Tuesday, 20 June 2023
Bills
Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023
Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (18:20): I stand to support the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. The bill legislates the creation of the Victorian Future Fund and defines how the Victorian Future Fund can be used. The bill establishes the Victorian Future Fund as a statutory trust account. Legislating the establishment of the fund provides certainty regarding the governance and purpose of the fund. This certainty supports the state’s credit rating agencies in assessing the impact of the fund for credit rating purposes. It is also the established practice of equivalent funds in New South Wales and Queensland to legislatively enshrine the fund’s functions.
I want to speak on the government’s fiscal strategy and the COVID debt repayment plan. At the start of the pandemic the government set out a responsible and clear four-step fiscal strategy to restore the state’s finances over the medium term. This strategy not only improves the state’s financial position but also helps guard against future financial shocks. The 2023–24 state budget delivers progress on this financial strategy. The first step – creating jobs, reducing unemployment and restoring economic growth – is progressing well. The unemployment rate is below 4 per cent, and the government’s jobs target has been met more than two years early. The second step is the government’s fiscal strategy: returning to an operating cash surplus. This means the state is generating sufficient cash inflows to exceed its cash outflows on operating activities. The government continues to forecast an operating cash surplus for 2022–23 onwards. This is an improvement on the cash surplus when compared with the 2022 Victorian pre-election budget update.
The third step is returning to an operational surplus. This is important, as this is where the government generates sufficient revenues to cover not just its cash expenditure but also the ongoing replacement of existing assets. The government is forecasting an operating surplus of $1 billion in 2025–26. The operating surplus is then forecast to increase to $1.2 billion in 2026–27. The fourth step is stabilising net debt to gross state product. 2023–24 shows progress in the fourth step in the fiscal strategy: stabilising net debt. The improvements to the government’s operating cash position have flowed through to net debt, which is expected to be $3.7 billion lower by June 2026 compared with the pre-election budget update. The government remains committed to stabilising net debt as a percentage of the GSP over the medium term. The new Victorian Future Fund is a key plank in stabilising net debt. The Victorian Future Fund was earmarked last year to manage the fiscal impact of COVID-19 and deliver positive outcomes for Victorians by reducing the debt burden on future generations. It was announced that the fund would initially be established using proceeds from the VicRoads modernisation joint venture of $7.9 billion. It was also announced that further investments would be made in the future fund through proceeds from designated government land sales and a proportion of future budget surpluses once net debt stabilises.
The bill also provides discretion for the Treasurer to contribute amounts into the fund, such as a proportion of any future surplus once net debt stabilises, as the government has also committed. The bill confirms that the fund will be managed by the Victorian Funds Management Corporation, the VFMC, the state’s specialist investment agency, by implementing a diversified investment strategy designed to deliver returns that exceed the savings that would otherwise have been achieved. These excess returns will, over time, improve the state’s operating result and net debt position, further supporting the state debt stabilisation strategy.
The Victorian Funds Management Corporation will drive an investment strategy designed to deliver higher returns than would otherwise be achieved, with the fund balance ultimately to be used to pay down debt incurred during the pandemic. The government has committed that the fund will be managed in line with strict environmental, social and governance principles consistent with other investments managed by the VFMC. The investment returns from the fund will be quarantined and returned to the fund so that its balance will grow over time. Further investments will be allocated to the fund in the future through proceeds from designated government land sales and a proportion of future budget surpluses once net debt stabilises.
The fund is projected to have a balance of around $12 billion by the end of the forward estimates. The bill provides that money in the future fund may be applied only for the purposes of paying amounts determined by the Treasurer to reduce the state’s debt as well as for administration and auditing of the fund. This means the fund cannot be used as an ATM and raided for election commitments as others have attempted to do in the past. Reporting will be in line with the recommendations of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and other jurisdictions. PAEC has recommended that the Department of Treasury and Finance’s annual report detail the performance of the fund including the opening and closing balance at the end of each financial year and how its performance assists in stabilising net debt.
Similar reporting obligations exist in Queensland where the equivalent Queensland law provides that the fund movements will be recorded and disclosed in Treasury-audited financial statements that form part of Treasury’s annual report. Credit rating agencies recognise the New South Wales and Queensland debt retirement funds as offsets to gross debt for the purposes of assessing those state’s credit ratings, and both New South Wales and Queensland have introduced legislation to establish their respective funds. It is clear that Victoria must do the same to receive the same treatment.
As I have said, I support this bill and the idea of a future fund. I think Victoria understands the benefits of the future fund as well, taking a large sum of money that has come the state’s way, putting it aside so that it sets the state up for the future and ensuring that those funds do not get swept into the general running of the state and spent in a short period. The funds are invested and the investment grows. Because the fund receives returns that are higher than the interest rate we borrow at, doing it this way will improve our overall financial position more than simply paying down debt straightaway.
Future funds are a sensible idea, and I think Victorians understand the benefits of the investment. We have superannuation, and that has been a fantastic thing for workers. People understand the idea of quarantining funds for the future, growing them sustainably, which is what a future fund does. It is about thinking about the future. You can sell or lease an asset or have high royalties from a natural resource for a short period and just take those funds into the Consolidated Fund and say, ‘Good-o, we can spruce up the balance sheet this year.’ You can not think of the future, and we have seen people argue for that – in fact we have seen that occur in Australia in recent decades, benefiting particular vested interests rather than the interests of the community. It is the interests of the community which we are here to represent; it is for their financial sustainability and for the balance sheet of the state to be used in the best interests of the Victorian community.
