Thursday, 19 March 2026

Clause 1 further considered (14:11)

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just picking up where I left off, I was asking the Treasurer questions about Parks Victoria and the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, GORCAPA. Given the significant recent loss of staff from Parks Victoria work centres along the Great Ocean Road and the fact that remaining staff have not yet been transferred to GORCAPA, who is currently managing the relevant terrestrial national parks – that is the Great Otway National Park, the relevant marine national parks and the iconic Great Ocean Walk in that area – GORCAPA or Parks Victoria?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, Parks Victoria continues to support GORCAPA’s management of this national park land by providing direct on-ground field management and remains the contact for permits and licences until direct on-the-ground field management transfers to GORCAPA by 1 July 2026. As you have asked this question, a commitment to keep you updated on that progress is something that I can pass on through to the minister’s office.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What is the current scope of protected areas under the National Parks Act 1975 to be managed by GORCAPA, given originally it was only designed to cover anything south of the Great Ocean Road but now includes high visitation areas like Erskine Falls?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you for your question, Dr Mansfield. I have got a list here, as this question was anticipated, which is useful to be able to read out to you. The Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority is the responsible land manager of the national park land within the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks. Specifically, this includes Port Campbell National Park, Bay of Islands Coastal Park, the marine parks, Eagle Rock Marine Sanctuary, Point Addis Marine National Park, 12 Apostles Marine National Park, Marengo Reefs Marine Sanctuary, Merri Marine Sanctuary, Point Danger Marine Sanctuary, the Arches Marine Sanctuary, parts of the Great Otway National Park, and there are various dates of when they transferred over 2024–25.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Is it the government’s intention also to raise a fee at this location, and if so, when will the scope of the areas to be managed be confirmed?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is not the information that I have, Dr Mansfield. It would also be outside this scope, so that line of question would be best directed to the relevant minister.

Sarah MANSFIELD: This bill is a consequence of the Silver review and it comes as the government also plans to abolish Sustainability Victoria by the end of June 2026. Where is the government up to in terms of abolishing Sustainability Victoria?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, this question is outside the scope of this bill. However, I am happy to provide the information that the government has committed to winding up the operations of Sustainability Victoria by 30 June 2026.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I have a number of questions about Sustainability Victoria, but I suspect they are all going to fall outside the scope of this bill, so we might take that up.

Jaclyn SYMES: Without cutting off the rest of the member’s line of questioning, she has flagged, probably, my response to her attempts at a line of questioning on Sustainability Victoria. I am more than happy to receive those questions at a relevant time, and it is not through this bill. I will let the minister’s office know that Dr Mansfield would like some more information on Sustainability Victoria, and perhaps they could do that through another mechanism, as opposed to seeking to do this outside the scope of the bill at hand.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just one final question on the Essential Services Commission and its role in rate capping: I know Mrs McArthur asked a number of questions about this, but really my question focuses on the importance of having an independent assessment of that cap. How can councils and the community have confidence in the rate-capping process when it is not informed by independent advice?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you heard in the exchange between me and Mrs McArthur, what the bill is seeking to do is streamline and ensure that there are no significant changes to the rate-capping processes. In fact, as has been indicated since the policy implementation, the Essential Services Commission has provided advice to the minister to confirm CPI. It is not deviated in any way, shape or form. That is not to say that advice from a range of sources cannot be fed into the minister on rate-capping settings as he travels around the state, talks to local governments, stakeholder groups, other MPs and the like. I would say that there is ample opportunity for his decision to be informed by experts and interested parties.

Melina BATH: I have a few questions on GORCAPA, and I believe that they are different to the ones that we have just been listening to and prior to lunch. The Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025, which went through last year, expands GORCAPA’s obligations, requiring a strategic framework and planning, annual and five-year reporting and the development of land management strategies. The Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Bill 2025 only transfers 23 staff from Parks Victoria over to GORCAPA. Has the government done any analysis to ensure that this additional workload can be covered by those 23 staff, or has there been any other investigation and analysis of the workload required to perform these tasks?

Jaclyn SYMES: Basically, your question was the subject of an exchange between me and Dr Mansfield prior to the lunchbreak. We are transferring staff. Workload will be the same. The reform will ensure no loss of knowledge and capability from the transfer of on-the-ground management.

Melina BATH: But in the parks bill that we passed last year, there was an enlarged requirement in terms of reporting and planning. In short, the government is transferring those 23 staff from Parks, irrespective of the expanded obligation of GORCAPA, ultimately, because that was in the parks bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: The bill is facilitating the literal transfer of the same people to do the work.

Melina BATH: GORCAPA will inherit management responsibilities for some of Victoria’s highest risk assets, and you have mentioned some of those parks before – clifftop outlooks, coastal trails, visitor nodes. What evidence can the minister provide that GORCAPA’s service delivery model offers the equivalent or superior asset risk management compared to Parks Victoria? There are significant risks and high-risk assets. How do you know that GORCAPA will be able to perform those functions at an equivalent or superior rate?

Jaclyn SYMES: Not to go around in circles, but it is literally the same people that are being transferred. These are people with significant knowledge and capability in dealing with these assets. Currently Parks Victoria manage all the national park land and some of the Crown reserves that will be transferred to the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority’s control and management. With the literal transferring of these staff from Parks Victoria, it goes without saying that working under the banner of GORCAPA will ensure that the capability continues.

Melina BATH: What training and professional development will be required to integrate these 23 former parks officers into GORCAPA so that they actually can perform their functions properly, and how long will that take?

