PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · 2002. 9. 4. · Legislative Assembly Committees Privileges...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 7

14, 15 and 16 May 2002

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

JOHN LANDY, AC, MBE

The Lieutenant-Governor

Lady SOUTHEY, AM

The Ministry

Premier and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. P. Bracks, MP

Deputy Premier and Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. W. Thwaites, MP

Minister for Education Services and Minister for Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. M. Gould, MLC

Minister for Transport and Minister for Major Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Energy and Resources and Minister for Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. C. C. Broad, MLC

Minister for State and Regional Development, Treasurer andMinister for Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Workcover. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Senior Victorians and Minister for Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . The Hon. C. M. Campbell, MP

Minister for Planning, Minister for the Arts andMinister for Women’s Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. E. Delahunty, MP

Minister for Environment and Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. M. Garbutt, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services andMinister for Corrections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. A. Haermeyer, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. K. G. Hamilton, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Manufacturing Industry andMinister for Racing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Minister for Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Finance and Minister for Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. J. J. Lenders, MP

Minister for Sport and Recreation andMinister for Commonwealth Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Employment andMinister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Pandazopoulos, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Community Services andMinister assisting the Premier on Community Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Small Business andMinister for Information and Communication Technology. . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. M. R. Thomson, MLC

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. Gavin Jennings, MLC

Legislative Assembly Committees

Privileges Committee — Mr Cooper, Mr Holding, Mr Hulls, Mr Loney, Mr Maclellan, Mr Maughan, Mr Nardella,Mr Plowman and Mr Thwaites.

Standing Orders Committee — Mr Speaker, Mrs Barker, Mr Jasper, Mr Langdon, Mr McArthur, Mrs Maddiganand Mr Perton.

Joint Committees

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. C. Boardman and S. M. Nguyen.(Assembly): Mr Cooper, Mr Jasper, Mr Lupton, Mr Mildenhall and Mr Wynne.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): The Honourables R. F. Smith and E. G. Stoney.(Assembly): Mr Delahunty, Ms Duncan, Mrs Fyffe, Ms Lindell and Mr Seitz.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. N. Atkinson, E. J. Powell andG. D. Romanes. (Assembly): Mr Hardman, Mr Lim, Mr Nardella and Mrs Peulich.

House Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President (ex officio), G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best,J. M. McQuilten, Jenny Mikakos and R. F. Smith. (Assembly): Mr Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Kilgour,Ms McCall, Mr Rowe, Mr Savage and Mr Stensholt.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): The Honourables R. H. Bowden, D. G. Hadden and P. A. Katsambanis.(Assembly): Mr Languiller, Ms McCall, Mr Stensholt and Mr Thompson.

Library Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, E. C. Carbines, M. T. Luckins, E. J. Powell andC. A. Strong. (Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Duncan, Mr Languiller, Mrs Peulich and Mr Seitz.

Printing Committee — (Council): The Honourables the President, Andrea Coote, Kaye Darveniza and E. J. Powell.(Assembly): Mr Speaker, Ms Gillett, Mr Nardella and Mr Richardson.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): The Honourables D. McL. Davis, R. M. Hallam,G. K. Rich-Phillips and T. C. Theophanous. (Assembly): Ms Barker, Mr Clark, Ms Davies, Mr Holding,Mr Loney and Mrs Maddigan.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): The Honourables Andrew Brideson and E. C. Carbines.(Assembly): Mr Kilgour, Mr Langdon, Mr Plowman, Mr Spry and Mr Trezise.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): The Honourables M. A. Birrell, Jenny Mikakos,A. P. Olexander and C. A. Strong. (Assembly): Ms Beattie, Mr Carli, Ms Gillett. Mr Maclellan and Mr Robinson.

Heads of Parliamentary Departments

Assembly — Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Mr R. W. Purdey

Council — Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr W. R. Tunnecliffe

Hansard — Chief Reporter: Ms C. J. Williams

Library — Librarian: Mr B. J. Davidson

Joint Services — Director, Corporate Services: Mr S. N. Aird Director, Infrastructure Services: Mr G. C. Spurr

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

Speaker: The Hon. ALEX ANDRIANOPOULOSDeputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees: Mrs J. M. MADDIGAN

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: Ms Barker, Ms Davies, Mr Jasper, Mr Kilgour, Mr Loney, Mr Lupton, Mr Nardella,Mrs Peulich, Mr Phillips, Mr Plowman, Mr Richardson, Mr Savage, Mr Seitz

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Premier:The Hon. S. P. BRACKS

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Premier:The Hon. J. W. THWAITES

Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. D. V. NAPTHINE

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. LOUISE ASHER

Leader of the Parliamentary National Party:Mr P. J. RYAN

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary National Party:Mr B. E. H. STEGGALL

Member District Party Member District Party

Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Bendigo East ALP Leighton, Mr Michael Andrew Preston ALPAllen, Ms Denise Margret 4 Benalla ALP Lenders, Mr John Johannes Joseph Dandenong North ALPAndrianopoulos, Mr Alex Mill Park ALP Lim, Mr Hong Muy Clayton ALPAsher, Ms Louise Brighton LP Lindell, Ms Jennifer Margaret Carrum ALPAshley, Mr Gordon Wetzel Bayswater LP Loney, Mr Peter James Geelong North ALPBaillieu, Mr Edward Norman Hawthorn LP Lupton, Mr Hurtle Reginald, OAM, JP Knox LPBarker, Ms Ann Patricia Oakleigh ALP McArthur, Mr Stephen James Monbulk LPBatchelor, Mr Peter Thomastown ALP McCall, Ms Andrea Lea Frankston LPBeattie, Ms Elizabeth Jean Tullamarine ALP McIntosh, Mr Andrew John Kew LPBracks, Mr Stephen Phillip Williamstown ALP Maclellan, Mr Robert Roy Cameron Pakenham LPBrumby, Mr John Mansfield Broadmeadows ALP McNamara, Mr Patrick John 3 Benalla NPBurke, Ms Leonie Therese Prahran LP Maddigan, Mrs Judith Marilyn Essendon ALPCameron, Mr Robert Graham Bendigo West ALP Maughan, Mr Noel John Rodney NPCampbell, Ms Christine Mary Pascoe Vale ALP Maxfield, Mr Ian John Narracan ALPCarli, Mr Carlo Coburg ALP Mildenhall, Mr Bruce Allan Footscray ALPClark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP Mulder, Mr Terence Wynn Polwarth LPCooper, Mr Robert Fitzgerald Mornington LP Napthine, Dr Denis Vincent Portland LPDavies, Ms Susan Margaret Gippsland West Ind Nardella, Mr Donato Antonio Melton ALPDean, Dr Robert Logan Berwick LP Overington, Ms Karen Marie Ballarat West ALPDelahunty, Mr Hugh Francis Wimmera NP Pandazopoulos, Mr John Dandenong ALPDelahunty, Ms Mary Elizabeth Northcote ALP Paterson, Mr Alister Irvine South Barwon LPDixon, Mr Martin Francis Dromana LP Perton, Mr Victor John Doncaster LPDoyle, Robert Keith Bennett Malvern LP Peulich, Mrs Inga Bentleigh LPDuncan, Ms Joanne Therese Gisborne ALP Phillips, Mr Wayne Eltham LPElliott, Mrs Lorraine Clare Mooroolbark LP Pike, Ms Bronwyn Jane Melbourne ALPFyffe, Mrs Christine Ann Evelyn LP Plowman, Mr Antony Fulton Benambra LPGarbutt, Ms Sherryl Maree Bundoora ALP Richardson, Mr John Ingles Forest Hill LPGillett, Ms Mary Jane Werribee ALP Robinson, Mr Anthony Gerard Peter Mitcham ALPHaermeyer, Mr André Yan Yean ALP Rowe, Mr Gary James Cranbourne LPHamilton, Mr Keith Graeme Morwell ALP Ryan, Mr Peter Julian Gippsland South NPHardman, Mr Benedict Paul Seymour ALP Savage, Mr Russell Irwin Mildura IndHelper, Mr Jochen Ripon ALP Seitz, Mr George Keilor ALPHolding, Mr Timothy James Springvale ALP Shardey, Mrs Helen Jean Caulfield LPHoneywood, Mr Phillip Neville Warrandyte LP Smith, Mr Ernest Ross Glen Waverley LPHoward, Mr Geoffrey Kemp Ballarat East ALP Spry, Mr Garry Howard Bellarine LPHulls, Mr Rob Justin Niddrie ALP Steggall, Mr Barry Edward Hector Swan Hill NPIngram, Mr Craig Gippsland East Ind Stensholt, Mr Robert Einar 2 Burwood ALPJasper, Mr Kenneth Stephen Murray Valley NP Thompson, Mr Murray Hamilton Sandringham LPKennett, Mr Jeffrey Gibb 1 Burwood LP Thwaites, Mr Johnstone William Albert Park ALPKilgour, Mr Donald Shepparton NP Trezise, Mr Ian Douglas Geelong ALPKosky, Ms Lynne Janice Altona ALP Viney, Mr Matthew Shaw Frankston East ALPKotsiras, Mr Nicholas Bulleen LP Vogels, Mr John Adrian Warrnambool LPLangdon, Mr Craig Anthony Cuffe Ivanhoe ALP Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Wantirna LPLanguiller, Mr Telmo Sunshine ALP Wilson, Mr Ronald Charles Bennettswood LPLeigh, Mr Geoffrey Graeme Mordialloc LP Wynne, Mr Richard William Richmond ALP

1 Resigned 3 November 1999 3 Resigned 12 April 20002 Elected 11 December 1999 4 Elected 13 May 2000

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 14 MAY 2002

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICERoad safety: motorcycle levy......................................1381Kendell Airlines: sale..................................................1382Melbourne Cricket Ground: redevelopment.............1382Crime: statistics......................................1383, 1384, 1385Marine parks: establishment...........................1383, 1384Schools: funding..........................................................1384Agriculture: disease and pest control........................1385

PETITIONSNaval and maritime museum: establishment ............1386Melbourne Maritime Museum: development............1386

PAPERS ............................................................................1386ROYAL ASSENT..............................................................1387APPROPRIATION MESSAGES .......................................1387BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Program.......................................................................1387MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Parliament: question time ..........................................1389Wellington Secondary College...................................1389Rural and regional Victoria: sport and

recreation funding ..................................................1389Peter Rule ....................................................................1390Disability services: funding........................................1390Budget: initiatives .......................................................1390National livestock identification scheme...................1390Real estate agents: trust funds ...................................1391Tourism: rural and regional Victoria........................1391Reservoir: mobile phone tower..................................1391

UPPER YARRA VALLEY AND DANDENONGRANGES REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGYAmendment no. 114 ....................................................1392

TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS)BILLSecond reading............................................................1395

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading............................................................1398

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL (PLANNING PROCEEDINGS) BILLSecond reading............................................................1401

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILLSecond reading............................................................1402

GAMING LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading............................................................1404

CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS AND SERIOUSINJURIES) BILLSecond reading.................................................1407, 1441Committee....................................................................1458Third reading...............................................................1469Remaining stages ........................................................1470

BUILDING (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading............................................................1432

AUDIT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILLCouncil’s amendments................................................1470

ADJOURNMENTPlanning: VCAT appeals............................................1470Seniors: services guide...............................................1470Firearms: licences ......................................................1470Public transport: western suburbs.............................1471Motor vehicles: permits..............................................1471Kangaroos: control.....................................................1472Schools: ministerial visits...........................................1472Jindara Community Programs ..................................1473Police: Hamilton station ............................................1473Planning: restrictive covenants .................................1474Chisholm Institute of TAFE........................................1474Bridges: Sandridge .....................................................1475Responses ....................................................................1475

WEDNESDAY, 15 MAY 2002

CONDOLENCESGordon Stanley Hockley.............................................1479

PETITIONCommonwealth Games: athletes village...................1479

PAPERS ............................................................................1479MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Police: Somerville.......................................................1479Western Highway: parking bays and toilets .............1479Gordon Hockley..........................................................1480Dental services: Yarra Ranges ..................................1480Australian Retailers Association awards ..................1480Insurance: public liability ..........................................1480Minister for Transport: performance ........................1481Ruth Cracknell ............................................................1481Freedom of information: Infrastructure....................1481Liberal Party: Geelong candidate.............................1482Point Nepean: land.....................................................1482

GRIEVANCESWorkcover: tenders.....................................................1482Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd ..............................................1483Parliament: government conduct ..............................1484HIH Insurance: policy-holders..................................1487Government: advertising............................................1489Calder Highway: funding...........................................1492Gas: Gippsland pipeline.............................................1494Agriculture: disease and pest control........................1496Rural and regional Victoria: former government

cutbacks...................................................................1498Budget: education.......................................................1499Crime: statistics ..........................................................1500Budget: police .............................................................1501Budget: drug programs ..............................................1502Drayton Corp..............................................................1502Federal budget: Telstra sale ......................................1503Housing: administration ............................................1504Workplace safety: legislation.....................................1506

CONTENTS

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION(AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1507

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM (PACKAGED LIQUORLICENCES) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1507

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACTS(CONCILIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION)BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1507

BUSINESS LICENSING LEGISLATION(AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1507

CORRECTIONS (INTERSTATE LEAVE OF ABSENCE)BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1507

NATIONAL PARKS (MARINE NATIONAL PARKSAND MARINE SANCTUARIES) BILL (No. 2)Introduction and first reading ................................... 1508

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION (FURTHERAMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading...................................... 1508, 1519, 1522

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEFreedom of information: Infrastructure ................... 1512Forests: box-ironbark ................................................ 1512Calder Highway: funding .......................................... 1513Minister for Planning: second-reading speech........ 1514Disability services: funding ....................................... 1515Water: Wimmera–Mallee pipeline............................ 1515Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology ......1517, 1518Hospitals: funding...................................................... 1517Schools: funding......................................................... 1518

ELECTORAL BILLSecond reading.................................................1522, 1527Committee................................................................... 1552Third reading.............................................................. 1570Remaining stages ....................................................... 1570

SUMMARY OFFENCES (SPRAY CANS) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1570

ADJOURNMENTHousing: eastern region ............................................ 1570Wimmera: disease and pest control.......................... 1571Port of Geelong: rail access...................................... 1571Disability services: family options package ............. 1572Southern University Games....................................... 1572Electricity: charges .................................................... 1573Traralgon Racing Club.............................................. 1573Winton Motor Raceway ............................................. 1574Point Nepean: land .................................................... 1574Western Region Disability Network.......................... 1574Freedom of information: Infrastructure ................... 1575Consumer affairs: business names............................ 1575Responses.................................................................... 1576

THURSDAY, 16 MAY 2002

NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITYAnnual report ............................................................. 1581

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEERights of reply ............................................................ 1581

PAPERS ........................................................................... 1581GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION

(AMENDMENT) BILLCouncil’s amendments............................................... 1581

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSEAdjournment............................................................... 1581

MEMBERS STATEMENTSOvens Landcare Network .......................................... 1581Rushworth and district concert band........................ 1582Essendon traffic school.............................................. 1582Frankston: Premier’s comments............................... 1582Environment: Brazilian forests ................................. 1582Land tax: small business............................................ 1583Barwon Health: volunteer services program........... 1583Police: deployment..................................................... 1583Budget: initiatives ...................................................... 1584Bellarine Agricultural Society Show......................... 1584

APPROPRIATION (2002/2003) BILLSecond reading.................................................1584, 1628

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICELatrobe hospital ......................................................... 1621Docklands: investment............................................... 1621Agriculture: farmers’ rights ...................................... 1622Federation Square ..................................................... 1622Hospitals: nurses........................................................ 1623HIH Insurance: policy-holders ................................. 1624Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology ......1625, 1627Employment: rural and regional Victoria................ 1626Taxation: government policy..................................... 1627

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION (FURTHERAMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1638Remaining stages ....................................................... 1638

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION(AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1639

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACTS(CONCILIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION)BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1640

BUSINESS LICENSING LEGISLATION(AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1641

CORRECTIONS (INTERSTATE LEAVE OF ABSENCE)BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1642

NATIONAL PARKS (MARINE NATIONAL PARKSAND MARINE SANCTUARIES) BILL (No. 2)Second reading........................................................... 1643

CONTENTS

UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS)BILLSecond reading............................................................1648

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM (PACKAGED LIQUORLICENCES) BILLSecond reading............................................................1650

ADJOURNMENTCommonwealth Games: athlete qualification...........1653Blackburn Lake Primary School................................1653Landcare: funding.......................................................1654Employment: rural and regional Victoria.................1654Taxis: multipurpose ....................................................1655Traralgon Racing Club...............................................1655Brauerander Park, Warrnambool .............................1655Rail: M Train service..................................................1656Police: Broadmeadows station ..................................1656Environment: greenhouse strategy............................1657State Emergency Service: Moorabbin premises .......1657Responses ....................................................................1658

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

TUESDAY, 14 MAY 2002

755. Transport: location of road accidents............1663756. Transport: alcohol-related road deaths.........1663762. Transport: Narre Warren railway

crossing.........................................................1664764. Transport: air rights redevelopment ..............1664765. Transport: Metrol building.............................1665769. Transport: train line validation figures..........1666770. Transport: tram line validation figures..........1666779(a). Transport: Transport Accident

Commission — accident black spotprogram ........................................................1666

779(b). Treasurer: Transport AccidentCommission — accident black spotprogram ........................................................1666

MEMBERS INDEX .......................................................i

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 14 May 2002 ASSEMBLY 1381

Tuesday, 14 May 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 2.05 p.m. and read the prayer.


Road safety: motorcycle levy

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Myquestion without notice is to the Premier. Will thePremier adopt Liberal Party policy — —

Mr Batchelor — You’re misleading the house —you haven’t got any policies!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Housewill cease interjecting forthwith.

Dr NAPTHINE (to Mr Batchelor) — You’ve gotno major projects!

The SPEAKER — Order! Similarly the Leader ofthe Opposition.

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! This is not a very goodstart to question time. I ask the Leader of the House andthe Leader of the Opposition to cooperate.

Dr NAPTHINE — My question is to the Premier.Will the Premier adopt Liberal Party policy and — —


Dr NAPTHINE — I will start again. Will thePremier adopt Liberal Party — —


Dr NAPTHINE — Will the Premier adopt LiberalParty policy and — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Chair is gettingincreasingly weary of the behaviour of members on thegovernment benches.

Dr NAPTHINE — So are the people of Victoria,Mr Speaker!

Will the Premier adopt Liberal Party policy — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Narracan to desist from making those sortsof noises.

Dr NAPTHINE — My question is to the Premier.Will the Premier adopt Liberal Party policy and dropLabor’s new unfair $50 tax on Victorian motorbikeriders?


The SPEAKER — Order! I remind the house that itis disorderly to applaud in that way, and that includespeople in the galleries.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I am pleased that theLiberal Party, as enunciated by the Leader of theOpposition, has indicated that it has a new policy. Hisnew policy is to take off the $50 levy, which will gotowards the safety of motorcyclists in Victoria. Hewould take that off!

The Leader of the Opposition will soon have his firstchance on this matter. He went outside and made aclaim that if the Liberals got into power they wouldtake it off. He will get his chance, because if he opposesthe budget he can take it off! But he will support it; hewill vote for it. I can guarantee the Leader of theOpposition will support this measure.


The SPEAKER — Order! Earlier I warned thegovernment benches. Now I say the same to theopposition benches: that level of interjection is notacceptable.

Mr BRACKS — I can expect that, given this newlyenunciated policy, the opposition will move anamendment to the budget and have it debated, becausethat will be their first chance to stand up on this matter.Let me go to the facts. The $50 levy will go straightinto motorcycle safety, into training and publiceducation, including campaigns on motorcycle safetydirected at both motorcyclists and at motorists. If youlook at the figures, you can see that they areoverwhelming. Regrettably motorcyclists are already30 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured onour roads than car drivers.

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the Premier is reading his answer. I ask that you directhim not to read it or to make the paper available.

Mr BRACKS — On the point of order, Mr Speaker,I am happy to respond to the honourable member forPakenham. I was reading from copious handwritten


1382 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 14 May 2002

notes and details, but I was not quoting from adocument.

The SPEAKER — Order! On the point of orderraised by the honourable member for Pakenham, thetradition in this house is that members do not read theirspeeches. I ask the Premier to adhere to the tradition ofthe house.

Mr BRACKS — Regrettably 27 motorcyclists havebeen killed already this year, and that represents some20 per cent of the total Victorian road toll. Thegovernment is resolute about doing something aboutmotorcycle safety. There used to be a time in thisParliament when there was bipartisan support for anattack on the road toll. There used to be a time — —

Mr Leigh interjected.

Mr BRACKS — Whether it has been the WipeOff 5 campaign, speed tolerance or this new measure,we have seen a desperate attempt from the opposition towreck that bipartisanship.

Mr McArthur — My point of order, Mr Speaker,relates to the simple matter of debating. Will thePremier abolish this iniquitous tax or is he going tokeep it going?

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order that the Premier was debating the question. Hewas providing information to the house.

Mr BRACKS — This $50 levy will go intomotorcycle safety and training, including an awarenesscampaign for motorists. It is a very important campaignto save lives and to reduce accidents, and thegovernment is absolutely committed to it — even if theopposition is not.

Kendell Airlines: sale

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I referthe Premier to the fact that the administrators and thefederal government are close to finalising a deal to sellKendell Airlines, which operates services to Portlandand Mildura, to Australia-Wide Airlines Ltd, andfurther, that if this sale does not proceed soon Kendellmay cease operating. Can the Premier inform the houseif the state government has offered any assistance forthe completion of this sale?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I welcome the questionfrom the Leader of the National Party. He is correct: itis very close to a decision by the Ansett administratorsas to whether or not they accept purchasing offers forKendell Airlines.

The Department of Innovation, Industry and RegionalDevelopment and the minister responsible have haddiscussions with the administrators on this matter. Theywill continue to have those discussions. This does notinvolve just one state, but every state in Australia. Ofcourse, there will be some cooperation between thestates in this matter.

We are yet to see the final business case from theadministrators on this. Once we see that we willexamine on a viability and cost-benefit basis whether ornot this has a long-term sustainable future for our state.

Melbourne Cricket Ground: redevelopment

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — Will the Premierinform the house of recent developments concerningthe Melbourne Cricket Ground redevelopment,particularly any obstacles to this critical project beingcompleted in time for the 2006 CommonwealthGames?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — As most honourablemembers would know, the $400 million-plusredevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground(MCG) forms an integral and important part of theconduct of the Commonwealth Games in 2006, and itwas in the bid document signed off by the thenopposition and now government. This bid documenthas received bipartisan support at both state and federallevels.

The funding arrangement of the MCG redevelopmenthas been secured through a contribution from theAustralian Football League, a contribution from theMelbourne Cricket Club and a guarantee to theMelbourne Cricket Ground Trust, which has been givenin a similar way to the guarantee which was given onthe Great Southern Stand. Also the federal governmentin last year’s budget put in a commitment of$90 million, and I was one of the first to congratulatethe federal government for that contribution. Iwelcomed it and I still welcome it as an importantcontribution to the Commonwealth Games.

The negotiations on the construction of the MCG havebeen going on for some nine months. They have beengoing on very well, unencumbered by any otherarrangements and with the desire from theCommonwealth Games Organising Committee, theMCG trust and the steering committee of the MCGtrust to simply get on with the job of building theMelbourne Cricket Ground, selecting the tender andthen getting on with completing the project.

In the last two weeks, though, encumbrances have beenput in the way since the federal Minister for



Employment and Workplace Relations decided to takea personal interest in this matter. The minister decidedthat not only would the $90 million be applied to thisproject but that he would have special and uniqueconditions on it which no other state or territory orother administration would have on these arrangements.Despite the fact that he is not, in this case, theresponsible minister for this project, he has neverthelessdecided that over and above the existing laws he willput other conditions on the project, to the extent that thecontractors are saying that the conditions which arebeing put on by the employment and workplacerelations minister make this project unable to becompleted — and unable to be undertaken in the firstplace.

The Victorian government will apply to the letter thesespecial and unique conditions, which are over andabove the federal workplace relations laws, to theabsolute completion of the project. What the federalminister wants are some special, unique, separate anddifferent conditions, which he knows would mean thatthe project of the contractor could not go ahead.

There is still the opportunity for this project to proceedas it was proceeding over the last nine months, which isthe way that the MCG trust, the MCC members, theAFL and indeed the state government want it toproceed.

We want the federal government to simply live up to itscommitments to contribute the money, and we willapply to the letter the federal workplace relationsindustrial relations laws. If that is not the case, I canindicate to the federal government — and I will bewriting to the Prime Minister and phoning him on thismatter — that we will still go ahead. If the federalgovernment does not contribute, this project will still goahead in Victoria.

That would be regrettable because it would mean thatthe federal government is turning its back on theCommonwealth Games in 2006. I would have thoughtthat the federal government would want to beassociated with both the MCG redevelopment and the2006 Commonwealth Games. I would have thoughtthat they would have stuck to what they said theywould do instead of allowing a frolic — and that iswhat it is — of the workplace relations minister to havehis own head in being able to pursue this particularground as an industrial relations test case that he wantsfor his own profile.

This should be above politics and industrial relations.This is about the peoples’ ground; it is aboutcompleting the MCG. We want to complete it; he wants

a political and industrial battle. We will not toleratethat. It is time to go back to what the federalgovernment said it would do. If it does not, the groundwill be completed anyway and the commonwealthgovernment will not have made a contribution to theCommonwealth Games!

Crime: statistics

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Premier to Labor’s pledge in 1999 to cut crimein Victoria by 5 per cent. Is it not a fact that since theelection of the government police reports show that inall major crime areas, including aggravated burglary,robbery, assault and theft of motor vehicles, crime hassignificantly increased?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. The only thing that wascut under the previous government was policenumbers — that is all they cut! We have among thelowest crime rates comparatively of any state inAustralia. It is because we have employed 800 net morepolice on the job. We have the safest streets in thecountry and we are comparatively the safest state of anyin the commonwealth.

Marine parks: establishment

Ms LINDELL (Carrum) — Will the Premier advisethe house of recent developments concerning thegovernment’s plans to introduce 13 marine nationalparks and 11 marine sanctuaries to protect Victoria’smarine environment for future generations?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for her question. Can I say that this is a verypleasing and happy day for the Parliament of Victoria,because the marine parks legislation will come into thehouse this week. This is after 10 years of work by theEnvironment Conservation Council and one year ofdebate in this Parliament about the original legislation.

I am very pleased that the legislation that will comebefore the house will provide for 13 different marinenational parks and 11 different sanctuaries, which willbe a world first and will mean that a bit over 5 per centof the whole of our marine waters will be marinenational parks. That is a great benefit for our state andinternationally.

I want to congratulate all those groups andorganisations that have stuck with this project over thelast couple of years. Those many people have workedmany hours on developing the project. We will beknown internationally as one of the best states for



preserving our marine environment, and I look forwardto this legislation coming into the house.

Schools: funding

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I have a questionfor the Minister for Education and Training. Severalvery rural primary schools in Cardinia shire lost theirrurality funding because they fall on the wrong side ofthe government’s arbitrary metropolitan statisticaldivision line. What does the minister intend to do toaddress the specific disadvantage suffered by studentsat those affected schools relative to other rural schools?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion which relates to rurality funding for schoolsaround Victoria. Previously some schools in themetropolitan area have been receiving rurality funding.The previous Minister for Education approved a newmetropolitan statistical division (MSD) rurality policywhich will provide 50 per cent of normal ruralityfunding to all 45 schools that meet the enrolmentcriteria and are located within the MSD boundary butoutside the Melbourne, Cranbourne, Melton andSunbury urban areas. I understand also that transitionarrangements were put in place to increase the ruralityfunding commenced in 2001 for those schools.

All schools around the state are better off as a result ofthe budget that came down last week. All schoolsbenefited from the additional $550 million on top of theadditional funding the Bracks government had put inpreviously. All schools around the state will benefitfrom that investment the government has made andfrom the 925 additional teachers it has provided.Schools in the honourable member’s electorate will bebenefiting from those resources, as will schools aroundthe state. I am happy to respond to the honourablemember in more detail in writing.

Crime: statistics

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — I refer the Premier toactual police reports that show there has been anincrease of an extra 25 aggravated burglaries committedper week against Victorian families — an increase of106 per cent — over the past two years under hisgovernment. Given that the Premier promised to cutcrime, will he now acknowledge that the violent crimeof aggravated burglary is out of control in Victoria?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — As I have indicated,Victoria has amongst the lowest crime rates of any statein Australia in comparative terms, and that is becausethe government has ensured that it has redressed the

problems created by the previous government byputting on 800 extra police and giving police the extraequipment and resources they required.

If you look state by state and territory by territory,Victoria has among the lowest crime rates of any stateor territory in Australia.

Marine parks: establishment

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — Will the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation provide the house withdetails of the proposed compensation arrangements andother measures to assist those who will be affected bythe creation of marine national parks and sanctuariesalong the Victorian coast?

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I thank the honourable member forhis question and for his ongoing commitment to andsupport of the creation of marine national parks. Thegovernment is very proud indeed to be able toannounce that it will be bringing in a bill this week tocreate a world-class system of marine national parksright across the Victorian coast — 13 marine nationalparks and 11 marine sanctuaries.

In developing the legislation the government wanted toconsult widely with affected groups and interestedpeople in the community. It put out a proposals paperback in March outlining exactly what it intended doingand it supported that with an exposure draft of the billgiving greater detail, of course, about what it wasproposing to do, which it presented for consultation.This government is committed to consultation. Itbelieves in doing it and it wants to do it thoroughly, andthat is what it has done. Since then, the government haslistened and has made some sensible changes.

The government always recognised that there would besome small impact on the fishing industry but that inthe long term members of the industry would be able tomake the adjustment — that they would be able to findthe fish they are entitled to outside the proposed marinenational parks. Following consultation with all sorts ofgroups — the industry, conservationists, recreationalanglers, and the Liberal Party — we made a number ofsensible changes to the legislation. They include — —

Mr Steggall interjected.

Ms GARBUTT — It is interesting that a member ofthe National Party comments, because it madeabsolutely no input into the process at all, no commenton the exposure draft or on the proposal at all — it wasabsolutely silent on the suggestions!



I will outline some of the changes that have been madein response to the consultation. There will be anextension of the compensation period for eligible finfish licence-holders from one to three years — that willbring them into line with what is proposed for rocklobster fishers. Fishing charter boat operators will beeligible for increased costs, and there is a provision foradvanced payment in the case of financial hardship sothat licence-holders no longer have to wait for the full12 months. We have also made some minor butcommonsense changes to the boundaries of parks atDiscovery Bay, the Twelve Apostles, Port PhillipHeads, Corner Inlet, Cape Howe and Ricketts Pointmarine sanctuary.

I stress that these are sensible changes and do notundermine the environmental integrity of theEnvironment Conservation Council recommendations;we have maintained those. Compared to the 2001legislation, the new legislation will also set up anindependent assessment panel to assess and paycompensation, and an independent appeals tribunal toallow appeals against the assessment panel’s findings.By including those compensation arrangements in thebill, there is no need for a section 85 provision, so it is avery sensible and fiscally responsible approach tocompensation.

We will, of course, also be working with regionalcommunities to help them make the most of thoseopportunities — and there will be many opportunitiesin tourism, recreation, and scientific research, as well asin running the marine parks themselves and providingextra enforcement.

The legislation is a world first, and I look forward tobipartisan support when it is introduced. It will be aproud time for all Victorians.

Crime: statistics

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — Noting that police crimereports indicate that an extra 192 vehicles per week arebeing stolen in Victoria under this government, I ask:given that Labor promised to cut crime, when will thePremier do something to reduce the Victorian car theftplague?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I reiterate that themeasures the government has taken — increasing thepolice numbers in the state and providing the policewith better equipment and support — have reducedcrime in this state compared to other states in Australia.We have one of the lowest crime rates of any state orterritory government in the country.

Agriculture: disease and pest control

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I have a questionfor the best Minister for Agriculture this state has seenin many years. Will the minister advise the house whataction the government is taking to protect Victoria’scrucial agricultural exports from the recent diseaseoutbreaks?

Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) — Ithank the honourable member for his question and forhis great interest as a rural member of Parliament in allmatters pertaining to agriculture and agribusiness in thisstate.

Honourable members will be aware of two very seriousdisease outbreaks in recent weeks, one an outbreak ofanthrax in Tatura and the other an outbreak ofNewcastle disease in western Victoria. These are bothvery serious outbreaks, and it is important for industry,government and individual farmers to be able torespond, and respond quickly.

All honourable members will be aware of the cost ofthe outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain. Itcost about $30 billion to control, and it cost that muchbecause there was a very slow response by thegovernment and a very poor method of detecting andfollowing the path of that disease. I am very pleased toadvise the house that with both of these diseaseoutbreaks in Victoria the response of the governmentand the department has been absolutely spot on. In thecase of the outbreak of anthrax one cow was — —

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,this question was asked by the honourable member forNarracan. You would think he would at least beinterested in the answer, instead of holding a privateconversation at the back of the room.

The SPEAKER — Order! That is not a point oforder.

Mr HAMILTON — I know that every member ofthis Parliament representing a country electorate will bevery concerned about these exotic diseases. From hisprevious occupation the Leader of the Oppositionwould know how important it is not just for the industrybut for individual farmers that these matters are handledproperly, correctly and on time.

As I said, disease outbreaks can be very costly. Thefoot-and-mouth outbreak in Britain cost $30 billionbecause it was poorly handled at the time, and indeed alot has been learnt from that episode in the UK. InQueensland, at Mangrove Mountain, an outbreak ofNewcastle disease cost the industry something like

PETITIONS


$30 million because again it was neither controlled norisolated. In both Victorian cases government vets haveresponded quickly. They have detected the disease,isolated it, confirmed it, quarantined the properties anddemonstrated clearly that the government’s diseasecontrol programs work.

Yesterday government vets started the compulsoryvaccination of all the cattle on the 80 properties in theTatura area — about 20 000 cattle in all. That is asignificant job, but it is one that we believe — andindustry supports us in that belief — should take placebecause of the previous devastation caused by anthraxin that region.

There has been one outbreak of Newcastle disease onone farm. That farm has been isolated and quarantined,and we believe that will be the only outbreak ofNewcastle disease in Victoria. Anyone who has visitedany of these properties that conduct intensiveagriculture or agricultural production would know ofthe intense biosecurity measures adopted by thegrowers, because they are educated to act responsibly.

In this year’s budget the government has allocated anadditional $4.4 million over four years so that we canagain be prepared and able to detect and respond tooutbreaks of exotic diseases anywhere in the state.

I am confident that the last couple of actions bygovernment animal health officers and private vets havedemonstrated that there has been a great deal ofcooperation, understanding and preparation, and veryresponsible action taken by this government to protectour important animal production industries.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time set down forquestions without notice has expired and the minimumnumber of questions as required by the sessional ordershas been dealt with.

Mr Ashley — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Iwish to draw to your attention for consideration anaspect of responses to questions. At the end of herresponse to the honourable member for GippslandWest, the Minister for Education and Training said shewas happy to provide more information in writing, andI think she meant to the honourable member forGippsland West. I ask you to rule on whether or not it isright and proper that that material, given the nature ofquestion time, should go to all honourable members.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Chair paysparticular attention to responses given by ministers. Onthis occasion I shall examine the record and rule at alater date.

PETITIONS

The Clerk — I have received the following petitionsfor presentation to Parliament:

Naval and maritime museum: establishment

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of theLegislative Assembly in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria sheweth that many naval and maritime museums inVictoria are closing down or being reduced in size.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Victorian governmentwill foster and support the establishment of a naval andmaritime museum, preferably in the Melbourne ormetropolitan area.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

By Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) (70 signatures)

Melbourne Maritime Museum: development


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria respectfully sheweth that:

In view of the longstanding and continuing connection of thecity of Melbourne with the sea, the state should reaffirm itsstrong support for the efforts of the National Trust of Victoriain the development of the Melbourne Maritime Museum. Weask also that the state make sufficient land and financeavailable for the construction and furnishing of a world-classmaritime museum, worthy of the maritime heritage ofMelbourne, adjacent to the award-winning barque PollyWoodside.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Premier, theHon. S. Bracks, and his ministers will implement this request,without delay, for the benefit and education of futuregenerations.


By Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) (488 signatures)

Laid on table.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Financial Management Act 1994 — Budget Sector —Quarterly Financial Report for the period ended 31 March2002

Planning and Environment Act 1987 — Notices of approvalof amendments to the following planning schemes:

Baw Baw Planning Scheme — No. C15

Casey Planning Scheme — No. C43

ROYAL ASSENT


Gannawarra Planning Scheme — No. C2

Queenscliffe Planning Scheme — No. C11

South Gippsland Planning Scheme — No. C4

Yarra Planning Scheme — No. C29.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message read advising royal assent to Building andConstruction Industry Security of Payment Bill.

APPROPRIATION MESSAGES

Messages read recommending appropriations for:

Agriculture Legislation (Amendments and Repeals)Bill

Albury-Wodonga Agreement (Repeal) BillCasino (Management Agreement) (Amendment) BillEnvironment Protection (Resource Efficiency) BillJuries (Amendment) BillState Taxation Acts (Further Tax Reform) BillTransport (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Program

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Imove:

That, pursuant to sessional order no. 6(3), the orders of theday, government business, relating to the following bills beconsidered and completed by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday,16 May 2002.

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill

State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill

In moving this motion, which contains just two bills, itis important that I explain to the house thegovernment’s intentions. In addition to these two billson the notice paper, it is our intention this week tocommence and complete the Electoral Bill, but not byway of reliance upon what is known in the vernacularof the house as the guillotine. Also, this Thursday thehouse will hear the response by the opposition to thebudget. So although superficially it seems a shortmotion, we have a very heavy and lengthy legislativeprogram this week.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — The oppositionwill not be opposing this business program. As theLeader of the House has pointed out, the budget isbefore the chamber, and debate on that will start onThursday and run over the next two weeks of sitting. In

addition we will also be dealing with the Electoral Billthis week. However it is worth pointing out a couple ofthings. We are about to see a repeat of thisgovernment’s sorry performance in every sitting so farof having no legislation at the start and then bringing inan absolute flood of bills towards the end.

During the first three or four weeks of this sitting wehad the sorry spectacle of only one, two or three billsbeing introduced per week. Then last week thegovernment introduced nine bills on the Tuesday andan additional seven on the Wednesday. As a result weare going to have another six bills second-read today.Obviously one is not yet ready, given that there are anadditional seven bills listed on the notice paper for theirsecond reading.

We see this again and again in every session, spring andautumn. We see nothing during the first month or twoof the sitting and then an unholy rush as it gets towardsthe end as various incompetent ministers discover thatif they do not do something their legislation will not getup. So we see this sad spectacle of a dozen or 15 or20 bills being presented to the house in a week or afortnight, with completely inadequate time either forconsultation and debate with members of the public orto allow members in this chamber to be fully briefed onthe details of the legislation so they get someunderstanding of the impacts it will have on theirconstituencies and on the broader community.

Nevertheless the program for this week is manageable,even though we have two very significant pieces oflegislation to complete — one by the guillotine andone, hopefully, by agreement, as the Leader of theHouse put it.

It is also interesting to note that what was referred topejoratively from 1996 to 1999 as that nasty guillotineis now referred to by the Leader of the House as anadministrative method to enable the government to getits legislation through. He talks about it beingcolloquially referred to as the guillotine. Well, theguillotine is the guillotine, whether he uses it or we useit, and it will never be any different. Let’s not beataround the bush: you have been guillotining plenty oflegislation, just as we guillotined plenty of legislation.The difference is that you bitched and moaned andgroaned about it in public, whereas we realise it is partof the reality — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Monbulk should address his remarks in the thirdperson and through the Chair.



Mr McARTHUR — I am sorry, Mr Speaker, ofcourse you did not do that! He bitched and moaned andgroaned about it, and there was a great to do on thepublic airwaves about legislation being guillotined. Buthe himself uses it as a weekly method of management. Ihesitate to use the word ‘hypocrite’ in this house, butcertainly there are members of the community whoregard this as a hypocritical act. They are perfectlyentitled to do so, because there is a certain doublestandard running here.

Getting back to the motion, this business program ismanageable. There will be many members who willwant to debate the Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill, just as there will be a number ofmembers wanting to debate the Electoral Bill. Iunderstand there could be a few speakers on the statetaxation legislation amendments.

The Leader of the House could well find that one ortwo members want to make a contribution on the noticeof motion under the name of the honourable memberfor Northcote on the regional strategy plan amendmentsto the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong RangesRegional Strategy Plan. I remind the minister andgovernment members that in the days when thehonourable member for Pakenham was Minister forPlanning they complained long and hard about anyamendment to the regional strategy plan, and that wasoften debated at great length and with a great deal ofenthusiasm in this house by the former member forRichmond, Mr Dollis.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — The National Partywill not be opposing the government’s businessprogram. Even though there are only two bills to begone through before the guillotine, if to that is addedthe Electoral Bill and the discussion on the budget, Ithink the house will be fully occupied this week. Manymembers will want to make a contribution to the debateon the industrial manslaughter bill. It is a veryimportant piece of legislation, and I am pleased that thegovernment has brought it on for debate. We can dealwith that bill and dispatch it to the upper house and seewhat happens there.

The state taxation bill is not a major piece of legislationand should not take too much time. The debate on theElectoral Bill will be very interesting. I am pleased thegovernment is starting the debate on that this week butnot subjecting it to the guillotine, so there is no timelimit on getting that one through. On Thursday we willbe discussing the Treasurer’s speech and the budget,and I would imagine every member of the house willwant to make a contribution on that.

Again I express concern about what will happen overthe remaining two weeks of this sitting of Parliament. Inote that we now have 13 bills on the notice paper otherthan the ones I have mentioned, and another 7 are likelyto be introduced this week or next. So we will have todeal with roughly another 20 bills in the remaining twositting weeks. It is very interesting that we are hearingthe same sorts of speeches from the opposition side ofthe house that we used to hear from the Leader of theHouse when he was on this side.

Mr Batchelor interjected.

Mr MAUGHAN — I would suggest that theminister think of something original to address theproblem, because when he was sitting on this side ofthe house he used to tell us how much better it wouldbe with the Labor Party in power and how we wouldnot have this bank-up of legislation. But absolutelynothing has changed, except that we are now makingthe same sorts of speeches that we used to get fromgovernment members when they were on this side ofthe house.

I would just like to see the government, whichevergovernment it is — this time it is the Labor Party —actually introducing legislation, getting it on for debateearly and getting it through more efficiently. We weresitting around wasting time earlier in the sitting. Butnonetheless we will get through, and as I say, this weekwill be a good week. There are at least two majorpieces of legislation and the budget for members to bedealing with, and I think that is a good workload.

But again I express the view that from our perspectiveas country members we want to be on the way home nolater than 6 o’clock on Thursday evening. We arehappy to sit later into the night on Tuesday andWednesday if that is required, but we will not want tobe sitting — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster!

Mr MAUGHAN — I would think that the memberson the government side who made a lot of noise aboutfamily friendly hours when they were on this side willkeep the government in order so that we are notrequired to sit those lengthy hours. Anyway, as long aswe do not sit after 6 o’clock on Thursday thegovernment can be assured it will get cooperation fromthe National Party in getting its business programthrough.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Parliament: question time

Mr PHILLIPS (Eltham) — I condemn the Bracksgovernment for its absolute misuse of question timeover recent weeks. As an individual member sitting uphere on the middle or back benches, I do not get a lot ofopportunity to interject, but I think the way the Bracksgovernment and a number of its ministers have beenusing and abusing question time is a blight on us all. Itputs the opposition, the minority party, in a verydifficult position: we have no option other than tocontinually interject and raise points of order because ofthe blatant debating of questions.

It also puts whoever is in the chair, whether it is you,Mr Speaker, or a temporary chairperson like me, in adifficult position. We know you are part of a team andas such have that obligation, but you also have anobligation to be bipartisan in this Parliament. And tohave your party continually abusing the system andputting the opposition and you, Sir, under enormouspressure is an absolute disgrace.

I also want to criticise the Independents, who are all thetime running out there holier than thou, often walkingout of this place in disgust. But rather than walking outin disgust, they should be doing something about it.Question time never used to be like this under theprevious Kennett government.


Mr PHILLIPS — It always used to be accountableand responsible in answering questions, and I thinkgovernment ministers should be held to account.

Wellington Secondary College

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I draw theattention of the house to some wonderful eventsregarding my electorate of Dandenong North thathappened on Anzac Day last month. I draw theattention of the house to a wonderful experience thataffected the Wellington Secondary College on theborder of Mulgrave and Springvale North in myelectorate whilst honourable members were attending anumber of the Anzac Day services that were held inDandenong and Noble Park on that day.

On that day 12 people from the school community wentto the Anzac Day commemoration at Gallipoli. Therewere six students: Ali Ali, Sam Williams, ZeynepErenli, Bahire Suleyman, Kade Wilsmore and ChrisHaywood; and John Coulson, the school’s principal;Hugh Blaikie, the assistant principal; two former

students, Mehmet and Saadet Eskin; and two parents,Gary Wilsmore and Bob Haywood.

Honourable members who are familiar with names willbe aware that a number of the names I have mentionedare of Turkish heritage. A great number of people wentacross to Gallipoli from this community. That issignificant because 46 per cent of the people in myelectorate of Dandenong North were born overseas.This was a reaffirmation among this very multiculturalcommunity of the powerful symbols of Australia:Anzac Day and multiculturalism. I commend the schoolon its initiative.