Overseas the idea of quarantining large sums of money for the future is not new, and you hear a lot about sovereign wealth funds and high-worth sovereign wealth funds. Norway is an example that is used a lot. I believe it has the biggest sovereign wealth fund at a value of around $1.5 trillion. The dollar values may be different, but we are talking about similar principles. In Norway they recognise that incomes that are not going to be around forever are extraordinary and should be treated differently. Many other nations have done the same. This has given these nations tremendous financial security and independence, and it is a great example for us here in Australia.
I commend the bill, the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, for taking advantage of this opportunity to invest for our state and deliver on our financial sustainability going forward for not only this generation but many more to come.
Sitting suspended 6:29 pm until 7:32 pm.
Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (19:32): It is good to rise to have my say on the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. At the outset I want to make it plain that on this side of the house we do not oppose this bill. Indeed we think that the basic idea, the basic premise, being put forward here by the government is a good one for a range of reasons that I will briefly outline. I suppose at the outset, though, I want to make the point that this bill really is an admission that at some level within the government there is an acknowledgement of the parlous financial position that our state now finds itself in because of the extraordinary waste and the dreadful debt, the mounting debt, that we see here in Victoria. In fact we have a debt crisis; I think that is acknowledged. It is certainly acknowledged by the ratings agencies, and one of the reasons I think for the introduction of this bill on the part of the government is a real worry that unless something is done, unless at least some very small steps are being taken – and this is a small step – to seek to alleviate the huge impact of our mounting debt, then we will see further downgrades, as we have already seen downgrades.
As I have said, the introduction of this bill is a concession about where we are at. I think I said in my earlier contribution today on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023 that at the moment Victorians are paying $10 million every single day just to service the debt. It is not COVID debt. Of course there was additional spending on the part of the government through the course of the pandemic. However, debt was mounting before COVID hit, and the vast majority of Victoria’s debt has nothing to do with spending that could be reasonably attributed to any of the actions taken by the government during the period of the pandemic. What we see is that, whilst right now Victorians are collectively paying $10 million every single day just to service our debt, this is going to climb to $15 million every single day by 1 July this year, which is in 11 days time, but then climb under this budget, the budget that passed the other place just last sitting week and undoubtedly will pass this place on Thursday, to $22 million every single day. We have got a debt problem, to put it mildly, and the government is therefore bringing this legislation forward, the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, in an acknowledgement and a significant admission that we have a debt problem – we have a debt crisis – and something must be done in order to deal with that.
I am advised that the future fund will initially be in receipt of something in the order of $8 billion – a tick over $8 billion. That is after the government made a decision to privatise the licensing division of VicRoads, which is interesting of course, because oftentimes in this place we hear about the evils of privatisation.
It is in fact today Mrs Kirner’s birthday, and I heard a group of Labor Party members in the dining room singing happy birthday to Mrs Kirner. I do not mind saying that I hummed along. In another life, when I was –
Matthew BACH: I hummed along, Ms Shing. I thought, especially given recent events, I did not want to sort of provide full-throated support to the birthday rendition for Mrs Kirner, but nonetheless, on my small table involving Liberal and National Party members, I hummed along.
A member: In your head or out loud?
Matthew BACH: A strong tenor. Under the Baillieu government, Mrs Kirner was the communities adviser. She held that role under the Bracks and Brumby governments and she continued to hold that role under the Baillieu and Napthine governments, and she was quite amazing in that role. I do not confess to have known Mrs Kirner well, but as the adviser – ‘key adviser’ I have been called previously by Minister Blandthorn – to Minister Wooldridge, I had much interaction with Mrs Kirner, and she was a fabulous support. I was incredibly nervous actually, as a young Liberal bloke – I was 25 at the time – to come into contact with someone as formidable as Mrs Kirner. However, she provided amazing support in that role, and she is a person for whom I have great respect. It is little understood that she started so many of the processes during her premiership that of course then carried on under the Kennett administration for seven years, which included significant privatisations, despite the fact that of course we hear almost daily from those opposite about the deep evil of privatisation. It is not a point that I will dwell upon, but it is a point of interest that much of the funding, as I understand it, that will initially flow into this future fund is as a result of privatisation.
The basic idea of a future fund is of course one that we on this side of the house wholeheartedly support. It was a previous federal Treasurer Mr Costello who introduced a very important fund in Canberra. It is a point that has been made by my colleagues in the other place that we would have preferred a model more similar to the federal model. We will support the government on this measure. We will not oppose it. Nonetheless we would have preferred a slightly different model, more similar to the model in Canberra.
The future fund that has been established federally has done quite wonderful things for our country. My understanding is that it is in fact the largest investment fund in the entirety of the Southern Hemisphere now. It manages hundreds of billions of dollars, and as such it is a proven model. It is very well resourced, it is focused on generating profitable returns and importantly those returns can only then benefit the liabilities of the federal public service, and that was the reason of course that fund was initially established. I do have my concerns that this is an opportunity, in establishing a future fund here in Victoria, that has been missed – to learn from a highly successful initiative from a previous government in Canberra. I will just give one or two reasons for that view that I hold. Under the legislation that we are now considering here in this place, the Treasurer has complete discretion to appoint a person to manage the fund.
The broader terms of that appointment, as I say, are completely at the discretion of the Treasurer, which is not the way things are done federally. In Canberra that fund is governed by a board of seven – six members, and in addition to that of course a chair. The Commonwealth Future Fund legislation talks at some length about the risk and return considerations as well. These are not mentioned in this legislation, at least not as I read it. If members opposite would like to enlighten me, then I would be very interested to hear that.