Jaclyn SYMES: I would direct you to the minister for further information in relation to the implementation of this. But again, many of these roles are the same or similar role and the same person in the same location. For further information on the ongoing training of those individuals, I would direct you to the minister.

Melina BATH: Given that Parks Victoria has an established role in terms of fire preparedness and fuel load reduction and emergency closures, what operational frameworks and protocols will GORCAPA now use to maintain these services? And has GORCAPA been accredited to meet these responsibilities?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Ms Bath, this is ensuring a smooth transition with the transfer from Parks Victoria to GORCAPA. There are obviously a lot of things to consider, and I know that a number of the issues that you have raised would be front of mind in ensuring the smooth transition. But the specifics of your question – timing and the exact policies and things – are certainly a matter for the minister. This bill is a framework to facilitate the amalgamation effectively.

Melina BATH: Will the government release an audited list of the assets and conditions being handed to GORCAPA, including any maintenance backlog inherited from Parks Victoria? These backlogs certainly have an impact on staff availability or operational measures, so what measures can the government make to ensure that this backlog does not overwhelm GORCAPA’s workforce and budget?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, the questions you are asking are broader issues in relation to the transition to GORCAPA which would be best addressed by the minister. But again, a lot of the people that we are talking about are the same people that have the same interests and the same passion for the protection and maintenance of those areas. I am sure the minister would be delighted to share with you the important work of GORCAPA and can probably get you a separate briefing in relation to all of the activities and their future plans for one of the most beautiful parts of the state.

Melina BATH: I will take you up on that offer; thank you very much. If our offices can arrange that, that would be great.

Jaclyn SYMES: You should reach out to them.

Melina BATH: I will reach out to the minister, in fact this afternoon. But in terms of the entities bill, it promises a transfer without disadvantage to those 23 staff. Can the minister confirm that wage levels, allowances, overtime rules and penalty rates for the transferred workforce will match their existing Parks Victoria entitlements?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is ordinarily exactly what ‘no worse off’ means.

Melina BATH: So you can confirm that those will be at the same level – that is what you are confirming?

Jaclyn SYMES: Consistent with machinery-of-government arrangements across the state, any of the entity transitions with the commitment to ensuring that staff are no worse off mean that they are transferred to, particularly in this instance, very similar roles with the same conditions.

Melina BATH: Minister, this is in relation to the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority in the Latrobe Valley and its formation and then closure. There is some certain important and useful IP, we will say, some data research –

Jaclyn SYMES: He has already asked that.

Melina BATH: He has asked those? That is all right. Thank you very much; that is fine.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, sorry, I cut your colleague off because she had gone down the same path as you in terms of –

Richard WELCH: Yes, we have covered that.

Rachel PAYNE: I have only got two questions, but they are quite detailed, so if the Treasurer can indulge me, that would be amazing. This bill abolishes several advisory bodies, including the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) and the Victorian Marine and Coastal Council. Regardless of these changes, the need for advice on these kinds of environmental issues will no doubt persist. What is the projected increase, or is there a projected increase, in consultancy costs resulting from these changes?

Jaclyn SYMES: That is certainly something that is taken into account. The spirit of the Silver review was about efficiencies across government, and many of the recommendations were about identifying duplication, but also a lot of her report went to the cost of consultants and the like. In the spirit of what government is trying to achieve, informed by the Silver review, we want to maintain and capitalise on government’s expertise to minimise contracting out, consultancies and the like. There is always going to be a place for some of this where appropriate, but we are very much of the view that particularly when you take on an exercise of consolidation, it is actually great for the staff that are there because you are ensuring that they are valued, that they are satisfied, that they are busy and that their work is important and really a priority of government. That will produce outcomes, hopefully, where you have less contracting out. As in a conversation earlier with Dr Mansfield, though, in the space of VEAC’s expertise, we will want to draw on people from across the sector, people that have been involved in VEAC in the past, and there will be opportunities for that to occur.

Rachel PAYNE: That makes sense; thank you. This bill abolishes Recycling Victoria and confers its responsibilities, functions and duties on the Environment Protection Authority. In doing so it extends the frequency of several reporting and review requirements. These changes include extending the requirement for a responsible entity to prepare and submit a responsible entity risk, consequence and contingency plan from annually to every three years. In simple terms, this means responsible entities like large thermal waste-to-energy services will no longer have to report as regularly on risks of serious failure to the provision of their services and the actions they are taking to minimise or prevent such risks. Just a few questions on that: how will the extensions to these review and reporting requirements avoid actively undermining environmental oversight?

Jaclyn SYMES: At the outset, Recycling Victoria’s functions, their people and their assets will transfer to the EPA, creating a single, stronger and clearer regulator. We, informed by advice, believe that this is going to be the best way to oversee the activities and indeed improve some of the measures that you have identified, such as ensuring responsibility for standards, compliance and circular economy programs. This is about doing better.

Rachel PAYNE: I think this has been raised a few times throughout this questioning: the target of diverting 80 per cent of waste away from landfill by 2030. Is there any concern that through having a reporting mechanism that is every three years rather than annually there would be further reductions in Victoria’s ability to meet that target?

Jaclyn SYMES: Integrating Recycling Victoria into EPA will have benefits such as clarifying roles, reducing fragmentation and strengthening end-to-end regulation of waste and resources recovery. It aligns with the government’s Economic Growth Statement, including our commitment to reducing the numbers of regulators and making it easier to do business in Victoria whilst maintaining strong environmental protections. It is not a retreat from our waste or circular economy ambitions. Our commitment to diverting waste from landfill, improving recycling, building a circular economy and protecting the environment remains firm. What we want to do is bring together program levers, standards and enforcement in a single well-resourced regulator, capitalising on the strengths of what we have in one place, which we think, as I said, will bring about better outcomes, better oversight and the ability to make sure that the reporting is robust.

