Hansard debates

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (13:48): I rise to support this motion while supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Bulleen to remove the word ‘anti-immigration’ before ‘protests’, because I think the issue is much broader than that. I thank the community leaders across Prahran who have demonstrated courage and moral clarity when some have sought to divide us along the lines of race, religion and origin.

Before I speak about my community, I want to acknowledge something personal. My father came to Australia as an immigrant from Thailand of Thai Chinese heritage. His journey is the story of millions of Australians. It is the story of modern Australia, and it is the story of Prahran. Prahran is not merely tolerant of diversity. In fact I really do not like the word ‘tolerance’ because it suggests a willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviours that one disagrees with. In my view, diversity in all forms is something to celebrate and not to tolerate. Prahran, and indeed Victoria and Australia, is built on diversity and is defined by it. Walk down Chapel Street, Greville Street, Commercial Road or Inkerman Street and you will encounter different languages and cuisines, different histories, traditions and people of diversity in all shapes and forms with dreams all woven together into something that is very much distinctly Australian.

I want to speak specifically about the Jewish community in Prahran, whose presence and leadership have shaped our area profoundly. They have established schools, community centres, places of worship and charitable organisations that serve not just their own community but the broader community. In recent months I have met with Jewish community leaders who have expressed their deep concerns about the rise in antisemitism in Australia, in Victoria particularly. They have spoken to me about their fear for their families, about the desecration of sacred places and about casual prejudice that has re-emerged in public discourse. Let me be unequivocal: there is no place for antisemitism in Prahran or Victoria or indeed Australia – simply none. The Jewish community deserves to live and work and worship and raise their families free from hatred and fear. That is not a courtesy, it is an absolute right, and I will stand with them in defending it.

I also want to acknowledge the Greek community. The Greek Orthodox Church of Sts Constantine & Helen in South Yarra, under the leadership of Father Panteleimon, is more than simply a place of worship. It is a cultural anchor where traditions are kept alive and where language is preserved, but it is also embedded deeply into the local community, helping those in need and ensuring they have got food and support when they need it most. The Greek community in Prahran has shown us what successful integration looks like. They have maintained their cultural identity while contributing deeply to the Australian story.

I want to turn now to a more difficult subject, because this house owes Victorians honesty, not just sentiment. Immigration has made Australia, and it has made Prahran. But immigration policy cannot be separated from planning policy, from infrastructure policy and from housing policy. You cannot increase population without increasing capacity, and when governments fail to do that, the consequences are borne disproportionately by the communities we claim to support. Prahran is the most densely populated and smallest electorate in Victoria. Under the Allan government’s proposed activity centres, that density is set to increase dramatically, affecting all five train stations in our local area. This policy was imposed without adequate consultation, without proper infrastructure planning and without consideration of existing community capacity. High-density development can be done well, creating vibrant, livable communities and neighbourhoods with strong public amenity and affordable housing. Or it can be done poorly. It can create the slums of the future: overcrowded, underserviced and disconnected from the infrastructure needed to support them. And the higher we go, the more we lose a sense of community, and that is a deep concern to me.

When I go to speak with community leaders, including those from migrant communities who have chosen to make Prahran home, they do not ask for less immigration. They ask for competent government. They ask for schools that can accommodate their children. They ask for childcare places. They ask for public transport that works. They ask for housing they can actually afford. They ask to be heard. Meeting them is not anti-immigration; it is pro-community, it is pro-integration and it is the foundation on which successful multiculturalism depends. But instead of delivering these essential services the Allan government has saddled Victorians with a runaway debt level and increased taxes to pay for it. Victorian families and small businesses, including the many migrant-owned businesses that are the backbone of our economy, are now facing higher land taxes, increased payroll taxes and the expansion of the congestion levy.

These increased costs fall heavily on the very communities we should be supporting. Take the Windsor Community Children’s Centre. For decades this centre has served families across Prahran, providing early childhood education and care to children from every background imaginable. When Swinburne University announced plans to sell the property that houses the centre, threatening its closure, the community rose up. That centre is infrastructure. It is the kind of investment that makes density livable. Last night Swinburne advised that it had rejected the joint Stonnington and Commonwealth government offer to purchase the site. They have, however, granted the Windsor Community Children’s Centre a 12-month stay of execution, and they will enter into exclusive negotiations with the parties for six months. While this is encouraging, it has not secured the centre’s future. One hopes Swinburne is not simply gaming the situation. The Labor Party’s activity centre planning changes will likely increase the property’s value, and the state election will only be months away at the end of the exclusive negotiation window. What have we heard from the minister through all of this? Nothing – zero. When a centre that embodies family support and multiculturalism hangs in the balance, the Allan government, sadly, in this instance is nowhere to be found.

I also want to address community safety, because it is inseparable from the question of whether people feel secure in their neighbourhoods. Chapel Street has experienced rising crime levels and retail crime. When people do not feel safe in their streets, when businesses are repeatedly targeted and when families feel uncomfortable walking home at night, it erodes the social trust multiculturalism depends on, a safe community and a cohesive community. The government’s decision to abolish move-on laws has left Victoria Police without essential tools to manage disruptive behaviour. Victoria stands apart from other mainland states by not requiring protest permits, despite repeated calls from Victoria Police and the opposition to introduce such a system.

I now return to the reason why we are debating this motion: the recent anti-immigration protests that have sought to scapegoat particular communities, particularly the Indian Australian community, for problems that are the result of policy failure and not migration itself. Let me be clear: we condemn those rallies and the abhorrent messaging associated with them. Victoria is a proudly multicultural, multifaith state, and we will always stand with all Victorians, no matter what their background. Rejecting the policies of division also requires the rejection of the policies of complacency. It requires us to be honest about pressures facing communities. Concerns about housing, infrastructure and services are legitimate, even when they are cynically exploited by others. We will not allow that to happen.

