Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (20:48): I rise to speak on this most exciting piece of legislation. I think it has been eagerly anticipated by this chamber for some time: the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2026. First of all, I would like to thank my colleague in the other place, the member for Brighton and Shadow Attorney-General, for the work and briefings he has done on this particular bill. But I would note that the government refused to accommodate a bill briefing in the appropriate time. He did undertake wide consultation across sectors with almost no feedback received other than from the Police Association Victoria, who support the amendments that are in their purview. The opposition, I am pleased to announce to the chamber, does not oppose this bill, principally in recognition of the position of the Police Association Victoria, who support the legislation and are best placed to represent the interests of their members. There is, however, a broader question about the continued transfer of Victorian responsibilities to Commonwealth bodies. It remains to be demonstrated whether the Fair Work Commission has the detailed understanding of Victoria Police, the Victorian public sector and local government workplaces necessary to deal effectively with these matters. Where concerns relate specifically to Victoria Police employees, there is a strong argument that Victorian institutions should retain an important role in investigating and resolving them. We need greater certainty and clarity rather than greater complexity.

The bill creates an interaction between the Victoria Police Act 2013, Commonwealth workplace law, future enterprise instruments, the Fair Work Commission and the Police Registration and Services Board. The practical consequences will need to be closely watched. Decisions involving promotion, transfer, fitness, discipline and termination will require particularly careful documentation, especially where adverse action proceedings turn on the reasons of individual decision-makers.

A significant concern remains the unquantified financial and administrative impact of the legislation. Neither the explanatory memorandum nor the second-reading speech adequately identifies the likely number of additional Fair Work proceedings, legal costs, training requirements and additional demands of the Police Registration and Services Board. I am not overly keen to keep people in committee, so I will just repeat that if the government might make available that our view that neither the explanatory memorandum nor the second-reading speech adequately identifies the likely number of additional Fair Work proceedings, legal costs, training requirements or additional demands on the Police Registration and Services Board, this is something that we would be keen to know. With the election approaching, the opposition is keen to understand what the legislation will actually cost taxpayers or even be given a ballpark. We need to be responsible and disciplined, I think. Often the approach of those opposite has been ‘Things cost what they cost.’ As the alternative government, we reserve the right to closely monitor its implementation, administrative burden and cost and to respond to the new framework if it proves inefficient or unnecessarily complicated. Our position is therefore measured. We respect the police association’s support and will not oppose the bill, but that should not be mistaken for the absence of legitimate concerns about complexity, effectiveness and cost.

This bill allows me, very briefly, indulgence to speak on broader issues of police and broader issues of crime. Particularly, I wanted to speak about crime in my own electorate in the northern suburbs. It is basically every day we wake up in the northern suburbs to another tragic incident. They are not statistics; they are real people. It is a horrible, horrific stabbing, a shooting or a firebombing. This is the reality of being in and from the northern suburbs.

Recently in Thomastown a 22-year-old was fatally shot in front of his friends. In Epping a man in his 50s was stabbed to death in his own home. In Craigieburn we saw a young teenager dumped out the front of the local community hospital. We also saw Craigieburn Central nearby recently plunged into lockdown after gunshots were fired. At Northland shopping centre we have seen numerous incidents of machete gang brawls and even a car rampage. What response did we see from the government? More statements, more announcements and more promises and not really much action.

These are not isolated incidents. My constituents daily live in fear. They are afraid in their own homes. I say this to every family in the northern suburbs. You deserve so much better. You deserve to feel safe in your own home. You deserve to park your car outside your house without worrying it will not be there the next morning. You deserve not to have to worry about your small business being firebombed, vandalised or broken into. We saw insurance data today that shows that Victoria is the car theft capital of the nation. When we say as the Liberals and Nationals that we want to lower costs for all Victorians, this is the kind of thing that we mean. This is the kind of thing where our policies can make a real impact on lowering costs for Victorians. We have the highest insurance premiums in the country because we have the highest car theft rate in the country. We have the highest crime rates in the country. All Victorians deserve a government that takes their concerns seriously.