Richard WELCH: This will move into a different area, the Victorian Public Sector Commission advisory board. I have just a couple of questions on that. The question is: how many members does the Public Sector Commission Advisory Board have now?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are currently no members.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. How long has it had no members?

Jaclyn SYMES: As soon as I know, you will know. I have just asked.

Richard WELCH: It sort of makes this question a little bit more difficult, given there is no-one to do it. But in theory the public sector advisory board has the potential to play an important role in setting the tone of the public service, particularly when there has been considerable comment from various bodies – Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), the Ombudsman and others – about the politicisation of the public service. Why abolish it when there is a role and there is a need of that nature?

Jaclyn SYMES: The Victorian Public Sector Commission Advisory Board was established in the past with advice in relation to the preparation of the Victorian Public Sector Commission’s annual and strategic plans and strategic advice in relation to matters relevant to the objectives. Abolishing it will improve the efficiency of the commission by enhancing their flexibility to seek advice in relation to the development of the annual and strategic plans and their objectives through other sources on an as-needed basis, without convening a meeting of a legislative board that may not have the members that are particularly suitable for the various types of topics that they could have. And just a correction in relation to the number of members: there are technically none, but the secretary of DPC is formally a member.

Richard WELCH: Technically one?

Jaclyn SYMES: Technically one, just to be clear. My advice is – no, I am still not sure on exactly the timing, but I think maybe June last year.

Richard WELCH: I will now move to clauses 93 to 95, which is the abolition of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board. Minister, can you explain how the Victorian Government Purchasing Board has been lacking in its current duties such that it now needs to be abolished? Sorry if I rushed you there.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, procurement for goods and services in Victoria, as you may appreciate, is a core function of government. There are well-established policies, systems and processes to ensure that the procurement of goods and services continues to be conducted effectively, efficiently and fairly, with robust controls and strong procurement governance. Compliance with the goods and services procurement policy framework will continue to be monitored through well-established governance and oversight mechanisms, including the Financial Management Act’s standing directions annual attestation process; internal audit functions; requirements for departments and agencies to report activities in their own annual reports; and requirements to comply with the guiding principles for procurement, fairness, transparency, accountability and value for money. The ongoing benefit of retaining the board is limited, with many of its statutory functions now duplicated in established frameworks and practices within departments. Retaining it continues the additional administrative and reporting burdens for departments and agencies, which it is the intention of this bill to alleviate. The role of the board in compliance oversight is a legacy requirement from when it was established in 1995. Through a series of reforms, the government has expanded the framework and embedded its requirements in existing measures, as I have outlined.

So this is by far a redundant body that is probably a very good example of what this bill is seeking to achieve – that is, to not waste resources of government in unnecessary, duplicative administrative burden. I was anticipating applause from Mr Limbrick because we should do more of this, and this is one of the best examples of why.

Richard WELCH: Did the board have or does it have any role or governance oversight of procurement on Big Build sites?

Jaclyn SYMES: No.

Richard WELCH: I have got a couple of concluding questions now on the bill as a whole. Can you confirm this bill implements only seven recommendations from the Silver review and why so few?

Jaclyn SYMES: Just give me two second, Mr Welch. I have a series of papers in front of me, and I know where we are about to go and I want to just get prepared. In relation to the bill and its interaction with the Silver review, which I covered in my summing-up, there are a number of recommendations from the Silver review that were provided – a lot of them in her interim report that was provided to cabinet – but also there are amendments in this bill that are not just about Silver, because Silver’s work informed government decisions but it was work that government departments were already asked to undertake as well. So in that instance the aspects of the bill that relate to the recommendations include the abolition of the head of Recycling Victoria and conferring those functions on the EPA. Interim recommendations of the Silver review included the abolition of the marine and coastal council, abolition of the Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority, abolition of the Victorian Public Sector Commission Advisory Board, abolition of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board, abolition of the Road Safety Camera Commissioner office and reducing Victoria’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission roles. Included not directly as a Silver review recommendation but obviously in line with the spirit of where I have been bringing the chamber to today was the abolition of VEAC and streamlining the regulation of essential services.

Richard WELCH: Can you confirm the bill will deliver gross savings of only $35.782 million over four years and that it will cost $5.404 million over four years to implement?

Jaclyn SYMES: I was just double-checking. I have got a table here in my notes, which I understand was provided to the opposition in the opposition briefings, which goes through the entities, the estimated savings and the net results. The gross savings from the bill are as you indicated, and the implementation costs for a range of matters have also been disclosed to the opposition. These are resulting in net savings of $30 million over four years and $9 million ongoing. Can I just check that you have got this broken down? I have got the table, and I am happy to make sure that you have it as well.

Richard WELCH: I would be happy if we have the table. I am sure if it has been provided already, then –

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, and apologies to Hansard, it is difficult to talk about a table. But Mr Welch’s line of questioning is consistent with the information and the table that we have provided to the opposition.

Richard WELCH: This may be in the table as well, but in case it is not, I am noting that full-time employment in the public sector at June 2024 was 314,877 people. Can you confirm the total estimated full-time employee impact of this bill is 38.9 people?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are a number of staff changes across the different entities, Mr Welch. I can go through each agency, but they are consistent with the numbers that you have.

Richard WELCH: In aggregate?

Jaclyn SYMES: In aggregate, yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Welch, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendments 7 to 10.