I want to thank community leaders in Prahran who have stood against vilification and division, leaders from the Jewish community, the Greek community and the many others who have refused to be silent in the face of absolute hatred. Prahran is rich and vibrant because of immigration. Its diversity is not a challenge to be managed, it is a strength to be celebrated and protected. But strength requires foundations and requires infrastructure.

I am deeply passionate about standing with Victorians from all backgrounds and fervently oppose any form of vilification or division. It is one of the reasons I entered politics – to have a voice on the very issues such as these. I commenced my speech discussing my father, who came to Australia just after the White Australia policy ended in the 1960s. When he arrived, he went to boarding school in Ballarat, and what a culture shock it was. He was from the bustling streets of Bangkok. He was welcomed by the most wonderful families, who would host him over school holidays. But he also encountered significant racism and targeting. Even as a child, I recall him being targeted on trams with racist slurs and being told he was a boat person and should go home. As a child growing up in Noble Park and Springvale, I remember being told I was not invited to a friend’s birthday party because I was Asian, and so my determination grew, as an adult, to ensure my own children never experienced this exclusion. I worked to ensure I had a career that contributed, that I had tertiary qualifications that were actually competitive and that my English and my pronunciation were as perfect as possible, and I volunteered on boards such as the board of the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. Yet even now my youngest daughter, who looks more like me than my other two children, was only six when she was at her ballet concert and was shouted at by a young boy who referred to her by colour. Even in this house, I am often confused with my colleague the member for Warrandyte, and I am assuming it is because we are the only two Asian women on our side. Whilst I would love her social media following, we actually are different. There are also comments made about how I speak.

We are in Australia, a country built on diversity, where overseas conflict should not be brought. Our great country has been built on immigration and contributions, not on division and difference. I commend this motion to the house with the moved amendment to remove the word ‘anti-immigration’, because my concerns are broader than simply an anti-immigration protest.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (17:10): (1483) My adjournment matter is directed to the Treasurer, and the action that I ask for is a comprehensive update on the cumulative impact of the government’s increased taxation, the congestion levy and the growing regulatory burden on hospitality venues, retailers and small businesses operating along Melbourne’s iconic inner-city shopping strips, including Bridge Road, Chapel Street, Acland Street and Burke Road. As Shadow Assistant Minister for Hospitality and for Melbourne, I rise with deep concerns about the viability crisis facing our local shopping strips. These are not just commercial precincts, they are the cultural heart of our suburbs and the economic backbone of countless small business owners who have invested their life savings into serving their neighbourhoods. Yesterday Justin Smith wrote in the Herald Sun about Bridge Road’s depressing high vacancy rates, describing the strip as once lively and groovy, now filled with tobacco shops, massage parlours and $2 reject stores. Chapel Street, Acland Street, Sydney Road and Burke Road are all struggling, all fighting with what Smith describes as ‘a losing battle for survival’. These iconic inner-city shopping strips have everything they need to thrive – residential density, public transport, community demand – yet they are failing. While COVID-19 and online retail play a part in this, this government’s policy settings are making a difficult situation basically impossible. Let us be clear about what small businesses are facing: payroll tax increases; a congestion levy that makes it harder for customers to reach them; in the case of Chapel Street, an expanded congestion levy that takes effect from 1 January 2026, with Stonnington council already adjusting parking fees in anticipation of the $4.1 million annual cost that this government is imposing; energy costs that continue to climb; and a regulatory environment that hits small businesses hardest, with compliance costs consuming a far larger share of their revenue than corporations with a dedicated compliance team.

The contrast is stark: Centre Road in Bentleigh maintains a 1 per cent vacancy rate and thrives, yet Bridge Road struggles with empty shopfronts. The difference is not geographic, it is policy settings that either support or suffocate small business viability. Mr Smith asks:

… what are the council’s plans, other than their once-a-year weaponry of trees, tinsel and carols squawking from speakers?

But council can only do so much when state government taxation and regulatory settings stack the decks against viability. These shopping strips set the culture for entire suburbs and become destinations for tourists and people from all over Melbourne. When they are defined by vacancy, graffiti and decline, that is what the suburbs become.

This government must assess how its taxation settings, the congestion levy and regulatory frameworks are collectively impacting small business viability along Melbourne’s iconic inner-city shopping strips. The Labor government brags about its big projects, with over $50 billion in cost blowouts, but as Mr Smith correctly observes, the small ones need a little more love. Our shopping strips deserve better than being left to fight a losing battle while this government adds weight to the wrong side of the scales.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (11:10): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. The opposition will not oppose this legislation, though we do so with carefully considered reservations about both process and legal principle. This bill addresses a profound failure in our legal system: the inability of survivors of institutional child abuse to achieve justice when technical employment structures shield institutions from accountability. The opposition’s position reflects a difficult balancing exercise. We have a genuine concern about retrospective legislation and about codifying legal tests in what has been described as an unstable area of law. However, we do recognise the moral imperative to provide pathways to justice for survivors and the urgent need to address the injustice created by the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP.

This bill responds directly to that decision handed down on 13 November 2024. The ruling left survivors facing an impossible burden: proving their abuser was an employee in the traditional sense, even when that person was placed in a position of power and trust by an institution and exploited that institutional role to perpetrate abuse. Survivors who had been pursuing justice for decades suddenly found their cases in jeopardy and some were forced to accept materially lower settlements. Others saw years of courage simply evaporate because of a technicality about employment status. The High Court itself stated explicitly that any reformation of the vicarious liability principle is properly the provenance of the legislature. Today this Parliament accepts that responsibility.

