Thursday, 27 August 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:39): It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I would hope it is your pleasure as well – I will take the interjection from Mr McIntosh. This is an important piece of legislation, and it builds on the work of George Lekakis from the Lekakis review into multicultural settings. It found an enormous amount of things. It found quite a few flaws in Victoria’s multicultural settings. This bill seeks to deliver on that report. But I do want to say this bill goes a long way in repairing what I think was a mistake. Back in the Baillieu–‍Napthine governments the Victorian Multicultural Commission operated independently, as an independent statutory authority. One of the first things Daniel Andrews, the former former Premier, did in 2015 was bring the Victorian Multicultural Commission into the Department of Premier and Cabinet. I think that is when we started to see its focus fade. We started to see it being politicised, and we started to see some poor decisions made, which meant that mistakes could be made as well. I think that led to some of the flaws that were exposed in the Lekakis review.

I would like to firstly thank all of the stakeholders that I have engaged with. There are quite a few of them: the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria, the Faith Communities Council of Victoria, Africa Day Australia and the Filipino Community Council of Victoria. But also George Lekakis and several other significant community leaders provided a whole lot of feedback on this bill. The Australasian Association of Language Companies, Ethnolink and other organisations have provided some really useful feedback on this particular bill, which I certainly appreciate.

From the outset it is important to state the Liberals and Nationals commitment to multicultural and multifaith communities. I recommend all of my colleagues go to the second-reading speech in the lower house of Matthew Guy, the member for Bulleen. As a former multicultural minister, he went through decades of the Liberals and Nationals support for multicultural communities dating back to his predecessor Nick Kotsiras and the work that the Baillieu government did and the work that the Kennett government did in setting up the Ethnic Affairs Commission, as it was then known. It is quite the history, but it is a proud history on this side of the chamber of supporting multicultural communities. Despite the insinuations you might hear from some politicians, the Liberals and Nationals wholeheartedly support our multicultural communities here in Victoria.

Many of us come from migrant backgrounds. My late nonna and nonno came to Australia by boat in the 1950s, and they came here with nothing. They came here with no English, just a suitcase, and worked really hard to provide a life for themselves and their family. One of the great things I see when going out and about in multicultural communities is a similar drive to my grandparents, a similar aspiration to get ahead and a similar love for Australia and being Australian and what that provides but also a want and desire to celebrate their own cultures as well. That goes to I think the strong resilience of our multicultural communities here in this state, the work they do on behalf of their communities and their want to engage with members of Parliament, with community leaders and with their local communities to celebrate their culture. But you hear some people talking about some multicultural communities not assimilating. I do not agree with that view. The busiest day of the year for me as the shadow minister is Australia Day itself. I am run off my feet going to countless community events, which are incredible – barbecues and celebrations. My colleague Wayne Farnham and I were in Laverton this past Australia Day to celebrate Australia Day with our Filipino community, who do incredible work. The Filipino Community Council of Victoria do incredible work with food relief in particular. I know they are one of the fastest growing communities in Victoria, so I want to give them a shout-out too. And I am fortunate to champion a lot of these communities in the Parliament. Whether they be Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, Turkish, Hindu, Sikh or Somali, I have got a very broad amount of communities in my electorate. I genuinely love going to different multicultural events across my electorate and engaging with them and being with them for their significant holy days or significant events, and I think that is really important.

I do want to touch on one thing briefly before I go to elements of the bill, if I can. I want to express my deepest sorrow for and solidarity with the people of Nepal following the devastating flash floods of 26 August. The disaster has severely affected Rasuwa district and the communities along the Bhotekoshi and Trishuli river corridors, including Timure and Syabrubesi, with impacts extending to Nuwakot, Dhading, Chitwan and surrounding areas. At least 157 people have been confirmed dead in Nepal, with hundreds still missing. Homes and entire settlements have been swept away, roads and bridges have been destroyed and major damage has been caused to hydropower electricity and communications infrastructure. Recent updates suggest that more than 34 Australians are among the people reported missing. My deepest thoughts and those of the Liberals and Nationals and I am sure all in this chamber are with the families and our strong Nepalese Australian community and everyone anxiously waiting for news from loved ones. I extend sincere condolences to families that have lost loved ones and acknowledge the courage of Nepal’s emergency services, security forces, volunteers and communities for undertaking the rescue operations. At this difficult time Australia and Victoria stand in solidarity with the people of Nepal.

I will go to further elements of the bill. The bill, as I was stating, is something that we largely support because it brings back amendments that were in place under the former Liberals and Nationals government. As I said, the Victorian Multicultural Commission was largely independent and a strong agency under the former government, until the Andrews government was elected and brought the commission into the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which was undoubtedly to help him control and monitor the commission’s work. We welcome the roundabout reversal of this decision, and I think the sector broadly does as well.

Under the proposed model Multicultural Victoria will be led by a multicultural coordinator general supported by two deputy multicultural coordinators general. Importantly, one of those deputy coordinators general must live or have previously lived in rural or regional Victoria – an important position because a growing number of our multicultural communities are in the regions – to make sure their perspectives are considered when making these decisions. I certainly know this to be true in communities like Shepparton, Mildura, Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong, and Gippsland. I was in Cobram with Tim McCurdy, and I know there is a big Italian community there. I recently had the opportunity to attend the African cultural music festival in Bendigo with my colleague Gaelle Broad and our fantastic Nationals candidate for Bendigo East Andrew Lethlean. We also had the opportunity to meet with the Bendigo Interfaith Council, who are doing some amazing work, as my colleague Mrs Broad would attest. There is such a growing population in regional Victoria in our multicultural community, so we welcome having a regional deputy for Multicultural Victoria. Victoria’s multicultural story extends far beyond metropolitan Melbourne. In fact the reception for my wedding was at All Saints Estate in Rutherglen, and my zia, my aunty, pointed out the fact that her father helped when it was a tobacco farm and lived in one of the cabins on that particular property. Many migrants, particularly those migrants from Italy, Greece and European nations from the 1950s to 70s, went out to our regions, so there is a long history of multicultural communities in regional Victoria.

The existing chairperson model and commissioner model will be replaced by a coordinator general model. The coordinator general will be appointed by the Governor in Council on recommendation of the minister, along with deputies. They will be prohibited from holding a range of political or parliamentary positions, including being a member of Parliament or council, an electorate officer, a ministerial officer or a parliamentary advisor. This is an important prohibition. It limits the potential for this position to be handed to a partisan of the government of the day. My advice is that under the legislation a person could be working in a minister’s office, resign and then the day after be appointed to one of these positions. So I intend to move an amendment just to clarify that it also applies if they have worked in any of those positions for the previous three months, and I am very pleased with the conversations I am having with the government in regard to that particular amendment. I have sought stakeholder conversations, advice and consultation on that particular amendment, and it is something that has broad support across the board, just to give some distance, some breathing room between holding said positions and taking up such an important nonpartisan role. The coordinator general will be a full-time appointment with the possibility of serving up to three four-year terms.

The opposition, as I have stated publicly, holds significant concerns about the appointment process and about how we are only just debating this legislation now. It was only debated in the Assembly a couple of weeks ago, yet last month the government already began the advertising and recruiting process for the $400,000 a year position, before they had even bothered to introduce the bill into Parliament or briefed the opposition or the crossbench. Applications closed two weeks ago – two weeks before the legislation reached this place. What is even more concerning is that the government intends for this person to be in a position to start on 1 October, a mere 34 days before the caretaker provisions come into effect, and I think anyone rightly would see that as opportunism to try to get someone in there for four years on the eve of an election. Victorian multicultural communities deserve to have the confidence that public appointments and public funding are not used as political currency. They deserve a system where people are appointed because of their expertise, their contribution and their capacity to represent communities, not because of any political allegiance. The opposition are very concerned that the government, knowing that people have had an absolute gutful of 12 years of waste, of corruption and of mismanagement, will possibly hastily appoint a mate to a four-year position on the way out the door in order to prosecute their agenda from opposition. I think Victorians and Victorian multicultural communities are sick and tired of Labor using them for rank partisan reasons and then paying lip-service to them, taking selfies but not showing them the respect that their communities, culture and contributions deserve.

I have consulted with many stakeholders, who do share my concerns about these appointments and think an incoming government should have the prerogative to appoint officials that they can work with productively for the benefit of multicultural communities. I have been having some good discussions with the government. I will still move my amendment, but I reserve judgement to withdraw it later in committee. But what my amendment goes to is that, should the government seek to appoint a coordinator general or deputies this side of the election, there would be a hard date of 30 January at which that appointment would end. The reason I did it that way is that, should it not like a particular appointment, it gives a new government the opportunity to pick someone fresh. But, should pigs fly and the government be re-elected, then it can roll over that particular appointment, and it does not rule that person out from being appointed to a four-year term. I think it is fair enough, given the proximity to caretaker, and that applies across the board to all appointments as well. This is a sensible, commonsense measure that merely takes into account the proximity to an election of this significant change in how multicultural affairs are managed in this state, and it is my sincere hope that we can come to some kind of agreement on this. As I said regarding this amendment, I am in discussions with the government and do reserve my right to withdraw it in committee based on conversations, but I will come back to the chamber in committee on that particular one.

The bill also acknowledges the existing advisory councils and replaces them with the new multicultural advisory group to be established by the minister. I just want to touch on the regional advisory councils and thank them for the work that they have done. I have known many people that have been involved in regional advisory councils, particularly in the northern suburbs. It is clear from the consultation I have done that I would say some of them did really good work; for others the bureaucratic challenge of organising the meetings and the work did not get a commensurate amount of productivity out of the regional advisory councils. That was my feedback from broad consultation with communities.

I can understand why the government has done this, but I would also encourage the government to use existing organisations that are out there, like the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria, to attempt to replicate that kind of broader model going forward, because they did capture a lot of new and emerging communities, and I think that is a good way of supplementing and complementing some of the good work the regional advisory councils did. It will replace them with a multicultural community advisory group to be established by the minister. The group will consist of five to nine members and must include at least one person aged 18 to 24. In addition, Multicultural Victoria will establish regional engagement groups covering the whole of Victoria. As I said earlier, Victorian multicultural communities are spread across metropolitan Melbourne, regional cities, rural communities and rapidly growing outer suburban areas, and the challenges faced by a newly arrived family in regional Victoria can be very different to those faced by a family living in one of Melbourne’s most established multicultural suburbs. Access to services, public transport, interpreting services, employment opportunities and community infrastructure can all vary considerably.

This bill makes changes to the principles of multiculturalism contained in section 4 of the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. Among those changes, though, is a decision to make mention of Labor’s controversial and divisive treaty with Indigenous Victorians. The opposition will seek to amend the bill to remove Labor’s treaty and treaty making as an objective of Multicultural Victoria. In recognising the importance of Indigenous Victorians we will focus this principle to be about self-determination, because self-determination and working with these communities should not be done through the lens of treaty making. Having treaty making as an objective of Multicultural Victoria I think diminishes the focus of this particular bill. There are other bills to do with treaty making. I think we would be blurring the lines here if we were to include this as a particular objective. The opposition is committed to repealing the treaty within our first 100 days, so this is broadly consistent with our policies.

I want to get to a shocking part of this bill, which is that the bill mandates that a defined list of public bodies – specified entities – use VITS LanguageLoop, an existing state-owned entity, for interpreting and translation services unless VITS LanguageLoop declines the work. This is backed by an authorisation clause in law. Notably excluded from the mandate are Parliament’s own departments, IBAC, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the integrity adviser and Integrity Oversight Victoria. In the bill briefing the government indicated that it is still possible for other providers to be contracted to the departments, but I do want to place on record the concerns of industry about this, the lack of consultation with non-profits and private providers and the potential for this as an attempt to bring a significant aspect of multicultural affairs under one entity, potentially under union control. This is a deeply worrying development.

Speak to any translator out there, and they will tell you it is a freelance industry. It is a contractor industry. Many interpreters work for multiple service providers. For the government to mandate that LanguageLoop be the sole provider for government departments – I do not think it is going to work. But what is most shocking is that the government did not speak to any of the industry about this. Did it speak to the Australasian Association of Language Companies? Did it speak to any of the service providers – significant ones like Ethnolink and others? No, it did not. It did not do any work. How is that possible? You put in an amendment that impacts an entire industry, and I am sure we have all got the emails from translators across the state worried about what this might mean. Just at a ministerial direction you could see swathes of job losses. I spoke to an interpreter yesterday who said that working for LanguageLoop in a permanent position does not suit them. They are a mum of three. I think the government has not thought this through and, in an attempt to prop up a state-owned company, has really got this wrong. I would say the government possibly needs to go back to the drawing board on this and take great consideration of this, because how is it that an entire industry was not consulted? I just do not understand how that can occur, and I am deeply troubled by it. I also have been flooded with emails and phone calls from the sector about this particular amendment. I am going to go to lots of questions in committee. I have been speaking to the government about this amendment, and I do think they acknowledge that the consultation could have been better, but still, to give the government this power is deeply concerning. I am quite open to any amendments regarding this particular section of the bill that would give comfort to the industry, but I have got a lot of questions in committee when the minister may be able to provide some comfort for the sector as well. Our interpreters do some really great work in the communities. They are often first to a hospital bed at 11 at night. Is LanguageLoop going to be operating at 11 pm at night, or does it want to move to a full-time 9-to-5 model? These are the questions that we need answered, and I think the way this legislation has been drafted does not go to those.

I just want to talk briefly about how I think it is important that we are moving to a more independent body free of partisanship, because we saw through a series of freedom-of-information requests that the Victorian Multicultural Commission was working closely with the Premier’s private office under the Allan government to really run events like the Premier’s multicultural gala in a significantly partisan way. When the guest list, for example, was washed through the PPO, 169 guests were added for Labor MPs and their friends, to the benefit only of the government and of Labor members. There would have been about 40 Labor members there, and they all just happened to be there with free tickets for their communities as well, an opportunity not afforded to the opposition or the Greens. I note both the Greens and the opposition were on a unity ticket in condemning that particular practice, because it diminishes the experience for our multicultural communities. In this fractured political environment, when we want to show that there is bi- or tripartisan support for our multicultural communities, what is the government doing? It is promoting the Labor Party and turning these events into political rallies. We saw events run by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in a shameful way, where the opposition was not even allowed to speak. I will leave my comments there. I will have more to say in committee in regard to this bill, but we will not be opposing this bill anyway.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:09): I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to make a contribution on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026. Once passed – and now, having heard that the support of those opposite is with this bill, I am very optimistic about this – this bill will establish a renewed, modernised and deeply accountable foundation for how our government listens to, partners with and delivers for Victoria’s multicultural and multifaith communities. It strengthens our institutions, it modernises our statutory framework and it ensures that community voices sit at the centre of government decision-making, right where they belong.

I think Victoria is without question the most successful and vibrant multicultural society in the world. It is not just an aspect of our society; it is a part of our identity. Victorians come from, extraordinarily, over 300 different ancestries, speak more than 290 languages and practise almost 200 faiths. Almost half of all Victorians were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas. Those stories of migration are of courage, of hard work and of community building that have shaped every neighbourhood, every regional township and every public institution across our state. When people ask whether multiculturalism works, the answer is undeniably clear: multiculturalism works. You only have to step outside, hop on a tram and sit down as you ride to the very heart of the city to see how brilliantly and harmoniously it works every single day. You see it in our bustling streetscapes, you hear it in the dozens of languages spoken side by side on our public transport and you feel it in our thriving local businesses, our university campuses, our hospitals and our community festivals. You see people of entirely different cultural traditions, faiths and linguistic backgrounds living together, working together, raising families and building a united community based on mutual respect and shared democratic values. You also see it right here in this very chamber. Multiculturalism is why our Parliament actually reflects the people we represent. It is why you can sit in this place and have a Tarlamis, a Luu, an Erdogan, a Puglielli and so many others from different cultural backgrounds shaping the laws of this state. That lived experience of connection is what makes Victoria great.

But harmony and social cohesion are not things we can ever, ever take for granted. In recent years world-shifting events have placed distinct and noticeable strains on our communities, and when international tensions rise or economic pressures mount, it is often our multicultural and multifaith communities who feel the brunt of social anxiety and discrimination first. In my work – something I am enormously proud of – as the co-chair of the Anti-Racism Taskforce I have had the distinct privilege and responsibility of listening directly to communities right across the state. Through that work we heard firsthand about the painful reality of racism, discrimination and casual prejudice that too many Victorians still encounter in their everyday lives. We also heard of an overwhelming desire from our communities for stronger structural protections, greater accountability across public institutions and proactive government action that dismantles systemic barriers before they cause harm. Combating racism and religious hatred requires more than just warm words and good intentions. It requires institutional and structural reform. It requires us to build state institutions that do not just react to crises but actively work to safeguard inclusion, fairness and safety for every Victorian. That is the exact mission that underpins this legislation.

In December 2024 our government commissioned Victoria’s multicultural review to undertake a comprehensive, independent examination of our state’s multicultural settings, policies and institutions. That review was led by George Lekakis AO and supported by an expert advisory group consisting of Hass Dellal AO, Carmel Guerra OAM, Miriam Sass OAM and Mark Duckworth PSM – all distinguished, eminent experts. This review undertook an exhaustive consultation process, hearing from more than 640 Victorians and engaging with over 150 peak bodies, ethno-specific organisations and faith groups. What the review heard was clear: the aspirations and needs of multicultural Victorians have evolved and the governance frameworks that were created decades ago are no longer adequate to address the modern challenges our community faces.

Before detailing the new structures established by this bill I want to take a moment to express my deepest gratitude to the Victorian Multicultural Commission as well as every past and present chair and commissioner who has served since the commission was first established. For over four decades – four decades; it is extraordinary – the commission has served as a vital bridge between diverse communities and government. The commissioners have worked tirelessly, volunteering enormous amounts of their time, attending thousands of marvellous community celebrations, advocating during difficult moments and giving voice to the challenges faced by our newly arrived migrants and the established diaspora communities alike. Their legacy is written across the everyday make-up of Victoria.

The independent review found that the separation between the Victorian Multicultural Commission and the department’s internal policy and grants delivery functions resulted in an increasingly fragmented and inconsistent approach. Community groups often face confusion as to where to direct their advocacy, and the vital feedback gathered on the ground has not always translated into policy design, service delivery or funding decisions. This bill resolves that by establishing a new statutory entity: Multicultural Victoria. Multicultural Victoria will represent a complete institutional reset. The bill consolidates community consultation, policy development, whole-of-government accountability and grant administration under a single united body. This ensures that the insights, lived experiences and priorities shared by our communities flow directly and immediately into the design of government programs and priorities.

To lead this new entity the bill creates the independent statutory office of the multicultural coordinator general, supported by two deputy multicultural coordinators general. These leaders will serve as an independent influential voice for community. The bill mandates that at least one of the deputy coordinators general must live in or have lived in rural or regional Victoria. This statutory guarantee ensures that regional voices are embedded at the highest levels of multicultural leadership. Importantly, the bill explicitly defines the principles of impartiality for the multicultural coordinator general and the deputies. To support the leadership team and maintain strong grassroots links, the bill establishes the multicultural community advisory group. The advisory group will bring lived experience, cultural insight and community leadership deliberately and directly into the heart of Multicultural Victoria. The legislation deliberately mandates that the minister must appoint a diverse membership across cultures, faiths, professions and regions, including a mandatory youth representative. This ensures that the next generation of multicultural Victorians has a direct seat at the decision-making table.

We are also overhauling how the state conducts regional engagement. While the previous regional advisory council served our state well for many years, the review found that their rigid structures had become unwieldy and were not delivering the responsive, flexible outcomes that regional communities called for. This bill removes the old council structure and in fact replaces it with dynamic regional engagement groups that will span every single region right across the state. These groups will bring together local grassroots leaders, regional ethnic community councils, service providers and local residents to address specific place-based challenges. Furthermore, the bill introduces a feedback loop. Whenever Multicultural Victoria consults with community representatives, it has an obligation to report back as soon as practicable to explain what action was taken in response to the issues raised. To guarantee that this model delivers real outcomes, the legislation requires an independent review of the regional engagement framework every four years.

One of the most important aspects of this bill is how it modernises and strengthens the principles of multiculturalism. It recognises First Peoples’ self-determination and treaty, and it explicitly enshrines that First Peoples in Victoria are the original custodians of the land and hold a unique and irreplaceable status, particularly with an enduring spiritual, cultural and economic connection to the traditional lands and waters of our state. The bill establishes an objective for Multicultural Victoria to acknowledge First Peoples’ right to self-determination and acknowledges the fundamental truth that Victoria’s multicultural journey exists alongside the oldest continuous living culture on earth.

This bill modernises our language to explicitly embrace our multifaith communities. For many Victorians faith is an inseparable part of identity, purpose and community support. By embedding multifaith recognition throughout the principles, objectives and functions of the act, we affirm that people of all religions deserve safety, respect and freedom from prejudice. The principles are updated to recognise that individuals within our communities have diverse, intersecting identities. People are not one-dimensional. Their daily experiences are shaped by race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and geography. Our policies and public services must reflect that.