Richard WELCH: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 5 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

The intent of this amendment is to retain the current role of the Victorian Government Purchasing Board. The opposition is concerned that the reduction in procurement oversight proposed by this bill may expose the government and taxpayer to greater risks, including fraud, corruption and cybersecurity risks, let alone wasteful spending.

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the removing of the purchasing board, I thought I was quite convincing in my response before on why there is merit in this. The ongoing benefit of retaining the purchasing board is limited, with many of its statutory functions duplicated in established frameworks and practices within departments. Retaining the board continues the additional administrative and reporting burdens for departments and agencies, which it is the intention of this bill to alleviate. It is disappointing that the Liberals do not see the benefit in this amendment. It is pretty straightforward and will produce more streamlined governance in this particular area of government.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment either. We agree with the government that their original intention will actually make things more streamlined and do not support keeping it as it is.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, I invite you to move your amendments 1 and 2 on your sheet 76C, which test your amendments 5 to 9, 13 to 16, 18 to 37 and 42 to 44.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 23 to 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(ii) to provide for the appointment of a Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner; and”.

2.   Clause 1, page 3, line 29, omit “(iv)” and insert “(iii)”.

These amendments are all in connection to the mental health portfolio. Again, I thank the minister for being in here to address the concerns and questions from non-government members. The amendments are all about strengthening lived experience, leadership in the commission and clarified data sharing obligations and to make it easier for the commission to access the information it needs. I do not think I need to go into any greater detail about the amendments, given the exchange earlier on clause 1, unless anybody has any specific further questions that I would attempt to address.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will move now to Mr Welch. Could you move your amendment 5 on your sheet 19C, which tests your amendments 49 to 52 and 62.

Richard WELCH: I move:

5.   Clause 1, page 4, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

The intent of this amendment is to retain the current role of the Essential Services Commission in relation to local government rate caps. Given its role as a specialist independent regulator, there is merit in requiring the minister to seek ESC advice before deciding if council rates should be increased. Even if the ESC has advised in the past that rate rises should be in line with CPI, that does not mean it will be the same in the future. It may be the case that specific circumstances will arise where the ESC may recommend an increase below CPI. Given council rates are a contentious issue, there is a case for the ESC’s independent role to be retained.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting Mr Welch’s amendment. At the outset he described his view that the minister should be able to seek advice from the Essential Services Commission. There is actually nothing to preclude that from continuing because of these amendments. This amendment is really about removing a mandatory requirement that the ESC provide information. That does not mean that there cannot be an exchange. The ESC have confirmed that CPI has been and remains the appropriate measure to determine the annual rate cap and that requiring them to produce annual advice to effectively just say that is now redundant. We think that removing that impediment will better enable the ESC to focus on work such as considering the higher rate cap proposals from councils.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be opposing this amendment. I concur with the government on this. I think the functions that are being removed are unnecessary and can be handled by the ESC and the minister.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We believe that there should be independent oversight and advice provided when it comes to rate capping. We are concerned about the risks that may arise, given the sensitivity of the issue of rate capping, if it is the minister that has control.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Welch, I invite you to move your amendment 6 on your sheet 19C, which tests your amendments 53 to 60 and 64.

Richard WELCH: I move:

6.   Clause 1, page 4, lines 6 to 11, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

The intent of this set of amendments is to retain the current role of the Essential Services Commission in relation to commercial passenger vehicle maximum fares and non-cash payment surcharges. Given its role as a specialist independent regulator, there is merit in retaining the role of the ESC in setting the commercial passenger vehicle charges. Certain regulators, like the ACCC, are required to provide their approval before certain mergers or acquisitions can proceed to ensure competition in the market is not damaged. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that vested interests may lobby the relevant minister to allow an increase greater than CPI because of purported cost pressures.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government’s proposal is for less regulation, Mr Welch, of taxi fares by removing the mandated reviews conducted by the ESC, which have resulted in significantly increased taxi costs for Victorians, especially vulnerable cohorts who are most likely to use a taxi. For that reason we will not be supporting your amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Further to the comments made by the Treasurer, while I think at the level of intent my colleagues and I do have some support for what the Liberals have brought with respect to this amendment, from conversations with government and looking over historical precedent with respect to this issue in practice from a consumer focus, what is proposed by the government we are confident will deliver a cheaper outcome for consumers. Therefore we are not supporting the Liberals amendment today.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment. I see this as a minor deregulation measure, and I am a bit confused as to why the Liberal Party is proposing it, frankly.

Amendment negatived; amended clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 49 agreed to.

New clause 49A (15:05)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1.   Insert the following New Clause after clause 49 –

‘49A Powers of the Commissioner

After section 9(2) of the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003 insert –

“(3)   A Reference Group established under subsection (2)(b) must include an Expert Land Use Panel for the specific purpose of providing advice to the Commissioner relating to the protection and ecologically sustainable management of the environment and natural resources of public land.

(4)   The Expert Land Use Panel described in subsection (3) must consist of 5 members who collectively have experience, skills and knowledge in the following areas –

(a)   environment protection and conservation;

(b)   natural resource management;

(c)   tourism and recreation;

(d)   economics and business management;

(e)   rural and regional affairs;

(f)   issues relating to indigenous peoples;

(g)   local government;

(h)   social and community affairs;

(i)   community consultation and participation.”.’.