It does not have to be this way, and under a Jess Wilson Liberals and Nationals government we will recruit 3000 more police onto our streets so that we can reopen the more than 40 police stations that have had reduced operating hours or been closed completely under this government. It was not just Jacinta Allan that was closing police stations. Ben Carroll might say he wants police stations open, but he has closed Fitzroy, Collingwood and Southbank police stations. That has happened under his watch. He might say that he wants to see police stations open, but he clearly does not. This is why we need a strong response to recruit 3000 new police, as the Liberals and Nationals and as Jess Wilson will do if elected to government. We need a serious plan to reopen those police stations. But also, what police stations are next? We see continuously Craigieburn police station temporarily closed. Is Craigieburn police station next on the chopping block when it comes to Ben Carroll’s police station closures? I think that is a legitimate question because it has already had reduced operating hours, and on certain days without warning it is temporarily closed. We need the government to rule out closing Craigieburn police station permanently.

As I said, we will recruit 3000 new police. We will introduce real ‘adult crime, adult time’ laws, we will introduce a one-strike rule for bail with actual ‘break bail, face jail’, we will restore real consequences for criminal behaviour and we will put PSOs back at train stations like Roxburgh Park train station and Coolaroo train station. This is a real plan to keep Victorians safe, and it can only happen by voting for the Liberals and Nationals on 28 November. As I said, we do not oppose this bill. I am somewhat a supporter of states’ rights, as a federalist. But in this case we are happy to not oppose this bill and see these powers transferred.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:59): I rise to speak on behalf of my Greens colleagues and myself on this bill. I will be as brief as I can, given the hour. Victorian public sector workers should not miss out on modern fair work protections simply because of the way Victoria referred its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth years ago. The Fair Work Commission is an independent Commonwealth statutory tribunal, and the Fair Work Act 2009 is Commonwealth legislation. The bill extends more recent Fair Work protections concerning flexible work, pay secrecy, fixed-term contracts and casual employment to Victorian public sector and local government workers generally. Those are broader public sector reforms that the Greens support, extending ordinary workplace protections to all public service employees, including police employees. Police officers are workers, and they should have fair workplace rights.

But that does not mean we support every part of this bill. The bill goes far beyond giving police fair industrial rights by allowing future enterprise agreements and workplace determinations to replace statutory provisions in other legislation that perform important public integrity and police accountability functions.

The Parliament of Victoria has deliberately put some things into the Victoria Police Act 2013 because they concern more than ordinary employee relations. Police exercise coercive state powers. Provisions about the code of conduct, mandatory suspension responses to substantiated IBAC misconduct and access to evidence from alcohol or drug testing all serve key public integrity and accountability functions as well as an employment function. Police are not an ordinary workforce. Parliament gives police powers that other workers do not have: the power to detain people and search them, enter homes, use force and carry firearms. With those extraordinary powers must come extraordinary accountability. The police code of conduct therefore is more than just another workplace policy. It deals with the standards expected of people who exercise extraordinary powers over the public, including the use of force, honesty and integrity, human rights and the obligation to report unlawful or unethical conduct.

Likewise, when IBAC has investigated a public interest complaint and misconduct has been found to have occurred, the Chief Commissioner of Police currently has statutory obligations to act, including taking reasonable steps to stop that conduct continuing or happening again. Those obligations exist for a reason. We do not think protections of that kind should be capable of being weakened simply because they intersect with employment matters. In referring these matters to the Commonwealth, it also allows future enterprise agreements and workplace determinations to regulate them and, where inconsistent, potentially displace provisions of the Victoria Police Act. That raises a different question where the statutory provisions concerned are not merely employment conditions but key integrity safeguards relating to police discipline, integrity and accountability. Why is it necessary in order to extend Fair Work rights to police officers to make statutory integrity provisions, such as the code of conduct and the chief commissioner’s obligations following an IBAC finding, subject to inconsistent enterprise agreement terms?