This is legislation that, as per one or two elements, as the Attorney referred to in the committee stage of the previous bill, I would like to give some credit to the Treasurer for. We think this is a good move. We acknowledge on this side of the house, as I think the Treasurer must do at least implicitly in bringing forward this legislation, the deep challenges that Victoria is facing in terms of our debt. This in effect, in the most simplistic language, establishes an offset account – if you like, a state of Victoria offset account – and that is to help to balance the overall position, the net position of the state, in order to then help to pay off debt. Of course on this side of the house we think that is a good thing.
I am not entirely convinced that that is the only reason for the Treasurer seeking to bring forward this legislation to the house. We know from recent comments from both of the major ratings agencies that they have deep concern about the state of Victoria’s finances, and so excuse me if I sound in any way cynical or overly sceptical, but potentially one of the reasons for bringing forward this legislation is the Treasurer is aware that unless at least some ameliorative measures are taken, then there will be further downgrades of Victoria’s credit rating. I think oftentimes people do not understand the significant impact of downgrades of a jurisdiction’s credit rating. It makes it harder and more expensive to borrow money – and the current government is borrowing a huge amount of money, has huge debt liabilities. Nonetheless, whether that is the case or not, this is a measure that in some respects at least apes a significant and important measure introduced previously into the federal arena. It is a measure that I think everybody acknowledges has been an important measure, and on that basis we will not be opposing the bill before the house this evening.
Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (19:43): I rise to speak in opposition to the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, which is little more than a vehicle for this government’s neoliberal agenda. This bill relies on using the sale of public assets and public land to service our debt – well, at least a small portion of the debt. It will lock in future privatisations and sell-offs and has little purpose other than reassuring the ratings agencies that the government has a plan to manage its debt. Most of the debt this bill is designed to address was incurred by doing exactly the kind of work a government should be doing: looking after people in a time of crisis. During COVID this government was not afraid to spend big to do the right thing, like freezing rents and banning evictions, housing the homeless and supporting our essential workers. But now the Labor government is turning its back on good government by preparing to carve public services and public assets up and sell them off to cover a debt.
The bill legislates for the new Victorian Future Fund and outlines what moneys are to be put into the fund and what it can be spent on. Firstly, funds will be credited from what the bill calls the ‘VicRoads modernisation’, which is simply a roundabout way to describe the privatisation of the licensing and registration functions of VicRoads. This sets the scene for the fund to be fuelled by future privatisations, and we know there will be more, because this Labor government has overseen the biggest privatisation agenda in this state since the days of Jeff Kennett. It has sold off the Port of Melbourne and privatised the land titles office. Just like the Kennett government, it is slashing thousands of public service jobs, and it is selling swathes of public land to the private sector, including desperately needed public housing land.
Today we can still see the effects of the rampant privatisation of assets during the Kennett era. Electricity prices have skyrocketed, the building and construction sectors are in disarray and our health system is in crisis, all of which stem from Kennett’s carve-up and sell-offs. I can only imagine what this Labor government is locking us in for by 2050. This government likes to hide the full extent of its privatisation program by dressing it up in language like ‘modernisation’, ‘renewal’, ‘redevelopment’ or its favourite, ‘public–private partnerships’, but make no mistake, what this government is doing is pushing ahead with a neoliberal approach to the function of government where key public assets are sold off and government functions are outsourced to the private sector. It has relied on investing in public–private partnerships where public money is handed over to private companies to make profit from building assets and providing services to the public. So many of the government’s major projects rely on the government paying developers to build infrastructure that will funnel profits back into the developer’s coffers, like the West Gate Tunnel toll road or the privatised housing in the ground lease model.
Public services should be kept in public hands. A good government would be investing in its public sector and in really high-quality public services like education, health, transport and housing. We know that privatisation always leads to higher costs for essential services, poorer quality services and lost revenue that can no longer be reinvested into public services. Filling the future fund with the proceeds from privatisation is a kneejerk reaction and a short-sighted way to manage government debt. The bill also provides that proceeds from the sale of public land will also go into the future fund. Just like public services, public land is a precious asset that should be protected and kept in public hands, but this government has repeatedly made the short-sighted decision to sell it off to raise money in the short term and then years later has found itself in need of more land for public infrastructure and public services.
Take for example our housing crisis, which the government says will be solved by increasing supply, but to increase supply you need to find somewhere for the new homes to go. This government is currently signposting its plans for a major housing package to increase supply, and while those of us not in government are still in the dark about these plans, they are likely to involve taking planning power away from local government and centralising it within the minister’s office to fast-track new housing projects. However, this government has a public asset within its control that it could use to address the housing crisis now: public housing and public land for more public housing. A good government would be utilising this public asset by building thousands of new public homes on public land, creating the affordable housing we desperately need in a crisis, but instead this Labor government is carving up public housing estates for privatised housing and giving precious public land to the private sector. And now it is preparing to sell off even more land for the purposes of this future fund. There are currently 146 parcels of land being prepared for future sale. This is land that could be used for public services or public housing, and once public land is sold off it is lost forever.
I would also remind this government that this is not their land to sell off. While they might think public land is an asset to be disposed of because they hold the title to it, this land actually belongs to our First Peoples, who have never ceded sovereignty over the lands that were violently taken away from them during colonisation. In the middle of a treaty process in Victoria which recognises the harms of the past and the present and moves towards true self-determination and justice for First Peoples, any attempt to further dispossess First Peoples of their land risks undermining the whole process. To honour the treaty process public land should be kept in public hands until treaties are completed. This land must not be further stolen from our First Peoples until treaty protects land rights and First Peoples have a say over what happens to their land. Legislating that the future fund will be credited by the proceeds from future public land sales only locks in further dispossession of First Peoples.
The government’s spin on this bill is to call it a future fund, but if we are really concerned about the future then the fund should be directed to addressing the material challenges facing Victorians, and right now the most pressing issue is the housing crisis. A key reason we are in a housing crisis is because this Labor government has abandoned public housing.