Rural and regional Victoria: sport andrecreation funding

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) — I express concernfor the future of many athletic meetings conducted incountry Victoria due to lack of state governmentsupport. The Wangaratta athletic carnival has beenoperating for over 80 years and the Burramine athleticcarnival at Yarrawonga has been conducted for over50 years. Both provide foot-running and cycling events,with excellent entertainment and competition.Sponsorship over the years has been provided from arange of business and industry with major sponsorshipin recent years from the Victorian Health PromotionFoundation. Vichealth initially withdrew support forthose two carnivals which were held earlier this year.After extensive representations from myself and others,it agreed to continue sponsorship this year but will notguarantee funding for future years.

The two athletic carnivals at Wangaratta andYarrawonga are essential events for the calendar ofcompetitions for athletes that lead up to major events atBendigo, and particularly the Stawell Gift. TheVictorian government has recognised the importance ofthe Stawell Gift by becoming a major sponsor of it.However, other athletic meetings around countryVictoria are essential parts of the foot-running calendarand yet receive no financial support from the Victoriangovernment.

It is crucial and critical that serious consideration begiven to direct government financial support for theathletic carnivals at Wangaratta and Yarrawongabecause their continued operation is now in question. Ihave been involved with both sports clubs, so Iunderstand that support is crucial for the survival andthe future of those volunteer organisations.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Peter Rule

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I place on recordmy expression of appreciation for the life and work ofMr Peter Rule, who died recently after a six-monthbattle with leukaemia. For those who are not familiarwith the name, Peter was a stalwart of the Victorianinformation technology industry and had worked formore than 30 years with Ericsson Australia as a seniordevelopment engineer. That length of service made himone of the longest serving employees in the company.His record of achievement was such that he rose to bewhat was colloquially known as the mayor of thatcompany’s 42nd precinct at Melbourne Central, whichis the development hub for Ericsson. He also served forat least two years on the board of Interact, themultimedia events company. I had the pleasure ofchairing that board, and I got to know him over thatperiod of time.

Peter was an extremely considerate individual. He wascompassionate to those he worked with and he was agreat mentor for younger people in the profession. Hewas truly one of the skilled information technologyengineers who helped forge a reputation for this stateover many years. While many of us would like to claimsome responsibility for that, he was someone whoactually did it. He will be greatly missed, and I offercondolences to his family.

Disability services: funding

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — In the May 2001budget the state government promised an extra$1 million for early intervention services for childrenwith disabilities. By December 2001, six months later,none of the $1 million had been spent and no extraearly intervention services provided. By May this yearseveral regions, including the northern and easternregions in Melbourne, had still not received theirallocation. This has significantly affected children withautism, because the window of opportunity to helpthose children is brief. Most are not diagnosed untilthey are three years of age, so every week after thatcounts for delivering early intervention.

Many of those children have not seen a cent for earlyintervention and remain on waiting lists while theirparents become increasingly desperate. They hoped thatthere would be a lifeline in this year’s budget.However, all the early intervention funding has gone toprovide kindergarten assistants and inclusion aides toenable children with special needs to be included in thekindergarten program. It will not provide specialistearly intervention services which are delivered bynon-government providers such as Irabina and Biala.

The preschool funding is welcome — very welcome —but the government remains derelict in its responsibilityto provide early specialist intervention to children withdisabilities. The parents of those children andprofessionals in the field will not let the Bracksgovernment off the hook on this issue, and neitherwill I.

Budget: initiatives

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — I am very happy torise today to sing the praises of the Bracksgovernment’s third state budget. My electorate ofGisborne has benefited greatly from this budget as ithas done in the previous two, as has the whole of thestate. The emphasis of this government and this budgetas evidenced in this budget is in a government that seesthat by growing the whole of the state we all benefit,and that by growing parts of the state that benefit is notshared by everybody. It is definitely this government’scommitment to invest right across the state for thebenefit of us all. That is obviously paying off with thehigher-than-average national jobs growth in this stateand lower-than-the-national average unemploymentrate. We see falling class sizes, increased retention ratesand improved health services.

In this budget once again we see the further investmentin health, education, transport and community services.This morning I had the privilege, if you like, of seeing aspeeding car screaming past me on the highway. Ithought, ‘Where is a cop when you need one?’. I wouldsay it was about 15 seconds later that a flashing whitecar came down the highway and I am pleased that thecar was pulled over for speeding — and, I would argue,for dangerous driving. It was evident to me that thepolice are out there and that is evidence of thisgovernment’s further investment. This budget has beengreat for Gisborne, particularly the announcement offunding for the duplication of the Macedon Streetbridge in Sunbury. I congratulate the government — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

National livestock identification scheme

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Agriculture that relatesto the national livestock identification scheme (NLIS).As all honourable members would know, the NLIS waspart of legislation which was recently passed with thesupport of all parties in this house.

However, the NLIS program will impose significantcosts on agriculture and, in particular, on the livestock

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


saleyards industry, and it is on its behalf that I wouldlike the minister to take some further action.

Recently members of the Liberal Party’s agricultureand water committee and I met with David Pollock, theexecutive officer of the Livestock SaleyardsAssociation of Victoria. In further correspondence afterthat meeting David Pollock said, and I quote:

The saleyard industry supports the NLIS program andbelieves it is in the national interest that such a program befully implemented nationally and as soon as practical.

However, its implementation will impose not only significantresponsibilities on saleyard operators but also significantcosts …

He goes on to point out that these costs are unplannedand unfunded. He argues that as the Parliament hasimposed the NLIS system on the industry it isreasonable for the government to provide someadditional funding to allow its implementation, whichincludes scanners and readers as well as adjusting thesaleyards themselves. This call was supported by theVictorian Farmers Federation in its comment on thebudget this week.

Real estate agents: trust funds

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I congratulate the Minister forConsumer Affairs for bringing real estate agents toaccount by auditing their activities on an ongoingbasis — and I understand the process will take place forthe next two and a half years in any case.

More than 500 real estate agents have beeninvestigated, and preliminary audits of their activitieshave led to 65 undergoing more detailed investigationsfor breaches of the Estate Agents Act. Last month theminister froze the account of one country agency whichhad deficiencies in its trust fund and was operatingwithout a licence. There is a range of concerns, someminor and others more serious, such as problems withthe proper lodgment of money in certain trusts and thefailure to complete police checks on staff who haveaccess to people’s houses.

I feel strongly that the minister needs to go further inassisting tenants who have been preyed upon for years,especially those who are new settlers and refugees fromnon-English-speaking countries who are subject tomanipulation and intimidation by both public andprivate sector landlords, particularly those who aredealing with real estate agents. I ask the minister tore-fund the bilingual tenants support program.


Tourism: rural and regional Victoria

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — The BracksLabor government has failed rural and regional tourism.Rather than tourism funding being boosted to givemuch-needed assistance to regional tourism operators,funding has actually been cut. This will hit operators ofbed-and-breakfasts, hotels, motels and caravan parks inGeelong and on the Surf Coast.

The tourism industry needs additional funds forcommunication strategies, marketing campaigns andother assistance. Tourism in country Victoria isparticularly vulnerable at the moment, given the currentcrisis in public liability insurance. The Bracksgovernment has done nothing to stem the publicliability insurance crisis and is now eroding the tourismbudget further.

The government should have extended the one-off$10 million rescue package to the tourism industrywhich was announced after the events of 11 Septemberlast year, but even accounting for last year’s bonuspayment the Bracks government has cut tourismfunding. This is a kick in the guts for Victorians whoare dependent on the tourism industry.

Regional tourism should be becoming a higher priorityfor the Bracks government, not a lower one. Thenumber of domestic visitor nights recorded in Victoriahas fallen since the Bracks Labor government came tooffice. This is another example of the government’srhetoric on its commitment to rural and regionalVictoria not stacking up with the results.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The honourable member for Preston has about1 minute.

Reservoir: mobile phone tower

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — On Sunday, 26 May,I will be attending a rally of local residents at the LeslieReserve on the corner of St Vigeons Road and MaisStreet, Reservoir. Local residents are objecting to theproposal by Hutchison Orange to erect a mobile phoneantenna on top of a two-storey building at 51 BanffStreet. This is a vacant shop surrounded by residentialareas. Literature put out by Orange, which talks aboutsafety precautions for workers and its intention to placetowers 1 to 2 kilometres apart, has done nothing toalleviate residents’ concerns.

I call for federal legislation to be amended to give stateand local authorities a say in planning issues when it isproposed to locate mobile phone towers or antennas onprivately owned land. I particularly wish to express my

UPPER YARRA VALLEY AND DANDENONG RANGES REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGY


concern that the owner of 51 Banff Street can takemoney from Orange without having any regard to theviews of local residents.

The jury is still out on the issue of safety, and localcommunities and residents have every right to beconcerned and to seek a cautious approach.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The time allotted for members statements hasexpired.

UPPER YARRA VALLEY ANDDANDENONG RANGES REGIONAL

PLANNING STRATEGY

Amendment no. 114

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — Imove:

That pursuant to section 46D(1)(c) of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987, amendment no. 114 to the UpperYarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges regional strategy planbe approved.

This regional strategy plan has been in place since 1982in consideration of the unique environmental tourismand agricultural aspects of the Upper Yarra Ranges,Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges. On thewhole it has been supported by both sides of the house.It is implemented under the Yarra Ranges PlanningScheme, and thus any amendment to the planningscheme must be in conformity with the regionalstrategy plan.

Amendment 114 follows the need to makeamendment C20 to the planning scheme. Theamendment proposes to enable land at 52 Bartley Road,Belgrave South, to be subdivided into two lots. Theland was previously used as a church convention centreand at the moment contains three dwellings.

Amendment 114 was exhibited at the same time as theplanning scheme amendment, and it is important tonote that no objecting submissions were received as aresult of this public exhibition. It is also important tonote that as no development is proposed on these twolots there will be no impact on the vegetation of the siteor, we believe, on the environment in general.

This is an important issue for Parliament in that in thepast we have had bipartisan support for theseamendments. Both sides of the house have aninvestment and a belief in the protection of the uniquecircumstances and features of the Upper Yarra Valleyand Dandenong Ranges regional area.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — I am happy to flagthat the opposition supports amendment 114 to theUpper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges regionalplanning scheme. As the minister has reminded us, it isa very important region and it is precious to the peopleof Victoria. Certainly the opposition supports itsmaintenance as an area of vital significance and onethat is, as I said, precious to the people of this state.

As the minister said, the amendment deals with52 Bartley Road, Belgrave South, just south of theBelgrave Heights Convention Grounds and a fewhundred metres south of Puffing Billy, for those whoare less familiar with the area. The details of theamendment are that the area of the site is currentlyaround 9000 square metres and that it is proposed to bedivided into two lots. There are existing dwellings onthat site.

The process for the formulation of this amendment hasbeen going for more than two years. Formerly therewas a church and convention centre facility on the site;it is now in the hands of people who use it forresidential purposes. As the minister said, theamendment was advertised and exhibited and noobjections were received.

The opposition intends to support this amendment. It isimportant and perhaps will come as no surprise to thosewho pay due attention to these amendments, a numberof which have gone through the house over the years, toobserve that, contrary to the minister’s suggestion justnow that there has been bipartisan support for theseamendments over the years, the government when inopposition vigorously opposed some of theseamendments and attacked the former government forintroducing them. The depth of the government’shypocrisy on a number of these amendments is shownup very ably by the amendment it now proposes. Theformer honourable member for Richmond, my friendDemetri Dollis, who now enjoys a regional planningscheme in Europe — —

Mr Smith — Diplomatic status!

Mr BAILLIEU — Diplomatic status and theregional planning scheme in Europe, and I am sure he isenjoying himself well. Mr Dollis chose to use theseamendments for political purpose and to beat up on theprevious government on the basis of some allegedenvironmental vandalism. Nothing could have beenfurther from the truth. Despite the minister telling usthere has been bipartisan support in the past, thecontrary is the case. A number of divisions were calledover these amendments, and I want to make someremarks in that regard.



This is the third such amendment that this governmenthas brought to the house since it was elevated to office.My predecessor, the honourable member for Box Hill,remarked in one of these debates that the processwarranted further attention, given the lack of notice onprevious occasions for these amendments. Iacknowledge that the minister introduced thisamendment to the house on Thursday and as theshadow minister I was written to in a letter dated6 May. That is an improvement on the past process butarguably still inadequate time to allow an adequatebriefing. Suffice it to say that the seats involved in theUpper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges RegionalStrategy Plan are held by the Liberal Party, and adviceand briefing from members of this side of house haveprovided useful information in the interim.

Those previous amendments were raised by thegovernment after its elevation in December 1999 andOctober 2000. The October 2000 item concerned asubdivision of rural land for residential purposes, thevery amendment which was railed against by thegovernment when it was previously in opposition, andthe December 1999 amendment was to do withcovenants around the Silvan Dam area, and there wassome debate on that at the time.

However, it is the amendments that occurred on 8 and10 April 1997 which raise some interest in the contextof the debate we are having today. Those amendmentsare numbered 97, 98, 99 and 100. Amendment 97 wasuncontroversial; 98 was a restructuring of old andinappropriate subdivisions; 99 was a 3.5-hectaresubdivision into two lots, and the then oppositionargued vigorously that this was most inappropriate,given there was a minimum lot size well above3.5 hectares at the time. Nevertheless the thenopposition allowed that amendment through withoutcalling for a division. However, it chose to findsomething completely different with amendment 100,which was about a 17-hectare lot. The subdivisionproposed dividing it into two for the purpose ofseparating two houses on the land.

The authorities at the time said that this amendmentwould provide no opportunity for extra developmentand would pose no threat to the environment or to theplanning scheme, and yet amendment 100 was the issueon which the then opposition, now government, choseto take a stand. The current Minister for Transport, whois not in the house on this occasion, at the timedescribed this amendment, again on a subdivision of anexisting property with houses on it which confined thesubdivision and future development to the buildingenvelopes which already existed, as a ‘shabby attemptto destroy the environment and the delicate and

sensitive nature of the Dandenong Ranges’; and saidthis would ‘send a shiver of fear through all the peoplewho work and live in this area’.

It was a load of nonsense — a load of garbage — at thetime and still is. It was anything but; it was a legitimatesubdivision of a property. There was no threat to theenvironment; there was no threat to the planningscheme, and everybody except the then opposition, nowthe government, said so.

Again on 11 November 1997 amendments 105 and 106were presented. In particular amendment 106, whichwas about a Lilydale subdivision, proposed two houseson one lot. It was a very similar subdivision to the onewhich is now being considered by this amendment. It isinteresting that the then honourable member forRichmond, Demetri Dollis, who was at the time theshadow Minister for Planning said:

Any member who supports it will be responsible for aplanning system which has no place in Victoria.

Divisions were called at the time, so it was far frombipartisan support being given for the amendments. Thereality is that there was no material change to anythingin the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Rangesregion, and those amendments were appropriate.

That is the point of raising the matter on this occasionbecause this amendment is exactly the same in principleas the amendments which the government when inopposition so vigorously opposed. However, we are notgoing to play political games with these amendments.We believe this is an appropriate amendment; it hasbeen appropriately dealt with at a local level; there areno objectors and it receives the support of the counciland of the opposition, and I trust that in future whenthese amendments are brought before the house we willhave a straightforward and simple debate about themand that there will be due briefing before they are tabledin the house.

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — The history of the UpperYarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges RegionalAuthority is a lesson in communities and councilsworking together. Back in 1982 there were fourcouncils that got together and decided they would like aregional authority to help control any inappropriatedevelopments in the Yarra Valley and DandenongRanges. They were very wise, as has been proved bythe success of that region because of the tourism andthe agriculture that is happening there.

In 1994, during the period of local governmentamalgamations, the four councils went into one so theauthority was disbanded. In 1996 the Kennett



government brought in legislation to protect the region,hence the reason for this amendment today, the thirdsuch one that has been brought before this house since1999.

The application concerns land at Belgrave Heights. Theapplication has been in the planning system for two anda half years and it is fairly low key, according to thecouncil, with no objections from neighbours. The sitewas formerly owned by a church which used it as acamp and put several buildings onto it. The subdivisioncreates two lots around existing dwellings. Thesubdivision would appear to fit in with the size of theblocks and the number of dwellings on them insurrounding areas, and the council itself has noobjections to it.

The Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong RangesRegional Authority was started by the Hamergovernment and had support through the Cain andKirner years. During the period of the Kennettgovernment when the authority turned into the YarraValley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Planthe then opposition, now the government, seemed todevelop a different attitude to it and bipartisanship wentout the window. In fact, the now Minister for Transportsaid on 10 April 1997:

There are many locations where a single title has two houseson it …

The opposition will not join with the government in trying todestroy the Dandenong Ranges. We reject that approach, wewill not do it …

Yet here it is turning around and doing it — that is,making a fairly sensible amendment. The two housesexist and there is no objection from the local residents,and yet this government when in opposition attackedthe former Kennett government for making similarapplications. In fact, the Minister for Transport alsosaid, again on 10 April 1997:

It is saying that this will be the future criteria used todetermine planning applications. So we can see what reallydrives this government.

We on this side know what really drives thisgovernment!

The former member for Richmond, Demetri Dollis,said on 8 April 1997:

Let us not misunderstand what we are doing today. We aremaking further incremental changes that are slowly dilutingthe protection previous governments … put into place.

Where is the criticism now? Where is the criticism ofwhat this government is doing when it is agreeing to asensible application? Where are those people? Why is

the Minister for Transport not thundering about howterrible it is, as he did in those Kennett years?

I, too, am concerned about incremental changes to theUpper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges RegionalStrategy Plan, and I would be the first to stand up if Ithought that any changes would damage not just thebeauty of the area but also the agricultural productivityof the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges, whichhave some of the most productive land in the state.However, this amendment does not affect agriculturalland and therefore I have no objection to the motion.

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — The NationalParty will also not be opposing this motion that hasbeen brought forward today. On my understandingfrom speaking to our spokesperson on planning, theHonourable Jeanette Powell, who is an honourablemember for North Eastern Province in anotherplace — —

Mr Nardella — And a good shadow minister, too!

Mr DELAHUNTY — I thank the honourablemember for Melton for his interjection. I am pleased tosee he recognises talent when he sees it.

Mr Nardella — Absolutely!

Mr DELAHUNTY — Absolutely. The HonourableJeanette Powell said in discussions with me that thisapplication has not been a problem. This applicationcomes under the control of the Shire of Yarra Ranges,which has informed her that the application has been onthe table for about two and a half years. The site isowned by a church, is currently used as a camp and hasseveral buildings on it.

Importantly, as speakers before me have stated,land-use planning is a critical issue, particularly in theShire of Yarra Ranges, from the point of view ofagriculture and also of tourism. From the point of viewof agriculture, land-use planning plays a very importantrole in the use of high-value land, given the pressures ofresidential development spreading out in this area.

On my understanding the application we are discussingrelates to a subdivision of land into two lots. Noobjections to this proposal to amend the Upper YarraValley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Planhave been lodged with the shire. The shire has played aleading role in this process, and it is good to see that thegovernment has finally addressed the issue which, as Isaid, has been lying on the table for two and a halfyears. The National Party will not be opposing thismotion, and it supports its speedy passage through thehouse.

TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


Mr MACLELLAN (Pakenham) — Myconstituents will be very welcoming of the fact thatthere is support from all sides of the house for thismotion. The proposed amendment will acknowledgethe situation that in reality the buildings are already inexistence. The amendment will merely draw a line bycreating separate allotments and subsequently separatetitles for the lots concerned.

It seems that the control ought more importantly to beon the creation of buildings rather than on the creationof allotments under buildings, if I can put it that way —in other words, when the shire is willing to have twohouses, it seems to me to be a signal that there ought tobe two lots. If it does not want two lots then it shouldnot allow two houses.

In many parts of our constituencies — the honourablemember for Evelyn and I have a mutual boundary —there are properties which are allowed to havebed-and-breakfast residences, caretakers’ residencesand all sorts of things that are not houses. I am notsuggesting, just because there is a separate buildingwith a roof on it, that it should be on a separate title, butwhere there are two separate residences and where theyhave separate intended uses and everybody knows ofthem and the use has been there for some time with theapproval of the council, it seems to me that it wouldoffer no threat to the environment at all if those weresimply on separate allotments able to be separatelyowned and separately dealt with.

We are not into forms of collective living in Victoria, ifI can put it that way. Having more than one house on alot sometimes becomes a complication for families, andmany families come to see me — I am sure thehonourable member for Evelyn would have the samesituation — saying, ‘We have two houses and we weregiven permits to allow the two houses to be built, butour family circumstances have radically changed’. Itwould not be hard to imagine circumstances of divorce,ageing parents, family members moving in differentdirections, family members getting employment indifferent areas and a range of other circumstanceswhere the family has two houses on the one title — likewhat used to be called Siamese twins, although thatexpression is no longer politically correct — and isunable to get money out of the property and make afresh start somewhere else.

To avoid having people locked together inuncomfortable circumstances, from time to time theseamendments are made, and the honourable member forEvelyn is correct to chip the government about the factthat when in opposition it found reason to stylishly tryto pretend to oppose these things. It was safe for it to do

so because it did not have the numbers in the upperhouse and therefore it could make the noise withoutbearing the responsibility. Now, in government, it bearsthe responsibility and it brings these amendments to thehouse as it is required to do.

It is a good thing that these amendments come to thehouse and it is a good thing that they are exposed topublic gaze, and it is a good thing that the process isopen and accountable. The minister is to becommended for bringing the matter here. It is a pity theformer minister did not bring any of these sorts ofamendments to the house, presumably because he hadsome reluctance to be shown to be at odds with the sortof attitude he had in opposition, whereas the presentMinister for Planning has no such hesitation and iscourageous enough to bring them before the house. Weshould commend her for it and look forward to manymore resolutions of the small-scale problems that existin Evelyn, in Pakenham and also in Monbulk and othernon-suburban areas of the Dandenong Ranges andYarra Valley where these sorts of difficulties arise.

On behalf of my constituents I say thank you to thehonourable member for Horsham on behalf of theNational Party — —

Mr Delahunty — The honourable member forWimmera.

Mr MACLELLAN — I thank the honourablemember for Wimmera, which has Horsham in it — orHorsham and beyond, I should say; the honourablemember for Evelyn; the shadow minister, thehonourable member for Hawthorn; and the ministerherself. I hope the motion is assented to in the otherplace and that this proposal goes forward.

Motion agreed to.

TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am proud to present this bill to the house today. Itrepresents another significant step forward in theBracks government’s tobacco reform agenda.

Almost 5000 Victorians die each year of asmoking-related illness. Around 21 per cent ofVictorian adults smoke regularly and 32 per cent ofschoolchildren aged 16 and 17 years smoke.



Smoking costs Victoria in excess of $3.3 billion everyyear. This is more than two-thirds of the total cost of alldrugs, including alcohol and illicit drugs.

Reducing smoking rates is the single most effectiveway to enhance the health status of Victorians, and toimpact on rising health care costs.

It is for these reasons that, in its first term of office, theBracks government has continued to take action to stemactive and passive smoking.

In the last two years, the Bracks government hasintroduced major tobacco reforms into Parliament,which represent the most significant achievements intobacco control since the Victorian Tobacco Act wasfirst introduced 15 years ago.

Tobacco control in Australian has a proud history ofbipartisan support. In Victoria this began in 1987 with alandmark piece of legislation, the Victorian TobaccoAct. This legislation significantly influenced tobaccolaws enacted in other states.

It is time for Victoria to once again provide leadershipto the rest of the nation. And to do so through thesupport of this Parliament.

The Victorian government’s recent initiatives includethe introduction of:

smoke-free dining;

smoke-free shopping centres;

laws prohibiting tobacco advertising in shops thatsell tobacco;

strict limits on displays of tobacco in shops that selltobacco; and

tough penalties for retailers who sell cigarettes tochildren and teenagers less than 18 years of age.

The Bracks government is proud of its record ofachievement in tobacco control so far. But passivesmoking remains a significant health issue that cannotbe ignored.

It is estimated that passive smoking causes about1600 deaths per year in Australia. One hundred andforty-six of these deaths are due to lung cancer, and10 times this number are from heart disease.

This equates to about 400 Victorian deaths, or morethan one Victorian death every day, from passivesmoking.

Over the past 20 years, research has increasinglyrevealed the harms caused by second-hand or passivesmoke. There are now more than 600 publishedmedical reports that link exposure from passivesmoking to cancer and respiratory diseases.

Lung cancer, heart disease, low-birth-weight babies andrespiratory problems in children can be attributed topassive smoking.

These statistics should be of concern to all members ofthis Parliament and have compelled this government tointroduce further tobacco reforms.

In summary, the key measures contained in the bill willmean that:

smoking will not be permitted in the vast majority ofgaming rooms within approved gaming venues;

in the case of Crown Casino, the main gaming floorswill be required to be smoke free;

licensed venues with two or more rooms in operationwill be required to indicate that smoking isprohibited in one of those rooms;

bingo centres will be required to be smoke free;

in other places where bingo is played, such as inschool halls or sporting clubs, the area where bingois played will be required to be smoke free duringthe bingo session; and

the definition of ‘product line’ in relation to tobaccoproducts, will be amended.

With the exception of the amendment to the definitionof ‘product line’, these reforms will be effective from1 September 2002.

The smoke-free gaming areas policy is based on thefact that currently in most cases the restricted area,which will be known as the ‘gaming machine area’ inthe new gaming legislation, is the entire gaming room.

If gaming venues consist of only one room, only the‘gaming machine area’ in that room, as defined underthe Gaming Machine Control Act 1991, will berequired to be smoke free.

In these venues it will be possible for the bar to beexcluded from the gaming machine area, meaning thebar will not be required to be smoke free.

In venues with two or more rooms, smoking will beprohibited in the room that has gaming machines.



The Department of Human Services will monitor theapplication of these new provisions. If it appears thatnew or existing venues are attempting to avoid the newsmoking restrictions by becoming single-roompremises, consideration will be given to furtherchanges.

These reforms mean that from 1 September 2002,90 per cent of the 533 gaming venues in this state willbe required to make their gaming room entirely smokefree.

Smoking will generally not be permitted within CrownCasino’s main gaming floors.

The government has stated that Crown Casino will bepermitted to apply for exemptions for VIP gaming areaswith substantial international high-roller clientele.

Exemptions from the smoking bans may also beconsidered for some of the bars on the main gamingfloors of Crown Casino.

Exemptions for Crown Casino are still under thegovernment’s consideration. However, it is anticipatedthat any exemptions will amount to less than 10 percent of the gaming floor space at Crown Casino andwould be tougher than smoking laws governing casinosin other Australian states.

The bill provides that any exemptions for CrownCasino from the smoking prohibitions will be giveneffect through a ministerial declaration made by me, inconsultation with the Minister for Gaming.

Victoria’s 30 bingo centres will be required to besmoke free, on a 24-hour basis.

In other premises where bingo is played, such as RSLclubs or church halls, the area within the venue wherebingo is played will be required to be smoke free duringa bingo session. The ban on smoking in such premisesis more limited because of the multifunctional nature ofthese premises.

The smoking restrictions also require licensed premiseswith more than one operating room to set aside one ofthose rooms as smoke free. This will affect 90 per centof Victorian hotels, nightclubs and licensed clubs thathave two or more rooms.

The legislation will mean, for example, that if athree-room premises closes the room in which smokingis prohibited, such as a dining room, at an earlier timethan the other two operating rooms, then one of theremaining two rooms must convert from smoking to

non-smoking for the remainder of the time that bothrooms remain in operation.

This measure will affect close to 5000 licensed venuesin Victoria and will mean that patrons can choose tosocialise in a smoke-free environment, away from theharms of passive smoking.

Where a licensed venue has three or more rooms inoperation and one of these is a gaming room, they willalso be required to prohibit smoking in anotheroperating room, in addition to having a smoke-freegaming room.

As with all aspects of tobacco legislation, the new lawswill be enforced by environmental health officers inlocal councils.

The bill provides penalties for those who smoke whensmoking is not permitted and for those in charge whopermit smoking, or who do not display the requiredno-smoking signs.

Finally, the definition of ‘product line’ will be amendedto ensure the aim of the tobacco display provisions isachieved.

Current restrictions on tobacco displays aim to ensurethat only one front facing of each tobacco product isdisplayed.

By removing ‘trademark’ as a defining feature oftobacco product line, the act will ensure that onlytobacco products that differ on the basis of brand name,flavour or nicotine or tar content are considered to bedifferent product lines.

This amendment will come into effect on the day afterthe day the legislation receives royal assent.

The Victorian government has been impressed by thewillingness of industry groups, health groups, unionsand local government peak organisations to be part ofan ongoing consultation process about the newlegislation.

Consultations with these stakeholders must continue toensure the smooth transition of the reforms. Werecognise the importance of industry being fullyinformed about their new obligations well before the1 September deadline. The Department of HumanServices will undertake a statewide communicationcampaign to inform both industry and the communityabout the changes.

The government will approach stakeholders in the nearfuture to be part of an advisory committee to provide it

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL


with advice about the rollout of the communicationcampaign.

I also wish to make a statement pursuant to section 85of the Constitution Act 1975 about the reasons foraltering or varying that section by clause 13 of theTobacco (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

That clause inserts a new subsection (3) in section 42bof the Tobacco Act, which states that it is the intentionof section 42, as it will have effect after theamendments come into force, to alter or vary section 85of the Constitution Act 1975.

Section 42 of the Tobacco Act provides that an actiondoes not lie against a person for the failure to doanything that would constitute an offence under the act.This was included in the act when it was first passed in1987.

The bill creates a number of new offences. It isnecessary that section 42 apply to those offences in thesame way that it applies to existing offences.

In conclusion, this bill will build on the tobacco reformspassed by the Victorian Parliament in 2000 and 2001. Itcontains important measures to address passivesmoking and will help make Victoria a healthier placein which to live, work and do business.

The community is ready for further passive smokingreforms, and community support for smokingrestrictions in bars and gaming venues is high.

The government’s Victorian population health surveythat was undertaken in November 2001 showed that83 per cent of the community supported either total orpartial smoking bans in bars.

The survey also showed that 92 per cent of thecommunity support either full or partial smoking bansin gaming areas.

Therefore I am confident the reforms I have outlinedtoday will enjoy the full support of the Victoriancommunity.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr BAILLIEU(Hawthorn).

Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 28 May.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — I move:


Introduction

On behalf of the government I am pleased to be able topresent the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill2002 today.

This bill balances tenants’ needs for security of tenureand the need for landlords to protect their assets, andmaintains market investment incentives, therebystrengthening the role of private rental accommodationas part of the total housing system.

Furthermore, this bill addresses the government’scommitment in the better housing policy to review theResidential Tenancies Act 1997 with a particular focuson tenure security and fair rent mechanisms.

This bill builds on the protections for both landlordsand tenants contained in the current act and addressesareas of concern for a number of key stakeholders aboutthe operation of the act. In this way the best features ofthe current act have been maintained, and the intentionto simplify the operation of the act is given effectthrough streamlining the administrative processes.

It is important to note that the amendments representmoderate and responsible change that modernises thisimportant legislation whilst maintaining certainty formarket investment and therefore the future of theVictorian rental market.

Much work has gone into the development of thelegislative amendments proposed in this bill. Itrepresents the culmination of broad consultation withkey stakeholders in the residential tenancies sector andthe deliberations of the residential tenancies legislationworking group, chaired by Ms Jacinta Allan, MP,member for Bendigo East. Membership of the workinggroup included the Real Estate Institute of Victoria,Tenants Union of Victoria, the caravan park ownersassociation and other key sector representatives. Thebill represents a balance of the views of these keystakeholders.

The working group returned a substantial number ofrecommendations for the government to consider, andthe changes incorporated into this bill reflect both theperspectives of the working group and an analysis of



the impact of changes on all aspects of the Victorianrental market.

Security of tenure

The act currently allows for a landlord, rooming houseowner or caravan park owner to give a tenant orresident 90 days to vacate without giving a reason. Thebill provides that this notice period will increase to120 days. This amendment is intended to deter propertyowners from using the no-reason notice to vacateinappropriately. This is an important provision that willincrease the security of tenure for tenants and residents;however, it does not limit landlords’ proprietary rights,as the act provides a series of specific-purpose noticesto vacate as an alternative to the revised 120-day notice.

This is a balanced and even position, supported by keystakeholders, that places Victoria at the forefront ofreform in this area.

Tenure — caravan parks

Currently a person must have occupied a site in acaravan park as his or her only or main residence for aminimum of 90 consecutive days before he or she isregarded as a resident and eligible for protection underthe act. Under the new provisions this period will bereduced to 60 days. This will afford longer termoccupiers of caravan park sites rights and protectionsunder the act sooner than is currently the case, withoutinterfering with the provision of accommodation fortourism.

This amendment therefore reflects a balance of the dualroles of caravan parks of providing accommodation inthe tourism sector and as suppliers of long-termaccommodation to individuals, and is supported byindustry sector representatives.

Rent increases

This bill reintroduces the limit of two rent increases peryear and commensurately reduces the notice period fora rent increase from 90 days to 60 days. It is not theintent of the amendment that there be two increases,rather that there be no more than two. This is consistentwith the position that applied prior to 1997.

This amendment has been based on two factors. First,the removal of the restriction on the number of rentincreases in 1997 has undermined tenure security andthe ability of tenants to budget, as the unrestrictedability to raise rents has reduced their certainty andpredictability. Secondly, the 90-day notice periodrequires property owners and agents to forecast rental

prices at least three months in advance and potentiallyset higher prices to cover future inflation.

Additionally the 90-day notice has proven in practice tobe cumbersome for tenants and landlords, requiring areminder letter to be sent closer to the date of the actualrent increase. This amendment creates greater certaintyand predictability for tenants while maintainingproperty owners’ ability to seek financial return fromtheir investment and respond appropriately to marketmovements.

In addition the bill will expand the criteria which maybe considered in determining whether or not a rentalincrease is excessive. They include:

the number of rent increases issued in the previous24 months;the size of previous rent increases; andthe period since the last rent increase.

This will ensure that comprehensive information isavailable to all parties together with the informationcurrently supplied about the rental housing market andthe cost of goods, services and facilities provided withthe rented premises.

This will enable the tribunal to be in a better position toassess each case on its merits, rather than relying purelyon information about the market in general.

Benefits — simplifying the act

Landlords identified a number of administrativedifficulties in working with the act.

In addition to addressing the impact of the 1997 act inregard to tenure and fair rent mechanisms, this billincludes significant changes to eradicate red tape thatwill be of benefit to landlords and their agents.

The government’s recognition of these issues isreflected in the large number of amendments aimed atimproving the operation of the act and streamliningadministrative procedures where possible. Generallythese amendments address administrative anomaliesthat have been identified by users and administrators ofthe act over the first three years of its operation.

In order to address a number of specific concerns raisedby landlord representatives, a number of newprovisions have been introduced. For example, the billwill allow a landlord, rooming house owner or caravanpark owner to apply for an urgent hearing in theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if a tenantor resident refuses entry to a property. This section of



the act will apply when entry is required to show thepremises to a prospective buyer or to a lender who willbe taking a security interest over the property.

Violence, penalties and receipts

There are three significant areas of amendments that thegovernment would like to highlight in this bill. Theserelate to:

dealing with potential misuse of the provisionsallowing for residents to be suspended from roominghouses and other high-density accommodation forallegedly violent behaviour;

penalties; and

the issuing of receipts.

Misuse of the violence provisions

Communal high-density living, such as rooming housesand caravan parks, can lead to conflict betweenresidents. Part 8 of the act contains special provisions todeal with violence in rooming houses, caravan parksand other managed high-density accommodation. Theseprovisions are required to ensure that managers andowners are able to respond quickly and effectively todangerous and violent behaviour by suspendingresidents or their visitors from the premises for twobusiness days in response to that behaviour.

Nonetheless, while it is acknowledged that propertyowners have a right to protect their asset from damageand other residents from injury, there have beensituations where these provisions appear to have beenmisused to exert authority or in retaliation againstresidents.

The act provides that the suspension provision mayonly be used in response to a serious act of violence.The bill proposes the introduction of a new offence incircumstances where this power is used inappropriately.A penalty would only apply where a person does nothave reasonable grounds to believe that a serious act ofviolence by the resident or resident’s visitor hasoccurred on the premises or that the safety of anyperson on the premises is in danger from the resident orthe resident’s visitor.

This is consistent with the penalty for attempting toevict a tenant or resident other than in accordance withthe act.

Penalties

Extensive consideration has been given tostrengthening the mechanisms used to enforce the act.

Accordingly a number of new offence provisions havebeen created to discourage parties from not complyingwith the provisions of the act.

Offences created in this bill include failure by alandlord to provide a copy of a completed bondlodgment form to a tenant or for a landlord to enter arental property other than in accordance with the act.

Failure to comply with either a monetary ornon-monetary order of the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal with respect to the operation ofthe act will also be an offence under the act.

Receipts

The bill contains provisions to update the requirementsfor landlords or their agents to maintain records of rentpayments. This amendment is required to bring the actin line with recent technological developments andensures electronic payments of rent are sufficientlyrecorded.

Consistency, efficiency and clarity

The balance of the amendments can be broadly classedinto three groups of issues:

areas identified by the working group where greaterconsistency between provisions is deemedbeneficial;

amendments required to improve the existingprocesses in the act; and

amendments required to clarify the act.

For example, the bill clarifies the exemption from theact for premises which are ancillary to an educational ortraining institution. It does this by ensuring that onlypremises which are owned or leased by, or are formallyaffiliated with, an educational or training institution areentitled to this exemption. This will provide appropriateprotection for students who are living in residentialfacilities which are not truly connected with aneducational or training institution.

The bill extends the period to 90 days that an owner ofthe rented premises must keep personal documents thatare left behind at the end of a tenancy before disposingof them. It also removes the requirement for landlords,rooming house owners and caravan park owners toplace expensive advertisements of their intention todispose of these documents at the end of the 90-dayperiod. These amendments balance the need to ensurethat residents’ and tenants’ personal documents areprotected, while reducing the financial burden on

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (PLANNING PROCEEDINGS) BILL


landlords who wish to dispose of these documents afteran appropriate period of time.

Working group

Earlier I mentioned the work of the residential tenancieslegislation working group. All members of the workinggroup invested a significant amount of time inidentifying issues, arguing the merits of variouspositions and representing their constituents. While theworking group did not always achieve a consensus, allmembers demonstrated a commitment to the processand reached fair and common ground where possible.

The efforts of the residential tenancies legislationworking group were the impetus behind theamendments in the bill.

The government would like to thank the chair of theworking group, Ms Jacinta Allan, MP, for hercommitment and dedication. It is not easy to chair alarge group charged with examining such complexissues. The results, however, have been extremelyvaluable, and the government would like to commendthe honourable member on her management of theprocess.

The government would also like to thank all of themembers of the working group.

Finally, the government would also like to extend itsthanks to the many members of the community whotook the time to provide input into this process. Itwould like to thank all of the people who attendedconsultation sessions or provided written submissionson the issues raised during this process. This feedbackwas valuable in informing the working party of variousperspectives and highlighting issues of concern.

The provisions in this bill meet the government’scommitment to review the balance of the act. This billintroduces moderate and responsible change which willimprove the balance of rights and duties of landlordsand tenants or residents by providing greater certaintyfor tenants and predictability for landlords and bysignificantly improving the operation and efficiency ofthe act.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs SHARDEY(Caulfield).


VICTORIAN CIVIL ANDADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

(PLANNING PROCEEDINGS) BILL

Second reading

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I move:


On 12 April 2002, the Supreme Court handed down itsdecision in The Warehouse Group v. Bevendale Pty Ltd[2002] VSC 108. The decision involved an appeal froman order made by the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal, constituted by a legal membersitting alone, in its planning and environment list.

Schedule 1, clause 52 of the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal Act states that VCAT must beconstituted by a member who possesses ‘soundknowledge of, and experience in, planning orenvironmental practice in Victoria’ when hearingplanning matters.

In the Warehouse case, counsel for the appellant arguedthat VCAT was not properly constituted when it madethe decision under appeal. The basis for this argumentwas that the member, while otherwise possessingextensive qualifications and experience in the lawrelating to planning, did not possess practicalexperience as a planner.

The Supreme Court accepted this argument. It held thatthe VCAT act requires all planning matters to be heardby a person with hands-on experience as a townplanner.

The decision has very serious ramifications for VCATand the wider planning community. It means that onlytown planners can hear matters in the planning listwhen sitting alone. No ‘non-planning’ member,including the president of VCAT himself, may nowpreside over a mediation, directions hearing or hearingwithout a town planner also being present.

Valuable VCAT resources are now being used toconstitute the tribunal with two members, rather thanone, to meet the requirements of Warehouse. Thegovernment has provided additional funding to VCATto enable this to occur without creating delays in theplanning list. However, this is only an interim measure.

The government is committed to establishing andmaintaining a settled planning environment. It isconcerned to ensure that there is certainty in how theVCAT should be constituted when hearing planningmatters. It is also vital that residents, businesses and the

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILL


development community have confidence in thelegality of past VCAT decisions.

This bill restores certainty to planning matters byattempting to return VCAT to the position it was inprior to the Warehouse decision. The bill will enablethe president of VCAT to appoint people with a soundknowledge of and experience in planning andenvironmental practice, as well as people with a soundknowledge of and experience in planning orenvironmental law, to sit alone in planning matters.

The bill also seeks to validate past actions of VCAT.An effect of the Warehouse decision is that the validityof many previous VCAT planning decisions, such asthose made by legal members sitting alone, can now becalled into question. The bill makes it clear that wheresomething has been done by a tribunal constituted of aperson with sound knowledge of and experience inplanning practice, or a person with sound knowledge ofand experience in planning law, that action is valid.

The bill specifically provides that the rights of theparties to the Warehouse decision will not be affectedby this act of validation.

This bill promotes the government’s commitment toproviding greater certainty to residents, businesses andthe development industry in planning matters, andensures that VCAT members hearing planning appealspossess appropriate qualifications and experience.

I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr DEAN (Berwick).


SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIRACCESS) BILL

Second reading

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forGaming) — I move:


I introduce this bill with a determination to see greatertransparency and fairer access in the ticketing for majorsports events in Victoria. The bill reflects thegovernment’s resolve to ensure the maximum numberof tickets to major sports events are made available tosports fans at face value. Poor ticketing practices areknown to sustain ticket scalping activity, which clearlydisenfranchises the average sports fan and, in respect of

the AFL grand final, only serves to cause ongoingresentment amongst club members.

The bill empowers the minister to direct eventorganisers to arrange their ticketing in such a way so asto minimise opportunities for scalpers to sell ticketscontrary to the arrangements established by the eventorganiser. The bill is based on considerable researchand incorporates world best practice in ticketinglegislation.

For more than two years the government has made itknown that unless the industry took steps to bothimprove their ticketing practices to ensure greatertransparency in distribution arrangements and todiscourage unauthorised or undisclosed resellingarrangements then legislation would be introduced.

A discussion paper was released to the industry andcommunity in August 2001. That paper canvassed abroad range of issues and evidence pertaining to ticketscalping practices and the related issues of ticketdistribution and allocation for major events, and inparticular major sports events such as the AFL grandfinal. The discussion paper outlined various actionstaken around the world to curtail unauthorised ticketsales at inflated prices.

The discussion paper noted that consumer protectionand consumer rights are presently compromised bypoorly managed ticket distributions and clandestinereselling practices. Consumers are not able to ascertainthe bona fides of most ticket resellers and havedifficulty in identifying agents that are essentiallyoperating in the market as de facto authorised resellers.

The discussion paper concluded that consumers, andthe sport event industry, would benefit from enhancedstandards of conduct and disclosure as well as betterindustry monitoring and control of organised andcommercial but unofficial ticket reselling.

The industry’s response to this discussion paper wasdisappointing. The few responses which were providedoffered little new information or insight into ticketreselling and ticket distribution practices in Victoria.Critically, no evidence was presented to demonstratehow the reselling of tickets for sports events was in thepublic interest or in the best interests of sport.

Yet as the number and popularity of hallmark majorsports events grow, the complex network of personsactively deriving huge profits from the resale of ticketscontinues to evolve and flourish in this state. To leaveunchecked the growth in ticket distribution systems thatfavour wealthy individuals and companies but greatlylimit or otherwise deny access to ordinary fans is not in

SPORTS EVENT TICKETING (FAIR ACCESS) BILL


the public interest. Certainly such ticketingarrangements fail to sustain and reward the grassrootssupport base upon which major sports events ultimatelyrely, and on which Melbourne’s reputation as a greatevent city is based.

Ticket distribution and allocation practices are obviousareas where strategic enhancements must therefore bemade. Improved ticket distribution management andmonitoring practices have the potential to minimise theopportunity for professional ticket resellers to obtainsignificant quantities of premium tickets and thenprofiteer at the expense of the general public, clubmembers and the sport.

The development of a legislative framework hasbecome necessary to help deliver such improvements inthe ticketing practices for major sporting events anddiscourage the growth of the unauthorised and highlyinflated ticket reselling industry.

The government is firm in its intention to ensure thatmajor Victorian sports events are not diminished by alack of affordable access by the general public. As suchthe guidelines developed in the context of thelegislation will seek to ensure that event owners and thegovernment work together to protect affordablespectator access to hallmark events and prevent suchevents from becoming the sole domain of the wealthyor the well connected.