I want to be clear about what we are saying. We are not claiming that this bill itself rewrites the code of conduct or immediately removes those safeguards. It does not. The concern is that it creates a framework in which a future valid industrial instrument could prevail over inconsistent statutory provisions. The Greens support the expansion of Fair Work rights in this bill, but we do not support using that reform as a vehicle to make statutory police integrity and accountability provisions subordinate to future industrial bargaining. In the committee stage I will be asking why the bill has not ring fenced statutory police integrity and public safety obligations from the bargaining reforms. Workers rights and police public accountability are not competing principles. A good bill should be capable of protecting both. I will leave my comments there.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (21:03): I am pleased to rise to speak briefly on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2026, which makes changes to the conditions and entitlements of Victorian workers, including those in the Victorian public service and Victoria Police. Mr Mulholland is a keen student of history and, as a federalist, will recall that it was the Kennett government that referred Victoria’s industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 1996. I would not be able to let the debate go on without at least in some way saying everything he complains about is Jeff Kennett’s fault. But in 2009 the Victorian government referred aspects of industrial relations powers of the Commonwealth such that protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 extended to bodies not captured by the Commonwealth powers in industrial relations, particularly those in the public service. Since that time there have been significant amendments to the Fair Work Act. In particular there were some changes made by the Albanese government to ensure a range of rights were protected, and the provisions of this act will ensure that those rights apply equally to the Victorian public sector workforce as well as the public sector. In particular, in relation to the closing loopholes legislation passed in 2023, we will see these measures now apply to the public service and local government workforces, providing new protections, particularly in relation to secure employment and including the ability to request flexible work arrangements and other matters. The bill also bans pay secrecy so that employers can no longer be contractually restricted from disclosing their pay and remuneration to others and codifies a range of other powers.

In relation to Victoria Police, the bill will expand matters referring to law enforcement employment that can be included in enterprise agreements, subject to bargaining and ultimately government approval, which will put them in the same position as other public sector employees on matters such as probation, promotion, transfer and physical and mental fitness assessments as well as other matters relating to discipline and the termination of employment. At the moment law enforcement officers are unable to seek dispute resolution through the Fair Work Commission in relation to those items and in contrast to other public sector workers, who can seek to have terms of an enterprise agreement enforced by the commission. The amendments in the bill will address both of these issues by allowing law enforcement officers to bargain over matters consistent with the way other public sector employees are able to currently bargain, and where these terms are included in an enterprise agreement or a workplace termination, they can be legally enforced in the Fair Work Commission or through the courts. Under our current industrial relations framework, when it comes to general protections claims under the federal workplace protections on the basis of any adverse action taken by their employer, law enforcement officers are subject to different standards to other public sector employees, and these reforms will mean that law enforcement officers will now have access to these protections under federal legislation in the same manner as other public sector employees.

There have been some concerns raised more broadly about this particular interaction between matters that are agreed to in enterprise bargaining and their relationship to the Victoria Police Act 2013. I think it is a matter which the Parliament will have to keep an eye on, particularly with its police oversight jurisdiction. I think that is a constant issue that the Parliament needs to be looking at as it progresses.

One thing I want to say, in addition to clarifying for Mr Mulholland that this is in fact all Jeff Kennett’s fault, is that I was not quite sure in the context of his contribution whether there was a complaint that the opposition were not briefed on this bill. I just want to put on the record here that they were provided a briefing on this bill, and it was acknowledged by the member for Sandringham in the other place on 25 May that the briefing in fact did take place. I just want to make sure that no-one was misled into thinking that no briefing had taken place. The Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations acknowledged in the other place that in fact it had.

With that, it is important to say that these reforms have been advocated for by the Police Association Victoria and by the Community and Public Sector Union. The government fundamentally believes that workers across Victoria deserve to have certainty about the future of their jobs and about rights and protections they are entitled to, and we will stand with workers to ensure that they exist.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:08): Thank you for the speakers’ contributions on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Amendment Bill 2026. Just by way of a summing-up, this is a bill that has been many years in the making. It makes important amendments to ensure that workplace conditions for our law enforcement officers and Victorian public service (VPS) staff align with our broader public sector workforce. It does so by referring the requisite industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth, something that the government has done from time to time. It is appropriate to ensure that our workers can benefit from improved workplace rights introduced by the federal government. For our law enforcement officers the bill will expand the categories of matters that can be the subject of enterprise bargaining and validity included in enterprise agreements and workplace determinations.