There are fewer public housing dwellings in Victoria now than there were when this government took office, and we are on track for even less as the demolition of public housing and its replacement with private housing continues. Imagine if we dedicated the billions of dollars going into this fund to the provision of public housing – we could well be on the way to addressing the housing crisis and solving homelessness once and for all.
We know that the initial money in the fund will come from the $7.9 billion privatisation of VicRoads and from the ongoing sell-off of public land, but because this is an investment fund, the government will take this initial deposit and then choose various ways to invest that money. There is little in this bill to govern how or where this money can be invested, which means there is nothing to stop the government from taking the public money in the fund and investing it in harmful industries like fossil fuels. It is incredible that in a climate crisis it is even possible for a government to take public money and invest it in things that make the climate crisis worse, like the oil and gas industries – but it is.
While we are not prepared to support this bill in its current form, the Greens have prepared amendments to address its flaws and turn the future fund into something that can be used for good. Our amendments would change the purpose of the fund to be for building more public housing, preventing proceeds from the sale of public land being credited to the fund, at least without first securing permission from the First Peoples’ Assembly and checking whether the land is suitable for new public homes, and prohibiting the fund from investing in companies engaged in fossil fuel activities. I am happy for my amendments to be circulated now, please.
Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.
Samantha RATNAM: I will speak more to each amendment in the committee stage, but these are the kinds of changes the Greens want to see made to the bill in order for us to support it.
Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (19:52): I rise to speak in support of the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023, which is a bill that will continue this state’s positive trajectory down the road to post-COVID financial recovery and debt repayment. During the pandemic so many of us gave up so much to keep our state safe. We missed out on birthdays and special celebrations, we put plans and holidays on hold and we sacrificed our time with our family and friends and missed very special significant family occasions. The Andrews Labor government knew, as we know now, that we needed to move quickly to support Victorian households, workers and businesses to make ends meet while staying safe. We made the vital decision, as did many governments right across the globe, to borrow money to save lives, save jobs and keep us moving forward in an economically sustainable way, and throughout the pandemic I saw the incredible benefits this choice bought those who call my electorate of the Northern Metropolitan Region home.
As we continue to do what matters to get through the pandemic in one piece, this approach led to a necessary increase in our debt as we borrowed to protect Victorians and our economy. As part of the 2022–23 state budget we announced the Victorian Future Fund as a part of our debt stabilisation strategy. This fund was initially established as a notional allocation within the Consolidated Fund, with the current allocation of funds coming from the VicRoads modernisation joint venture. The Victorian Future Fund Bill intended to help Victoria bounce back economically from the pandemic as a key goal to ensure that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren do not have to bear the burden of debt created throughout the pandemic.
I might add at this time, contrary to what others in this chamber might think, Victoria is not the only state in Australia to have built up debt during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact Victoria is far from the only jurisdiction in the world to have accrued debt during this time. Here with this bill this government is legislating a plan to deal with the debt in a way that improves our financial position and helps us guard against future financial shocks.
The Victorian economy is already well on the way to recovering from the fiscal impacts of COVID-19. In fact our economic activity is currently above the prepandemic levels, with the labour market even stronger than it was before 2020. It is something worth celebrating. Economic output per person is expected to be 5 per cent higher this year than it was in the 2018–19 financial year, the last full financial year before the pandemic. The unemployment rate is around its lowest since the early 1970s. Underemployment is nearly at a multidecade low, and the participation rate of 67.7 per cent at March of 2023 is a record high. Employment for those most affected by the pandemic, especially women and young people, recovered strongly. By early 2022 female employment had grown more than male employment compared with March 2020 levels. Meanwhile the proportion of young people in employment recovered to around prepandemic levels by early 2022. Our economy is forecast to keep growing and creating jobs even whilst we negotiate the current global challenges of high inflation, rising interest rates and of course some challenges with peace and stability on our globe.
I will just also say that with the Victorian Future Fund Bill, we are delivering progress on this responsibly and with a clear fiscal strategy – a strategy that aims to restore our state’s finances and keep the post-pandemic Victorian economy strong, growing and delivering record-breaking jobs performance. The Andrews Labor government has a history of doing what needed to be done and needs to be done and delivering the things that Victorians need. During the pandemic we did what we had to do to provide Victorian families and communities with the services and support they needed to get by. Now, as we emerge into a post-pandemic era, we are getting on with the job of paying down our COVID debts and granting every generation of Victorian kids to come a better future. I commend this bill to the house.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (19:57): I rise today to contribute to the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. I spoke about the budget earlier in the day, so you know my opinions on it already. But to get onto the VFF: we first saw the Victorian Future Fund in the 2022–23 budget, when it was first put forward as a decisive response to the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic here in Victoria. With the aim of insuring the good debt that the Andrews Labor government took on to build and deliver a better Victoria, the future fund was introduced. The Victorian Future Fund found its initial footing through a notional allocation from within the Consolidated Fund. Acknowledging the benefits of a long-sighted approach to the future fund, the 2022–23 budget also anticipated additional contributions to the fund in the coming years. This includes revenue from government land sales and a share of future budget surpluses. This forward-looking approach set the stage for the fund’s establishment and growth into a game-changing asset for the Victorian people.
This bill establishes the fund as a statutory trust account under the Financial Management Act 1994. It sets out a framework for the administration of the fund and how to appoint a manager. It outlines the auditing process and reporting requirements and amends the Duties Act 2000 so that the fund manager is a qualified investor under the act.