The purpose of the Sports Event Ticketing (FairAccess) Bill is to put in place a legislative frameworkfor the development of a code of industryself-regulation. This legislative framework willpromote equitable access to prescribed major sportsevents and be one that is subject to independentgovernment inspection and audit supported by anappropriate penalty system.

The bill is designed to:

maximise the access by members of the generalpublic to major sporting events by ensuring a fairand transparent process of ticketing;

entrust the industry to establish the appropriateprocesses and standards to ensure maximum accessto tickets by the general public but provide forpenalties when this trust is broken;

provide scope for the government to develop, inconsultation with event owners, guidelines for fairaccess to tickets to prescribed major sports events;

reduce the growth in unauthorised ticket resellingand pirate corporate hospitality service provision byindividuals and companies.

The legislation is envisaged ultimately to have foursubstantive parts dealing with the declaration of events,the approval of ticket schemes, guidelines for thedevelopment of ticket schemes, offences and thepowers of authorised officers.

An appropriate level of authority is vested in theminister administering the act to make ordersfacilitating the implementation and approval of ticketschemes for prescribed major sports events.

Part 2 of the bill provides an administrative processwhereby the minister gives notice of an intention todeclare an event. Such notice must, however, be givenno less than nine months before the event is held. Thebill is about fairness, and it is only fair that there isappropriate notice to event organisers to arrange theirticketing processes. The process will also ensure theevent organiser has the opportunity to make asubmission on whether an event should be declared.

Part 3 of the bill makes provision so that the ministermay, by order published in the Government Gazette,declare an event and require the submission within60 days of a ticket scheme proposal from an eventorganiser. The minister may require the event organiserto submit further details within 28 days of receiving theproposal or may refuse to approve the ticket schemeshould the event organiser fail to comply with theguidelines or fail to submit further details if requestedto do so by the minister. The event organiser will alsobe required to ensure that any authorisation to sell ordistribute tickets to the event is given in writing and thatthe minister is notified in writing of the name andcontact details of each person who is given suchauthorisation. Provision is also provided for thesubmission of replacement proposals and for variationor cancellation of proposals.

The bill contains a number of provisions necessary tofacilitate the development of ticket scheme proposals.Thus part 4 specifies that the minister must makewritten guidelines setting out the requirements for ticketscheme proposals.

Part 5 of the bill sets out offences related to the holdingof a prescribed event before an approved ticket schemeis in place or where there is failure, without reasonableexcuse, to comply with an approved ticket scheme. Thesale of tickets contrary to any event ticket conditionsimposed by the event organiser will also be an offence.

GAMING LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


The inclusion in the bill of measures to prosecutecompanies or persons that sell tickets in contraventionof the ticketing schemes instituted by organisers hasbeen included specifically at the request of a number ofsports that have taken measures to curtail theunauthorised distribution and resale of tickets to theirevents.

Under part 5 each time a person knowingly contravenesa ticket condition for a prescribed event which isprinted on a ticket and prohibits the unauthorised sale ordistribution of that ticket, they will attract a fine. Thefine payable for each offence will not exceed 60 penaltyunits in the case of a person or 300 penalty units in thecase of a body corporate. The total fine payable formultiple offences in respect of a declared event held ona particular day is capped at 600 penalty units in thecase of a person or 3000 penalty units in the case of abody corporate.

Part 6 of the bill enables the appointment of authorisedofficers for the purposes of monitoring compliance withapproved ticket schemes. The enforcement functionsand powers of the authorised officers are clearlyestablished and are similar to those provided toinspectors under the Fair Trading Act.

Part 7 sets out the review functions of the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal in the context ofcertain decisions made under the legislation and alsoenables regulations to be made.

Part 8 amends schedule 4 of the Magistrates’ Court Act1989 in respect of providing for indictable offencesunder the legislation.

The government is delighted to present this bill as thefirst step in protecting the rights of sports fans. Insummary, the provisions contained within the bill will:

encourage proper and transparent ticketingprocesses;

assist event managers in discouraging the diversionof tickets to unauthorised or undisclosed ticketresellers which were intended for direct access bysports fans and club members at face value;

make prescribed sports events more attractive to fansby reducing public scepticism in respect of thefairness of the ticketing arrangements.




GAMING LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT)BILL

Second reading

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forGaming) — I move:


The purpose of this bill is to further the government’selection commitment to secure a more balancedapproach to gambling and to better protect thecommunity from the adverse effects of gambling ongaming machines.

The bill contains four groups of amendments. Thefirst — harm-minimisation measures — aims to reduceproblem gambling without unduly affectingrecreational gamblers. The second — probitymeasures — includes a suite of regulatory changes thatwill streamline regulatory processes. The third — theintroduction of community benefit statements —requires venues to prove they are operating as genuineclubs or lose access to lower tax rates. The fourthcomprises industry specific amendments.

1. Harm-minimisation measures

The bill introduces measures to reduce harm to problemgamblers.

The bill has four categories of harm-minimisationamendments. The first modifies game and gamingmachine design, the second restricts cash accessibilityin gaming venues, the third regulates player loyaltyprograms, and the fourth enables more stringentadvertising restrictions to be introduced.

(i) Game and gaming machine design

The bill provides a number of measures to reduce therate of spending by players of gaming machines.

The gaming machine design amendments include:

banning $100-note acceptors on machines;

prohibiting the reduction of machine spin ratesbelow the current fastest level of 2.14 seconds;

banning autoplay facilities; and

clarifying the minister’s power to set bet limits ongaming machines in approved venues and thecasino — this power will be used to set themaximum bet limit at $10.



Gaming venues will be able to apply for exemptions tothese machine design measures for some of theirmachines, but only if they meet strict new rules onplayer protection. Such exempted machines will not beaccessible to the general public. They must be operatedby a card, a PIN number or some other similartechnology, and players must set a limit on the amountof time and net loss that they can incur in any 24-hourperiod as a condition of use of the machines.

The government will closely monitor theimplementation of these machine design measures, andif venues or operators are shown to be abusing theexemptions available, the government will furthertighten the strict rules that apply. For example, thegovernment will not accept operators drasticallyaltering the distribution of their gaming machines inorder to take advantage of these exemptions.

The government will continue to investigate otheroptions for enhancing player protection. Any suchoptions, however, will need to be assessed in terms ofeffectiveness, privacy and difficulties associated withimplementation.

(ii) Cash accessibility

It has been widely agreed that unplanned access tofunds in gaming venues is a significant contributor toproblem gambling. The bill introduces a series of cashaccessibility amendments:

limiting access to ATM and EFTPOS facilities atvenues to $200 per transaction;

prohibiting cash withdrawals from credit accountsfrom ATM and EFTPOS facilities at a gamingvenue;

requiring winnings or accumulated credits in excessof $2000 to be paid by cheque, with optionalpayment by cheque of such winnings or creditsbelow $2000; and

prohibiting venues from cashing cheques issued bythe venue (that is, the winnings cheques).

These cash accessibility restrictions will apply only togaming venues themselves and not to the cash facilitiesprovided in any shopping centres or complexes inwhich a gaming venue may be located.

(iii) Player loyalty schemes

The third category of harm-minimisation amendmentsrelating to player loyalty schemes deals with theincreasing use of card technology and the emergence of

databases that collect and manage consumerinformation on the spending and playing patterns ofcustomers.

The providers of loyalty schemes will be required toprovide participants with activity statements at leastonce a year.

In order to assist consumers to control their spending:

loyalty club providers will be required to provideparticipants with information regarding the risksassociated with problem gambling;

consumers will be able to set limits on their gaminglosses and the maximum time they wish to spendplaying gaming machines;

loyalty club providers will be required to enablemembers to opt out of the scheme, and providerswill not be permitted to send these former membersany further promotional material about the scheme;

self-excluded gamblers will be prevented from usingtheir loyalty scheme cards; and

loyalty club members will have an ongoing right ofaccess to information held by providers about theiruse of gaming machines. This will enableindividuals to review their gaming behaviour, whichis the first step in identifying strategies for reducingharm.

In addition to the consumer protection measures I haveoutlined, non-identifying data collected through theloyalty schemes will be provided to the GamblingResearch Panel or other organisation as directed by theMinister for Gaming for research purposes.

(iv) Advertising restrictions

There have been several complaints about thelimitations of the current advertising regulations,particularly in relation to print advertising. Tostrengthen these restrictions and reduce impulse gamingthe Bracks government will enforce more stringentadvertising restrictions and require modest signage.

The government has regulation-making power toregulate advertising relating to gaming. But this poweris not wide enough to cover indirect advertising such asthe names of gaming rooms or the use of symbols thatare associated with gambling, such as neon palm trees,banners, flags or hot air balloons.

To remedy this, the bill will expand thecurrent regulation-making power to enable regulationsto be made to restrict or ban advertising and signage at



venues which are generally associated with gaming.Such regulations may also specify the size and numberof gaming operator logos (such as Tatts Pokies andTabaret logos) that may be used and ban the use ofsigns advertising gaming rooms such as ‘Wild Cashroom’, ‘Fortunes’, ‘Easy Winnings’, ‘Lucky’s’ et ceteraon the outside of gaming venues.

Advertising restrictions will also be strengthened torestrict gaming incentives by banning allgaming-related vouchers or coupons. In particular, it isintended to prohibit venue vouchers being redeemed forcash or gaming-related purposes. The regulations willnot restrict sponsorship by gaming venues or operatorsprovided they do not explicitly promote gaming.

2. Probity measures

The bill further amends the gaming legislation to makea series of regulatory changes that will streamlineregulatory processes.

(i) Casino exclusions

The bill establishes Victoria’s participation in a nationalsystem of casino exclusions. In December 2000 a NSWgovernment inquiry into the conduct of the Sydneycasino licence called for a national approach to casinoexclusions. In particular, the inquiry proposed that thepolice commissioners of all states and territories begiven the power to effect the exclusion of criminalsfrom casinos. New South Wales has since requested allother states and territories to legislate for theestablishment of a system of reciprocity for exclusionsby police commissioners.

(ii) Raffle suspensions

The bill will also help protect the community fromunscrupulous raffle organisers. The Victorian Casinoand Gaming Authority will be given the power tosuspend a raffle in the public interest until it is satisfiedthat the raffle should continue or the raffle permitshould be revoked.

The authority currently has power to revoke adeclaration of a community or charitable organisationwhich is authorised to conduct raffles if it is not in thepublic interest for that organisation to continue to bedeclared for the purposes of the Gaming No. 2 Act1997. The revocation can only take effect after theorganisation is given at least 28 days to show causewhy the declaration should not be revoked. The billamends the act to empower the authority to suspend adeclaration in the public interest pending a finaldecision on revocation. This power is consistent withthe power in the Public Lotteries Act 2000 and enables

the authority to act swiftly in circumstances where theintegrity of the process of conducting a raffle has beenquestioned.

3. Community benefit statements

When gaming machines were originally introduced inthe early 1990s there was a clear expectation that theintroduction would benefit local communities.Currently hotels with gaming machines pay a higher taxrate than clubs on the expectation that clubs return moreof their earnings to the community.

The bill will require all clubs and hotels to provide anannual community benefit statement to the VictorianCasino and Gaming Authority outlining theircontributions to the community. Each of thesestatements will be published by the authority, providinga tangible means of showing the public how and inwhat ways gaming machines provide a communitybenefit.

Clubs will be required to show that they havecontributed the equivalent of the hotel tax rate back intotheir community. If a club fails to meet this criterion, itwill be required to pay the hotel equivalent tax rate forthe following calendar year.

4. Industry specific measures

The bill introduces the following industry specificamendments.

(i) Eases Tabcorp shareholder restrictions

The individual shareholder limit for Tabcorp willincrease to 10 per cent, and the 40 per cent non-resident(foreign) ownership restriction will be abolished. Thesemeasures are proposed as the original intention of therestrictions — to allow smaller investors to own part ofthe company — has been met, as these investors havenow had sufficient time to buy the desired number ofshares. Also, this amendment will remove aninconsistency arising under the current regulatoryregime where the ownership restrictions are differentfor Crown Casino (and its owning company, Publishingand Broadcasting Limited) and Tabcorp.

(ii) Allows non-monetary prizes to be offered forpublic lotteries

The bill provides that the holder of the public lotterylicence may award non-monetary prizes as jackpotprizes. To avoid any potential abuse of this provision, alottery supplier will be required to offer winners achoice of the monetary equivalent.

CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES) BILL


Conclusion

The Bracks government is committed to gaming reformthat encourages responsible gambling and preventsharm.

This bill is based on the need for balance —

the need to balance the benefits of this industry withits potential for harm;

the need to balance the rights of the individual withthe responsibility to assist the vulnerable;

the need to balance the industry’s drive for profitswith its duty of care to its patrons.

The bill furthers the government’s commitment toprotect the community from the adverse effects ofgaming.

These measures, with those previously implemented,present the most comprehensive package of gamingmeasures introduced in any jurisdiction in Australia.They will ensure that Victoria remains at the forefrontof gaming reform.

To ensure that the measures work, we will bemonitoring their effectiveness and researching theirimpact on problem gambling.

When we came to office there were no problem gamingmeasures in place; we now have legislation which isamong the toughest governing any gaming industry inthe world.




CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS ANDSERIOUS INJURIES) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 22 November 2001; motion ofMr HULLS (Attorney-General).

Government amendments circulated by Mr HULLS(Attorney-General) pursuant to sessional orders.

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — It is not unusual to find thata bill of this nature coming from this government andrelating to a topic which should be taken seriously andappropriately is in fact badly drafted and ill thought out,

that it reverses the direction that industrial relations hastaken over the past decade and threatens to takeindustrial relations back to the situation whereworkplace confrontation was the order of the day,thereby undermining the great gains that have beenachieved in workplace safety.

This is in fact a shocking piece of legislation. It is oneof the worst pieces of legislation I have seen comebefore this house, not only because of what it attemptsto do but in fact does not do, but also because of theway it has been drafted.

The first question I had in my mind when thislegislation hit the Parliament was: why? Why wouldyou introduce a specific criminal law in relation tospecific people in the workplace which is in breach ofall the principles of criminal law and industrial law,which does not do what it says it will do and which isunjust, unfair and — worse — unnecessary?

Why would you introduce this piece of legislationwhen, according to the Attorney-General in the openingparagraphs of his second-reading speech, it was one ofthe government’s highest priorities to improveworkplace health and safety and that this legislationwas an important part of that package, and when in factover the past 10 years workplace deaths have beenreduced by 70 per cent and non-disease workplaceinjuries have been reduced from 104 686 in 1989 to45 000 in 2000 — in other words, when you have aformula that is working and working incredibly well?

If any reductions like that were to be found in, forexample, statistics on road deaths or any other aspect ofour life in this community, they would be applauded asa huge success. Yet for some reason which is notexplained by the Attorney-General and thisgovernment — I will come back to that because there isa reason — legislation is introduced which isunnecessary and goes completely counter to theformula that over the past 10 years has been soproductive in reducing deaths in the workplace. Thatformula has been: cooperation between employer andemployee; enforcement of occupational health andsafety standards; cooperation with occupational healthand safety officers; and a workplace environmentwhere training and education has been the basis of asuccessful outcome.

I said I would come back to the real reason why, out ofthe blue, legislation of this nature has been introducedlike a slap in the face to those parties — both employersand employees — who have been so successful inreducing workplace deaths. It is a bit like a footy gamein which the coach says to the full forward, ‘Go onto



the field, get the ball and kick some goals — that iswhat I want you to do’. The full forward goes onto thefield, and he does not kick just 3 or 4 goals; he kicks10 goals. What does the coach do? He says, ‘Hey,you — off the field! You’re out of the game!’. The billis a similar slap in the face for those people who havehad a huge success in achieving what they set out toachieve — that is, a reduction of deaths in theworkplace.

I said I would come back to the real reason forintroducing the legislation. The real reason is obvious,and this government is quite embarrassed about it. Forsome time it has been trying to say to the employers ofthis state, ‘Look, we know as a Labor Party that we’vehad some differences with you in the past. The unionmovement is very close to us, but we want youemployers to have faith in us. We want you to knowthat we’re acting for you as well as for the employees’.And the employers nearly believed them! Then out ofthe blue comes this disgraceful piece of legislationwhich is not only unfair and badly drafted and whichdoes not do what it says it will do, but is also a slap inthe face for employers. Where has it come from? It hascome from the union movement!

All this nonsense we have been hearing over the pastfew weeks about how the union movement is movingaway from the Labor Party, with people saying, ‘In thefuture we’re not going to be as close as we were’, isdriven by the union movement in Victoria. As the unionmovement in Victoria is the strongest in any of thestates of this country, it wants to get the legislation upin Victoria because it wants it to spread across the restof Australia. Its representatives have come to the LaborParty and said, ‘We want you to do this’, and membersof the Labor Party — even though they are totallyembarrassed — nevertheless say, ‘Yes’. Why do theysay, ‘Yes’? Because the relationship between the unionmovement and the Labor Party will never be greater,and when the union movement says, ‘Jump!’, the LaborParty asks, ‘How high?’.

We are told by the Attorney-General in hissecond-reading speech that this is to catch — to use hiswords — the big rogue companies. When we ask,‘Why introduce such legislation to catch these bigrogue companies?’ and then look at this legislation tofind an answer, what do we find? We find that there isnot one provision — not one word and not onesection — which in any way angles the legislationtowards large companies — none whatsoever! In fact, itis quite clear from the provisions that they will be ableto be exercised against small to medium-sizecompanies far more easily than they will against largecompanies. I can assure the house that the Director of

Public Prosecutions, who has a duty to prosecute andprosecute according to a budget, will go for the smalland middle-size companies as part of his or her dutybefore going for the big companies. Nothing in thislegislation directs him or her to large companies.

The government says, ‘But this is to overcomesituations where large companies have got away withmanslaughter. We need to be able to aggregate,otherwise large companies won’t be able to be caught’.That, again, is complete and utter hogwash! Membersof the Liberal Party have asked time and again forexamples of situations where large companies haveeither not been prosecuted or have got away withmanslaughter as a consequence of common-lawmanslaughter legislation not working appropriately.

I was very pleased to receive and interested to read theLaw Reform Commission’s report into criminalliability for workplace deaths and serious injury in thepublic sector. The Law Reform Commission has goneabout its usual procedures when dealing with agovernment. I have said in this place before and I sayagain: the reason why the previous Law ReformCommission got into trouble was because it was tooclose to government and was acting pretty much as thehandmaiden of government. Here we have anotherexample of that. There was absolutely no reason for theLaw Reform Commission to be given the brief todetermine how to get the public service into thislegislation. That is a matter of law and for a legalperson — an adviser, the Solicitor-General or any otherlegal person of whom there are legions in theAttorney-General’s office — to undertake, but, no, itwas given to the Law Reform Commission.

The Law Reform Commission report starts off, as theynearly always do, by explaining why the governmenthas to introduce this legislation — a little free kick forthe government in relation to this legislation. It says it isabout the difficulties in getting home on manslaughtercharges against large companies. So one reads verycarefully and says, ‘Here at last we’re going to find outthe names of all those cases in which using commonlaw has not been sufficient to catch a company’. Whatdoes the Law Reform Commission come up with? Itcomes up with one unreported case! This is the LawReform Commission that obviously, with all itsresources, is looking for cases against large companiesthat have failed as a consequence of the fact thatmanslaughter does not apply.

So I went to this unreported case. It is a judgment ofJustice Hampel, whom I know very well and who hasoperated in the criminal jurisdiction. That is fine, and hegives a very good judgment. What I am concerned



about is that in its note the Law Reform Commissiongives this as an example of a situation where a largecompany got away with it as a consequence of thecurrent common law not being good enough onmanslaughter — therefore the need for an act. Butwhen you read the decision you find it is nothing of thesort! I must say that I cannot believe that the LawReform Commission, which is meant to haveintellectual integrity in what it does, would put this caseup as an example of such a situation.

The case was all about whether or not an explosion wascaused by a couple of people who were employed in acompany that stored gum resin. In particular a Mr Hilland a Mr De Zilva, who were middle management,were responsible for trying to block a breakage, or aproblem, that occurred in a storage tank, whicheventually blew up and burnt people. These are the twopeople who had to be caught — by way of aggregation,or whatever — for the company to be caught. If thesepeople were caught, then the company would becaught.

Justice Hampel said:

The actions, particularly of Hill and De Zilva, which arecapable of being found to have been negligent are not, in myview, in the category of criminal negligence sufficient tosupport a conviction of manslaughter.

So the very first thing Justice Hampel says is that thesetwo people did not commit manslaughter. All of asudden this is not a case about whether a company isguilty of manslaughter, because the two peopleinvolved were, he said, negligent but not criminallynegligent. He then went on:

Those matters in combination could well amount tonegligence but not, in my view, criminal negligence. Thenegligence alleged against the others is well below thestandards required for criminal negligence.

As none of the individuals’ negligence is sufficient, theprosecution cannot rely upon the concept of aggregation tomove what may, in individual cases, be negligence to therealm of criminal negligence which can then be attributed tothe company.

Then Justice Hampel went on to say, ‘All right, let’sjust pretend for a minute that they were criminallynegligent’ — but they were not, so the whole case hasnothing to do with criminal negligence. Anyway, let’sjust assume they were. He went on to say:

Even if it were open in this case to conclude that the acts ofany of the individuals were capable of amounting to criminalnegligence, such actions could not properly be attributed tothe company. However the test of attribution is expressed, itcould not be said that either Hill or De Zilva were acting asthe company. Their acts were personal failures to act so as togive effect to the will of the company.

He is basically saying that these people were actingquite separately. They were not acting according toeither some instruction from the board or the will of thecompany; they were individually negligent. So he issaying you could not even aggregate, anyway. Then hesaid some very important things:

Where attribution is inappropriate, where it cannot be saidthat an individual has acted ‘as the company’, the companycannot be vicariously guilty of manslaughter.

This is a matter which the opposition believes in verystrongly. This is why I say that this legislation isincompetent and breaks some of the fundamentalprinciples of criminal law. Justice Hampel went on tosay:

… and the position of the individuals whose actions werebeing examined as giving rise to the attribution doctrine isincredibly important.

What he is saying is that in common law we can, if youlike, add together, and we can go through attribution,but in this case you have to look at the position of theindividuals before you start attribution.

Now that may sound like a little comment, but it isn’t.It is a big comment, because the whole point of thegovernment’s bill is that under common law you cannotaggregate, that under common law you cannot actuallylook at individuals and say, ‘We will look at theirconduct and impose that on the company’. But here isJustice Hampel saying that under common law it ispossible, although in this case he is saying theirpositions were such that you could not aggregate —and position is very important. So you should notaggregate conduct where people’s positions are suchthat it is not fair to impose their conduct on thecompany. That is a very good point, which thislegislation completely ignores. He went on to say:

A company may be liable for criminal negligence in extremecases of failure to provide a safe system or to supervise itsimplementation. This is not such a case because there wasundoubtedly a safe system …

He is saying that at common law this business of notbeing able to find a company guilty of manslaughter isnot true. A company can be liable for criminalmanslaughter at common law if there is an extremefailure to provide a safe system of work; and yet we aretold that is the whole point of this bill — that thecommon law cannot do that! Yet here is a judge in thecommon law saying that we can do it: if there is anunsafe system of work, that can lead to a charge ofmanslaughter against the company.

I have no idea why the Law Reform Commissionpicked this case; it is an absolute dream case for



anybody who wants to shoot down the argument theywant to put up. The judge also said:

During his submissions [the prosecutor] issued me with atempting invitation ‘to do justice in this case’ as I was notbound by authority. I accept that invitation but with adifferent result to that for which Mr Gyorffy contended. Todo justice according to law, especially the criminal law, andespecially by a trial judge, is not to expose a person, whetherreal or fictitious, to liability for one of the most serious crimesknown to law by expanding the basis of liability.

He is saying that if you want to have aggregation anddo those sorts of things you do not do them throughcriminal law. You do not aggregate the conduct ofsome people to make some other person guilty incriminal law. Being guilty in criminal law is a veryserious matter; and for someone — whether a fictitiousperson or not or a company or not — to end up beingfound to be liable even though it was someone else’sconduct, is disgraceful. That is a disgraceful breach ofprinciple.

This judge, in referring to other cases, said:

The court in Meridian indicated that the question of liabilityby attribution is one of construction rather than metaphysicsand as a general approach one must look at the structure ofthe company, the functions performed by the company andwho performs them in practice, and the policy underpinningthe rule of law enforced.

Again he is saying that attribution at common law isquite possible but you have to look at things like: thefunctions performed by the company; who performsthem in practice; and the policy underpinning the law.As he says, it is not just as simple as adding people’sbehaviour and saying, ‘Right, that adds up to criminallaw’.

Later, in quoting from another case, the judge said:

An obvious example was used to make the point, namely:

‘… the fact that a company’s employee is authorised todrive a lorry does not in itself lead to the conclusion thatif he kills someone by reckless driving the company willbe guilty of manslaughter’.

Thank you, judge — nor should it! That is a veryimportant principle, yet, according to this legislation, itis quite possible that the company could be. The judgealso said, quoting from another case:

‘The underlying idea manifestly is that there should not bevicarious responsibility for an infringement of the actcommitted without the proper consent and connivance of anemployer’.

That is the point where this legislation goes right off therails. Nowhere in the world has legislation of this naturebeen accepted — in fact, they have been debating it for

six years now in the United Kingdom under the Laborgovernment, and it still has not been accepted becausethat government, unlike this Attorney-General and thisgovernment, has some concept of criminal procedureand the law.

What the bill says is, ‘It is very hard to prove the willand mind of the company at common law if it is a bigcompany’. I believe I have just demonstrated that thecourts say, ‘No, it is not. We will look at the directors,at the people they delegated and at what they did, and ifwe think they delegated that responsibility and aremanifestly unjust, they are exercising the will and mindof the company and are guilty’. Putting that aside,however, the legislation says, ‘You can aggregate theconduct of any employee, any independent contractor,any employee of an independent contractor, and so onand so on; and if you add all that conduct up togetherand you believe that amounts to reckless negligencethen that company goes down the chute’. That meansthat it is possible for a company to be guilty of criminalmanslaughter when the guiding mind and will of thecompany is actually innocent.

In other words, because this legislation has made nolink to the guiding will and mind of the company —that is, no link to the directors and those people makingthe decisions — it is possible for those people makingdecisions for the company and the intention of thecompany to be completely divorced from the wholeprocess, completely innocent and declared in court tobe absolutely innocent, but the company still goesdown because the employees further down, who havenothing to do with the will and mind of the company,are caught. In attempting to get to the will and mind ofthe company and make it easier, the government hasreversed it! It has taken the will and mind of thecompany out.

Now a company can go down for manslaughter whenthe people running the company have absolutelynothing to do with the death of an employee and didabsolutely everything right — and the governmentwonders why the employers are a bit upset! Can youimagine a situation where an employer in a small tomedium-size firm has given a job to a contractor to doand done everything right — looked at the contractor’srecord, looked at all the things that have been done —but because that contractor, its employees and theemployees of the employees have done somethingwrong that is aggregated and he goes down the chute.That is not industrial relations; that is thuggery. It is notcriminal law; it is a breach of every principle ofcriminal law.



I could almost cope with it if it were some civil matteror an occupational health and safety matter; but to do itunder criminal law and bring criminal law into theworkplace is a total nonsense!

It is also ridiculous to introduce such legislation into theworkplace, because all business people do not have lawdegrees. They are smart people who have left schooland gone out into the workplace to run a business. Theyhave put their heart and soul into it and built it up, andthey do not have time to think in legal terms abouteverything they do. Nor do they have lawyers right nextto them advising them on a minute-by-minute basis. Sowhat do you do? You can introduce occupational healthand safety legislation that clearly sets up the hurdlesthey have to jump: ‘If you do this you are okay; if youdo that you are not okay’. Employers say they arehappy with that, because it gives them an indication ofwhat they must do. It tells them in simple languagewhen they have crossed the line.

With the introduction of this ephemeral act aboutcriminal law and manslaughter and all the conceptsinvolved therein, here are some of the words theemployer will have to be thinking about on aday-to-day, minute-by-minute basis. The employer willhave to ask, ‘Am I a senior officer?’ ‘Senior officer’ isdefined under the Corporations Law, so he will have togo to there to try to work it out. There have been caseswhere the definition of ‘senior officer’ has been arguedall the way to the High Court. The employer will haveto work out which person is a senior officer in hiscompany. Then he will have to work out what a seriousinjury is, because if the injury is a serious injury, he isin; if it is not, he is out. But he does not know that,either.

I do not know if the next term I will refer to is still inthe legislation. I hope it is, because frankly it is worth itjust to hear it. There is ‘serious injury’ and then there is‘really serious injury’. So the employer has to thinkabout whether it is a serious injury or a really seriousinjury — or a really really serious injury! What a loadof nonsense to expect an employer to have to work thatout.

But it gets worse. The employer has to determine if heis responsible. The notion he has to use to find out if heis responsible is ‘organisational responsibility’. What awonderful term! I have asked the lawyers in the bestfirms in Collins Street to tell me what ‘organisationalresponsibility’ means. They say they have not got aclue, so it will be for the courts to determine as they goalong. ‘Thank you very much’, says the employer in abusiness environment where he has to make decisionson a minute-by-minute basis. How will he decide that?

I can just imagine the Japanese investor and hisadvisers. When he asks, ‘Will we invest in Victoria orNew South Wales?’, his advisers will tell him thatVictoria has just introduced new criminal manslaughterlegislation. When he asks if it affects him, he will betold, ‘My word it does, because if you are guilty underthis legislation they take you from Japan, bring you toVictoria and prosecute you’. When he asks how heknows whether or not he is responsible, they say, ‘Thatis easy, you will be responsible and taken from Japan toVictoria to face criminal charges if you areorganisationally responsible’. When he asks what thatmeans they will tell him they have not got a clue. Hewill say, ‘Tell me about New South Wales’. Whatabsolute nonsense!

Whether an independent contractor is caught or not willbe determined by whether the employer has controlover the independent contractor. The crop-duster andthe farmer will be asking, ‘Do I have control over thisperson or not? Does this put me in or not? He is anindependent contractor, but do I have control? Whatdoes that amount to?’.

This is incompetent legislation, because it is that sort ofnonsense that is being brought into the workplace. Ofall the people who are meant to understand theworkplace and industrial relations and that things haveto be simple and done by cooperation, it is the LaborParty.

The bill is incompetent because at the same time as itintroduces this new concept, which has been rejected allover the world, it slips in some extra penalties underhealth and occupational safety. This government has awonderful habit of doing this. It comes up withcritically important and difficult legislation and thentacks on all sorts of other things just to make life a bitmore difficult. I do not know how on earth anylegislation with all the little tack-ons can ever be passedin this place, because half the time the oppositionagrees with the principle of the bill but the tack-ons areno good, so the bill goes.

The government has tacked on to this bill, which isdramatically about manslaughter, increases in certainpenalties under occupational health and safety, which isa different topic. One of the increases relates tointerfering with an occupational health and safetyofficer of the union. The fine was $250 000; now it hasbeen increased to $750 000 — in other words, it hasbeen tripled. This is from an Attorney-General who hasjust accepted and hailed from the ceiling to the skyProfessor Freiberg’s report, which says that if there isone thing we have absolutely proved it is thatincreasing penalties does not lower crime. It is about



how you treat the person and how you get over it. Yetthe same Attorney-General who agrees with thatprinciple has tripled penalties. If the Attorney-Generaldecided to triple criminal law penalties there would beabsolute mayhem.

Why has the Attorney-General opened himself up tothis nonsense? It is because the union movement hassaid that is what it wants. If a union representative goesin and says there is something wrong with a machineand the employer says there is not, the union movementwants the union representative to say, ‘We are talkingabout $750 000 here’. When any employer running amedium-size business thinks about $750 000 he willsay, ‘Right, that’s it, whatever you say’, because a$750 000 fine means you are out of business — kaput!

I do not mind discussing increased penalties, but whensomeone says they will triple the penalty because theyfeel it is the thing to do, contrary to every principle theAttorney-General holds about other criminal law, youhave to ask, ‘What is going on here? Who is tellingwhom what?’. I am not surprised the Attorney-Generalis not in the chamber, because the government shouldbe ashamed of the way it has gone about this.

Then we come to the second part. We have gonethrough the reversal in the provisions relating to the willand the mind of the company on corporationmanslaughter. We now have a situation where eventhough the boss is completely innocent, the conduct ofthe employees can be added together and the wholecompany can go down, which is a complete reversal ofcriminal law. Another provision says that if a companyis guilty of manslaughter then there is a second offencejust for senior officers. A senior officer can go down forthis special new crime in the bill. The officer has to beorganisationally responsible, to have contributedmaterially to the event and to have known of thesubstantial risk — and that it was a high risk; and it hasto be unjustifiable for that officer not to have donesomething. Anybody who does that ought to be guiltyof manslaughter. They are already!

I have been to see every major firm in this area andasked, ‘If a person is guilty of all that, would they notbe guilty of manslaughter in any event?’. There is noproblem about aggregation or anything, because theyare just a person. If they know about the risk and knowthat it is a high risk and that it is totally unjustifiable forthem not to do anything about it, they are responsiblefor it. That is criminal manslaughter at common law,and every one of the principals of the firms I asked thatquestion of agreed. So what is this about? This is whyemployers are angry. They are already responsible forcommon-law manslaughter, which carries 15 years and

not the 3 years contained here. They are asking whatthis is all about. They want to know why there shouldbe something directed just at them, which is alreadyunnecessary and seems just a punch in the face for goodluck. It is just to let them know that there is somethingelse here: if you go down for common-lawmanslaughter you can go down for this as well. And thegovernment wonders why the employers think this is abit unfair!

What happens if an employee who is not a seniorofficer does all that? Why is there not a specialstatutory provision that covers them and says they aredown for manslaughter as well? The union movementwould say, ‘Not on your nelly! You cannot have speciallaws for employees who are reckless like this, no way!’They would be right, and that is why this legislation isso unfair.

The Premier himself decided to get into the act. Just tosupport my case that this move has come from theunion movement — it is something it has wanted for along time and it has put it to the Labor government —the Labor government has said, ‘Yes, the tail iswagging so I will do what I am told’. This is what thePremier said on radio when he was asked about thisvery question. The question by Mike Cooper on theprogram Ballarat Today was to the effect of, ‘Thismanslaughter thing is a bit tough, isn’t it?’.

The Premier explained it this way:

… you can only be prosecuted under this bill under the draftlegislation if you can prove to have deliberately caused thedeath of an employee. That is, you set out to deliberatelycause the death by your practice in the workplace.

In regard to culpable driving the Premier said:

… if you set out for your car to swerve onto the footpath anddeliberately run over someone as an act of deliberatedeliberation, well, of course you are culpable of manslaughteras a driver.

He goes on to say:

So it’s not to do with accidents or mishaps or things that wereomitted or went wrong, it’s all to do with the intention. It hasto be an absolute deliberate and proved intention that you setout to cause the death of someone in the workplace.

The Premier says, in effect, ‘I think any reasonableperson would think that was a reasonable test’. ThePremier is dead right, because that is murder, and yes, ifan employer deliberately set out to kill one of hisemployees any reasonable person would be very upset.But that is nothing to do with this legislation. Thislegislation is about exactly what the government said it



was not about. It is to do with accidents and mishapsthat recklessly occur.

What does this tell you? It tells you that the governmentand the Premier himself are not initiating the legislationor have not put their mind to this legislation. This tellsyou that the union movement has a totally inappropriateimpact on and influence over this government. Whenthe government comes up with something which is notright, not fair, not in accordance with criminalprocedures, will not do what it says it should do andwill possibly change the whole workplace culture, whatdoes it do? It says, ‘We’ll bring it in’ — and off we go!

I have already mentioned the unfairness of it all. Thereason we have made progress with workplace relationsin the last 10 years is that fairness has been part of it.Employers and employees talk to each other and workout agreements. They get angry with each other, but inthe end if it is fair they go along with it. That is why thenumber of deaths in the workplace has reduced by70 per cent over the last 10 years. That is why thenumber of serious non-disease injuries has beenreduced by approximately two-thirds from 104 000 to45 000. That is why it has happened.

The government is introducing into that environment,or that successful formula, something which is aimeddirectly at employers which is unjust, which saysnothing about employees and which does not even sayto the employer, ‘If you have an employee who cancause you and your company to go down formanslaughter, you can get rid of them’. There isnothing in there to allow the employer to say, ‘I amgoing to go down for this conduct. Can’t I have someway of getting rid of this person?’. No, unfair dismissalmeans you go through the process. That is not fair.There is no balance in it at all, and you wonder why theemployers kick up a fuss.

I want to make two more points. In Australia criminallaw applies to everyone equally. Under criminal law ifyou are a citizen in this country the law affects you thesame as it affects anyone else. To introduce into theworkplace a specific criminal law designed only forpeople who have the misfortune to end up as seniorofficers is disgraceful. These people are human beingslike everybody else. Why have a special criminal lawfor them? It is contrary to every notion of fair play inthis country to have special criminal laws directedagainst particular people because they happen to be in aparticular situation.

The opposition’s view and its policy which it will bereleasing in due course in terms of workplace deathsand injuries is all about training. It is about cooperation.

It is about occupational health and safety standards. It isabout all those things that have worked so well to date,and it is not about conflict in the workplace. Under thislaw if someone is injured in the workplace or someone,unfortunately, dies in the workplace, the employerthinks to himself, ‘All right, I could call occupationalhealth and safety, but there is this law that I do not quiteunderstand. It is called the manslaughter law and it isjust against me. It is a criminal law, so after I have rungthe ambulance, the first person I am going to ring is mylawyer’. That is what he would be entitled to do,because any person in this country who is in the gun fora criminal act under criminal law is entitled to call theirlawyer. That is their absolute entitlement, and I wouldrecommend that.

Mr Robinson interjected.

Dr DEAN — It is no good coming in here to try todo a little bit of the interjecting thing, because no-onewould agree that it is not the entitlement of everyperson in this country if they are in the gun of thecriminal law to call their lawyer. What happens whenyou call a lawyer? I know, because I am one. The firstthing you say is, ‘Do not talk to anyone. Say nothing’.

The whole key to the success of dealing with deaths inthe workplace up until now under occupational healthand safety is that everybody tries to work out what ishappening. Everybody has a responsibility. Theemployer cooperates, and the employees cooperate.They want to know how to get around it for thefuture — but not under this law.

You will now have the lawyers saying, ‘Say nothing’,and the employer would be quite right, as any citizenwould be, to say, ‘Right, I am not saying a word. If theoccupational health and safety people want to talk toanyone, let them talk to my lawyers’. That is not whatwe want in workplace safety. That is not what weshould be doing. That is going in completely theopposite direction.

In summary, what I want to say about all this is that Ican understand that it is very important that if anemployer is criminally negligent and someone dies, thatemployer goes down for it. There is a law which existswhich would ensure that any senior officer involvedwould go down not just for 3 but up to 15 years. Thereis a law which exists, and I have gone through it, whichwould ensure that in such a case — and this is the pointof difference between us and the government — thepeople running the company are in some wayresponsible. You can aggregate the conduct of people atcommon law, but the guiding will and mind of thecompany has to be somewhere responsible. So long as



that is the case, guilt and intention are there and theyshould go down for it. We agree with that.

If you want to talk about penalties and so forth in theindustrial relations and employer–employee scene yougo to occupational health and safety legislation, you donot go to the Crimes Act.

I hope that eventually when all the dust settles thegovernment will come to the view that if it wants tocontinue the reduction of deaths and serious injuries inthe workplace it must grab hold of the formula whichhas done it so well to date and use that with a mix oftraining, education, responsibility, occupational healthand safety standards and penalties and not gratuitouslycome along with a criminal law which someone hasthought up somewhere and which has been rejectedeverywhere. As I said, I could not find one country thathas a law like this. In the United Kingdom people havebeen proposing this now for six years, and for six yearsthe House of Commons and the House of Lords havesaid no — and that is under a Labour government.

So I hope that sense will prevail, because when itcomes to deaths and injuries in the workplace we allstand on the same footing. I have news for employees. Ihope it is not news, and in most cases I do not think it isnews: employers do not want that either, not onlybecause they are human beings and if someone dies inthe workplace, that affects them as human beings, buteven if you want to say that employers are not humanand it is all a matter of dollars and cents, it affects thattoo. Once you have an injury or even a death in yourworkplace the effects of that in terms of dollars andcents and bottom line are horrific, and employers do notwant that.

Let’s keep the lawyers out of the workplace. Let’spursue the policies that have worked to date. Let’s stopthe nonsense. Let’s try to explain the way the thingought to operate. Let me say to the Labor Party that Ican understand why the union officials want to see thisup: it is a sign to their constituents and workers thatthey are working for them and are doing these things. Iam absolutely stunned that the government is bringingin legislation which creates disharmony and so forthbecause my view of the modern union movement is theexact opposite, that it has attempted to get away fromthat. I think it has made a bad error, possibly for theright reasons, and I hope the government will thinktwice about going on with it.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — TheNational Party opposes this legislation. We believe it isill conceived, and for a variety of reasons that I willexplore in the course of my remarks this evening we

strongly urge the government to rethink the processwhich is embodied in this bill. We do not think it isnecessary. We believe it is regressive, divisive anddiscriminatory.

I suppose the greatest pity of it is that we think it flies inthe face of a commonly held principle right across thefloor of this Parliament — that is, the very readyacceptance that one death or one injury in theworkplace is one death or injury too many and thatthere is a truly tripartite recognition of that by thegovernment and the opposition, together with theIndependents in this place. Nobody ever wants to seethe tragedy of a death or injury in the workenvironment.

I declare my position again at the start of thiscontribution, on the basis of having for many yearsrepresented people who were injured at work or thewidows or widowers of those killed at work. It is anappalling consequence for anybody to have to suffer.Nobody wants to see it occur. But there arefundamental problems in this legislation which doabsolutely nothing to reflect that sort of belief which Ihave just enunciated and which, on the contrary, offerthe distinct prospect of a throwback to an age gone byin industrial relations in this state.

They are some of the matters that I want to reflect on inmy contribution in the house, but to do so in the senseof wanting to assure all concerned that from theNational Party’s perspective the result of any workplaceaccident which brings about death or injury issomething which always causes us enormous worry.

As a first principle in developing the argument may Isay that I simply do not understand why theAttorney-General wants to be ahead of the pack in thissense. There is reference in his second-reading speechto the model criminal code. I have it with me as I speak.It is a tome of some 120 pages. It is a document datedDecember 1992, and it says on the front of it:

These are the final views of the Criminal Law OfficersCommittee (now Model Criminal Code Officers Committee).They do not represent the views of the Standing Committeeof Attorneys-General.

On the interior of the document there is a statementwhich talks about chapters 1 and 2 — model criminalcode, and it is an explanatory note of 1999. It wouldseem to suggest on the face of it that theattorneys-general have in fact adopted most of thisdocument which was prepared and eventually releasedin December 1992. The thing that I do not understandabout this is that the model criminal code exploresmany of the issues which are reflected in some ways in



the context of this legislation, yet this legislation doesnot represent what is in that model criminal code. Thereare aspects of it, but it is not a complete reflection of itat all.

As an adjunct, the other point is that, as a state, we haveemployed enormous resources over the past few yearsin harmonising our corporate legislation with that of therest of Australia, and the same thing has occurredaround the nation. A tremendous effort has beendedicated to making certain there is consistency in theapplication of corporate law. We have seen the benefitof that, not only from a commercial perspective but alsofrom the position which in one sense underpins thelegislation that is before us. What we are going to dohere will throw Victoria completely out of kilter. Wewill present ourselves in a way that no other state does.There is no other state or jurisdiction in Australia, andno other nation that I can identify, that has laws thenature of which is being contemplated in thislegislation.

As I said, I simply do not understand why theAttorney-General and this government are hell bentupon this process when we have all seen theharmonisation of our corporate laws as an appropriategoal. During his time in government he has stood herein the Parliament many times and introduced templatelegislation that has been developed either by thecommonwealth or in some other jurisdiction in the land.Here we are doing precisely the opposite, and I do notunderstand why.

If the Attorney-General is hell bent on this course, theproposals embodied in this legislation should go backto the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and beconsidered in that environment. Appropriatecommentary should be made on what is proposed, andby that process — not only at that level but by extendedconsultation across all aspects of the community,including the stakeholders involved — perhaps we canget an outcome which is more representative of ourcommunity’s view. But no, that is not what ishappening here. Rather we have a bill that is the resultof this Attorney-General’s hell-bent intent to be firstahead of the pack, in circumstances where, as I thinkcan be demonstrated, there is simply no need. Not onlyis this legislation born of the model criminal code towhich I have referred, in some ways it is also reflectiveof the work done in the United Kingdom, to which thehonourable member for Berwick has referred andwhich I will address in a moment. I reiterate that I donot understand why the Attorney-General wants toproceed on this course.

In Victoria, for example, we have a situation where,regrettably and tragically, road deaths are on theincrease. All concerned are doing their level best tomake it otherwise. In fact this government has promisedthe people of Victoria that it will be otherwise. Whenthis sort of circumstance arises, amending legislation isintroduced or different positions are taken with regardto policy. Initiatives are developed which areappropriate to the problem at hand — and we have seenthat done just in the last few days. The government hasrecently made an announcement with a particularemphasis on motorcyclists, and I do not referspecifically to the imposition of the extra $50 tax,which the government imposed in the budget andwhich it says is devoted to issues to do with motorcycledeaths and injury. Rather I am referring to initiativeswhich the government and the police intend to pursueto try and redress the increasing levels of deaths andinjuries of motorcyclists out there on the road.