Mr Puglielli, you have flagged that you want to have a bit of a conversation in committee, which is fine, but I just want to put on record that the police code of conduct does not form part of the matters being referred. The framework does allow for future enterprise bargaining agreements to displace provisions of the Victoria Police Act 2013. However, the bill contains consequential amendments that clarify that the intention is supportive of an interpretation of the provisions of the Victoria Police Act to operate concurrently with future enterprise agreements and workplace determinations to the extent possible. We can elaborate a bit further, but I just wanted to make sure I picked up on that code of conduct issue that you raised.

What the amendments will facilitate effectively is that some of the most critical matters relating to these workers’ roles are clearer and more enforceable – things like probation provisions; promotion requirements; the ability to transfer a law enforcement officer from place to place or position to position subject to a 14-day tasking exception, which has been in some of the conversations that have been happening with VicPol and the industrial representatives, the Police Association Victoria (TPAV); requirements or assessments of physical or mental fitness; discipline; and termination of employment matters. Currently the referral act does not enable law enforcement officers to validly bargain on or seek dispute resolution from the Fair Work Commission on these matters, unlike other public sector workers who could seek to enforce terms of an enterprise bargaining in the commission. Our changes ensure that the enterprise bargaining regime for law enforcement officers is broadly consistent with the regime applying to all other public sector workers and will enable law enforcement officers and the police association to bargain collectively for an expanded range of terms and conditions of employment. The bill will also ensure that the general protections regime under the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 broadly applies to law enforcement officers in the same way as those protections currently apply to other public sector employees, and there are a number of consequential amendments to the Victoria Police Act to reflect those changes.

Just briefly touching on a number of other areas in the public sector and local government employees, the bill will enable a number of recent amendments to the Fair Work act to apply to all public sector workers to the extent they do not already. It is about closing the gaps between specific cohorts of the Victorian public sector and local council to ensure better parity of conditions. The bill will ensure the Commonwealth’s recent amendments to flexible work and pay secrecy in the Fair Work act apply to the executive local government and public sector employees where these provisions do not currently apply to those cohorts. The bill will ensure that the provisions dealing with restrictions on fixed-term and casual employment will also apply to non-executive local government and public sector employees – again, where this is not already the case.

Fundamentally, the reforms in this bill are not revolutionary, but they will make an important difference to specific sectors of the workforce – to our police, our PSOs, our local government staff and elements of the VPS. These are workforces that we rely on, whose work we value and who deserve the same rights as their counterparts.

In closing, I want to acknowledge that the reforms stem from, as I said earlier, years of advocacy from the union movement – from TPAV and from the CPSU. They have fought hard to bring these changes on behalf of their members and have worked very collaboratively with the agencies that their employees work with and government more broadly. I want to thank them for their commitment to these changes and their dedication to improving the working and bargaining conditions of their members. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Industrial Relations Victoria in bringing these reforms to life, in particular Daniel Negus, Elise Lima-Bosworth and Jennifer Worthington. I would also like to acknowledge my former adviser for industrial relations Sam Towler. This will be her final bill as an adviser in the government, so I would really like to pay tribute to somebody that has made a big contribution to government, particularly in the area of the Attorney-General and our industrial relations portfolios. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (21:14)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will try and be efficient with my questioning tonight. My questions all fixate, as I foreshadowed, on the amendments to the Victoria Police Act 2013. Minister, can you outline: under this bill, why are integrity matters being treated purely as industrial matters?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, I do not agree that that is what this is doing. It is absolutely not. There are matters in enterprise bargaining agreements that can be considered, but in terms of IBAC and its role in relation to integrity matters, that continues. I do not agree with your statement that that is what the bill is doing in any way.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to follow up: Minister, can you provide a rationale for permitting enterprise bargaining over matters such as police discipline, suspension and compliance with statutory conduct requirements given that these provisions also exist to protect the public and maintain the integrity of Victoria Police, not simply to regulate an employment relationship?