Victoria is not alone in recognising this need. Following the Bird decision, jurisdictions across Australia moved swiftly to address this gap. This national response demonstrates the consensus across Australian jurisdictions and across different political parties that the Bird decision created an untenable situation requiring immediate legislative correction.

This bill does two critical things. First, it establishes a statutory vicarious liability regime, ensuring institutions can be held accountable for child abuse committed by those placed in positions of trust. Second, it provides justice for survivors whose cases were resolved during the Bird window, allowing inadequate settlements to be reopened where just and reasonable. Before addressing these provisions, I must place on record the opposition’s significant concerns. Vicarious liability has been described by legal experts as an unstable area of law. The case law demonstrates this. Bars have not been held liable when employees throw glasses at patrons, yet employers have been found liable for conduct in employer-provided accommodation. These precedents remind us that we are legislating where even experienced judges must carefully weigh competing factors.

The opposition also has serious concerns about retrospectivity and the reopening of settled matters. These are not abstract concerns. They go to the foundations of our legal system. Retrospective legislation, particularly legislation that allows settled matters to be disturbed, creates uncertainty and it can absolutely undermine confidence in legal finality. However, the opposition have concluded that we will not oppose this bill and our reasoning is clear: both elements of the bill, the codification of vicarious liability and the retrospective provisions, align with our moral and value bases. Context absolutely matters. The area of vicarious liability has been characterised by judicial evolution. Institutions are already operating on the assumption that vicarious liability could extend to non-employees. The Bird decision disrupted established expectations; it did not affirm them. We are dealing with serious criminal conduct where survivors face enormous barriers to achieving justice. When technical legal barriers prevent accountability for serious harm the moral case for legislative intervention becomes compelling. The bill includes safeguards in this space. Reopening settlement requires Supreme Court approval on a just and reasonable basis. Nevertheless the opposition want to be clear that our decision not to oppose this bill does not mean that we regard retrospectivity lightly. We have determined not to oppose because of specific circumstances: the nature of the conduct at issue and the alignment with our fundamental values about justice for survivors provide sufficient justification in this particular case.

The need for this legislation arose because for decades many institutions operated with structures that created difficulties for establishing traditional employment relationships. Survivors were abused by people who wore the uniforms, bore the titles, exercised the authority and acted with the apparent endorsement of their institutions. Yet when survivors sought justice they encountered arguments that the perpetrator was not technically an employee. We cannot accept that technical employment structures should shield institutions from accountability for abuse committed by those they placed in positions of power and trust. The bill’s statutory vicarious liability test provides that an institution will be vicariously liable where the apparent performance of a role in which the institution placed the perpetrator supplied the occasion for the abuse and the perpetrator took advantage of that occasion. This draws on principles discussed in earlier cases, including Prince Alfred College, recognising that institutions create opportunities for abuse when they place individuals in roles with authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve, sadly, intimacy with children. Some stakeholders have argued the bill should use broader language than ‘akin to an employee’. However, the bill provides courts with flexibility to consider whether activities were integral to the institution, whether they were for the institution’s benefit and the extent of the institutional control. This list of factors is deliberately non-exhaustive, preserving judicial discretion.

The amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 address the urgent injustice suffered by survivors during the Bird window. The Supreme Court will have the power to determine whether it is just and reasonable to allow settlements to reopen or new actions to commence, and this balances the interests of survivors with the need for legal certainty, while recognising that certainty must never come at the cost of justice. We must be clear about what the Bird window meant in human terms. For survivors this was not an abstract legal development, it was a period of profound uncertainty and distress. Many had spent years, even decades, building the courage to pursue justice. They had relived the trauma through legal process, they had fought against institutions with vastly greater resources and then suddenly the legal ground shifted beneath them. Some accepted settlements that they knew were inadequate because they feared basically losing everything. Others simply gave up, unable to face starting again. This bill gives them certainty. It gives them a second chance at justice, and rightly so. We know from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that institutional child abuse was enabled by systemic failures. Survivors seek acknowledgement and accountability. This bill sends a clear message: institutions cannot hide behind technical legal structure to avoid responsibility for abuse committed by those acting under their authority.

The failure to hold institutions accountable has profound consequences beyond individual cases. When institutions escape liability through technical legal argument it sends a message that clever structuring of employment arrangements can shield organisations from the consequences of abuse that occurs under their watch. This undermines public confidence in our justice system and in the institutions themselves, but more importantly it denies survivors the validation they deserve and the closure that comes from holding the responsible parties to account. This bill addresses that failure directly. I acknowledge the concerns about uncertainty for organisations. However, institutions were already operating on the assumption of vicarious liability prior to the Bird decision. This bill does not create new and unexpected liability. It restores the legal landscape that existed before the judgement disrupted it.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (14:50): (1456) My question is to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs in the other place. What measures is the Victorian government taking to support local councils to appropriately recognise different faiths and promote understanding and tolerance in our community? The electorate of Prahran is home to people of many faiths, and diversity is one of our greatest strengths. However, just last week the City of Stonnington deferred a decision on installing a Jewish menorah at Malvern town hall for the eight days of the Hanukkah festival, which starts in just under two weeks. The debate became divisive and was marked by concerning claims of antisemitism. This comes against a backdrop of rising antisemitic attacks in Melbourne since 7 October. This was distressing for many of our community, particularly our Jewish residents, who have every right to see their faith and culture acknowledged. Other councils, including Glen Eira, Melbourne and Kingston, have successfully integrated recognition of diverse religious and cultural celebrations without such controversy. Our councils need practical resources to navigate these matters with sensitivity.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (19:19): (1467) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Public and Active Transport, and I ask: what is the government’s plan to manage the Metro Tunnel’s big switch, when Prahran constituents will face forced transfers, overcrowded Frankston line services and thousands of new activity centres with residents with less connectivity to the CBD? On 1 February 2026 – that is just two months away – the big switch will introduce a new timetable across buses, trams and regional and metropolitan trains. The Cranbourne, Pakenham and Sunbury lines will run exclusively through the Metro Tunnel. This is being hailed as a triumph, but the government has been remarkably silent about who wins and who loses in this situation.