Another reform in this bill is the formal recognition of language and language services as an essential service. For anyone who has ever tried to navigate an emergency room, a court proceeding, a school parent–teacher interview or even at times our electorate offices, language access is not a luxury. The review found that subjecting language services to fragmented, lowest cost commercial tendering models undermined quality, compromised pay and conditions for qualified interpreters and left vulnerable Victorians without reliable support. Under this bill the minister will have the power to prescribe organisations to engage LanguageLoop as the default provider of language services in critical government service delivery, creating a dependable, high-quality public standard for language delivery across our most critical frontline services. As a sensible safeguard, if LanguageLoop cannot fulfil a specific language request, entities may engage an alternative provider so that no patient or client is left without an interpreter.

To ensure that these reforms drive genuine change across the entire Victorian public service (VPS), the bill introduces rigorous whole-of-government planning and reporting mechanisms. This is a bill that strengthens accountability for multicultural and multifaith communities and their outcomes through a whole-of-government strategic planning and reporting approach. It requires the development of a new four-year whole-of-government multicultural strategy. The multicultural coordinator general will support the Premier in developing this strategy, ensuring that it is directly informed by the voices, experiences and perspectives of our multicultural and multifaith communities. The strategy will set clear goals and actions for different departments, and departments will be required to report on what they are doing to meet those actions.

Government departments will also be required to produce multicultural action and inclusion plans every four years. These plans will identify tangible actions to increase the cultural inclusion of government services and strengthen diversity across the VPS workforce and on public boards. Departmental secretaries will then be required to report annually to the multicultural coordinator general on their progress against the plans. There will be the development of an annual state of Multicultural Victoria report, driven by, obviously, the work that has been done.

Can I just say it also will give Multicultural Victoria the ability to be able to work with existing community safety and emergency services agencies to support and advise on community safety planning with multicultural and multifaith communities affected by emergencies or serious adverse events. By working collaboratively with Victoria Police, Emergency Management Victoria and local councils, Multicultural Victoria will ensure that when adverse global events, local crises or emergencies occur, government responses are coordinated, culturally sensitive and actively protecting community harmony.

When we look at the broader context of this debate and the contrast in values across the political aisle, I could go on about it, and frankly, I want to. But in the interests of maintaining the support for what I think is a pretty exceptional bit of bipartisanship for multicultural communities here in Victoria, I will put aside my want to do that and say that this bill is one to be really proud of. It is necessary, and it is a robust statement of who we are and where we are heading. It reflects our modern, vibrant and connected society. It empowers our multicultural and multifaith communities, and it guarantees accountability. I am immensely proud to support this legislation. I commend the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026 to the house, and I thank all those that worked with the government in the development of this bill. Again, can I take a moment to round out my comments with deep thanks to all the multicultural leaders that I have had the good fortune to work with on the Anti-Racism Taskforce during my term here in the Parliament.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:24): I also would like to say a few words on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026. I will start with a couple of principles. Culture is not something that should be defined by government or managed by government; culture is something that is organic and emergent, similar to language and many other things. In fact if we look at history, the societies that have tried to dictate – and some still continue to try and dictate – what culture is and how culture should work almost without exception have turned out horribly.

What Victoria has been trying to do for a long time, previously through the multicultural commissioner and now through this bill, is manage many different communities that exist in Victoria and try to maintain some sort of cohesion. I think that anyone that looked from the outside at the empirical evidence would have to say that they are not doing a very good job of this. In fact the backlash at what the government has been doing is horrific, and we have seen that through the political turmoil that is happening at the moment. People resent the idea of government giving out favours to communities. Whether or not it is for the government’s political benefit, many people in the community certainly have that perception. As Mr Mulholland pointed out, there have been large events held by the taxpayer for multicultural communities, and various members of Parliament who were not favoured by the government were not invited to speak or even invited to the event. I think that many people would ask questions about why that is in fact the case.

I do not say this as someone who sits outside of these communities looking in; I am literally part of these communities. My family is part of the Japanese diaspora. What I will say is that most of the people in the communities that I see do not want the government sticking its nose in and interfering with their communities. They are not happy about it, and the idea that the government picks people from these communities and gives them favours and things like that is offensive to them. For that reason the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. In fact I oppose the entire premise of the government interfering in this. This should be an organic thing, and the government should be applying the principle of equality under law – everyone is treated equally. If we are going to talk about culture, we should be talking about the culture that we have inherited through our institutions: the culture of looking at things like equality under law and defending things like freedom of speech and these things which are inherent to our culture and the institutions that we have inherited from the UK.

Another thing which this bill does which is very problematic and which I have an amendment for is it sets up a preferred provider in the form of LanguageLoop, which effectively cuts out a huge part of the workforce. Here is a great example of the government trying to do things that they think are for a particular community and pulling the rug out from under that community in the same breath, because many of the people from these multicultural communities that the government are talking about are actually contractors who do interpreting and translation services. I know many people that do this. The very communities that you are trying to support here you are effectively pulling the rug out from under. Nearly all these people, as Mr Mulholland pointed out, do this as gig work. Many of them are mothers. I have met many people who do this type of work – in fact in the past my own wife has done this type of work – and they enjoy the flexibility that it offers. They enjoy that type of engagement, that type of contracting approach. They do not want to become full-time interpreters or translators, and the idea that the government will be taking away that option for government services seems quite problematic.

I am not the only one that thinks that. Members of Parliament will have been getting contacted by members of many different communities who are alarmed at what the government is doing here, because they rely on this for their income, many of these people, and they are alarmed at the idea that the government is trying to set up this government-owned enterprise which is going to compete with the private sector. It undermines competition. It creates all sorts of issues. Mr Mulholland made a very good point before: who are you going to get out in the middle of the night to sit in a hospital? I know that some people do crisis social work, and they need to talk to people in their own language. If someone gets in trouble with the police or all sorts of things, they need these services. They are not necessarily a 9-to-5 job at all. In fact many of them make all sorts of arrangements to cater for very tricky situations, and to cater for these situations you need a diverse market. There are some people who would prefer to do translation services at home and do them 9 to 5 during the day and other people who would be happy to be on an on-call basis to handle emergency-type things in the evening. But to handle that you need a diverse market, and what the government is doing here is destroying diversity, ironically. They always go on about diversity and how much they love diversity. Well, this is not improving diversity. This is actually destroying market diversity, and it is a bad idea. With that in mind, I would like to circulate my amendments now, please. I will talk to them a bit more later.

This bill also will expand the bureaucracy of Victoria – the last thing that we need to do at the moment. As I have already stated, we have this soft monopoly, effectively. What they are setting up replaces the Victorian Multicultural Commission with a larger body, with new office holders, new advisory groups, regional groups, mandatory departmental plans, whole-of-government strategies and all of these sorts of things. This is an expansion of government that we do not need. In fact the size of government is exactly the sort of thing that we should be pulling back from. The government does not need to be interfering in this. The government’s involvement with this is not creating social cohesion in Victoria. It is not helping what is happening – quite the opposite; it is making things worse. There is a backlash. If the government cannot see that backlash, they are blind. They must be able to see the backlash that is happening. This is exactly the sort of thing that upsets people, that makes them mad, and it has got to stop. The Libertarian Party will not support it.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:32): I rise to make a contribution on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026. Before I begin I would like to thank the Minister for Multicultural Affairs for the work he has done to promote multiculturalism and to promote social cohesion here in Victoria. It is important that we acknowledge that Victoria is a proud multicultural state. Multiculturalism is simply a fact of Victoria’s society, and it has been for a very long time. It is a fact that we on this side of the chamber are very proud of. If you walk around any suburb in my electorate or indeed any suburb or town across this great state, you will find people from many different faiths and of many different cultural backgrounds from all over the globe, and I think it would be fair to say that someone who does not understand multiculturalism would struggle to understand very much at all about Victorians as a whole.

In the past few years the social harmony that we have enjoyed in this state has unfortunately been strained as a result of international conflicts as well as new bitterness and divisiveness, which, though unwelcomed, has emerged within our politics. That is why in December 2024 we commissioned George Lekakis AO to undertake Victoria’s multicultural review, looking into how our Victorian government can better support multicultural communities. At a point in time when there is a strain in the community and when we do see division emerging, it is critical that we do whatever we can to ensure that we continue to live in a society that harmonises and is socially cohesive. The review involved meeting with over 150 peak bodies across the state and asking them about their experiences, their worries and their views on how the government can offer stronger support for multicultural communities. Listening is one thing, acting is another, and the Carroll Labor government is responding to the Lekakis review with action in this bill and elsewhere. The review makes recommendations across different areas of government policy regarding multicultural affairs. The scope of these recommendations is such that not every part of the government’s response can be contained within this bill, meaning there will be more work to be done even once this bill is passed into law.

The Carroll Labor government has accepted and is implementing the recommendations of the Lekakis review, including the establishment of a new statutory body, Multicultural Victoria, responsible for consultation with communities and advocacy on their behalf, policy development, program delivery and ensuring accountability across government; a four-year whole-of-government multicultural strategy, which is currently in development; the introduction of a social cohesion values commitment, which ensures that the organisations receiving government funding understand their obligations and responsibilities to uphold and protect social cohesion and mutual respect with other communities; investing in a multicultural capacity-building program to support grassroots organisations to expand and improve upon the services which they can provide to their communities; investing in a multicultural museums program to promote greater community engagement and greater intercultural understanding; recognising that language and translating services are essential services for multicultural communities; and requiring cabinet submissions to include a multicultural impact statement. These measures constitute the government’s response to the Lekakis review, though many of these go beyond the scope of the bill being debated today.

This bill primarily relates to the establishment of Multicultural Victoria as a statutory entity, setting out the structure and remit of the organisation. It also includes reforms requiring government departments to produce multicultural action and inclusion plans every four years. It includes provisions for the establishment of a multicultural community advisory group. It will abolish the existing regional advisory councils in order to facilitate the development of a new and more effective method of place-based consultation. Importantly, the bill also contains provisions fulfilling our commitment to recognising language and translation services as essential and ensuring that they can be delivered to and accessed by multicultural communities when they are needed. These measures are important, and they will be part of the broader project of building up infrastructure which allows us as a state government to better understand and support the needs of all Victorians. Stronger consultation infrastructure will mean that the state government’s ability to understand the unique needs of different sections of the community will be strengthened. Having strong consultation processes also means that communities feel included, feel like they are part of the process and feel like they are respected as equal and valued parts of our society.

The establishment of Multicultural Victoria will symbolise a new beginning for how the state government engages with multicultural community groups by bringing together policy development and consultation as well as programs and grant delivery. Under one organisation we will create a stronger voice and a new method of pursuing better outcomes. To explain in detail the mechanics of how this new organisation will work, this bill will abolish the Victorian Multicultural Commission and see it replaced with a new statutory authority, Multicultural Victoria, which will also take on several departmental responsibilities. The reason why we are doing this stems from the Lekakis review and the finding that structural reform of the Victorian Multicultural Commission was needed. To be clear, this was not because the work the VMC did was wrong in principle. Since its establishment in 1983 the VMC has played an important role in connecting those in government to the people they serve and ensuring that the government can be responsive to the needs of the community.

The concerns among stakeholders which the Lekakis review raises relate to the separation of the VMC and the departmental responsibilities for policy and service delivery. Stakeholders have argued that this separation has made it unclear where responsibilities ultimately lie and therefore who was ultimately accountable for decisions. Further, with the separation of the bodies responsible for consultation and for policy, faith in the commission’s ability to influence governance was undermined. The impact of this, the report suggests, is that there may be a loss of interest among multicultural community leaders in participating in VMC consultation processes. To address this, the Lekakis review directly recommends creating Multicultural Victoria as a new statutory authority, as well as the multicultural community advisory group to advise the new entity.

The review provides a structure for Multicultural Victoria with a chair and two deputy chairs, and this bill creates the role of multicultural general to lead Multicultural Victoria. It also creates two deputy multicultural coordinators general, one of which will be in regional Victoria. These will be independent appointees who will engage with multicultural communities and advocate to government on their behalf. This bill ensures that the appointees will be obligated to conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. This is to ensure that they do not advocate on behalf of one group at the expense of another and that they do not neglect the needs of one group in order to prioritise the needs of another. The bill contains provisions for impartiality and neutrality to ensure that the needs of all multicultural communities are considered by the new statutory authority. For example, this bill is very clear that the role of the multicultural coordinator general is to advocate for all communities without favouritism, particularly in the case of favouritism stemming from one’s own membership of a community.

When a multicultural coordinator general engages communities in a consultation process, they will seek the information about their experiences, their needs, their worries, their concerns and anything which the government might need to know to deliver better policy outcomes. However, they will also have legal obligations accompanying this to report back to those who have been engaged in the consultation process to inform them of what actions have been taken in response to their feedback. Given the overall theme of the report was ‘Restoring trust’, this reform is a serious attempt to show people that their views matter and that their participation in our consultation efforts is important and valued and will not be ignored. Community leaders, with their busy personal lives and busy lives in these organisations, need to know that they are not wasting their time when they are engaged in government consultation. If they felt as though they would be ignored and disrespected, why would they bother turning up? Getting multicultural policies right is critical to maintaining a healthy, socially cohesive society. A better, more effective and more inclusive consultation process is an important part of how we get this right.

Not only will the multicultural coordinator general have a legal responsibility to report back to those consulted with about what actions have been taken, they will also be given powers relating to whole-of-government planning and accountability in regard to multicultural affairs. This means that the same organisations that will be undertaking the consultation process will be directly involved in implementing and driving change. Further, the multicultural coordinator general will have the ability to work with community safety and emergency services agencies to advise on how they can support these communities during emergencies and serious, tragic events. This includes emergencies and events occurring locally but also recognises that often it will be the case that things which are happening on the other side of the world will hit close to home for many Victorians. In these situations Multicultural Victoria will also have a role to play in ensuring that all arms of government understand these issues when making decisions about these communities.

As well as creating Multicultural Victoria and establishing the role of the multicultural coordinator general, this bill creates the multicultural community advisory group. This group will consist of people from diverse cultural, faith and occupational backgrounds and will ensure that there is a regional representation as well as an urban representation and dedicated representation for youth as well. There are diverse points of view within any given community, and if this is true then it would be impossible to speak to one person or one type of person and say they represent the entirety of Victoria’s multicultural communities. That is why having people from different walks of life with different experiences and different backgrounds and from different geographical areas is so important. While the advisory group is being established through legislation, this bill also gives Multicultural Victoria the ability to establish new advisory groups so that they can ensure that all voices are heard and their communities are represented.

This bill makes important strides in establishing a new statutory authority in the form of Multicultural Victoria, but it also reforms the accountability process to ensure that we are seeing changes being driven in everyday departments. This will be done through a whole-of-government multicultural strategy and the requirement that every four years individual government departments should produce a multiculturalism action and inclusion plan. Government departments have a mandate to serve all Victorians, and it is absolutely right and proper that the multicultural coordinator general has the ability to ensure that they do fulfil this obligation.

I have already discussed the importance of people from all backgrounds being represented, including those who live in different parts of the state. One thing which this bill does to ensure that this can be done is change the way that regional representation is managed in the consultation process. We are abolishing the existing regional advisory councils and instead using this bill to require that Multicultural Victoria convene stakeholder engagement groups in the different regions of Victoria. However, this bill will allow Multicultural Victoria to establish these groups according to what structure would suit the groups’ individual situations best. A model which works in metropolitan Melbourne might not be optimal for rural Victoria. These groups will be overseen by the multicultural coordinator general, and the structure of these groups will be subject to a review every four years to ensure that they are functioning as intended.

Another critically important area of reform which this bill progresses is the area of language services. We operate based on the principle that everyone who needs to engage with government services needs to know and understand what it is they are engaging with. This means they need to understand what their obligations are as well as the services they can provide with them. When people understand these things, they are put in a position to better make more informed decisions about how they proceed. This bill will give the minister the ability to prescribe an organisation to engage VITS LanguageLoop as the default provider of language services. The organisations to which this can apply would be public entities related in some way to service delivery. This takes an important step towards building a stronger, more socially cohesive society. It relates to the way the government engages with multicultural communities, how we consult with them and how we deliver better services for them.

Our reforms will create a new statutory entity to replace the multicultural commission and attach it to new responsibilities and new powers to ensure that the government is making genuine efforts to listen and is being responsive to the needs of the community. This is about, as the Lekakis review says in its title, rebuilding trust and building an infrastructure for government consultation and policy development which the community can have trust in. This bill is not the only part of the government’s response to the Lekakis review. There is more work to be done, and the Carroll Labor government is committed to doing that work on behalf of the Victorian people. The multiculturalism which we have here in Victoria is a great thing. I see it in my own constituency, and I see it all around the state. This bill is part of the work of protecting and strengthening that. Therefore I commend the bill to the chamber.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:47): I want to make a number of points about this bill, the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026. The first set of points I want to make is about some amendments that will be made by the opposition, and I note that Mr Mulholland, the shadow, has been active in working with multicultural communities across the state, engaging with multicultural communities and ensuring that there are good links between the opposition and multicultural communities. In negotiation and discussion with them, he has proposed a set of amendments.

Amendments 1 to 3 are important. The bill currently provides that the coordinator general and their deputies will be prohibited from holding a range of political or party positions, including being sitting members of Parliament, a councillor, an electorate officer, a ministerial officer or a parliamentary adviser. These amendments provide that a candidate for this position cannot have held those positions for 12 months prior to the appointment.

Mr Mulholland, I am old enough to remember the Brimbank report from the Ombudsman.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, you might find it funny, but it is actually a sorry tale of corruption in the Brimbank council, involving a lot of Labor MPs and others, and –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, I really do not know what the contribution is that Mr Davis is making in regard to Brimbank council, but as to what that has got to do with the content of this bill, I am none the wiser. I think Mr Davis should be brought back to the content of the bill, on relevance.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Davis, I will give a ruling first. I uphold the point of order and ask you to stick to the topic at hand, please.

David DAVIS: I need to be able to speak on the point of order, and I would prefer to indicate that the Brimbank report dealt with councillors and appointments and links across – exactly the way our amendment will seek to do –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: She needs to actually give me a chance to speak.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Are you reflecting on the Chair’s ruling?

David DAVIS: No, I am asking generously whether you might be able to –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Davis, you need to stick to the topic.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Acting President, I am not reflecting on the Chair, but I am not sure the member was listening to the context in which Mr Davis was speaking about our amendment, which went to prohibiting people from being an electorate officer and being appointed at the same time. The Brimbank report went to those issues of a person being an electorate officer and a councillor at the same time. That was the context in which he was speaking about –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): As I said, please continue on the current bill.

David DAVIS: I ask for the amendments to be circulated; that would be helpful. I will continue to talk on our amendments, which deal with the fact that the current bill provides that the coordinator general and their deputies will be prohibited from holding a range of political and parliamentary positions, including being a sitting member of Parliament, a councillor, an electorate officer, a ministerial officer or a parliamentary adviser. These amendments provide that a candidate for that position cannot have held those positions for 12 months prior to their appointment. One of the reasons we are moving these amendments is because it is very important that the multicultural commission not be corrupted by behaviour as we saw in the Brimbank example, where people who were on council and also in ministerial and parliamentary offices were found to be corrupt. The Ombudsman made recommendations that the law be changed, in precisely the sort of way we are suggesting it be changed here, to avoid corruption and ensure that the integrity of the organisation is preserved.

The amendments that we have circulated provide that a candidate for this position cannot have held those positions in the 12 months prior to that appointment. This is an important anti-corruption measure, preventing corruption. We have seen this with this government right through its period in government and actually going back to the period of the previous Labor government before 2010. In that period the Ombudsman reported on corrupt behaviour by councillors and ministers and the link between the ministerial offices and the electorate offices of those people who were behaving corruptly, including some who were in this house at various points. That is why we will be moving these amendments in such a pointed way – to clean up the corruption and ensure that the body is held to high standards.

What amendment 4 seeks to provide is that, should the government seek to appoint the coordinator general or deputy coordinators general on this side of the election, those appointments will terminate on 30 January 2027. This does not rule the person out from being reappointed for a full four-year term. This is also to stop potentially nefarious appointments being made by the government in an attempt to bind a future government through appointments made under the cover of the caretaker period or in the immediate lead-up to the caretaker period, which we are now entering. We need to have a clean set of arrangements that make sure that corruption cannot get going. We need to make sure that the appointments are pristine and able to be held. Let me just keep going and indicate that on those amendments circulated we will have more to say in a short moment.

