is accessible and understands clearly my responsibilities to engage, not just in a surface way but properly. Both I and my department regularly engage with a diverse group of stakeholders across the sector, including through individual meetings with stakeholders, including unions, forums such as the Mental Health Ministerial Advisory Committee and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Ministerial Advisory Committee, and of course we also really appreciate the fact that we are able to, in relation to specific projects, set up advisory groups of experts from across the sector to advise the government on reforms. As reforms progress, the government will continue to take on feedback and consult with the mental health sector. I think it is really important that that also includes the implementation stage of any reforms.

Rachel PAYNE: Just moving on to the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing, will the government support the inclusion of mandated output and expenditure reporting requirements for the collaborative centre to ensure it delivers measurable workforce training outcomes and itemised to-the-dollar reporting on where the mental health and wellbeing levy has been spent?

Ingrid STITT: Section 668 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 requires that as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year the collaborative centre board must submit a report to the minister, and that needs to include a review of its activities during the financial year, a review of its implementation against its strategic plan, a summary of actions it has taken that demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to comply with the mental health and wellbeing principles and any other information specified in writing by the minister. The collaborative centre’s financial reporting arrangements are currently through the Department of Health’s annual report, which includes their budget and their expenditure, so that is already a process that is publicly transparent and in accordance with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, thank you for that fulsome response. What was the rationale for the changes in this bill to the mental health sector, and in particular the changes to lived-experience leadership?

Ingrid STITT: I think I went to this in a little bit of detail with Ms Crozier and Mr Welch earlier. Essentially it is because, since the establishment of the commission, there have been overlapping roles and an overly complex governance structure that has really limited accountability and decision-making. These changes are all about designed and streamlined leadership and governance, and I believe strongly that moving to a commissioner and deputy commissioner model does strengthen that accountability and it reduces duplication while still maintaining the commission’s independence and core functions. Of course lived experience will continue to be represented in that leadership structure and in the commission’s important work. In relation to the changes to the governance arrangements at the collaborative centre, they are really changes to the board, ensuring the size of the board is appropriate for the size of the organisation, and the amended bill will help the collab centre operate more effectively and ensure lived-experience representation remains a key component of the board. I think that these are sensible changes which are about better and stronger leadership of these two entities.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, you implied this in your response just now, but how do the mental health sector related changes in this bill uphold the royal commission’s commitment to lived-experience leadership, rights-based practice and independent oversight?

Ingrid STITT: The commission obviously remains a very important independent statutory authority with broad oversight compliance and complaint-handling powers and responsibilities, including the ability to gather information, initiate own-motion investigations and report directly to the Parliament. The house amendments make targeted changes to strengthen lived-experience leadership, as we have discussed in committee, and they retain the commission’s existing oversight powers. The amendments require that at least one mental health and wellbeing commissioner or the new deputy commissioner have lived experience. Of course, as we have been discussing, the amendments also ensure lived-experience representation on the board of the collab centre, requiring at least two of the five board members to have lived experience, increasing to three if the board expands its numbers above the current proposed number. We think that together these changes actually reinforce lived-experience leadership accountability and effective oversight across the mental health system.

Rachel PAYNE: How will the needs and perspectives of carers be systematically embedded in governance for the mental health sector in the context of these proposed changes?

Ingrid STITT: Carers are a central voice in the governance of Victoria’s mental health sector, and I, as minister, and my department will continue to work closely with Tandem, the peak body for carers in mental health, to ensure that the sometimes unique perspective of carers continues to be reflected in our reforms and our decision-making. The government amendments, as we have touched on, will provide for lived experience for one of the commissioners and also the make-up of the collaborative centre board. I think that more broadly, outside the scope of the bill before us today, there is also significant investment and work in making sure that carers are supported in the system.

Rachel PAYNE: Is it envisaged that the changes in the bill to restrict the scope of several functions of the commission will reduce the commission’s oversight functions, if at all?

Ingrid STITT: There are no changes to the commission’s functions. The house amendments that the Treasurer has circulated remove the previously proposed changes which sought to ensure the commission delivered on its core functions of complaint-handling investigations and data reviews. These changes were consequential to the information-sharing changes previously put forward, but they are now no longer required. So the effect of all of that – around, around the mulberry bush – is there is no change to the commission’s functions.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Minister, can you explain specifically how reducing the commission to a commissioner and an assistant commissioner is intended to better support consumers and carers and strengthen accountability?