This is an amendment to do with VEAC and the abolition of VEAC proposed under this bill. We are proposing through this amendment that an expert land use panel is established. The commissioner’s office simply does not have the expertise of VEAC’s members but is somehow meant to absorb their purpose to advise on the sustainable management of the environment and natural resources of public land. To resolve what we think would otherwise be a costly and wasteful process of replicating that expertise in-house, we have been advised by a range of stakeholders that the government should at least maintain VEAC’s current council members as an advisory body within the CES. There are lots of different ways to do that, but we have proposed a simple power for the commission to create an additional in-house expert land use panel. This body would be modelled on the VEAC’s pre-existing purpose and membership requirements, first established by the VEAC act. The expert land use panel would provide advice to the commissioner relating to the protection and ecologically sustainable management of the environment and natural resources of public land. This would be an addition to the CES’s existing but much broader reference group, which does important work but serves a completely different function as a stakeholder forum like the Central Victorian Biolinks Alliance, Vic Catchments, the Victorian Farmers Federation et cetera. Instead the expert land use panel would replicate VEAC’s specific requirement for five members who collectively have experience, skills and knowledge in a range of areas.

We note that the bill currently empowers the commissioner to create expert panels. However, those panels are limited and ad hoc, while an expert land use panel would fulfil Victoria’s need for a permanent ongoing body to advise on long-term ecological issues on public land. This would actually be a cost-saving measure. Labor would have to multiply the council’s tiny per diem many, many times over if they plan to outsource this work. Stakeholders have told us that without a process based on systematic review, best science and public credibility, the legacy and future of Victoria’s entire protected area system will be at risk.

VEAC was designed to be an impartial, expert body that got the best possible science, engaged in multiple rounds of consultations with all relevant stakeholders and delivered public, transparent draft and final reports. We only need to have a look at those reports and hear those final recommendations. That is all the government would have to do. VEAC’s impartiality, expertise and transparency meant it was trusted by Victorians, and it meant the majority of those recommendations have been accepted by Labor and coalition governments. We think that having an apolitical process in accordance with the views expressed by all stakeholders means that bodies like VEAC and their reports have real credibility. VEAC calls were seen as umpire’s calls, because the body had really earned that credibility. If we look at what happened with the Great Outdoors Taskforce, it had fixed terms of reference, modified sometimes after the fact, and that really, I think, undermined its role as an independent expert body. So we think what we have put forward here is a sensible amendment. It would be cost saving but also retain that valuable expertise and credibility that VEAC has been able to provide.

Melina BATH: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment. The commissioner for environmental sustainability is a very important authority, and it does not currently have an advisory panel. It does some very important work on assessment of forests, monitoring of forest data and also reporting on forest – we will say – health or decline or trends. The commissioner is independent and has the opportunity to second and communicate with and consult a variety of intelligences – scientists and the like. There is no limitation on that, and I fear that this would certainly compromise that. Indeed, we saw another panel called an advisory panel. It was an advisory panel for the Leadbeater’s possum scenario, and what ended up happening is it served nobody, and I mean that in the most real sense. It had such breadth. There were people on one side which were very – what we will call – wilderness in my sense. Then there were the foresters. Then there was a mix in between, and it stagnated and just coagulated any sort of grand movement or plan and did not achieve what it set out to achieve. I do not believe that this Parliament, if government is choosing to shut down VEAC, needs to reintroduce another quasi-VEAC. I believe that the commissioner for environmental sustainability has enough in that act, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of staff in the department. They also have the ability to access information. Consultation and seeking information are very important, but we do not need another stifling and coagulating entity that we saw very well modelled in a Leadbeater’s possum-style advisory panel.

Jeff BOURMAN: The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party will not be supporting this. I was listening to Dr Mansfield, and I am sure from her perspective what she said is true, but for the rest of us VEAC was perceived as a rubber stamp for creating new national parks. Whilst I am not for raping and pillaging the environment, we have got enough national parks. We need to keep our state forests well managed but, as Ms Bath said, we do not need another quasi-VEAC. VEAC should have been gone ages ago. If there is a body, it should encompass all users, not just go in as a rubber stamp for one side – either side. But VEAC was never that.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be opposing this amendment. I concur with others that are happy to see VEAC go. I see this as sort of the ghost of VEAC, and I do not want this either.

Jaclyn SYMES: I will probably play a bit more of a straight bat on this one. Basically, it is just not necessary, so we will not be supporting the amendment. The commissioner for environmental sustainability already has the power to establish a reference group, an expert advisory group, as required. The expertise can be drawn upon to meet the needs of a specific issue that needs to be considered at any time appropriate.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 101 (15:20)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3.   Clause 101, lines 15 and 16, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) For section 647(6) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 substitute –

“(6)   In making a recommendation to the Governor in Council, the Minister must ensure that –

(a)   at least one member of the Board is a person who identifies as experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; and

(b)   at least one member of the Board, other than the member referred to in paragraph (a), is a person who identifies as –

(i)   experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; or

(ii)   caring for or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person experiencing mental illness or psychological distress; and

(c)   if the Board is to consist of 7 or more members, at least one member of the Board, other than the members referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), is a person who identifies as –

(i)   experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; or

(ii)   caring for or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person experiencing mental illness or psychological distress.”.

(3) Section 647(7) and (8) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 are repealed.’.