From time to time such initiatives are proposed withregard to pedestrians, drivers, and passengers. That canhappen in a context in which we are trying to contendwith the problem of an increasing pattern of death andinjury. In that way, through its government and throughother interested groups, the community can move toaddress the issue at hand. That is perfectlyunderstandable, but it is not the situation represented inthe workplace, and I will address that in a moment.

One can understand it when there are deaths in anenvironment of true criminal conduct — for example,after the Port Arthur tragedy some years ago, afterwhich laws were instituted which made radical changesto the way in which firearms are owned and used in thisnation. Those laws were introduced by the states butunder the general umbrella of the federal government.So changes were made in an environment where therewas deemed to be a need to bring about the outcomeswe now have in relation to gun laws.

But what is the position in the workplace? In Victoriathe workplace is precisely the contrary in the sense ofthe trends that this bill ostensibly looks toaccommodate. To see that you only need have regard tothe material which is publicly available in the VictorianWorkcover Authority’s 2001 annual report. A numberof relevant issues are explored in the report, one ofwhich pertains to deaths and injuries in the workplace.It states that deaths in the workplace have reduced: in1996 there were 124; in 1997, 126; in 1998, 133; in1999–2000, 106; and last year they were down to 88.

I recall reading in the submission prepared by theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry that non-disease deaths in the workplace were



down from 102 in 1988–89 to 31 in 2000–01.Tragically, 11 of those deaths occurred on farms, 7 inthe construction industry, 5 in the manufacturingindustry and the other 8 in a variety of environments.Where can it justifiably be said that there is a trend inthose tragedies to which one could properly accord thislegislation?

During 1990–91 there were more than 95 000 injuriesat work. Back in 1988–89 the figure was over 104 000;in 1999–2000 it was just a touch under 46 000; and in1997–98 it was a couple of hundred less than that.However, in 1999–2000 lost-time injuries in theworkplace, bar for that one other year, were the lowestin the history of the records kept by the authority.Where is the need for this legislation?

It is interesting to reflect on the issues canvassed in theVictorian Workcover Authority’s annual report for2001. While bearing in mind that the authority is theentity with primary responsibility for the enforcementprovisions of the many aspects of workplace safety, Inote an absolutely outrageous statement by the chair,James Mackenzie, about common-law claims. I cannotlet this opportunity go without reflecting on it. In hisreport at page 6 he states:

The failure to anticipate this surge in claims at the time thatold common law was abolished in November 1997, coupledwith the failure to effectively manage the old common-lawsystem when it was in place, were symptomatic of aWorkcover scheme that had not been properly managed for adecade.

That is an unbelievable statement. I only wishMr Mackenzie were able to properly reflect upon thoseyears before 1992 when the former governmentassumed control of this state and unfunded liabilitieswere $2 billion. Do not worry about the severalhundred million dollars — the unfunded liabilities were$2 billion and going backwards!

Various issues are explored in the report. At page 8reference is made to preventing workplace injuries andillness and to the initiatives undertaken by the authority.At page 10, under the heading ‘Preventive injuries andillness’, it refers to the success the authority has beenable to achieve through its efforts, particularly — andquite properly — through the approbation accorded tothe Worksafe team.

At page 14, under the heading ‘Prevention’, the reportagain refers to that issue in the following passage:

Preventing workplace injury, illness and deaths is not only asocial imperative, it is critical to the long-term viability of theWorkcover scheme.

Interestingly, under another heading, ‘Constructivecompliance’, it states:

The concept of constructive compliance is built around amulti-tiered approach to helping companies comply with theiroccupational health and safety (OHS) obligations. Theapproach focuses on:

information, education and communication;

financial incentives;

enforcement; and

investigations and prosecutions.

It refers to the figures on deaths in the workplace, that Ihave just outlined.

At page 16 it refers to enforcement provisions. A tableon the next page outlines how the different forms ofprohibition notices and improvement notices have beenon the increase over the years. It also deals withvoluntary compliance and total compliance and reflectsthat the record of the authority, of Worksafe and ofemployers have combined to achieve excellentoutcomes.

The Esso case is mentioned and the following appears:

In his sentencing comments, Justice Cummins spoke of the“vital importance of workplace safety” and stated that theessence of workplace safety was prevention.

That is what the report refers to. Interestingly, althoughthe report is structured on the basis of addressing thechallenges ahead, what needs to be done to make thingsbetter and how we can collectively bring about betteroutcomes than we have at the moment, no mention —not the slightest reference or even in passing fashion ofany sort of commentary — is made of legislation thenature of that which is before the house. The report ispresented on behalf of the authority, which has primaryresponsibility for this area.

I went back a further year and looked at the annualreport of the Victorian Workcover Authority for1999–2000. On page 13, under a heading ‘Futuredirections’, it states:

New legislation will propose increased new penalties forhealth and safety offences and the offence of industrialmanslaughter.

Yet in the succeeding year, when there was plenty ofopportunity for the authority, through its report, to beable to develop a case for the necessity for thatdirection, there was no appearance, Your Worship.Absolutely nothing! Apart from that line in the 2001report, there is nothing in here, either. One cannot helpbut wonder: where does this come from? What is thedrive to introduce this sort of legislation?



When you look at the figures and the trends, you findthat they speak of a culture of change which has beenintroduced into the workplace. They describe inpractical terms how employer and worker relationshipshave taken a radical change over the past decade. Theytalk about mutual responsibility for health and safety.They talk in an indirect sense about the notion of thecarrot and the stick, and I recognise that, that is fine.But they do not talk about producing a club in thenature of this legislation and belting employers aroundwith it because that is seen to be the way to improve theposition that applies in the workplace. Why ever wouldyou do it?

The figures and trends talk about employers’ respect foremployees. They carry that message because the realityin this day and age is that in raw clinical termsemployers have a huge investment in their employees.Businesses — corporations or otherwise — simplycannot function properly, particularly in these days ofmultiskilling, without there being an appropriate levelof respect between employer and employees. Thesetrends also reflect things such as employee shareschemes, where employees themselves have animportant interest in the management of organisations,including corporations. Again, it begs the question as towhy it is only employers who are the subject of thislegislation.

The report sends all these messages, and quite properlyit reflects the fact that we have made enormousadvances in the way in which we have developed ourworkplaces over the years. So you have to ask, in arhetorical sense of course, what it is in the Victorianexperience which justifies this legislation having to bebrought about. I say there is nothing. I also say that allthe trends in the outcomes which are reflected in thoseraw figures contained within that report from theauthority bespeak the fact that the results we areachieving in reducing deaths and injuries in Victoria —while any one of them is too many in either category —nevertheless show that we are making progress inensuring the safety of those people who are employedon work sites around Victoria.

So then you turn to the English experience. What is theEnglish experience? I turn to it on the basis that there ispassing reference in the course of the second-readingspeech to what is occurring in England, but alsobecause it is about the only other area where I can atleast find something which is roughly comparable tothe legislation before the house. So it is valid toconsider what is actually happening in England.

In the sense of the style of legislation that is now beforethe Victorian Parliament, the simple answer to what is

happening in England is that nothing is happening.There has been some discussion over the last severalyears concerning a proposed piece of legislation — Iwill make specific reference to that in a moment — butit is also instructive to consider how that debate haseven occurred. That is a fair question in the context oflegislation which is directed at accidents in theworkplace and which is intended to accommodateaccidents, deaths and injuries that are happening in theworkplace.

How is it that we have had the discussion, such as it is,in England? These matters are explored in the course ofa document over the signature of the then HomeSecretary, Mr Jack Straw, in a paper which wasdistributed in May 2000. Partway through thisdocument at page 12 is the heading ‘The need forreform’. Paraphrasing what comes under that heading,it comes down to this: over the years and indeed overthe decades a series of disasters has befallen the Britishcommunity.

The first referred to in this document was the Herald ofFree Enterprise disaster on 6 March 1987 —187 people killed — and there were subsequentlyprosecutions against seven of the people who wereinvolved in the company. The cases failed because ofwhat is said to be the fact that the acts of negligencecould not be aggregated and attributed to any individualwho was a directing mind. In 1987 also there was alsothe Kings Cross fire which occurred on 18 Novemberthat year; 31 people died in that event. In 1988 theClapham rail crash occurred on 12 December;35 people died and 500 people were injured in thatsingle event. In that instance British Rail was criticisedbecause of work practices, and this issue that we arenow discussing was raised again.

The Southall rail crash occurred on 19 September,1997. There were seven deaths and 151 people wereinjured. Again there was discussion about this issue.Subsequently since this paper was distributed in May2000 other tragedies have occurred in the British railsystem. As recently as only this week there was yetanother incident where people were killed or injured.

The point of it all is that the discussion that wasgenerated in the United Kingdom occurred becausethere had been a series of disasters across the wholecommunity environment. This was not related toaccidents in the workplace in the sense that we arediscussing here today; this occurred in circumstanceswhere people — for the main part, regrettably, usingthe transport system — were killed or injured. Therewas subsequent investigation, usually by inquests;recommendations were made about offences being



prosecuted; and it was said that the system was lackingbecause the offences were not appropriate to thelegislative structure.

I say again that these are events unrelated to or removedsignificantly from the bases upon which this legislationhas come before the house. That is the first point, interms of how the discussion has occurred in England.

What has happened to the discussion? In 1994 the LawCommission provided a report in the United Kingdomentitled Criminal Law — Involuntary Manslaughter. In1996 it produced another report entitled InvoluntaryManslaughter and in the course of doing so it producedsome model legislation which is called the InvoluntaryHomicide Bill. There was then ongoing discussionabout that and eventually the government made aresponse to that report, and that response is the subjectof the document by the Home Secretary to which I havealready referred and which was released in May 2000. Ihave with me the 28 pages it contains, and everybodywill be relieved to know I will not read through them.However, I will make reference to the draft bill, whichis the bill that is appended to the report from the UnitedKingdom and which is essentially the outcome of thediscussions, such as there have been, in the UnitedKingdom.

I pause to say that the bill now before the house is about25 pages long. It has a multiplicity of clauses and isconvoluted in the extreme in a way that I will highlightlater, and it is the love child of our currentAttorney-General. As opposed to that, there is theInvoluntary Homicide Bill which is appended to thereport from the British Home Secretary and is the resultof protracted investigations over a period of many yearsrelating to appalling disasters that have occurred in theEnglish community in a variety of circumstances. Itconsists of four pages with a schedule comprisinganother three, and it is 11 sections long.

The clauses of the bill are headed as follows: clause 1,‘Reckless killing’; clause 2, ‘Killing by grosscarelessness’; clause 3, ‘Omissions causing death’;clause 4, ‘Corporate killing’; clause 5, ‘Remedial ordersagainst convicted corporations’; clause 6, ‘Alternativeverdicts’; and clause 7, ‘Abolition of involuntarymanslaughter’. Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 areconsequential provisions. That is the sum total of whatthe United Kingdom draft legislation contains.

What is contained within the recommendations of theHome Secretary’s paper, entitled ‘Reforming the lawon involuntary manslaughter — the government’sproposals’? How did the United Kingdom governmentrespond in the face of this relatively minuscule piece of

legislation which was offered as a draft and as anappendix to its report of May 2000? What did the UKgovernment say about the issues about which ourlearned Victorian Attorney-General has now loweredhis head in typical form and bolted at the gate in theform of the well-known bull?

I quote from what the government in England has saidat page 6 of the 28-page overview of this draftlegislation:

The government would welcome views on any aspects of theproposals, whether on matters of general principle and policyor on the details of the proposals. Specific questions are askedat certain points in the text: these are not exclusive butindicate that views are sought on these particular issues. Thegovernment would particularly welcome views on the likelypractical consequences of the proposed changes.

What has the British government said about the notionof corporate killing? The paper discusses potentialdefendants and corporations as potential defendants. Itthen discusses unincorporated bodies as prospectivedefendants. Then there is a preferred alternative to thosetwo options, which is described in this paper as‘undertakings’. It is an interesting concept becauseparagraph 3.2.4 states:

An alternative is that the offence could apply to‘undertakings’ as used in the 1974 act. Although an‘undertaking’ is not specifically defined in the 1974 act, HSEhave relied on the definition provided in the 1960 LocalEmployment Act where it is described as ‘any trade orbusiness or other activity providing employment’. Thisdefinition could avoid many of the inconsistencies whichwould occur if the offence was applied to corporationsaggregate but not to other similar bodies.

The British government is addressing an issue aboutwhich the bill before this house is patentlydiscriminatory. For some reason this bill hascorporations in the gun but it does not apply topartnerships, trusts and other business structures.

What does the government of the United Kingdom sayabout this? Its paper states:

The government would welcome comments on whether theapplication of the offence to ‘undertakings’ is preferable toapplying it solely to corporations.

On the issue of Crown immunity, under the heading‘Government and quasi-government bodies’, the UnitedKingdom government, when exploring the issues, statesat page 15 of its document:

The government would welcome any comments on theapplication of Crown immunity to the offence of corporatekilling.

I will not read through these 28 pages, but the bottomline is that in May 2000 the United Kingdom issued a



report over the signature of the Home Secretary inwhich it sought input from all the communitystakeholders on a four-page Involuntary Homicide Billand it encouraged, through the use of this overviewdocument, plenty of public input to all the aspectsreflected in that proposed legislation. Where is thatlegislation as of today? It has gone nowhere!

The reality is that the legislation now before this houseis simply not a proper approach to achieve the sorts ofoutcomes it is meant to achieve. All the complexitiesassociated with the bill have inevitably meant that eventhough they have a Labour government over there, itunderstands that to do what is embodied in the terms ofthe bill is simply not the way to proceed. Is it anywonder that I have come across no legislation that isreflective of the style of the legislation before us?

I turn to the bill itself. When considering legislationbefore the house — or any course of conduct by partiesgenerally — it is sometimes instructive to look at theproverbial fine print. Often what appears to be the mostinnocuous content is the best guide to where you reallyought to be directing your attention. That is what hashappened here. I direct the attention of the house inparticular to the amendments to section 54 of theOccupational Health and Safety Act proposed byclause 14, headed ‘Discrimination against employeesetc.’. They are tucked away at the back, on thesecond-last or third-last page of the bill.

For a start, I turn to what section 54 presently provides.The section is headed ‘Discrimination againstemployees etc.’, and subsection (1) states:

An employer shall not dismiss an employee or injure anemployee in the employment of the employer or alter theposition of an employee to the detriment of the employee byreason only that the employee —

performs any function as a health and safetyrepresentative, assists an inspector, makes a complaintabout health and safety, and so on.

The essence of the section is that an employer cannotsack someone ‘by reason only’, as the legislation states,that that someone comes within those categories asdescribed.

Subsection (2) of section 54 states basically the samethings, but it refers to the notion of prospectiveemployees and the principle that an employer cannotrefuse someone employment only because they havebeen a health and safety representative or a member ofa health and safety committee, because they haveperformed functions or duties as such a representativeor member, and so on.

The two subsections of section 54 deal with thosecircumstances: you cannot sack someone whom youcurrently employ only because they fulfil such roles asare described; and you cannot refuse to employsomeone as an employee only because they havefulfilled such a role.

What are the penalties? The current penalties providedfor in section 54(3) are as follows:

Any person who is guilty of an offence against this sectionshall be liable —

(a) where that person is a body corporate, to a penalty of notless than 50 penalty units —

which is $5000 —

nor more than 2500 penalty units —

which is $250 000. The current range of penalties for acompany is not less than $5000 and not more than$250 000.

Section 54(3) provides alternatively:

(b) in any other case, to a penalty of not less than 10 penaltyunits nor more than 500 penalty units or toimprisonment for not more than five years or both.

Breaking that down, the first interesting thing is that itstates ‘in any other case’. So by definition in the eventof a breach a partnership, a trust or an individual couldface a penalty of not less than $1000 and not more than$50 000.

What is going to happen now? Under this apparentlyinnocuous clause — and it is only about a dozen linestucked away at page 24 of this bill — we take out theword ‘only’. The clause inserts proposed section54(2A), which says:

In sub-sections (1) and (2), it is irrelevant whether or not areason is the only or dominant reason as long as it is asubstantial reason.

Can you just imagine what is going to happen in theworkplace? Can you just see what is coming, like atrain along a tunnel? Let’s take the circumstance of anemployee who, once upon a time, risked being sackedonly because he or she fulfilled the role of the safetyofficer or only because they had done any of the otherthings referred to in subsection (1). But it does not haveto be only because of these reasons. What we are sayingnow is that it is irrelevant whether or not a reason is theonly or dominant reason, as long as it is a substantialreason. That is what the government is changing it to.What is it going to do with the penalties? For thepenalties you have to go to clause 12. In the case of acorporate entity they will go from a maximum of



$250 000 to a maximum of $750 000. There will be noprescribed minimum; there will just be a maximum. Inthe case of an individual or an enterprise other than acorporate entity, it will go to a penalty of not more than$150 000 or 12 months jail, or both.

Can you just imagine what will happen in theworkplace? The difficulty with this is that it is just likea beacon. This is a throwback to the them-and-us thing.This is all about the notion of recreating the divisions ofthe class culture — as the Deputy Leader of theOpposition says — in the work environment. This is allabout employers and the workers and about havingwork environments which are representative of an agegone by. It has no place in this legislation; it should notbe there. By its very nature it will create enormousstress across the work environment. More particularlythough, the real devil of this provision is that it isprecisely reflective of what this government wanted todo in bringing this bill into the house. That is the firstproblem with it.

Let’s work through a few others. As I said a momentago, on the face of it the bill is discriminatory. Itdiscriminates against corporations because it picksthem out. In this day and age there is a variety ofarrangements whereby businesses function in ourcommercial community. But corporations are the onesthat are picked out.

It is also discriminatory in that it selects senior officers,as they are defined. Senior officers will now be facingthe music in a specific category. If it were notdiscriminatory it would reflect upon employees. It isnot at all difficult to think of situations whereemployees of a corporation could well be involved inthe sort of conduct to which this legislation refers, yetthey are exempt from it. You cannot help but ask why itis so. Why will only corporate bodies and seniorofficers bear the brunt of this?

It is dealing with issues of criminal law, one of thebasic tenets of which is the issue of certainty. If you aregoing to charge someone with an offence, if someone isgoing to be convicted of an offence before the criminallaw, issues of certainty are imperatives, and there areplenty of statements of law to that effect. This is notcivil jurisdiction, not the sort of thing that oughtproperly to be open to the sort of interpretation that isgoing to have to be applied to this legislation.

Then there is the notion of intention, which isabsolutely pivotal to the operation of the criminal law.Provisions in the bill do not, I believe, give propereffect to that other fundamental tenet of the criminallaw. Clause 3 of the bill inserts proposed section

14B(1), which is vague and circuitous in its terms andincludes the provisions:

(1) For the purposes of section 13, the conduct of a bodycorporate is negligent if it involves —

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of carethat a reasonable body corporate would exercise inthe circumstances; and

(b) such a high risk of death or really serious injury —

that the conduct merits criminal punishment for theoffence.

What does that mean? I could see a court spendingforever interpreting the true meaning of that provision;and it is but one example of the vague content of thislegislation.

Proposed sections 13 and 14 refer to negligence.Proposed section 13 deals with corporate manslaughter,and section 14 deals with negligently causing seriousinjury by a body corporate. In the second-readingspeech there is plenty of talk about the necessity forgross negligence to be proved. That is a term that isrepeated throughout the second-reading speech, but inmy reading of those provisions — and, in 14B, thedefinition of negligence — the word ‘gross’ does notappear. How can it be that such reliance is placed on aprinciple so fundamental to the way this legislationoperates yet the term simply does not appear in the bill?It is going to be a question of interpretation by thecourts as to what is said to constitute gross negligenceor indeed whether that principle applies at all ininterpreting the term ‘negligence’.

Proposed subsection 14B inserted by clause 3 containsanother of the quirks in the bill. Subsection 14B(1)(b)contains the expression ‘really serious injury’. The termpops up out of nowhere. In proposed section 11 we findthat the expression ‘serious injury’ has the samemeaning as it has in clause 4 of the bill, but reading thatclause does not add to one’s understanding; yet otherparts of the bill simply use the expression ‘seriousinjury’ per se, whereas proposed section 14B(1)(b)suddenly contains the expression ‘really serious injury’.I see the court system fiddling about for an eternitytrying to make sense of a definition of serious injurycontained in the legislation — and serious injury asreferred to in a variety of places in the bill — and thenall of a sudden in the manslaughter provisions inproposed section 13 we find the notion of a ‘reallyserious injury’. Again, questions of interpretation willinevitably arise.

Proposed section 14B(2) bears a remarkableresemblance to the United Kingdom draft legislation to



which I have already referred. That proposedsubsection of the bill before us states:

For the purposes of section 14, the conduct of a bodycorporate is negligent if it involves —

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of care that areasonable body corporate would exercise in thecircumstances; and

(b) such a high risk of serious injury …

Clause 4 of the draft United Kingdom InvoluntaryHomicide Bill states, on the matter of corporate killing:

(1) A corporation is guilty of corporate killing if —

(a) a management failure …

(b) that failure constitutes conduct falling far belowwhat can reasonably be expected of the corporationin the circumstances.

I cannot help but wonder if they have plucked a bit outof here and a bit out of there for the purpose of draftingthe legislation before the house.

With regard to the definition of ‘negligence’, proposedsection 14B is characterised by vague, relative andsubjective terms. It is going to be an absolute nightmarefor interpretation by the courts. The expression ‘agent’appears in proposed section 14A and should not bethere at all; it should be deleted from that part of thebill. The Australian Institute of Company Directorscontributed to debate on this legislation and has madevarious observations on this point, amongst others —but I will come back to that.

Proposed section 14A is headed ‘Attribution of certainconduct’, and the Australian Institute of CompanyDirectors comments on it as follows — and I pause tosay that this addresses the point I started to make amoment ago:

By making a corporation liable for the acts of an agent, thiscreates vicarious liability in serious criminal offencescontradicting the statement in the Attorney-General’ssecond-reading speech that vicarious liability should not beused as a basis for determining liability for serious criminaloffences. On that basis the reference to ‘agent’ should beremoved from subclause (2). The clause also appears tocontradict clause 14B(5)(b)’.

The senior officer offences are referred to in proposedsection 14C of the Crimes Act. Again, as a firstprinciple, under the terms of this legislation a group ofpeople are being singled out in a way in which they arenot prospectively singled out in any other part of theworld, and most assuredly not within any jurisdiction inAustralia. Senior officers have a number of things tocontend with. Firstly, proposed section 14C(1) states:

If it is proved that a body corporate has committed an offenceagainst section 13 —

that is the manslaughter provision —

(a) a senior officer of the body corporate —

(i) was organisationally responsible …

I pause to ask what ‘organisationally responsible’means, even though a definition appears in proposedsection 14C(3). I would hate to be reporting this lateron, because I am having trouble following it myself! Anumber of criteria are set which determine whether asenior officer is organisationally responsible for theconduct that has been complained about as havingresulted in the death of an individual. It says, in comingto a conclusion as to whether the person concerned isorganisationally responsible:

… consideration may be given to —

it does not have to be given, it ‘may be given’ —

(a) the extent to which the senior officer was in a position tomake, or influence the making of, a decision concerningthe manner in which the conduct, or that part of theconduct, was performed; and

(b) the participation of the senior officer in a decision of theboard of directors of the body corporate concerning themanner in which the conduct, or that part of the conduct,was performed; and

(c) the degree of participation of the senior officer in themanagement of the body corporate.

There is enough in there to keep a thought going for aweek as to what it will all mean in terms of what mightreasonably constitute a charge pursuant to thislegislation of the offence dealt with under this section.

Again vague and subjective terms are used, allaccompanied by extraordinarily heavy penalties in asituation where, as I have said from the start, there is nodefinable reason why this should happen at all.

The same sort of construction occurs in the nextprovision, which deals with people who are injured. Iwill not run through it all again, but I pose the samequery: why is it that we need all this terminology,which of its very nature is as vague as it is?

The next issue I raise is that for some reason volunteersare exempted. In one sense that is good, in thatvolunteers should be exempt for all the reasons thatattach to discussions about volunteers’ contributions.On the other hand, as a matter of consistency in theapplication of the principle there is no reason whyvolunteers should be exempt. If a senior officer is beingpaid some nominal amount of money, for example, he



will get caught up. If the senior officer has taken on therole with the corporate entity because he has beenprevailed on to do so but is doing it at a cut rate to helpsomeone out for a while, he will get caught up.However, if the same person has volunteered his or herservices, they will escape. As a matter of logic it doesnot seem to be sensible or consistent.

There also seems to be an inconsistency in proposedsection 14C(5). I understand the provision is intendedto relate to the situation where a company has gonebroke but where a prosecution can nevertheless belaunched against senior officers, albeit that thecompany is in liquidation. But if one looks at proposedsection 14C(5) and then at 14C(1), one sees that theyare in complete contradiction. I do not see how theywill be able to operate. Proposed subsection (5) states:

A senior officer of a body corporate may be prosecuted for anoffence against sub-section (1) or (2), whether or not the bodycorporate has been prosecuted … against section 13 or 14 …

Proposed section 14C(1) states:

If it is proved that a body corporate has committed an offenceagainst section 13 —

and then later on it talks about 14. For those twoprovisions to apply there has to be a conviction againstthe organisation. Yet proposed section 14C(5) says itdoes not matter. I would like the government to explainhow it is that that inconsistency can be reconciledagainst what is contained within the legislation.

Proposed section 14D is a particularly draconianprovision. It deals with a situation where a court mayorder offenders to take what are termed specifiedactions. I suppose it is an extension of a basic tenet ofthe criminal law that if you do the crime, you do thetime. You go to court, you are prosecuted; and if youare found guilty, an appropriate penalty is imposed.There it is: it is done. It is intended that there can be amix whereby the corporation can go through theprocess I have just described and be fined and otherpenalties can be imposed, but the court can order arange of things at the company’s expense which willbring it into the public eye as having erred and havingbeen prosecuted and penalised — yet this is to happenon some sort of ongoing basis.

The problem is that you get cause and effect, and anunintended consequence. Let’s say, for example, that amajor corporation is convicted under one of thesepreceding provisions and then is convicted under theone to which I am now referring. It would then goalong to court and be subject to these additionalpenalties regarding the publication of what it has done,including the public flogging that goes with that. As for

the unintended consequences, that company might be amajor investor within Australia. It might be one ofthose corporate entities that are part of a package ofsuperannuation investments, for example. After goingthrough the process contemplated by this section, youmight well find that the value of the company isslashed. It may therefore have an enormous impact onthe financial position of many people who, completelyapart from the operations of a major investingorganisation such as a superannuation fund, haveinvested in the entity. There will be a cause and aneffect, and a classic, unintended consequence.

What will happen to the employees of this majororganisation who are faced with having to read aboutthis sort of result in the newspapers when it is thrustunder their noses day after day? What will happen tothe corporation’s clients? To what extent can thepenalties which are to be imposed on the organisationbe truly measured?

I have grave concerns about the operation of proposedsection 14D, which I ask the government to reconsider.I believe it flies in the face of what is generallyregarded as fair and reasonable regarding theimposition of penalties on individuals or organisationsthat come before the courts.

The next issue I want to touch upon is the content ofproposed section 14F, headed ‘Territorial nexus foroffences’. Under the terms of this clause we are facedwith the distinct prospect that people involved inorganisations outside Victoria, perhaps outsideAustralia, face the risk of being dragged into thislegislation. That is not just on the basis of the fact of it.Sometimes these things are assessed by people on thebasis of thinking to themselves, ‘Don’t be ridiculousabout this; that can’t happen’, or ‘This can’t happen’.

If you are a prospective investor in Victoria or inAustralia and those sorts of things are being tossed atyou by the people who give advice on these issues, ofcourse it has an impact. Of course it has a propensity togive people cause for pause. Of course they ask the nextquestion, which is, ‘Where can I go within Australiawhere I am not faced with the prospect of these sorts ofthings happening?’. At the moment the answer will be,‘Anywhere else you like. You can go anywhere youwant to apart from Victoria and you will not be facedwith these sorts of consequences’. Or, ‘Don’t invest inAustralia at all. Go anywhere else and you won’t facethe sorts of consequences contemplated by these sortsof provisions’.

It is one of those instances where people sometimes,with the best will in the world, give instructions that



these sorts of provisions be drafted without havingproper regard to how they will ultimately take effect.

Part 3 of the bill is headed ‘Amendment of DangerousGoods Act 1985’. Clause 7, headed ‘Indictableoffences’, inserts a subsection which provides thatcharges can be laid in relation to the offencescontemplated under the terms of this legislation.Subsection (4) of clause 7 goes on to provide that thecharges can be made after this bill is enacted:

… irrespective of when the offence to which the proceedingrelates is alleged to have been committed.”

On the face of it that legislative provision is patentlyretrospective. You could find companies are chargedunder the terms of the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 inrelation to activities which occurred prior to thelegislation taking effect. It is retrospective in contentand should not be included.

As a general principle, I do not have a problem with theprovisions increasing penalties. But these things are aquestion of balance. The government needs to be verycareful that is not seen to be lifting the bar on theseissues, without having regard to all matters of relevanceto this important piece of industrial relations legislationin Victoria.

This bill is ‘bad law’ for all the reasons I have beentalking about, not only because it seeks to apparentlyaddress a situation of benefit to employees. It seeks toachieve that end by belting employers, with a focus oncorporations. They are singled out. It flies in the face ofhow industrial relations are run in Australia generally,and in Victoria in particular. It was summed up in anadvertisement placed by various employer groups in theHerald Sun of Monday, 15 April 2002. I believe thisadvertisement is unique to the term of this government.Never before has an advertisement such as this beenplaced on behalf of a collective of employers. It alsoflies in the face of what I am sure this governmentconsiders to be the ground it is making in dealing withemployers.

But to the wider world this legislation is a window, andwhen you look through it what it really tells you is thetrue philosophy that drives the government in itsrelations with employers. I have said to many of themsince this legislation was introduced that it is politicalphilosophy that drives public policy; it is not the otherway around. What we have here in this legislation is aclear example of a political philosophy which, if thisgovernment had its druthers, it would think throughagain. But it is committed to it now and there is noother course than to go ahead.

But when this advertisement was published on 15 Aprilit was signed by the Australian Industry Group, theVictorian Farmers Federation, the Master BuildersAssociation of Victoria, the Printing IndustryAssociation of Australia, the Australian RetailersAssociation Victoria, the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry, the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce and the VictorianTransport Association. Its heading reads:

Minister Hulls, the solution to workplace deaths will not befound in bad law!

It goes on to explore some of the issues that I havereferred to in the course of my contribution thisevening. It is right about the bottom line, that the realproblem with this legislation is that this is bad law. Thefact of the matter is that we do not need it in Victoria.We do not need it in any jurisdiction in Australia. TheEnglish very obviously do not think they need itbecause it is still hanging out there in the ethersomewhere.

At least if this government is genuine about wanting toadvance the cause which it says is reflected in thislegislation it should go back to square one. It should goback to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-Generaland submit the propositions which are contained in thebill, let everybody make a comment about it, and let’sthen see where we get. But let me tell you, Mr ActingSpeaker, the National Party is opposed to thislegislation in the form in which it now appears beforethis house.

Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Independent amendments circulated by Ms DAVIES(Gippsland West) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to support theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill. Ithink there is no sharper example of the differencebetween this side of the house and the oppositionparties than the debate on this bill. This is an extremelyimportant piece of legislation which goes to the veryheart of protecting workers. That is what this bill isabout. It is a Labor thing to do. It was only the LaborParty that stood up at the last election and said, ‘We aregoing to introduce legislation to prosecute thosefew’ — and we recognise there are only a few —‘rogue employers who criminally seek to takeadvantage of workers and in fact cause serious injuryand in the most tragic of circumstances death’.

It is the Labor Party that is prepared to stand up heretoday and debate this piece of legislation, becausephilosophically what it is on about is providing a fair



level of protection to workers in this state. I wouldsummarise what we have heard from the speakers forthe opposition parties, the honourable member forBerwick and the Leader of the National Party, asbasically legal obfuscation. They sought to cloud theircontributions in points of legal debate when really whatwe are talking about here is a basic philosophicalposition: do you support the rights of workers to beprotected, or do you not? I think from the contributionsthat have been made by both the honourable memberfor Berwick and the Leader of the National Party theanswer to that question is a resounding no.

The Victorian Trades Hall Council, which of course is arepresentative body for workers in this state, hasmounted an extraordinary campaign in support of thislegislation — indeed, as the honourable member forTullamarine says by interjection, for decency in theworkplace. Of course it has been headed by the TradesHall, which has indicated in its literature a particularlytragic case which to some extent portrays in a verypersonal way what this legislation is about and thegenesis of the framing of the legislation.

It was a case of a handsome young man, a beautifulyoung man, of 18 years of age. On 12 November 1998two 18-year-old boys started work, Anthony Carrickand his mate. It was Anthony’s first day at work, and itkilled him. The boys were dropped off at Drybulk PtyLtd in Footscray by a labour hire firm, with no trainingor safety equipment. They were told to sweep the floorin front of several 5.5-tonne cement walls. Theunrestrained slabs had been known to shift and wobblethrough the vibration of nearby traffic on Coode Road.The slabs were in place to protect the shed’s walls. Onefell. Anthony was killed, and his mate received seriouscrushing injuries to his back, pelvis and legs.

Drybulk was fined $50 000, but the companyliquidated, and to date the fine remains unpaid. In thatbrief portrayal what justice was there for this boy?There was no justice for this boy who went off to hisfirst day at work and never came home. What justicecan there be for his mother, Jan Carrick? How can thisParliament look her in the eye and say that justice wasdone for her? No justice was done for her. Thatcompany was liquidated. It did not care about this boy.It wrongfully sent this young man to his death andcaused his young colleague serious injuries which couldbe permanent. The firm got off scot-free because itliquidated, and now it is operating again. What justice isthere for that family and all the families who havesuffered these appalling losses?

Now opposition members ask in their contributions infact, ‘What’s the problem here? We had only 32 deaths

last year. That is not bad, it is down from a high ofsome 125 deaths’. One death is too many. For this sideof the house one death is too many. This Parliamentshould send out a clear and unequivocal message thatone death in the workplace is one death too many.

If you accept the twisted logic of the opposition inrelation to this matter you should say, ‘The road toll hasprogressively gone down from 1000-odd to between400 and 500. Should we in fact abolish the offence ofculpable driving?’. Surely in this circumstance we needto have a very clear and unequivocal position wherethis Parliament stands up and says that when somebodygoes to work, like the young person I have justportrayed this evening, or in fact any worker, theyshould have a safe workplace, and their family shouldbe able to be confident that they will come home again,that they will not die or be seriously injured in theirworkplace.

This legislation will deal only with those rogueemployers, those who so manifestly disregard theirobligations as employers. They should be criminallyliable. They should be liable for their actions both ascorporations and as individuals. After the corporationhas been found legally liable, those who are directlyresponsible for the workplaces and the control of thoseworkplaces also should be found legally liable for theiractions. Surely that is a just outcome for those peopleand for the victims — those who suffer workplaceinjuries and deaths.

What does this legislation do? As I indicated, whilstmost employers take their occupational health andsafety obligations seriously, sadly there are some rogueoperators who ignore their workers’ safety. Existingcriminal laws are clearly inadequate, as I have outlinedin my contribution on the matter in the Parliamenttoday. The proposed laws will target corporationswhich are grossly negligent. That is the test: they haveto be grossly negligent towards their employees and, inthat context, fines should be imposed. We shouldimpose a maximum fine and send a clear message: a$5 million fine for a corporation convicted ofmanslaughter, and a $2 million fine for a serious injury.That is a serious fine and sends a serious message to thecommunity that, as a government, we take these mattersseriously.

The new laws will target those senior officers within acorporation who have been reckless about theiremployees’ safety, are organisationally responsible for,or who have materially contributed to the offence —and this is a true test — and whether the corporationhas already been proved liable. So it is a secondarymatter: after the corporation has been proved liable,



then the senior officer can be dealt with in the sameway. We are only going to target behaviour thatwarrants criminal punishment. If somebody has beenkilled in the workplace and, as the employer, I havebeen criminally negligent, why should I not have to gobefore the courts and answer for that behaviour?

I am going to finish in a moment because I know manyof my colleagues want to contribute, but there are anumber of things this law does not do. There have beenall sorts of lobbying campaigns, most particularly byemployer groups opposing the legislation. These lawsdo not impose any extra obligations on employersbeyond their existing occupational health and safetyresponsibilities. The laws do not target honest mistakesor unavoidable incidents. They do not target people atoperational level or volunteers, nor do they putresponsible employers at risk. In our view, the newlaws certainly have proper checks and balances withinthem.

This is an opportunity for the Parliament to stand upand say, ‘Where an employer or a senior officer hasbeen criminally negligent, under a reasonable test fortheir actions, they should be able to go before thecourts. They should be answerable, as the rest of us are,for their actions’. In this context, the legislation isimportant. It is fundamental legislation for the LaborParty because, at the end of the day, the Labor Partysays that a workplace should be a safe place in which aperson should be able to lawfully pursue their living.You should not be in a situation where you go to yourworkplace and sometimes, tragically, you do not comehome or you are so seriously injured that you maynever work again.

In that context I strongly support the legislation, and theLabor Party strongly supports it. We campaigned onthis legislation at the last election but, tragically, theopposition parties cannot see their way clear to supportus. This is basically ideologically driven by theopposition parties. I commend this piece of legislationto the house and sincerely wish it a speedy passage.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I agree, and the LiberalParty agrees, that one death in the workplace is one toomany. The legislation has a laudable aim, butunfortunately the method that the Labor Party haschosen is wrong. The bill brings in new offences ofindustrial manslaughter and of negligently causingserious injury. Under this bill, a body corporate will beliable where it is shown to have owed a duty of care.The fines for corporations will be raised to $5 millionfor industrial manslaughter and $2 million fornegligently causing serious injury. On top of that, undercertain circumstances corporations will also be obliged

to place advertisements in newspapers advertising theirculpability.

The bill allows prosecution of directors and seniorofficers, with a maximum penalty for senior officers offive years in jail and/or a $180 000 fine where thecorporation has committed manslaughter and, again, amaximum penalty for senior officers of two years jailand/or a $120 000 fine where the corporationnegligently caused serious injury. Of great significanceis that the bill allows for an aggregation of conduct andallows for an aggregation of the conduct of agents,employees and casual workers to end up as a sum totalfor senior officers, directors and the like. This is asignificant change.

The bill also increases fines for offences againstoccupational health and safety laws to make them thehighest in Australia. As the Liberal Party’sspokesperson on industry, I have to say that I amprepared to come to the table to discuss issues likeoccupational health and safety. However, I do notbelieve the approach put forward in this house tonightby the Labor Party will yield any results, and I do notbelieve it will necessarily result in a decrease in thenumber of deaths in the workplace. Despite the emotionof the whole set of circumstances, I would have thoughtthat a decrease in deaths and injuries in the workplace iswhat every responsible member of Parliament wouldwant to achieve.

I believe the Labor Party has approached this matterfrom an incorrect perspective for a number of reasons.Again, I reiterate my party’s commitment to theobjectives stated in the Attorney-General’ssecond-reading speech. He said:

Victorians want — and deserve — workplaces that are safeand productive. Victorian families have a right to expect that,when they see their loved ones off to work each morning,they will return home safely each night.

That is my party’s objective too. Where we differ is onthe method to achieve that objective. I want to gothrough why I believe this bill is wrong. Firstly, it iswrong because it turns back the clock on cooperativearrangements. I am prepared to pay tribute to the workthe trade union movement has done, I am prepared topay tribute to the work employers have done, and I amprepared to pay tribute to the work Workcover has donein taking a cooperative approach to achieving a desiredoutcome. What we have seen over the last 16 years is amovement towards a desired outcome — a reduction inworkplace deaths and injury. As a result we have seenworkplace deaths decline by a third since 1989.



I refer to a discussion paper put out by the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry(VECCI) entitled ‘The Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill — Have we given up onprevention?’. To my mind the title of that paper isparticularly significant, because this bill indicates thatthe Labor Party has given up on prevention.

When I look at everything in our society — forexample, drugs and road safety — it appears that thewhole thrust of what we are on about is prevention.There has been universal agreement that prevention isthe best approach, but what we are seeing in this bill,unfortunately, is an abandonment of prevention for avery aggressive approach that will yield little result.

This discussion paper states that, unfortunately,31 deaths were recorded in the workplace last year.Thirteen of these — that is, the largest category ofthem — were in the agricultural sector, followed by7 in construction and 5 in manufacturing. My heartgoes out to the families of those people who died in theworkplace. I suspect they are looking for an assurancethat it will not happen again and that the best possiblepractices are in place.

The Workcover figures on page 12 of the VECCI papershow that over time as part of a cooperative relationshipbetween employees, trade unions and employers wehave seen a reduction in workplace deaths. In 1988–89there were 102 non-disease deaths, which is thetechnical term, in the workplace. We have seen thatfigure steadily slide to 31 deaths in 2000–01. They are31 deaths too many, but gosh that is a significantdecline in the trend, born of a cooperative approachbased on prevention, not on jail terms.

Likewise, the claims for injuries in the workplace havealso declined. In 1989 there were 104 686 injuries, andthat declined to 45 966 in 2000. Given that we areseeing progress, why do we have to have such anaggressive approach which will completely remove thecooperative attitudes we have seen in the workplace?

I particularly refer to a paper entitled ‘Farm fatality andinjury data 1997–2001’ prepared by Ron Ruff. From1 January 1985 to 31 December 2001 unfortunately154 adults and 26 children were killed on farms. Doesjailing somebody bring back the lives of those children?The total farm fatalities in that period were 180!

The bulk of farming accidents occur because of tractorrollovers. I want to take a moment of the house’s timeto look at the sector with the largest number of deaths inthe workplace, which unfortunately is the agriculturalsector. In noting the 13 farm fatalities in 2001, I ask

members of the Labor Party to tell me how jailingsomebody, indeed having this legislation, would haveavoided these deaths?

On 24 January a 16-year-old son of a dairy farmer diedwhen an ATV rolled over. On 26 January a 60-year-oldfarmer was found deceased in a paddock — his tractorhaving moved off down the slope. On 8 February a60-year-old farmer, employed by his own company, fell10 metres to his death after having been knocked off awindmill by a wind vane. On 12 February a 65-year-oldemployee of a tobacco farming company suffered deathas a result of a tractor accident.

On 13 March a 78-year-old self-employed farmer diedat his workplace through a tractor-related incident. On31 March an 86-year-old farmer was bringing in cowswith his wife when a cow knocked him down. Hesustained abdominal injuries and died the next day.

On 4 April a 60-year-old hobby farmer was crushedwhen the tractor he was driving, which was not fittedwith rollover protection — I am proud to say I was partof a government that introduced it — rolled over. On20 April a 41-year-old female hobby farmer died whenthe tractor which she had been driving rolled over. On22 May a 77-year-old retired farmer was found deadwith head injuries caused by a bull that was kept nearthe house. On 1 August a retired dairy farmer died as aresult of a felling accident while excavating pine trees.

On 3 November a 41-year-old part-time farmer whowas slashing grass on his property died as a result of atractor accident. On 26 November a 58-year-old friendof a farmer was struck on the head while shifting soilwith a tractor and bucket attachment. On 23 Decemberan 11-year-old daughter of husband and wifeemployees was killed on a dairy farm after becomingtrapped by a stall feed-and-release system.

I ask this house to consider just last year’s sample offarm deaths — the biggest component of deaths. If wehad Labor’s legislation in place, would one of thosedeaths have been avoided? I think not. Those deaths aretragic and Labor’s legislation will not avoid any one ofthese deaths. Labor’s legislation would only imprisonfamily members, friends of farm owners and the like.Labor’s legislation is misguided.

I turn now to the second reason why we should and willvote against this legislation. This legislation labelsevery employer a potential criminal. The Labor Party issaying to each employer in Victoria, ‘You are apotential criminal’. Unfortunately that does not sit wellwith either my party or the future of employment in thisstate.



I turn to the news release by the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry and note thatmany employers are saying that when they ask foradvice from occupational health and safety officersthere is no provision. I quote an employer’s commentthat appears on page 9 of the paper:

I wouldn’t mind being exposed to the risk of fines if only they(Worksafe) were prepared to tell me whether my existingwork practices comply or not.

So we have a regime of imprecision being foisted onemployers.

An honourable member interjected.

Ms ASHER — Not only your government! Youwill do an inspection. Last time employers were namedin this house, indeed in relation to Workcover,inspectors were sent down. There is no way I amnaming people to subject them to the Labor Party’spunitive practices!

The third reason we should reject this legislation is thatthe government does not understand its own legislation.The Attorney-General does not understand his ownlegislation. Indeed, the Attorney-General wrote to meon 1 March 2002 advising me that:

The changes outlined in the brochure relate to the Crimes(Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, which has beenintroduced to target rogue employers who turn a blind eye toworkplace safety.

That is great rhetoric! The problem is that it is notreality. The changes are designed to target everyemployer.

Honourable members should make no mistake aboutthis: not even the Premier knows what this legislationwill do. I refer to a transcript from Media Monitors.When the Premier was asked about this legislation onthe Mike Cooper show on 3BA FM, Ballarat Today, hesaid:

… you can only be prosecuted under this bill under the draftlegislation if you can prove to have deliberately caused thedeath of an employee. That is, you set out to deliberatelycause the death by your practice in the workplace.