Ingrid STITT: We have touched on this a couple of times, and I reiterate that this is about ensuring that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission does not have an overly complex governance structure and that the focus is clearly on accountability and decision-making and ensuring that they fulfil their statutory responsibilities. I am strongly of the view that a more streamlined structure will deliver on that. I also think that it is a lot clearer in terms of the designation of the leadership and governance, making the commissioner more responsive and effective. And of course some of the house amendments deal with the agreement that has been arrived at after careful and close consultation with the peak bodies Tandem, VMIAC and SHARC.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I am just wanting to get some clarity on the role you see the commission playing. I think you said in your contribution that the commission is to hold health services to account, but the act states that the commission’s role is to hold the government to account. The royal commission envisaged that it was the government that would be holding health services to account and overseeing service performance. So I am just wanting to get some clarity on the role of the commission in terms of accountability and who they are overseeing and holding to account.

Ingrid STITT: I think I answered a similar question that I received from Ms Payne. There will be no changes as a result of the bill and also the house amendments to the functions of the commission. They will continue to have an ongoing role in complaints handling and also holding the government to account. I think in answer to a number of questions that I have gone to recently, they also of course have broad powers to initiate their own investigations and report them to the Parliament. Nothing will change in that regard. Does that answer your question?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think it was just being clear on what the role of the commission is, which is to really apply scrutiny and hold the government to account, and the government’s role is to hold the services to account. It is just being clear that that is what the roles of the different entities are.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, the act outlines the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission’s role in holding government to account, and that is not changing. But equally, the department has a role in system oversight and performance. They are two distinct things. I guess the main issue to reiterate with the commission is they are independent. They have all the powers they need to pursue investigations, handle complaints and also hold the government to account when it comes to the performance of the mental health system.

Sarah MANSFIELD: You have indicated, Minister, that the current structure has not enabled the commission to fully deliver on its statutory functions or meet the expectations of the community, which is part of the reason for proposing a revised structure of the commission. Can the minister point to any supports the department has provided to try and resolve any of the challenges that have existed with the commission being able to acquit its functions?

Ingrid STITT: I think at a broad level, Dr Mansfield, there has been significant work happening in my department to support the commission in its work. We are always mindful of that independence, but these reforms are designed to streamline leadership and governance, and that is really what is driving it. That is why I have been very keen to see a much more streamlined governance arrangement. I believe that will make the commission more responsive and effective and also clarify accountabilities and responsibilities. There has been some overlap in roles under the more complex four-commissioner model, so this is really at the heart of why the government is pursuing these changes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In saying that the commission has not been able to fully deliver on its statutory functions or meet the expectations of the community, can you explain what you meant by that? I appreciate you said there has been some lack of clarity about responsibility with that four-commissioner model, but is there anything else you meant by that statement?

Ingrid STITT: At a broad level I would say that they have enormous responsibility as an independent statutory authority at a time when there is significant reform occurring in the system. At the same time we are seeing significant demand pressures on much of our public mental health system, particularly at the acute end. It is important that the commission is a strong, independent body. Again, I would go to the comments I have already made about my strong view that by streamlining the leadership and governance arrangements at the commission we can get a much sharper focus on their responsibilities as outlined under the act.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We have heard concerns from stakeholders that part of the reason the commission has potentially been unable to meet all of its obligations under the act has been due to resource constraints – for example, longer wait times to manage complaints and other issues with being able to undertake some of the reviews and deeper dives into the system. Is resourcing, in your view, part of the issue in addition to governance? If so, what is the government planning to do in terms of ensuring the commission has the resources it needs to do its job properly?

Ingrid STITT: I do not agree with that assertion. The commission, as at 30 June 2025, has a staff of 43.9 FTE, and we are well aware of the commissioner-governance structure that is being proposed in the house amendments that are going to be dealt with shortly. I do not accept that there is a problem with the level of resources at the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. The commission receives an annual budget to support its functions. As I have indicated previously, the bill makes no changes to the commission’s functions – they have got an ongoing role and an unchanged role to monitor and report on the performance, quality and safety of the mental health and wellbeing system – and it also strengthens the commission’s information collection powers, which actually should assist them to fulfil their functions and exercise their powers under the act. As I indicated after a previous question, my department meets regularly with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to discuss their work program and to assist with any issues that they may need assistance with or that arise. Again, I do not accept that assertion around their inability to fulfil their functions. We are making no changes to those arrangements, and I believe they have adequate resources to be able to acquit their responsibilities under the act.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Another concern that has been raised by stakeholders is that access to data has been an issue that has limited the ability of the commission to do their work. The commission had publicly indicated they intended to undertake deeper work on the quality and safety of the system, but after a year they still had not been able to progress that because they had not received the data they needed. Will the house amendments that are being moved today go some way to addressing this concern?