Jaclyn SYMES: What I want to be very clear about is that in relation to employment matters and EBAs – they clarify the rights of workers and their entitlements. This is what this is about. What you are talking about is in relation to IBAC’s powers and other ways of – they can work concurrently. It is not displacing IBAC. I think probably by way of demonstration of that: yes, based on the constitution provisions under enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009 override to the extent that they are inconsistent with existing state legislation such as the Victoria Police Act. It is therefore theoretically possible that the Police Association Victoria (TPAV) and Victoria Police could agree to terms in future enterprise agreements that alter the definition of a breach of discipline, for example in the Victoria Police Act. The definition currently refers to failures to comply with certain IBAC directions, among other matters.

It is considered highly unlikely that this definition will be affected by the reference of discipline. Any change to the definition would need to be proposed by TPAV, agreed to by the Chief Commissioner of Police, approved by government through the standard enterprise agreement approval processes and approved by the Fair Work Commission itself. These standards should ensure that the current definition, as it pertains to IBAC’s functions, is maintained. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, which governs the independent processes, will remain independent of the EBA bargaining process. We confirmed with IBAC that we would consult with them in relation to any of the future bargaining and any concerns that may arise over the areas that you are starting to delve into. I think it would be important for us to put that on the public record: that this government at this time believes that it would be appropriate to have those conversations with IBAC. I cannot envisage a world where a future government would not have the same view.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, speaking broadly with respect to this section, is it your view that parliamentary oversight of Victoria Police is being in any way weakened by this bill? If not, why not?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think, just to reiterate, Mr Puglielli, the scope of this bill addresses the industrial components of discipline, not integrity matters.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: A provision of the police act can only be amended through Parliament. An enterprise agreement does not receive parliamentary approval. Can I ask: why is it appropriate for the practical operation of statutory police accountability provisions to be altered through an industrial instrument that the Parliament does not approve?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Puglielli, I just point you to the process of enterprise bargaining. It involves TPAV, the industrial representative, negotiating with VicPol. It needs to be agreed to by the chief commissioner, has to be approved by government and then has to be endorsed by Fair Work. So there are a lot of processes before an EBA becomes final.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just as a follow-up: does the Minister for Police or Attorney-General have a statutory power to veto an enterprise agreement term on the basis that it undermines police integrity or public safety?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I was explaining, government have to approve enterprise agreements. It is usually a matter for the relevant minister, who would bring it to a cabinet process. I guess in terms of when I am talking about government having to approve EBAs before they go to Fair Work, that involves in itself its own internal government processes. The process that we have currently is the relevant minister would bring an EBA to an arm of our budget committee.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Are there any non-negotiable integrity safeguards as it pertains to this bill?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli, can you please repeat that?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Perhaps flip the words around: are there any integrity safeguards under this bill that are non-negotiable?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sorry, I am not really clear what your question is asking.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli, are you happy to expand on that?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: We are coming at the bill from very different angles, so I might just move on to the next question.

Evan Mulholland: Is it AI?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: It is definitely not AI, it is with the assistance of the Police Accountability Project, for the record. Can the minister identify which, if any, provisions of the Victoria Police Act dealing with police integrity and accountability are expressly protected from alteration in their practical operation by an enterprise agreement or workplace determination?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, it is not the way that the bill is framed. There is not anything that is excluded by virtue of this bill, but the safeguards in effect do that.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Section 178 requires the chief commissioner to take action where relevant conduct has been found to have occurred following a public interest complaint.