It is my intention to just give a bit of a description about each of the amendments as we are moving through, because I acknowledge that it is a little complex and I want to make sure people know what they are addressing with each of my amendments in particular. This amendment is about substituting section 647 of the act to provide that the minister must ensure, in making a recommendation to the Governor in Council for the appointment of a member of the board of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing, that at least one board member be a member who identifies as having lived experience, at least one other board member be a person who identifies as having lived experience of either mental illness or caring and if the board consists of seven or more members, a further board member be a person who identifies as having lived experience. These changes streamline decision-making and ensure that lived experience continues to be a central component of the board. Recognising the size of the board may change in the future, the amendment includes an additional safeguard to maintain lived experience. This is the amendment about board composition.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for briefly outlining each of the amendments. The Libertarian Party will be opposing this amendment. I think that it is totally inappropriate to use one’s medical history as justification for whether or not you qualify for a board, and I actually think that the best person for the job should be the person that gets the job, rather than taking into account one’s medical history.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting this amendment, and I thank the government for their engagement on this issue. We have a very similar amendment that we put forward. We believe that, as was identified in the royal commission into mental health, lived experience and the experiences of carers for those with lived experience must be much better reflected throughout our mental health system, including in leadership roles in entities such as the collaborative centre. We were concerned when those legislative requirements around lived experience or someone who is a carer for someone with lived experience were removed from these changes that are being made to the collaborative centre, so we welcome the reinstatement of some legislative requirement around that sort of representation.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment. Likewise, we thank the government for constructive engagement on this. We had significant reach-out from stakeholders who were concerned about the loss of lived experience in the program. We think we have come to a reasonable compromise, with the least worst, possibly best, outcome at the end of it.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 102 agreed to.

Clause 103 (15:25)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

4.   Clause 103, lines 26 to 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘“(4) The quorum for a meeting of the Centre Board is a majority of the members of the Board for the time being and –

(a)   if the Board consists of 6 members or fewer, must include at least one member who identifies as –

(i)   experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; or

(ii)   caring for or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person experiencing mental illness or psychological distress; or

(b)   if the Board consists of 7 or more members, must include at least 2 members who identify as –

(i)   experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; or

(ii)   caring for or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person experiencing mental illness or psychological distress.”.’.

This is similar to the previous amendment and is in connection to the board composition and lived experience.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be opposing this for similar reasons to the last amendment that we opposed.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting this amendment for the reasons that we supported the previous amendment. While we are concerned with many of the changes that are taking place in this bill, we welcome the constructive way that the government has engaged with and listened to some of that stakeholder feedback that I think many of us had about this bill and included this lived-experience requirement in the commission.

Richard WELCH: I have nothing further to add. As per the previous amendment, the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 104 to 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 (15:27)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

5.   Clause 114, lines 30 and 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘“Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner means the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner appointed under section 420(1A);”.’.

6.   Clause 114, page 103, lines 5 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(3) In section 3(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, in the definition of Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner –

(a)   for “a Mental” substitute “the Mental”;

(b)   for “section 420” substitute “section 420(1)”.’.

These amendments have been tested, but for clarity, this is the mechanism to insert a definition of ‘deputy commissioner’, provide for the appointment of a deputy mental health and wellbeing commissioner, bringing the total number of commissioners to two, and omit the proposed definition of ‘statement of expectations’.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will also be opposing these amendments. We liked the government’s original bill with one commissioner. Increasing it to two is a bit of a disappointment to me, so I will be opposing this.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting these amendments. After a lot of discussion with stakeholders, we understand that while there are still views that more commissioners would have been ideal, many agreed that two is a much better arrangement than the one that was being proposed originally in this bill. We believe that the workload of the commission, given its remit, requires robust oversight, and at least two commissioners are required to undertake that work.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 115 agreed to.

Clause 116 (15:28)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment is to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: These changes are consequential to the information-sharing changes previously put forward and therefore are no longer required. Therefore we are seeking to omit them through this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you are supporting the Treasurer, you vote no to the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 117 (15:29)

Jaclyn SYMES: This amendment updates the act to reflect the commissioner and deputy commissioner model. I move:

8.   Clause 117, lines 2 and 3, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘For section 417(a) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022substitute –

“(a) the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner;”.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 118 (15:30)

Jaclyn SYMES: This amendment provides that the chief executive officer of the commission must not be the deputy commissioner. I move:

9.   Clause 118, lines 6 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘In section 419(4) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a) for “a Mental” substitute “the Mental”;

(b) after “Commissioner” insert “or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 119 (15:31)

Jaclyn SYMES: These amendments retain section 419B of the act to provide that the commission may regulate its own procedure. I move:

10.   Clause 119, line 9, omit “Sections 419A and 419B” and insert “Section 419A”.

11.   Clause 119, line 10, omit “Sections 419A and 419B” and insert “Section 419A”.

12.   Clause 119, line 11, omit “are” and insert “is”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 120 (15:31)

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, this is another tested amendment, but for the avoidance of doubt this is an amendment that amends the act to provide that an act or a decision of the commission is not invalid only because of the defect or irregularity in or in connection with the appointment of a deputy commissioner. I move:

13.   Clause 120, lines 15 to 17, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) In section 419C(b) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental” substitute “the Mental”;

(b)   after “Commissioner” insert “or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 121 (15:32)

Jaclyn SYMES: This is a consequential amendment to include a reference to the deputy commissioner. I move:

14.   Clause 121, line 21, after “Commissioner” insert “and Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 122 (15:33)

Jaclyn SYMES: These amendments are just updating the act to reflect the commissioner and deputy commissioner model, their appointment and requirements of the roles. I move:

15.   Clause 122, line 25, after “Commissioner” insert “and Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

16.   Clause 122, lines 28 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘“(1) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council, by instrument, may appoint a person to be the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner.

(1A) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council, by instrument, may appoint a person to be the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner.”.’.