Ingrid STITT: I have listened to those concerns, and we have had a number of conversations across the chamber, and I thank all members for working with the government on these issues. It is important to me that the commission has the information collection powers that it needs to be able to fulfil its functions under the act, so the house amendments seek to provide that increased access to information. The amendments also provide that the secretary for health must provide information requested from the commission to assist them in their functions, so there should be no impediment to being able to get the data that they need. Obviously, right across the health system, the personal medical information of individual patients and consumers is very sensitive information. I have got no doubt the commission will be very responsible about that kind of data, and there will be, where necessary, de-identification that would be the subject of those requests to the department.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It is my understanding that this bill repeals section 419A, which outlines the responsibilities of the different commissioners and in particular the chair and their ability to convene meetings, whether or not they have casting votes. They could decide if they wanted to consider an inquiry report publication. With the removal of that section, what will be the roles and powers of the chair and assistant commissioner in the two-commissioner model that the government has put forward?

Ingrid STITT: I have gone to this in a bit of detail in previous questions – I think from Mr Limbrick, actually – but I will go to them again. The bill does not prescribe distinct internal functions for the commissioner and deputy commissioner, and that is all about respecting the fact that the independence of the commission is important and they need to determine their own internal governance arrangements. But with the commissioner and deputy commissioner structure, the commissioner retains clear statutory accountability while flexibility is preserved to allow the commission to allocate responsibilities in a way that best reflects the skills and the experience of both office holders. This approach also ensures lived experience can be embedded in the leadership regardless of which role that fulfils under the act. In terms of the deputy commissioner’s powers, those are limited to those delegated by the commissioner. But we do not seek to codify this in the legislation. This is a matter for the independent commission to determine once that recruitment process is complete.

Sarah MANSFIELD: One of the concerns that has been raised with us with a two-commissioner model of chair and deputy is what will happen in the event there is a disagreement about something and how that will be resolved, particularly when you have got one lead role and one deputy role. I understand you are saying that it is for the new commission and commissioners to determine a lot of those sorts of governance processes. Is dispute resolution, or how to work through a disagreement, also going to be left to be determined by the new commission?

Ingrid STITT: In some ways you are describing the problem that I have been wanting to fix, because the current structure does have ambiguity about what would happen in those circumstances. But the amendments create a single commissioner, with clear responsibility for the commission’s objectives and functions, supported by a deputy commissioner with delegated powers and functions. This model enables collaboration and shared leadership while preserving clear lines of accountability and decision-making through the commissioner, addressing the governance challenges that have been identified under the current arrangements that are in place.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I know the number of commissioners has been a point of discussion and was a point of discussion as we all worked through this bill. One issue that has continued to come up with the two-commissioner model – and I appreciate that there will be a requirement for lived experience, either direct lived experience or as a carer, within one of the two roles – is that recommendation 44.2 of the royal commission required a consumer and a carer in designated positions. I am just wondering how this new structure addresses that.

Ingrid STITT: The structure, as we have discussed, would be a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. At a minimum at least one of these is either a commissioner or deputy commissioner with lived experience of mental illness or as a carer or supporter. There has been consultation with those key stakeholders, as I have already put on the record today. I have listened really carefully to their views. I respect that they speak for lived-experience communities in the state. That is why we have proposed this particular structure, and obviously for other reasons as well that we have discussed in committee. The amendment does not limit the ability of the commission to consider and respond to the views and experiences of carers or of consumers. That will be an ongoing factor for them to consider in their work, and carers are a central voice in the governance of Victoria’s mental health sector. We will continue to work closely with Tandem, and the government’s amendments clearly provide for that lived-experience component of the structure. I might add that there is nothing to stop the commissioner and the deputy commissioner both having lived experience of mental health.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I guess it is just that there is a world in which only a carer or lived experience may be represented in those roles, given the current structure, and it has been made really clear through the royal commission and subsequently that both perspectives are really important to have in some of these leadership roles. There is scope for both of those to be reflected, but it is just not a requirement in the current structure.