The Premier said also:

So it’s not do with accidents or mishaps or things that wereomitted or went wrong, it’s all to do with the intention. It hasto be an absolute deliberate and proved intention that you setout to cause the death of someone in the workplace.

Well, pardon me, Madam Acting Speaker, I am nolawyer but I thought that was murder. In our society wecall it murder if you deliberately set out to kill someone,and it is a great shame the Premier does not know that.

Whether you are an employee, employer, orunemployed in this community, if you deliberately setout to kill somebody, you will be charged with murder.The reason I have quoted that is to show that thePremier does not understand what is in the bill, more isthe pity.

The fourth reason we should reject this bill, as we will,is that it is bad law. Let me give an instance in farmdeaths. A farmer dies at work. What does the LaborParty want to do? It wants to jail the farmer’s wife! Ijust indicated that the Premier does not understand hisbill, so I do not believe his back bench will understandit, either. If a farmer dies at work they want to prosecuteand jail the farmer’s wife. That is bad law.

Mr Maxfield interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! The honourable member for Narracan will desistfrom engaging in unparliamentary behaviour andlanguage.

Ms ASHER — The fifth reason we will vote againstthis bill is that it is based on ideology. It is a sop to theunions and it is anti-employer. I remember theAttorney-General standing outside the other dayaddressing a demonstration. He talked about employerswanting a licence to kill. Again that is a nonsense. Thebill is based on ideology and the Liberal Party will notsupport it.

The sixth reason we will vote again against this bill isthat under this bill you could be jailed for somethingyou did not even do. You could be jailed for somethingthat is not your fault. Under the aggregation principlescontained in this bill — —

Mr Nardella — That is not true!

Ms ASHER — I know that is very true. Read thebill! The problem is the Premier does not understand it.

Ms Duncan interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I call on the honourable member for Gisborne todesist from using unparliamentary language. If shecontinues to disregard the Chair I will call the Speakerto the chair to deal with her.

Ms ASHER — Under the bill conduct relating to arange of employees could be regulated and the seniorofficer or director held accountable for a range ofconduct, and indeed under this bill you could be jailedfor something you did not do.



The seventh reason we will vote against this bill is thatno other jurisdiction in the world has it. Indeed, theUnited Kingdom government has been consulting forsix years and will not move on this because itsmembers know the difficulty attached to it.

The eighth reason we will not vote for this bill is thatthere will be an effect on business investment inVictoria. Again I refer members to the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry paperwhich indicates clearly that we live in the real worldand if businesses wish to invest in Victoria but theLabor governments of Queensland and New SouthWales in particular choose not to have this legislationthen it is a very easy decision for business — they willsimply locate in other states.

The ninth reason we will not vote for this bill is thelevel of opposition that is prevalent against it. Indeed, Icannot recall unanimity by employers such as we haveseen about this bill. The Australian Industry Group, theVictorian Farmers Federation, the Master BuildersAssociation of Victoria, the Printing IndustryAssociation of Australia — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! The honourable member will stop interjectingacross the table.

Ms ASHER — The Australian RetailersAssociation Victoria, the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry, the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce, the VictorianTransport Association — all those bodies are opposedto this legislation because it is bad law and because itwill unfortunately not result in a reduction of deaths inthe workplace.

Again I refer honourable members opposite to theirnewsletters to see how ineffective this bill is, how bad itis in law, and, indeed, how much this bill will fly in theface of the cooperative approach that we haveexperienced in Victoria in the reduction of workplacedeaths and workplace injuries over the past 16 years.

I have two final comments about this bill. The first isthat this government says it is pro-business. It isspending $2 million on an advertising campaign tryingto dupe business into believing that the government ispro-business. Members of the government talk aboutcar exports. They should go and speak to people atToyota and Holden about where they see themselves inrelation to this bill. This government is notpro-business; this government is not pro-employment;

this government is not pro-jobs in this state, which isthe reason it has brought forward this bill.

Ms Pike interjected.

Ms ASHER — The minister at the table reminds methat she should be filled with gratitude that the upperhouse will knock this back and she will continue to seeinvestment and jobs in Victoria. The fundamentalquestion is: will this bill work; will this bill reduce thetragedy of industrial deaths; will this bill result in animprovement in the situation we have seen; will this billdiminish human tragedy in the workplace? The answerto those questions is no. This bill will do nothing toreduce the volume of human tragedy that unfortunatelywe still see today, despite the cooperative approach wehave seen in the work force

Mr Nardella interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! The honourable member for Melton will desistfrom projecting his booming voice across the chamber.It wakes everyone up!

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — It saddens me tohave to speak on this bill tonight. Usually one stands upand says, ‘It is with great pleasure I speak on the bill’,but tonight I am saddened to have to speak on this bill.We see a deputy opposition leader, stripped of hershadow Treasury portfolio months ago, trying to regainthat portfolio by bringing economic — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I ask the honourable member to pause. I am sickand tired of the honourable member for Gisborne usingthe privilege of being a government member andabusing the Chair from the side. I ask her to desist fromdoing so. If she cannot, then she should leave thechamber.

Ms BEATTIE — We have before us the face ofAnthony Carrick, a young man who was born on29 January 1980 and died on 12 November 1998 andwho has been the public face of the campaign byTrades Hall to bring this bill into the house. But whatdoes it matter if Anthony was young and handsome? Aperson who is old should have the same rights asAnthony Carrick had to return home from work and tobe protected in their job. It makes no difference whatAnthony looked like. It makes a difference that he hadfamily and friends who loved him and who sent him towork expecting him to return home, as we all expect todo. The opposition would say, ‘Anthony was oneperson. This was a terrible mistake that Drybulk Pty



Ltd made, and it won’t happen again because suddenlycorporations are going to become responsible’.Anthony was not just one worker who died, he was oneof many. I will bring to the attention of this houseothers who went to work one day, died in theirworkplaces and did not return home to their familiesthat night.

The opposition wants this bill debated in the house atnight, when it thinks nobody will call it to account. Butthere are people in this place who will call it to accountand who will protect workers. In a press release of23 August last year the shadow Attorney-Generalannounced that:

No-one would argue that if a person has knowingly andnegligently caused someone’s death … they should not becharged with manslaughter and that should apply in allcircumstances whether it is on the roads … in the home or inthe workplace.

If we can take the shadow Attorney-General at hisword, then we look forward to his support for thisimportant piece of legislation.

The opposition would have you think that AnthonyCarrick’s death is one workplace death and that such athing will not happen again. It will happen again, andthis government is determined to make workplacehealth and safety a long-term issue. Nobody should goto work and die doing their job. The Bracksgovernment has already boosted the number ofworkplace inspectors to approximately 280, while theKennett government — those opposite shouldremember this — quite happily deregulatedoccupational health and safety — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! Members on the government benches aredrowning out their own member, who is speaking on anissue that is very important to her.

Ms BEATTIE — Thank you for your protection,Madam Acting Speaker, but they will not drown meout, I can assure you! The opposition took a lacklustre,hands-off approach to the lives of working Victorians,but Labor realises that governments have a vital role toplay in ensuring workers’ livelihoods are not put at risk.I will list some of the other workers besides AnthonyCarrick who have lost their lives just by going to work.I repeat: they lost their lives not by doing anythingnegligent but by going to work!

What we are talking about is bringing fundamentaljustice to the families of those loved ones who havebeen killed on the job and stopping unscrupulous

employers from avoiding their real responsibilities. Weare talking about rogues! Good solid employers whofollow workplace health and safety regulations havenothing to fear.

I want to talk about Kole Chekov, a 45-year-old fatherof two who was killed on 9 July 1999. Kole was apainter on a refurbishment job at the Edinburgh CastleHotel in North Melbourne. He was required to paint theoutside of the hotel, but his employer did not provideany scaffolding or any other support at all. Kole leanedover the side of the building to paint the parapet and fell11 metres to his death. My understanding, from advice Ihave received and from what I have been told, is thatwhen Kole’s body was still warm his employer jumpedin his car and rushed not to get an ambulance but to seehis lawyers.

Mr Chekov was classed as self-employed when he wasclearly a direct employee, and the employer denied anyresponsibility for compensation. Eventually theemployer was convicted, but he was fined not even the$50 000 that Drybulk was fined but $10 000 plus costsfor failing to provide a safe workplace! The members ofMr Chekov’s family received no compensation at all,and if it had not been for the generosity of theConstruction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union theywould have had nothing to serve at their Christmaslunch last year. What a disgrace! The industrialmanslaughter legislation will ensure that employers likethat face much tougher penalties for their obviousdisregard not only of health and workplace safety but ofhuman life.

I will relate to the house another tragic episode. Theopposition would say, ‘You want to imprison afarmer’s wife’. The government does not want toimprison a farmer’s wife, it wants to imprison peoplewho are deliberately and grossly negligent. Anothertragic episode was the death of Robert Briscusso, whowas working on renovations to a house of a millionairerestaurateur in South Yarra only a few weeks beforeChristmas two years ago. The workers were told thatthe home owners insisted that the job be completedbefore the Christmas break. Safe workplace practiceswere let slip, and while spraying concrete againstanother concrete wall — —

Mr Baillieu — On a point of order, Madam ActingSpeaker, I seek your clarification. I believe the matterthe honourable member is referring to is currentlybefore the court.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I am not aware of the details, but I take the pointraised by the honourable member for Hawthorn and



urge caution on the part of the honourable member forTullamarine, because the matter may be sub judice.

Ms BEATTIE — I am not aware that the matter isbefore the courts at the moment, but I will not speak onit if others caution me that it is. I hope the courts willdeal with that matter appropriately, as I am sure do thehonourable members opposite who have pointed thisout to me.

I turn again to the case of Anthony Carrick, who is thepublic face of the Trades Hall campaign. He was ayoung man aged 18 who was killed on his first day ofwork, as the honourable member for Richmond said,crushed by a 5-tonne concrete panel that surroundedsheds storing livestock feed. The employer must havethought he had to protect the livestock feed and notAnthony and the other young worker who waspermanently injured.

I pay tribute to the families of those killed in workplaceand industrial accidents. I quote Anthony Carrick’smother, who wrote:

Anthony and his coworker had been directed to undertakedangerous work. They had not been given any health andsafety training, no site safety induction, no information aboutthe potential hazards the work involved. Industrial death islike no other death and should not be treated in the same way.We didn’t get to say goodbye to Anthony. He went off towork in the morning and he never came home again.

That is the story of Anthony Carrick. It is not onlyAnthony’s story, it is the story of many others. I quotePercy Bysshe Shelley, who wrote:

Stand ye calm and resolute,Like a forest close and mute,With folded arms and looks which areWeapons of an unvanquished war …

That is what we have here — an ideological stance. Inthe end we heard the Deputy Leader of the Oppositiontalk about money. The government is not talking aboutmoney; we are talking about lives. We stand for lives,whereas the opposition stands for money — and itstands condemned.

Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — The bill beforethe house is flawed legislation. It originated as apay-back to the union movement in Victoria.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! The honourable members for Richmond andTullamarine have had their opportunity. The sameopportunity ought to be extended to opposing membersof Parliament.

Mr WILSON — As I was saying, the bill originatedto pay back the union movement in Victoria, one of thefew organisations that remained loyal to the LaborParty during its dark days throughout the 1990s. Thegovernment is not genuinely committed to thislegislation. The Premier wishes that it would go away.He knows that it seriously erodes his credibility withthe Victorian business community. He knows that thebill has the potential to harm the Victorian economy.He knows that it will deter investment in this state. Heknows that the only advocates of this bill are membersof the Trades Hall Council and his crusading, or shouldI say marauding, Attorney-General.

Mr Maxfield — Hang your head in shame!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! Just because the honourable member forNarracan is a government member does not mean hehas a licence to flout the rules. If he is going to interjectI suggest that he return to his place in the chamber andtake part in debate. He cannot continue with the sort ofbehaviour we have seen of late.

Mr WILSON — Ironically the Attorney-Generalalso holds the portfolio of manufacturing industry.Most, if not all, manufacturers in Victoria would beshocked and dismayed that the Minister forManufacturing Industry, under the guise of beingVictoria’s Attorney-General, would bring such adamaging bill to the floor of this house.

In his second-reading speech the Attorney-Generaladvised the house that the Labor Party’s 1999 electionpolicy committed the government to a comprehensiveoccupational health and safety strategy, including

… introducing new criminal offences to effectively deal withworkplace deaths.

That election promise must be seen in the context of theLabor Party never expecting or imagining that it wouldwin the 1999 state election. Unfortunately the LaborParty did form government — albeit a minoritygovernment — after the last election, and tonight weare seeing the Labor Party’s inability to act as aresponsible government. This bill is proof that theBracks government is held captive by the Trades HallCouncil and is incapable of governing for allVictorians.

Last week, which was budget week, the governmentwas keen to project the image of being pro-business andpro-investment. The Premier and the Treasurer areobsessed with the task of proving their credentials in thearea of good economic management. When it suits, thegovernment — —



Ms Beattie — On a point of order, Madam Speaker,we are talking about the Crimes (Workplace Deathsand Serious Injuries) Bill, yet the honourable member istalking about the budget. I urge you to bring him backto the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! Unfortunately I was at that precise momentengaged in discussion with the Leader of the House, sohe is to blame for my being unable to rule on the pointof order. But up until the time I was distracted by theLeader of the House the honourable member waswithin the parameters of the bill. I ask him to observenormal parliamentary practice.

Mr WILSON — Thank you, Madam ActingSpeaker, and I was observing every practice of thehouse. If the honourable member was listeningcarefully she would know I was making a passingreference to the fact that last week, which was budgetweek, the government was very keen to convince theVictorian community about its economic credentials.

As I was saying, the Premier and the Treasurer areobsessed with the task of proving their credentials in thearea of good economic management. When it suits, thegovernment is ever willing to quote the favourablethings said about its policies or performance by peakbodies such as the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry (VECCI). Let me quote whatthat organisation has said about the bill before thehouse:

Worksafe’s own figures show a steady decline in workplaceinjuries and death since the Occupational Health and SafetyAct was introduced in 1985. Why then, when the currentcooperative framework has been working, is the governmentlooking at introducing a punitive new system?

…

The bill represents a fundamental switch in focus for thegovernment from prevention to punishment — with increasedpenalties and potential jail terms. Such a switch riskscompromising the cooperative approach that has beenworking in Victoria.

…

The government has produced no evidence that thislegislation is justified when workplace death and injury hasbeen steadily declining, and the government has also failed toproduce any evidence that this type of punitive legislation willwork or be more effective than the current framework.

Similarly, the Victorian Congress of EmployerAssociations wrote to me on 11 April, and I quote fromthat letter:

The proposed legislation is an attempt to turn the clock backto an adversarial system which was discarded in the 1980s.

OHS cannot be achieved by strict regulation and penalties. Itcan only be achieved by cooperation between managementand employees and by a constant process of education andleadership.

The proposed legislation is flawed by a lack of clarity inrelation to the degree of culpability required, burden of proofand standard or level of compliance. It is only after the eventthat a business will know whether it has provided a safeworkplace and taken all reasonable precautions within themeaning of the proposed legislation.

An adversarial system will not bring about theimprovements the government desires. As manyhonourable members have argued, just one death in theworkplace is one death too many. However, the billbefore the house will not prevent a single fatality in theworkplace; and deaths in the workplace have fallensignificantly over the past 15 years from an appalling102 deaths in 1989 to 31 deaths in 2001. That is31 deaths too many in 2001, but not one section of thisbill will make the workplace safer.

Against this background, VECCI has raised some verylegitimate issues about the bill, and they include thefollowing:

What evidence exists to suggest the bill will act to reduce theincidence of death and injury in Victorian workplaces?

Is this an objective of the bill at all or is it just aboutdrastically changing the balance between punishment andprevention?

…

Is a focus on compliance, at the expense of a riskmanagement approach, likely to be less effective inpreventing death and injury?

And finally:

Is the bill likely to cause a shift in the balance betweenprevention and punishment that is detrimental to prevention?

Nothing I have heard tonight from theAttorney-General or other government members offersadequate or convincing arguments in favour of thislegislation. A letter I received from the VictorianFarmers Federation (VFF) supports my contention asfollows:

The proposed legislation would have a major negative impacton employment in rural and regional Victoria, especially inthose industries associated with agriculture.

The bill changes the treatment of workplace accidents inVictoria. Its provisions are punitive and will turn accidents inthe workplace into ‘crimes’ under Victorian law for whichpunitive criminal law prosecutions could be applied tobusiness owners and management.

…

BUILDING (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


The VFF believe the proposals fail to provide a solution toworkplace deaths and will have a negative impact on themanagement of health and safety at the workplace. Theprovisions offer no encouragement for employers to improveoccupational, health and safety policies or practices.

Finally, I draw the attention of the house to the threemain purposes of the bill. First, the bill introduces newcriminal offences called ‘corporate manslaughter’ and‘causing serious injury’ in addition to the existing crimeof manslaughter, with severe penalties for companiesfor breaches of the act. Secondly, under these lawsdirectors, company secretaries and officers can bepersonally liable for fines and imprisonment if acompany is found guilty of corporate manslaughter orcausing serious injury. Thirdly, it increases existingpenalties under the Occupational Health and Safety Actby an average of 278 per cent.

An adequate summary of my contribution this eveningcan be found in the policy paper of VECCI to which Ireferred earlier, and I quote:

Business is committed to improving the methods that lead toa reduction in workplace deaths and injuries. This punitivedirection and the rush to be the ‘toughest’ jurisdiction in theworld demands careful analysis and consideration of theimpact on public policy. The Victorian business communitydo not want to be the test case if the rest of the world learnsfrom our errors while Victoria incurs the suffering.

I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms DAVIES (GippslandWest).

Debate adjourned until later this day.

BUILDING (FURTHER AMENDMENT)BILL

Second reading

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — Byleave, I move:

(1) That the proceedings of the Legislative Assemblyimmediately following the calling of the order of the dayfor the second reading of the Building (FurtherAmendment) Bill up to the completion of thesecond-reading speech and subsequent adjournment ofdebate be expunged from the Hansard record.

(2) That so much of standing orders be suspended so as toallow the motion for the second reading of the Building(Further Amendment) Bill and for the adjournment ofthe debate on the bill to be moved again.

I appreciate the indulgence of the house. Thedepartment delivered — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Mordialloc tokeep it down.

Ms DELAHUNTY — The department deliveredthe incorrect second-reading speech to the house today.It has the same title. It is a corollary bill to implementthe recommendations of the Auditor-General’s reporton the building industry and I appreciate theconsideration of the house. The intent of the — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! The honourable member for Mordialloc! Toensure there is not a mistake I ask honourable membersto give the minister a chance to get it right.

Ms DELAHUNTY — The issues have been raisedby the Auditor-General’s report into the buildingindustry. These are two bills with the same name. Iappreciate the consideration of the house now that thedepartment has sent the correct speech.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — This is anextraordinary moment for this house. This housedeserves to know why debate on what the governmentregards as its most important bill has been adjourned.The people of Victoria deserve to know as well. Thisinterruption to the business is to correct a serious errormade by the Minister for Planning, a minister in thisgovernment. It was a serious error in that the ministerhas read to this house in its entirety a second-readingspeech which did not relate to the bill. No-one in thishouse can recall such an event ever happening in thischamber before.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I ask honourable members to keep their voicesdown.

Mr BAILLIEU — This is an extraordinary event.This is a totally artificial interruption to the business ofthe house, to the government’s most importantlegislation — self-declared — in order to cover up for aminister who has stuffed up. The extraordinary thing isthat when the government came to correct its mistake,on whom did it rely? To whom did it turn? It turned tothe honourable member for Gippsland West to adjourndebate on the most important legislation before thishouse. When it was time for the motion for theadjournment of the debate, the government turned tothe government Independent, the honourable member



for Gippsland West. It was so embarrassed that it wasnot prepared to do it itself.

The house deserves to know the details; the people ofVictoria deserve to know the details. The Minister forPlanning is so out of touch with her own portfolio thatshe failed to even recognise that she was reading thewrong speech. Not only that, she failed to recognisethat the speech she was reading actually did not relateto the bill.

The bill circulated this afternoon was the Building(Further Amendment) Bill 2002. Its contents include inpart 1 — and obviously I do not wish to debate the billnow — reference to responsibility for the issue ofoccupancy permits, temporary structure permits,emergency orders and building notices, and otherchanges. That was the circulated bill. I repeat, the billwas titled the Building (Further Amendment) Bill.

Ms Delahunty — The same title.

Mr BAILLIEU — The minister says again, ‘Thesame title’. Moments ago the minister told us that thesecond-reading speech had the same title. Presumablythis was the cause of her confusion.

Mr Maxfield — You sound like Mr Bean but youare making less sense!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Hawthorn tospeak through the Chair and honourable members togenerally lower their voices, including the honourablemember for Narracan.

Mr BAILLIEU — The palm trees are emptying thisevening on the government!

The minister told us that the title of the second-readingspeech was the same as that of the bill. The bill title isthe Building (Further Amendment) Bill. Thesecond-reading speech title is the Building(Amendment) Bill. Close, but not the same title. Nodoubt that is sufficient reason for this minister to totallyfail to recognise it. The fascinating thing is, where didthis mysterious second-reading speech come from? Didit drop out of the palm trees, like the honourablemember for Narracan?

Mr Maxfield — On a point of order, ActingSpeaker — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! Before I call on the honourable member for

Narracan on his point of order I remind the house that itis disorderly to clap, and also that generally the level ofinterjections in the house is disorderly. It is verydifficult to hear the honourable member for Hawthorn. Icall on the honourable member for Narracan and hispoint of order.

Mr Maxfield — On a point of order, ActingSpeaker, the honourable member is misleading thehouse.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! Under standing order 108 it is unparliamentaryto allege that an honourable member is misleading thehouse — that can only be done by means of a censuremotion — so I ask the honourable member not to godown that track.

Mr Maxfield — I was elected by the majority ofvoters in Narracan who rejected — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Peulich) —Order! There is no point of order. I remind thehonourable member for Narracan that the rules in thishouse apply to him as well as other honourablemembers, and he is persistently and perpetuallybreaching them.

Mr BAILLIEU — As I was saying, the circulatedbill was the Building (Further Amendment) Bill, thesecond-reading speech was the Building (Amendment)Bill — different titles. So where did this second-readingspeech come from? One might have thought maybe it ispossible that the minister picked up the wrong speech;maybe she picked up the second-reading speech thatwas introduced to this house on 27 September 2001called the Building (Amendment) Bill. Interestingly,the second-reading speech that the minister read is notthe same as the second-reading speech for the Building(Amendment) Bill of September last year. Again, theunknown, mysterious second-reading speech. Yes, thesecond-reading speech that the minister read has somecontent similar to that of the second-reading speechmade in September of last year. A few paragraphs arethe same. One of those paragraphs reads:

Changing the name of the Building Control Commission tothe Building Commission in order to better reflect its role ofleadership and regulation rather than control of the buildingindustry.

That is the first dot point from the second-readingspeech read by the minister this afternoon. Why is thatsignificant? Because that is the same paragraph thatoccurs in the second-reading speech of September oflast year! One of the principal bodies for which the



minister is responsible is the Building Commission. It isextraordinary that the minister could read thatparagraph into Hansard in this house and not recognisethat the body for which she is responsible, of which thishouse changed the name only in September last year,could still be called the Building Control Commissionand that we were moving another piece of legislation toagain change its name, which we had already done. Anextraordinary proposition!

Other aspects of the second-reading speech that theminister read make similar inane errors in the sense thatif this minister knew almost anything that was going onin her portfolio she would have recognised that thisspeech was inappropriate and was the wrongsecond-reading speech. I invite the house to considerthe fact that I sat here this afternoon to take theadjournment of the second-reading speech and shortlyafter the minister began speaking I said to her across thetable, ‘Minister, are you sure you are reading the rightspeech?’. To be fair to the minister, she nodded, sheacknowledged what I had said and said yes, she wasreading the right speech. In good faith I let her read on.I may have been wrong but it seemed odd to mebecause the contents seemed familiar. So the ministerread on.

Later on in the second-reading speech I again said toher, ‘Minister, are you sure this is the right speech? Ithink you are reading the wrong speech’. I was politelygiving her the opportunity to stop and perhaps, beforewe went any further, correct the error and substitute thecorrect speech. I gave her the benefit of the doubt andthought, ‘Well, maybe she just picked up the wrongdocument’. The fact that it had been circulated to thehouse, was in the papers room and had been circulatedto the public already was beside the point.

Then I invited the minister to check that she wasreading the correct second-reading speech.Unfortunately, the minister insisted she was reading thecorrect speech. In fact, the minister said to me that itmust be the right speech because we were getting to theaudit part of the speech. Just before we started thisdebate the minister said the same thing to me: she wasconfused because she thought she was going to get tothe Auditor-General part of the bill. There is not anyAuditor-General part of the bill. There is not an auditpart of the bill. So the confusion persists.

As I said, this is an extraordinary event. As aconsequence of this error Hansard has to have materialexpunged from the record of proceedings in this house.We have to have this correction. We have had tointerrupt the business of the house. The honourablemember for Gippsland West has done the government’s

bidding in order to save it from the embarrassment ofadjourning debate on its most important bill. That willcome as a shock to the people of Victoria. The Ministerfor Transport arranged it shortly before we commencedthis debate.

After the minister finished her second-reading speech,in moving for the adjournment of the debate I think Isaid to the house that I thought the speech bore aremarkable similarity to previous second-readingspeeches, and thereafter I moved the motion for theadjournment of the debate.

I thereafter consulted with the clerks. They made thevery correct point that the second-reading speech of anybill is a legal document, to which lawyers and thecourts refer in the discussion of any legal action whichensues in later years. Therefore, to have asecond-reading speech on the Hansard record which iswrong is not only an embarrassment but a legalminefield. The clerks’ advice was that it should beexpunged from the record so that there will be only onesecond-reading speech, which no doubt we will behearing in the next few minutes. But to do so we havehad to have this interruption. We have had to changethe business and we have had to allow the motion, aswe have done. A couple of questions come to mind.The minister — —


Mr BAILLIEU — Grasping for substance, theMinister for Planning asks about my tie!

Mr Phillips — Tell us about it, Ted, because it is anawful tie.

Mr BAILLIEU — It is a tri-nations competitiontie — the Australian Rugby Union tie.


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable forTullamarine is being disorderly and is not sitting in herplace.

Mr BAILLIEU — By all means, I invite theminister to mock the Australian Rugby Union testteam!

Two things come to mind. It is the obligation of aminister to sign off on a second-reading speech. Howdid it happen? How did the minister sign off on asecond-reading speech like this? We have just heardthat it was the department’s fault! We will hear a bitmore about that, I suspect. Who is going to take the fallfor this minister? Who is going to take the hit — again?



A public servant will no doubt take the hit for aminister who did not recognise the content of her ownbill.

Another thought comes to mind: if I had not raised thesubject with the minister during her second-readingspeech and afterwards and with the clerks, thissecond-reading speech would still be on the Hansardrecord tomorrow, the day after and for weeks ahead.There would not have been any move to correct therecord and the government’s embarrassment wouldhave gone on.

The opposition has cooperated with the governmentand has allowed it to interrupt business and to haveleave to move this motion. But the reality is that this isa very sad reflection on a minister and a government.How could this happen? Perhaps we could understandif it were a bill coming from one house to the other andthe minister was not responsible for the bill but hadmade the second-reading speech on behalf of anotherminister. That is not the case. This is the minister’s ownsecond-reading speech which this minister signed offon. It should not have happened.

Where did it come from? No-one knows — not eventhe honourable member for Narracan knows. Who wasresponsible? Only one person was responsible: theMinister for Planning.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to cease interjecting in that vein.

Mr BAILLIEU — This minister is personallyresponsible for her second-reading speeches. She has towear the hit. The reality is that this is a severeembarrassment for a minister who has already on manyoccasions demonstrated that she is not across herportfolio. Unfortunately the autocue was out of control.She is still not familiar with the bill. She repeats theerror. Just before I got up to speak she indicated to methat she is still not familiar with the content of the bill.That is a great shame, particularly for those in theplanning industry in Victoria because they know theyhave a minister who is not in touch with her portfolio.

There could be no more poignant symbol of theminister being out of touch with her portfolio than forher to stand in this house and knowingly, despitewarnings and an alert from an opposition membertrying to cooperate, read into Hansard a second-readingspeech which bore no resemblance to the content of thebill she had introduced into the house, bore no materialresemblance to any other second-reading speech, andhad a different title. This stands as a symbol of a

minister out of touch with her portfolio and agovernment embarrassed by ministers all over the placewho suffer exactly the same deficiency.

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) —Tonight we are seeing an honest attempt to correct theparliamentary record and procedures, and we see fromthe opposition a sleazy and dirty attempt by aleadership aspirant in the Liberal Party. What we willsee tonight is a succession of people who want to beleaders of the Liberal Party, led first and foremost bythe honourable member for Hawthorn. What happenedearlier on today is that the Minister for Planning, onreceipt of a second-reading speech from thedepartment — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the house toquieten down! The Chair is having difficulty in hearingthe minister.

Mr BATCHELOR — On receipt of asecond-reading speech from the department — —


Mr Richardson — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,I draw your attention to the disrespectful delight beingshown by the members of the government to thediscomfort of the minister, and I think you shouldrebuke them for it!

The SPEAKER — Order! That is clearly not apoint of order.

Mr BATCHELOR — On receipt from thedepartment of a second-reading speech that was sent tothe Parliament today to be read for item no. 3, orders ofthe day, Building (Further Amendment) Bill, theMinister for Planning in responding to the call from theChair at that time was provided with a second-readingspeech entitled ‘Building (Further — —


Mr BATCHELOR — I am sorry! I made the samemistake. It shows how easy it is!

The Minister for Planning read out a second-readingspeech that related to the Building (Amendment) Bill.There was a one-word discrepancy between the titles,and the bill provided to the minister by the departmentwas for a different, earlier bill on a similar — —

Mr Perton — Come on!



Mr BATCHELOR — The minister delivered thatsecond-reading speech and she understood at itsconclusion that it was not the correct one and she hassought since that time to have the record corrected, andwe are doing so now. There is no ambiguity: a mistakewas made by the department, and the minister, inreading out the second-reading speech that wasprovided to her by the Whip through the normal andtraditional processes, provided it to the house.Second-reading speeches are important because theyare documents to which the courts refer. It is for thatreason that we are going through this difficult processto make sure that the record is correct.

We have just seen the honourable member forHawthorn, an aspirant for the leadership of the LiberalParty, come in and make his job application when thegovernment is simply trying to provide to thecommunity and to future legal processes certainty ofoutcome and certainty of the deliberations of thisParliament. We are doing that tonight.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! Thatis exactly what is happening. The government isattempting to place in context the correct proceduresand we will do that with tonight’s proceedings. I havenot seen the opposition in this chamber so animated andso enlivened, and it just shows you what misplacedpriorities it has. Opposition members are being led intheir attack by the honourable member for Hawthorn, amember of Parliament who does not know whether heis coming or going. On the one hand, he is a member ofthe Savage Club and on the other he is a member ofFriends of the Zoo!


Mr BATCHELOR — There are quite a few onyour side who know what is coming!

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, thismotion is designed to expunge the public record of thisParliament and to excuse a minister for incompetence.While both of the lead speakers — namely, the ministerand the shadow minister — have a wide range, theLeader of the House is confined to providing anexplanation for incompetence not by blaming thedepartment, but by giving an explanation ofincompetence and not using this debate as anopportunity to attack the opposition. He is confined toproviding an explanation, and I ask you to bring himback to order.

The SPEAKER — Order! Essentially what isbefore the Chair is a procedural motion. The Ministerfor Transport shall confine his remarks to the

constraints that are imposed by the procedural motionbefore the Chair.

Mr BATCHELOR — We in the government areexplaining to the house tonight that the departmentprovided the inappropriate and wrong second-readingspeech. Unfortunately the honourable member forHawthorn has never had the opportunity, indeed theprivilege, of being a minister — I doubt that he will —and if the honourable member for Hawthorn understoodthat he would realise that ministers are provided withsecond-reading speeches not of their own making butbecause they are legally binding documents.

The honourable member for Hawthorn in his speechexposed himself as representing Raiders of the LostArk — the Liberal Party in Victoria. And this typifiesthe attitude of the Liberal Party tonight. Being amember of both the Savage Club and Friends of theZoo — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, weare back to the pattern of question time. You havealready drawn the minister back to the subject of thedebate; he is now defying your ruling. I ask you toeither sit him down or suspend him.

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point oforder and I ask the minister to confine his remarks tothe motion before the Chair.

Mr BATCHELOR — Tonight the Liberal Partywants to create a mountain out of a molehill — it wantsto create an incident where there is not one. A simplemistake was made by the department — —

Mr Perton interjected.

Mr BATCHELOR — As a minister in theDepartment of Infrastructure it is my intention, as withthe Minister for Planning, to take the matter up with thedepartment to try to find out why this has happened.But if the honourable member for Hawthorn chooses tomake his pitch for the leadership here tonight, he isclearly mistaken.

Mr Perton — On a further point of order,Mr Speaker, it ought to be ‘Three strikes and you’reout!’. This is the third attempt by the minister to defyyour earlier ruling, and I ask you to bring him back tothe subject of debate. I suggest, again, you either nothear him any further or take other action.

The SPEAKER — Order! On this occasion I do notuphold the further point of order raised by thehonourable member for Doncaster. The comment that



the minister was making was about his responsibilityfor the Department of Infrastructure.

Mr BATCHELOR — The honourable member forDoncaster is well known within the Department ofInfrastructure as a misogynist. I cannot help hisreputation in the department. He does not like — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I will not permit theMinister for Transport to go down that track. I ask himto confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr BATCHELOR — The Parliament is a placethat is made up of human beings. We are provided withassistance — —

Mr McArthur interjected.

Mr BATCHELOR — The honourable member forMonbulk says, ‘So is the department’. That is right. Thedepartment, as is the Parliament, is made up of humanbeings, and in this case the department made a mistake.We are not living in Taliban-controlled Afghanistanwhere we cut off the hands of those who put forwardthe wrong second-reading speech. We are not living inthat sort of environment. We are living in an open anddemocratic society. We are all servants of theParliament.

The comments that are being made tonight are nothingless than an attempt by a bunch of bullyboys tohumiliate a member of the government. But all they aredoing is humiliating themselves, because they cannotconceal their arrogance, their contempt, theirsuperiority and their self-seeking privilege. Everybodyelse in the world other than themselves they regard withcontempt, and that attitude has oozed and permeatedtonight. It has spread all round the chamber tonight. Wehave seen the despicable behaviour of the honourablemember for Hawthorn: when the government attemptsto correct a genuine mistake, he seeks to make politicalmileage out of it.

It might be the benchmark that is used within theLiberal Party to try to enhance one’s own reputation,but it is not acceptable here in the Parliament. Amistake was made by the department and the ministerhad to correct it, and I am happy to support the ministerin doing that. What do the Liberal opposition memberswant? They would be happier to have this mistakeembedded in the legislative record, to create uncertaintyand difficulties within the judicial process and toattempt to bring the Parliament into disrepute.

Mr Perton — You were drunk!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to cease interjecting forthwith.

Mr BATCHELOR — Members of the LiberalParty have tonight demonstrated their lack of bonafides, their lack of understanding and their preparednessto entrench a problem in the legislative and subsequentjudicial process in order to create difficulties not onlyfor the community at large but for the building industryin particular.

We can see by the Liberal Party’s attitude and itsconduct in this chamber tonight that its members do notcare about the importance of the building industry inproviding jobs, investment and certainty into the future.Notwithstanding the negative role of the Liberal Partytonight, this government will put the corrective processin place to ensure that the laws and the procedures thatthe opposition has agreed to will be moved forward.

This is a disgraceful and despicable attempt by thehonourable member for Hawthorn to try and promotehimself before the Liberal Party because of his — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order Mr Speaker, youhave ruled twice on the minister’s not being relevant tothe debate. This is the third time he has tried to violateyour earlier ruling, and I ask you to either bring himback to order or sit him down.

The SPEAKER — Order! I was listening carefullyto the Minister for Transport, and I was and am of theopinion that he was keeping his remarks within theconfines of the motion. It seems to me that thehonourable member for Doncaster, on hearing theMinister for Transport mention the honourable memberfor Hawthorn, immediately takes a point of order. TheChair needs to hear more than that before it can upholdhis point of order.

Mr BATCHELOR — I understand Liberalmembers trying to silence my explanation of what hashappened. It typifies their reaction: they do not want thetruth to come out. So while we can understand theinherent contradictions that exist within the LiberalParty and within the honourable member forHawthorn — the problem of being a friend of theanimals and eating the animals at the same time — it istypical — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The Minister Transportshall confine his remarks to the motion. The Chair ishaving some difficulty with the tack that he is nowtaking.

Mr BATCHELOR — It is because the attitude ofthe honourable member for Hawthorn is one of cant



and hypocrisy. We think the honourable member’sapproach is typical of that of the Liberal Party in thischamber, in that it has nothing to do with trying toproduce a good outcome and everything to do withtrying to frustrate this chamber and the procedures ofthis Parliament.

We in the government support the bill before you, Sir,and we support the attempt by the Minister for Planningto put on the record the correct second-reading speech.We reject absolutely the puerile attempts made bymembers of the Liberal Party to try and thwart thelegislative and judicial processes of this state fromhereon in by trying to prevent this correction takingplace.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — This appears to bethe story of the prompter and the printer. First up, thegovernment is trying to say that the prompter got itwrong, that the person who delivered the speech made amistake and that Mary was only the script reader.Secondly, the printer is trying to change absolutelyeverything.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable membershall refer to members by their proper names.

Mr McARTHUR — The minister read the wrongscript, and now we have the printer trying to explainthat it was all somebody else’s fault.

Let’s look at what happened. This mistake, which wasmade by the Minister for Planning, was drawn to theattention of Parliament by none other than thehonourable member for Hawthorn. The Minister forTransport is saying that the Liberal Party is trying todamage the government’s legislative program andtrying to prevent the proper record being put on publicdisplay.

Nothing could be further from the truth, for if this issuehad not been raised by the honourable member forHawthorn then the wrong second-reading speech wouldhave gone onto the record, because the minister wastotally unaware of it! She was so unaware of it thatwhen it was brought to her attention three times shedeclared, ‘No, I have got the right speech’. So if thisaction had not been taken by the honourable memberfor Hawthorn, the incorrect speech would have goneinto Hansard and it would have been part of the publicrecord tomorrow.

Once this was drawn to the Labor Party’s attention andwe were subsequently approached by the Minister forTransport about the ways and means of sorting out theminister’s foul-up, a range of options was canvassed.The one that was chosen by agreement, as the Minister

for Transport said earlier, between the minister and meis the one that we are now proceeding with. What weare doing, by leave — I repeat and emphasise, byleave — is changing it, because if we had not and if wehad followed the normal processes of this place, thismatter would have been dealt with tomorrow. Theminister would then have had to give notice of thismotion, and it would have been dealt with in theordinary course of events tomorrow. But because weare keen to assist the government and to ensure thatthere is not a confusing duplication of second-readingspeeches on the record, we are doing this tonight byleave.

It would have taken only one member of this place tosay, ‘Leave refused’, and this would have had to bedealt with tomorrow. The result would have been twosecond-reading speeches on this bill on the publicrecord, both of which could have been referred to, asthe honourable member for Hawthorn pointed out, bycourts or lawyers at a future date in relation to disputeson the bill’s contents.

We have a two-part procedural motion, which is theother thing that surprises me. The first is that part of thepublic record — a section of Hansard — be expunged,deleted and wiped. The second is that we have tosuspend the rules and operating instructions of thisplace — the standing orders — to allow thisincompetent minister to read the correct speech.

I refer to a standing order which you, Mr Speaker,know well. It is standing order 64 — the same-questionrule — which states that a question having once beenput in this Parliament cannot be put again before thenext Parliament. So in this procedural motion we aresuspending standing order 64 to allow the minister todo tonight exactly what she did earlier today — that is,to stand up and say, ‘I move that this bill be now read asecond time’. Ordinarily she could not do it, but she isdoing it with our grace and favour — and she shouldhave the grace to admit that, as should the Minister forTransport.

The opposition is assisting the government to correctthe minister’s mistake — and it is solely the minister’smistake. She may try, assisted by the Minister forTransport, to blame the department and say, ‘They gaveme the wrong script’, but it is the no. 1 responsibility ofa minister to take a bill to cabinet to have it approved atcabinet, and included in that bill-at-cabinet process — ithas been so for many years, although this governmentmay have dropped it — is the delivery of thesecond-reading speech to cabinet at the same time asthe bill and the preparedness to have the second-readingspeech discussed.



That process presumes that the minister taking that billto cabinet will have read the second-reading speechbefore taking it to cabinet and that the minister mayeven by some chance have read the bill. If that is thecase and if subsequently the wrong speech is deliveredsomewhere, the minister should at least recognise itvery early on.

During the course of delivering the second-readingspeech the minister was reminded three times that itwas probably the wrong speech, but still she did notrecognise it and did not admit it. She said, ‘No, it’s theright one and I want to continue’. We now have thisextraordinary argument from the Minister for Transportand the Minister for Planning, who are saying, ‘Look,there’s only a one-word difference in the title’. Theremight be a one-word difference in the title, but there isa 1000-word difference in the text! There is a massivedifference in the text.

It is not unusual for bills to be brought in here with aone-word difference in the title. Take for example theBuilding Bill, the Building (Amendment) Bill, and theBuilding (Further Amendment) Bill, and the Water Bill,the Water (Amendment) Bill and the Water (FurtherAmendment) Bill. It is an ordinary, regular andmuch-repeated process in which bill titles have oneword different from a previous bill, and it is theminister’s responsibility to recognise that.

No public servant is at fault here. One minister, andonly one, made the mistake. As a result the business ofthe Parliament has to be interrupted; debate on a billwhich the government regards as the most importantbill it is presenting this sitting has to be interrupted; anddebate on a bill in which many members of the publicon either side of the fence have a vital interest has to beinterrupted. Members of the public may well havecome to Parliament expecting to hear debate on theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Billand instead they are witnessing a procedural change toallow a minister to correct a fundamental error in thetext that anyone would expect a grade 5 student torecognise very early on.

It is a sad circumstance that we have to do it.Nevertheless, it is being done with the support of theLiberal Party — not against the wishes of the LiberalParty, as the Minister for Transport has said. TheLiberal Party has agreed to this process. It has givenleave for this process to occur, and it agrees that thereshould not be two second-reading speeches on thepublic record.

The opposition does not want the courts to be confusedwhen determining any future dispute on the

interpretation of the legislation, so it is cooperating inassisting the government in this process. It does,however, consider it a sad thing that when theopposition assists the government to get it right after ithas made such an elementary mistake the governmentseeks to blame the public sector and the department.

We have the extraordinary spectacle of the two mostsenior ministers in the Department of Infrastructuresaying, ‘It is my department that got it wrong — blamethe department’. They have lost faith in the people whosupport them, who provide them with advice and whogive them the wherewithal to carry out their tasks. It isan extraordinary thing to see in this place two ministersfrom one department attacking their own department inone debate. One could well understand it if in the futurethe members of that department were somewhatreluctant to assist their ministers. I expect that becausethey are professionals they will not do that. However, itwould be a totally understandable and very humanreaction.

This is a sad situation. It is caused by a simple mistakewhich the minister should have recognised andcorrected earlier and to which the minister should havehad the grace to admit without blaming her department.All of us are under pressure in this place from time totime and all of us get the chance to correct the recordfrom time to time if we make a mistake, but very fewpeople have made this level of mistake in the past. Ihave checked with longstanding members who havememories of this place going back 25 and 30 years andthey tell me that this has not happened in this place inthe past 25 years. It has probably not happened in thepast 50 years, because if it had the people who came in25 years ago would very likely have heard about it incorridor discussions of the major events and stuff-upsthat happened in this place before their time.

This is likely to be an unprecedented event and it hasdisrupted the ordinary and regular business of the houseand turned it on its head because of the simple and sillymistake of one person who is not responsible enough toadmit that she has made the mistake, does not takeresponsibility for carrying out her role in a professionalmanner, is prepared to simply read the script that is putin front of her regardless of whether it is the correctscript, and then seeks to blame her underlings when anerror is made.

That is a sad thing for the minister and it is a sad thingfor this Parliament. Nevertheless, this matter needs tobe dealt with and the Liberal opposition will not beopposing it.



Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I will take up the issue ofmisogyny and bullyboy tactics on my side of politicsthat has been raised by the Minister for Transport, and Irefute that allegation completely. Incompetence knowsno gender, and we are dealing here with an incompetentminister.

I will briefly indicate what the cabinet process is. Whena bill goes to cabinet the responsible minister signs offon the second-reading speech. This minister has signedoff on a second-reading speech and then when it cameto Parliament has not recognised that it was a differentspeech. I was listening for the words from theminister — and the Liberal Party would have acceptedthem — ‘I made a mistake’. The department did notmake a mistake; the minister made a mistake. Theminister did not recognise that a speech that was thrustin front of her was not the correct speech — a speechshe was supposed to have signed off on and read in itsentirety. She then came into Parliament and said, ‘It’smy department’s fault that I made this mistake’.


Ms ASHER — I am keeping to an agreement tospeak for 2 minutes and I hope the Labor Party honoursthis agreement. This issue has absolutely nothing to dowith gender. It has everything to do with incompetence.

Motion agreed to.