Compared to three years ago, our economy is well and truly full steam ahead. Employment has bounced back, and we are fighting strong against inflation. But we would not be here if it were not for the important preventative efforts that we took at the beginning of the pandemic – fiscal measures that were recommended by the Reserve Bank of Australia and responses to the economy in the face of an unprecedented, once-in-a-century pandemic, with millions of Victorians outside of this chamber on the cusp of losing their jobs or falling into poverty.
We have borrowed sensibly to invest in the future of our state and to invest in things that create jobs and boost the economy. Infrastructure projects like the Metro Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop will forever alter the nature of public transportation in Victoria. They will change the way that Victorians out in the suburbs of Melbourne use and interact with our transportation system. That is what investment under an Andrews Labor government looks like – fiscally responsible upgrades to our state’s infrastructure for the benefit of everyday Victorians. That is why the fund exists – to manage the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and deliver for all Victorians. We will reduce the debt burden on future generations.
The Department of Treasury and Finance has consulted extensively on this bill, as we do with all bills, and that includes with the state’s credit rating agencies, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and the Victorian Funds Management Corporation in relation to the fund. We know that by establishing this legislation our state’s credit rating agencies will look upon us fondly. It demonstrates our strong commitment to managing the state’s debt.
We need to pay back the COVID debt credit card so that we can get on with doing the things that matter in this budget. Both New South Wales and Queensland have introduced legislation to establish their respective funds. This brings us into line with them. We know that to receive the equivalent credit rating treatment we must do the right thing.
The Treasurer has the power to appoint a fund manager who possesses the necessary skills and experience. The fund manager is authorised to invest the money in the fund and to provide information to the minister or secretary as required for reporting purposes, so the utmost level of transparency will be applied to a very important step in our state’s financial recovery. The bill goes on to outline in clause 12(1) through to (3) that the Treasury may conduct audits of the fund or appoint a qualified person to do so in their stead.
In summary, it is a straightforward bill and just what the Victorian public want and need. The Victorian Future Fund was first introduced in 2022–23. In response to our COVID debt, our future strategy has four stages. The first is to create jobs, reduce unemployment and restore economic growth. The second is to return to an operating cash surplus. The third is returning to operating surpluses. The fourth is stabilising debt levels. This budget delivers on that. The 2023–24 budget shows progress on the fourth step. Improvements in the government’s cash position have flowed through to the net debt. That is expected to be $3.7 billion lower by June 2026, and we have committed to stabilising net debt as a percentage of gross state product over the medium term.
We are requiring at this stage that money be used for the modernisation of VicRoads. This process involves consultation with VicRoads workers, unions, motorist groups and other stakeholders, ensuring that we have a fund to secure Victoria’s future for generations to come. The VicRoads modernisation process has always been integral to improving VicRoads service delivery. If everyone would cast their minds all the way back to 2022, the VicRoads modernisation process is the reason why we were able to abolish learner and probationary licence fees, an incredible win for families and young Victorians. Removing this barrier means that we can get more young Victorians learning to drive, one of the most exciting milestones in a young person’s life. But with this modernisation, VicRoads is still in public hands because we believe that something as important as your licence and your registration should be regulated. It should be in the hands of you. Put simply, VicRoads should stay in the hands of the Victorian people, which it has. I commend this bill to the house and urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (20:03): I rise on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria (LCV) to speak to the Victorian Future Fund Bill 2023. The bill’s purposes have been thoroughly canvassed in this house already, so I will not restate those now. But we do acknowledge and appreciate the need for the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to be carefully managed to ensure our current debt does not excessively burden future generations. It has been said by the government that the establishment of this fund in legislation is an important step to providing certainty regarding its governance and purpose. Yet nothing in this proposed legislation gives a general indication of where the fund will make its investments, nor is there a clear goal for investment returns.
The minister’s second-reading speech acknowledges that this fund is aligned with the practice of equivalent funds in New South Wales and Queensland. In New South Wales their Generations Fund, set up in 2018 with $10 billion of capital to be used to help to repay state debt, was found to be investing in so-called emerging markets, resulting in hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars being invested in tax havens and authoritarian countries. We would hope that the Victorian equivalent does not suffer this same fate and end up actively financing activities that worsen the challenges we face as a society. With this in mind, we strongly urge the government to ensure that this fund is operated with the transparency and consistency that $10 billion of public funds deserves. In particular we press the importance that this fund be an ethical investor.
There is another principal point that I wish to press. It relates to the sale of government land, which will account for a significant portion of the capital directed into the fund. To this end, LCV is very interested in seeing the state develop a formal process around the sale of Crown land to ensure that its use for public, social or affordable housing can be maximised, and we have put a potential solution to the government. It is well known to all of us that Victoria is facing a crisis in the lack of social and affordable housing. Melbourne’s population will increase by 1 million people every decade between 2020 and 2050. Plan Melbourne projects that we need to build 460,000 new homes every decade by 2050 to cater for Melbourne’s expected population growth. To put that in some perspective, that is the equivalent of all the homes in the City of Greater Geelong multiplied by four being built every 10 years. This will intensify the housing affordability crisis we are already experiencing, particularly amongst low- and moderate-income households.
The housing market is unable to deliver the number of affordable homes we will require in the next 10 years. Most of the homes currently being built are not affordable to the 64 per cent of households who are the targets of Victoria’s own affordable housing policies. In the period 2016 to 2036 Victoria will require an additional 166,000 social housing dwellings to accommodate those low-income households in the bottom income quartile alone who will otherwise be experiencing housing stress. This implies that we need to build at least 8000 new social housing dwellings a year. Victoria is currently developing but a tiny fraction of this target.