The government’s amendments will bring the current commissioners’ terms to an end and allow for some interim appointments for the next six months. What assurances can you give the Parliament that these interim appointment arrangements will not reduce or temper the commission’s scrutiny of government?

Ingrid STITT: Dr Mansfield, are you talking about during the transition period before the appointments go through the Governor in Council process? As I have said, I believe that the commission has the resources that they need. They will still have the same powers under the act to hold the government to account; nothing in that part of the act changes. If the Parliament passes the legislation, we will be moving quickly to a recruitment process, but I do accept that there will be a short period of time while there are transitional arrangements in place, and I think they are unavoidable. But I would also reiterate that my expectation is that the department will continue to support the commission in its work, noting of course its independence and not ever wishing to interfere with that independence.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The commission has previously indicated it would release a report on its existing work on the royal commission recommendations. That has not been done to date. Will the incoming interim commission or commissioners, once they are appointed, proceed with releasing that work?

Ingrid STITT: That would be a matter for the independent commission to determine.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a number of questions about the statement of expectations, but I think, given the house amendment that removes the statement of expectations, I might leave those. I am not sure if you have had the opportunity to speak to that change in depth yet, so I might allow you to do that.

Ingrid STITT: Thank you, Dr Mansfield. This I guess gives me the opportunity to confirm that I had originally, through the bill, sought an amendment around a statement of expectations. I have heard the feedback loud and clear, and I will be supporting the house amendment that removes that requirement.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, I just want to circle back around to the house amendment around the information sharing and data with regard to the data disclosure from the department to the commission. Can I just seek some points of clarification, particularly around the limitations? If it must not include information that identifies an individual, is it a risk of identification or identification itself that is being addressed there?

Ingrid STITT: There is a house amendment that deals with these matters that gives clarity around what data can be sought from the Secretary of the Department of Health. In terms of privacy, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission must protect the privacy of personal and health information. They are required to comply with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act when dealing with personal information, including the information-sharing principles in the act – that is not changing. The commission must also comply with other laws, including the Health Records Act 2001, the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. They must not disclose personal or health information in a way that identifies persons unless by consent and authorisation or requirement to do so by law. The amendment that we are proposing increases the commission’s information-collection powers to help them fulfil their functions and exercise powers under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act. The amendment also provides that the Secretary for the Department of Health must provide information requested from the commission to assist them in their functions. I hope that is a fulsome clarification on those matters.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, could you advise the level of consultation with local councils in relation to the amendments on the Essential Services Commission?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Mrs McArthur for her question in relation to the changes to the Essential Services Commission, particularly as it relates to rate capping. I might take the opportunity to explain what we are attempting to do here. At the moment the Minister for Local Government is responsible for setting the average rate cap and receives advice from both Department of Government Services and the Essential Services Commission when setting the caps. Every year since the introduction of rate capping, the ESC has advised the minister to adjust the rates in accordance with CPI, and to my knowledge there has been no deviation from that in the time that this policy has been in existence. Every year, despite CPI changing dramatically year to year, the ESC has confirmed that the CPI remains the appropriate measure to determine the annual rate cap and that these reports arguably are redundant.

The bill does not remove the ability of a council to request a higher rate cap. We know some have exercised this right, which they must apply directly to the Essential Service Commission for. This is the more important function of the Essential Services Commission and should be their priority, given that the rate-capping policy has been now long established. Currently the ESC is also required to produce an outcomes report every two years on compliance with rate caps, and this was a valuable assurance mechanism immediately following the introduction of rate capping, but is less so today given the passage of time since rate capping was introduced. The bill does not preclude the ESC from preparing a report on compliance with rate caps at any time; it just removes the requirement to complete an extended report every two years, which is no longer needed due to the length of time this policy has been introduced.

Mrs McArthur, when it comes to consultation with local councils, I think you would appreciate that the Minister for Local Government is regularly in contact with local councils, as are, I believe, most members of Parliament. I know, particularly in my role as Minister for Regional Development but also just as a local member, there are many conversations about the rate-capping system – how it works, how it is implemented, its interaction with the ESC. In answer to your question, the consultation with local government is, frankly, always ongoing when it comes to the operation of the rate-capping policy.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, as the Shadow Minister for Local Government, I have found that the councils have complained furiously that they were not consulted about these changes. So I asked specifically what consultation occurred with councils – maybe you would like to take it on notice – because that is not the information I have, that they were consulted.