I want to go back through the history of some of the multicultural arrangements that have been in place in this state. In 2011 in this Parliament a statutory authority was established, the Victorian Multicultural Commission, to provide government advice on policies and programs that are relevant to multicultural communities. The history of the changes made to this body after 2014 are very concerning. After 2014 a review of the functioning of the VMC under Daniel Andrews and Labor was conducted – in 2015 – with subsequent changes made which diminished the independence of the VMC, effectively absorbing its operations into the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). That is what Daniel Andrews did when he was Premier. He got in and he sucked it in and gave less power to the VMC. Prior to 14 November 2016 the VMC functioned as an independent business unit within the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It had its own distinct operational budget. The VMC was also responsible for administering the VMC grants program. From 14 November 2016 the office of the VMC was merged with the newly formed multicultural affairs and social cohesion division within the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The new division merged the Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, which supported the minister’s office, the community resilience unit and the office of the VMC into one. The Andrews Labor government enforced a memorandum of understanding and protocols to control how the VMC would be funded and how its functions would be delivered. Under Labor the MOU had very sharp teeth. The VMC no longer had its own distinct budget. Its budget sat within the Department of Premier and Cabinet and it did not have control.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, this was a takeover, and this is very important to understand. The VMC needs to operate genuinely for multicultural communities and not for the Labor Party. The resource and the communications, corporate and community –

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Acting President, I will make some comments when I sum up, but I think that the way in which Mr Davis is conducting himself is completely inappropriate. I would remind him that there are many multicultural community members watching this debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Davis, please continue.

David DAVIS: VMC requests were to be commissioned through the office of the VMC director or to the relevant multicultural affairs and social cohesion division or the DPC director, and all briefs completed by the MASC must be approved in that period and signed by that director where appropriate and previously agreed. This was a big change from what had occurred under other prior governments. Under the new Labor arrangements the VMC’s independence and its operating budget integrity were severely compromised. Later in 2016 –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I have got to tell you, it gets much worse. Following the 2016 review and the introduction of the new arrangements, press stories emerged, with commissioners and others expressing concern about the diminished independence of the VMC.

A further governance review occurred in 2019, and this was another very significant review. Key recommendations from the 2019 review to restore greater independence to the VMC were rejected by the Andrews Labor government. Recommendation 7 of the 2019 review, that full autonomy with full functionality be returned to the VMC, was rejected, and instead the government retained the integrated 2016 model. Recommendation 14, that there be a designated staff to serve multicultural communities who associate with the commission and its role as a grant source and representative voice of the multicultural community, was rejected by the government, with the government retaining control of grants, with the exception of the chairperson’s grants. Recommendation 15 of that review, that the chair’s autonomy as a public service body and head in relation to persons employed by the commission be restored, was rejected by Andrews as well.

After the 2019 review a series of public events threw a spotlight on the VMC and the VMC’s grants programs. These include allegations of government interference and allegations about allocations of VMC grants to organisations with links to the Labor Party staffers and Labor Party allies. An Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission investigation, in association with the Ombudsman’s Operation Watts, was a very important investigation. It went on to point out that money had been misused to fund party political activities or for other improper purposes. It is actually disgraceful what was found by Operation Watts on the misuse of multicultural money. This is money that should be used in a sacred way to support multicultural communities and not siphoned off and diverted to fund corrupt Labor Party activities.

In May 2021 a letter was sent to the Premier’s office by Kaushaliya Vaghela, former MLC, and she stated that multicultural grants and board positions were effectively offered as political currency, raising concerns about how positions at the VMC were awarded and that people from the Premier’s socialist left faction enticed allies by claiming influence over publicly funded roles. The Vaghela letter said, ‘The gang says if people do what they say, then in return the gang will advise the Premier’ – another member of this chamber, and she was a very fine member of this chamber – ‘or the relevant minister in deciding who should get such roles, in returning favours.’ The Operation Watts joint report –

Sonja Terpstra: How would you know any of this? You’re making it up.

David DAVIS: She sent the letter to a wide number of people. I quoted directly from it.

Sonja Terpstra: It’s got nothing to do with the bill.

David DAVIS: It has got a lot to do. She was talking about misbehaviour inside the Labor Party and the misuse of multicultural funds by the Labor Party. We want to prevent that. We want to have the VMC working. It is a very, very important body, and it needs to be protected and not to be misused and corruptly have money diverted, as occurred in the past. Operation Watts brought very, very stark attention to the provision of inappropriately and improperly outlined grants. Chapter 6 provides abundant evidence of the improper grant allocation process. Chapter 7, ‘Conclusions and observations’, particularly paragraphs 708 to 722, find very serious concerns that would mean a fair-minded person would conclude that this was not operating properly. For example, paragraph 710 deals with evidence and concludes:

… that people in the ML faction … sought to improperly influence the grant process …

That is the IBAC saying that. That is not me; that is the IBAC saying that, and the IBAC is a very, very important examination. Decisions on public grants should be made for the purposes of actually getting the best outcomes for multicultural communities and not for the purposes of the Labor Party.

I want to say also something today about the language services that we face such challenges with now. Mr Mulholland has outlined some of these issues. The government is clearly trying to control and to stop broader language groups being involved in the provision of services. This is not right, and it has actually narrowed the scope of opportunities. This not only will have an economic outcome but will also mean less availability of services when they are needed and in the places where they are needed. So this is quite a serious matter. The government is narrowing the availability of language services. Language services are a critical role in this area, and many of our electorate officers have had emails from groups that are very concerned. Some in the multicultural sector have been very clear that this is not the right way and that the government’s narrowing of these choices is actually quite wrong.

These points, in context, are very important. The amendments will strengthen the bill, strengthen the bill’s independence and make sure that the steps that are taken are the right ones, rather than the wrong ones. We are concerned about the government’s immediate appointments under the line of the election. This is an attempt to bind future governments. There is no question about what is going on here and why the government is doing this. This is just Labor of old, and the suggestion that there be a 12-month period for some of these appointments is a plausible and reasonable step. It is in line with some of the concerns that were expressed in Operation Watts and others. In the case of Operation Watts, there is a case to say that there should be even greater independence for the VMC – or whatever the organisation might be called as time goes forward.

We have a strong multicultural community. That is a great strength for Victoria – a great strength economically and a great strength socially – and we need to protect that. We need to make sure that multicultural communities can contribute the maximum to our community in every way. The VMC does have a very significant role in achieving that. As I have outlined, some of these changes that are proposed in our amendments are sensible, practical changes, but I do put on record my concern about the government’s behaviour over its 12 years in power. In its 12 years in power it has misused the VMC. When Daniel Andrews was there in particular it was just shocking, the way it was used, and the Kaushaliya Vaghela letter is a testament to that and the misbehaviour of many of these Labor factional groups.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:04): It is a pleasure today to rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Michael GALEA: Yes, Ms Terpstra, and actually talk about the bill. Victoria is of course one of the most multicultural places in the world and, I would argue, the most successful multicultural part of the world too. We come from more than 300 different ancestries, speak more than 290 languages and practise almost 200 different faiths. Almost half of us either were born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas, and that is especially true in my electorate, where we are very proud, with Dandenong as the heart of the south-east, of having one of the highest rates of new migrants and new migrant backgrounds anywhere in Australia. But a multicultural state is about much more than numbers; it is about the communities, the organisations, the places of worship and the volunteers that bring people together every single day. This bill is about making sure that the way that government works with those communities keeps pace with the Victoria that we are and that we love today.

As many members are aware, in December 2024 the Victorian government commissioned Victoria’s multicultural review. It was led by George Lekakis AO, with an expert advisory group. The review heard from more than 640 Victorians and more than 150 peak bodies and community groups. There were over 57 consultation sessions. The message was clear: our multicultural communities have changed, their needs have changed and the structures government uses to work with them need to change as well. The review made 41 recommendations. This bill delivers on a substantial number of them and a number of the changes arising from their work. Most importantly, though, this bill is about making sure that community voices are placed at the centre of decision-making within the new body.

The bill will establish a new statutory entity, replacing the Victorian Multicultural Commission, and I do wish to take a moment to acknowledge all of the VMC commissioners I have had the pleasure of getting to know over my time in Parliament, and in some cases previously as well, and acknowledge the contribution that VMC commissioners have made over many decades to this state. Despite the good work that they have done, the review found that the existing model had become fragmented. Community engagement, for example, sat in one place, while policy and programs could sit somewhere else. The new entity will bring these functions together. It will be led by a multicultural coordinator general and two deputy coordinators general, supported by a multicultural community advisory group. Their job will be to listen, engage and make sure that the experiences of multicultural and multifaith Victorians are being heard across government. Importantly, communities will also need to be told what happened after they were consulted. People should not spend their time attending consultations and sharing their experiences only to never hear what happens next. Listening needs to lead somewhere.

Another important change in this bill is the recognition of language services as an essential service for multicultural communities. For many Victorians interpreting can be the difference between fully understanding what a doctor is telling them and not understanding. It can be the difference between knowing their legal rights and being completely lost in a system they cannot navigate. This can be particularly important for older Victorians, who may rely on children or grandchildren to interpret for them. People should be able to access government services independently and with confidence.

This bill also provides for the Victorian Interpreting and Translating Service LanguageLoop to become the default language services provider for certain public entities where directed by the minister, with protections where VITS cannot provide this service. This has been the subject of some discussion already in the chamber today. I note the amendments of Mr Limbrick and indeed the fierce reaction this has received from many in the sector. This is a community that has been fighting for these protections to acknowledge the important work that they do for a very, very long time. I acknowledge the remarks by Pierce Tyson, who is the Victorian lead of Translators and Interpreters Australia, part of Professionals Australia, who is particularly scathing of these amendments on behalf of his members. He said:

Our members are nearly entirely migrant women providing translating and interpreting services across our courts, hospitals and public services in Victoria – they have no minimum hours, secure employment, paid leave or career paths. The Multicultural Victoria Bill, as originally proposed, is the result of more than half a decade of advocacy, to correct decades of wrong.

He continued:

Most of our members are unable to sustain language services as a main form of employment, while the private sector companies take the overwhelming share of taxpayer funds paid for translating services. The unamended bill will allow LanguageLoop to properly and accountably provide services affordable for the taxpayer and support a workforce that has been neglected for decades.

I am not surprised to hear the Liberal Party attacking this part of the bill – it is of course in their DNA to attack workers rights – but it would be extraordinarily disappointing if we were to see other so-called progressive parties supporting an amendment that would erode the public sector in this space, that would erode the working rights and entitlements that these people, often in many cases new migrants or longer term migrants themselves, have worked so hard to achieve. It would be extremely disappointing if that amendment were to pass this chamber today and knock back all of that hard-fought advocacy that the sector has worked for.

A few days ago, with many other colleagues in this place, including two I see in the room with us, I had the pleasure of attending the Premier’s Multicultural Gala Dinner with more than 1200 people for an evening celebrating an extraordinary display of diversity from across our state, with Thai dance; Persian music; Serbian dance, which was particularly impressive – I got to have a photo with the Serbian dancers and I was quite excited about that; Polynesian dance; and performances from across many different communities. It was also great, as with many other members there, to have some guests along with me. I was privileged to have members of Victoria’s Ukrainian community join me in recognition of the incredible amount of work that they do advocating for their community here and abroad. Whether it was members of the Sikh community, the Afghan community, the Persian community or the Tamil community, different parts of our community came together to celebrate what makes this state great. These are the sorts of people who make multicultural Victoria what it is: people who volunteer their time, organise events, run community groups, maintain cultural traditions and make sure that the next generation remains connected to the culture that they came from. It is something that I have remarked upon from time to time, as someone of fairly distant Maltese background – the way in which many generations of Maltese too readily gave up their culture and left people like me and my generation without that sense of background and culture that so many others continue to enjoy. It is absolutely the case that you can be resolutely and wholeheartedly Australian whilst retaining your cultural background. As someone who did not have the benefit of that particular part of my cultural ancestry growing up, it is something that I know to be incredibly important.

One of the reasons I am pleased to speak on this bill is because, as other members in this place do, I am very privileged to spend so much time getting to know and supporting different multicultural communities and different multifaith communities in and around my region. Just by way of example, earlier this month I was really delighted to join an event run by the Vedanta Centre of Melbourne and the Hindu Council of Australia for an evening with Swami Sarvapriyananda at the Springvale city hall. He was a visiting monk from New York – very, very popular – and it was one of the fuller occasions I have seen, with a packed house in a very large hall in Springvale. We were there to share some reflections and hear from the swamiji about different perspectives on a whole range of topics: purposeful living, mindfulness, meditation and the relationship between ancient wisdoms and cultures and modern science. For many Victorians faith is not separate from multiculturalism in any way; it is part of their family, their traditions and the community around them. This bill recognises that by giving greater recognition to multifaith communities throughout the act.

On another note, I also had the great privilege of joining Victoria’s Maltese community for the Maltese Community Council of Victoria’s (MCCV) annual high tea. It was wonderful to catch up with Antonia Camilleri and her son Joe, who did an amazing job in supporting her to run the event.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Michael GALEA: You were an apology, Mr Mulholland. We missed you. I am sure we will see you at the next one next year. And there was the Consul-General of Malta Dr Gioconda Schembri. Community organisations like the MCCV play such an important role in keeping people connected and making sure of the culture, such as the one that I talked about in my personal experience of having lost and had some reconnection with. It is so important for communities. In fact the MCCV was a place where long before Parliament I did spend some time trying to reconnect with my heritage by undertaking Maltese classes. It is particularly wonderful to see Edwidge, my old teacher, at these events.

Another very special event that was in my electorate recently was a celebration of 50 years of St Mary’s Armenian Apostolic Church. It was wonderful to attend the event in Wantirna South alongside the members for Mulgrave and Glen Waverley. For five decades St Mary’s has been far more than simply a church; it has been such a focal point for Victoria’s Armenian community – a centre of faith of course but of community, of gathering and of celebration too. It was a very special evening with some wonderful events and performances and a very special privilege to be part of that.

There are many other different events I have had the privilege of attending. With our Indian community, for example, there was a recent event with Deakin University students to celebrate India’s Independence Day. It was a terrific performance with lots of dancing, which I, for the benefit of the attendees, did not take part in on this occasion but on several others certainly have. I have certainly enjoyed the wonderful experience and the graciousness with which so many communities embrace us. Something that I do reflect on as I get to attend so many of these events in this job that we are privileged to have is the absolute, sheer graciousness and diversity of the types of celebrations and events that we have. It is about interconnectedness, coming back to the theme of this bill, bringing things together, and not just multicultural but intercultural, and how we can actually connect communities together and learn from each other. It is such a special thing, and it is such a beautiful spark that you see in people when they connect from different backgrounds and different communities. There is far more that unites us than divides us, and in fact it is such a special thing, as part of our Australian story and our Australian culture, to be a place where we can acknowledge 60,000 years of Indigenous settlement, where we can embrace those First Nations teachings, where we can acknowledge the contribution of generations of ancestors from the UK, from Ireland, from China and even from Afghanistan back in the day, and also really celebrate and acknowledge those more recent migrants and the contributions that they bring, making us all one stronger Australian and, in our case, Victorian community.

Another wonderful community celebration I had the privilege of attending recently was the Independence Day celebrations in the Ukrainian hall in Noble Park. I did mention this briefly in passing in a members statement, and we did have a very moving vigil at Federation Square earlier this week on Independence Day itself, where we acknowledged the horrors of what is being inflicted on the Ukrainian people right now as they mark their independence by fighting tooth and nail for their freedom. A couple of weekends ago at the Ukrainian hall it was wonderful to have a bit more of an upbeat celebration of Ukrainian food, Ukrainian culture and, once again, that unifying piece of communities coming together. In that spirit, it was wonderful to have members of the Latvian and Lithuanian communities in attendance as well, which are certainly bound by many close ties as well as common challenges, and to see the celebration of Latvian and Lithuanian culture with some very, very impressive Latvian dancing, I have to say. It was the first time I had seen a performance on the kanklės, a Lithuanian instrument, which was quite an illuminating experience. I know we have some members of the Lithuanian community working here in the parliamentary precinct as well who are very excited always to share, discuss and celebrate their heritage. I could continue talking, but I certainly do not have enough time to list all the events that I have been to in just a matter of weeks or months, even though I have got 15 minutes.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: Perhaps by leave, Ms Shing, we could consider that. But it would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without acknowledging the incredible contribution of my local Afghan community as well, whether it is the Hazara Shamama Association of Victoria or the Afghan locally engaged employees program.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: I am probably not going to mention individuals because I will be here all day, Ms Shing, but I wholeheartedly concur with your comment. Each and every member of the community is so passionate about being here, about being Australian and about contributing to the wonderful multicultural state that we are.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:19): I too rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026, and I also wish to give a shout-out to the number of multicultural groups in my region. There are so many that it is difficult to actually go through them all. I have spent the last 3½ years enjoying many feasts, many community events and many cultural opportunities to learn and to grow – not just cultural but also multifaith events. I feel like I have developed a whole lot of extended family members from around the world, and it has been an absolute joy. I want to shout out to a few of them actually today as we look at this bill, because at many of these events I have had the privilege of being there when the government have had their multicultural commissioners. It is not going to be possible to shout out to everybody, so I apologise in advance for anyone that has missed out. But I want to acknowledge, for instance, the Australian-Filipino Community Services and the Filipino Community Council of Victoria. I acknowledge at the Australian-Filipino Community Services the great work that Corina Dutlow has been doing. She is a Casey award winner, and she has done an incredible job with the social workers and with the community in helping these Filipina women that have become Australians, married into Australian families and then sometimes found themselves no longer with their husband, and it has been a real struggle for them. She also helps them with issues within the family – any domestic violence issues or any situations where families need additional support. It has been great to see the work of the Australian-Filipino Community Services and great to be able to meet someone that has won many awards in the City of Casey. It was also amazing to meet Gerry Ocampo, who has been the president there, and Ruby. We met them years ago, my husband and I, when they used to live in Rowville, so that was just a joy to see that they are still very active, now living in the west, and still very involved in the Filipino community.

Of course the Armenian National Committee of Australia used to be headed up by Michael Kolokossian in the area out here, with the chairperson Mr Vache Kahramanian. The ANC have been very active. I have had the opportunity to go to some of their benevolent societies, to visit their language school, to see the great work that they are actually doing in the community and to also visit Armenia alongside Armenians from my region. That was a tremendous privilege that has impacted my life, and I have a real heart for the people there and for their culture and for their desire to be able to live peacefully with the rest of the world. I have also had the opportunity to meet, along with my colleague Mr Mulholland, the Chaldean community, another amazing community, and the Assyrian community – wonderful people who have made Australia their home, made it their life ambition to become proficient in English, to get an education here and to give back to the community. It is so great to see the efforts that they go to when they get the opportunity to come to Australia. Many of them have come out of very difficult refugee camps and situations, and they are just so grateful to be here. Some of them have left family behind, so to be able to come here and participate and yet bring their rich cultural heritage has been a joy. I also think of the Bangladeshi community. I have been to quite a few Bangladeshi events, and it has been great to actually attend iftar dinners. I remember one with the chamber of commerce in Dandenong this year that was very memorable. I wish to make a shout-out to Mohammed Murad Yousaf and the team from the Australia Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce & Industry. They were just amazing to meet.

Tamil festivals: I have always attended Tamil festivals. It has been fantastic to go there. Of course my father was born in Sri Lanka, and his side of the family have been in Sri Lanka and miss Sri Lanka greatly. I have had the great opportunity to travel there and to see the nation and to meet with family that still live in Sri Lanka. So it has been wonderful to be around the Tamil organisation. There are so many groups that are Tamil that continue to have events in my region, with their headquarters there in Dandenong, and also throughout our community. Indian communities are numerous, and there are too many to mention. But I know that we had them up here only yesterday, and I have met them several times at many different events. The BAPS: I particularly want to shout-out to Deepali. I have known her now for years. I think I met her in 2018. It has been wonderful to attend community outreaches there and to go to some of the things, like the Bakhtar community events, as well. Those are just two different groups that I have mentioned now. There is the Cambodian society. There are the Afghan societies and the different groups that they have. There is the youth group that they have. A shout-out to Hafiz Asadi, the president of the Victorian Afghan Associations’ Network. There is the Cambodian Association of Victoria. It has been great to meet with presidents there. There is the Hindu Society of Victoria, and there is the Ukrainian one.

As was mentioned, I have been to a couple of Ukrainian events just recently to mark the 35th anniversary. The Ukrainian people had Latvian people and Lithuanian people also as part of some of their celebrations, so it was wonderful to be able to engage and to enjoy time with them. The Vietnamese community, of course, is massive in the Springvale area. They have a lot of temples as well in the area, and the Vietnamese and Chinese make Springvale a very, very vibrant community. There is the Chinese community, and we actually have a very small Jewish population as well. I am just so grateful to live in a community with such a rich cultural heritage. We have the Irish, the Dutch and the Italians. There are so many events and so many things that I get to go to. I am so grateful that the south-east is full of people that want to celebrate their cultural heritage but also want to embrace Australia as home.

We are looking at this particular bill. It is really interesting that the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026 includes changes to how the government goes about getting representation from the multicultural community. In this way it is actually going to have a lot of control. It is going to be looked at and controlled through the actual cabinet. I have mixed feelings about that, because I already feel that when we have had the multicultural commissioners come they have been very, very tied to the government. I must say, though, I have enjoyed their company at different events. They have always been very pleasant, but it does bother me that the three positions in particular that are going to be affected by this bill have been advertised and actually closed before the bill even came before the house. They were advertised in July and they closed by early August. I think it was 1 August that they closed. We have got this bill. We are at the end of August, and the bill has not even been passed, and they have already gone and done the advertising and probably already earmarked who they want for these positions.