The electorate of Prahran is currently served by four train lines: Sandringham, Frankston, Pakenham and Cranbourne. Of these, only the Frankston line will then run through the city loop. Pakenham and Cranbourne trains run express from Caulfield, bypassing Toorak, Hawksburn, Armadale and Malvern, and from 1 February will also bypass South Yarra and Richmond entirely, no longer stopping at any city loop stations. Direct journeys become forced transfers. These are the losers from the big switch.

My constituents fear less connectivity and not more. After eight years of planning this project we still have no clear indication of what our constituents will face. Eight years to plan – still no timetable. The government rushed to open the Metro Tunnel services in November without finishing the timetable. You do not open a railway without telling passengers where the train is going. Two months from the big switch, commuters still do not know how their journey will change. Where is the detail? Where is the full timetable? None of the existing train stations in my electorate will connect to the Metro Tunnel except Anzac, and only one Frankston train will run through the city loop, forcing Cranbourne–Pakenham line passengers to change at Caulfield, exiting the station entirely before boarding a crowded train from Frankston.

This matters even more because of the government’s own planning agenda. Prahran, South Yarra, Hawksburn, Windsor and Toorak are all designated activity centres. Thousands of new residents are expected. Here is the contradiction: more density and less connectivity. The government encourages high-density living near train lines while simultaneously making it harder for residents to access the city, with more people, fewer direct services, new bottlenecks at interchange stations and simple journeys made more complex. As Shadow Assistant Minister for Melbourne I say my constituents deserve answers, not announcements. We need to make it easier for people to work in and visit Melbourne. We want Melbourne to be marvellous again, and a key ingredient is people. But they are facing less connectivity, more congestion and longer journeys at precisely the moment the government is packing more people into these neighbourhoods.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (10:38): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Bill 2025. The opposition will not oppose this legislation. It makes sensible reforms to family violence intervention orders, introduces protection for animals in family violence contexts and updates criminal procedure provisions. These are absolutely worthwhile measures. But I cannot allow this bill to pass without addressing a profound failure – a failure not in what this bill does but in what it fails to do, particularly regarding stalking reforms. This is not merely an omission; it is a continuation of delay that has real, dangerous consequences.

The numbers tell a stark story. Stalking offences in Victoria are absolutely at their highest level in more than a decade. In the year to June 2025 non–family violence stalking increased 9.4 per cent to 1171 cases and family violence stalking increased 6.9 per cent to 1807 cases. Combined, that is nearly 3000 reported stalking offences in a single year, placing enormous pressure on our justice system’s capacity to respond. These are not just statistics. They represent thousands of Victorians, predominantly women, living in fear whilst our system struggles with risk assessment, timely intervention and effective protection.

In 2020, 23-year-old Celeste Manno from Mernda was murdered by a man who had stalked her. Despite her multiple reports to authorities, despite her fear, despite her family’s advocacy, the system failed to protect her. Following tireless advocacy by her mother Aggie Di Mauro, the government commissioned the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review stalking. The VLRC conducted comprehensive research and consulted extensively, and in September 2022 they tabled a report with 45 carefully considered recommendations. These recommendations were designed to strengthen legal frameworks, improve risk identification, modernise police responses and increase victim protections. That was in September 2022; that is more than two years ago. This bill implements two of those 45 ‍recommendations – that is less than 5 per cent: recommendation 26, allowing courts to make interim personal safety intervention orders on their own motion, and recommendation 33, which is partially implemented, to clarify the meaning of ‘course of conduct’ in the stalking offence.

These are positive steps, but they represent a fraction of what independent experts said was absolutely urgently needed. Where are the improved police response protocols, where are the enhanced risk assessment tools, where is the better information sharing between agencies and where are the clearer pathways for victims? Where is the modernised legislative structure that would create three distinct stalking offences based on intentional, reckless and objective fault reforms? They are all absent. The overwhelming majority of reforms that could save lives remain unimplemented more than two years after they were recommended.

This failure on stalking sits within a broader, more fundamental failure. We are not thinking preventatively about family violence. We are reacting to harm after it occurs, pouring resources into managing consequences rather than disrupting the pathways that lead to violence in the first place. I want to draw the Parliament’s attention to groundbreaking research by a constituent in my area, Professor Leonie Segal, and her colleagues at the University of South Australia. Their work on disrupting pathways into family violence should fundamentally reshape how we approach this crisis. Professor Segal’s research demonstrates that child maltreatment directly impacts brain health, fundamentally changing how brains develop, stress responses and relational patterning. This affects behaviour, emotional regulation, cognition, impulse control, alertness to threats, empathy, sense of self-worth with agency, and shame. The consequences cascade across the lifespan. Child maltreatment is causally associated with mental illness, substance use and troubled intimate relationships, with an increased risk of violence.

The data is really compelling. Research from the iCAN project tracking over 620,000 persons born in South Australia between 1986 and 2017 show that children with any child protection contact have mortality rates 2.3 times higher than those with no contact, that for children with substantiated maltreatment it is 2.8 times higher and that for children in out-of-home care it is 5.1 times higher. People aged 16 to 33 with a history of child maltreatment have death rates from suicide that are 2.8 ‍times higher; from poisoning, alcohol, drugs and mental illness, 4.8 times higher, and from natural causes, twice as high as their peers with no child protection contact.