17.   Clause 122, page 105, lines 1 to 11, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(3) For section 420(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 substitute –

“(2)   In making a recommendation to the Governor in Council under subsection (1) or (1A), the Minister must ensure that either the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner is –

(a)   a person who identifies as experiencing, or having experienced, mental illness or psychological distress; or

(b)   a person who identifies as caring for or supporting, or having cared for or supported, a person experiencing mental illness or psychological distress.”.

(4) In section 420(3) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   after “Council” insert “under subsection (1) or (1A)”;

(b)   for “Commissioners” substitute “Commissioner and Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

(5) For section 420(4) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 substitute –

“(4)   To avoid doubt –

(a)   the appointment of a person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) as the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner does not prevent another person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) from being appointed as the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner; and

(b)   the appointment of a person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) as the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner does not prevent another person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) from being appointed as the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner.”.’.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 123 (15:34)

Jaclyn SYMES: These have been tested. This is about clarifying that both the commissioner and deputy commissioner are covered by the Public Administration Act 2004, providing consistent accountability of people obligations and governance under the new leadership model. I move:

18.   Clause 123, after line 15 insert –

‘(1A) After section 421(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 insert –

“(1A)   The Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner –

(a)   is to be appointed for the period, not exceeding 5 years, specified in the instrument of appointment; and

(b)   is eligible for reappointment; and

(c)   holds office on any other terms and conditions, including remuneration and any travelling or other allowances, that are determined by the Governor in Council.”.’.

19.   Clause 123, lines 16 to 19, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) For section 421(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act substitute –

“(2)   The Public Administration Act 2004 (other than Part 3 of that Act) applies –

(a)   to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner in respect of the office of Commissioner; and

(b)   to the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner in respect of the office of Deputy Commissioner.”.’.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 124 (15:34)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

20.   Clause 124, lines 21 to 23, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘In section 422 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “A Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner” substitute “The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”;

(b)   after “the Commissioner” insert “or Deputy Commissioner (as the case requires)”.’.

This is about providing for the circumstances in which a deputy commissioner ceases to hold office.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 125 (15:35)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

21.   Clause 125, lines 25 to 27, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 423(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental” substitute “the Mental”;

(b)   after “Commissioner” insert “or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

(1A) In section 423(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”;

(b)   for “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner” (where first occurring) substitute “the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner (as the case requires)”;

(c)   in paragraph (e), for “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner” substitute “the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner”.’.

22.   Clause 125, line 32, after “Commissioner” insert “or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

23.   Clause 125, page 106, lines 1 and 2, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(b) for “the Chair’s removal” (where first occurring) substitute “that removal”;

(c) for “the Chair’s removal from office” substitute “that removal”.’.

Again, this is about updating the act to reflect the commissioner and deputy commissioner model in relation to when the roles can be removed from office.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 126 (15:35)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

24.   Clause 126, after line 15 insert –

‘(1A) After section 424(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022insert –

“(1A)   The Governor in Council may appoint a person to act in the office of the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner –

(a)   during a vacancy in that office; or

(b)   during any period when the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner –

(i)   is absent; or

(ii)   for any other reason is unable to perform the duties of the office of Deputy Commissioner.”.’.

25.   Clause 126, lines 16 to 18, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) In section 424(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental” (where first occurring) substitute “the Mental”;

(b)   for “the office of a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner” (where secondly occurring) substitute “that office”.

(3) After section 424(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022insert –

“(2A)   The Minister may appoint a person to act in the office of the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner for a period of not more than 6 months during a vacancy in that office.”.

(4) In section 424(3) and (5) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.

(5) In section 424(4) and (6) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, after “subsection (2)” insert “or (2A)”.’.

Again, this is about providing for acting appointments.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 127 (15:36)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

26.   Clause 127, lines 20 to 25, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 425(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, for “A Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, including an acting Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,” substitute “A person specified in subsection (3)”.

(2) In section 425(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, for “a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, including an acting Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,” substitute “a person specified in subsection (3)”.

(3) After section 425(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022insert –

“(3)   For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the following persons are specified –

(a)   the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, including an acting Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner;

(b)   the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, including an acting Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner.”.’.

This is in relation to section 425 and inserts new subsections to provide that the deputy commissioner is protected from liability in the same circumstances as the commissioner, with any such liability instead attaching to the state.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 128 (15:37)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

27.   Clause 128, page 107, lines 1 to 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) In section 426(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, for “Commissioners are collectively” substitute “Commissioner is”.’.

Like other amendments, this is just updating the act to reflect the model so that the commissioner is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the commission for the purposes of the act.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 129 (15:37)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 28 is to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: This amendment omits reference to a statement of expectations, which will be removed under government amendment 29, which is the next one.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you are supporting the Treasurer, you need to vote no to this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 130 (15:38)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 29 is again to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is an omitting amendment. The government, through the Minister for Mental Health, have been working closely with the opposition and the Greens in particular to understand the concerns they have raised in relation to the statement of expectations. We are comfortable that the exchange of letters between the minister and the commissioner at the establishment of the commission will continue to guide the work of the commission into the future. Thank you also to the crossbench for their engagement and for all working to find a suitable solution.

Clause negatived.

Clause 131 (15:39)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 30 is again to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is consequential to the previous two, I understand, and the statement of expectations.

Clause negatived.

Clause 132 (15:39)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

31.   Clause 132, lines 14 to 16, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘For section 500(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022substitute –

“(2)   The following persons may administer an oath or affirmation to a person for the purposes of subsection (1) –

(a)   the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner;

(b)   the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner;

(c)   a member of the staff of the Commission who is authorised to do so.”.’.