Jaclyn SYMES: Are you referring to the Victoria Police Act or are you referring to the bill? Sorry, just which section are you talking about?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just remind the two of you that it is not a conversation between you. You need to wait until I give you the call.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Apologies, Deputy President. This is with respect to the Victoria Police Act. Just to continue, though, that section requires the chief commissioner to take action where relevant conduct has been found to have occurred following a public interest complaint. Why does the bill specifically make section 178 subject to the new part 14B framework?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, the issue that I have with the line of questioning that you are taking is that you have predetermined a false premise in this bill. I understand that some people have done some work for you in relation to this bill. This is not about undermining the integrity framework that is very important to apply to Victoria Police. This is about employment rights. This is about ensuring that the rights that are afforded to many others in the public sector are also provided to Victoria Police in a more streamlined way. It is quite clunky, the way it operates at the moment, and TPAV can point to members that have not been able to exercise their rights as arguably they should, which is why we have agreed with that proposition and said that we would fix that through this bill. There is nothing in this bill that is designed to take away from IBAC’s role to respond to police integrity issues, police misconduct complaints, police issues that the public have or people that have got complaints with the way that they have interacted with Victoria Police – that remains intact. They can work in parallel. Where there are any concerns that you have raised, there are those safeguards in terms of the processes that you have to approve an EBA. Once they are approved at government and go through to Fair Work, there would be the opportunity for someone to raise an issue – IBAC for instance. There are a lot of opportunities to intervene if somebody thought that some of the concerns that you are raising would be impacted by a provision that was agreed through the industrial relations process.

I think it is just a little difficult to respond to your questions when you are coming at it asking why it is not definitively ruling this out or ruling that out, because that is not the purpose of the bill. I am happy to explore some of those questions that you have, but as I said, they appear to be coming from a fundamental misunderstanding and perhaps a slightly conspiratorial view of this bill. It is just making our interactions a little difficult, because I am going to have to continue to say that the line of questioning is not really in line with the intention of the bill, so it makes it just a little complicated for me. I hope that sets a bit more of a tone.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I would not characterise it as a misunderstanding per se but perhaps a different understanding with respect to the bill. As I think you have highlighted, the stated intention is employment rights, but other impacts, though, maybe even unintended consequences, would have a flow-on effect to integrity. I think that is the advice that I have received. My speech on the second reading highlighted specifically with respect to police their extraordinary role in that they are exercising coercive state powers, as opposed to other parts of the workforce where that is not the case.

You did touch on the code of conduct in your summing-up. The bill specifically places a note against the police act provisions dealing with the code of conduct and compliance with that code. Minister, can you confirm whether a future enterprise agreement could impose additional procedural requirements or other conditions affecting how the code of conduct is made or enforced?

Jaclyn SYMES: Elements of the code of conduct that contain matters that are referred may be displaced by a future enterprise agreement, but not the code of conduct in its entirety.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: To follow up, could an enterprise agreement validly affect an officer’s obligation to comply with standards concerning use of force, human rights or reporting unethical or unlawful conduct? The existing code includes precisely those matters.

Jaclyn SYMES: That is certainly not the intention of the legislation. The hypothetical situation that you are going to have TPAV and VicPol agree that they can diminish the obligation of use of force through an EBA is just not a situation that is enabled by this legislation because of the safeguards that I have gone through. Theoretically, you can move some things around through an EBA, but again, the concerns that you are representing, that all of a sudden it is going to be a free-for-all for Victoria Police because an EBA is going to be agreed that they will be allowed to have less scrutiny on those really important issues, is just not something that this bill is ever intending to facilitate.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, does the government accept that there is a distinction between giving an officer fair workplace protections during a disciplinary process and allowing the content of the integrity and disciplinary framework itself to become a matter for collective bargaining?