The difficulty we have of course is that we have a government that likes to control everybody and everything and have the narrative all for themselves. As has been mentioned already by some of my colleagues, events have taken place where it has been all the multicultural groups coming together and there was no opportunity for the Liberals and Nationals to have a voice, to have a presentation, to give a speech or to be part of it. That has happened also in multifaith meetings and gatherings. Those have been enormous and obviously used taxpayers money but just so that the Labor Party would have the only voice at the table. That is really inappropriate. When we come into multifaith and multicultural communities, we should be sharing this space and coming together in a unified way, in a multipartisan presentation. Everyone should be able to be present and have a voice and be able to present themselves to these communities, because at the end of the day there are different members of Parliament from all sides that are representing some of these electorates, and they need to also know that they are going to be able to be present for the multicultural communities.

I have not even mentioned the South Pacific Islanders – the Samoans, the Fijians. Gosh, I am going to forget someone. There are so many people – the Kiwis, the Māori. There are a lot of different multicultural groups that I have actually not listed, and I have not listed some of the community leaders that I have had the great privilege and pleasure of spending time with. I cannot tell you all the number of dances and songs that I have had the opportunity to learn – and the amazing food. I think in my first couple of years in this place I put on maybe 20 kilos from doing sometimes five or six meals in a day at different multicultural events. Each Saturday and Sunday was just spent eating, eating, eating, and then during the week eating, eating, eating. Everybody was wanting me to try some particular dish that was theirs. I am very thankful that I think I have just about tried everything now so nobody is offended when I say I really need to pass this time because I put on too much weight. It has been great to be able to do that.

In looking at what this bill is going to mean for us, it is going to bring a different sense of representation for multicultural groups. It used to be that this was not political. We started this representation. I know that Labor likes to take all the credit for it, but we actually started the representation, with multifaith people too, with a great number of Liberal communities. Now we are looking at abolishing the Victorian Multicultural Commission and replacing the chair and commissioner model with a coordinator general model. We are going to be abolishing the existing regional advisory councils. The bill is also going to amend the principles of multiculturalism, noting the addition of the recognition of First Peoples as original custodians, according to the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. It is also going to change reporting requirements, replacing the old commission reporting model with a new ‘state of Multicultural Victoria’ annual report. I have to say that reports are great, but if it is not going to be done in a way that actually allows everyone to understand and celebrate all of the multiculturalism that takes place – and it is going to have this level of control – that is going to be a concern.

Under this particular government this is not going to be a shared experience. It is going to be a very political experience, and I do not think that it is healthy to bring that level of politics. It is already too political. Labor has tried to dominate the multicultural space for years, and it has been my great privilege and pleasure to make sure that the Liberals have had a very strong representation in the multicultural communities of the south-east and beyond, because I have been happy to travel beyond my borders, as have many of my colleagues, and we have really enjoyed being able to be part of multicultural communities. I know that they have embraced us, and they do not want to be controlled by one party. They want to be able to have a voice. They should have a voice. They are communities, but they are communities of individuals and individuals that must be able to have the same democratic processes as everybody else in this nation and to be able to have a voice. Just thinking that we can put something together that can be fully controlled by the government, especially if it is under a Labor government, is going to be very problematic for all Victorians.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:33): I rise to speak against this bill for two simple reasons: I believe that everyone should be treated equally before the law, and I believe that the resources of this state that this government takes in should be distributed fairly and according to need. Our political rights and our taxpayer dollars should never be distributed on the basis of our race or our culture or any other attribute. It should be equal under the law. Those in need are the ones to whom we give.

I just cannot believe that this is happening all over again. Yes, to me this looks exactly like dividing people up right before an election and coercing them to create voting blocs with their own taxpayer dollars, with their own God-given rights and with their own democratic rights. I actually think it is atrocious. It is absolutely atrocious. It is outrageous, and I am 100 per cent against that. I think it is racist. I think it is self-evidently racist to allocate laws and resources on the basis of race, not need. There is no excuse for that. I also think it has been very strange to listen to these speeches. I mean, someone could have arranged a game of bingo: how many times could someone say ‘multicultural’? How many multicultural events could each MP say that they have been to? How many multicultural types of food or how much multiculturalism was in their personal family? I mean, have we all forgotten Justin Trudeau’s blackface in private and multicultural dancing in public? It is obscene, it is racist, it is exploitative, and I am not having any part of it. I think that any kind of society needs a critical core of agreed ground rules, agreed norms and agreed cultural values. The only way that you can make room for real differences and real, legitimate expression of those differences is if you have the right to be different, if you have the right to disagree, and those rights cannot be protected if the government starts picking favourites.

Also, I find it really interesting that we have just passed treaty. I cannot work out whether Labor think that Australia is unceded land and that nobody else should be here but the Aboriginals or that it is theirs to just open wide for the whole world to come in. I actually cannot work out what the stance is there.

At the end of the day a house divided cannot stand, and I really dislike the way that multiculturalism pits people against one another on the basis of their race. They start competing for resources on the basis of their race, and then people in here bemoan the fact that suddenly there is racism out on the streets. The laws made in this place encourage our kids to think of themselves in racial boxes and to think of themselves as being in competition for resources and rights and oppression. It is just –

Members interjecting.

Moira DEEMING: Was that to me? I almost went into full teacher mode. I was like –

Members interjecting.

Moira DEEMING: Okay, that is fine. Apologies, nobody told me to shut up in the chamber, so that is good.

My basic opposition to this is just that I believe in equality before the law. I do not think it is impossible that we can objectively measure the needs of anyone in our community and provide for their needs that are based on race, such as language translation. I think, again, it is just classic leftism to centralise the power into a new body. I think it is quite ironic that you have got this military language for your titles now. But again, this is just the heart of the difference in the political philosophy that I hold, which is to maximise freedom, to maximise as much as you can getting done in civil society. The law is not the answer, is not the tool for every single problem in society. I think that there are some things that are best dealt with without corrupting the law. If it takes corruption of the law to fix a problem, you are not fixing anything long term. It is that gaslighting, it is that comfortable lie, rather than dealing with the truth, and the truth is that if we want everyone to get along in Australia, then everybody, absolutely everybody – even the members in this place – needs to be submissive to the same set of laws. It is just a matter of things being fair.

A country can contain people of many ancestries and ethnicities, and Australia proves that every day. I am not going to degrade myself by bringing up my own multicultural heritage. I do not need to, because I should just be an equal participant in this society with equal rights. I am not going to virtue-signal about how much brown I have got in me. I think that is insulting and racist somehow to people that are more brown than me. The harder question is whether people with all of these differences share enough common culture to live together freely, to trust one another and to accept the same laws. When it is convenient, we reduce multiculturalism to food and festivals and clothing and language, but it is more than that. It is about the expectations, about how we live together, what is right and wrong and how we settle disputes. That means that the law is not the first place where these things should be decided. Parliament can punish theft, but honesty has to exist long before disputes reach the courts. Parliament can prohibit violence, but peaceful disagreement depends on millions of people practising restraint of their own free volition. Parliament can try and protect freedom of speech, but that freedom only survives while citizens accept that offensive ideas are actually answered and better defeated with better ideas.

A free society therefore requires a critical core of common culture. Families can preserve different languages, customs and traditions but only those within the agreed boundaries of the law that we have all decided together. I think that the basis of Australia, what makes Australia so attractive to the rest of the world – or what should be what makes us attractive to the rest of the world – is our Western values: freedom of speech, equality before the law and the value of the individual. I view those as the best set of ground rules that has ever been discovered for helping people who are different get along and work out their differences without violence. And I think that laws like this, bills like this, undo the absolute foundation of everything that has been built up that made Australia attractive as a place to come to in the first instance.

I have put forward an amendment, which can be circulated now. My amendment is pretty simple. It is just making sure that the purpose of this bill does not advantage or disadvantage any people or group on the basis of their race or their culture or anything like that. Like I said, I believe in equality before the law. I believe that no matter how well intentioned these things may be, they are going to end in bitter division in our society. We have got to find a way forward in peace. We cannot be perpetually putting ourselves in boxes and identifying differently to each other nonstop in a way that means that resources are actually allocated separately. I thought that was the Australian dream. I thought that was what Bob Hawke loved. He loved Australia. I cannot imagine Bob Hawke supporting something that pitted Aussies against each other.

It used to be that when you came to Australia, you embraced Australian values. That does not mean that you abandon your heritage or you disown your people. It does not mean that. It means that you embrace and you believe in this new nation that you are now a part of and the critical, core sets of values that you are going to abide by. It is the only way that we can actually move forward together, with those ground rules. It allows for differences and mutual respect and infantilises nobody. It is the only way to have a respectful society.

I was thinking about Manh, who came to live with us when I ran as the candidate in St Albans. He turned up on day one in a red T-shirt, a Labor T-shirt – nice kid. The next day he comes up and he says, ‘Are you Moira Deeming?’ I said, ‘Yes,’ and he said, ‘I want to hand out for you.’ I said, ‘Why is that?’ He said, ‘Because I just realised that they’re the communists’ – it is a true story. He had just fled communism. He was immediately, off that boat, funnelled by Labor into their groups and put out in a T-shirt straightaway before he even understood who they were.

I was thinking about the fact that the other thing that this kind of bill does, which I really loathe and despise, is it creates these little pyramid schemes where some group of people can appoint themselves as the peak body or the peak representative group of whatever cultural group or racial group it is. I just think that is ridiculous, because when Manh came to Melbourne he was absolutely exploited – sleeping on the floor with a bunch of other Vietnamese asylum seekers – by one of these peak representative bodies that Labor picked. They were not good representatives. And there was this monetary incentivisation of that. I just think it is much better that we treat everybody equally, that we do not allow these little pyramid schemes to pop up everywhere, where you have got people who look like the same nationality as the people they claim to represent. What has that got to do with whether they really care about anybody or not? That is not a good standard of evidence. Nobody voted them in, and yet they get to speak on behalf of everybody in that group for some reason.

Again, I think that is racist. I think it does not work. I am not saying that there are bad intentions over there; I have just seen it fail. I have seen it silence people because they have already got some representative. They do not want that. They want to speak for themselves and they want to ask for what they need for themselves, and we should listen to them individually and help them individually. I do not think it is that complicated, and I do not think we cannot do it. I think it is what made Australia great. That is why I am opposing this bill.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:45): I rise to make a contribution on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026 and confirm that Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting the bill. The bill implements recommendations from the 2025 Victorian multicultural review Rebuilding Trust for a Multicultural Victoria and aims to modernise engagement with our diverse migrant and refugee communities. The reforms mark the most significant restructure of the state’s multicultural affairs framework in decades, abolishing the Victorian Multicultural Commission and replacing it with a new statutory body, Multicultural Victoria.

According to the 2021 census data, Victoria is home to some 300 distinct ethnicities, and there are more than 140 different faiths followed and more than 290 languages and dialects spoken in this state. I am privileged to represent the Western Metropolitan Region, like other members of this chamber, and I am really proud that it is one of the most multicultural regions in Australia. I am really proud that the most multicultural community in this country is Point Cook, followed in second place by Werribee, which is home to members of this chamber. There is within those communities a richness and there is within those communities a desire not simply to represent the interests of their community but to build a better and a stronger Australia. While we are standing here talking about creating a new structure to democratically represent those communities, to advocate for those communities, to work for the good of those communities, I am just gobsmacked – my apologies. I am actually really having difficulty coming to grips with what has just been said, because the organisations that represent those communities are in and of themselves incredibly politically diverse. None of those communities are homogenous politically. There is a diversity of views about everything you would like to point to. And to have that reduced to a pyramid scheme, a criminal entity – for goodness sake.

Moira Deeming interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, I know you said what you said, Mrs Deeming. I am just gobsmacked that you could be so incredibly racist as to say it. This is a place for freedom of speech, but this is not a place for vilification. This is not a place to take cheap shots. I do not know whether Mrs Deeming is making a late run for One Nation preselection and she is going for the right of the party –

A member: They won’t have her.

David ETTERSHANK: Funny that – or whether, if she is going to run this ‘Anything that is multicultural is’ –

David Limbrick: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Ettershank is reflecting on another member, and I ask that he bring his comments back to the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Ettershank, it is best not to reflect on someone else in the chamber. I ask you to continue on the bill.

David ETTERSHANK: I will no longer reflect upon the personal traits of a member. I think, however, we are a chamber of review and of debate, so perhaps we can mention some of the thoughts that were shared in this chamber only a few minutes ago and still be within the spirit of our being here and being paid. I think hopefully that would be in your comfort zone.

In the context of having a bill before us to strengthen the representation of multicultural communities, it is, to my mind, startling to have a proposition put that it is made up of pyramid schemes and that somehow because we seek to create a society that is unique on this planet – this is Australia, this is a multicultural country. I do not want to know about monoculturalism. In that context it is, to me, deeply depressing for people to get up and say that to try and build, strengthen and enrich our multicultural society is somehow racist. That is so un-Australian, that is so unegalitarian, and it is below the standards that should apply in this chamber or in this debate. I will leave it there, and I will just move back to my speech now, if I may.

Over 49 per cent of Victorians either were born overseas or have a parent born overseas. More than 41 per cent of Victorians reported having both parents born overseas. The proportion of those Victorians hailing from primarily non-English-speaking countries is a staggering 77 per cent, which is the highest percentage of any Australian jurisdiction. Over 27 per cent of Victorians speak a language other than English at home.

The Victorian Multicultural Commission was a groundbreaking initiative when it formed in 1983 under the Cain government. In place of assimilation, it adopted active multiculturalism in government policy. What a stark contrast to what we have just heard. The VMC was effectively a bridge between Victoria’s multicultural communities and the government. However, in recent times, as Victoria has faced increasing challenges around social cohesion, these communities have been left largely unheard. There was a general sense that the VMC had lost its way and was failing to appropriately respond to the rising ignorance and intolerance in our community, as we have just seen.

The government commissioned a multicultural review, seeking recommendations on how government could better respond to current challenges and position Victoria to address future social cohesion issues and crises more effectively. The independent panel, which was headed by George Lekakis, conducted targeted public consultations across Victoria and received more than 150 submissions to the review. It heard evidence of how government has really dropped the ball and failed our multicultural communities in the last 10 years. They have not enjoyed some sort of illusory financial nirvana, which seemed to be being suggested. Those consultations as part of the review process revealed the enormous distress being experienced by our multicultural communities, particularly in the wake of the COVID pandemic. Stakeholders believed the commission was becoming more and more politicised, was ineffective in dealing with increasingly complex social cohesion issues and was removed from the communities that it sought to represent. Many organisations felt the government’s engagement with them was merely transactional and not at all consultative. It was evidenced that the Victorian Multicultural Commission was no longer fit for purpose and a complete overhaul of the state’s approach to multiculturalism was required. So it is good to see this bill finally coming to the house. The response from stakeholders that I have spoken to has been overwhelmingly positive. The principles recognising that multicultural and multifaith communities are diverse and that individuals within them hold intersecting and diverse identities are very positive, as is the recognition that inclusion relies on interaction, shared belonging and mutual respect, not just coexistence.

It is also pleasing to see language services recognised as an essential service for multicultural communities and the requirement that certain public sector entities should prioritise acquiring interpreting and translating services from the Victorian Interpreting and Translating Service LanguageLoop. This is a welcome inclusion for a workforce that has been increasingly subject to insecure, casual and contracting arrangements, with limited protection for workers, most of whom are migrant women who provide translating and interpreting services across a range of settings, including Victoria’s courts, hospitals and public services.

I understand that there is a proposal from Mr Limbrick to eliminate that preference for LanguageLoop, and I just want to note that whilst there are a lot of really, really wonderful people who work in translation in Victoria, it is, for want of a better term, an industrial swamp. Overwhelmingly, the women who do that work, who are highly qualified, generally NAATI-accredited, either work on an independent contractor basis for crumbs or work in profoundly casualised employment, with no appropriate EBA coverage or regulation. I welcome the government stepping up and saying that this is an area where as a multicultural society – as such a multicultural society – we should have secure employment and we should have clearly controlled professional standards via that service. So I thank the government for taking that initiative and indicate that we will be supporting the bill and its inclusion and we will be opposing any amendments to remove it. The reforms in the bill will basically allow LanguageLoop to provide affordable services, and it is a workforce that has been neglected for decades, so let us change that.

There are some missed opportunities in this bill. It would have provided an excellent opportunity to support and align the work of the new statutory body with the Victorian anti-racism strategy and to reference anti-racism work explicitly as part of its functions. I think that is a very disappointing omission from the bill before us.

Stakeholders have raised concerns around aspects of the legislation, which I will address in the committee stage. I think the opposition are moving an amendment to disallow the appointment of a member of Parliament, a councillor, a ministerial officer or a parliamentary adviser to the role of multicultural coordinator or deputy coordinator within 12 months of holding their previous position, which we support.

The government is to be commended for implementing the majority of the review’s recommendations, including a requirement for a whole-of-government approach to Victoria’s multicultural strategy. Our multicultural and multifaith communities should be represented across all government entities, including this one. Parliament, of all places, should be reflective of the whole of our community. We are here, after all, to represent all of the Victorian people. As I noted earlier, whilst Christianity may be the most common faith in Victoria, 54 per cent of Victorians – more than half of all Victorians – follow one of more than 140 faiths different to Christianity. Despite a commitment made in 2021 by the then Attorney-General Minister Symes that:

A Labor government, if re-elected, at the beginning of the next term and as part of the consideration of changes to standing and sessional orders will commit to workshopping a replacement model that is purpose-fit for Victoria …

it is disappointing that we are all still stuck in the dated and highly inappropriate tradition of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each sitting week. It is so bleedingly obvious that Victoria has changed since the Lord’s Prayer was introduced into the parliamentary rituals.

A member: 1857, actually.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you. History moves on. It did not just stop in 1853, at a time when 100 per cent of those eligible to vote in this state were white Christian male property owners. Building social cohesion involves recognising the cultural diversity that exists in this state, and it should be first and foremost recognised in this Parliament, in this chamber. Parliament should be a model of inclusivity, and yet the Lord’s Prayer effectively excludes all of those other faiths. Inclusivity is an ongoing exercise. Removing the Lord’s Prayer from parliamentary proceedings would be a strong signal to the more than 54 per cent of Victorians who do not identify as Christians that they belong here too and that this is their house of Parliament as much as the next person’s. Let us get rid of it and replace it with a minute of silence. During this time members can silently recite whatever prayer best represents their faith, or they can reflect on their responsibility as a member of Parliament – surely a ritual no less sacred – so that, combined, we can have a tradition that truly is reflective of all Victorians.

I just want to finish with a quote from Mrs Deeming, who said that ‘A house divided cannot stand.’ That is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I reckon he would be rolling in his grave if he knew the lengths that that term was being extended to in the context of this debate. Perhaps it could be argued that the abolition of slavery was racist because those people were born to be slaves. Is that where that logic takes us? I mean, if every multicultural organisation in the state is a pyramid scheme, I do not suppose it is any more ridiculous.

I want to suggest that this is a good bill that deserves support, because it reinforces multiculturalism – at a time when immigration, personal rights and egalitarianism are under attack. We have angry folks, with good questions but no answers, from One Nation. We are seeing crowds being frothed up and made upset because they are not so narrow-minded as some would aspire. This bill provides a basis for refreshing multiculturalism in Victoria. Legalise Cannabis Victoria welcomes it and will be supporting it.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:03): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. Victoria is home to one of the most culturally rich societies in the world, and we are among the fastest growing and most diverse states in Australia. Almost one-third of our population was born overseas, and over half have at least one parent that was born overseas. We have more than 260 languages and 135 different faiths in the Victorian community, and we are better for it.

This bill represents a significant restructure in Victoria’s multicultural affairs framework. It replaces the Victorian Multicultural Commission with a new statutory body, Multicultural Victoria, with the stated aim of strengthening the voices of multicultural and multifaith communities in government decision-making and responding to the recommendations of the 2024 multicultural review. I commend the government for this piece of legislation. But while this bill makes important structural and operational changes to Victoria’s multicultural affairs framework, we must do more than restructure institutions. We must invest in and strengthen the support available to our culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

As our community becomes more diverse, we need to ensure that organisations that serve these communities are well funded and supported. This is critical to social cohesion and inclusion. We must recognise that multicultural organisations are not simply service providers; they are trusted community partners. Supporting grassroots organisations that work directly with diverse communities is incredibly important. These organisations are often the bedrocks of our communities. They serve our communities and have deep understanding of the cultural, social and economic barriers that communities face.