Perhaps most critically, this trauma transmits across generations. Professor Segal’s research shows that 87 per cent of children entering out-of-home care have mothers who themselves had child protection contact. The adjusted relative risk shows mothers with substantiated maltreatment are 6.3 ‍times more likely to have children who have experienced substantive maltreatment compared to mothers with no child protection contact. This is absolutely the pathway. Childhood trauma leads to disturbed rational capacity, which leads to troubled intimate relationships, which leads to family violence, which leads to more childhood trauma. The cycle perpetuates.

Emergency department visits tell the same story. Among those with out-of-home care histories, 70 per cent of ED visits for mental health reasons, 70 per cent for poisoning and 62 per cent for alcohol and drug issues were for individuals with prior child protection contact. Children aged six to 16 with out-of-home care histories have 22.9 times the odds of stress responses and PTSD, 20.7 times the odds of conduct disorders and 11.8 times the odds of emotional disorders compared to children with no child protection contact.

Professor Segal’s research also challenges us to move beyond simplistic narratives. Research from the United States shows that exposure to physical abuse increases the odds of suicide attempt by 5.1 times for females and 6.9 for males. For date violence it is 3.2 for females and eight for males, and for weapon carrying it is 4.2 for females and 3.6 for males. Studies conclude there is a direct path between a history of childhood trauma and intimate partner violence perpetration. Other studies show child abuse and neglect increase the risk of intimate partner violence as victim or perpetrator, and of reciprocal violence.

Both men and women are victims. Both men and women are perpetrators. The evidence shows that we need to focus on healing capacity for successful interpersonal relationships and better support for troubled families, and this means addressing the disturbed rational capacity that flows from childhood maltreatment, regardless of the gender. We need to leverage universal services, early childhood education, childcare centres and maternal and child health. We need to revisit funding models to facilitate intensive, skilful, responsive service delivery.

We also need to address the workforce gender imbalance. The early childhood workforce is less than 5 per cent male; primary school teachers, approximately 28 per cent male; social workers, approximately 13 per cent male; and registered psychologists, 19 per cent male. If we are serious about healing perpetrators, and particularly men’s capacities for healthy relationships, we need male role models in therapeutic and education systems that work with vulnerable families.

I will return to this bill. We do not oppose it, but we cannot celebrate modest reforms when comprehensive change has been recommended and delayed for over two years. I call on the government to immediately release a full response to all 45 VLRC stalking recommendations, with a clear implementation timeline. I call for adequate resourcing of Victoria Police, for the courts and for victims services to respond to the stalking crisis. More fundamentally I call on the government to adopt the evidence-based approach outlined by Professor Segal and her colleagues. This means a major shift in budget allocations, from managing consequences to preventing harm. It means therapeutic intervention from infancy. It means training the workforce. It means understanding that both men and women need healing capacity and both men and women can be victims and perpetrators.

The opposition will not oppose this bill, but we will hold the government accountable for its failure to act with the urgency this crisis demands. I commend the bill to the house.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (10:23): I rise to address three important issues affecting our community. First, the proposed Storage King development at 180 St Kilda Road: I have met with over 35 constituents about this proposal, which would see trucks moving in and out of a very small rear laneway until 10 at night. Port Phillip council has rejected this proposal twice, yet the developer persists through VCAT. This would cause unacceptable impacts on local residents, including those at Europa residential aged care facility and families on Somerset Street and in the surrounding area. Planning decisions must be consistent with community values and residential amenity, not overridden by appeals that disregard local concerns.

Second, Clara Street, South Yarra: multiple constituents have raised that the footpath outside the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing block is often littered with syringes and rubbish. I too have experienced that and seen it with my own two eyes. While I acknowledge Stonnington council’s proactive response, the department of housing must work with the community to support residents and ensure safety and amenity for all. Residents deserve dignity, safety and clean public spaces.

Finally, welcome news: FatBuoy Lobster Seafood Market has opened at Prahran market, offering affordable seasonal fish, hand-cut chips and potato cakes, not frozen carbon copies. Private business is investing in Prahran, creating jobs and bringing fresh energy to our market. We must protect what makes Prahran special while supporting genuine investment in our neighbourhood.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (17:31): I rise today in concern for the direction of our state under a government that has absolutely lost its way. I am grieving for Victoria with Melbourne Grammar students here today. We are all grieving. I am grieving for them and our future. The Allan government’s decade of failure has driven Victoria to the bottom of every national ranking that matters, while creating an environment for corruption in construction that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There was a time when Melbourne was the envy of Australia. Sydney was green with jealousy at our vibrant laneway dining, our nightlife, our thriving hospitality sector and our new businesses that chose to invest in our state. We were destination number one for business, for talent and for ambition. While this government has sleepwalked through a decade of waste and mismanagement, other cities have looted our best and brightest with lower taxes and less regulation. Sydney has reclaimed the crown, and Brisbane is booming.

The evidence is damning. For the third consecutive year the Business Council of Australia has ranked Victoria dead last for doing business, and that is just outrageous – eighth out of eight states and territories. This is not a close call; this is not margin-of-error territory. Victoria is comprehensively the worst place in Australia to run a business because of the Allan Labor government’s mismanagement. The BCA’s chief executive Bran Black was blunt: Victoria’s business environment has deteriorated significantly. He pointed to our regulatory burden, tax settings and infrastructure chaos. In Victoria a cafe owner needs 36 separate licences and approvals before they can pour their first cup of coffee – that is 36 separate licences. This is not an exaggeration. This is from the BCA’s Better Regulation Report of 2025.