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, in terms of the exact conversations and consultations that have occurred with the Minister for Local Government, I am not well placed to give you a blow-by-blow account of that, but what I would reiterate is that the rate-capping policy receives constant feedback from councils about its operation, whether it is related to the role of the ESC or whether it is related to the cap itself. These are conversations that I have been having for many, many years, and if I am having them, I can assure you that the Minister for Local Government is. But the fact of the matter is that this amendment does not actually impact councils directly, because it is just removing a process that is considered now redundant. It does not actually change the experience of local councils at all.

Bev McARTHUR: The local government sector were very concerned that they were not consulted about this bill, effectively, and these changes. Can you enlighten us as to what consultation took place with the organisational bodies in relation specifically to this change?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mrs McArthur, the Minister for Local Government meets regularly with the local government sector, including local councils individually and their collective representatives, whether it is the regional councils group, the rural councils group or indeed the Municipal Association. This is part of his day-to-day business, and these conversations occur. Again, there is no change to the function for councils. There is no change to the decision-making by the minister. They are just administrative changes to streamline regulation. The minister will make their determination, supported by the advice of their department.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, how can you guarantee that a minister will not be subject to lobbying to increase council rates on people, especially during a cost-of-living crisis, now that the rate cap is set differently?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I am saying is that the setting of the rate cap is not substantially altered by this process. That is why I took the opportunity to explain why we are making this amendment. The ESC administratively have confirmed CPI each and every year. We actually want them focused on when councils come to them to examine their books and put forward their cases of whether they would like to be excluded from the cap or not. You say, ‘How can you guarantee that the minister won’t be lobbied to not apply the rate cap?’ There is no change in that; that already happens now. This is not going to encourage or discourage those types of lobbying activities.

Bev McARTHUR: Given that the role of the Essential Services Commission is to apply independent economic rigour to the questions before it, isn’t it more likely that the commission will one day recommend a rate cap below the level of inflation?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not the advice that we have. We think it is much more appropriate, again in the theme of this bill, to focus their resources where they are going to have the most impact. Removing the administrative burden of confirming CPI each and every year – we would prefer to remove that distraction, not duplicate that sort of paperwork, and enable them to actually work with those councils that want to have a different process in relation to the appropriateness of the rate settings for their individual councils.

Bev McARTHUR: How can the government be sure that removing the ESC’s advisory role in the establishment of local government rate caps will not undermine community confidence in the rate-capping framework?

Jaclyn SYMES: There is still a role for the Essential Services Commission. The minister has always made the determination. The ESC will still retain their responsibility for, as I said, assessing applications for a higher cap amount by individual councils, and they will also monitor and review on compliance, so we do not believe that this significantly alters the experience of local councils. In fact it might produce greater opportunity to have those more detailed conversations where appropriate.

Richard WELCH: If I may, Minister, I will go to a couple of questions on the abolition of the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority. Can the minister outline what steps will be taken to ensure the substantial body of material produced by the authority remains publicly accessible and available for departmental use after the authority is wound down?

Jaclyn SYMES: There is certainly no intention, in making changes to the organisation to wind it down, that we delete the work that they have done. It has been important work at an important point in time, with the closure of mines. In terms of the platform that that material might be available on –

Richard WELCH: Who takes custody of that data?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, it is a good question. I probably should not speculate, but as a former Minister for Resources, I would suggest that the department and other areas of the resources portfolio would have appropriate platforms to be able to house that material. I might seek some confirmation of that so that I can ensure that you are confident. As I said, I am more than happy to have these things publicly available. I think to your question and making sure that it is easily accessible for those that may seek to find it, I can get you some advice on that, but given that the resources department have numerous platforms, I am pretty sure that we can find an appropriate home.

Richard WELCH: I think that is right. I think it is just that it is a matter that that material could easily fall through the cracks in a restructure and then suddenly not be available. In a similar vein, some stakeholders are curious to know, or just want to know if the minister will commit to maintaining the authority website or a form of the website appropriate for the overlap period to ensure continuity of access while material is transferred to whatever new custody or platform it goes to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will commit to speaking to the Minister for Energy and Resources, and I am sure that her department, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), would be able to give you comfort in relation to that. As I said, we are not trying to erase the existence and the work of the organisation. To your very question about accessibility of the information, Resources Victoria, I am sure, will be able to facilitate that. Without being able to give you a direct answer as to a particular webpage et cetera, I will personally take it on board to speak to the minister to seek assurances that that is happening, because I agree with you that we should make sure that is clear.