The ready availability of land is crucial to rapidly expanding the supply of social housing. Institutional investors have repeatedly emphasised the importance of having a ready pipeline of assembled projects. Land is the Achilles heel in achieving this outcome. For both housing associations and Homes Victoria the biggest problem is being able to access land in suitable locations at an affordable price. The availability of land to Homes Victoria and community housing providers also provides leverage with developers in concluding agreements to build social and affordable housing projects. With the government in the process of expediting extensive sales of state-owned land, we must be careful not to miss this essentially one-off opportunity to maximise the use of that land. We cannot sell it twice. If this land is assessed by the valuer-general at best and highest use, it generally means that it cannot be afforded by either housing associations or Homes Victoria and will end up with a private developer, with revenue from these land sales going to the Victorian Future Fund. But if we ensure that prior to being released to the market, it is assessed for its suitability for public, social or affordable housing, then there may be an opportunity for both financial and social gain. We would suggest that this assessment be overseen by Homes Victoria, with final approval by the Homes Victoria advisory board. Where a site is identified as being suitable for public, social or affordable housing, in the first instance expressions of interest would be sought from relevant not-for-profit entities such as housing associations, either directly or in partnership with a developer or Homes Victoria itself, to develop the land in question.
For the purposes of valuing the land to be offered, the valuer-general could base their valuation on best and highest use for not-for-profit purposes – essentially a modest discount for a very clear purpose and a significant social dividend. Homes Victoria could assess applications to develop the land for social and affordable housing according to its design criteria and on a value-for-money basis. Where a suitably funded proposal is approved for the development of the site in question, the land could be sold to the relevant party, who would be responsible for the development, including payments to the government of the assessed value of the land. Funding sources could include the housing affordability future fund or the newly announced social housing accelerator. The proceeds from the sale could then be disbursed to the Victorian Future Fund. The outcomes therefore would be the proceeds of the sale to the future fund plus a timely remedy to the social and affordable housing crisis wrapped in one.
We do thank the Treasurer for making the time to hear us on this issue and his undertaking in good faith to pursue this issue further. Victoria will not have this opportunity twice. The $10 billion intended for this fund could be spent or invested in many ways to the benefit of Victorians. We urge the government to do this right. Accordingly, we will be supporting the proposal for the fund.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:10): We love to have a bit of fun in Australia. As a bit of a tourist drawcard and a bit of fun we have seen the proliferation of various big things around Australia over the last 50 years or so. New South Wales has the Big Banana in Coffs Harbour and the Big Golden Guitar in Tamworth. Queensland has the world-famous Big Pineapple on the Sunshine Coast, and despite it going missing for a short period in 2014, Bowen has the Big Mango. The Big Lobster has made its home in Rosetown, South Australia, since 1979, although it is possible that it is much bigger than originally intended – something about a mix-up between feet and metres. But what about Victoria? Well, we have got a few of our own. We have got a big apple or two, but most of the other states have these also. In Birchip they have got the Big Mallee Bull. There is also a big koala, and indeed a giant koala and even a couple of big Ned Kellys. But I think something is missing. What we really need is a monument to the tragic position of our state finances.
Whilst I am reluctant to suggest any government spending at all, I think an arts grant to create the ‘Great Big Debt’ would really be a tourist drawcard and pay for itself easily. I have really never considered myself an artist – well, not unless you consider a heavy metal drum solo art – but it is worth thinking about what the numbers in our state debt really mean. How would you even predict that? What would the great big debt look like if you created it as an art piece? It is estimated that our debt will reach over $170 billion, but if you just throw it out there, $170 billion, it is just noises or lines on a piece of paper. How do you even understand the scale of this? Australian banknotes are incidentally printed here in Victoria, just north of Melbourne in Craigieburn. They are printed on a polymer substrate, and for the $100 note each sheet has 45 banknotes. These machines can print 8000 sheets per hour. So how long would it take to print enough bills to equal our $170 billion in debt? The answer is 196 days, or a bit closer to 197 days, running the machine non-stop, 24/7.
But what would this quantity of cash actually look like? Well, it depends on the estimate that you use. One of the most common images of large sums of money is from police raids. From one raid last year there was $1.2 million in cash found in a sports bag, so the projected debt for Victoria is around 141,000 sports bags full of money – but maybe that is a bit esoteric. Young Alexei, who is doing work experience in my office at the moment, took the dimensions of a $100 bill and worked out the volume of a stack of these notes. With a bit of simple maths he figured out an estimate of how many Olympic swimming pools worth of $100 bills it would take to account for our debt. The answer is it is about 2.7 Olympic swimming pools totally full of $100 bills. There was some reporting last month that a couple of pools that will be constructed at Armstrong Creek for the Commonwealth Games could be scrapped after the games, so I have an idea: maybe we could commission an artist to fill these pools with fake banknotes and create a new tourist attraction called the ‘Big Debt’. People can come and take a selfie and put a picture of themselves on their mantelpiece.
I will not be opposing this bill. Reducing the size of government by releasing assets held by the government is something that I support. So is paying off debt, even if the accumulation of it was not totally justified.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (20:14): The Victorian Future Fund is another example of the Andrews Labor government continuing to demonstrate responsible economic management combined with thoughtful future-focused strategy. The purpose of the bill is to manage the fiscal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and deliver positive outcomes for Victorians by reducing the debt burden on future generations. The bill establishes the Victorian Future Fund as a statutory trust account under the Financial Management Act 1994. Legislating the establishment of the fund provides certainty regarding the governance and purpose of the fund. The strategy is two-pronged: improving the state’s financial position and preparing the state’s finances for future financial shocks. It is a smart way to ensure economic stability and structured long-term planning, with the primary purpose of the bill confirming the money allocated to the fund may only be used to pay down debt, and this ought to meet expenses incurred in administering the bill. This is critical as it secures the corpus against the coalition ever attempting to raid the fund for election sweeteners again like they did in 2022.