Other states streamline approvals, but what does Victoria do? It adds red tape. Other jurisdictions attract investment, and Victoria simply drives it away. And this is not just about large corporations; this is about the small business owners in my electorate who want to expand their cafe into the neighbouring shopfront but face lengthy planning approvals and costs that make it commercially unviable, this is about the hospitality operator who cannot justify hiring additional staff due to payroll tax and compliance burdens and this is about the retail businesses facing onerous requirements that make additional trading hours economically impossible. Chapel Street was once Melbourne’s premier retail and hospitality destination. Today small business operators are closing their doors because this government has made Victoria uncompetitive, unsafe and unworkable. I have witnessed family businesses that have operated for decades close – not startups that failed to find a market, not businesses that were poorly managed but established operations, some family-owned for decades, that simply cannot afford to operate profitably under this government’s regulatory and tax regime.

Victoria now carries the highest state debt in Australia, both in dollar terms and per capita. The 2024–‍25 budget projects net debt will reach $187.8 billion by June 2028. Victoria’s net debt is growing by more than $2 million an hour. That is $48 million of debt a day. Victorians are paying $17.8 million every single day just in interest on this debt. And what have we received? Cancelled projects and cost blowouts: the Big Build became the big botch-up; the North East Link, originally at $15.8 billion, now tracks towards $26 billion; the Metro Tunnel, late and over budget, serves fewer passengers than projected; and the West Gate Tunnel has blown out by more than $4 billion. Project after project, there is cost overrun after cost overrun.

Let me put those numbers in perspective for the families and businesses in my electorate of Prahran. These infrastructure blowouts are equivalent to building dozens of new hospitals. They are equivalent to employing tens of thousands of additional new nurses and teachers for the next generation of kids coming through. They are equivalent to funding essential services for years. Instead, it is a debt that will be serviced by our children and our grandchildren while core services in my electorate go unfunded. This budget’s mismanagement has real-world consequences. A hospital bed shortage means a grandmother waiting 12 hours in the emergency room. A teacher shortage means overcrowded classrooms. A police shortfall means a Chapel Street business owner robbed three times and no longer able to get an adequate response.

A Liberal government will be smarter with the budget, investing in frontline services and preventative measures that save money in the long run, investing in preventative healthcare education so that every child reaches their potential, and community policing so crime is deterred. But this is challenging when interest expenses were $272 million higher than budgeted for the 2024–25 period and employee expenses were $2 billion over budget. Meanwhile essential services in my electorate go unfunded. Local schools are waiting for maintenance. Community facilities are deteriorating. St Kilda Primary School needs a new multipurpose hall. Prahran Mission need additional support for their homelessness services. Our local sporting clubs need facility upgrades, but there is no more money. The money has been spent on cost overruns, cancelled contracts and projects that were never properly costed in the first place.

This is a government that prioritises vanity projects over core services, debt over delivery and photo opportunities over fiscal responsibility. How does this government respond to its debt crisis? By hitting Victorian families and businesses with more taxes. Payroll tax thresholds have not kept pace with wage growth, dragging more small businesses into the net. The congestion levy expands to capture more businesses without improving a single road. The interest bill on state debt now exceeds what we spend on TAFE, and we are borrowing to pay interest on borrowing. This is mortgaging Victoria’s future to pay for Labor’s failures today, and it is not fair. These are the issues that I am grieving about for our next generation.

It is not just businesses feeling the squeeze. Victorian families are struggling with the highest cost-of-living pressures in the nation. Electricity bills have skyrocketed. Council rates are rising faster than inflation. And every new state tax, every fee increase, every regulatory impost flows through to the family budget. This government talk about supporting working families, but every policy decision makes life harder for the people they claim to represent. Now this government wants to extend the congestion levy to Stonnington, capturing Chapel Street and Prahran businesses. This levy is designed for the CBD, not for suburban shopping precincts that the community and businesses are striving to revitalise. This is not congestion relief. This is a revenue grab. Chapel Street vacancies are sitting at up to 16 per cent. We are working hard to revitalise this iconic precinct, and the government’s response: ‘Let’s just make it more expensive.’

James Newbury interjected.

Rachel WESTAWAY: Absolutely, member for Brighton: ‘Let’s just tax us all and make it more expensive for customers to visit.’ While Chadstone shopping centre offers free parking, this government wants to slug Chapel Street visitors with a higher cost. My traders are telling me that they are trying to negotiate with Stonnington to get better deals on parking because their retail staff who come from other areas and cannot always take public transport are feeling the hit because the cost of parking has increased. Sixty-four per cent of spending in Prahran comes from visitors outside of the area, and they drive here. This levy will send them elsewhere, killing the precinct we are fighting to rebuild.

The consequences are absolutely clear: Victoria is losing businesses to Queensland and New South Wales. Businesses are voting with their feet. The amount of people that tell me they want to leave Victoria and move to Queensland is astounding. That is not what we want for this beautiful state. We want to retain people. We want to grow. We want people to enjoy what Chapel Street, Prahran and Victoria once were. Companies that built their success here are relocating. Startups are bypassing us absolutely entirely. The professional services firms that once anchored our economy are opening Brisbane offices. The technology companies that should be driving our future prosperity are establishing in Sydney. Young professionals graduating from our universities are looking interstate for opportunities. Even students are going to other states so that they can study there. It is cheaper and life is better in other states, the way this government is pushing this state.

In Prahran I have witnessed family businesses that have operated for decades close, not because they have failed commercially but because the regulatory burden, tax imposts and operating environment made continuation impossible. Business owners in Prahran tell me the regulatory burden has become overwhelming. One hospitality operator walked me through their monthly compliance requirements. Listen to this: licensing renewals, payroll tax calculations, superannuation reporting, WorkSafe documentation, food safety audits, council permits – hours chewed up that could be spent more productively in their business. That is the reality. That is testimony I hear week after week in my electorate office. Time and money that could be spent on growing their business, hiring additional staff or improving their customer experience is instead consumed by navigating bureaucratic processes that add no value and create no jobs.