Richard WELCH: In the same theme, what processes will the department implement to determine which sensitive archival materials should be retained under restricted access, and under what circumstances would material be considered too sensitive to keep?

Jaclyn SYMES: The way you describe that question, Mr Welch, asking what material is too sensitive to keep – it is not something that is a threshold that is applied. I am not sure if you are implying there is shredding activity or something that you would expect to happen. I think that is pretty unlikely. There are policies and procedures in relation to document storage, and I am sure that DEECA will be compliant with all of their obligations.

Richard WELCH: I do not know. There could be commercially sensitive –

Jaclyn SYMES: You are always a bit suspicious.

Richard WELCH: I just like to have clarity. A final question on this matter from me is: how will the department ensure that open communication practices and engagement standards that were fostered by the authority are going to be sustained in the new structures into the future?

Jaclyn SYMES: It has been some time now, but drawing on my experience as the former minister, having an individual authority that was specialised within the broader umbrella of Resources Victoria was an asset at the time, but it is not as though we had special authority for the other components of Resources Victoria. I have full confidence in Resources Victoria’s ability to ensure that they have coverage of any residual matters for that area of the state.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a number of questions about the environmental entities. I might start with the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. The bill abolishes VEAC entirely and has no permanent solution to recreating the council’s independence, expertise or functions, which include investigating public land and delivering environmental assessments. How will the commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria (CES) be resourced to replicate VEAC’s consultative, independent and science-based advice on the protection and management of public land?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank both Dr Mansfield for her question and other members of the Greens for their engagement on this bill. In relation to the commissioner for environment being resourced to replicate the VEAC’s consultative, independent and science-based advice, historically, the VEAC had a core team that was supplemented with additional resources where needed to undertake the assessments or investigations, so there was already close interaction between these bodies. The CES-led delivery of these functions will adopt a surge model, where government will provide any additional resources required for the CES to undertake the assessment or investigation in addition to the core team.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will the government create any avenue for the existing VEAC members to continue their work within the CES as a permanent expert use panel?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that the CES will be empowered to appoint expert panels as required to provide any necessary expert advice. Current VEAC members may of course seek, or be sought out, to be involved in any future CES community or expert advisory panels.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Our understanding is that these expert panels are only temporary bodies for ad hoc investigations and that the current reference group really operates as a stakeholder forum. Doesn’t this leave Victoria with no permanent, dedicated expert legislated body to take up VEAC’s work, which is that work of advising on the protection and ecologically sustainable management of the environment and natural resources on public land?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated, the CES will be empowered to appoint expert panels as required, so they will be quite agile so they can attract and use the expert advice based on what is before them.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Will the government at least bring in VEAC’s current council members as a reference group, which, although lacking statutory protections, could at least function as a VEAC body?

Jaclyn SYMES: That may very well be facilitated under the changes, Dr Mansfield, because it is expected that current VEAC members may seek, or indeed, very obviously, be sought after, to be involved in the CES advisory panels, particularly in the expert space but also because of their extensive community involvement.

Sarah MANSFIELD: VEAC’s council members are required to have several specific areas of expertise – for example, environmental protection and conservation, natural resource management, economics and business management et cetera. If the government are going to let that sort of expertise go to waste, are you eventually going to have to outsource those roles to replace that expertise?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not think that expertise is confined just to the current VEAC members, although I do respect the position that you have put in regard to their extensive expertise and knowledge, which is exactly why the new system and changes will facilitate their abilities and indeed encourage their continued involvement as required.

Sarah MANSFIELD: How much money is it going to cost the government to undertake this change process?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have a figure for you on that, Dr Mansfield. As you can appreciate, the intention of this bill is not just driven by financial outcomes. It is driven by a reform piece where we want to make sure that government are focused and their resources are all prioritised to avoid duplication and particularly to make it easier for the public to interact with government. There are a range of recommendations in the Silver review that in fact have no direct financial benefit, but they mean that people trying to seek advice or to navigate the system have less doors to knock on, and therefore the administrative savings for both the community and, frankly, for government produce productivity savings in themselves that you cannot necessarily always put a dollar figure on. In relation to the transition to new systems, the net outcome can be influenced by whether there are existing vacancies that you are not filling or, in the event you cannot find a suitable alternative position for someone, whether there are redundancy payments that are triggered. There is a process involved in that, which does indeed make it very difficult to put nominal figures on some of these changes. The total savings have been indicated based on the best modelling that is available.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Can the government provide any guarantees that the new CES process for environmental assessments will be politically independent?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, the commissioner is fully independent.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The government backtracked on the terms of reference established for the Great Outdoors Taskforce to investigate new national parks. Has the CES also been told not to investigate any new national parks as it takes on VEAC’s remit?