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — Ithank the house for its consideration; I am sure we haveall enjoyed our sport. With pleasure and humility, Imove:


The main purpose of this bill is to amend the BuildingAct 1993 to transfer the responsibility for the issue ofoccupancy permits for places of public entertainmentand temporary structures from the BuildingCommission to building surveyors; to provide fortemporary structures permits to replace occupancypermits relating to temporary structures; to enableemergency orders, and building notices and buildingorders to be directed at builders in appropriate cases;and to make other improvements to the operation of theact.

The government’s 1999 election policies were based onthe New Solutions platform. Labor undertook to governhaving regard to the beliefs and values held byVictorians, which include protection and fairness.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time being10.00 p.m., I am required to interrupt the business ofthe house

Sitting continued on motion of Mr BATCHELOR(Minister for Transport).

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — As Iwas saying, the proposed amendments will facilitatethis undertaking by ensuring that building owners willhave greater fairness under the building system.

The Auditor-General conducted a performance audit ofthe regulatory system under the Building Act 1993, andin his report of May 2000 entitled Building Control inVictoria — Setting Sound Foundations the auditormade recommendations for legislative and proceduralchanges to the existing building control system.

The conclusions reached by the Auditor-General in thereport relating to the role of the commission and POPEswere that:

the commission should not be both a buildingsurveyor and a regulator under the act;

the commission should have a monitoring role forPOPEs, and this requires legislative support;

the commission should expand its collection ofinformation on all POPE venues, and this requireslegislative amendment.

The auditor’s report also identified a conflict of interestfor the role of the commission as a building surveyorunder these provisions and as a regulator of the actoverall.

The bill will address the issues raised by theAuditor-General. The bill, by transferring theresponsibility to issue occupancy permits for places ofpublic entertainment from the commission to buildingsurveyors, will improve the position of the BuildingCommission by allowing it to better concentrate on itsrole as industry regulator.

The Auditor-General also commented on the closeconnection between builders and building surveyors.The auditor recommended that the appointment of abuilding surveyor was to be that of the owner only andthat a notice of role be given to the owner onappointment. In the interests of providing greaterconsumer protection the bill will introduce a bar forprivate building surveyors accepting an appointment bya domestic builder. This will ensure that there is greaterunderstanding in the building industry by practitioners



as to the necessity to keep the building owner as theultimate client and consumer of building services.

The bill introduces a power for building notices andbuilding orders to be directed at builders. The industryoperatives responsible for issuing building notices andbuilding orders are the building surveyors. Previouslyany notice and order could only be directed at theowner. This meant that in cases where the buildercarried out defective building work the owner was theperson at risk of being issued with a building notice.This was obviously unfair for the building owner andallowed the builder to avoid being accountable for thedefective building work. The government hasrecognised the need to provide greater protection forowners under the building control system. The bill willrectify the shortfall of the current system and highlightsthe government’s strong emphasis on protection andfairness for all Victorians.

The bill contains amendments that will improve theoperation of the Building Act while also protecting theconsumers of building services in the legislativesystem. This will be achieved by including a newobligation for private building surveyors to provideowners with a notice which sets out the responsibilitiesand obligations of the building surveyor to the owner.The bill therefore raises the profile of the buildingsurveyor in the community and will assist to clearlyestablish that the owner and the community are thepriority in the building system.

These amendments will improve the operation of theBuilding Act and benefit both consumers and buildingpractitioners.




CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS ANDSERIOUS INJURIES) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr HULLS (Attorney-General).

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — The Crimes(Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill is one ofthe more difficult and contentious bills I have had todeal with since I have been in this Parliament. It hasgenerated considerable community passion andconsiderable political rhetoric, with both sides digging

themselves into their respective ditches and refusing todeal in the specifics.

The primary value that I have attempted to adhere tosince I have been a member of this Parliament is that ofbringing people together. I try not to ignore any side ofthe argument and keep looking for the middle ground.Despite my reputation I do not enjoy the adversarialapproach very much, and I prefer a negotiated outcomewhere possible. I also commit myself to watching foractual outcomes as legislation is enacted rather than justlooking at the ideology. That has been difficult toachieve with this bill.

I have spent time with umbrella groups on both sides ofthe divide, trying to work through the issues andrejecting some of the more hysterical sky-is-falling typeof arguments.

I note that as set out in clause 1 the purposes of the billare:

(a) to create new criminal offences of corporatemanslaughter and negligently causing serious injury by abody corporate …

(b) to impose criminal liability on senior officers of a bodycorporate in certain circumstances; and

(c) to increase penalties in health and safety legislation …

Honourable members know that under common law acompany can already be found guilty of manslaughteror of negligently causing serious injury — but only ifthere is one person who can be identified as being thedirecting mind and will of the corporation. It means thatsmall family companies or businesses can be foundguilty under the current law but that it is almostimpossible with large companies, where you cannotidentify that directing mind and will.

The proposed law is the same as the present law in anumber of ways: the company must actually owe a dutyof care to the person who has been injured or killed; thecompany must fail to act as a reasonable companywould have acted; and the company must be actuallygrossly negligent.

I read again from proposed new section 14B of the billto make sure honourable members are fully aware ofthe degree of negligence that is required for there to beany chance of prosecution:

(1) … the conduct of a body corporate is negligent if itinvolves —

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of carethat a reasonable body corporate would exercise inthe circumstances; and



(b) such a high risk of death or really serious injury —

that the conduct merits criminal punishment …

That is ‘serious negligence’ fairly well defined. I askthe house to note that I have circulated an amendmentthat tightens up the definition of ‘serious injury’. Theamendment conforms to the commonwealth’s modelcriminal code definition, and I hope it will addresssome of the concerns that were raised with me. Ittightens up the definition of ‘serious injury’ such that itmust be an injury or accumulation of injuries thatendangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or isor is likely to be significant and longstanding. I hope italso helps to address the concern the industry groupshave raised — namely, that they are hoping there willbe a national standard rather than specific statewidestandards — and that a commonwealth model willencourage other states to also adopt that same definitionand that same model.

The main differences between the proposed law and thecurrent law are that the conduct of an employee, agentor senior officer doing their job can be aggregated andattributed to the company; that all the company’sconduct is to be considered in determining this grossnegligence; and where the company has committed anoffence the senior officer of the company may also befound guilty. I register and note that the industry groupshave expressed a great deal of concern about that aspectof the bill.

The bill contains four pretty intense steps which have tobe proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a seniorofficer of a body corporate could be found guilty ofgross criminal negligence. Firstly, it has to be provedthe body corporate has committed the offence.Secondly, it has to be proved that the senior officer ofthat body was organisationally responsible for theconduct and contributed to the commission of theoffence — and my second amendment increases thelevel of involvement from just contributing materiallyto the offence to contributing substantially to theoffence, and I hope that helps address some of theconcerns expressed by the industry groups.

It also must be proved that this senior officer knew, as aconsequence of his or her conduct, that there was asubstantial risk of death or really serious injury, and thatit was unjustifiable to allow that substantial risk tocontinue. That is a very high bar before there is anypossibility of anybody being found guilty ofserious — —

Mr Perton — What will you do if they do notaccept your amendments?

Ms DAVIES — I respond to the honourablemember for Doncaster’s interjection by saying that thegovernment has accepted my amendments. It was likegetting blood from a stone but we got there in the end.

I also note that there has been a lot of discussion in thehouse about the bill containing very severe penaltiesand taking a punitive approach. Proposed section 14Dinserted by clause 3 gives the court the option of a morecreative version of an alternative sort of a penalty whichcan be imposed on a corporation and which issomething like the old public shaming. I suppose it isan innovative version of public shaming that could bequite effective. Rather than a corporation paying a fineor somebody going to jail, it may have to publicise itsoffence and the outcomes of its offence, which could besomebody’s injuries or death. It may have to distributenotices to shareholders, and it may have to carry out aproject for the public benefit. They are innovativemeasures and are worthy of consideration.

The bill also raises penalties under a range ofoccupational health and safety legislation measures. Ihave noted the concerns expressed by the industryumbrella groups that the approach to workplace safetyneeds to be collaborative and not combative, and thatwe should provide incentives as well as the stick. Icompletely agree with those claims by industry groups.The Workcover review which is being undertaken atthe moment is aiming to put more weight on theexperience of a company when determining Workcoverpremiums. I can think of no greater incentive tocompanies to closely follow acceptable workplacepractices than to offer that financial incentive. I canonly strongly suggest to the government that it shouldmake that a very clear priority. A good work safetyrecord in a particular workplace, particularly in a typeof industry that has been traditionally hazardous, mustbe rewarded financially with lower Workcoverpremiums.

Another concern raised with me by the industry groupsrelated to the open-ended nature and uncertainty aroundwhat constitutes a safe workplace. I have made aconcentrated effort to deal with that issue in my secondamendment, which reads:

For the purposes of sections 13 and 14 —

that is, the workplace deaths or injuries —

if the conduct of a body corporate complies with theOccupational Health and Safety Act 1985, regulations madeunder that Act and any relevant code of practice approvedunder that Act, it must be presumed, in the absence ofevidence to the contrary, that the conduct of the bodycorporate is not negligent.



That means that the desire to legally protect oneself, ascompanies will want to do if this sort of legislation isbrought in, is best served by complying withoccupational health and safety requirements. I believethat is a serious attempt to address concerns that havebeen raised with me by both the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce and the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry about thelegislation somehow shifting the focus from preventionto self-preservation. With this amendment,self-preservation is best served by very close adherenceto occupational health and safety regulations and laws.

Another concern raised with me was about the impactof penalties on the economic viability of companies andtherefore their opportunities to continue employingpeople and producing goods that are needed. A furtheramendment that I would ask the house to consider willrequire that the court take into consideration the size ofa body corporate when determining any fines. Againthat may be a valuable amendment to help addresssome of those concerns raised with me.

During her contribution to the debate I heard thehonourable member for Brighton read from a list ofrecent workplace deaths. She referred to some verytragic farm deaths. I am perfectly well aware that thereare a disproportionate number of farm deaths in thetotal workplace deaths that still occur. It was somewhatdeceptive of the honourable member for Brighton toread out the list of those deaths in relation to this bill.None of the deaths she read out would be consideredindustrial manslaughter under this legislation, as thehonourable member and the Victorian FarmersFederation well know.

Family businesses now can be prosecuted successfullyunder common law if that is appropriate and if acriminal offence has been committed. This legislationattempts to bring into the view of the law those whocannot be held accountable at the moment.

I know that the amendments I have successfullynegotiated with the government are not enough to meetall the concerns that have been raised, but I believe theygo some of the way. I ask business groups to leavebehind their current trench and have a look at what wehave achieved. The government has agreed to supportthese amendments and I, in return, will support this billas amended. I will also support the government’s tabledamendments, which will bring the public sector underthe view of this bill. That is an entirely appropriateamendment.

As this legislation moves between the lower and upperhouses, I urge all sides of the house and parties outside

this Parliament who have an interest in this bill to takethe time to talk again. At the moment, the parties’stance on this bill seems to depend on who you want todescribe as the weaker member of society. Theopposition seems to define the employers as being theweak victims of this legislation, whereas thegovernment defines the working person as the victim. Ican see potential in both of those points of view, butoverall there is no other way that I can define the realvictims as any other than the people who die, and theyare the employees. Perhaps even worse and definitely inmuch greater numbers are those people who are stillbeing injured, sometimes accidentally, but occasionallyand horrifically through other people’s gross criminalnegligence.

I do not like the absence of a negotiated outcome onthis bill, but I believe it is very important to continuethe dialogue and I am hoping that my contribution inobtaining these amendments and continuing to discussthe bill enables all parties to continue that dialogue. Ibelieve that education, encouragement and, specificallyfor most companies, financial incentives, mustcontinue. But in the end sometimes a bit of stick justhelps.

The strongest argument for this legislation was given tome by an industry group. The group’s representativesaid to me, and I am paraphrasing rather than quoting,that since this legislation has been mooted by thisgovernment employers have been making huge effortsto improve their focus on occupational health andsafety in the workplace. For me that was a very strongargument for the bill. Sometimes we just need a bit ofextra to help people focus on the basic issues. I hopethat everybody concerned with this legislation will opentheir minds to the need to get out of their trenches andkeep working on what I hope will ultimately be anegotiated outcome.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — Firstly, I want todispute a statement by the honourable member forGippsland West in relation to farm deaths last year. If Iheard the honourable member correctly, she said that innone of those cases could the farm families have beenprosecuted if the provisions of this bill had been inoperation. I do not think that is right. On the advice thatI have at least two of those cases were definitelyincorporated and several more may well have had theinvolvement of incorporated trusts, in which case thislaw would have come into play if it had been in place atthe time. I will come back to that in more detail later.

I support unconditionally the notion of improved safetyin the workplace and the argument that we need to takewhatever effective steps are available to us to achieve



this. We should adopt a cooperative and proactiveregime to improve safety in industrial workplaces, andparticularly in relation to agricultural workplaces whichform part of my portfolio, because there are aninordinately high number of deaths in that area. I willdeal with that issue later.

I will not be supporting this legislation, however,because I do not think it does any of those things. Idraw the attention of honourable members to clause 1,which outlines the purposes of the bill. There is nothingin the purposes of this bill which is aimed at improvingworkplace safety. It is all about punishment. Clause 1reads:

1. Purposes

The purposes of this Act are —

(a) to create new criminal offences of corporatemanslaughter and negligently causing serious injury by abody corporate in certain circumstances; and

(b) to impose criminal liability on senior officers of a bodycorporate in certain circumstances; and

(c) to increase penalties in health and safety legislation; and

(d) to make other miscellaneous amendments to health andsafety legislation.

There is not one word about improving workplacehealth or safety. It is all about increasing punishments,increasing penalties and taking the big stick to people inrelation to industrial accidents.

I want to deal with this from two angles. The first is inrelation to my shadow portfolio responsibilities,particularly in agriculture. I think this is very pertinentbecause, as has been pointed out by a number ofcommentators in the public arena and other speakers inthis place, agriculture has an inordinately high numberof workplace accidents and deaths. Last year there were13 fatalities on farms, but I think that figure in itself ismisleading; I do not think it is accurate to say that all ofthose were workplace related. I think it is quite arguablethat some of them were in fact recreational, but theyoccurred on farms so they are measured. Neverthelesswe should do what we can to reduce that number.

The other point I make about those is that of the13 fatalities, 7 were people 60 years of age or over.That is a reflection of the age of our farmingcommunity. I left farming when I was 40, and I was avery young farmer in my area. Most of my neighbourswere far older than me, and some were 30 or 40 yearsolder. It is a sad reflection on the economic viability ofagriculture over the past 30 to 40 years that it is not aparticularly attractive occupation for many young

people and there are better opportunities, more moneyand brighter lights in regional and metropolitan cities.We have seen a rapidly increasing age in the farmingwork force in recent decades.

I suggest one of the things we need to take into accountin this regard is that because farmers of that age — inthis case they were 60, 65, 78, 86, 60 and 77 — areoften frail, their reflexes are slower, their awareness islower and their faculties of hearing and sight havediminished they are more likely to suffer accidents inthe course of their work, even though they may havebeen doing this work for decades.

I use my own father as an example. My father grew upon the land, and except for his war service he spentvirtually his whole life of the land. But when he was 75and getting on towards 80 he made elementarymistakes around the place, not because he did not knowbut just because he did not react as well, see as well orhear as well as before. He is fortunate in that he did notdie as a result of any of those accidents, but he certainlyseverely injured himself in a couple of cases. That mustbe taken into account when considering the impact ofaccidents in agriculture.

Secondly, we need to look at how this law, if it were tocome into place, would apply. It is a truism to say thatwhen lawyers have a law at their disposal they look atthe easiest target first in order to try the law on.Whether you are a plaintiff lawyer or a prosecutor, youlook at your best chance of winning before you take acase. I put it to members of the house that the nationaland multinational corporations — the major employersin Australia — will have very good defences against alaw such as this. They will have corporate lawyers,consultant lawyers and workplace managementprograms which will protect the directors and seniorofficers from penalties imposed under this legislation.

The people who will not have that sort of sophisticateddefence mechanism are the small and mediumenterprises that employ between 1 and 20 people,because they simply cannot afford that. The peoplemost at risk from a prosecution under this law areemployers who are incorporated, perhaps who employthemselves. Let me give the house a couple ofexamples. There were a couple of examples in those13 deaths on farms of incorporated family businessesthat employed the owners of the business. It is entirelylikely, in fact I would think highly probable, that theearlier prosecutions that are likely to be taken to court ifthis bill becomes law will be in those sorts of areas —the case where a family farm is run by Joe and MaryBloggs Pty Ltd and has four directors. It might be mum,dad and a couple of sons, or a son and a



daughter-in-law, or a couple of the daughters. Whateverit happens to be, some will be of the next generationand all will be directors and employed by the company.

All of them will know that not all of their equipment isabsolutely up to the top-notch safety standard, becausethat is the way farms operate — it simply does nothappen in every case on a farm. The tractor’s brakes area bit wonky; the power take-off shaft safety covers havecracks in them or they are non-existent; the safety guardon the auger has been removed for whatever reason —perhaps for repair — and has not been put back on; orsome belt pulleys are not covered. Those sorts of thingsare day-to-day occurrences on farms; we should fixthem, but they happen now.

Imagine the circumstance where all of the four or fivewho are owners, directors and employees of this familyfirm may have used certain equipment from time totime and one is tragically killed or seriously injured inan accident there. The prosecutors look at the brief andsay, ‘Yes, all of the directors were aware of thesubstandard equipment or equipment that was not up toroadworthy standard’. It would be easy to imagine ascenario where that was a soft target for lawyers, andthat would establish precedents for further successfulprosecutions down the track. This family would thenhave to go through the tragedy of, firstly, the seriousaccident or perhaps the bereavement, and secondly,facing the appalling prospect of a prosecution afterhaving lost or had seriously injured a member of theirfamily.

I would support the government if it were looking atimproving workplace safety on those farms, but I donot think it is sensible to say to the farmer who mayhave lost a son, daughter, wife or husband, ‘You willalso be subject to a criminal prosecution formanslaughter, or for committing serious injury becauseyou are incorporated, whereas your next-doorneighbour operates as a partnership and that would nothappen there’. The legislation is discriminatory. It islikely to impinge on those who can least defendthemselves against it, and it will have no real impact onworkplace safety on the farms. What it will do is stopfarmers employing people and stop them incorporating.They will go into things like trusts in order to avoidcriminal liability. It will create artificial attempts toavoid the matter.

The Victorian Farmers Federation states in a letter:

If legislated, the proposal would force many rural Victoriansto seek employment in major metropolitan regions becauseemployment opportunities would be reduced. The loss ofpopulation to the major cities would have a disastrous impacton many smaller rural communities.

The VFF believes that the proposals fail to provide a solutionto workplace deaths and will have a negative impact on themanagement of health and safety at the workplace. Theprovisions offer no encouragement for employers to improveoccupational, health and safety policies or practices.

The VFF believes workplace deaths and injuries can be bestprevented through education and training of employers onworkplace safety.

Hear, hear! I agree.

The VFF requests Liberal Party members to oppose theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill in theParliament. The bill is a bad law and should be opposed as apackage, it would not be appropriate to seek amendments tominimise the impact of the bills provisions, nor to addressspecific failings.

The letter is signed by Peter Walsh, president of theVictorian Farmers Federation, and is dated 22 April thisyear.

The other issue in relation to agriculture is that there aremany contractors on farms, and many of them appearon farms for a very short period of time. There areagricultural lime spreaders, fertiliser spreaders, boomspray contractors, crop dusters, fencing contractors andshearing contractors. There are dozens of differenttypes of agriculture contractors. As I understand it thisbill would impose a duty on an incorporated farmer or afarmer who had an incorporated trust to be responsiblefor the work safety records of the contractors whoworked on their farms. As I understand it, the situationcould arise where if shearers were killed in a roadaccident after hooning around or something like thatwhile driving to or from work, that could negativelyaffect the farmer, who could be exposed to prosecutionunder this bill. I am happy for the government to clarifythat, but that is the way I read the bill, and that iscertainly the advice I have had.

I wrote widely about the bill to people in my electorate,but none of them has written to me to support thelegislation. I had letters opposing it fromAA Recycling, Bruce Wright and David Nutter Ford.The Shire of Yarra Ranges thought it would not work,as did Silvandale Transport and organisations like theVictorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and theVictorian Congress of Employer Associations. Ofcourse I had one letter from the Victorian Trades HallCouncil. I believe it was the only letter I received insupport of the legislation, and I think that shows whereit gets its horsepower.

The bill is entirely union sponsored. The governmenthas introduced it as a result of a promise to its unionfriends, but I do not think it will do anything to improveworkplace safety across Victoria. I certainly think it



will diminish workplace safety and economicopportunities in country Victoria. On that basis, I willbe opposing it.

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — On12 November 1998 two 18-year-olds — AnthonyCarrick and his mate — started work. It was Anthony’sfirst day at work, and it killed him. The boys weredropped off at Drybulk Pty Ltd in Footscray by a labourhire company, with no training or safety equipment.They were told to sweep the floor in front of several5.5 tonne cement walls. The unrestrained slabs hadbeen known to shift and wobble through the vibrationof nearby traffic on Coode Road. The slabs were inplace to protect the shed walls. One fell: Anthony waskilled and his mate received serious crushing injuries tohis back, pelvis and legs.

Drybulk was fined $50 000, but the company wasliquidated and as yet the fine is unpaid. Similarly,separate court orders for loss, pain and suffering thatwere awarded to Anthony’s family and his survivingmate remain unpaid. The company has not beencharged with common-law manslaughter; and thecompany which owned Drybulk now operates from thesame premises.

This is one of the reasons why I support the bill.Manslaughter is manslaughter wherever it mayhappen — in the community, in the suburbs or in theworkplace. I support the legislation because it is theright thing to do and because it is the Labor thing to do.I support it precisely because only the Australian LaborParty can bring this legislation into this chamber. Isupport it because the opposition would not have thevision, the courage or the decency to bring legislationof its kind into this place. I support it because it is theright thing to do by workers. I support it because it isthe right thing to do by the right employers, themajority of whom would not commit gross negligenceor allow serious injuries to occur in the workplace. Infact we are only referring to the minority.

The opposition should be ashamed for coming into thischamber and misleading members of the public bytelling them that it applies to each and every case outthere in the community. It certainly does not! It onlyapplies to those who are negligent and commit grossnegligence and have to go through the courts, comebefore their peers and a jury and have to have casesproved against them beyond reasonable doubt. It isabsolutely hypocritical for the opposition to come intothis place and talk about farmers and a whole range ofcases for which we feel sympathy, but this bill does notapply to them — and the opposition knows it. They aremisleading this chamber.

This bill is about right to life in the workplace. This billis about being able to say to families that they can sendtheir relatives, husbands, wives and children to theworkplace in the expectation that they will be returnedhome safely and alive. This is the right bill to bring intothis chamber. I am not surprised, because if you goback to the history of workers compensation in thisstate you would find that it is the same opposition, thesame Liberal and National parties, that time and againopposed legislation that was brought into theParliament to ensure that workers were properly andadequately protected.

It is not surprising that those parties opposed us whenwe argued that there were repetitive strain injuries inthe workplace or when back injuries were taking place.It is the same opposition that comes into this place andtells us that this legislation will affect companies,talking purely about money and not about lives.

I am restrained by time. There are many arguments thatall of us would like to put on the record, but in order toensure that every colleague in this place has theopportunity to put their position I conclude by sayingthat I wish the bill a speedy passage. It is the Laborthing to do in the state, and we are proud of that. Theopposition should be ashamed of itself for thehypocritical and misleading arguments it has broughtinto the chamber.

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — It is always a pleasureto follow the honourable member for Sunshine, who isa member of the Law Reform Committee.

Why is the opposition opposing this bill? Let me trace itthrough my own work history. By training I am apersonnel manager, which means I have beenresponsible for occupational health and safety andindustrial relations. I have also run a small business. Ioppose this legislation because the whole of mytraining and work experience dictates that the very bestway to change behaviour is by education and trainingand not necessarily by legislation or punitive measures.Nobody in this chamber has anything but sympathy andcompassion for the families of those who have beenkilled at work. Nobody would deny that those aretragedies and that we should endeavour to doeverything within our power to ensure that no-one elsegoes to work and does not return.

However, I have a real problem with introducing apiece of legislation that punishes an employer. Basedon my industrial relations training and my work inoccupational health and safety and personnelmanagement, I believe that the best form of resolvingthese issues is not by waving a heavy stick at people



and threatening corporations with massive fines orthreatening individuals with jail but by education andby communication.

I have to say that I support the issues raised by manyindustry groups, which have traced over the last 10 or15 years those times when they have built up a muchbetter level of communication with their work force,particularly small businesses, and I will relate this inspecific terms to small business and to the smallbusinesses in my electorate.

One of the problems is that we are now going to returnto a combative environment of us and them, whereaswe have all worked very hard in the field of personneland human resources to break down precisely that — totalk to members of staff and train for it. What would beworse would be a perception that we would be back tothe old pyramidal days of commitment andresponsibility, where the boss is some sort of villainstuck at the top in their ivory tower with a great viewand a polished desk and the poor old workers are stuckat the bottom. The reality is that we have moved a longway from that.

When I first trained those were the sorts of pyramidalstructures we were dealing with in organisations. I amdelighted to say that times have changed: organisationshave become much flatter in their structure,communications have become much better andcompanies have become more responsible. Putting thissort of legislation in place probably will not catch therogue or killer companies, or whatever it was that theAttorney-General referred to, anyway. If they are thatbad they will probably be so smart they will make surethey do not get caught.

One of the things that worries me is that by introducinga piece of legislation like this you create anenvironment in which those who are genuinely trying todo the right thing then live under the cloud of thinkingthat whatever they do is going to be wrong. I am veryconscious of the lateness of the hour and the numbersof honourable members who want to speak on this bill,but I refer particularly to my electorate. I wrote to smallbusinesses and to medium businesses in my electorateand asked them for their views. I sent them copies ofthe second-reading speech and examples of where theymay or may not be caught under this legislation. Prettywell every single company that responded to me said,‘We do not need this to tell us how to produce a safework environment’.

In particular, in answer to the question, ‘Will it affectwhether you employ staff or run a business?’, some ofthe small businesses made observations like, ‘We will

probably close down after 50 years of work and retire’.To the question, ‘Are you in favour of this law?’, theysaid, ‘No, it is unreasonable and unnecessary’, ‘No, itwill put the union in the driver’s seat by enabling it touse health and safety concerns as a lever for otherissues’, ‘Totally unfair and unnecessary’, ‘It’s harsh andpunitive’, ‘Not in favour of the extreme nature of thelaws’, ‘What’s happened to the personnel and to theresponsibility of individuals?’, ‘Regardless of whatlegislation says, the government and law firms wantsomeone to blame’, and ‘A vary narrow-minded view’.I have no difficulty whatsoever opposing thislegislation.

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I rise this eveningto talk on the Crimes (Workplace Deaths and SeriousInjuries) Bill. This is probably the saddest circumstancethat I am going to experience in this term of theParliament because what we have seen here thisevening is sad and tragic.

On the other side of the house we have seen membersof Parliament — who a lot of people in the communityregard with a certain amount of respect — argue for theright of rogue employers to kill and maim theiremployees and be able to get off basically scot-free.How could somebody with any semblance ofconscience or decency in them actually oppose thisbill? I am being quite strong on this issue, because thisis one of the most inherently decent and fair bills thathas ever come before the Parliament.

What does the Weekly Times say on this bill? As acountry member I regularly read that paper. On theeditorial page an article by Peter Hunt argues:

The VFF is failing its members in its stance on proposedworkplace safety legislation …

He says further:

Why should they be able to hide behind the protective wall ofthe corporation, while the vast majority of farmers, as smallbusiness operators, have to take responsibility for theiractions?

If 98 per cent of Australia’s 111 000 farm enterprises areunaffected by this legislation, then why should the VFFexecutive be so passionate about protecting so few?

He means that 98 per cent of current farmers cancurrently go to jail if they negligently kill theiremployees. Honourable members opposite, some ofwhom are members of the Victorian FarmersFederation, say that the top 2 per cent, who aremembers of corporations, should be exempt from thelaws that 98 per cent of farmers currently work under.We are not talking about some bizarre or terriblelegislation that will close businesses down. If any



business closes down because of legislation, then itshould not be in business in the first place because thereality is as we have seen in the article in the WeeklyTimes, which is a conservative publication and certainlynot one that trumpets Labor policy from time to time.What it has said is quite clear, and what it says aboutsmall farmers also affects small business.

The fact is that if you run a small business directlyemploying an employee you are currently subject to thelaw and you could go to jail if you kill your employee.It is only when you can hide behind a corporate bodyand deflect the blame that you become exempt. Theopposition is saying that it believes that under currentlegislation people who run small business — littlebusinesses — should be going to jail, but if they getlarger they should have the right to hide behind theircorporation.

Why should people in big business have the right to killand maim and those running a small business not havethat same right? What a hypocritical approach! If theopposition considers this legislation is so bad forcorporations, why does it not propose the same thingfor the 98 per cent of farmers and other smallbusinesses?

What opposition members are saying can only bedescribed as a complete and utter joke, and it is tragicthat I have to stand here and argue this point —absolutely tragic! If honourable members opposite hadany decency at all they would accept that if it is all rightfor 98 per cent of farmers, then the top 2 per centshould not be exempt. Why is it that if you are wealthyenough and own a corporation and can deflect theblame you want to be able to get away scot-free? I findthat absolutely amazing. I wonder whether those peopleon the other side of the house taking that position willsleep tonight knowing how despicable their actions are.

I am very proud to stand up as part of a governmentthat looks after the workers in this state in a way inwhich we can be very proud.

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — The only tragedy isfollowing the honourable member for Narracan, whoclearly has no idea about the substance of the bill orwhat it does!

Nobody on this side of the house is saying that thereshould be deaths in the workplace. No death in theworkplace is acceptable. Nobody should die at work —that is accepted by everybody in this house. One deathin the workplace is one death too many. However, themost important thing is that everybody has tounderstand what the legislation is about. It is not the

silver bullet; it is not the solution; it is not even part ofthe solution. In fact, in many ways, the legislation willmake the workplace far worse.

This state has had a strong tradition of addressingoccupational health and safety in the workplace. Iremember as a school student going to the ICI fertiliserfactory in Yarraville. I had a summer job in a laboratorythere. Occupational health and safety was being talkedabout as an issue then and there were signs throughoutthe workplace. There was cooperation between unions,employers and employees, and that cooperation nowflows through our workplaces. No-one is saying that thenumber of deaths — 29 last year — is acceptable. Butthe long-term trend is downwards, and that has comeabout by way of cooperation, which should beenhanced. I fear this legislation is setting the clockback. It will create a lawyers field day. It will create anincentive for large corporations and public corporationsto pursue an agenda to prevent a proper investigation ofthose deaths that have taken place.

The most important thing about the debate is — and itis something the government does not understand —that nobody suggests that one person should be entitledthrough negligence or otherwise to kill another humanbeing. Sure, we need strong laws that deal with the sortsof people who fall below a minimum standard, andno-one says that minimum standard should not beprescribed. What I find absolutely reprehensible is thatthere are so many exceptions to the law that shouldhave general applicability throughout the state. Whyshould the law that prescribes a particular standard thatsays, ‘Thou shalt not cause the death of another personeither by way of your own negligence or by thenegligence of an agent’ — and that in itself would bebad — be limited to the senior officers of thecorporation? Why should it not include every person inthe corporation?

The most important aspect of the bill is that it dealswith a limited class of person. If you happen to be avolunteer director you are exempt from the provisionsof the bill. Why does it have to be a paid senior officerof a corporation? What is the logical differencebetween a volunteer director and another director? Theonly explanation I can think of is that it is a sop tovolunteers following last year’s International Year ofVolunteers.

The other thing I cannot understand is that if youprescribe a minimum standard that everyone shouldachieve why should you limit it just to workers? Whatabout customers? What about passengers? What aboutother people who might be put in jeopardy bysomebody falling below a minimum standard? This has



nothing to do with prescribing a minimum standard bywhich we will assess whether somebody is guilty ornot. This is about punishing a particular class — notbecause you want to do anything about it but becauseyou want to pass a piece of legislation that says thatsomebody in a suit could be liable for industrialmanslaughter — not manslaughter generally, notmurder generally, but a particular class. Thegovernment has limited the class of people eligible tobe prosecuted and the class of victims. That is what isreprehensible about the legislation.

The government is more interested in punishing aparticular class than in preventing deaths. I have heardimpassioned speeches on both sides. Nobody condonesdeath in the workplace. Nobody condones whathappened to Mr Carrick and others. It is most importantto pursue that with some degree of vigour. But this isnot going to be the solution to the problem. Nobody issuggesting as the honourable member for Gisborne —and just mark my word, honourable member forGisborne, I do not condone that, and if you do this youwill set up confrontation that will actually exacerbatethe problem.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Kewthat he not use the word ‘you’, because that then refersdirectly to the Speaker. I suggest that he refer to eitherthe government or to honourable members. I have beenlenient and I will let him go, but I think he needs to dothat.

Mr McINTOSH — This bill may very well makethe problem worse because you are pursuingpunishment to the exclusion of prevention, andprevention has seen such a dramatic improvement inoccupational health and safety over the past few years.

We should be prescribing a minimum standard and ageneral law. If we do not have a general law in thisparticular application, if we prescribe a particular classof victim and a particular class of those who can beprosecuted, that is the most terrible thing I can imaginein the way the law is conducted and it is not the rule oflaw that I was brought up on at university.

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — If gives me greatpleasure to speak on the Crimes (Workplace Deathsand Serious Injuries) Bill and to correct a few of themisconceptions presented by the opposition, and by thehonourable member for Kew in particular, who knowsexactly that what he is saying is incorrect.

If you follow the logic, this idea of cooperation — ‘Wejust want to cooperate and this will take us back to the

bad old days’ — why do we ever prosecute anybodyfor anything? Why don’t we just say to drunk drivers,‘Hey, guys, it is not a good idea to drink and drive’?We say that, and when they do we throw them inbloody jail! What is the difference? I am not quite surewhat their logic is.

This bill is about levelling the playing field. Thehonourable member for Kew keeps talking about usidentifying a class and picking on a class of people. Letme remind the honourable member for Kew that thatclass is currently exempt because of the structure of theCorporations Law and the way in which corporationsare structured. He can sit there and take not one word ofthis in but I know he is listening. So that is the point.

In previous debates opposition members have arguedagainst DNA testing. Anyone would be happy to beDNA tested because unless they have done somethingwrong they will have nothing to fear. I would throw thesame logic back to the opposition. No employer hasanything to fear from this piece of legislation if theyhave a safe workplace. This piece of legislation changesnothing about the level of workplace safety that theyhave to provide. The law already sets the minimumstandard of care.

I will go on to some of the examples. The DeputyLeader of the Opposition read out a long and tragic listof deaths that have occurred on farms. On a reading ofthe list my impression would be that none of themwould fit the test of gross criminal negligence. To geton a tractor with a wonky wheel is not criminalnegligence.

However, I will refer to the article mentioned by aprevious speaker about what scenarios would be metunder this legislation. Taking the farm scenario, if anemployee is killed driving a tractor that a farmer knewhad faulty brakes, the farmer could be charged withmanslaughter under existing law — I reiterate, underexisting law, for the benefit of the honourable memberfor Kew. But if that same farmer is the director of acompany that runs the farm business that person isvirtually immune from prosecution. That is what thisbill does. Those people who are currently immune fromprosecution will now be covered.

I know a lot of people want to speak on this bill so weneed to keep it short, but a previous speaker — I think itwas the Deputy Leader of the Opposition — accusedthis government of accusing every employer of being apotential criminal. I would say that is so in the sameway that every driver is a potential criminal. If they getin their car and drive according to the law, no drama. Ifthey get in and they are drunk and they are speeding,



then they will have a problem. What is the point ofhaving laws that do not apply to certain groups ofpeople? This bill simply redresses the imbalance.

Let’s debunk some myths. The Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry suggests that thisintroduces a whole new regime of obligations. It doesno such thing! They are exactly the same, and everymember of the opposition knows it. If the current worksafety laws, which have been in operation for15 years, continue to be complied with, no offence willbe committed. It is said that this bill unfairly targetscorporations. Again, that is not true: it redresses thebalance. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — Inresponding to the honourable member for Gisborne, Isuggest that the only realm of new obligations we haveseen this evening are the obligations that she and othermembers of the Labor Party have to slavishly followthe dictates of their union masters for preselectionpurposes. But having said that, I come to this debatehaving been a former Minister for Tertiary Educationand Training and having had the opportunity, wheneverit was available to me, to deregister employers andprevent them from ever being able to employ youngapprentices again. I genuinely believe that when itcomes to the employment of apprentices and traineesthere needs to be an absolute zero tolerance of any formof bastardisation, any form of initiation rights, and anyform of cruelty and lack of observance of occupationalhealth and safety standards on the part of any employer.

Members on both sides of the house know that therehas been some incredibly lax supervision of youngpeople, be it the young apprentice some years ago whowas told to hold up a sheet of rock material withoutbeing given an idea of the weight of it and upon whomthat sheet of rock material fell, subsequently killinghim; or be it the employer who turned a blind eye toinitiation procedures in the workplace, which involveda supervisor in that place of employment participatingin putting lighter fluid under a toilet door, extensivelyburning the body of a young apprentice. All of thosehorror stories are part and parcel of the apprenticeshipbastardisation that has gone on.

However, I am pleased to say that during my time asminister, employers and employer organisationsundertook a policy of zero tolerance when it came tothe bastardisation and initiation of apprentices andtrainees. They did that as a result of the most incrediblyextensive education campaign, be it the printed materialthat went out, both specific to that issue and generalnewsletters, or the fact that as a government weproduced a letter that was sent to every apprentice,

trainee and employer of apprentices and trainees sayingthat we would not allow this type of situation to occurand that maximum fines and penalties would bepursued within the courts if any evidence of it wasbrought forward.

These are the types of proactive campaigns that Ibelieve 99.9 per cent of employers in the state ofVictoria want to participate in, because they do notappreciate the bad eggs who let young people down.Having said that, I make my contribution to suggestthat although the Labor Party in Australia thinks it has amortgage on compassion and believes it has a mortgageon understanding what goes on in the workplace,unfortunately in following union precepts and unionmasters it often overlooks the fact that we on this sideof the house have also proactively pursued bademployers who have done the wrong thing. There arealso bad union organisers, Mr Acting Speaker — andyou would be aware of many of them — who havedone the wrong thing in the workplace by other unionmembers as well.

Another thing I would like to mention in passing is thatthe Labor Party is very big on talking up the rhetoric ofengagement with Asia and on talking about our future,be it the former Prime Minister Paul Keating or thecurrent Premier. It is all fine rhetoric, but unless youback it up with an understanding of cultural situationsabroad, it amounts to nothing. I know for a fact,through my relationship with the Japanese community,that this government is in great danger of scaring awayforeign investment in our state’s manufacturingindustry and in our state’s food and technologyindustry, because it is trying so hard to please theunions, whether it is on this particular piece oflegislation, Workcover or any number of other issues.When it comes to negotiating with Asian companiesthat are interested in investing in Victoria, on the onehand this Labor government is loud and clear aboutwanting to do business, but on the other hand it is goingto ensure that they can be held liable for this type ofcriminal activity.

If you were a director of a Japanese company sitting inTokyo, Osaka or Nagoya and contemplating investmentin a state of Australia and you heard that a director inanother corner of the globe — Victoria — could beheld liable for something that happened in a factory inMelbourne, then if you had an opportunity to investelsewhere you would stop and think twice aboutwhether to bother with Victoria at all. When thisgovernment talks up the rhetoric of engaging with Asiait should make very sure that it understands that what itis dealing with here is a time bomb when it comes togenuine investment.



Mr CAMERON (Minister for Workcover) — It ismy pleasure to join the debate. You will be aware,Mr Acting Speaker, that when we went to the lastelection Labor said it would introduce a crime ofindustrial manslaughter, and you will be aware thatwhen we came to government the opposition said, ‘Wewill keep you honest’. Here is the test: who will behonest tonight? Will these people keep us honest? Willthey keep to their word or will they be dishonest?

This legislation does not make changes to theobligations of employers. What it does do is address theissue of penalties and say that this legislation shouldapply to those employers who breach their obligation toprovide a safe workplace and who are grosslynegligent. I make that point again: this legislation doesnot change the obligations of employers at all.

The issue of workplace safety and workplace injuriesand deaths has to be tackled in many ways, and we dothat through safety campaigns and safety programs; wedo that through a cooperative approach; we do thatthrough things like the safety development fund and thesmall business safety program; we do that by promotinggood employers; we do that by ensuring that there isappropriate enforcement and, where necessary,prosecution; we also do that by providing incentives aspart of an experience rating scheme, particularly as itapplies to larger employers; and we do it throughpenalties. This legislation is about that iron in the fire: itis about the issue of penalties, and it is also aboutmaking sure there is the appropriate crime.

Manslaughter under common law can be manslaughterin private. Many people are killed on the roads as aresult of the negligence of others, but only some ofthose are killed as a result of gross or criminalnegligence. Those guilty of culpable driving resulting indeath are charged with manslaughter. In the event ofgross negligence in the workplace, if the employer isnot incorporated the normal laws of manslaughter willapply. When the employer is a very small company andthe directing mind and will of the company can betargeted, the common law applies to that person as well.But when the employer is a larger entity the commonlaw does not apply; it does not work. That is not theway the common law was envisaged, but that is theway it has worked out in practice.

Some honourable members take the view thatmanslaughter is a crime and that it should apply acrossthe great breadth of society, except for larger corporateentities. They believe it should apply to small corporateentities, it should apply to employers who are notincorporated, it should apply in private and it shouldapply on the roads, but it should not apply to larger

corporate entities. That terrible anomaly is beingovercome by this legislation, and I urge the oppositionto do what it said when we came to government — thatis, keep us honest and make sure that we keep ourpromise to introduce industrial manslaughter.

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) — I rise to join thedebate, having listened with a great deal of interest tothe presentations made by members on all sides of thehouse. I strongly support the comments made by theLeader of the National Party, who provided detailedinformation on the legislation and its effect on the stateof Victoria should it be introduced, in particular itseffect on the employees and employers across this state.There was some criticism in some of the information heprovided, but there is no doubt that the strength ofargument that has been presented to the National Partyindicates that this legislation is bad legislation.

I listened to the Minister for Workcover, who has justcompleted his contribution. He talked particularly aboutsafety campaigns and what has been introduced andundertaken by employers over a number of years incooperation with government organisations. The factsare that there has been a great reduction in the numberof deaths and injuries in the workplace because ofprograms that have been introduced. Surely that is theright way to go.

I also listened to one or two of the other contributionsfrom government members, who asked, ‘Do yousupport the rights of workers?’. They talked aboutdecency in the workplace and quoted individual cases.My experience in talking to people in my electorate ofMurray Valley is that employers are extremelyresponsible in what they do, how they perform and actwithin the workplace and how they protect theirworkers. The program that has been undertaken overmany years has been along the right lines. It issupported by the information and statistics thathonourable members have before them.

Employment is a huge issue, and the Minister for Stateand Regional Development has been strong in hiscomments in the Parliament about employment inVictoria with the economy going forward. He has saidthat we need to promote employment and extendemployment opportunities in the state. I suggest to thehouse that if this legislation goes through it will be adeterrent to employment and investment in Victoria.The information that has been presented indicates that itwould not be an advantage for the state to have thislegislation when other methods can be furtherintroduced through the Crimes Act and theOccupational Health and Safety Act to ensure that the



workplace is safe for people working in thoseorganisations.

Like many honourable members I contacted individualsand organisations throughout my electorate seekingtheir response to the proposed legislation. Therepresentations and letters that I have received havebeen strongly opposed to the legislation. I have not hadany direct response saying that the legislation should besupported and pass through the house.

In looking at the broader responsibilities acrossVictoria, the National Party has consulted with a largerange of organisations seeking their response to thelegislation. All have indicated strong opposition to it.An article in the Victorian Automobile Chamber ofCommerce publication Auto Industry Australia, headed‘The workplace crimes bill — bad and unworkable’,states:

The proposed workplace crimes bill has one major successunder its belt: it has succeeded in uniting nearly everyemployer in the state in opposition to its passage. And while itmay be politically convenient for a Labor government todemonise employers, the Bracks government has neitherjustification nor evidence to support its industrialmanslaughter bill.

The executive director of the VACC, David Purchase,said in the article:

No-one is suggesting we should rest on our laurels or that thegovernment should not be looking at ways to further improvelaws relating to our workplaces. Just one workplace death isone death too many. Clearly, employers, employees and thegovernment should continue to strive to eradicate risk but theanswer is not in this law.

That is the comment from Mr Purchase, and heprovided further details in that article.

The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry provided a very detailed discussion paper onits concerns about the legislation. VECCI said it isabout punishment and increased penalties, and aboutlooking at those penalties across companies and seniorofficers. In a very detailed response it indicated itsopposition to this legislation. Under the heading‘Victoria — the testing ground’ the discussion paperstates:

As indicated at the outset, the Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill is a groundbreaking set of proposals,without precedent in Australia or overseas.

That surely has to be something that counts against thelegislation proceeding. Under the heading ‘Punishment orprevention — the carrot or the stick’ the discussion papersays:

The historical approach … by Victoria in occupational healthand safety has been based upon risk management, education,

improved safety standards, and the simplification of legalrequirements, with the overall objective of preventingworkplace injuries before they occur. Figures releasedrecently by the Minister for Workcover suggest this approachhas produced results, with the numbers of deaths and injuriesin Victorian workplaces continuing to decline.