Then there is the CFMEU scandal, which exposed not just corruption but economic sabotage: bikies employed as union delegates on Labor’s Big Build, systematic workplace thuggery, violence and intimidation as standard operating procedure. Every dollar extracted through dodgy deals is a dollar not spent productively. Every delayed project is economic activity foregone. The Premier received a letter in April 2022 from an Indigenous labour hire firm detailing violence and intimidation by CFMEU officials. Her office took six months to formally log it in, and it did not get logged until October 2022. The public only learned of this correspondence in July 2024, when Nine newspapers revealed the extent of the CFMEU corruption and the two years and three months during which Victorian projects became synonymous with cost overruns and delays. A government that tolerates corruption has lost its mandate to govern, in my view.

I must briefly address the crime crisis, because it directly impacts our economic recovery. A criminal offence occurs in every Victorian retail environment at least once every 5 minutes. Workers are leaving the hospitality industry because they no longer feel safe, and Chapel Street businesses have installed costly security measures, reducing their capacity to invest in growth and employment. New South Wales has had online crime reporting since 2016, and what do we have? Nothing. While other jurisdictions invest in preventative policing, Victoria plays catch-up with announcements that never materialise into action. Business confidence requires community safety. We cannot rebuild Victoria’s economy while businesses and workers operate in fear.

Earlier this week our leader Jess Wilson set out a clear vision for Victoria, a vision built on four priorities: getting the budget back under control, ending the crime crisis, ensuring access to quality health care and giving every Victorian the opportunity to own their own home. Getting the budget under control means living within our means. It is what we have all been taught we need to do. It means prioritising core services over vanity projects. It means ending the waste and corruption that has characterised Labor’s Big Build. It means budgets based in reality, not budgets designed for the sound bite and press release, only to be found wildly inaccurate. When we control the budget, we can ease cost-of-living pressures and invest in police, nurses and teachers rather than servicing debt and funding union slush funds. Victoria’s economic decline is not inevitable. It is a result of policy choices ‍– policy choices that can absolutely be changed. We need to cut red tape, not create more of it. We need to attract businesses, not drive them away. We need competitive tax settings, not the highest impost in Australia.

A Liberal government will tackle the regulatory burden that is strangling Victorian businesses, will examine payroll tax settings to support small and medium enterprises, will fix the planning system so businesses can invest with confidence and will deliver infrastructure that serves the community: roads that reduce congestion, public transport that works, not vanity projects with cost blowouts that cripple the budget for absolutely decades. The next election is just 12 months away. Victorians have an absolutely clear choice.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (19:15): (1427) My amendment this evening is to the Minister for Small Business and Employment, and the action I seek is for the minister to intervene to curb the escalating crime in Victoria in regard to retail. The government is now debating the Crimes Amendment (Retail, Fast Food, Hospitality and Transport Worker Harm) Bill 2025. But despite being dragged to this bill, the Premier has proposed flawed legislation that will not solve the retail crime crisis. Penalties are weak and the key ingredient of workplace protection orders is missing. The coalition will aim to address both of those issues through amendment.

As the Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business (Metropolitan), I have been closely monitoring the retail crime crisis affecting Victorian businesses. The Victorian Crime Statistics Agency data released on 25 September this year makes for absolutely sobering reading. There were over 99,000 ‍retail crime offences recorded in the year ending June 2025, and that is up 20 per cent from the previous year, the highest level on record. Thefts from retail and stores increased by 26 per cent, and assaults in retail settings rose 21 per cent. A criminal offence now happens in Victorian retail environments at least once every 5 minutes and an assault every couple of hours, and these stats only represent the tip of the iceberg. The reality is far worse because the reporting simply is not there. Small business owners tell me they no longer report every theft and staff face daily abuse. Chapel Street is home to hundreds of small businesses experiencing the same rising crime rates. The government recently announced deploying protective services officers to large suburban shopping centres for a 90-day trial. This overlooks retail precincts like Chapel Street, and it raises concerns about which railway stations will further lose PSO coverage – a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The fundamental issue is that Victoria is falling way behind the rest of Australia in this space. One in 10 Victorian workers work in retail, yet Victoria remains without comparable protections for its retail businesses and workforce. New South Wales and the ACT announced retail-specific crime units. South Australia continues investing in Operation Measure. Most states have legislated specific abuse protections since 2019. Australia’s leading retail and industry associations have called for urgent action in a joint letter to the Premier. The retail association, the Franchise Council of Australia, Retail Drinks Australia, MGA Independent Businesses Australia, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia are demanding action. Ritchies IGA and franchise stores across Victoria have called for action. How many times and from how many businesses does the government need to hear this before they actually take action? It is another case of the Allan Labor government being yet again too slow, too late and lacking the ability to work with small business. It is time for a fresh start.

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (15:20): I rise to oppose this bill, and not because I oppose better planning outcomes but because this legislation fundamentally fails to support the communities it is meant to serve. It is a bill that bypasses good governance, in my view, and our democratic rights. It is a bill that is setting us up for unwanted surprises with no ability to challenge them. The title promises ‘decisions made faster’. What it delivers in your neighbourhood is the inability to object to the development next door, this Parliament unable to oversight bad planning decisions and communities locked out of choices – choices in their own communities. This bill arrives at a moment when the Allan government is advancing activity centre proposals for Windsor, Hawksburn, Prahran, Toorak and South Yarra stations. These are already amongst the most densely populated precincts in our state. Just walk through these neighbourhoods on any given morning and you will see the strain the existing infrastructure already bears: primary schools under pressure, trams and trains absolutely packed, childcare centres with waiting lists. Yet the government now seeks to strip away parliamentary oversight, diminish council input and remove notification rights for neighbours, all while fundamentally changing how these communities will grow. At the very moment that we need stronger community engagement in planning decisions that will transform inner Melbourne, this bill pulls the community further from the table. My deepest concern is the bill divorces planning entirely from the infrastructure our growing communities desperately need. There is no requirement that new development be matched with schools and no requirement that it be matched with transport, open space or even early childhood education. The bill simply assumes that dwellings can be approved faster if we stop worrying about whether there is a place for children to learn, spaces for families to gather or services to support them.