This is again reflecting the new model and will empower a deputy commissioner to administer an oath or affirmation to a person required to appear before the commission under an investigation notice and basically supports the deputy commissioner to undertake their role.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 133 (15:40)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

32.   Clause 133, lines 19 and 20, omit ‘for “a Mental” substitute “Mental”.’ and insert ‘after “Commissioner” insert “, Deputy Commissioner”.’.

33.   Clause 133, lines 21 to 23, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) In section 508 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “was” substitute “has been”;

(b)   after “Commissioner” insert “, a Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.’.

These amendments provide that the deputy commissioner is not compellable to give evidence in a court in relation to an investigation by the commission, and in line with previous provisions, they align obligations between the two roles.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 134 (15:41)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

34.   Clause 134, lines 26 to 28, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 517(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental” substitute “the Mental”;

(b)   after “Commissioner,” insert “the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”.

(2) In section 517(3) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”;

(b)   for “the person employed or the person engaged (as the case may be)” substitute “Deputy Commissioner or person”.

(3) In section 517(4) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”;

(b)   after “the Commissioner” insert “, Deputy Commissioner”.’.

This is providing for the new model and ensuring that the deputy commissioner may disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation or complaint data reviewed by the commission in line with provisions made for the commissioner to align the obligation between the two roles.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 135 (15:42)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

35.   Clause 135, lines 31 to 33, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 518(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “A Mental” substitute “The Mental”;

(b)   after “Commissioner,” insert “the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”.’.

36.   Clause 135, page 111, lines 1 to 4, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(2) In section 518(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Commissioner,” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”;

(b)   in paragraphs (a) and (g), after “Commissioner” insert “, Deputy Commissioner”.’.

Again, these are in relation to the disclosure of information from the commission.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 136 (15:42)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

37.   Clause 136, lines 6 to 12, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 519(1) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “A Mental” substitute “The Mental”;

(b)   after “Commissioner,” insert “the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”.

(2) In section 519(2) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, for “a Commissioner,” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”.

(3) In section 519(3) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, for “a Commissioner” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner or Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner”.

(4) In section 519(4) of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 –

(a)   for “a Commissioner,” substitute “the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner, the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner,”;

(b)   after “the Commissioner” insert “, Deputy Commissioner”.’.

Amendment 37 is similarly about the disclosure of information.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

New clause 136A (15:43)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

38.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 137 –

‘136A   New section 524A inserted

After section 524 of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022insert –

“524A   Requirement to disclose certain information to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

(1)   The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, by written notice, may request from the Health Secretary information that is relevant to the performance of the Commission’s functions or the exercise of the Commission’s powers.

(2)   On receiving a request under subsection (1), the Health Secretary must give to the Commission the information specified in the request that the Health Secretary holds.

(3)   Information that is disclosed under subsection (2) must not include information that identifies an individual.”.’.

This is effectively about data access. It strengthens information-sharing provisions for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act, following concerns raised by stakeholders and members of this place about the unintended impact that original drafting in the bill may have on the commission’s broader functions. The amendment provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health must provide information requested from the commission to assist them in their functions, reflecting the fact that the government is committed to supporting the commission to effectively perform its legislative monitoring and reporting functions. Again, I thank members of the crossbench and opposition for their constructive dialogue over these changes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting this amendment, and we thank the government for their engagement on this. There have been significant concerns that predated some of the changes proposed in this about the ability of the commission to access data to undertake their legislative functions. We will be supporting this amendment. We do have an amendment that tries to address this issue a little further down which, depending on whether this one passes, we will be withdrawing, depending on what happens with this. We thank the government for their engagement on this, because this was a real concern for us.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 137 (15:45)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 39 is to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: This is an amendment to omit the clause. It is consequential to the amendment that we just passed in relation to enhancing the commission’s information-gathering powers, and as such this clause is no longer required.

Clause negatived.

Clause 138 (15:46)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I just want to indicate that we will be withdrawing our amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 40 is to omit this clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, consequential to amendment 38 in relation to information-gathering powers, we will be seeking to omit this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 139 (15:47)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Treasurer, your amendment 41 is again to omit the clause.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, consequential to amendment 38, we will be omitting this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 140 agreed to.

Clause 141 (15:47)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

42.   Clause 141, page 114, line 11, omit “section 420 as amended” and insert “section 420(1) as substituted”.

43.   Clause 141, page 114, line 14, omit ‘2025.”.’ and insert “2025.”.

44.   Clause 141, page 114, after line 14 insert –

‘793   Appointment of interim Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner

(1) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the Minister, by instrument, may appoint a person to be the Deputy Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissioner for a period beginning on or after the commencement of Division 2 of Part 8 of the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Act 2025 and ending on a day that is no later than 6 months after the commencement of that Division.

(2) Despite anything to the contrary in the instrument of appointment, a person appointed under subsection (1) goes out of office on an appointment of a person under section 420(1A) as substituted by Division 2 of Part 8 of the Entities Legislation Amendment (Consolidation and Other Matters) Act 2025.”.’.

These have been tested, but for full clarification this is about ensuring the minister can appoint an interim deputy commissioner for a period of up to six months from the commencement of the bill. It will allow for merit-based recruitment and appointment of the ongoing deputy commissioner through a competitive and transparent recruitment process.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 142 to 162 agreed to; schedule 1 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (15:49): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (15:49): I move:

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

I would really like to acknowledge the efforts of everyone in the chamber. This was an unusual bill in a sense. It was complex. I think we worked together to make that smooth, but we would not have been able to do that without the support of the table here, particularly Viv. The running sheet was very smooth and made it all very accessible, so I appreciate your efforts as always. Thank you.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.