Jaclyn SYMES: Can you ask that again? When you ask your own questions, you make sense. This is not clear.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Is it a fact that there is a distinction between giving an officer fair workplace protections and allowing the content of the integrity and disciplinary framework itself to become a matter for collective bargaining?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, the tone of the questions – ‘Is it a fact that this could happen? Is it a fact that this is the intention of it?’ – is just missing the point of this bill. I am sorry, I do not mean to get too frustrated with you, Mr Puglielli, but it does sound like a student has gone and tried to come up with a number of conspiracies that might eventuate through this bill. It is just not the reality of how governments work or, frankly, how politics works. EBAs are for workplace rights. The VicPol act and the IBAC act are separate pieces of legislation.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: This may be my last question. Before introducing these amendments, did the government specifically consult the IBAC, the Police Registration and Services Board (PRSB) or organisations with expertise in police-perpetrated family violence about the proposed interaction between enterprise agreements and police act integrity provisions?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can confirm, because although this is not my bill anymore it was, and it was for a long time, because it has been kicking around for a while in terms of trying to land agreement with everyone. The level of consultation on this bill got to the point where most people were pretty over it, because there has been a lot.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 44 (21:32)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I invite members to vote against clauses 7 to 44. As I foreshadowed, the questioning that I brought in today for the committee stage was with the assistance of the Police Accountability Project, and in their reading of the legislation they raised a number of concerns. It is on that basis that the Greens will be opposing part 3 of the bill. Concerns raised included the bill broadening matters that can be dealt with in a Victoria Police enterprise agreement or workplace determination, which raises concern of Victoria Police effectively, by flow-on effect, writing their own laws. The bill expressly restructures the interaction between the Victoria Police Act and Commonwealth fair work instruments. They are intended to operate concurrently where possible, but the Commonwealth instrument prevails to the extent of inconsistency, raising a concern of the enterprise agreement overriding the Victoria Police Act. Concerns were also raised regarding chief commissioner instructions becoming subject to bargaining and police disciplinary procedures effectively being determined through enterprise bargaining. Also there are concerns regarding the mandatory suspension powers of the Police Registration and Services Board being weakened. Mandatory and discretionary suspension provisions are among those specifically affected by the new framework, raising the question of why statutory integrity safeguards of this kind should be capable of being displaced by an industrial instrument. Further, the bill creates a possibility that a future industrial instrument could displace or modify the statutory obligation, raising concerns that the enterprise agreement could mean police misconduct no longer has to be stopped or prevented. It is a significant transfer of regulatory authority from state to the Commonwealth. To put as a final point, it raises concerns of Victoria’s sovereignty over our police force, and on that basis the Greens will be opposing part 3 of this bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There appears to be more to part 3 than just the police act, so can you just confirm which clauses you are wanting to remove?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I am advised we would be looking at clauses 7 to 44.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are the clauses that relate to the police act.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, I think you have gathered from our exchange that I believe that the concerns that you have sponsored are unsubstantiated. I think it is quite concerning that you have placed such regard in one stakeholder’s views when this has been years in the making. Of course we have thought about the issues that this organisation have raised. Of course we are not creating a piece of legislation that enables a free-for-all for police to avoid disciplinary action and avoid integrity measures. This has been something that is supported by the Department of Justice and Community Safety and Industrial Relations Victoria. Both are departments that I have the utmost respect for. I have been dealing with the department of justice for four years as the Attorney-General. They are the unit that is responsible for police powers and what they can do and interactions with IBAC. These are issues that we take very seriously, and to have allegations from a stakeholder that thinks that we have created a system that will allow those fears to be realised is, frankly, very offensive. As I said, the department of justice, IRV and VicPol have been consulted, including the PRSB. IBAC have been consulted. A number of legal experts have been consulted. I think that trumps the stakeholders that you have decided to back in this situation. So I do not support your proposal to knock out some pretty important pieces of change that are all about the workplace rights and the workplace entitlements of a workforce, such as police and PSOs, who have been asking for the same treatment as many other workers in Victoria. This is just affording them that right. It is not creating a police state, as you are trying to allege.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am more or less going to echo the minister there. I know who has written the questions, Mr Puglielli, and this is not a go at him, but they are written by people that have just spewed a lot of paranoid drivel about what could possibly happen. The police are tightly regulated, as they should be. Enterprise bargaining – they are employees of the state; of course they have got to be able to do all this sort of stuff. But unfortunately, the Police Accountability Project have a long history of this sort of crap. I think it is best we just get through this division and put it in the rear-view mirror.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to echo the comments of Minister Symes and Mr Bourman. I think this is quite a disappointing amendment. It can be viewed through a particular activist lens, but it is inconsistent with our view and opinion on the bill itself. So I think the amendment should be opposed, and the Liberals and Nationals will certainly be opposing it.

Clauses 7 to 44 agreed to; clause 45 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:40): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:40): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the same without amendment.