The region that I represent, the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, is a proudly culturally diverse community, with close to 35 per cent of its population born overseas. I would like to use this opportunity to mention some of the amazing community organisations in my region that I work with from time to time. I recently visited the Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre in Dandenong. For more than 30 years the Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre has been supporting migrants and refugees across the south-east of Melbourne. They have provided culturally responsive community-based services across Greater Dandenong, Casey, Cardinia and surrounding communities, helping people access social, economic, health and wellbeing support in their own languages. As Victoria becomes increasingly diverse, organisations like SMRC are essential in supporting newly arrived migrants, who sometimes struggle to navigate unfamiliar systems, services and institutions. They provide a trusted, culturally responsive bridge between communities and the services that they need, helping people overcome language and cultural barriers, understand their rights, access support and build confidence and connection in their new community. They help people feel welcome. Their commitment to human rights and their strong advocacy for their people make organisations like SMRC critical to building more inclusive, connected and equitable communities in our proudly multicultural state.

Similarly, South East Community Links, SECL, is an organisation that has been around for more than 50 years. On Tuesday night South East Community Links held Bring Your Bills, an event in Hampton Park where close to 1500 individuals and families showed up and received support. The strong turnout reflects two things: (1) people trust that South East Community Links can provide them that service and (2) the growing financial pressure on families across the south-east is evident. Many people came seeking help with essentials: energy bills, mortgages and personal loans. This highlights the significant unmet need for accessible and local financial support in the community. Support like this is particularly important for our culturally diverse communities. For newly arrived migrants and refugees navigating complex financial systems, bills, government services and support programs can be overwhelming, particularly when English is not their first language. People may also be unaware of the services available to them or hesitant to seek help because of language barriers, cultural expectations or lack of trust in mainstream institutions. Events like Bring Your Bills demonstrate the importance of meeting Victorians where they are at and providing practical help close to home. As the south-eastern suburbs continue to become more culturally diverse, we must ensure that community organisations have the resources they need to provide culturally appropriate, accessible and trusted support.

I would also like to acknowledge Wellsprings for Women, which recently celebrated its 32nd anniversary with the launch of its new strategic plan – and I was honoured to attend that event. For more than three decades Wellsprings has played an important role in supporting migrant and refugee women across Melbourne’s south-east. What began as a kitchen table dream has grown into a trusted and vital community organisation, one that understands the challenges faced by women when settling into a new country and building a new life. Wellsprings does much more than provide services; it creates a place where women feel welcomed, connected and empowered. It helps women navigate systems, build confidence and skills, access education and employment and strengthen their connections with their community. Hearing directly from women who have been supported by Wellsprings is perhaps the strongest testament to the importance of their work. They feel seen, connected and welcomed. Their stories remind me that behind every program and every service is a person who has found connection, confidence, safety and a sense of belonging. Their stories make clear why we must ensure that organisations like Wellsprings for Women are appropriately funded and supported.

Grassroots organisations are often best placed to understand the needs of their communities and to reach people who may otherwise fall through the gaps. Investing in organisations like Wellsprings is not simply about funding services; it is about investing in more connected communities. When we invest in trusted community organisations, we invest in inclusion. We are creating stronger pathways into health, social and community services, empowering Victorians and ensuring that services are delivered with respect, cultural awareness and a testament that they actually do work. Ultimately, building a truly multicultural Victoria means building a community where diversity is not simply acknowledged but supported and valued and where every person, every family and every community has an opportunity to thrive.

Importantly, it is not an exaggeration to say that community organisations are on the front line of some of our most challenging issues. They are often best placed to identify and build awareness around family violence, challenge harmful attitudes, identify people who may otherwise remain invisible to the mainstream system and connect people with specialist services. But to do this they need resourcing. We cannot expect small community organisations to carry out critical prevention, early intervention and referral work without sustainable funding. We welcome the changes represented in this bill but ask the government to be mindful that they must be backed by appropriate resourcing to make a meaningful difference. On behalf of the Legalise Cannabis Party, we support this bill.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (17:12): I rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026, and I want to begin my contribution on this bill by centring and honouring the voices of multicultural communities, those who participated in the multicultural review consultations and many more out there who bring communities together every day in the struggle for being embraced, accepted and treated as equal. They are the real architects of bridge-building in our communities. Whether it is the local women’s weaving club, local cooking classes, language schools or community playgroups, these are the ways that multicultural communities are flipping walls into bridges. Today I speak as a migrant who understands that we cannot talk about belonging and inclusion without first recognising and respecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ enduring connection to country and culture and how this is at the heart of how we build a multicultural Victoria in 2026 and beyond, especially in the new, treaty era. We most definitely cannot talk about this bill without confronting what multicultural communities are facing right now: the poison of systemic racism, violent anti-migrant rhetoric and an emboldened far-right movement scapegoating migrants for the cost-of-living and housing crises.

Racism has always been a part of Australia’s British imperial history. With their arrival came racialised ideas acted upon by colonisation and pillaging of labour, land and people. This legacy has not changed much. You still see racialised ideas embedded in government policies and actions. Politics and governments are still a playground for white people, with the exception of a few sprinkles of colour and culture here and there. This is not multiculturalism; it is tokenism within systems of power that remain predominantly white. I note that it has been 53 years since the end of the White Australia policy – a policy that was all about racial exclusion. With the likes of One Nation we are seeing a dangerous rise in the risk of handing over our prosperity, trust and safety to a con artist like Pauline Hanson, unashamedly sponsored by billionaires.

I now want to talk about the bill, and from the outset, while heading in the right direction, it does not go anywhere near addressing issues in the community to promote unity and belonging. For goodness sake, it does not even mention racism or discrimination. This is a significant omission which dances around the real reason there was a need for the bill in the first place. To truly tackle the scale of racial hate, vilification and attacks being felt by communities across Victoria, we must first name racism plainly. This Labor government must not be scared to name and confront racism, including systemic racism embedded in public institutions and services. Institutional racism is getting worse, not better, with the number of multicultural and First Nations children and young people in Victoria’s justice and child protection systems rising. To truly tackle racism in our communities, it must start here in this place. To not include the word ‘racism’ in this bill is to disrespect the experiences of many people who generously came forward and shared personal and, for many, traumatic experiences in good faith through the multicultural review. The scourge of racism, discrimination and hate is disproportionately affecting Asian, African, Muslim and Jewish communities. If racism and religious intolerance are not named and therefore go unchallenged, it only emboldens extremist narratives and fractures community cohesion.

This bill brings together the functions of two separate bodies: the Victorian Multicultural Commission and the departmental functions of the multicultural and multi-faith Victoria portfolio. We all know the VMC was a toothless tiger that was ceremonial and hamstrung in advocating for communities. This bill also establishes a new statutory entity, Multicultural Victoria, led by the newly established role of multicultural coordinator general and supported by two deputies, including one from regional Victoria. The Greens hope that those who occupy these roles do so not just impartially but fearlessly and courageously to the government of the day. This role, may I add, has been advertised before this bill has been passed through Parliament – not a good sign. And of all the names the government could have chosen for these important roles, it chose a militaristic tone, telling multicultural communities, ‘We see you, but you still need to be managed and controlled.’

The Victorian multicultural review identified a gap in how community engagement works together with policy and grants. The Greens see an important role for the new statutory body Multicultural Victoria to play in helping to fill this gap and ensuring equitable access and distribution of these opportunities to communities fairly. The bill also creates a multicultural community advisory group – MCAG – and regional engagement groups. The MCAG will be established by the minister, who sets out how many members will be appointed. The Greens welcome the bill’s commitment to having a member between 18 and 24 years old and to diverse membership for MCAG. MCAG and the regional engagement groups also play a really important role in supporting the work of Multicultural Victoria with impartiality.

I also want to talk about the action and inclusion plans, which serve to strengthen a whole-of-government multicultural strategy. This will involve requiring government departments to produce action and inclusion plans every four years. The Greens are supportive of the government’s commitment to improving access to cultural inclusion and strengthening outcomes for multicultural communities. For too long government has failed to consider multicultural communities in decision-making. They have been left behind across housing, education, child protection, health care, disability support, justice, transport and the essential services people rely on every day. These action plans are the first of many more steps to come towards a more equitable and inclusive Victoria.

Another important change introduced by this bill which the Greens wholeheartedly support is to update the principles of multiculturalism to acknowledge First Peoples’ right to self-determination and the advancement of Statewide Treaty making between First Peoples in Victoria and the state. Recognising treaty in the principles of multiculturalism reflects that multiculturalism cannot be separated from truth, justice and self-determination for First Nations peoples.

I want to talk about how the report recommended that language services should be declared as an essential service. The Greens support the principle that translation and interpreting services are essential to ensuring inclusion and equitable access to services. However, the Greens have heard concerns raised by the sector – from interpreters, translators and language service providers – about the lack of consultation undertaken by the government in the development of this bill. The Greens condemn the government’s utter disregard for genuine, good-faith consultation. This is not good enough, considering the number of changes to the way the sector will operate that are proposed in this bill. Engagement must be comprehensive, meaningful and inclusive, and this has not been the case.

The multicultural review also made a number of recommendations to strengthen leadership of the multicultural affairs portfolio, which this bill will not be implementing – namely, the appointment of a parliamentary secretary to assist the minister; the appointment of a standalone minister for multicultural affairs; maintaining the portfolio within the Department of Premier and Cabinet, with ongoing oversight by the Premier; and requiring multicultural impact statements in cabinet and ministerial submissions, an amendment that I will be circulating shortly.

The review understood that the complex problems confronting multicultural communities need to be addressed jointly by a whole-of-government approach in which elected ministers must be accountable. The review did not recommend transferring executive functions from the minister to the coordinator general, blurring where political responsibility sits; what we are seeing here is the Labor government handballing their responsibility for multicultural communities off to a department head. This is an abdication of real institutional leadership. Historically, we saw the multicultural affairs portfolio sit with the premiers; we saw that in the Bracks and the Kennett eras. Instead we have seen this portfolio go through different cabinet ministers in this term alone, really signalling that this government has no interest in serving multicultural communities in the long run.

Rather than heeding this recommendation, this Victorian Labor government has gone ahead and put the multicultural affairs portfolio and the police portfolio under the same minister. Communities of colour who continue to bear the brunt of racial profiling and discriminatory policing are now meant to believe that the minister overseeing police and multicultural affairs can wear the two hats and be subjective. This is the wrong message to be sending communities. You are literally telling communities out there that they have to choose between being heard or being policed, reinforcing control, surveillance and your lack of trust of these communities, communities that I proudly belong to. With respect to some of these concerns, the Greens have proposed some amendments which, if I could ask, may be circulated now, please.

Our first amendment is in relation to the multicultural impact statement for cabinet submissions. This gives effect to recommendation 1(d) of Victoria’s multicultural review by requiring that all cabinet submissions include an assessment of the potential impacts on multicultural affairs, inclusion and social cohesion. This is about making sure these impacts are not an afterthought; they should be routinely and systematically considered before government decisions are made so that cabinet can properly understand how proposed policies and programs may affect multicultural and multifaith communities.

Amendment 2 is for reporting frameworks introduced in the bill to also include data on racism or hate incidents. To partially implement recommendation 11 in the Victorian multicultural review, the amendment would enable the multicultural communities advisory group – MCAG – through its existing consultation processes to obtain relevant information about reported racism and hate incidents and provide advice based on that information. This is important because we cannot properly understand the state of multicultural affairs if we do not understand the racism and hate being experienced by people in our communities. Collecting this information will help identify patterns and emerging issues and give government a clearer picture of what communities are actually experiencing.

Amendment 3 puts important privacy protections around this new function with MCAG. Where information about racism or hate incidents is collected, individuals must be protected from having their personal information disclosed. The amendment makes clear that personal information must not be included in advice provided to Multicultural Victoria under this new function. People must come forward and share their experiences without fear that their personal information will be exposed or exploited. The Greens have been very careful to ensure that this amendment strengthens our understanding of racism and hate while at the same time protecting the privacy and safety of the people who have experienced it.

I now want to bring in the voices of those who participated in Victoria’s multicultural review, which instigated this bill this afternoon. One contributor said:

Do not just ask us to apply – ask us to shape. Don’t label us as ‘vulnerable’ – see us as visionary. Respect our intelligence, our time and our voice. Invite us into the conversation – because a policy not built with us cannot serve us.

This quote is not only powerful but emblematic of the way this government has approached and treated multicultural communities when it comes to inclusive engagement. They have allowed relationships with communities to weaken and multicultural policies to decay over time. We now have a Labor government that is more interested in putting bureaucratic ethos ahead of equity and the democratic needs of its citizens – always a top-down approach, never a co-creational process. This government fails to understand that a strong multicultural policy benefits everyone. It does not just benefit the black and brown people, it is the thread that weaves through my humanity to my colleagues, to my friends, to my neighbours and so on.

The stories of migrants are ones of strong vision, knowledge, expertise, culture and lived experience. Multicultural talent has helped build this state, and too often credit is not given where it is due, especially as more than 50 per cent of our population in Australia was born overseas or has a parent that was born overseas.

Governments like this one come into communities to consult, survey, review and ask opinions, but if you do not collect the right data you cannot see the problem, and if you cannot see the problem you cannot solve it – no data, no follow-through and no accountability. This could not be clearer than in the findings of the Legislative Council Environment and Planning Committee’s report in 2026 on community consultation practices, an inquiry that dropped 28 recommendations and a clear message, as reported by MosaicLab and other stakeholders, that the standard of government engagement in Victoria is not good enough. The frameworks exist, except this government does not practise them or even follow them. This does not surprise me, as I am sure it does not anyone here either. This government operates with such smugness and entitlement that even parliamentary inquiries and reports point to their failures to engage communities respectfully and properly. This same inquiry heard from peak bodies and communities about how poorly structured consultation creates fertile ground for misinformation and political exploitation, where too often consultation feels like it is designed to inform rather than engage. A compliance step where you have your say has become a warning, not an invitation.

When you look at the state of social cohesion, just look at the warning signs from the Scanlon Foundation’s social cohesion reports – targeting of ethnic religious minorities and anti-migrant rallies are signs of a fracturing society and a decline in core elements of social cohesion. Instead of doing something constructive to combat this increase in pessimism for the future and erosion of trust in governments, this Victorian Labor government just takes it up a notch in the wrong direction. Let us look at the undignified announcements of the public housing demolition decision. This heartless Victorian Labor government did not even have the courage to look public housing residents in the face and tell them they had just sold them out to major property developers – their homes, their communities, their neighbourhoods, their friends and their families all gone, traded in for profit.

On the front lines bearing the brunt of these government decisions are, well, multicultural communities, but the question I have here is: why did this Victorian Labor government have to commission the multicultural review in 2024 in the first place? Why, with all the machinery of government, all the resources and all the so-called expertise and infrastructure at its disposal, did this government need to go back and seek the help of someone like Mr Lekakis to understand that multicultural policy is not just about programs and funding but about people, relationships, trust, culture, lived experience, community and Victorian values, which this Labor government has completely severed ties with? Everything now is just about optics, media releases and photo opportunities – being seen to be acting but not really doing.

We are here with this bill because they have failed to do the deep work to understand the tensions, the cultural nuances, the strengths and the vulnerabilities that exist within and between communities. Look at the firebombing of synagogues, look at the attacks on mosques and look at the men, women and children being attacked publicly. Every week we are hearing and reading about these racism-fuelled attacks on fellow Victorians. This government’s response is a media release that says, ‘We back you.’ But where is the action and the unconditional commitment that says to all these communities, ‘You matter. We know how difficult it is and how difficult it can be, and we are prepared to pull up our sleeves and show up for you’? A message that demonstrates racism and its function to distract and destroy and leave communities to explain over and over again what they need to feel trusted and feel safe – this is what is happening right now in our communities. Every time they come under fire and every time they become vilified, they have to explain themselves over and over again. Where is the unconditional commitment and action from this government? This bill has to mean something and has to be transformative, because the world outside this place is harmful, and when you try to speak up you do so at the risk of your own safety. Let me tell you, this is not an exaggeration. I get phone calls and people in the community telling me how fearful and scared they are for their children, their wives, their grandparents and their siblings. It is really hard for me to hear these accounts, and that is why I am fighting alongside my Greens colleagues so hard in this place.

We do not know who will be the new multicultural and multifaith minister in the next few months, after November, but whoever –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: We do not know, Mr Mulholland, so let us not jump the gun there. If you think it is going to be you, I hope you are listening, Mr Mulholland. But to whoever occupies this ministry now and into the future: I hope that you have the courage that is needed to occupy this portfolio for the communities. We hope that you will be courageous and a fighter for those who continue to be innocent victims of systems that betray them over and over again. The Greens support the passing of this bill and commend it to the house.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (17:32): I am really proud to speak and to sum up the debate on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment Bill 2026. This bill, at its heart, is a result of a body of work that the Labor government commissioned in December 2024 to review our multicultural settings in the wake of the Adass Israel terrorist attack and multiple years of a very distressing time for many of our multicultural communities. This Victorian multicultural review was commissioned because the environment of our multicultural institutions and organisations has dramatically altered since the Victorian Multicultural Commission was instituted. We are more diverse than ever before, and we are stronger because of it. But it also means the government needs to be more responsive to the needs of our multicultural communities.

I want to thank George Lekakis AO and the targeted advisory group of Carmel Guerra, Hass Dellal, Miriam Suss and Mark Duckworth, all esteemed figures in our multicultural community, for their dedicated work to deliver the Victorian multicultural review and, as such, their work in delivering this bill. They consulted with over 640 Victorians. They held hundreds of meetings with community groups and dozens of round tables right across the state. The review made a number of recommendations to government, and we are getting on with delivering them.

Establishing Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria is the cornerstone of this reform. It builds on and recognises the significant legacy of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. Indeed I want to extend my thanks and acknowledgement to current and former chairs and commissioners of the VMC for their incredible work. This bill will strengthen the way government engages with, listens to and delivers for our multicultural and multifaith communities. There has been some broad debate in the chamber this afternoon about the history of our multicultural institutions, the merits of certain parts of this reform and the reasons for certain amendments. Despite the way in which some members are reflecting on multicultural communities in less than positive ways, this is an incredibly positive piece of work that our Labor government is proud to deliver.

The bill creates a proud new multicultural and multifaith institution for Victoria. It gives that body and the coordinator general expansive powers to advocate for multicultural communities and to hold government to account, and it embeds strict reporting requirements for government departments to ensure that they are delivering for our multicultural communities. At a time when our multicultural fabric is strained and being questioned, it shows our multicultural communities that the Victorian government will always support them.

There are numerous amendments that members are moving, some of which we will support and others we will not, but we can deal with all of those in the committee stage of this bill. The government also has some house amendments that reflect further consultation and conversations with members of this chamber, and I thank those members for their constructive engagement. I ask that the amendments in my name be now circulated.

Again, this is a piece of work that everyone should be proud of. It is the culmination of a lot of consultation across the community, and it is a recognition that we need to build institutions for our multicultural communities and a voice at the heart of government at a time when our social cohesion has never been more important. I would like to thank members in the chamber who have worked constructively with us on this bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (17:43)

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, we understand that –

Members interjecting.

Ingrid Stitt: On a point of order, Acting President, I cannot hear over Mr Davis.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Can we bring the house to a bit of quiet. Any conversations could perhaps be continued outside.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, we understand that the government is not supporting our amendments around MCAG, the multicultural community advisory group, being able to obtain information related to racism and racist incidents in relation to their consultation processes. What commitment can you give to address these concerns?

Ingrid STITT: I can commit that, should the legislation pass the chamber today, the minister will issue a directive to Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria and MCAG, under section 2(c), that they must collect data on issues related to racism or hate incidents towards multicultural and multifaith communities or members of such communities. That data will be reported to the coordinator general, and that data will be reported in the annual report or other relevant publications and will be used to inform government policymaking to ensure Victoria’s multicultural and multifaith communities continue to be supported.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Thank you, Minister, for that commitment. That will go a long way to ensuring some sense of security and safety in the community. Can I just ask some questions, if possible, on LanguageLoop: the Greens have some serious concerns about the government’s lack of consultation with language interpreters and translators in the development of this bill. I want to ask, Minister: to meet this gap in engagement, will the government commit to preparing a regulatory impact statement (RIS)?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, we can commit to that.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Can I ask on this as well a follow-up question: what will the scope of the regulatory impact statement be?

Ingrid STITT: We will look at what services are currently being delivered as well as where there might be gaps in service provision that could be closed.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will the regulatory impact statement examine the current model of LanguageLoop proposed in the bill?

Ingrid STITT: We cannot define the full terms of reference today, but we will ensure that the quality of service being procured by government is considered, no matter which provider is providing those services.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will you engage all providers, including small providers that are National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) accredited or independent?

Ingrid STITT: Yes, all providers will be able to participate in the RIS.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Who will have oversight of leading the regulatory impact statement in the sector?

Ingrid STITT: It will be the usual processes that will apply – likely the commissioning department.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will the report be made public?

Ingrid STITT: Yes.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What approach will the regulatory impact statement engagement take to ensure cultural safety and responsiveness are maintained during the process?

Ingrid STITT: There are already strong guidelines around fairness, engagement and inclusivity when it comes to Engage Victoria and the RIS process, and those include appropriate cultural safety and responsiveness provisions.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What kind of assessment framework will be used for the regulatory impact statement?