Let me give you a case study from my own electorate that crystallises everything that is wrong with this approach. The Windsor Community Children’s Centre faces closure. Eighty local families will lose access to early education in a neighbourhood where demand already far exceeds supply, and 30 ‍staff will be impacted. This is not a small community facility on the margins; this is a vital service in one of the proposed activity centre zones. It is already experiencing acute childcare shortages today, but it is an area where the government is planning thousands of new dwellings. The need for childcare at these activity centre sites will not diminish, it will multiply exponentially as development proceeds. These families have been advocating for months. They have written letters, they have attended meetings and they have made submissions. The Minister for Education has the power to intervene. As I have sat in this place, I have been stunned at the amount of times I have heard members from the opposite side of the chamber yell out, ‘Well, what would you do?’ I will tell you what the government should do: the Minister for Planning should ensure that any activity centre rezoning includes mandatory childcare requirements. Instead we have absolute silence and inaction – a government sitting on its hands while a vital community service disappears. And here is the brutal irony. This is happening at precisely the moment when planning reforms promise thousands more dwellings in Windsor, with no plan for the children who will live in them.

Under this bill a developer could lodge a low-impact planning application for a multistorey development and receive streamlined approval within guaranteed timeframes, with neighbours potentially totally unaware until construction began. Just imagine if you woke up one morning to find it all going on right next door to you with very little prior knowledge. Yet there is not a single provision for that development to contribute to the childcare, schools and open spaces those residents will need. You cannot build homes faster by ignoring the infrastructure families need. That is not progress. That is not even efficient planning. This is a planning system divorced from reality and divorced from the people that it is really meant to serve.

The bill introduces scaling systems for both planning permits and amendments, with mandated timelines. It does sound sensible in principle, but the definition remains unclear, the criteria underdeveloped and the regulations promised for the next two years. We are being asked to consider and vote on this framework without knowing which developments will qualify for which stream, which projects will bypass community consultation and which neighbours will wake to find construction next door or across the road without having been notified.

Then there is the question of parliamentary oversight. The bill removes Parliament’s right to overturn a planning amendment without approval from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, a government-controlled body. Planning decisions that will shape the character of our suburbs for generations will no longer receive full parliamentary scrutiny unless the government permits it. This is not a technical reform; this is a fundamental shift in democratic accountability. And surprise, surprise, it is being rushed through without adequate consultation. The bill was released on the Melbourne Cup long weekend. Councils, industry groups and community organisations were given days to respond to legislation that rewrites the entire planning system. That is not consultation; this is window-dressing.

The bill also expands how growth areas infrastructure contributions can be used, allowing funds raised in one area to be spent outside that area, and it will now enable these funds to be used to cover administrative costs. What that means is that developer contributions can fund government administration rather than the roads, parks and community facilities residents were promised. Can I say that again – developer contributions can be directed to fund government administration. That is pretty alarming. I do not trust this government with their track record of financial mismanagement, and nor should the good people of Victoria.

My community is not opposed to growth. I am not opposed to growth. I am not opposed to housing. We welcome new residents, new businesses and new energy. Prahran has always been a place of change, of diversity and of opportunity. It is beautiful. It has got a mixture of heritage buildings, fabulous retail and contemporary new builds. I do not want to see the make-up of our area and the rights of my constituents quashed. Growth without infrastructure is not progress; it is a recipe for overcrowded schools, strained transport networks, disappearing open space and waiting lists for childcare that stretch for years. Prahran deserves planning reform that delivers infrastructure in line with proposed growth, not as an afterthought; community engagement strengthened and not diminished; parliamentary oversight maintained and not abolished; and action on existing deficits like the Windsor childcare centre – before we approve thousands more homes.

The government says this bill addresses Victoria’s housing crisis – but Victoria does not have a planning crisis. We have an affordability crisis. We have a construction crisis. We have an infrastructure crisis. This bill does nothing to address affordability, nothing to accelerate construction and nothing to ensure infrastructure keeps up with growth. What it does do is shift blame onto communities, onto councils and onto existing residents for crises created by policy failure at a state level. And now we are being asked to shut up and put up. This is a moment that will decide what will be built in your neighbourhood. My residents have chosen Prahran because of what it looks like and what it offers. They invested in their homes. They bought or rented based on their local surroundings. This bill will ruin our neighbourhoods. The seat of Prahran will oppose this bill – not because we oppose better planning but because we demand planning that is truly better, more accountable, more community focused and more connected to the infrastructure that makes great neighbourhoods possible.

You cannot close a childcare centre with one hand and approve thousands of new homes with the other and then call it progress, you cannot strip communities of their voice and then call it efficiency and you cannot remove parliamentary oversight and call it reform. I urge the government to withdraw this bill and return with legislation that genuinely serves Victorian communities, return with a bill that puts infrastructure in line with growth, return with a bill that strengthens community engagement rather than diminishing it and return with a bill that actually addresses these issues that I have raised today. Our communities deserve better, Prahran deserves better, and I will not support legislation that promises speed but delivers only the erosion of democratic accountability and the abandonment of the infrastructure that our growing communities depend on.