Jaclyn SYMES: There is no such instruction, and that is outside the bill. The work of the new body is a matter for the minister. This bill is about the structure of the organisation.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The bill removes a mandatory duty for departments to act in accordance with the government-accepted recommendations by VEAC. What is the government’s plan for those recommended protections it has previously agreed to but not yet implemented?

Jaclyn SYMES: The entities bill does not remove the requirement for ministers, departments and public authorities to act in accordance with government-accepted recommendations. The entities bill, clause 55, inserts new part 6 into the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003, which includes a wide range of savings and transitional provisions. These include new section 25 on investigations and new section 28 on assessments and advice. Those transitional provisions refer back to new sections 19N on investigations and section 19Y on assessments and advice. The entities bill clause 53 replicates the provisions of the current Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001 to require ministers, departments and public authorities to implement approved recommendations. In the CES act it also relates to requirements to implement. So there is a lot of replication and a lot of picking up and dropping in.

Sarah MANSFIELD: In 2020 the Victorian government agreed to VEAC’s recommendation to investigate the Strzelecki Ranges and Gippsland Plains bioregions for protection. When and how will the government conduct that investigation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similarly to the previous conversation we were having, there are terms of reference to be developed with scope in relation to types of investigations, but I can confirm there is an existing government commitment to undertaking an investigation of the Strzelecki Ranges and Gippsland Plains bioregions prior to 2028.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Does the government intend to honour the services agreement regarding the broadacre management of protected areas under the National Parks Act 1975, specifically the seven marine national parks and sanctuaries and the Great Otway National Park?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that the service agreement is in place until June 2026 and it will be honoured by the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (GORCAPA) and Parks Victoria.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have some questions about the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council. This bill obviously also abolishes the independent Victorian Marine and Coastal Council. How does the commissioner for environmental sustainability and the department plan to implement the next marine and coastal strategy, due in 2027?

Jaclyn SYMES: The Minister for Environment obviously is responsible for the development and delivery of this strategy. DEECA will lead the development and consultation of the next strategy and oversee its implementation across government. There is no change to the public commitments.

Sarah MANSFIELD: How will these bodies be resourced to undertake that work?

Jaclyn SYMES: These changes do not diminish the government’s significant capacity and capability in public land, marine and coastal and biodiversity policy, programs and services within DEECA, as well as maintaining the critical research capabilities of the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The marine and coastal council undertook significant and quite important work in detecting, studying and delivering expert advice on things like algal blooms. We have seen what has happened in South Australia, and it is creeping over closer to our border. What resources has the government left to do that work?

Jaclyn SYMES: Same answer as my previous one – the government, within DEECA in particular, and some partners such as the Arthur Rylah Institute retain significant capabilities in this regard.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The other important role that the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council undertook was detecting, studying and delivering expert advice on coastal erosion and other long-term impacts of climate change on coasts and marine ecosystems. Again, what resources does the government have left to do that work?

Jaclyn SYMES: Similarly, thank you for raising these important matters. The department retains significant resources and, like you, prioritises the issues that you have mentioned.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have some questions additional to Mr Welch’s on the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority. How will DEECA be resourced to replicate the following functions after the closure of the MLRA’s office in Morwell: their actual functions and technical expertise, their stakeholder relationships and their local connections and consultative forums?