Ingrid STITT: It will be the usual processes in the development of the RIS.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will there be a co-design community engagement framework applied?

Ingrid STITT: We note your suggestion, and we will feed that into the process for the development of the RIS.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: How will you maintain fairness during the process of the RIS?

Ingrid STITT: I think I have already gone to the kinds of processes that are undertaken whenever there is a RIS underway. We will make sure that it is established in the usual processes, and I think I have already gone to those issues in a previous answer.

Moira DEEMING: I am wondering how many different multicultural groups there are, if you could list them and how you define them.

Ingrid STITT: Mrs Deeming, as you know, we both represent a region that is incredibly diverse. Almost half the population of Victoria have a parent who was born overseas or have multicultural backgrounds, so we have literally hundreds of different diverse communities that are represented. I will just double-check where the numbers are at right now, but there were over 350 when I was the minister. There are over 200 languages spoken in Victoria. We are an incredibly diverse community.

Moira DEEMING: Would each one of those have their own representative? I am just trying to work out how it interacts with the new body.

Ingrid STITT: Can you just repeat the end of that?

Moira DEEMING: I apologise; I have a sore throat. It is a genuine question. I am trying to work out how they will each be represented to this new body officially – individually, if that makes sense.

Ingrid STITT: Obviously we cannot have a body that has literally millions of people represented on it, but in the structure of the organisation, should the bill pass, there is a requirement for diversity to be broad in the positions that will be created if the bill passes.

Moira DEEMING: I do not think I was clear again; sorry. The first question was about how many. You said somewhere around 300, 350, and I was wondering if each one of those would be individually represented – not individual people but the groups that you have identified.

Ingrid STITT: I think the important thing to note here is that it is not for me or any other government minister to determine that, or for the minister to determine that. We are setting up a new entity which will be a voice for diverse communities through its structures and through its objectives and priorities and the work that it will do. They will be required to engage and consult very widely across multicultural communities.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, I would like to start by thanking your office and Minister Edbrooke’s office for the consultation and briefings. Can I ask, Minister, why the government commenced and concluded a recruitment for the multicultural coordinator general and deputies before the positions that have been introduced being established and passed by Parliament?

Ingrid STITT: The multicultural coordinator general and the two deputy coordinator general positions will be instrumental positions in delivering and driving the transition from the Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC) to Multicultural Victoria, providing stability and obviously keeping communities informed during a time of what will be considerable change. The view of the government was that running an open and competitive process for these positions was very important in terms of ensuring appointments are merit based and a broad, diverse pool of candidates could apply. So, subject to the passage of the bill, the appointments will support that seamless transition to Multicultural Victoria and bring new legislative responsibilities into operation when they commence on 1 October. If we had commenced the recruitment any later, it would not be possible to have that transitional support in place and there would be a gap in having a multicultural coordinator general in place. Obviously appointments will not go forward unless the legislation passes the Parliament.

Evan MULHOLLAND: On what date was the recruitment process authorised and by whom?

Ingrid STITT: It went through a cabinet process, Mr Mulholland.

Evan MULHOLLAND: My next question is: under what authority does the recruitment process for a non-existent position exist? I assume that might have been through cabinet and the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Ingrid STITT: Well, the legislative process involved a cabinet approval process, as you would expect with any legislation that comes before the Parliament. As part of that cabinet process, a number of issues were considered, including the legislation and including the structure of the new organisation and related matters.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the minister have any role, formal or informal, in selecting the preferred candidate?

Ingrid STITT: This will be a recruitment process that will be in accordance with the recruitment guidelines. It is a process that is being undertaken by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in the usual way.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Why is it that the government is seeking to have the coordinator general commence on 1 October, 34 days before the commencement of the caretaker period, when it could have opted to seek interim arrangements similar to those being undertaken at the VMC currently?

Ingrid STITT: I think I went to some of those issues in my previous answer around the need to have that strong transitional leadership in place, but I think the other point to make is that if we did not recruit for this position, we would still be needing to recruit for a VMC chair position. As you are aware, we have an interim position in place currently awaiting the passage of this legislation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Are you considerate of the optics of appointing a four-year-term position around 30 days before the caretaker period?

Ingrid STITT: I would see that really as your take on this situation, Mr Mulholland. I know you have talked a lot about it. I am no longer the minister, so I am respectful of the fact that there is a new minister responsible for these matters. But I can certainly indicate that everywhere I went when I was the responsible minister – up until recently – the community were genuinely excited about the creation of this new organisation and the strengthening of their voice and the support for multicultural communities. So that is why the view of the government is that this is a critical recruitment activity that we are undertaking.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the government accept that appointments of this significance made immediately before an election can create a perception of politicisation, regardless of the merits of the individual ultimately appointed?

Ingrid STITT: No. I have already explained to you that this is an independent recruitment process that is being run by the department, and that is the appropriate way for it to be run. This is about making sure that there is strong and effective leadership at an incredibly important time as the organisation transitions to Multicultural Victoria.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Did the government consult with the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria before undertaking this recruitment timeline?

Ingrid STITT: I know that the ethnic communities’ council have been engaged regularly about these reforms. As to whether they have been consulted directly about the recruitment process, I would have to check that. They have been very engaged with all of this reform work and certainly meet regularly with the responsible minister.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Was George Lekakis consulted on the recruitment timeline, and did he provide any advice?

Ingrid STITT: No.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Lekakis review spoke a lot about grants and funding and inconsistencies, and I think we have all read it. Did the government take advice from the Victorian Multicultural Commission or the department before announcing a $4 million election commitment to the Quang Minh Buddhist temple on the weekend?

Ingrid STITT: That is outside the scope of this bill, unrelated to the amendments before the house today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The bill goes to Victoria’s multicultural settings and funding, and I think it is legitimate to ask the minister about funding and independence of funding and whether they have provided advice in regard to multicultural communities. What I am seeking to get to, Minister, is whether funding commitments are being made by party officers rather than by advice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Mulholland, is this a point of order or another question to the minister?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I asked a legitimate question that I believe has to do with the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I cannot direct the minister how to answer, but you might like to rephrase your question in a different way and see if the minister can answer it for you.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Victorian Multicultural Commission still exists, as mentioned in the bill. The bill goes to the Victorian Multicultural Commission. It does still exist, technically, for the next hour or so. Was the Victorian Multicultural Commission consulted and feedback sought before the Premier made a $4 million commitment to the Quang Minh Buddhist temple on the weekend?

Ingrid STITT: You are conflating a few issues here, Mr Mulholland. I am not surprised, because you tend to do that.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Ingrid STITT: You do. It is completely inappropriate for us, the Labor government, to consult with the VMC about what was an election commitment announcement last weekend at the Quang Minh temple.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Should the government be re-elected before enacting that commitment, does any advice go through either the Victorian Multicultural Commission or Multicultural Victoria about the merits of any kind of commitment like that?

Ingrid STITT: Firstly, I just remind you that that is wholly outside the scope of this bill, but also it is important to note that the VMC has no role in relation to grants.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to go to an amendment that I am moving. The bill currently prohibits a current MP, councillor, electorate officer, ministerial officer or parliamentary adviser from appointment, but it imposes no cooling-off period for someone who held those positions immediately before being appointed. So someone could hypothetically walk out the door of a minister’s office and straight into this body. Would you support a 12-month cooling-off period between those appointments?

Ingrid STITT: Do you want to get into amendments now or do you just want the government’s position on the record?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes.

Ingrid STITT: As you know, through some productive discussions that have been had, we understand you have an amendment that would give effect to what you just outlined. The government supports the proposed amendment to prevent a person from being appointed as a deputy multicultural coordinator general if they have held a position as a member of the Victorian Parliament, councillor, electorate officer, ministerial officer or parliamentary adviser in the last 12 months. The bill already contains safeguards to ensure a person is not appointed who currently holds one of these positions. The proposed amendment that you will be moving at some point in committee stage extends that safeguard to the previous 12 months.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I appreciate it, and I appreciate the discussions. You just said ‘deputy multicultural coordinator general’. I am just clarifying that you also mean multicultural coordinator general as well.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, I think I do – all of them. It is just that we have been racing against the clock to get our notes together for this committee stage.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have got a few more questions. I want to turn to the multicultural community advisory group. What criteria will the minister be required to consider when appointing members of that group?

Ingrid STITT: Just one moment. I think I know the answer to this. I just want to double-check that I am up to date on it. It is the same recruitment process. There would be a recruitment process to select suitable candidates for the MCAG, which the department would undertake. One second.

In making any final decisions about membership of the MCAG, there are a number of criteria in the bill about diversity considerations and the like.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Something that I support is that there is a quota for a youth member in the advisory group. I did think about an amendment, but I was a bit sort of nervous about enshrining a faith or particular religions and things like that in law. A significant amount of feedback, particularly from the Faith Communities Council of Victoria, but other groups as well, thought that it would be a good idea if a body like that was represented by someone from a faith community perspective on that committee. Is this something the government would be open to?

Ingrid STITT: We both know how important faith is to multicultural communities, and many other communities for that matter, across the state. For many Victorians, their faith shapes their identity and their values and their purpose. For that reason, the bill elevates the role of faith, making it clear that faith is a core part of Multicultural Victoria’s functions by modernising the terminology of ‘diverse communities’ to ‘multicultural and multifaith communities’ throughout the bill. This is in recognition of the important role that faith plays in the lives of many, many Victorians, but also to recognise our commitment to supporting the many faith communities across the state. Faith is also elevated within the bill’s principles of multiculturalism, in recognition that the community is strengthened through meaningful interaction, mutual learning and equitable participation among people of different cultures and faiths. That is a big part of fostering inclusion, respect and that sort of shared understanding that we are trying to embody and foster through the creation of Multicultural Victoria.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Something I am also quite supportive of that I spoke about in my second-reading speech is the idea of having a regional Victorian as a deputy coordinator general. Is there a minimum period that a person must have lived in regional Victoria to qualify?

Ingrid STITT: The bill requires that at least one of the deputy coordinators general resides in or has previously resided in an area that is in rural or regional Victoria. This is so as not to exclude individuals who have lived experience and have got deep connections to and understandings of regional and rural Victoria, even if they do not currently reside there. When appointing the designated rural and regional deputy coordinator general, consideration will be given to the ties and connection to rural and regional Victoria, as well as having sufficient knowledge and lived experience of the needs of multicultural and multifaith communities in regional and rural Victoria. There is no minimum requirement, but that would be something that is considered when the appointment is made.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will have to trust the minister’s judgement on that one. Minister, I just wanted to go to a couple of clauses – division 1, proposed section 25C, and division 3 inserted by clause 25. There are a couple of things quite identical to the VMC act. For example, it provides that:

… Multicultural Strategy may include goals and actions which aim to …

…

enhance the provision of services to the Victorian community to meet the needs of people from multicultural and multifaith communities, including needs based on the age, gender identity, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and location of persons within these communities …

That division 3 one has reporting requirements of government agencies at subsection (b). But in a lot of the things that are almost a direct copy of the VMC act into this act the word ‘sex’ is removed. Why was sex not included as a characteristic in relation to needs-based characteristics when gender identity and sexual orientation are?

Ingrid STITT: I will certainly see if we can get anything specific on that question, Mr Mulholland. But just to be clear, this is an amendment bill, so there is much in the current legislation that will still be valid. In terms of the existing objectives for the VMC, many of them will be retained in Multicultural Victoria, but we will also be enshrining engagement and consultation with multicultural and multifaith communities in regional and rural areas of Victoria; enshrining the promotion of interpreting and translating services – I know that has been a topic of conversation in the last day or so; enshrining the acknowledgement of First Peoples’ right to self-determination and the advancement of Statewide Treaty making between First Peoples in Victoria and the state; and importantly, as we were just discussing, elevating the role of faith into the objectives of Multicultural Victoria in the bill. I will just see if there is anything specific I can provide you on your question around the definition.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I also just want to know what communities were consulted about the change in characteristics.

Ingrid STITT: My learned advisers tell me that there is no change from the previous act.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I believe the previous act also had sex as a characteristic in a section – I cannot recall it off the top of my head – but it no longer appears in the new bill.

Ingrid STITT: I have just checked that, and that is the answer I have got. But we will keep looking at it as we are going through committee stage, if you like.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I would appreciate that. Can I ask about LanguageLoop, which as you have mentioned, has been the topic of much discussion in the last couple of days? Why does the bill require specified bodies to use VITS LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: Of course those that have read the multicultural review will know that language services were called out as a really important area for multicultural communities. The government accepted the recommendation that language services be treated as essential services. Every Victorian, regardless of their language background, has the right to that meaningful engagement with government services, and that is what has driven our policy approach and amendments for the provision of language services. As you know, Mr Mulholland, there is a process set out in the bill about how a declaration would be made. But the Victorian multicultural review, led by George Lekakis and the expert advisory group, found that language services, including interpreting and translating services, are essential. The review also recommended that interpreting services in these areas should not be subjected to competitive tender processes that undermine equity, quality and service delivery. It recommended assigning critical areas of government language service delivery to the state-owned provider VITS LanguageLoop to improve that equity, quality and delivery of language services. We say that with the right settings and safeguards in place, assigning VITS LanguageLoop as the default provider in designated settings will ensure critical government services are supported by high-quality, accessible language. But as we have undertaken to do in answer to some questions and discussions that we have had with Ms Gray-Barberio, we will also undertake to do a regulatory impact statement in relation to this work.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I believe the office also said that you would say that in Hansard for me as well, so there you go.

Ingrid STITT: Oh, I beg your pardon.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is for everyone, which is good.

Ingrid STITT: I am happy to extend those words to you all.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You spoke about the recommendation from Lekakis on interpreting services, so would I be able to confirm that translation services are not intended to be covered by this and it is intended only for interpreting services?

Ingrid STITT: It is actually both, because our state-owned provider provides both interpreting and translating services.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Okay. That will disappoint a lot of people. Was there consultation with any of the stakeholders that will be impacted? I am talking about groups like the Australasian Association of Language Companies and other workers but also peak bodies and those affected.

Ingrid STITT: We certainly know that the reviewers conducted consultation. We took the recommendations and materials that were provided through the multicultural review and accepted those recommendations. But I think we have already acknowledged and undertaken today that there will be a further RIS process undertaken, which will allow all providers to participate.

Evan MULHOLLAND: In regard to LanguageLoop, though, you are sort of aware of the fact that they do not feel they have been properly consulted? Would you not admit that the recommendation in the Lekakis review does not match the legislation and what appears in the legislation? There is a big difference between the recommendation in the Lekakis review and what appears before us in the legislation as a ministerial direction to have first and exclusive rights to provide language and interpreting services.

Ingrid STITT: That is your interpretation, Mr Mulholland. This is how we, through the amendments before the house today, have given effect to the recommendation in the Lekakis review. I think it is also important to note that we have made it clear that no contracts will be broken. All existing contracts will be honoured, and we have just committed to the crossbench and indeed you that there will be a RIS process undertaken, so there will be that further opportunity for deeper engagement with the sector. But I do know and I do note that you and I had a very long debate during the Voluntary Assisted Dying Amendment Bill 2025 about the importance of quality. NAATI accreditation was a big topic of conversation then, and I think that it is important to place on the record that the language services and interpreting services industry is going through a lot of change and turmoil at the moment, so the government is unapologetic about putting forward a model that is about quality and not just going for the cheapest option available. However, I will stay out of that, because the newly minted minister will be undertaking that RIS process in accordance with what we have committed to do in the committee stage today.

David LIMBRICK: With regard to this RIS process, it does seem quite disingenuous. It seems to be placating the Greens for going ahead and apparently supporting setting up this soft monopoly that is going to send thousands of people out of work. What is the actual basis for believing that the effectively soft monopoly that the government is setting up here is going to be better quality than the services that are already being provided? Because I have been contacted by many language services providers who are very proud of their work and the quality of the work that they provide and also the flexibility that they provide their people. I think Mr Ettershank spoke about migrant women. In fact I have spoken to many women who do this service. In fact many friends of my family do this type of work, and they love the flexibility that it offers them – that they can do it from home and they can do it out of hours and that sort of thing – the type of flexibility that is not offered by LanguageLoop. What evidence is there that these services would be of lesser quality than what LanguageLoop is providing? Where is the evidence?

Ingrid STITT: I do not agree with you that it is disingenuous to commit to doing a RIS process. I think that that is the government taking on board the concerns that have been put to us about the bill before the house in a genuine way and trying to accommodate those concerns and alleviate those concerns. But I appreciate that there are many people who engage in this work across the state. Some of them do so through LanguageLoop, and some of them do so through other companies. Some of them do it in an independent contractor capacity. I think it is important to note that there are flexible working arrangements that are offered by LanguageLoop. LanguageLoop has been the state-owned translation and interpreter service for many, many years, and we are simply responding to, in our view, the need to modernise the way in which language services are provided across government entities.

David LIMBRICK: Effectively what is being set up here is an anti-competitive arrangement. What sort of work has been done to ensure compatibility with federal competition laws?

Ingrid STITT: Essentially, Mr Limbrick, that is all accounted for in the bill. The bill sets up a framework for assigning critical areas of government work to VITS LanguageLoop by empowering the minister to declare that a specified entity is a part 6A body and must acquire language services from VITS LanguageLoop to ensure that Victorians have access to reliable, high-quality language services. Obviously the department has, in the development of the bill, taken into consideration the need to not offend competition policy, so the bill has been drafted in such a way as to be compliant.

David LIMBRICK: Who is the chairperson of the board of LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: It is currently Jenny Mikakos.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I assume that is why there are changes to the competition law within the bill – so that the government can do this.

Ingrid STITT: I would point you to new section 28E.

Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:33 pm.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, if I could just go back to your previous answer on MCAG, when will you issue the directive for that?

Ingrid STITT: Ms Gray-Barberio, as soon as possible once the MCAG has been established.

David LIMBRICK: Proposed section 12(2) requires Multicultural Victoria to act impartially towards multicultural and multifaith communities. Are there any consequences or penalties if they do not act impartially towards these communities?

Ingrid STITT: It is a requirement under the legislation for Multicultural Victoria and all its office holders to adhere to that principle. It would be subject to judicial review at the ultimate end game, but I think that in setting up the organisation and in the recruitment that will occur for the key positions we are going to be talking about people who are deeply committed to those principles being the most suitably qualified to be appointed.

David LIMBRICK: It begs the question: what is an example of a non-multicultural or multifaith community?

Ingrid STITT: I am just trying to understand the nub of your question, Mr Limbrick. Maybe you can elaborate?

David LIMBRICK: The minister has outlined the breadth of multicultural and multifaith communities in Victoria, and I am sort of wondering who is not going to be represented by this group. I sort of feel like it is so broad that it pretty much includes everyone, doesn’t it? In which case it is sort of obsolete if it includes everyone. There must be people that it excludes. Who is excluded?

Ingrid STITT: No-one is excluded per se, Mr Limbrick. The bill does set out the principles of multiculturalism. I think that if you take note of the second-reading speech you will see that the second-reading speech calls out the very deeply embedded migrant story of so many Victorians from all parts of the world and acknowledges First Nations people as well. So really, just recognising the needs of different communities is what is sought to be captured in the principles of the bill.

David LIMBRICK: Could I surmise from the minister’s answer that everyone in Victoria is a member of a multicultural or multifaith community then?

Ingrid STITT: I do not know about whether you can surmise, but obviously in crafting the bill a large part of this is already in the existing VMC legislation. We are adding to that. I think I had already answered, in answer to a question from Mr Mulholland, what the additional principles and priorities are which have been added to the bill, but a lot of this is carrying over the existing principles contained in the current Multicultural Victoria Act 2011.

David LIMBRICK: What I am trying to determine here is, when we talk about multicultural and multifaith communities, who are we talking about? Are we talking about every Victorian, or are we talking about a subset of Victorians? I think that is actually a really important point, because if this organisation is going to be representing people and not representing some people, then we should be clear on who they are, shouldn’t we?

Ingrid STITT: I think I know where you are going with this, but what I would say in response is that we are all part of a multicultural society. We all participate in Victoria. What this bill is about is addressing the fact that many communities are under-represented by existing institutions and existing structures, so this is about strengthening this organisation so that it can be a strong voice for multicultural communities who may not have the ability to participate as equally in other government structures and institutions.

David LIMBRICK: It seems the minister knows me better than I know myself, because I do not know where I was going with it, so I am not sure where the minister thinks I was going with it. But I think it was a very fair question actually.

Ingrid STITT: I hope I acquitted it in a way.

David LIMBRICK: Well, it seems that all Victorians are part of a multicultural society. It would appear so. Therefore everyone is represented, it would appear. Proposed section 4(3)(c) removes words from the existing definition. It used to say:

… individuals in Victoria (regardless of background) have shown that they can work together …

Now it is to say that Victorians ‘can work together’. What is the thinking behind this change in language in section 4(3)(c)?