Further information is provided in VECCI’s detailedsubmission. That sums up many of the representationsthe National Party has received from a range oforganisations and individuals right across the electorateof Murray Valley and, indeed, across Victoria.

I indicate again that I have had a look at the effects thatthe bill would have across the electorate, and I do notbelieve it would assist us in rural areas. In fact, as Ihave indicated, there is no support for the legislationwithin the electorate and, as I see it, across Victoria.Investment is a critical issue, and in that regard I thinkthe bill would certainly have an adverse effect on theeconomy of Victoria.

The government’s objective of making workplacessafer can better be achieved, we believe, by focusing onsafety initiatives and education, and by providingrewards for good safety practices rather thanfrightening those in management positions away fromtheir responsibilities for safety. I support the commentsmade by the Leader of the National Party, and based onthe information we have been able to gain from ourinvestigations, I support our opposition to thelegislation.

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — It is with pleasure thatI speak briefly on the bill, because I know there are anumber of speakers on this side who wish to contributeto the debate. I have listened to government membersgive examples of deaths in the workplace as a reasonwhy we should pass this bill. They say the bill will putan end to injuries and deaths in the workplace.Unfortunately this bill will not stop deaths in theworkplace. It is misleading, and from the outset I haveto advise that I will be opposing it.

This legislation has been badly drafted by the unions. Itproves once again that this government is a merepuppet of the trade union movement. I understand thatthe government has no option but to support thislegislation, even though it knows that it is badly draftedand narrow minded. I tend to agree with the commentsmade in one of the Auto Industry Australia newsletters:

Because everyone knows that this proposed law is a gift. It isthe promised quid pro quo to certain militant unions. Andeveryone knows that this promise was made at the‘unwinnable’ election in return for the political and financialsupport of such unions.



Everyone knows that with this legislation, Mr Bracks ispaying the piper.

But paying the piper is no excuse for bad law … By the2000/2001 year, deaths had fallen to 31 — less than a third ofthe numbers in 1988/89, despite an increase in the Victorianwork force of tens of thousands … there has been a concertedcampaign to create awareness of workplace safety andconcerted efforts by government, by employers, and byemployees, to embrace a ‘work safe’ culture.

Clearly the application of existing sanctions andpenalties has played a part in reducing the incidence ofworkplace deaths. But the greater part has beenachieved through cooperation, consultation, educationand mutual acceptance of work-safe responsibilities.

Putting all employers in the gun without just cause isbad politics and bad government. Putting paying backpolitical mates above the pursuit of sensible reforms isbad politics and bad government. The proposedlegislation is the Bracks government’s mostconspicuous folly. That it is also based on the politics ofpay-back does this government no credit at all. Thepublic will see this legislation for what it is: payingback the union movement.

I have received a large amount of correspondence fromwithin my electorate and across Victoria, the vastmajority of which opposes and urges me not to supportthis legislation.

Currently a corporation can be prosecuted for the crimeof manslaughter if the corporation owed a duty of careto an employee and breached that duty of care by actingin a grossly negligent manner toward and therebycausing the death of the employee, so why does this billneed to be passed?

If one looks closely at this bill one notices that it doesthree main things. It introduces new crimes of corporatemanslaughter and causing serious injury, it introducescriminal offences for senior officers of manslaughterand causing serious injury, and it increases existingpenalties under the Occupational Health and Safety Actby an average of 250 per cent.

I do not support the bill for a number of reasons. Thereis no excuse for the average 250 per cent increase inoccupational health and safety penalties when deathsand serious injuries are decreasing significantly. Thereis no evidence that introducing the crime of corporatemanslaughter is necessary and it could possibly reducecooperation in the workplace. This legislation is unfair,counterproductive and contrary to criminal lawprinciples. The criminal offences it introduces forsenior officers add nothing to the current crime ofmanslaughter, and there are too many vague terms,

such as ‘senior officer’, ‘serious injury’ and ‘reallyserious injury’. The bill also places too much power inthe hands of union officials.

I ask the government to look at this legislation. I alsocall upon government backbenchers, who have shownno spine and courage and who do not stand up to theAttorney-General but allow him to do what he wants, tostand up for all Victorians and not just for their unionmates. For those reasons, I will not support the bill.

Mr ASHLEY (Bayswater) — Madam ActingSpeaker — —


Mr ASHLEY — In all conscience I would love to,but I cannot. Legislation, especially when it involvescriminal sanctions, should always be entered into verycautiously and prudently — even reluctantly. By thatstatement I do not excuse or seek to minimise the kindsof gruesome, ghastly and appalling workplace eventsthat have prompted the government to introduce thispiece of legislation.

However laudable its objectives, this legislation borderson the reckless and on being recklessly entered into. Ifthe common law provided no means of prosecution onthe ground of criminal negligence for the ongoingexistence of unsafe work systems, procedures andpractices, there would be a case for considering this bill,but demonstrably that is not so.

The bill is defective in a number of dimensions. It willcreate an invidious situation in which certain personswill definitely no longer be equal before the law. Underthe doctrine of ‘aggregated responsibility’ a seniorcompany representative could be prosecuted and jailed,even if the particular workplace event for which aprosecution was mounted was demonstrably counter tothe will and mind of the company and that person.

Another of the quandaries the bill sets up is thecertainty that the most unequal before the law are thosesmall business proprietors whose businesses areincorporated and are not partnerships. They will beleast able to defend themselves and will be mostexposed to investigation and pursuit because of theshorter chain of command. They will not be able toafford the cohorts of lawyers that large multinationalcompanies are able to employ. This lack of equalitybefore the law is stretched by the fact that there are anumber of exempt groups including areas of the publicsector and some volunteer senior position officers. Byimplication the bill will inevitably exploit markeddistinctions between one industry and another beforethe law.



Mr Hulls interjected.

Mr ASHLEY — That is one way of putting it, butsome industries are inherently safe. The modernindustries — the communications industries, theoffice-based industries — are much safer than manyothers which, no matter what you do or how mucheffort you put in, cannot be upgraded to the samedegree of safety. People working in heavy engineering,construction, farming and petrochemical industries,though those industries are far less unsafe than theywere, are still nowhere near as safe as they would be ifthey were sitting down behind a desk in an office.

Then there is the issue of what might be calledindeterminate death or serious injury — death orserious injury not found out until many years after itwas caused. There are many examples of that. Certainproprietors of businesses in my electorate — spraypainting businesses, for example — are allowingemployees to remain unguarded as they do spraypainting. It is going to be years and years before theconsequences of that are found out, but theconsequences will be two destroyed lungs and no-oneprosecuted.

Suicide at the workplace is also an issue. If that iscaused by the neglect of the employing company, howis that ever going to be known? What if someone diesof a heart attack which might monumentally be aconsequence of the actions of an employer? That cannever be prosecuted. The notion of negligence, let alonecriminal negligence, should be as far as possibledisconnected from workplace legislation andregulation. For all practical purposes the onlysustainable means of furthering occupational health andsafety regimes is by utilising the concept of no fault.

Across most of the industrial and post-industrial worldthe concept of no fault underpins workerscompensation schemes. William Hard, a pioneer ofno-fault systems, said 100 years ago:

We won’t stop to try to divide the blame for accidentsbetween you and your workers. We will assume for practicalpurposes that you weren’t trying to commit murder and thatthey weren’t trying to commit suicide. We will assume thataccidents are accidents.

That approach should apply just as firmly to the waygovernments respond to the context in which workplacedeaths and serious injuries take place. The notions offault and blame are too simplistic to apply forensicallyand legalistically to many highly complex industrialsituations.

On 3 December 1997 I said in this place:

The notion of fault is too naive and too simplistic to make anysense of and to do justice to complicated layers of interactingworkplace events, which despite even best practice in healthand safety management sometimes result in accidents. Aminute gas leak, a microscopic deterioration in metal quality,a momentary lapse in human concentration, a rare error inexperienced judgment; that’s all it takes. To lay blame isabout as pointless as kicking your car when it breaks down ina traffic jam.

I know most of this does not apply to the kinds ofthings that have been said in debate on this legislation,but there is still a spill-over and still the possibility ofvery serious consequences for those unfortunatelyembroiled in it.

In my conclusion I draw attention to a letter I wrote inFebruary to the president of the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce, to which I have not had aresponse and about which I am quite angry. I said inthat letter that I believe the business sector has anenormous and as yet largely undiscovered role to playin the development of human and social capital.

If the bill does not go ahead, as I trust it will not, it willlay a greater burden on all the peak bodies of oursociety to ensure that their members behave tostandards that are better than some are behaving tonow. I call on every peak body to go through theirorganisations and their members and to cast aside anythat constantly fail to come up to standard.

That kind of process will change the mentality of many.It will change it for the better so that it will be moreproductive and less counterproductive than thislegislation would, unfortunately, be inclined to be.

Mr LUPTON (Knox) — I have talked to people ina large number of organisations in my electorate aboutthe bill and asked them what they thought about it. Notone person in a company has come back and said theysupport it. Not one employer has said it is goodlegislation. Concern has been expressed right across theboard.

The statistics on the number of workplace deaths thathave occurred in a little more than the past 10 yearsshow that 102 people died in workplace accidents in1988–89; last year the number was 31. Business cannotrest on its laurels. Although the number of workplacedeaths has been reduced dramatically, business cannotafford to relax its strict rules.

I have gone to too many houses and had too many cupsof coffee and pieces of cake with widows who have losttheir husbands through workplace accidents. I havebeen to a house where a day earlier a husband hadpassed away because of a workplace accident. I have



provided support and assistance at the home before andafter the funeral.

In many cases a workplace death has occurred becauseof the employee’s failure to observe the rules andregulations that the employer had introduced. I couldtalk about people who have died in electrical accidents,where they had work permits to go so far but for onereason or another decided to go beyond the accesspermit limitations. They have gone into an area thatwould be considered electrically live, and consequentlyhave been killed or caused their workmates to be killedor seriously injured. That has happened too many timesfor my liking.

I have sat there and watched people who have beeninjured through their own negligence suffer slow andpainful deaths as a result of electrocution. I understandthat death from electrocution is a process of theextremities of the body dying first and the deteriorationworking backwards on the body depending on theamount of voltage in the electrocution. I have seenpeople 6, 12 or 18 months after electrocution. Theirlimbs slowly die — all through no fault of the employerbut because the workers have made a mistake and goneoutside the rules or been a little careless.

If I understand it correctly, the bill provides that thedirector of the company would be held liable for theaccident. The director may have been 100 kilometresaway from the accident and the worker may havedecided to ignore the access permits and do somethinghe thought he could get away with. He may have goneto the pub for a drink, thereby ignoring the rules andregulations imposed on him and his workmates.

I remember visiting a 22-year-old widow only threedays after her husband was killed. They had beenmarried only six weeks. Her husband had ignored therules and regulations. That young widow was probablyfinancially secure, but under this legislation somebodycould have sued a director sitting in Sydney orMelbourne when they had nothing do with it. It wasobvious that the foreman of the gang had been in thepub with the workers. They had all been in it andencouraged each other. Workplace practices havechanged over the years. If you go back over the past10 years you will find that workplace practices haveimproved.

I believe the concept of the legislation is good and whatthe government is trying to do is good. However, it hasgone too far. You cannot hold directors responsiblewhen employees, such as those in the examples I havequoted, break the rules, forget about the regulations andgo about their own business to try to make things easier

for the day after tomorrow. I regret that I am unable tosupport the legislation. Unfortunately there are no firmsin my electorate that can support the legislation.

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — I take theopportunity to contribute to this debate seriously. Myperspective on the bill is quite different from otherhonourable members, as I have lost a close relative to aworkplace accident that was entirely avoidable. I haveheard nothing from the opposition or the National Partyto justify the position of the conservative parties thatgross negligence resulting in death in the workplaceshould not be punishable. That seems to be the positionthey have taken, which I find surprising and appalling.

People who have the decision-making capacity toensure a safe workplace and who fail to do so — notsimply fail to do so but actually choose not to do so —must be held accountable. I do not believe anyargument put by the other side today has gone to thatparticular point. I take exception to the suggestion,implied or otherwise, that company directors should beable to put the profits of their shareholders before thesafety of employees in their workplace. That is animmoral position to take. Having had a close relativekilled in a workplace accident I have great difficultywith that point of view.

I heard the Leader of the National Party say that this billsingles out a group of people. I agree with him — agroup of people is being singled out by the bill. Thatgroup of people consists of those who negligentlycontribute to or cause a workplace death. People whohave contributed to or have negligently caused aworkplace death should be subject to some form ofpunishment and accountability. That is what the bill isabout; it is about negligence. It is not about all the otherthings that have been talked about during the debate onthe bill.

There has been a lot of talk about people not being ableto mount a defence. I suggest that under this bill theyhave a very strong defence — that is, that they providea safe workplace. That is their ultimate defence. Theonly defence they need to mount under the legislation isthat they have taken every reasonable step to provide asafe workplace. It is the failure to do that that is thefocus of the bill. Is it negligent of an employer to sendan employee out in a truck knowing that the truck’sbrakes are not in a safe condition and do not workproperly, which results in an accident and a personbeing killed? Should that be punishable? I suggest itshould.

I know time is limited, but I have some passion aboutthe bill. It is a fair bill in all respects. I have heard a



little said about the penalties. I point out in relation topenalties that up to and including the recent Longfordcase there had never been an industrial death case inVictoria where the maximum penalty had been handeddown. The reason for that is the same as the reason forthe line we have heard from the other side today — thatis, they do not believe these can be regarded as realdeaths in the same way as other deaths can. Deaths inthe workplace are in some way different! I reluctantlystop there, but I say to the Attorney-General that shouldthis bill fail in the Parliament, he should keep bringingit back.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I thank allhonourable members who made contributions to thedebate on what is a very important piece of legislation.It is great to introduce legislation that is going to makea difference to the lives of ordinary Victorian workers,and this legislation will. I know honourable memberson the other side of the house have made contributions,some half-hearted, some heartfelt, and they have put upa whole range of reasons why they should not supportthis legislation. Every single one of those reasons is notbacked up by the facts and not backed up by the bill.

When this legislation was introduced the governmentwas criticised because it imposed one law for theprivate sector and another for the public sector. I madeit quite clear in the second-reading speech that thislegislation would cover all workplaces. It was alwaysthe intention to cover every single workplace inVictoria, not just the private sector. In thesecond-reading speech I said that because of thedifficulty in ensuring that the whole of the public sectorwas covered because of the corporate entities that didnot exist in the public sector, the legislation would besent to the Law Reform Commission. It was alwaysmade quite clear that the public sector would becovered, and it is covered. That is what theseamendments are all about.

I am then told that people will go to jail simply becauseof accidents, but that is not what the legislation does. Itdoes not cover accidents; it has nothing to do withaccidents. It is about criminal negligence. Let me beclear about this: this is about gross criminal negligenceand the causal connection between that negligence anda death or serious injury in the workplace. The reality isthat manslaughter is manslaughter is manslaughter,whether it is in the workplace or outside the workplace.You cannot say that it is okay to have laws that sendpeople to jail if they have committed manslaughter —that is, they have committed a criminal act outside theworkplace that has resulted in someone’s death — butthat if it takes place inside the workplace it is notmanslaughter. What is it? If someone has been

criminally negligent in the workplace and as a result ofthat criminal negligence a death occurs, what is it if itisn’t manslaughter? I have studied law, and it ismanslaughter. Dead right it’s manslaughter, and itought to be dealt with accordingly — and that is all thislegislation does. It makes it quite clear thatmanslaughter is manslaughter is manslaughter whetherit is in the workplace or outside the workplace. Wehave to understand that.

Do not be conned by the Victorian Employers Chamberof Commerce and Industry and the Australian IndustryGroup and others. I have met with them as many timesas anyone else has. This legislation has had thegestation period of an elephant. The reality is that theyare philosophically opposed to the legislation. It is notas though they are saying, ‘Listen Attorney-General, ifyou actually move these amendments we are preparedto support the bill’, or, ‘If you get rid of the seniorofficer offences we are prepared to support it’. Theyhave said that they will not support any amendmentsbecause they are just opposed to this legislation.

They have also said that this legislation — andsomeone on the other side said it — has for the firsttime galvanised the members and they are getting newmembers. They have actually had members droppingoff. They have run this scare campaign and put outnewsletters to their members saying, ‘You could go tojail even if you do nothing wrong so you had better joinour organisation’. It is absolute nonsense. This islegislation that this government promised when it wasin opposition and it is fulfilling that promise. Thelegislation targets criminal behaviour in the workplace,whether it be a private or a public workplace, resultingin a death or serious injury. It actually targets behaviourso reprehensible that any Victorian would be appalledto see it go unpunished.

As I have said time and again, when Victorian familiessee their loved ones go off to work they expect them tocome home, but if they do not come home and arekilled or seriously injured as a result of criminalnegligence then Victorians expect the full force of thelaw to come down on those who are criminallyresponsible. That is all the legislation does.

It is true there have been some emotive statements inthis debate, and indeed some emotive comments in themedia. I noticed the other day that the Leader of theOpposition made a great deal of having a garbage bagfull of letters opposing the legislation. A garbage bagwas the right place for those letters, and that garbagebag would just about fill up half a coffin of one of thoseworkers who has been killed as a result of the gross orcriminal negligence of employers.



The legislation targets those corporate cowboys who donot give a damn about workplace health and safety. Imade those exact comments in a speech I made at arally on the front steps of Parliament House — that thislegislation targets those corporate cowboys who do notgive a damn about workplace health and safety. It isthose people who believe they have a licence to kill. Aquestion was asked that same day, ‘Will you sack theAttorney-General because he said that employersbelieve they have a licence to kill?’. That is not what Isaid, and the Leader of the Opposition should haveknown better. What I said was that this legislationtargets those corporate cowboys who do not give adamn about workplace health and safety. It is thosecorporate cowboys who believe they have a licence tokill.

The fact is that the legislation takes away that licence. Irepeat what I have said: if opposition members do notsupport the legislation then they are saying that they areprepared to be soft on crime in the workplace, becausethat is what the legislation targets — criminal behaviourin the workplace that results in serious injury or death.

I am proud to have introduced the legislation, and Iknow honourable members on this side of the house areproud to support it, because it is legislation that willmake a difference to the lives of Victorians who for toolong have been subject to unsafe workplace health andsafety practices by a small number of corporatecowboys who weigh up the risks.

I have met with some of them. They say, ‘If we spendhalf a million dollars we can improve our workplacehealth and safety, but if we don’t spend that money itcan go into our bottom line. Yes, there will be a risk,and there might be one or two deaths’. They weigh upwhether they should spend the half a million dollars ortake the risk of a death or deaths, and they decide not tospend the money. They are corporate cowboys. As aresult they should be scared of the legislation, and wedo not back away from it.

Mr Plowman interjected.

Mr HULLS — Why don’t you make a contribution,dork!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order!The Attorney-General should refrain from using thatlanguage.

Mr HULLS — Those members of a Liberal Partywho do not support the legislation are sending a clearmessage that they are prepared to be soft on crime inthe workplace. Within a short period a vote will betaken on the bill. I hope all honourable members will

support the legislation, because it is good legislationand it is fair legislation. It is legislation that wecommitted to in opposition, and we are fulfilling thatcommitment. Only those who do not care aboutworkplace health and safety have anything to fear fromit. The vast majority of employers will have nothing tofear from the legislation because they are fair dinkumabout workplace health and safety. The legislationtargets those rogue operators who do not care aboutworkplace health and safety. They have something tofear from the legislation — and so they should!

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 44Allan, Ms Kosky, MsAllen, Ms Langdon, Mr (Teller)Barker, Ms Languiller, MrBatchelor, Mr Leighton, MrBeattie, Ms Lenders, MrBracks, Mr Lim, MrBrumby, Mr Lindell, MsCameron, Mr Loney, MrCampbell, Ms Maddigan, MrsCarli, Mr Maxfield, MrDavies, Ms Mildenhall, MrDelahunty, Ms Nardella, MrDuncan, Ms Overington, MsGarbutt, Ms Pandazopoulos, MrGillett, Ms Pike, MsHaermeyer, Mr Robinson, MrHamilton, Mr Seitz, MrHardman, Mr Stensholt, MrHelper, Mr (Teller) Thwaites, MrHolding, Mr Trezise, MrHoward, Mr Viney, MrHulls, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 43Asher, Ms Maclellan, MrAshley, Mr Maughan, Mr (Teller)Baillieu, Mr Mulder, MrBurke, Ms Napthine, DrClark, Mr Paterson, MrCooper, Mr Perton, MrDean, Dr Peulich, MrsDelahunty, Mr Phillips, MrDixon, Mr Plowman, MrDoyle, Mr Richardson, MrElliott, Mrs Rowe, MrFyffe, Mrs Ryan, MrHoneywood, Mr Savage, MrIngram, Mr Shardey, MrsJasper, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Kilgour, Mr Spry, MrKotsiras, Mr Steggall, MrLeigh, Mr Thompson, MrLupton, Mr Vogels, MrMcArthur, Mr Wells, MrMcCall, Ms Wilson, MrMcIntosh, Mr

Motion agreed to.



Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — TheAttorney-General had the opportunity to clarify theLaw Reform Commission’s reliance on the Hampeldecision to justify this bill. The Hampel decision clearlyindicates that this bill is not necessary, and I invite theAttorney-General to address that decision to justify therequirement for this bill.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I will make a fewgeneral comments about the bill and why I am certainlyopposed to it on behalf of my constituents. The Leaderof the National Party has spelt out very clearly theparty’s opposition to this bill and why it is opposed toit. I say very clearly that as individuals and as a partywe are very concerned about death and injury in theworkplace, but we believe there is a better way to dealwith it

In exactly the same way as we have been able to reducethe road toll by a combination of education andenforcement and, in that case, by better practices on theroad, we can improve safety in the workplace with acombination of education and better workplacepractices and by utilising the existing legislation to dealwith the Rambo people and cowboys theAttorney-General was railing against during this debate.We agree that those people need to be brought tojustice, but we believe that the existing legislation issufficient to do that. We believe the government’sobjective can better be achieved by focusing on thosesafety initiatives rather than using this legislation tocompel people and bring in these draconian penalties.

I agree with the statement of Justice Cummins that theessence of workplace safety is prevention. I think thedebate today has indicated that both sides of the houseare concerned about prevention rather than penalties. Iam opposed because it is not good law. It isanti-employer, it is a sop to the unions and it isantibusiness, and we are very concerned about theeffect it will have on employers. We genuinely believethere is a better way to go, and I reject entirely thenotion that the Attorney-General was putting earlier,that we were soft on crime. I am certainly not soft oncrime, and I do not believe that any of my colleagues inthe National Party are soft on crime. We are all forpenalising those who do the wrong thing but we thinkthis is going far too far and that there is a better way ofdoing it.

I conclude with one quote from the Mining IndustryCouncil, which says:

We believe … that the government’s objective to makeworkplaces safer can better be achieved by focusing on safetyinitiatives that educate, encourage and reward good safetypractices, rather than frighten those in management positionsaway from taking responsibility for safety.

This legislation is vigorously opposed by the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, theVictorian Farmers Federation, the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce and the VictorianCongress of Employer Associations. A large number ofindividual employers have also written to me personallyon this matter. Not a single letter supporting thislegislation has come to my office, but I have had atleast 100 from various employers who are veryconcerned about the legislation asking that the NationalParty oppose it. I express my opposition to thelegislation because I believe there is a better way ofachieving the same objectives.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I have thepleasure to speak on clause 1 of the Crimes (WorkplaceDeaths and Serious Injuries) Bill. I would like theAttorney-General to explain to the house how manyemployers out there he would describe as corporatecowboys. I am sure that all employers in my electorateare very concerned about workplace safety and do avery good job of making sure that there is a safeworkplace.


Mr INGRAM — I will not go down the line ofnaming them.

I have been lobbied hard on this legislation byemployers from inside and outside my area. I have alsobeen lobbied by people who support the legislation. Ilooked seriously at the legislation and what it aims todo and did not take the decision lightly to oppose it.The legislation will have an impact on investment,business and employment — on the certainty andsecurity of those businesses. A lot of employers outthere are concerned about the passage of thislegislation. I did a fair amount of work to try toconvince them, and I think there have been somecampaigns — —


The CHAIRMAN — Order! If the honourablemember for Bennettswood and the honourable memberfor Richmond want to discuss the bill, I suggest they gosomewhere else!



Mr INGRAM — Some mischievous campaignshave been run by employer groups, in particular theVictorian Farmers Federation; there are very fewcorporate employees in the farming industry. Myfamily are farmers. The bill is really intended for thosecorporations where it is currently difficult to place acontinuing chain of command — basically where adirector of a company is the directing mind and willwhich leads to a serious injury or death in a workplace.Most farmers and small businesses would not beimpacted on by this legislation; it is really down tothose corporations.

The impact of passing legislation like this would be aproblem in my area. In my area at the end of thefreeways out in East Gippsland the government has notconvinced the employers that this bill is necessary orgood legislation. That is why I oppose the bill.

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — Now that the Crimes(Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill is in thecommittee stage it is my pleasure to make acontribution on the first clause of the bill.

Firstly, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary to theAttorney-General for his enormous physical, emotionaland intellectual contribution to ensuring that this billwill at least get through this chamber. I alsocongratulate the Attorney-General, for whom it hasbeen an absolute exercise of will and effort in makingsure that decent, just and fair legislation to deal withcrime comes through and is dealt with in thisParliament.

I cannot understand how some honourable members ofboth parties on the other side — although I have somerespect for members of the National Party — do notseem to understand that crime is crime, thatmanslaughter is manslaughter and that the loss of aloved one — —


Ms GILLETT — I know interjections are unruly,and I would certainly not take them up, but as a point indebate an accident is not something that is dealt with inthis bill. This bill deals with gross negligence. It is notabout an accident involving a decent employer and adecent supervisor where absolute care is takeneducation and training are provided. This bill is notabout accidents; it is not about a mistake. The bill isabout gross negligence — criminal manslaughter. Icannot for the life of me understand why it is such acomplicated issue for those on the other side of thehouse to comprehend.

It is not complicated; it is simple. It is gross negligence.It is different if you die at work. If it were the samethere would not be so many families suffering not justthe grief at the loss of a loved one but the grief at theloss of justice — the sense that they cannot get justice.The bill provides for that justice. I congratulate myfriend the honourable member for Gippsland West — agood girl from the west. I know it has been difficult forher, because it is a different and much more difficult setof circumstances.

On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the house Ican say that we have grown up in families andconstituencies where we regularly visit families whohave lost people they love at work and have not beenable to find closure because they cannot get justice. Forthose very few crook employers out there — —

Mr Mulder — Name them!

Ms GILLETT — I do not have time. I wish I did.Interjections are unruly and you are a disgrace!

With those few remarks on a simple and just bill, Icommend the bill to the house and hope it proceedssafely through its passage in this house and thatmembers in another place can manage to find somerelevance by passing a bill that is truly just.

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — TheAttorney-General mentioned that he had met withcorporate crooks and I wonder if he would be preparedto name the corporate crooks and whether it was at aprogressive business function.

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — Unlike the socialDarwinians opposite — those who long for a return ofthe days of the master-servant relationship — I amproud to support the legislation. I am one of thosemembers on this side who the Attorney-General saidwould be proud to support the legislation. As somebodywho was a public sector trade union official beforeentering this place, I welcome the advice of theAttorney-General, reinforced by the amendments hemoved, that the provisions apply equally to the Crown.

During my days as a public sector trade union official itwas frustrating to me that the Parliament of Victoriawould pass legislation that exempted the Crown. I canremember going through some of the asbestos issues inthe 1980s. I believe the provisions of the bill shouldapply to the public sector.

My experience was in the mental health, or psychiatric,area. Some areas can be quite dangerous to work in andmanagers must accept responsibility. While my



experience was in a clinical setting one of the examplesI recall was in a trades area.

Our old mental hospitals were large establishments andthose in the country had a lot of acreage and once upona time included farms. I can remember wandering into amental hospital one morning with another unionofficial. We joined the gardeners for tea and sat in thegardener’s shed with them. As we were drinking ourcups of tea the gardeners were sloshing a bucket offluid. We said, ‘What’s that?’. They said, ‘It’s 2,4-D’,so they were talking about the same sort of stuff asAgent Orange. We said, ‘Don’t you know howdangerous that is?’. They proceeded to tell us that theyhad tried making that point to the hospital managerwithout success and that he forced them to spray it onthe gardens on windy days and it would drift across thehospital grounds and affect the staff and patients.

I and another union official explained to the hospitalmanager the impact that substance had had when usedin Vietnam, but we met with no success in preventingits use at the hospital. However, we came at it laterallyand found out that the hospital manager kept his horseson what used to be the hospital farm. We were able tosearch out literature that canvassed the effect of thisspray on horses, and immediately the hospital managerbanned any further use of it in the hospital. The point Imake is that this particular senior officer valued thehealth of his horses more than that of his staff and hispatients!

It seems to me we are not talking about accidents butwe have a very simple proposition — that if a person isgrossly negligent and that results in death it ought to bea criminal offence. For that reason I am proud tosupport the bill.

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — This is badlegislation because the number of workplace deaths inthis state was reduced to three last year, which is anenormous reduction. The number of serious accidentshas also been reduced, which again is a great result forthe workplace injuries problem.

I agree with the honourable member for Werribee, whois just leaving the chamber, that every workplace deathis a death that we would love to see not occur. I shareher compassion for the families, but this bill is going inthe wrong direction. The Attorney-General of this statesaid on the steps of Parliament that employers have theright to kill. That is exactly what he said: it was ontelevision, and I saw it and recorded it. It is appallingfor the senior law officer of this state to make astatement like that on the steps of Parliament.

In his wind-up speech tonight the Attorney-Generalsaid that corporate cowboys will weigh up whether it isworth losing a life or two for half a million dollars.Name me one employer who would weigh up whetherthey would be prepared to risk the life of an employeefor the sake of half a million dollars. I deny that anyonecould name any employer who would do that.

This legislation is so poor that the Attorney-Generalshould be ashamed of it. It is more divisive than anylegislation I have seen in 10 years in this place. Everyemployer who has come to my office or who haswritten to me has been appalled by the loss ofemployment opportunities this legislation would causein this state. I have had discussions with members ofthe Victorian Farmers Federation. Only 2 to 3 per centof farmers are corporate operators, but around 70 percent of them have family trusts, and all of those wouldbe liable under this legislation. I am sure that is not theintent of the government in introducing the bill, but Iam equally sure Victorian farmers will be caught up inthis legislation unintentionally or not, and that alsomeans every farmer’s wife who happens to be part ofthat operation. May I say again in closing that this isbad legislation. It is appalling that the Attorney-Generalapproaches it the way he does.

Mr LIM (Clayton) — As I am one of the lastspeakers on this side of the house, I wish to speak frommy heart rather than my head. Much passion andemotion has been expressed in this chamber during thisdebate. Some views may not necessarily have beentruthful and some may have been expressed withconviction, but the bill is still significant. It is aboutempowerment for people who are not in a position tolook after themselves properly because the power thatcan dictate their terms and conditions of work mightlead to their deaths.

We have heard quotes, we have seen the statistics, andwe have discussed this in the community for some time.I am amazed about the amount of consultation that tookplace over two years, so this is not a matter that hasbeen treated lightly.

The Attorney-General we have is probably the best inthe land, and his understudy, the parliamentarysecretary, has put much work into making this a prettydecent bill so that there will not be unnecessary seriousworkplace injuries and deaths resulting from thenegligence of the employer.

We could be very emotional. We could be draggingourselves through all of the deaths in the past year,which number something like 31, and our hearts go outto the families that have suffered those losses. Coming



from a Third World country, I know what it is like towitness at first hand the negligence of an employer. Wedo not want to see this happen in a country likeAustralia. It is just beyond understanding. In a way I amproud to see the clear division between the two houses.I am very proud to be able to vote on this side with mycolleagues, and I am very proud to say that we aremoving ahead in the 21st century. The other side of thehouse stands condemned. It is showing its truecolours — what it is and what it represents.

I congratulate the Attorney-General, for whom I haveenormous respect, for his passion and conviction inrespect of all the bills he introduces and believes in. Ialso congratulate the parliamentary secretary. I wish thebill a speedy passage.

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — We are debatingthe Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries)Bill. The purpose of the bill is to introduce a newsection in the Crimes Act to provide for prosecution ofsenior management of corporate bodies for not onlymanslaughter, which we have heard theAttorney-General focus on tonight, but also whereserious injury is suffered. I think the Attorney-Generalhas not really focused on what is in his own bill.

As I and many others have said, workplace safety is avital matter for all of us. This bill does little but giveunions a method by which to intimidate employerswhen it should be encouraging and rewardingemployers. If that were done employers would havelower Workcover premiums and, importantly, wouldemploy more people. We are all on about employment,and that is what the focus of this government should be,as it is on this side of the house.

I believe this bill is one-sided because there is norequirement on employees to comply with safetymeasures. I hear this many, many times fromemployers in my area, and I represent the largestelectorate in the state. They are saying it is getting moreand more difficult to employ people because of unfairdismissal laws, red tape and the like. Now we have thisother draconian measure coming down on them. It isvery hard and makes a bigger demand on employers. Itis important that the workplace be a safe place, butthere is no requirement on employees to comply whenthere is a direction given to wear safety harnesses andthe like — and this bill does nothing to address that.

The scope of the bill is enormous. It even makesmanagement responsible for the actions ofsubcontractors to subcontractors. I sent copies of thebill to many organisations in my electorate, and theresponses came from motor repairers, service station

owners, auto-electrical services, motor traders andnon-government organisations. There is one letter Imust read into Hansard, because I believe itsummarises the concern that is raised in my electorate:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowingme to comment on the extremely important issue of theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill 2001.The right to sue for common-law negligence has beenreversed by the current Victorian government, and they areproposing to increase criminal law penalties against theemployer through the introduction of Crimes (WorkplaceDeaths and Serious Injuries) Bill. It is my opinion moreconsideration is required regarding the implementation of theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill 2001, inparticular the manslaughter component.

I am in no way against reforms regarding the penaltiesprovided by the courts in relation to occupational health andsafety issues. I believe there is a warranted need for ‘stiffer’penalties, with such sentencing options in my opinion ofvalue to the occupational health and safety cause. Myconcern, however, is with corporate manslaughter, inparticular the emphasis placed on determining some seniorofficers guilty of such offence, as volunteer directors andboards of management will have an exemption. There is nomention of any amendments to section 25 of the OccupationalHealth and Safety Act, and with the introduction of legislationsuch as this, section 25 is paramount as the behaviour of someindividuals could see senior managers facing extremelyserious charges. My opinion is that the Crimes (WorkplaceDeaths and Serious Injuries) Bill should not be adopted in itscurrent format.

Nearly all employers in my area are united inopposition to this bill. It demonises employers, and Ihear the Attorney-General screaming across the floor ofthis Parliament about the employers. I never hear himgiving credit to the many employers we have in thisstate or referring to the importance of employingpeople.

The evidence does not stack up for theAttorney-General. As we know, in 1988–89 there were104 deaths; last year that figure was brought down to31. This is still far too many deaths — in fact, one deathis too many. Workplace safety can be achieved throughcooperation, education and improved risk management.Workplace safety is a shared obligation.

This bill is one-sided, bad law. In fact, public liabilityand indemnity insurance premiums will be pushed evenhigher because of this legislation. As honourablemembers know, eight major industry associations saythe government is wrong. It is a bad law, it isill-conceived and it is counterproductive. Employerswill continue to work with employee unions and theWorkcover authority to continue to improve workplacesafety. Therefore I oppose this bill.



Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I rise to support the bill, inparticular since I am a trade union member of 46 yearsstanding and have worked in industry, unlike somemembers of this house, particularly those on theopposition side. I have worked in dangerous positionsand I have seen two fellow workers fall to their deathsin workplace accidents. I have witnessed the effects ontheir families and have lived through the trauma ofhearing the screams and seeing the agony caused byaccidents on work sites.

If honourable members had lived through suchexperiences they would be thinking and talking aboutthis bill differently. I was on a building site whensomebody slipped and fell down a lift well that hadbeen left unguarded and which had no lights just to cutcorners and get the job done more quickly. As a resultof that sort of accident a big campaign was mounted toensure that lift wells on building sites are secure and litup. On another occasion I was on a building site wherethere was no safety mesh on the roof and a worker fellthrough the roof down onto a concrete floor.

They are two experiences that I had which I hope nohonourable members ever have to experience in theirlifetimes, because it is a horrible feeling not just for theimmediate family of the deceased worker but also forthe whole work force, particularly for all the peoplewho develop friendships and camaraderie on worksites. In the building industry workers go from one siteto another and get to know each other; when all of asudden one of your fellow workers is missing it is atraumatic experience. The action taken by the ministerin introducing this legislation will bring the public to ahigher level of understanding of how seriously thegovernment considers the issue of negligence on worksites.

If people comply with the law they have nothing to fearfrom this legislation. If motorists do not stop at a stopsign at an intersection they will be booked and fined,but if they comply with the law and stop they havenothing to fear from a stop sign. This legislation is nodifferent. All this scaremongering and misleading of thepublic by opposition members is wrong. What theyshould be doing is educating employers and, Iagree, sometimes the workers. All they have to do iscomply with the law and make sure that the propersafety precautions are carried out on every building site.For those reasons I support the bill and commend itsspeedy passage through the house.

Mr SPRY (Bellarine) — The remarks made by thehonourable member for Keilor remind me somewhat ofa wolf in sheep’s clothing, because there is far more tothis legislation than he and his colleagues on that side

of the house seem to apprehend. I represent a widevariety of businessmen and women on the BellarinePeninsula, and it is fair to say with reference to thisparticular legislation that not one of them has anyargument with the objective of pursuing better healthand safer workplaces. But they are almost universallydeeply concerned about the thrust of this particularlegislation, and the comments of previous speakers onthis side of the house have been representative of thoseviews.

One representative letter I received on this issue is fromNeil Corstorphan, the proprietor of Lupeera Pty Ltdtrading as Neil Corstorphan Motors. I will selectivelyquote for the record one paragraph from what he has tosay because he typifies what people in my electorate arethinking.

He says:

As a business owner and employer, I object to theintroduction of the proposed legislation. From my point ofview, modifying the Victorian Crimes Act and OccupationalHealth and Safety Act 1985, will not enhance workplacesafety, but rather adversely affect the positive and cooperativeapproach already adopted by government, employers andemployees.

He finishes his letter by stating:

I strongly reject the crimes bill because the basis for it isflawed. As my local member, I call on you to reject the bill.

Madam Chair, I do so with conviction.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — Contributionshave been made to the debate in relation to clause 1,which is the purpose of the bill. Some issues have beenraised about whether or not the legislation is necessary.A number of speakers have indicated that because thenumber of deaths in the workplace has decreased, thelegislation is not necessary.

I remind honourable members that there have alreadybeen 12 workplace deaths this year, 31 last year and63 over the last two years. I am sure all honourablemembers would agree that one death is one death toomany. In deciding to either support or not support thebill I hope that all honourable members have met withall relevant employer groups, employers and employeesas well. I am sure that they would have been told —just as I have been told and I repeat — that there arecorporate cowboys out there who do not care aboutworkplace health and safety and who weigh up whetheror not they should be spending money on improvingworkplace health and safety. In not so doing theydecide to take the risk, and that is the reason they arecorporate cowboys — and this legislation targets them.



It is absolutely true that the vast majority of employerstake workplace health and safety seriously and are nottargeted and will not be affected by this legislation.People say that the number of workplace deaths hasdecreased, so we do not need the legislation. But if theroad toll decreases, we do not ease up on road safety. Ifthere are less burglaries in a particular year, we do notsimply decriminalise burglary.

It is true that we need education and a cooperativeapproach, but the government has made it quite clearthat you also need to ensure that criminal activity in theworkplace is targeted when it occurs.

I am reluctant to point out any individual, but I takeissue with the honourable member for Benambra, whosaid that he has a tape of me saying, ‘Employers have aright to kill’.


Mr HULLS — No, ‘Employers have a right to kill’.I will read Hansard. I wrote down exactly what he saidI said. I can tell you that it is not what I said. I too havea transcript. I also have the actual tape of myself at therally, so I have no doubt that what he said to this placeis not what I said. I repeat that the legislation simplytargets those employers who do not give a damn aboutworkplace health and safety.

We must remember lest we forget the sad case ofAnthony Carrick, and we know what happened to him.Sadly, on his first day on the job he was killed. It was atragic situation, and as I recall the company Drybulkpleaded guilty to the negligence that caused his deathand from memory, I think it was fined $50 000 butwent into liquidation the next day or shortly thereafterand the fine has never been paid. This legislation willstop those companies hiding behind a corporate veil.That is what the senior officer offences are all about.

In summary, the amendments that the governmentpromised we would move are being moved — I am notgoing to go into each and every one of them; we wouldbe here for a week or so — to ensure the entire publicsector is covered. That was sent off to the Law ReformCommission, which came back with a number ofoptions. One is the Crown option, if you like, or thedeemed option. I have legal advice on going down thepath of the deemed option, where the public sector willbe deemed. The Crown and individual business unitswill be deemed, so it covers the whole public sector.

It also covers ministers. I take the view that ministersought to be covered. You cannot have one rule for theprivate sector and the public sector, and have ministersindemnified from criminal activity. Ministers of this

government are prepared to have ourselves covered asministers. If we are criminally negligent, and thatcriminal negligence results in a death or serious injuryin the workplace, we ought to be covered and will becovered under this legislation.

The arguments that have been thrown at us in the pasthave been, ‘You do not want to cover the public sector;you are not fair dinkum; there are going to beexemptions for ministers’. That is not the case. Thewhole public sector is covered. It is good legislation, itis appropriate legislation, and I urge all honourablemembers to support it.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3


1. Clause 3, page 4, lines 18 to 20, omit the definition of“senior officer” and insert —

‘“senior officer” —

(a) in relation to the Crown (excluding bodiescorporate that represent the Crown), means any oneor more of the following who has responsibility inrelation to the functions or activities of anunincorporated body (other than a body deemed tobe a body corporate) that is established by or underan Act and represents the Crown —

(i) a Minister of the Crown;

(ii) an Agency Head within the meaning of thePublic Sector Management andEmployment Act 1998;

(iii) the holder of an office specified insection 16(1) of the Public SectorManagement and Employment Act 1998;

(iv) a chief executive officer, by whatever namecalled;

(v) a person who makes, or participates inmaking, decisions that affect the whole, or asubstantial part, of those functions oractivities of the Crown;

(b) in relation to a body corporate that represents theCrown, means any one or more of the followingwho has responsibility in relation to the functionsor activities of the body corporate —

(i) a Minister of the Crown;

(ii) an Agency Head within the meaning of thePublic Sector Management andEmployment Act 1998;

(iii) the holder of an office specified insection 16(1) of the Public SectorManagement and Employment Act 1998;



(iv) the holder of an office specified insection 6(1) of the Parliamentary OfficersAct 1975;

(v) a chief executive officer, by whatever namecalled;

(vi) a person who makes, or participates inmaking, decisions that affect the whole, or asubstantial part, of the functions or activitiesof the body corporate;

(c) in any other case, has the same meaning as“officer” has, in relation to a corporation, insection 9 of the Corporations Act;’.

This amendment and other amendments moved by mewill ensure that the entirety of the public sector iscovered.

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — We have stated quiteclearly why we are opposed to this bill. Those reasonsdo not have to be restated. If we were in agreementwith this bill, this would be a good amendment. Butbecause the bill itself is badly founded, does not dowhat it should do, is contrary to criminal law principles,is contrary to industrial relations and does not anywherein its provisions angle itself towards large corporationsin any way at all and will probably affect smallcorporations more, we are against it. It is important thatwe make that statement. Therefore it is not necessaryfor us to make a comment on this particularamendment.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — From asimilar perspective as that just expressed, the NationalParty does not oppose the amendment, but it doesoppose the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I move:

1. Clause 3, page 4, lines 21 and 22, omit all words andexpressions on these lines and insert —

‘“serious injury” means injury within the meaning ofsection 15 (including the cumulative effect of more thanone injury) that —

(a) endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’slife; or

(b) is, or is likely to be, significant andlongstanding;’.

This amendment aims to tighten the definition ofserious injury to read that serious injury means injury,including the cumulative effect of more than one injury,that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, orthat is or is likely to be significant and longstanding.This provides an additional hurdle in terms of the level

of injury that must be considered. It adopts thecommonwealth model criminal code, thereby giving theopportunity to other states to adopt similar wording if,as we would hope, they develop similar legislation.

The aim of this amendment is to address two concernsthat have been raised with me by industry: that thedefinition used in the original legislation was too wideand caused uncertainty; and that industry would seeknational consistency in definitions. The adoption of thecommonwealth model criminal code allows for thepotential development of that consistency betweenstates and the commonwealth.



2. Clause 3, page 6, after line 6 insert —

“(5) For the purposes of this Subdivision —

(a) a body described or specified in column 1 ofthe Table in Schedule 2 is deemed to be abody corporate that represents the Crown; and

(b) a person described or specified in column 2 ofthe Table in Schedule 2 in relation to a bodycorporate described or specified in column 1is deemed to be an employee of that bodycorporate; and

(c) if a person is employed by a body corporatedescribed or specified in column 1 of theTable in Schedule 2 but works for anotherbody corporate that represents the Crown, theperson is deemed, despite paragraph (b), to bean employee only of the second-mentionedbody corporate while working for that bodycorporate; and

(d) the Crown and every body corporate thatrepresents the Crown is an employer; and

(e) if an unincorporated body (other than a bodydeemed to be a body corporate) is establishedby or under an Act and represents the Crown,members of the body and persons who areappointed or employed to work for the bodyare deemed, despite paragraph (b), to beemployees only of the Crown.”.