During the last election former Shadow Treasurer David Davis delivered the opposition’s financial statements, stating that $10.2 billion would be redirected from the future fund to pay down debt. This was reported in the Age on 24 November 2022, with RMIT University emeritus professor of public policy David Hayward saying the coalition was:
proposing to raid every contingency known to humankind.
The Age also noted that David Davis:
could not say how much revenue would be lost by reducing the Future Fund or how much the state would save on interest but believed it would have a net benefit.
And I know so many people in my region who remember all too well how former Premier Kennett used being in government to squander assets for quick political sugar hits. During my time on Warrnambool City Council I was involved in or observed and voted for three different funds for different purposes, and I highly recommend them, provided that you stick to the principles of what they were originally for in the first place.
The first fund was a drainage fund, and it was going to address historically old drains that were up to 150 years old, now 170 years old, that really were beyond the local government in their ability to financially address them. They needed to demonstrate a financial commitment to the fund, to those challenges, so they set up the fund and in doing so attracted state money to address the drainage issue. The second fund was a car parking fund. This was very much the residents being encouraged to, I guess, put their money where their mouth is. The council diverted a portion of the parking fees into a fund that was used for purchasing new car parking land, so it was very much reflecting the priorities of the community at the time. The third fund was a small infrastructure fund and was, I guess, very similar to what this government uses. A lot of the bigger capital works were overriding the smaller projects in the asset prioritisation and these little, smaller neighbourhood projects were missing out. They set up a small infrastructure fund for projects less than $300,000. In doing so, the communities throughout the municipality were able to ask for small projects to be funded, and they were. I am a big fan of funds, and I am a big fan of what this piece of legislation does to improve the security and certainty of this fund so that it cannot be squandered by any other future government.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (30): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Noes (4): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam’s amendments and further amendments include a proposal to amend the bill in one of two possible ways relating to the use of money from the sale of public land. Dr Ratnam’s option 1 incorporates amendments 3 to 6 on sheet SR130C group 2. If these are defeated, her option 2 incorporates amendments 1 to 5 on sheet SR132C group 4. In light of this and with leave of the committee, I will deal with clauses 1 and 2. I will then postpone consideration of clauses 3 to 7 and move directly to clause 8 to deal with Dr Ratnam’s alternate proposals. After clause 8 is dealt with, I will return to clause 3 and proceed through the remainder of the bill in sequence. I hope that you all understood that.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to; clauses 3 to 7 postponed.
Clause 8 (20:28)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I invite you to move your amendments 3 to 6 on your sheet SR130C.
Samantha RATNAM: I so move those amendments:
3. Clause 8, line 24, omit “the following –”.
4. Clause 8, line 25, omit “(i)”.
5. Clause 8, lines 31 to 33, omit all words and expresssions on these lines.
6. Clause 8, page 5, lines 1 to 8, omit all words and expresssions on these lines.
These amendments simply remove clause 8(1)(a)(ii). The subclause references moneys from the sale of public land being credited to the fund. Public land is a precious resource that once sold is lost forever, and it especially should not be sold off in order to manage a government debt. There are better ways to manage debt than selling off public assets. Our amendments are designed to remove the incentive inherent in this bill for this government to keep carving up the state and selling it off. I commend these amendments to the house.
Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to conditioning for crediting, the government will not be supporting this amendment. It is our view that this is off the topic of the future fund and demonstrates a lack of research about existing government policy. I would like to put on record that the Victorian Government Landholding Policy and Guidelines, freely available on the Department of Treasury and Finance website, state that before being listed for public sale, surplus land is offered through a first right of refusal process to all other Victorian government departments and agencies as well as local government and the Commonwealth government. This process allows for surplus government land to be considered for community use or for an alternative public service need before it is released for sale on the open market. Homes Victoria already gets access to land before it is disposed of and is active in doing so to deliver on the Big Build.
Council divided on amendments:
Ayes (4): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Noes (32): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Amendments negatived.
Samantha RATNAM: I move:
4. Clause 8, line 31, before “money” insert “subject to section 8A,”.
These amendments will prevent money from the sale of public land from being credited to the fund unless it has met the following two conditions: firstly, that the First Peoples’ Assembly has agreed to the sale; and secondly, that Homes Victoria has determined the land is unsuitable for public housing.
If the government is intent on selling off public land, then we need a better process before we do it. Land that belongs to our First Peoples should not be sold off without their consent, particularly in the middle of ongoing treaty negotiations. The fact that the government is even considering such a mass sell-off of public land as treaty negotiations are about to get going is, quite frankly, a show of bad faith. At the very least the First Peoples’ Assembly should be consulted on the land sales and have a say on whether the select public land is appropriate for consideration in treaty negotiations. Just selling it off without such a process means that there is less public land to be considered as part of the treaty.
We know the government already needs more land for public and affordable housing. The rumours currently swirling about the proposed planning reform package make it clear the government has major reform on the horizon to increase housing supply, but the government already has a way to increase housing supply: by using the public land it already has and owns to build more public housing. Our amendments would ensure that if the land has to be sold and the proceeds credited to the future fund, it must meet these two conditions: agreement from the First Peoples’ Assembly and analysis of the suitability of the land for public housing by Homes Victoria. I commend the amendments to the house.
Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Ratnam, I take issue with your characterisation of ‘mass sell-off of land’. There is nothing in this bill that changes the government’s policy in relation to identifying surplus land to be sold at all. What this bill does is direct a portion of sales into a fund for the purpose that it is set up to do. So your statement that underpins your amendments is false. As a government we are incredibly proud of our treaty process with Aboriginal Victorians. We are very proud of our journey through the Yoorrook Justice Commission, which goes alongside the steps in relation to treaty, and the issues that you are raising are unrelated to the bill. There are certainly opportunities for land matters to be dealt with through treaty, and I understand that that is Yoorrook’s next area of focus in relation to their hearings, in relation to land matters following the justice investigations, which I was proud to contribute to. So inflating this as a land grab from Aboriginal people is really inappropriate – to characterise it as such.
This is an amendment that we will not be supporting because it undermines the purpose and the function of the bill that we have made a commitment to delivering. Our current credit rating, for example, which was affirmed by all major rating agencies after the budget, is underpinned by the announced intention to legislate for the future fund’s purpose of debt repayment.
Whilst I support your endeavours in relation to increased public housing and social housing here in Victoria, the Victorian government has, what, a $5.3 billion Big Housing Build and continues to make provision for public housing. We know there is always more to do, but trying to undermine this bill and confuse it with other government areas of policy such as Aboriginal land rights and the housing big build is not in line with what this bill is trying to do – not to say that we do not have ambitions and indeed a proud record in some of the advances that you are trying to link to this bill, which we would say is not appropriate.
Evan MULHOLLAND: I agree with the Attorney-General on this amendment. The amendments relating to housing are completely unrelated to this future fund bill, but I suggest perhaps the member can chat to her counterparts at local government level in regard to social housing, particularly the City of Yarra, who knocked back an opportunity to develop 100 social housing units on council land that I know the government were very keen to see put forward. But we have had in Yarra – like we have in Merri-bek, like we have in Darebin – Greens council after Greens council blocking the supply of new housing. They are bleating about housing now, but in reality we see Greens representatives all over Melbourne blocking housing. But again I say housing is an issue completely unrelated to this bill, and this amendment should be opposed.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (4): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Noes (32): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Postponed clause 3 (20:46)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, I invite you to move amendment 1 on sheet SR130C, which tests your amendments 2, 7 and 8 on the same sheet.
Samantha RATNAM: I move:
1. Clause 3, after line 21 insert –
“public housing has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1983;”.
This amendment will change the purpose of the fund to be to fund public housing. We know this Labor government has abandoned public housing and has no plan for our public housing system, no plan to look after the housing it already has and no plan to build more public homes into the future. If this government is going to ring fence a pool of money to be used for a specific purpose, there is no better purpose than investing in our public housing system. As this government knows from its experience in the pandemic, investing in infrastructure is a proven way to encourage economic activity and promote economic growth. Government debt would be managed over the long term using the economic benefits from investing in and building more public housing. Properly tackling inequality and ending homelessness will improve education, employment, productivity and health outcomes while also reducing costs in areas like emergency departments, the justice system and crisis services. It is a much more productive way to manage debt than the government’s proposal of an investment fund. In a housing crisis, the best investment for Victoria’s future is to build more public housing. I commend this amendment to the house.
Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting Dr Ratnam’s amendment. It proposes to change the proposed purpose of the fund, so it undermines the function of ensuring that the future fund is directed to repaying debt, which is our commitment, which has been affirmed by all major rating agencies as part of underpinning their understanding of our credit rating. Again, Dr Ratnam, I take issue with your characterisation of our government being one that has abandoned public housing when our record would pretty much reject that straight out. There is billions of dollars going into public housing. Whether it is new housing, improved housing that is supporting public housing tenants, identifying ways to have more affordable housing or making changes to rental laws, making it easier for renters is something that we have a strong history of, so conflating the two issues is frankly unwelcome. You know that we will not be supporting this amendment that you are proposing, and it is not because we oppose public housing but because it is contrary to the purposes of the bill.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (4): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Noes (32): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; postponed clauses 4 to 7 agreed to; clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 (20:52)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Dr Ratnam to move her amendment 9, which is a test for her amendment 10 on her sheet SR130C.
Samantha RATNAM: I move:
9. Clause 10, line 13, after “appointment,” insert “and subject to section 12A,”.
These amendments will prohibit the fund from investing in companies engaged in fossil fuel activities. Currently there is nothing to stop the government from taking the public money in the fund and investing it in harmful industries like fossil fuels. It is incredible that in the climate crisis it remains possible for a government to take public money and invest it in things that make the climate crisis worse, like the oil and gas industries. These amendments will explicitly prevent the fund from investing in fossil fuels. Governments have responsibility to lead on ethical investment. Governments no longer invest in tobacco, for example, because of the public health risk. The fossil fuel industry is literally killing the planet and causing untold harm to billions around the world. The predictions for fires in our upcoming summer are scary. It is incumbent on the government to not give fossil fuel companies social licence by investing in them.
Evan MULHOLLAND: I move to speak against the amendment. I do not know about my fellow member for Northern Metropolitan, but I graduated from student politics quite a long time ago. This is something that you would see at a National Union of Students conference. I saw many in my time.
Harriet SHING: You disparage the National Union of Students.
Evan MULHOLLAND: I was actually general secretary of the Victorian branch of the National Union of Students, comrades.
Members interjecting.
Evan MULHOLLAND: This is not a serious amendment and should be opposed.
Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have the experience of Mr Mulholland in relation to student politics; I spent too much time at the pub. In relation to what Mr Mulholland was picking up on, this is grandstanding, and you know it. There is nothing not stopping the government from making inappropriate investments. The fund will be managed in line with the strict environmental, social and governance principles consistent with other investments managed by the Victorian Funds Management Corporation.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (4): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam
Noes (32): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:58): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (20:58): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, a message will be sent to the Assembly that the Legislative Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.