Ingrid STITT: Certainly in developing the bill we were guided by the recommendations and the findings of the multicultural review. One of the key findings of that review was that our social cohesion had been under quite a bit of strain in recent times. This reflects the feedback from community that they did not like the old wording and the way it was expressed in the previous legislation, so it is directly picking up the feedback from stakeholder consultation that occurred not just with the review but with the subsequent work that the department did in developing the bill as well.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What financial modelling has been undertaken to determine the cost of the government’s policy around LanguageLoop to the Victorian government and taxpayers?

Ingrid STITT: There has been obviously a lot of work done on the considerations that underpin the reforms that we are seeking to bring forward to VITS LanguageLoop. We obviously have data that is available around the number of Victorians that have been accessing translation and interpreting services. We also have national data through the national body, and we have done a lot of work on what the best model would be for VITS LanguageLoop going forward, taking into consideration the findings that came out of the review. But we have been clear this evening in committee that we will be also undertaking a RIS process, so there will be the opportunity for further consultation with the sector.

Evan MULHOLLAND: This question goes to Mr Limbrick’s heart. What mechanism will ensure LanguageLoop’s prices remain competitive and provide value for money once an agency is required and given exclusive rights to purchase from it?

Ingrid STITT: That would be subject to the contractual arrangements between LanguageLoop and any government service or entity that was entering into an arrangement with them.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the government accept that a government-backed company having first and exclusive rights to provide language translation and interpreting services will have an impact on price?

Ingrid STITT: I take issue with the way you have characterised it, Mr Mulholland, because it will not be an exclusive right, because there will have to be a determination made by the minister in consultation with the minister responsible for whatever part of government we are talking about. Of course LanguageLoop still operates in the market. They do not just provide services for government or the public sector; they work well beyond that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the minister accept that in section 28D ‘first and exclusive’ appears in the legislation? It is written into the legislation.

Ingrid STITT: I do accept that, but I note that the bill also provides for the process that I have just touched on.

David LIMBRICK: What is the current ownership structure of LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: Could you repeat that?

David LIMBRICK: What is the current ownership structure of LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: It is a state-owned body under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1992.

David LIMBRICK: Does the government have the ability to extract dividends from this organisation?

Ingrid STITT: Like other state-owned bodies, it would be subject to consultation between the Treasurer and the board.

David LIMBRICK: For example, if LanguageLoop was highly profitable, as it may well be if the minister issues a direction that all government services have to use LanguageLoop, or even a subset of government services have to use LanguageLoop, then, if they were making lots of profit, the government would consult with the board on whether they could pay a dividend, led by chairman Mikakos. Is that how this would work?

Ingrid STITT: I am not going to reflect on the chair, as you have. What I have said is that, like any other state-owned body, there would be the ability for a dividend to be paid, but the Treasurer would be responsible for managing that with the board of LanguageLoop. But I do want to say that the motivation for these reforms is not anything to do with that. It is about trying to improve the quality and access for our incredibly diverse communities when they are trying to access critical government services such as health, justice or emergency services.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, referring to clause 10, one of the main functions of Multicultural Victoria will be to provide advice on strategy, including to research and undertake systematic and wideranging consultation with persons and bodies to determine the needs, experiences and priorities of multicultural and multifaith communities and to support community-led initiatives that are consistent with the objectives of Multicultural Victoria. The second-reading speech talks about meaningfully engaging with communities, and this is welcome, as the Lekakis review found that community engagement could be tokenistic. Minister, could you clarify how Multicultural Victoria will work in partnership with multicultural and multifaith communities beyond the advisory committee? And how will this engagement be measured or assessed in terms of its success or improvement over the status quo?

Ingrid STITT: That is a great question, Mr Ettershank, and I am happy to go into it because there is quite a bit in the reporting and accountability elements of the bill. The bill does strengthen accountability for multicultural outcomes in a number of ways, including through a whole-of-government strategic planning and reporting process. The bill requires the Premier to develop a new whole-of-government multicultural strategy, informed by advice from the multicultural coordinator general and community consultation. In addition, government departments will be required to produce a multicultural action and inclusion plan every four years, and these plans will identify actions to increase cultural inclusion of government services and actions to strengthen outcomes for multicultural Victorians through the public service.

There are a couple of steps involved in those plans. The plans must be approved by the multicultural coordinator general and department secretaries will be required to report to the multicultural coordinator general on their progress annually, and the plans must be published once they have been approved. In addition, the multicultural coordinator general will be required to prepare and recommend to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs a state of Multicultural Victoria report for Parliament every year, and that has got to be driven by community consultation. The report will highlight what has worked and what more needs to be done across government in bringing transparency to the operation of Multicultural Victoria, as well as efforts and opportunities to improve community outcomes. There is quite a bit in that, but that was really in response to the key findings of the multicultural review. The new organisation, in order to be fit for purpose into the future, needed to be much more engaged with communities on the ground, and their priorities and their strategic direction should be informed by that deep consultation in the community.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, clause 13, ‘Multicultural Victoria subject to directions of the Minister’, has the potential to work against efforts to build, I suppose, greater independence for Multicultural Victoria, which I think is a widely shared aspiration. Can you tell us what safeguards there will be to protect Multicultural Victoria’s independence from ministerial direction?

Ingrid STITT: This legislation.

David ETTERSHANK: That was very pithy, very succinct. Could you perhaps indulge me and elaborate a little on this question of independence of the organisation from ministerial direction, because it is not immediately apparent to me how that will in fact be guaranteed. It does seem that that clause does give whoever is the minister at the time significant power.

Ingrid STITT: I think that the advice that it gives back to government will be independent. The bill does enshrine and set out the significant powers of the organisation and the office holders to maintain that critical independence. The bill has been drafted taking into account the very strong feedback in the review about the need for this to be work driven by the organisation and its office holders in consultation with the community, rather than many of the ways that the current legislation is framed, which is that the minister directs the current VMC about what their work plan is for the year. So this is flipping it, almost, and in a lot of the consultation and conversations that we have been having, the strong feedback is that people are very pleased that the office holders in this organisation will have significantly more scope to be truly independent from government.

David ETTERSHANK: I appreciate that elaboration. Minister, I have had a number of people reach out to me, and they are curious about, with regard to the translation services, the use of the expression ‘monopoly’. Is it a monopoly?

Ingrid STITT: No.

David ETTERSHANK: Regarding new part 4A, section 24A, ‘Multicultural Victoria must establish regional engagement groups’, the existing model relies on eight regional advisory councils, and they will now be replaced by a single, centralised multicultural community advisory group. Conditions that safeguard against the dilution of regional voices include the requirement that one deputy coordinator general must be regional and the advisory group must include a regional engagement group, but funding seems to sit outside the bill in a new multicultural capacity-building program, which is a grants program. Could I ask how these regional safeguards will in fact be adequately resourced and monitored if the regional funding commitment is not reflected in the bill but rather in a grants program?

Ingrid STITT: I will come to the grants program in a moment, because I think that is a separate issue. But in relation to the regional advisory councils the experiences of multicultural and multifaith Victorians differ not only across communities and across different backgrounds and faiths and so on but also in different parts of the state. The Victorian multicultural review found that the model for the regional advisory councils was a bit unwieldy, and the feedback received by the reviewers was that there was not a lot of action out of the consultations that were going on with regional communities. We are keen, however, to make sure that there is regional place-based engagement, because that remains a critical part of ensuring that everybody in our multi communities across the state is engaged. The bill takes that deliberate step to ensure the representation and inclusion of regional multicultural communities through a new model of place-based engagement. That model will provide more flexibility and improve the way that multicultural and multifaith communities from all regions across Victoria engage through Multicultural Victoria.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, could I take you back? I think you were going to come back to the question of the grants program.

Ingrid STITT: The grants program is a separate matter. There are existing government grant programs across multicultural communities for a range of different streams. The bill before us today is about setting out the architecture and the framework for creating Multicultural Victoria. In relation to the regional engagement model, the bill enshrines the requirements for Multicultural Victoria to establish regional engagement groups, and collectively the groups must include representation from all regions in Victoria and include representatives from local or regional agencies. That can also include community organisations or individuals.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, are you saying that the resourcing to undertake that regional consultation, the place-based approach, will actually be incorporated into the funding of Multicultural Victoria – into its core funding, for want of a better term – rather than being in any way dependent upon the luck of the draw associated with the grants program? Sorry, ‘luck of the draw’ is probably a bit unfair, but I think you know where I am going.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, that is correct. It will be core business of the new entity.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, the bill recognises inclusion, respect and belonging but does not expressly refer to racism or discrimination. Why has the government chosen not to name racism and discrimination in the principles of multiculturalism?

Ingrid STITT: We do not believe it is appropriate to do so. The principles of the bill are about equality and inclusion. There is other legislation that already exists and other agencies responsible for addressing racism, and there are programs within the department that will continue to address these issues. The bill promotes equality before the law and provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law, without discrimination. The functions of Multicultural Victoria provide opportunities for Victorians from a very broad range of backgrounds to be heard, promoting equality before the law by ensuring their views are reflected in government decision-making. It is framed in that way. We were talking earlier about how we might strengthen the collection of data around specific examples of racism or vilification that might occur in the community that Multicultural Victoria and its officers might encounter.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will Multicultural Victoria publicly identify where a government department is failing to meet the needs of multicultural or multifaith communities?

Ingrid STITT: As I was going through, I think, in answer to Mr Ettershank’s question about the various reporting requirements of Multicultural Victoria, government departments will be required to produce their action plan every four years, and the plans must be approved by the multicultural coordinator general. Department secretaries will be required to report to the multicultural coordinator general on their progress annually, and these plans must be published once they have been approved. That is an independent process driven by the multicultural coordinator general, and if he or she makes findings that are good, bad or anything in between, they will be published.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What criteria will the minister use when deciding whether a person has the experience and skills needed to represent multicultural and multifaith communities?

Ingrid STITT: The minister will not decide. The department will run any recruitment process independently in accordance with the guidelines that all public sector entities and departments follow. They will make recommendations to the minister, but the minister will not be involved in the recruitment and selection.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Could you give us some context on why the bill says that the minister must only ‘have regard to the desirability of … lived experience’ rather than requiring it?

Ingrid STITT: It is not meant to be mandatory; it is meant to be a factor to consider.

David LIMBRICK: Proposed section 12(3) requires Multicultural Victoria to make decisions and provide advice on merit; however, proposed section 14(3) sets the factors the minister must have regard to when appointing the Multicultural Victoria coordinator general but does not contain the factor ‘merit’. Does the government have to consider the merit of an appointment to a position that itself is bound to act on merit?

Ingrid STITT: As I was just explaining in answer to another question, the department will run any recruitment process in accordance with the established guidelines and make a recommendation to the minister of the day.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have got a few questions. Back on LanguageLoop, why does the bill allow whole entities or classes of entities to be declared when the multicultural review recommended only assigning critical service areas to LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: Obviously there will be areas that will be essential for Victorian multicultural communities, and I think they have been called out already, both in the review and in the government’s response. The areas that have consistently been identified are health, justice settings and emergency services and the provision of translated materials and interpreters in those sorts of settings, but it is aligning with the wording in the Public Administration Act 2004.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So would you say the intent of this amendment is for the minister to assign only those critical service areas?

Ingrid STITT: No. However, I note that there is a requirement for the minister to consult with the relevant minister in whatever area is being contemplated. We are not putting forward amendments that restrict it to only those areas that I have identified.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I guess that was kind of my point: it is rather broad, and this is not what the Lekakis review actually recommended. What prevents the declaration power from progressively extending LanguageLoop’s exclusive position across most Victorian public sector language services’ expenditure?

Ingrid STITT: I would probably say a couple of things in response to that. Critical service areas may not remain static; they may change. At the moment there are some key areas that have been identified, but that may change depending on the circumstances or a changed environment. In relation to what is to stop LanguageLoop taking on significant amounts of work, I would say capacity, and depending on what language group you might be trying to support or what community you might be trying to support through interpreting or translating services, you would have to look at the availability of translators. So there would be a whole bunch of factors that you would have to work through, not least of which is getting the support of the relevant minister when it comes to a particular department or entity.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Why is the exception on whether LanguageLoop is unable to provide a service, rather than whether LanguageLoop can provide the most suitable practitioner at the required quality, timeframe and level of specialist expertise?

Ingrid STITT: Because I do not believe that the contracts would work that way. I also want to just remind everyone – I am sure you have not forgotten – that we have agreed to go through a RIS process and consult, and every part of the sector will have the opportunity to participate in that process.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Did the government add new part 6A to the bill to address the issue of VITS LanguageLoop using a contractor model for interpreters and translators rather than an employee model therefore avoiding award coverage for interpreters and translators?

Ingrid STITT: No.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If the government has recognised it should have been legally engaging interpreters as employees, does the government intend to back pay the interpreters for the years of engagement as contractors?

Ingrid STITT: That is an assertion that you are making about a set of circumstances that are hypothetical. It is outside the scope of the bill that is before the house today.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Does the government believe that VITS LanguageLoop would cease to exist if the minister did not get the power to declare exclusivity for LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: No.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If the government does not see this amendment as being anti-competitive, why has it added new section 28E?

Ingrid STITT: To enable the amendment. But can I also just remind you, Mr Mulholland, that LanguageLoop also do private contracts outside of government.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What would happen to this arrangement in the bill if VITS LanguageLoop was sold to a private operator?

Ingrid STITT: Is that what you are considering should you win government? Mr Mulholland, the government is not about privatising and selling off essential services.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It runs as a private operator.

Ingrid STITT: Yes, and that is why we are bringing the amendments to the house. You are putting a hypothetical to me, but maybe it is something that you have been thinking about and maybe you want to just gauge whether it is something that you might want to do should you have the honour of being elected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I do not think you need to interpret.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to ask a couple of questions separately before coming back to LanguageLoop. I want to ask about the Premier’s gala dinner. Does the government envisage that Multicultural Victoria will be the organiser of the Premier’s annual gala dinner?

Ingrid STITT: That is a matter for them and, as you well know, outside the scope of this bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I do not believe it is outside of the scope of the bill. This bill abolishes the Victorian Multicultural Commission and it creates Multicultural Victoria. The Victorian Multicultural Commission for years has been hosting the Premier’s gala dinner. I believe it is fair enough to be asking questions about an annual event that is run by one body and whether at least the government envisage it being run by Multicultural Victoria. So would it be run by Multicultural Victoria or perhaps the Department of Premier and Cabinet?

Ingrid STITT: Well, I am not going to presuppose what Multicultural Victoria might decide are their priorities. Frankly, we have just had the multicultural gala dinner, so we have got a whole year to work it out. It will be a matter for Multicultural Victoria.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, and I quite enjoyed this year’s multicultural gala dinner. I just want to ask about last year’s one, because freedom-of-information documents show 190 tickets were added to the guest list for Labor MPs once the guest list was edited by the Premier’s private office. Do you know why that is, and do you envisage that could happen under Multicultural Victoria?

Ingrid STITT: It is outside the scope of the amendments before the house this evening, Mr Mulholland. You have all sorts of other avenues available to you as a member of this place to ask those sorts of questions of ministers. You have got lots of ability to do that. It is not in scope.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to ask another question about the Victorian Multicultural Commission–organised Premier’s gala dinner. Obviously the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition both have an opportunity to speak alongside the minister, but I find it quite curious that since the election of the Albanese government the Victorian Multicultural Commission have decided to add Julian Hill, who is the federal assistant minister for multicultural affairs, to the program. Why was this practice of inviting the parliamentary secretary – the same role was held by another Victorian, Jason Wood, under the Morrison government – never done by the Victorian Multicultural Commission prior to the election of the Albanese government?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Mulholland, these are not matters that are in the scope of this bill. The bill before the house is about creating a new entity, Multicultural Victoria. You might want to politicise things and talk about the guest list and the speaking list, and you seem very focused on those things. But what we are focused on is passing this bill tonight so that multicultural Victorians can have a strong voice through this new organisation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I find it very curious that when there is an interim chair, who seems to be actually fantastic, all of a sudden the invitation list seems to be a lot more broad. I would put that in that particular case it was obviously political that the government adds that particular MP to the guest list and to the speaking list for no other reason than partisanship.

Ingrid Stitt interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I think it is a valid comment. LanguageLoop stated in its 2023–24 annual report that it had been working hand in hand with government to establish VITS LanguageLoop as an essential service. What precisely was being developed with government at the time before the multicultural review commenced?

Ingrid STITT: Regular engagement with the organisation. Obviously they provide a very important service to not just government departments and agencies but also other organisations that they contract with. I would say that the discussions around reform have been particularly relevant and gathered pace once the government received the multicultural review.

David LIMBRICK: Back to the review itself: prior to doing the review did George Lekakis have any role within LanguageLoop?

Ingrid STITT: I do not believe he did. I am happy to fact-check that with the box. He may have been on the board of that organisation quite a long time ago, but I can check that for you.

Mr George Lekakis, a very respected Victorian of Greek background, was the chair of VITS LanguageLoop from 2014 to 2018. I would also note that he was the longest serving VMC commissioner in the history of the organisation and highly regarded.

David LIMBRICK: Was this formally declared before undertaking the review?

Ingrid STITT: Mr Lekakis’s experience and history were well known to the government and to the department.

David LIMBRICK: What conflict management arrangements were put in place during the review to take into account this history with LanguageLoop, which was ultimately recommended under recommendation 21?

Ingrid STITT: There would have been a conflict management plan arranged through the department, as is standard practice in these matters.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, under the VMC there were the Multifaith Advisory Group and the Multicultural Youth Network. Will any of these advisory groups remain in any capacity under Multicultural Victoria?

Ingrid STITT: I am going to double-check with the box, but my recollection is that these bodies can continue under the new organisation. I am just going to double-check that, if you do not mind.

It is all coming back to me. They are not currently legislated for under the current legislation, and they are not under this proposed bill. They have been fabulous. Both of those groups that have worked within the VMC have been very important, and we would have an expectation that that would continue under Multicultural Victoria, but ultimately it would be a matter for Multicultural Victoria.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I want to ask also how young people’s voices will be represented with Multicultural Victoria. I think, gauging from what you are saying, that Multicultural Victoria will consider it, but I guess it is really up to the coordinator general and the deputies to decide on this. Is that right, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: There is a requirement for there to be a youth rep on the MCAG. I have met the youth advisory group that are under the current VMC, and they are amazing. There will be a strong expectation that that arrangement will continue under the new entity.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, is there any particular reason why the bill does not include an objective for Multicultural Victoria to prevent and address racism and discrimination, given in the multicultural review report there is a fracturing of social cohesion and there are lots of experiences from consultations pointing towards experiences of racism and discrimination?

Ingrid STITT: Noting that we have reached some accommodation around data and collecting data of incidents, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission have a current role in addressing racism complaints, and we did not want to duplicate that under Multicultural Victoria.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What kind of relationship will Multicultural Victoria have with the Anti-Hate Taskforce moving forward?

Ingrid STITT: A working relationship, I would expect.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: In terms of what they are going to be looking at in regard to the collection of data, will there be exchanges of intel between the two bodies?

Ingrid STITT: There could well be. The current VMC is on the Anti-Hate Taskforce, so we would imagine that if the Anti-Hate Taskforce continues in its current form, there would be a role for Multicultural Victoria. But again, we do not want to predetermine what Multicultural Victoria might determine are their priorities in terms of their work plan.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I just want to ask a question around action and inclusion plans. How will these multicultural action and inclusion plans be different from the existing departmental multicultural plans?

Ingrid STITT: There will be accountability built in. Government departments will be required to produce their inclusion plans every four years. I guess the key difference is that those plans must be approved by the multicultural coordinator general, and department secretaries will be required to report to the multicultural coordinator general on their progress annually. And as we were discussing earlier, they will need to be published once they have been approved. So there is that additional transparency and also accountability built into the bill.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, the multicultural coordinator general has strengthened powers in relation to whole-of-government planning and accountability. Could you just explain what that is meant to mean in practice? Perhaps give us some examples.

Ingrid STITT: I just gave one in respect to holding government departments to account against their four-yearly plans. In terms of the role of the multicultural coordinator general, it will be an influential role. Aside from providing that independent voice to government, the individual needs to be a conduit between multicultural and multifaith communities and the government. One of the key responsibilities of the coordinator general will be to lead systemic and wideranging consultation and advice on whole-of-government multicultural strategies as well. So it is quite a broad remit with quite a responsibility, if you like, to make sure that the work of Multicultural Victoria really reflects and drives that change and those priorities for multicultural Victorians.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, I did step out for a minute there; I might have missed that question before. A last question from me for this part: in terms of the multicultural affairs outcomes framework, it says it will be renewed and redeveloped to strengthen outcome measurement and service access. How will that actually occur?

Ingrid STITT: Through engaging deeply with communities, and that work will be driven by the coordinator general.

David LIMBRICK: Going back to the multicultural review itself, the report contains biographies of the advisory group led by Mr Lekakis, and his biography omits to mention the fact that he was previously a chair of LanguageLoop. Why was this omitted from the biography?