Jaclyn SYMES: DEECA already undertake substantial mine rehabilitation coordination and regulatory work. Even when we created the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority, I would not say that they were completely removed from DEECA. As I said, like when I was the minister, you have got your agencies, but you work very, very closely and support one another, so it is not as though there is no knowledge already existing in this space. Under the bill, the technical expertise will be retained within the department. Positions that continue to be required under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 will be transferred from the MLRA to Resources Victoria. This includes a total of four of the MLRA positions that currently have and will continue to have responsibility for the maintenance of the register of declared mines and engagement and education about the rehabilitation of Latrobe Valley coalmines and the Latrobe Valley Regional Rehabilitation Strategy.Maintenance of a presence in the Morwell office and Latrobe Valley will continue. There are already a lot of people with these types of skills in that area, as you would appreciate. Community and stakeholder engagement will continue. The bill makes community education and engagement an explicit function of DEECA, recognising its importance to the Latrobe Valley. Local connections and consultation activity will be maintained through a coordinated cross-government approach led by Resources Victoria. But I can assure you, also in my role as Minister for Regional Development, there is collaboration from the whole of government in relation to this space, particularly in that region.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just further to that, how is the closure of the MLRA likely to impact the Latrobe Valley Regional Rehabilitation Strategy and the long-term environmental outlook of the Latrobe Valley brown coalmines?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, this matter was in the sight of the Silver review, and since that time the government considered advice from within DEECA and Resources Victoria on the impacts of incorporating the MLRA’s remit into Resources Victoria. Delivery of the Latrobe Valley Regional Rehabilitation Strategy and the statutory rehabilitation obligations of brown coalmine licences remain unchanged. The government remains committed to the Latrobe Valley Regional Rehabilitation Strategy. Critical functions such as rehabilitation planning, coordination, registration of rehabilitated land after licence surrender and post-closure management and monitoring will continue within DEECA. Since the Hazelwood mine fire inquiry, the government has strengthened rehabilitation arrangements through updated strategy settings, rehabilitation, bond reviews, risk management reforms and ongoing engagement. The reforms of course build on that work and support long-term environmental outcomes for the Latrobe Valley.

Sarah MANSFIELD: On to Recycling Victoria, how will the EPA be resourced to replicate Recycling Victoria’s core purpose, which is overseeing the waste, recycling and resource recovery sector and the development of a circular economy?

Jaclyn SYMES: Recycling Victoria’s existing functions, responsibilities and duties will transfer to the EPA, along with existing Recycling Victoria staff. This includes funding for Recycling Victoria as per the forward estimates, and this will ensure that the EPA is appropriately resourced – to the nub of your question – to continue to deliver Recycling Victoria’s current functions and enable proper waste management and recycling oversight. It will also provide opportunities to reduce duplication, which has become evident, and improve efficiency in the delivery of those important functions.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to Parks Victoria staff being transferred to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, or GORCAPA, in the second-reading speech for the entities amendment bill the minister refers to 22 positions being transferred over. In 2018 the then Minister for Environment Lily D’Ambrosio told stakeholders that the creation of GORCAPA:

… will not alter the underlying management tenure and conservation objectives of any national parks … for which the … authority assumes responsibility. The new authority will work closely with Parks Victoria who retain responsibility for broad-acre parks management and who will provide parks management services to the new authority for its field operations to ensure environmental conservation objectives are met.

Given that earlier assurance, is there a service agreement between GORCAPA and Parks Victoria for Parks Victoria to maintain broadacre parks management, as promised as part of the Great Ocean Road Action Plan?

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill, as you said, establishes a mechanism to transfer staff from Parks Victoria to GORCAPA to enable the authority to meet its statutory obligations and commence direct land management by 1 July 2026 by enabling Parks Victoria to transfer staff that currently undertake this function to improve or maintain continuity. The reform will ensure no loss of knowledge and capability from the transfer of the on-the-ground management. This reform obviously aligns with the bill’s objective to align governance structures with service delivery by ensuring the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority has appropriate resourcing to perform its functions. In terms of the specific numbers of transfer, I have got 22 to be transferred from Parks Victoria to GORCAPA which, as I said, will provide that continuity. I am more than happy to reaffirm that number if required. Obviously the minister will have that at hand, but that is the advice that I currently have.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The question also just went to whether there is any service agreement, and the status of that agreement regarding the transfer, so if further information about that could be provided, that would be great. Following Parks Victoria’s recent restructure and redundancy programs, which occurred in August to November last year, can the government confirm how many of those positions are still occupied?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to a service agreement, there are obviously a lot of commitments and processes to support the transfer. Whether it is described as a service agreement or not I can get advice on. The purpose of a service agreement, I think, is designed to be met. Whether that is the vessel or not I would have to seek advice on. On your direct question following some of the restructuring and changes, I understand that 11 staff as of 11 March are relevant to your question.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.