Ingrid STITT: We did not write that biography that was included in the report. The chair and also each of the advisory group provided their biographies.

David LIMBRICK: I thank the minister for that interesting answer. Was this fact disclosed anywhere in the report?

Ingrid STITT: I point you to the report and what is included in the report and the important recommendations contained within it.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Can I ask which private language service providers, unions and industry bodies were specifically consulted about the proposal to make LanguageLoop the default provider before the bill was introduced?

Ingrid STITT: The bill was drafted based on the review recommendations, and I think in recognition of the feedback and conversations that we have been having with a number of members, we have committed to a RIS process so that there can be more extensive consultation with the sector.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the government assessed the risk that interpreters and translators may effectively have to work through LanguageLoop to retain access to government work, reducing their choice of provider and bargaining power?

Ingrid STITT: I think we have gone to these issues in some detail already, and I have on a number of occasions now outlined the process that would need to be undertaken in order for LanguageLoop to be awarded government work. It is not envisaged that LanguageLoop would undertake all government work. That would be impractical in the extreme, given the large volumes of work that might be required right across government.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What assessments have been made or what briefing has the government received about the risk that highly experienced practitioners who do not wish to work through LanguageLoop or in a permanent role at LanguageLoop may leave Victorian government work or the profession?

Ingrid STITT: The priority for the government is to make sure that high-quality translating and interpreting services are available in key areas of government services for multicultural Victorians.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will LanguageLoop be permitted to subcontract compulsory work to competing private providers, and if so, why should government agencies be prevented from contracting directly with those providers?

Ingrid STITT: I do not accept your characterisation of compulsory work.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am going to leave it there on LanguageLoop, only to say that I am not convinced of the government’s intention here with this ministerial direction. I will be supporting an amendment in regard to removing LanguageLoop, as will the Liberals and Nationals, and I can commit to Victorians that should the Liberals and Nationals be elected, we have no intention of using this ministerial direction.

Will the minister be able to provide a briefing to the opposition or interested parties on the shortlist of candidates for multicultural coordinator general or deputies?

Ingrid STITT: My understanding is that you have already been offered that. Just one moment, please.

I am advised that the minister’s office would be happy to provide that briefing.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): If there are no further questions on clause 1, the minister will move her amendments 1 and 2.

Ingrid STITT: I move:

1.   Clause 1, line 5, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

2.   Clause 1, line 8, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

The government is moving house amendments that reflect further consultation and conversations with members of the chamber. These amendments will add ‘Multifaith’ to the title of the entity and to the bill, which reflects the government’s commitment to recognising the importance of faith in our multicultural communities.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment. We are very pleased that the government has taken up our suggestion in terms of adding ‘Multifaith’. Many communities will say – and it is something that we truly believe – that culture cannot be separated from faith and faith cannot be separated from culture. For many communities they are one and the same, and this is an important acknowledgement of that. I very much enjoyed Mr Ettershank taking us back down memory lane about the Lord’s Prayer debate in this Parliament. He actually went back to Hansard and acknowledged that it was an election commitment from this government, which is interesting because I had the members for Broadmeadows and Greenvale and the former Premier state to religious leaders that it was just a line and it was never committed to. It was good that you were able to find that and to acknowledge and bring up that it was actually something the government was planning on doing before a lot of communities, particularly in the northern suburbs, were quite upset about that intention.

Hopefully renaming this body to include faith communities also shapes their intention and focus and means that when government do decide to do things that faith communities do not like, they might think to maybe commission Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria to do some work, some research or some consultation before jumping into policy positions that are in conflict with those particular communities. I thank the government for their conversations regarding this amendment, and it is something the Liberals and National support.

David ETTERSHANK: Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting this amendment. We thank the Liberal Party for bringing this forward and the government for taking it on board and reflecting that in these amendments. Just going back to the Lord’s Prayer and so that I am not seen as verballing Minister Symes, her commitment was to workshopping the issue rather than actually changing it. And don’t we all love a good workshop? Be that as it may, we thank the government for this amendment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. It makes sense in the contemporary era that we are in.

Amendments agreed to.

David LIMBRICK: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, lines 5 to 7, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Effectively this amendment removes the ability for the minister to require certain public sector entities to use a particular language interpreting and translating service – that is, VITS LanguageLoop. We have gone through this fairly well in committee. I think that it is unfortunate that the government wants to set up this potential soft monopoly which will affect many contractors within the multicultural community, ironically, who rely on this for work. I think that this is unnecessary, and if government departments want to use LanguageLoop regardless, they can still do so. This does not take away that ability. It just removes the ability for the minister to force them to do that.

David ETTERSHANK: I do feel that perhaps the comments from Mr Limbrick are stretching things a little as to what the practical application will be. I do note that whilst there are some wonderful translators that work across the sector, it is highly desirable that the professionalism, the security of employment and the tenure of employees be enhanced. I think this is a very welcome initiative, and we will be opposing the amendment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be opposing this amendment. I think the government’s commitment to undertaking RIS will really allow for a comprehensive engagement of all stakeholders in the sector – private, individual, whoever is engaged in the sector. This will allow them an opportunity to engage meaningfully with the government, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

Moira DEEMING: I rise to support this amendment. I think it is just another classic Labor big government move. I think it looks very much like a pyramid scheme where there are just a funnelled amount of state government contracts to Jenny Mikakos. It just does not look good. It is not above board, and I am going to go against it.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As I mentioned, the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment. The government would probably acknowledge, astoundingly, that there has been no consultation with the workers affected or with any of the peak bodies that are affected by this amendment at all. What is contained in this amendment is not what was in the multicultural review. For a government to insert a ministerial direction into a bill with such vast powers obviously means they want to use it.

I do not think the government has truly considered the amount of jobs that will be decimated, but it also has not considered the employment model that is most preferred by the workers. We have all received hundreds of emails over the last week from people who work as contractors for interpreting services and translation services. Almost all of them work as contractors because that is the preferred employment model. Is VITS LanguageLoop going to be able to respond at a hospital bed at 11 pm at night? These are the people who do the work for our community. They are all working for multiple different service providers, by the way, and many of them do not have a good opinion of VITS LanguageLoop, and I do not trust this government to get this right.

Mr Limbrick made a good point about the ability to draw dividends. It does seem to me that the government is going to use VITS LanguageLoop to funnel all government language and interpreting services through LanguageLoop – because why would you have a ministerial direction like this, as broad as it is, if that is what you were not planning on doing – and then take dividends when it eventually makes a profit because it has decimated the rest of the market. I think it is bitterly disappointing. The fact that many of the peak bodies and people affected were not consulted is outrageous. I am disappointed in some of my crossbench colleagues who I thought may support the amendment. Yes, it is welcome that there is a RIS process, but the ministerial direction is the ministerial direction. With a ministerial direction, the minister can just do it. It is not like you have put a regulatory impact statement process in the legislation. The minister can direct, at any point in time, all government departments at once, and that technically does not need to go through a RIS process. I hope people reflect on the consequences if and when this does happen, but it certainly is not a ministerial direction that will be used under a Liberals and Nationals government, respecting the workers who work in this sector. We wholeheartedly support Mr Limbrick’s amendment.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting Mr Limbrick’s amendment. The review finds that language services are essential for Victoria’s multicultural communities, especially in those critical government settings such as health, policing, courts, justice and emergency services. The bill addresses these issues, and translators and interpreting services are being embedded in the bill as an essential service. The multicultural review found issues with the manner and quality of how language services were procured, and the bill seeks to address those issues and, I might say, correct a distortion that was created way back in the Kennett era.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Limbrick’s amendment 1, which tests all his remaining amendments, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Division heading preceding clause 4 and clause 4 (20:53)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

3.   Division heading preceding clause 4, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

5.   Clause 4, line 17, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

This is just a consequential amendment to add ‘Multifaith’ to the division heading and clause 4.

Amendments agreed to; amended division heading and clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (20:54)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

6.   Clause 5, page 4, line 22, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

7.   Clause 5, page 4, lines 25 and 26, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“Multiculturaland MultifaithVictoria means Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria established by section 6;”.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Gray-Barberio, I invite you to move your amendments 1 and 2, which test your amendments 3 and 6.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I withdraw these amendments.

Amended clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (20:55)

Moira DEEMING: I move:

1.   Clause 6, lines 29 to 33, page 6, lines 1 to 33 and page 7, lines 1 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

‘(1) In section 4(2) of the Principal Act omit “and values the richness that such diversity brings to the Victorian community”.

(2) For section 4(3) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(3) The Parliament supports the rights and responsibilities of citizenship to which subsection (1) refers by recognising the following principles –

(a)   all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination or preference on the ground of race, culture, religion, ethnicity or national origin;

(b)   a public authority must treat all persons equally and must not prefer, advantage or disadvantage any person or group on the ground of race, culture, religion, ethnicity or national origin;

(c)   all individuals in Victoria are entitled to mutual respect and understanding regardless of their background;

(d)   all individuals in Victoria have a responsibility to abide by the State’s laws and respect the democratic processes under which those laws are made;

(e)   all individuals in Victoria should be united in a shared commitment to Australia and to community service.”.

(3) Section 4(4) of the Principal Act is repealed.

(4) In section 4(5) of the Principal Act omit “of multiculturalism”.’.

My amendment rewrites section 4 so that the principles of this bill say what they should have said from the beginning: all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection without discrimination or preference on the grounds of race, culture, religion, ethnicity or national origin, and a public authority must not prefer, advantage or disadvantage any person or group on those grounds.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals, regardless of our position on the flavour of the amendment, did not receive the amendment in the appropriate time to go through our internal processes, so unfortunately the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I see this as a basic statement of equality under law, which is a principle that we adhere to.

Ingrid STITT: The government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment would delete recognition of First Peoples as original custodians straight out of the bill’s principles. It would cut the principle that interpreting and translating access is essential. It would replace ‘richness of diversity’ with ‘no preference’, which undercuts the whole purpose of targeted multicultural programs, and it would gut the bill’s inclusion principle on mutual respect and belonging, replacing it with a narrower, colder formulation. We will not be supporting the amendment.

David ETTERSHANK: To suggest that this is an egalitarian society where everyone is equal and that anything which seeks to address disadvantage is somehow racism is, if I may say, drug addled, and I know a lot about drugs. We will be opposing the amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 7 (21:01)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

8.   Clause 7, line 14, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (21:02)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

9.   Clause 8, line 17, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

10.   Clause 8, line 18, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

11.   Clause 8, line 19, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (21:02)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

12.   Clause 9, line 26, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

13.   Clause 9, line 27, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1.   Clause 9, page 8, lines 11 to 14, omit “self-determination and the advancement of Statewide Treaty-making between First Peoples in Victoria and the State; and” and insert “self-determination; and”.

This amendment is simply to remove the words ‘Treaty-making’ from Multicultural Victoria. We have kept in ‘self-determination’. We have moved this on other bills as well. We believe it blurs the line of Multicultural Victoria and it blurs the focus of Multicultural Victoria. Of course our position is to repeal the treaty, so this amendment will possibly save us in the future from having to amend another bill. That is a commitment that we have to carry out within our first 100 days should we have the honour of being elected by the Victorian people. So removing ‘Treaty-making’ from –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear Mr Mulholland. Can we please have some quiet.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The amendment would remove ‘Treaty-making’ from an objective of Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: As I said in my speech, as a proud member of the multicultural community, and as you are too, Mr Mulholland, we cannot talk about belonging and inclusion without respecting Indigenous people and their rights to self-determination and their enduring connection to country and culture. You want to talk about blurring the lines – this is not blurring the lines. This bill strengthens the lines, and we are more than happy to oppose this amendment.

David ETTERSHANK: We will also be opposing this amendment. Mr Mulholland, you are really generous in giving me career advice. Can I just say you are never going to be more One Nation than One Nation. They are the ones that are going to cut your lunch, not the Greens, as you were suggesting yesterday. We have a treaty. We are proud of that treaty, we are proud to see that in this legislation and we will be opposing this amendment.

Ingrid STITT: The government does not support Mr Mulholland’s amendment to remove references to the advancement of Statewide Treaty making as an objective of Multicultural Victoria. In carrying out its functions for our multicultural and multifaith communities it is appropriate that Multicultural Victoria acknowledges not only First Peoples’ rights to self-determination but also the advancement of Statewide Treaty making between First Peoples in Victoria and the state. This enshrines an expectation that Multicultural Victoria will stay abreast of matters relating to First Peoples’ self-determination and the advancement of Statewide Treaty making in Victoria, act in a way that acknowledges self-determination and act in a way that is not inconsistent with treaty. We will not be supporting Mr Mulholland’s amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 10 (21:13)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

14.   Clause 10, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

15.   Clause 10, line 10, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

16.   Clause 10, line 12, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

17.   Clause 10, line 28, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

18.   Clause 10, page 10, line 8, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

19.   Clause 10, page 10, line 20, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

20.   Clause 10, page 10, line 23, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (21:13)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

21.   Clause 11, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

22.   Clause 11, line 12, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

23.   Clause 11, line 15, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

24.   Clause 11, line 21, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (21:14)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

25.   Clause 12, line 22, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

26.   Clause 12, line 25, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

27.   Clause 12, line 28, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (21:14)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

28.   Clause 13, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

29.   Clause 13, line 33, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

30.   Clause 13, page 12, line 3, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

31.   Clause 13, page 12, line 7, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (21:15)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

32.   Clause 14, line 11, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

33.   Clause 14, line 20, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

34.   Clause 14, page 13, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

35.   Clause 14, page 16, line 24, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

36.   Clause 14, page 16, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

37.   Clause 14, page 17, line 15, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

38.   Clause 14, page 17, line 23, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1.   Clause 14, page 14, before line 1 insert –

“(2A) The Minister must not recommend a person for appointment as the Multicultural Coordinator General if that person held a position or office referred to in subsection (2)(a) to (e) in the previous 12 months.”.

2.   Clause 14, page 15, after line 21 insert –

“(3A) The Minister must not recommend a person for appointment as a Deputy Multicultural Coordinator General if that person held a position or office referred to in subsection (3)(a) to (e) in the previous 12 months.”.

I am happy to speak about this. I did speak about it in the second-reading debate, but I understand that not everyone in the chamber was here for that. The bill currently provides a range of professions that you are precluded from holding at the same time as being appointed as a multicultural coordinator general or to a deputy position, those being a councillor, electorate officer or a ministerial staffer. Mr Davis was actually right in his speech on the second reading to point out what happened with Brimbank council and the Labor Party with the preclusion of rules. It was fair enough that he pointed that out. Some of them are still in this Parliament. But I would say, after consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders and legal advice, the government drafted this in such a way that someone could resign from one of those positions, from being a ministerial chief of staff, and walk straight into this four-year appointment. After speaking with quite a few stakeholders, all agreed that a cooling-off period of 12 months would be appropriate. It is a good integrity measure in the bill, and that is the amendment that I have moved.

David ETTERSHANK: After watching Four Corners on Monday night and after our lively discussion yesterday in the context of perceptions, I think that if there is an issue with this clause, this amendment clarifies it usefully. I thank Mr Mulholland for bringing it to the chamber, and we will be supporting it.

Ingrid STITT: The hero of every story: Mr Mulholland. The government will be supporting your amendment but rejecting all of that kind of fantasy that came with your explanation. A person being appointed as multicultural coordinator general or deputy multicultural coordinator general, if they have held a position as a Victorian member of Parliament, councillor, electorate officer, ministerial officer or parliamentary adviser in the past 12 months – the bill already contains safeguards to ensure a person is not appointed who currently holds one of these positions, and this amendment simply extends that safeguard to a previous 12 months. On that basis we are happy to support it.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will support Mr Mulholland’s amendment, in the spirit of fairness.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Sitting suspended 9:19 pm until 9:22 pm.

Clause 17 (21:22)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

39.   Clause 17, page 18, line 13, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

40.   Clause 17, page 19, line 15, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

41.   Clause 17, page 19, line 17, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

42.   Clause 17, page 19, line 21, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (21:23)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

43.   Clause 18, line, 7, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

44.   Clause 18, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

45.   Clause 18, line 11, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

46.   Clause 18, page 22, line 12, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 19 (21:23)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

47.   Clause 19, line 22, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (21:23)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

48.   Clause 20, line 25, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

49.   Clause 20, line 27, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

50.   Clause 20, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

51.   Clause 20, page 23, line 1, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

52.   Clause 20, page 23, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

53.   Clause 20, page 23, line 13, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

54.   Clause 20, page 23, line 14, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (21:24)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

55.   Clause 21, line 18, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

56.   Clause 21, line 21, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

57.   Clause 21, line 27, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

58.   Clause 21, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

59.   Clause 21, line 32, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

60.   Clause 21, page 24, line 5, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

61.   Clause 21, page 24, line 9, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

62.   Clause 21, page 24, line 13, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

63.   Clause 21, page 24, line 17, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

64.   Clause 21, page 24, line 26, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

65.   Clause 21, page 24, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

66.   Clause 21, page 25, line 1, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

67.   Clause 21, page 25, line 3, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (21:24)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

68.   Clause 23, line 23, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

69.   Clause 23, line 24, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

70.   Clause 23, line 26, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

71.   Clause 23, line 30, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

72.   Clause 23, page 26, line 23, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

73.   Clause 23, page 26, line 26, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

74.   Clause 23, page 26, line 29, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

75.   Clause 23, page 26, line 31, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

76.   Clause 23, page 28, line 5, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

77.   Clause 23, page 29, line 6, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

78.   Clause 23, page 30, line 27, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

79.   Clause 23, page 31, line 7, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

80.   Clause 23, page 32, line 5, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (21:25)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

81.   Clause 27, line 23, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (21:25)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

82.   Clause 28, line 7, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 29 agreed to.

New clause (21:26)

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I move:

7.   Insert the following New Clause before clause 30 –

‘29A   New section 29AA

Before section 29 of the Principal Act insert –

“29AA   Cabinet submissions to include assessments of potential impacts on multicultural affairs and inclusion, and social cohesion

(1)   This section applies if a Minister makes a submission to the Cabinet, or a committee of the Cabinet, that recommends that the Cabinet makes a decision or endorses a decision of the committee of the Cabinet, that, if implemented, may have an impact on multicultural affairs and inclusion and social cohesion in Victoria.

(2)   The submission must include an assessment of the potential impacts on multicultural affairs and inclusion and social cohesion in Victoria.”.’.

This amendment gives effect to recommendation 1(d) of Victoria’s multicultural review by requiring all cabinet submissions to include an assessment of their potential impacts on multicultural affairs, inclusion and social cohesion. This is about making sure these impacts are not an afterthought and that they should be routinely and systematically considered before government decisions are made so that cabinet can properly understand how proposed policies and programs may affect multicultural and multifaith communities.

Ingrid STITT: The government does not support this proposed amendment to legislate requirements in relation to cabinet submissions. Under the Westminster system of government cabinet processes are matters of convention and not legislation. Cabinet processes and procedures are a matter for the government of the day, and our government has already committed to implementing recommendation 1(d) from Victoria’s multicultural review through an update to the cabinet submission template used by all portfolios when preparing cabinet submissions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment. I agree with Minister Stitt about the Westminster process; I do not think this is something that needs to be legislated. While I think it has the good intention of ministers thinking about it when putting submissions to the cabinet, it goes about it the wrong way in regard to adding extra requirements for each and every policy area. The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 31 (21:34)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

83.   Clause 31, line 14, after “Amendment” insert “(Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria)”.

84.   Clause 31, line 18, after “Amendment” insert “(Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria)”.

85.   Clause 31, page 39, line 5, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

86.   Clause 31, page 39, line 11, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

87.   Clause 31, page 39, line 26, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendments agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, can you move your amendments 3 and 4, please.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I seek leave to withdraw these amendments after conversations with the government. Although I still support the intent of these amendments and the reason behind them, I do not think it is appropriate for the government, on the eve of caretaker, to appoint anyone to a four-year term. The disgraceful Allan government set up its own process through the Department of Premier and Cabinet to hire for four-year positions before the legislation had even hit the lower house. We do not approve of the way that was done. I did speak to the government. They said, ‘This would cost money anyway to hire new people.’ I potentially think termination costs would be probably higher than just rolling someone over, even if you have to advertise again. I do support the intent of the amendments, but after discussions with the government and a bit of give and take with the government, I will happily withdraw them.

Amended clause agreed to.

Clause 32 (21:36)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

88.   Clause 32, line 7, after “Multicultural” insert “and Multifaith”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 33 agreed to.

Long title (21:36)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

89.   Long title, omit “Victoria,” and insert “and Multifaith Victoria,”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Short title (21:37)

Ingrid STITT: I move:

90.   Short title, after “Amendment” insert “(Multicultural and Multifaith Victoria)”.

Amendment agreed to; amended short title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long and short titles.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (21:38): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (21:38): I move:

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

Bells rung.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I may be mistaken, but someone over in the box appeared to be taking photos. I am not sure if that is right, but if it is right, that is problematic.

The PRESIDENT: I have checked with them. His phone was dead.

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 have agreed to the bill with amendments.