3. Clause 3, page 6, lines 7 to 27, omit all words andexpressions on these lines and insert —

“12. Subdivision to bind the Crown and bodiescorporate that represent the Crown

(1) This Subdivision binds the Crown.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the Crown is a bodycorporate for the purposes of this Subdivision andis liable to be prosecuted and sentenced for anoffence against a provision of this Subdivision.



(3) Subject to sub-section (4), this Subdivision bindsany body corporate that represents the Crown if thebody corporate is established by or under an Act oris deemed or declared to be a body corporate by orunder this or any other Act.

(4) If a person described or specified in column 2 ofthe Table in Schedule 2 is or is deemed or declaredto be a body corporate by or under this or any otherAct —

(a) the conduct of the body corporate is deemedto be conduct of the body corporate describedor specified in column 1 of that Table inrelation to that person; and

(b) employees and agents of the body corporateare deemed to be employees and agents of thebody corporate described or specified incolumn 1 of that Table in relation to thatperson; and

(c) senior officers of the body corporate aredeemed to be senior officers of the bodycorporate described or specified in column 1of that Table in relation to that person; and

(d) the body corporate described or specified incolumn 1 of that Table in relation to thatperson is liable to be prosecuted andsentenced for an offence against a provisionof this Subdivision instead of that person.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that it isthe intention of the Parliament that this Subdivisionrenders a body corporate of a kind referred to insub-section (3) liable to be prosecuted andsentenced for an offence against a provision of thisSubdivision.

(6) Nothing in this section renders the Crown liable tobe prosecuted and sentenced for an offence againsta provision of this Subdivision where the offence iscommitted by a body corporate that represents theCrown.

(7) If under the Public Sector Management andEmployment Act 1998 the name of a Departmentor Administrative Office is changed, any liabilityfor an offence against section 13 or 14 must, fromthe date when the name is changed, be construed asa liability of the Department or AdministrativeOffice in its new name.

(8) If under the Public Sector Management andEmployment Act 1998 a Department orAdministrative Office is abolished on or after thedate on which an alleged offence against aprovision of this Subdivision is committed, theDepartment or Administrative Office is deemed tocontinue to exist for the purposes of prosecutionand sentencing.

(9) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that theDirector of Public Prosecutions may, on behalf ofthe Crown, prosecute the Crown or a bodycorporate of a kind referred to in sub-section (3) foran offence against a provision of this Subdivision.

(10) This section does not affect the binding of theCrown by any other provision of this Act.”.

4. Clause 3, page 7, lines 26 to 31, omit all words andexpressions on these lines and insert —

“(2) For the purposes of sections 13 and 14 —

(a) the conduct of employees, agents and seniorofficers of a body corporate acting within theactual scope of their employment, other thanin the course of judicial or quasi-judicialduties, or within their actual authority, mustbe attributed to the body corporate, includinga body corporate that represents the Crown;and

(b) the conduct of

(i) agents and members of, and personswho are appointed or employed to workfor, an unincorporated body (other than abody deemed to be a body corporate)that is established by or under an Actand represents the Crown; or

(ii) senior officers of the Crown —

acting within the actual scope of theiremployment, or within their actual authority,must be attributed to the Crown.

(3) Only the conduct referred to in sub-section (2)(b)may be attributed to the Crown.”.

Amendments agreed to.



“(7) For the purposes of sections 13 and 14, if theconduct of a body corporate complies with theOccupational Health and Safety Act 1985,regulations made under that Act and any relevantcode of practice approved under that Act, it mustbe presumed, in the absence of evidence to thecontrary, that the conduct of the body corporate isnot negligent.”.

This amendment says that if the conduct of a bodycorporate complies with the Occupational Health andSafety Act 1985, regulations made under that act andany relevant code of practice approved under that act, itmust be presumed in the absence of evidence to thecontrary that the conduct of the body corporate is notnegligent. This means that the desire to legally protectyourself as a company is best served by complying withoccupational health and safety requirements.

This relates to concerns that were raised by both theVictorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce and theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry about the undesirability of shifting the focus ofany legislation from prevention to self-preservation.



I regard this as a significant amendment, and I ask theopposition and business groups to have a serious look atit to make it in a company’s best interests to observehealth and safety regulations and provide them with anadditional certainty that, if they are doing all thosethings, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, toprove negligence.



3. Clause 3, page 10, line 14, omit “materially” and insert“substantially”.

Again this is just a tightening of the provision to statethat an officer’s actions have to contribute substantiallyto the commission of an offence. It makes the hurdlethat must be faced higher than it is with the existingword which is that a senior officer must just contribute‘materially’ to the offence.



4. Clause 3, page 11, line 13, omit “materially” and insert“substantially”.

This is the same as amendment 3.




“(2) The court must impose on a body corporate a fineproportional to the size of the body corporate,taking into account —

(a) the number of employees of the bodycorporate and the entities, within the meaningof the Corporations Act, it controls; and

(b) the number of persons, including independentcontractors and outworkers, providingservices to, or relating to, the body corporateand the entities it controls; and

(c) if appropriate, the consolidated grossoperating revenue for the last precedingfinancial year of the body corporate and theentities it controls; and

(d) if appropriate, the value of the consolidatedgross assets at the end of the last precedingfinancial year of the body corporate and theentities it controls.

(3) Sub-section (2) is in addition to, and not inderogation of, Division 4 of Part 3 of theSentencing Act 1991.”.

This amendment just asks that any court seeking topotentially impose any penalty on a company take intoconsideration the size of that company and its financialsituation.



6. Clause 3, page 13, line 6, omit “(2)” and insert “(4)”.









15. Clause 3, page 14, line 27, omit “(2)(a)” and insert“(4)(a)”.







These are consequential and renumbering amendments.



5. Clause 3, page 15, line 26, before “It is” insert “(1)”.

6. Clause 3, page 15, line 30, omit “Victoria.’.” and insert“Victoria.”.


“(2) If all of the conduct that constitutes an offenceagainst section 13, other than the death, occurredin Victoria, it is immaterial that the deathoccurred outside Victoria.’.”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.



Clause 4


8. Clause 4, after line 12 insert —

‘(2) In section 336(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, for “oran offence specified in section 4, 11 or 14 of thisAct” substitute “, conspiracy to commit murder,incitement to commit murder or attempting tocommit murder”.’.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7


9. Clause 7, line 12, omit “7(1)” and insert “8(1)”.

This is just a consequential amendment.



22. Clause 7, line 21, omit ‘committed.”.’ and insert“committed.”.


‘(5) If a court finds a body corporate guilty of anoffence against this Act, the court must impose apenalty proportional to the size of the bodycorporate, taking into account —





(6) Sub-section (5) is in addition to, and not inderogation of, Division 4 of Part 3 of theSentencing Act 1991.”.’.

These and the following amendments appearing in myname all insert into different parts of the bill the samewording as appears in amendment 5.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10



‘(2) In section 26 of the Equipment (Public Safety)Act 1994, after sub-section (3) insert —

“(4) If a court finds a body corporate guilty of anoffence against this Act, the court mustimpose a penalty proportional to the size ofthe body corporate, taking into account —






Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12



‘(2) In section 47 of the Occupational Health andSafety Act 1985, after sub-section (3) insert —

“(4) If a court finds a body corporate guilty of anoffence against this Act, the court must impose apenalty proportional to the size of the bodycorporate, taking into account —









Clause 14


10. Clause 14, line 20, omit “14” and insert “15”.


Clause 16




New clause


12. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 5:

‘AA. New Schedule 2 inserted

After the First Schedule to the Crimes Act 1958insert —

“SCHEDULE 2Section 11(5)

CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY — PUBLIC SECTOR

TABLE

Column 1 Column 2

An Agency within the meaning of the Public Sector Managementand Employment Act 1998 (except the Department of Educationand Training)

The Agency Head

Persons employed by the Agency Head under Part 3 or 9 of thePublic Sector Management and Employment Act 1998

An office specified in section 16(1) of the Public SectorManagement and Employment Act 1998 (except the office of theChief Commissioner of Police)

The office holder specified in relation to employees in the office

Persons employed in the office specified in section 16(1) of thePublic Sector Management and Employment Act 1998

Department of Education and Training The Secretary to the Department

Persons employed by the Secretary to the Department under Part 3or 9 of the Public Sector Management and EmploymentAct 1998

Persons employed under section 3 of the Teaching ServiceAct 1981

Persons employed under section 5(1) of the Education Act 1958

Victoria Police Persons employed in the office of the Chief Commissioner ofPolice

Members of the police force of Victoria appointed under section 4or 8 of the Police Regulation Act 1958

Police recruits appointed under section 8A of the PoliceRegulation Act 1958

Police reservists appointed under Part VI of the Police RegulationAct 1958

Protective services officers appointed under Part VIA of the PoliceRegulation Act 1958



Parliament of Victoria Members of the Legislative Assembly

Members of the Legislative Council

Department heads specified in section 6(1) of the ParliamentaryOfficers Act 1975

Persons employed in a department specified in section 6(1) of theParliamentary Officers Act 1975 under Part 2 of that Act

Ministerial officers and Parliamentary advisers employed underPart 8 of the Public Sector Management and EmploymentAct 1998

Supreme Court The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the SupremeCourt

Officers appointed under Division 1 of Part 7 of the SupremeCourt Act 1986 or any corresponding previous enactment

County Court The Chief Judge and Judges of the County Court

Masters of the County Court

Officers of the County Court appointed under Division 4 or 5 ofPart 1 of the County Court Act 1958

Magistrates’ Court The magistrates, principal registrar, registrars and deputy registrarsof the Magistrates’ Court

Children’s Court The President, magistrates, principal registrar, registrars and deputyregistrars of the Children’s Court

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal The President, Vice Presidents, Deputy Presidents, senior membersand ordinary members of the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal

The principal registrar, chief executive officer, registrars and otherstaff of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New clause agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Report adopted.

Third reading

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 44Allan, Ms Kosky, MsAllen, Ms Langdon, Mr (Teller)Barker, Ms Languiller, MrBatchelor, Mr Leighton, MrBeattie, Ms Lenders, MrBracks, Mr Lim, MrBrumby, Mr Lindell, MsCameron, Mr Loney, MrCampbell, Ms Maddigan, MrsCarli, Mr Maxfield, MrDavies, Ms Mildenhall, MrDelahunty, Ms Nardella, MrDuncan, Ms Overington, MsGarbutt, Ms Pandazopoulos, MrGillett, Ms Pike, MsHaermeyer, Mr Robinson, MrHamilton, Mr Seitz, MrHardman, Mr Stensholt, MrHelper, Mr (Teller) Thwaites, Mr

Holding, Mr Trezise, MrHoward, Mr Viney, MrHulls, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 43Asher, Ms Maclellan, MrAshley, Mr Maughan, Mr (Teller)Baillieu, Mr Mulder, MrBurke, Ms Napthine, DrClark, Mr Paterson, MrCooper, Mr Perton, MrDean, Dr Peulich, MrsDelahunty, Mr Phillips, MrDixon, Mr Plowman, MrDoyle, Mr Richardson, MrElliott, Mrs Rowe, MrFyffe, Mrs Ryan, MrHoneywood, Mr Savage, MrIngram, Mr Shardey, MrsJasper, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Kilgour, Mr Spry, MrKotsiras, Mr Steggall, MrLeigh, Mr Thompson, MrLupton, Mr Vogels, MrMcArthur, Mr Wells, MrMcCall, Ms Wilson, MrMcIntosh, Mr

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

AUDIT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

AUDIT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Council’s amendments

Returned from Council with message insisting on someamendments and seeking concurrence with a furtherCouncil amendment.

Ordered to be considered next day.

Remaining business postponed on motion ofMr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport).

ADJOURNMENT

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Imove:

That the house do now adjourn.

Planning: VCAT appeals

Mr SPRY (Bellarine) — In spite of herpreoccupation with other matters earlier this evening, Iwish to draw the attention of the Minister for Planningto complaints from constituents about leniencydisplayed by the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal (VCAT) in building disputes. In several recentincidents, despite Labor’s false expectations withRescode, some builders have ignored planning andbuilding permits, either deliberately or otherwise, andwhen neighbours have complained councils havegenerally supported the complainant and instructed thebuilder to comply with the original approved plans.

Quite often the unapproved works are near completionand the cost of alterations to comply with the originalplans are significant. When the builder subsequentlyappeals to VCAT, more often than not VCAT simplyrolls over and approves the alteration. This infuriatesthe neighbours and makes a mockery of the wholeprocess.

I ask the minister to intervene by seeking thecooperation of the Attorney-General in instructingVCAT to observe both the letter and the spirit of thelaw in dealing with these cases in future. I have thesupport of local government in my electorate and quotefrom a response from the acting city developmentmanager of the City of Greater Geelong in relation tothis matter:

I can unequivocally advise that the City of Greater Geelong issupportive of development generally and of the appropriateprocedures to ensure that all development which proceedsafter a planning permit is in accordance with the agreedplanning permit plans and conditions.

The City of Greater Geelong would welcome a clear positionfrom VCAT in respect to these principles.

It is time for the minister to restore harmony toneighbourhoods in relation to what really should be aperfectly straightforward matter. All that is required is abit of leadership from this admittedly beleagueredminister.

Seniors: services guide

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — I wish to raise amatter for the Minister for Senior Victorians relating tothe recently published 2002 Guide to Services forSenior Victorians. This is a very useful document thathelps to connect and inform our very special seniorVictorians. I ask that the minister investigate and adviseon the possibility of translating this fantastic documentinto a range of different languages to assist our morethan one in five Victorians who are aged 65 years andover who were born overseas.

Honourable members would know that Werribee is oneof Victoria’s growth corridors but they may not realisethat it is also one of Victoria’s most culturally diverseareas. Werribee has constituents representing over60 different ethnic and cultural groups. Many of thesegroups contain long-established seniors groups in mycommunity who would benefit enormously from thetranslation of the seniors guide into their first language.It would also be of assistance to their children and theirfriends in assisting to inform and care for our seniorVictorians, not just in Werribee but in all of Victoria.

Werribee is diverse in its age, cultural and ethnicdemographics. It would be very much appreciated if theminister could investigate and advise on the possibilityof translating the 2002 Guide to Services for SeniorVictorians so that it is more readily available to peoplewhose first language is not English.

Firearms: licences

Mr KILGOUR (Shepparton) — I wish to raise amatter for the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices involving firearms licensing and a situationthat badly affects a constituent who has recently comefrom Tasmania, the Apple Isle, to live in my electorate.This gentleman has gained a position with the City ofGreater Shepparton as a ranger and in that capacity heis required to use a firearm at certain times in order to

ADJOURNMENT


put down an animal or perform some similar task. Hetherefore needs a firearms licence.

He lived in Tasmania for some years and had a firearmslicence during that period. Whilst living there he wasinvolved in a business partnership that broke up andthere was a disagreement which resulted in a restrainingorder being placed on him, and that expired inNovember 2000.

His firearms licence was not revoked. He was not aprohibited person in Tasmania, but when he came toapply for a firearms licence in Victoria he was advisedthat he was a prohibited person under Victorian law,even though he was not under Tasmanian law. Hecannot have his prohibited person’s status lifted inTasmania as he does not have a court order against himin Tasmania relating to a firearms licence.

He has been told that he may have to take the issue tothe Supreme Court at a cost of about $5000. Will theminister investigate if there is any way that thisgentleman, a law-abiding citizen who has been thesubject of the difference in laws between states, canhave the matter reviewed and the possibility of himreceiving a shooters licence? I am certainly happy toprovide the minister with full details of the issue, but itseems incredible that a person who had a shooterslicence and who is not a prohibited person in Tasmaniacomes to Victoria and is unable to receive one becauseof the difference in state laws. Will the minister lookinto the issue to see what can be done so that thegentleman can take up the employment he has beenseeking and for which he needs a licence to carry outhis job properly?

Public transport: western suburbs

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I raise a matter for theattention of the Minister for Transport regarding thewestern suburbs, in particular the fast-growing estatesof Caroline Springs, Hillside, Taylors Hill, andDelahey. The families in the outlying areas are often ata disadvantage because public transport services havenot yet caught up with development as developersmove much faster than governments are able to provideservices.

Many of these people come from inner urban areaswhere they had a tram, train and bus service as well astaxis. I ask the minister to ensure that the new growthareas are adequately provided with public transportservices, particularly bus services.

I congratulate the minister for completing theelectrification of the train service to Sydenham, whichis now called the Sydenham rail line. The popularity

and use of public transport in that area has proven itselfbecause the designated car park has outgrown its use.The public in that growth corridor has been waiting formany years for a reliable train service to the city. Thereis evidence that the community will use public transportif it is available, in particular with the Water Gardensrailway station on the Sydenham line. It is importantthat people in those new developing areas have theopportunity to leave their cars at home and commute bybus to that station, which would therefore eliminate theneed for extra car parking spaces. It would also make ita lot safer for cars not to create congestion and traffichazards in the region, which would be a beneficialfactor for our community.

I know the minister has already announced an increasein the budget for bus services in the area, but I ask thatthose bus services be implemented as soon aspracticable to provide a service to the Water Gardensstation as well as the new station at Keilor Plains whichhas been developed and which has become popularwith the people of the Keilor electorate. Despite whatwe hear from the opposition and in other places,members of the community will use public transport ifthe government invests in it and makes it available tothem. I ask the minister to take those matters on board.

Motor vehicles: permits

Mr ASHLEY (Bayswater) — The matter I seek toraise tonight relates to the serious, if unintended, andadverse consequences which flow from the issue ofunregistered vehicle permits. This is actually adouble-barrelled issue, and in the first part it relates tothe portfolio of the Minister for Transport.

Unregistered vehicle permits do not seem to be aproblem if you look at the basic conditions of use. Theyare:

1. To take the vehicle from its place of acquisition to theresidence or garaged address nominated on the permit ofthe person who acquired it;

2. To use the vehicle between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. totravel to and from a licensed vehicle tester and/or in thecourse of necessary testing and repairs by a localrepairer for the purpose of obtaining an engineer’s reportor certificate of roadworthiness … issued in Victoria.

The problem in the first instance is that until a licensedvehicle tester has had a chance to assess a vehicle theperson who has acquired it does not know whether ornot it is safe to use on a highway. The overarchingcondition on the use of unregistered vehicle permits isthat the vehicle must be safe for use on a highway. Ifthe vehicle is not safe to use on a highway or is foundnot to be so by an intercepting police officer, that police

ADJOURNMENT


officer will order the car’s removal from the road andimpose a $500 fine, and in fact expunge theunregistered vehicle permit, which costs $60.50.

I am asking the minister to investigate whether thisprocess should continue or whether no car should beused at all until a vehicle tester has assessed it, and ifnecessary that cars be transported to a vehicle tester orthe vehicle tester come to the home of the personbuying it. There is a hazard here that these conditionsdo not deal with.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehonourable member for Mordialloc to cease reading thebook in the chamber.

Kangaroos: control

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I ask the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation to take action toaddress the environmental disaster created by thefederal government keeping kangaroos confined withinthe Puckapunyal army base. There has been a massiveincrease in the kangaroo population because ofmismanagement by a federal government department.

As the minister will be aware, a great deal ofinformation — and may I say misinformation — aboutthis issue has been aired on the radio today. It isfrustrating that this issue has not been dealt with to date.I have been speaking to the minister, the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment (DNRE), thefederal member for McEwen and several constituentsabout this issue over the past few weeks. I am trying toget to the truth of the matter, and getting somethingdone has been extremely frustrating. I am sure thatanyone who heard the discussion on 3LO this morningwould agree.

As the local member for Seymour I just want thisproblem fixed. We do not need politics, we want theproblem fixed. I am concerned about the safety of thePuckapunyal residents, who feel threatened by thestarving kangaroos, which are desperate. I amconcerned for the farmers whose sheep and cattlefodder is being decimated by the thousands ofkangaroos that have left the confines of thePuckapunyal base and are reported to be now grazingon neighbouring properties.

I am also concerned for the safety of people in vehicleswho are being put in danger by the Puckapunyalkangaroos that are escaping to find greener pasturesacross the road. I am also concerned for the amenity ofthe Puckapunyal residents, who have to put up with thestench of kangaroos that are dying of starvation and are

leaving behind their bodily wastes after grazing onplaygrounds and yards overnight.

I have been working hard to raise this urgent matterwith the respective departments — the VictorianDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment andthe commonwealth Department of Defence. I wish tosee some action for my constituents, whose lives andlivelihoods are being so adversely affected by thisenvironmental disaster. I understand this is really afederal issue — a problem created by the federalgovernment — but I ask the minister to do everythingpossible within the limits of DNRE to address thismatter, which is consuming the lives of many people.This is a very serious ongoing issue that is affecting thelives of constituents in my electorate. It has to be fixednow. The federal government has to get in there andassist DNRE to do its job.

I would like to see this action being taken right now inmy electorate to actually get something done. TheLiberals opposite do not care, just as the Liberals inCanberra do not care. We want some action in Seymourto address this issue.

Schools: ministerial visits

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — I wish to raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Educationand Training in relation to the nature of ministerialvisits to schools. I had an opportunity to have a closelook at the nature and format of such a visit lastMonday.

Basically, the school received a phone call at 11 o’clockon the previous Friday asking staff to organise a specialassembly so that the Minister for Education andTraining could come out and make a bit of a song anddance about funding. The whole procedure wasinteresting. Strict protocols were issued including, forexample, that the local member should not be invitedand that if by some chance she were to turn up sheshould not be on the stage. The students were not toreceive the minister. The principal was to do that andwas to be only 1 foot away from the minister at anytime. After 10 phone calls and much toing-and-froingand rescheduling of the minister’s arrival, the assemblyhall full of students waited 50 minutes for the ministerto arrive. It was amazing, and the most amazing thingwas the minister’s entourage.

With the minister were her driver; three photographersin tow, presumably from the department and EducationNews and so forth, and certainly not any localphotographers; the regional director; two departmentspin doctors; an adviser to the minister; and, of course,

ADJOURNMENT


the paid Labor candidate for Bentleigh, who is thesenior adviser to the Premier and who obviously is paidto do his campaigning in the seat that he visits fromtime to time.

I guess the interesting thing was that the minister madea barefaced claim that the school had not received anyfunding for 15 years or 10 years, or whatever it was.Obviously she received very poor advice, becausebetween 1992 and 1999 the school received in excessof $1 million, and the previous government hadcommitted $1.1 million just before the last election,which had been rolled into the announcement.

The money that the minister announced was certainlywelcome — indeed, we would welcome more! I call onthe minister to ensure that her advisers give schoolsappropriate information about protocols; that theyadhere to them to ensure minimum disruption toschools; that they make sure she receives accuratebriefings; and that she rationalise what is obviously avery expensive entourage, which would probably see amore valuable deployment of resources to schoolfunding. We wish we had more funding! Obviously theminister’s contingent is elaborate, extravagant and verymuch an ego trip for the minister — but certainly notfor those who witnessed the event!

Jindara Community Programs

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I ask the Minister forConsumer Affairs to take action in relation to JindaraCommunity Programs, which is a fine communityorganisation that delivers important services to myelectorate and the Greater Geelong region. Because itprovides important services such as consumer affairsadvice, it is important that the community of Geelong isaware that advice is provided by Jindara. I ask theminister to take steps to ensure that the community ofGeelong is aware that Jindara is providing thisimportant service to residents within the GreaterGeelong region.

As I said, Jindara is a fine community-basedorganisation which is focused on delivering importantservices to the region of Geelong, and I am proud thatits head office is based in my electorate of Geelong.Jindara’s primary focus is on providing advice toindividual families who are financially disadvantagedor who suffer from financial hardship.

Jindara provides tenancy information and advice andassists in resolving disputes between tenants andlandlords. It also provides consumer affairs advice andinformation to both consumers and traders alike.Importantly, Jindara also provides financial counsellors

and financial services to assist people who facefinancial difficulties to work through issues and preparestrategies such as personal budgets.

Jindara Community Programs provides an essential andimportant service to my community of Geelong,especially to those people who are financiallydisadvantaged, and therefore I look forward to theminister’s actions in this case.

Police: Hamilton station

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Iseek the urgent action of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services to fix major problems at theHamilton police station. The station is a two-storeybuilding. Last week its hot-water boiler systemdeveloped significant leaks which flooded the uppermess room. The watch-room below the upper messroom had to be shut down because the ceiling wasbulging with the water flooding through the system,and it was at real risk of collapse. Indeed, thewatch-room ceiling now has to be held up by temporarysupports. With the watch-room out of action because ofthis dangerous situation the police can no longer holdprisoners in the police cells.

A provisional improvement notice was imposed on thewatch-room and the police cells so that any prisonerswho were previously in the cells or intended to be heldin the cells now have to be transferred to Portland orWarrnambool. The heating system in the police stationhas had to be turned off as a result of this breakdownand flooding.

At 9 o’clock this morning I was advised that the policeofficers at Hamilton police station were shivering as thetemperature there was only 3 degrees. The Hamiltonpolice do an excellent job. They are a fine group of menand women who look after the interests and safety ofthe Hamilton community. They deserve better than thetreatment they have received from the Bracks Laborgovernment. I have been advised that the Hamiltonpolice have been seeking action for two years toupgrade the heating system at the police station buttheir requests have fallen on deaf ears.

Now the situation has reached a desperate stage. Thereis a provisional improvement notice applying to theheating system, to the watch-room and to significantparts of the police station. The police in Hamiltondeserve proper conditions, and I urge the minister totake urgent action to make sure the Hamilton policestation and its heating system are repaired immediately.

ADJOURNMENT


Planning: restrictive covenants

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I raise a matterconcerning covenants for the attention of the Ministerfor Planning. I seek from the minister her considerationin arranging for the provision of direct advice toproperty owners who are affected by covenants on theirtitle on how they might deal with them appropriately.The circumstances of this request are quite unusual.The City of Whitehorse last year dealt with a planningpermit from a property owner in Blackburn who had acovenant on his title which prohibited quarrying ofmaterials. These covenants were quite popular back inthe 1920s when the eastern suburbs in Melbourne, inparticular Blackburn and Mitcham, had many quarries.We still have some quarrying activity but it is far lessthan it once was.

The council investigated and sought legal advice on itsposition regarding the issuing of a planning permitwhere a covenant was evident. Although the requestfrom the property owner was only to install aswimming pool, the council at first took quite atechnical and, one might say, conservative view as towhat it was permitted to grant, given the wording of thecovenant. The matter was eventually resolved quitesatisfactorily, but the situation had arisen because theBracks government — very correctly, in my opinion —had the year before amended the planning laws to avoidsituations where covenants were being ignored. Thiswas a disgraceful situation that we inherited from theprevious Liberal government when covenants had beenignored, and that was most unsatisfactory. However,the Whitehorse situation highlights the need for a raisedawareness of covenants and their impact for propertyowners.

For example, it is possible to amend covenants wherethe language is outdated. I think this can be done in twoor three ways, one of which involves going to theSupreme Court. It is desirable that property owners areaware of effective covenants and their rights if theirproperty is affected by a covenant. The City ofWhitehorse has estimated that some 20 000 propertiesin its municipality would be affected by covenants.

I am seeking the minister’s consideration of advicefrom her department or from other sources to propertyowners at some opportune time in the future that wouldallow them to be more aware, if their properties werecovered by covenants, of how they might deal with thatin the event that they were caught up in situationswhere planning permits had to be lodged and thecouncil had to consider the wording of those covenants.

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — I raise a serious matterabout the closure by the Bracks Labor government of aschool in the electorate of Carrum. Last week we hadthe Dingley bypass, this week we have the closure of aschool by this now Minister for Education and Trainingwho formerly as an adviser in the Cain–Kirnergovernment was involved in the closure of at least100 schools.

I understand that it is proposed to close the Bonbeachcampus of the Chisholm Institute of TAFE and sell offits site. I refer to comments which appeared in thisweek’s Leader newspaper about the Carrum ResidentsAction Group, saying that public relations andeducation manager:

… Anne Martin, said the group’s lease expired in 2000.

She is reported to have said —

We’ve had negotiations with the ministers, officers andcouncil. We have nothing in writing about the outcome ofthose meetings and that is a concern.

We’ve been told that we are going to be able to retain spaceon the campus but it might be in a slightly different spot.

The article continues:

But Ms Martin said rumours persisted that the site would be‘sold off, most likely to a property developer’.

The site we are talking about is next door to thePatterson River Country Club. I think there is everyprospect of the Bracks Labor government flogging offthis school site. The government has mucked aroundfor nearly two years over this issue and we are still nocloser to resolving it. It seems to me that these peoplehave rights and some action should be taken.

It is interesting to look at what the Bracks Laborgovernment members said when a school was beingclosed under the former administration. At the time thenow member for Carrum was the employee of the thenshadow minister for education, Mr Mal Sandon. On2 December 1992 he was so outraged about the closureof Aspendale Technical School that following a protestmeeting he was reported in the local newspaper assaying:

The meeting was not about party politics. It was about savingthe school.

Worse than that, we heard comments from a gentlemannamed Kevin Howlett. For the house’s information Imention that Mr Howlett is the campaign manager ofthe honourable member for Carrum. He was doingloop-the-loops in 1992 in opposing the then Kennett

ADJOURNMENT


government. About the Aspendale Technical School hesaid that he was determined to fight the closure.

Where are Mr Howlett and the honourable member forCarrum? They are not around. I notice the honourablemember for Carrum just walked out of the house as Icommenced this speech.

I ask the minister to take action. Is the minister going tosell the site off for property development, which Ibelieve is what is being undertaken? Is the reason whyno-one will tell anybody what is happening because thegovernment is currently negotiating with a number ofreal estate agents for the sale of this site for a fabuloushousing development next door to the golf course? Ithink that is what is going on in this case.

It is about time we had a little bit of integrity — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired. The honourablemember for Sandringham has about 50 seconds.

Bridges: Sandridge

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I raise amatter with the Minister for Major Projects on behalf ofMr Graham Wearne of Beaumaris. In the event of theSandridge rail bridge not being demolished, myconstituent has raised the possibility of a masterpiecebeing created on its site that will be the envy of theworld for centuries to come.

He proposes there be a raised garden of colour anddesign spanning the river with a huge fountain as acentrepiece. The fountain could be designed in such away as to change shape and colour by night, withcomputerised sound.

The gardens could be elevated from within the bridgeso that the floral display could be seen from all anglesand rise slightly to mid-river. The central constructioncould incorporate perfumed plantings in season — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired.

Responses

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — The honourable member for Seymourraised with me the issue of the excessive number ofkangaroos in the Puckapunyal military area. I am toldthat there are around 100 000 kangaroos at themoment — far too many for the site. The honourablemember for Seymour has expressed his concern aboutthis alarming situation and vividly outlined to the housethe problems it is causing for the safety of the public,

the livelihood of local farmers, the vegetation atPuckapunyal — and there are some very goodvegetation areas there — and the welfare of thekangaroos. Many of them are starving and gettingcaught in the perimeter fences, so it is an unfortunatesituation indeed.

Puckapunyal is the responsibility of the Department ofDefence. It is that department’s responsibility to controlthe kangaroo numbers. As the honourable member forSeymour outlined, with no action being taken thenumbers have built up over a number of years. Asteering committee which includes representatives fromthe Department of Defence and the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment (DNRE) has beenformed to oversee the management of the kangaroopopulation.

Before the Department of Defence can cull kangaroos itmust apply to DNRE for a permit and must present akangaroo management plan. My advice is that DNRE isstill waiting for the finalised kangaroo managementplan from the Department of Defence and anapplication to control the kangaroos. Once that isreceived DNRE can expedite the application andprovide the necessary approvals.

Recently there has been quite an amazing piece ofdefence department spin that DNRE has refused toallow a permit. Someone is telling porkies, because thatis not the case. I am advised that the Department ofDefence has not been refused; it has simply not applied,and you cannot be refused before you apply. DNRE hasadvised the Department of Defence that a controlpermit would be granted for 12 months based on thelodgment of a kangaroo management plan. That fact isrecorded in the minutes of the steering group meetingof 8 April of this year. DNRE is prepared to issue apermit subject to the finalisation of the kangaroomanagement plan, and I will ensure that occurs whenthe Department of Defence has finalised its obligations.

What really amazes me is that the local federalmember, Fran Bailey, is also the parliamentarysecretary to the Minister for Defence. She should havebeen across this issue. She should have known whatwas required within her own portfolio and certainlywithin her electorate. I am writing to the parliamentarysecretary to advise her of the true situation and the realreason for the delay, and to ask her to take action so wecan resolve this unfortunate situation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I call on theMinister for Senior Victorians to respond to thehonourable member for Geelong in her role as Ministerfor Consumer Affairs, and to the honourable memberfor Werribee in her role as Minister for Senior

ADJOURNMENT


Victorians; to the honourable member for Bellarine onbehalf of the Minister for Planning; to the honourablemember for Shepparton on behalf of the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services; to the honourablemembers for Keilor and Bayswater on behalf of theMinister for Transport; to the honourable member forBentleigh on behalf of the Minister for Education andTraining; to the Leader of the Opposition on behalf ofthe Minister for Police and Emergency Services; to thehonourable member for Mitcham on behalf of theMinister for Planning; to the honourable member forMordialloc on behalf of the Minister for Education andTraining; and to the honourable member forSandringham on behalf of the Minister for MajorProjects.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, on many occasions when you or the Speakerpass these requests on to the minister at the table whenother ministers are not around we never get an answer.What happens is that the minister at the table says theywill take it to the relevant minister, but no answer isgiven back to the house or to the member concerned. Iwonder if you can take the situation up with theSpeaker so that when a question is raised with theminister at the table a process is established to ensurethe minister provides the information the honourablemember has requested during the adjournment debate.Otherwise it is a pointless exercise talking to a ministerwho is not present. Perhaps you could take it up withthe Speaker and see how this could be resolved.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. It is not the role of the Speaker or theDeputy Speaker to direct the government on how torespond during the adjournment debate.

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for SeniorVictorians) — The honourable member for Werribeeraised an important issue in relation to the 2002 Guideto Services for Senior Victorians. That guide has beenextremely well received. I am pleased to inform thehonourable member for Werribee that I will make surethat the guide to seniors is translated into at least12 community languages. It is important that the 12most commonly used community languages —Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, German, Greek, Hungarian,Italian, Macedonian, Maltese, Polish, Russian andVietnamese — be the first of the community languagesto be translated.

I am also pleased that the Bracks government hasthoroughly revised and updated the guide in response tostrong demand from older people, their families andfriends. The cost of translating the guide will be$72 000. I am sure the honourable member forWerribee will be delighted to take that to her

community. The Bracks government considers it isreally important to provide information in communitylanguages and to make sure that seniors have access tothis important guide.

The honourable member for Geelong raised with methe matter of Jindara, an absolutely excellentcommunity organisation which provides consumeraffairs advice and is funded by the department ofconsumer affairs. The honourable member is keen forme to take steps to make the citizens of Geelong andsurrounds aware of the assistance available throughJindara should they require assistance or advice onconsumer affairs. It is important that there be a publiccommunity presence and that the public be aware ofconsumer affairs protection agencies available to themthroughout Victoria.

As the honourable member for Geelong knows — itwas raised with him today and also with me asminister — the suggestion has been made that fundedorganisations such as Jindara put in their titles that theycan provide assistance on consumer affairs at a locallevel. I will take that matter up with Jindara.

The honourable member for Bayswater raised for theMinister for Transport the matter of unregisteredvehicle permits.

The honourable member for Keilor raised with theMinister for Transport the matter of the fast developingnew-growth western suburbs and the need for publictransport. I will convey both matters to the minister.

The honourable member for Bentleigh gave a list ofcredits to those in attendance at a school in herelectorate but failed to ask and be specific on action, butI am sure the Minister for Education — —

Mrs Peulich — On point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the custom is for the minister at the table tonot respond to the matter but to refer it to theresponsible minister. Even if she knows somethingabout it — I doubt that very much — could you makesure that the matter is taken up with the ministerappropriately and that this minister does not pretend toknow?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. The minister will continue.

Ms CAMPBELL — The Minister for Educationand Training can read Hansard and note the list ofcredits of those in attendance when she visited theelectorate of the honourable member for Bentleigh.

The Leader of the Opposition raised for the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services the matter of the

ADJOURNMENT


Hamilton police station. I will convey that to theminister.

The honourable member for Mitcham raised a matterwith the Minister for Planning regarding covenants andthe provision of direct advice to property owners. I willrefer that to the Minister for Planning.

I will also refer to the minister an issue raised by thehonourable member for Bellarine concerning theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal abiding bythe spirit and letter of the law.

The honourable member for Mordialloc raised a matterfor the Minister for Education and Training, which Iwill refer to her.

The honourable member for Sandringham raised for theMinister for Major Projects the matter of the SandridgeBridge. I will convey that to the minister.

The honourable member for Shepparton raised for theMinister for Police and Emergency Services a matterconcerning a constituent of his. Given that the ministeris not in the house, I am sure he will respond to thehonourable member in writing.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 1.40 a.m. (Wednesday)

CONDOLENCES

Wednesday, 15 May 2002 ASSEMBLY 1479

Wednesday, 15 May 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

CONDOLENCES

Gordon Stanley Hockley

The SPEAKER — Order! I advise the house of thedeath of Gordon Stanley Hockley, a member of theLegislative Assembly for the electoral district ofBentleigh from 1979 to 1988.

I ask honourable members to rise in their places as amark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

Honourable members stood in their places.

The SPEAKER — Order! Thank you. I shallconvey the message of sympathy from the house to therelatives of the late Gordon Stanley Hockley.

PETITION

The Clerk — I have received the following petitionfor presentation to Parliament:

Commonwealth Games: athletes village


The humble petition of the Royal Park Protection Group Inc.and the undersigned citizens of the state of Victoria sheweththat in view of the fact that Parkville (the former Royal ParkPsychiatric Hospital and adjacent sites) is the government’spreferred site for the 2006 Commonwealth Games Village:

Your petitioners therefore pray that the 2006 CommonwealthGames Village be located on an appropriate site, not inParkville, and that the former Royal Park Psychiatric Hospitaland adjacent sites revert to public parkland and that theheritage hospital buildings be restored for community useand/or mental health services.


By Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) (1007 signatures)

PAPERS


Altona Memorial Park — Report for the year 2001

Geelong Cemeteries Trust — Report for the year 2001.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Police: Somerville

Mr COOPER (Mornington) — In recent monthsthere have been a number of significant outbreaks ofcriminal and antisocial behaviour in Somerville. Theseincidents have alarmed people in the local communityto such an extent that they are now of the view thatSomerville does not have an appropriate level of policeprotection.

Unlike the western side of the Mornington Peninsula,which has five police stations, the eastern side of thepeninsula has only one police station, at Hastings. Thatpolice station has limited resources to cover an areaextending from Baxter to Cape Schanck — a distanceof 53 kilometres.

Last week I received a petition from 3430 residents ofSomerville and district calling on the government toestablish a police station in Somerville. The petition isnot in a form that enables it to be officially presented tothe house. However, that lack of formality does nothingto diminish the concerns of the community or thevalidity of their argument.

I call on the government, and in particular the Ministerfor Police and Emergency Services, to give careful andurgent consideration to the very real concerns andneeds of the Somerville community.

Western Highway: parking bays and toilets

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — The governmentand the Minister for Transport are to be condemned forfailing to provide relief in the form of public parkingbays and toilets for motorists travelling along theeastbound lanes of the Western Highway betweenBeaufort and Melbourne. Nearly two years ago I raisedthis matter with the minister, and I was promised thatsomething would be done.

On Monday I was travelling down to Melbourne. AtBallan there is a BP roadhouse on the right-hand side.The government has put up for the third or fourth timean extension of the fencing along the median strip tostop motorists turning right across the highway to visitthis public convenience. In the state budget this year,$1 billion, or $1000 million, has been provided for a34-kilometre roadway called the Scoresby freeway. Iask the government to provide some of that money toaddress the pressure that is building up along theWestern Highway.

I call on the government and the Minister for Transportto provide relief for country motorists on the eastbound

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1480 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 15 May 2002

roads of the Western Highway and provide publicfacilities in the form of parking bays and toilets forcountry motorists.

Gordon Hockley

Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — Today I record withsadness the passing of Gordon Hockley on Saturday,11 May, at the age of 75. Gordon was the honourablemember for Bentleigh from 1979 to 1988. He won thesupposedly unwinnable seat in 1979 with a 9.5 per centswing to him, and by 95 votes. He won because for twoand a half years he doorknocked thousands of housesand sent daily press releases to the local paper. He wasthe consummate grassroots campaigner, very active inhis community, well known and respected. He was astrong representative for his electorate. He won the seaton two more occasions and retired from Parliament in1988.

A modest, intelligent and hardworking man, he heldsome very firm views. One which I admired greatlywas his strong stance on gun control despite vigorousand loud opposition from the pro-gun lobby. At alltimes Gordon was strongly supported by his wife,Joyce, and his four sons. With Joyce he shared a54-year marriage and partnership. He joined the ALP in1949. He was one of the Labor Party’s true believers.

At the funeral service yesterday his son said Gordonhad a couple of regrets: that he would not see hisgrandchildren achieve their full potential and that hewould not see Steve Bracks achieve his second term ofgovernment. To me this is what Gordon epitomised —a loving and caring family man, and a loyal,hardworking member of the Labor Party. On behalf ofall those who knew Gordon, worked with him and werehelped by him, I extend my deepest sympathy to Joyce,his sons Rob, Greg, Lindsay and Andrew, their spouses,and Gordon’s seven grandchildren. He will be sadlymissed. May he rest in peace.

Dental services: Yarra Ranges

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — On 17 August 2000 Iraised the urgent need for dental health services in theYarra Ranges. The federal government supplied dentalchairs at the Yarra Ranges community health centre inLilydale. But what has the Bracks government done?As last week’s budget outcomes show, the expectedwaiting time for restorative dental care is increasingfrom 20 months in 2000–01 to 22 months in 2002–03,and the waiting time for dentures has increased from 21to 24 months. Spending in 2001–02 was $10 millionless than expended — $10 million was allocated but notspent.

I have constituents who have worked hard all theirlives, who have given service to the community andwho through no fault of their own have not haddentures or have struggled with broken dentures formore than three years — three years of living onmashed potatoes and minced meat! What does thisgovernment do? Nothing. One lady who has spentmuch time doing voluntary work helping others is soembarrassed by the state of her dentures that she holdsher hand in front of her mouth every time she speaks.She delivers Meals on Wheels, and she is embarrassedthat this government will not help her. The Bracksgovernment does not care about the senior people in theYarra Ranges.

Australian Retailers Association awards

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for SeniorVictorians) — I offer my congratulations to staff ablyled by store manager, Mr Gauci, at BunningsWarehouse, Cranbourne, which won the Retailer 2002award at the Australian Retailers Association awardslast Friday. Retailer 2002 is a consumer-driven awarddesigned to identify the state’s top retailers. Consumersvoted for their favourite stores during March, and thosestores with the most votes were then mystery shopped.

The process resulted in a number of finalists, and I alsocongratulate the Victorian regional small retailer of theyear, Redgum Country Clothing, Casterton; theVictorian metropolitan small retailer of the year,kikki.K, Melbourne Central; the Victorian regionalmedium-size retailer of the year, Bakers Delight,Bakery Hill, Ballarat; the Victorian metropolitanmedium-size retailer of the year, Digicall, Dandenong;the Victorian metropolitan large retailer of the year,Myer Melbourne; and the customer service excellenceaward winner, Digicall, Dandenong. I note in particularthe enthusiasm that was generated by these awards andI congratulate those involved. They areconsumer-driven awards designed to identify the state’sbest retailers who acknowledge the importance ofmeeting consumer needs.

Insurance: public liability

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — Communitygroups will no doubt welcome the commitment of theMunicipal Association of Victoria to providingaffordable public liability insurance to volunteercommunity groups, which is reported in today’s WeeklyTimes. However, I call on the government to addressthe issue of public liability insurance premiums, accessto and underwriters for insurance for all sportingorganisations, including pony clubs and equestriangroups.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


These organisations have until the end of the financialyear to get access to public liability insurance, which isabsolutely essential. I will declare a personal interest inthis because my wife is a keen horserider and I havefour children in the local pony club. No doubt they willbe here on the front steps of Parliament House on1 June if something is not done to address this issue,because it really does impact on a lot of country areas.The honourable member for Mildura has alreadyoutlined to me this morning that the Melton pony clubhas written to him demanding that something be done.

Another public liability insurance issue relates to roadmaintenance and road servicing contractors who havebeen hit likewise. They are on set contracts of threeyears, and the public liability insurance premium of onegroup that has come to me has risen from $1628 twoyears ago to now $44 000 per year; another group hasto pay $80 000 per year in public liability insurance.This is having major impacts on the standards of ourroads.

Minister for Transport: performance

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — The issue I raise is amatter of the left hand not knowing what the right handis doing. I have raised on numerous occasions in thishouse and by correspondence the appalling andhorrendous condition of Thompsons Road andTemplestowe Road and I have called upon the Ministerfor Transport to take appropriate action. Finally, on27 April the minister wrote back to me and said:

I appreciate the time you have taken to bring these matters tomy attention, however I am unable to accept your invitationto visit your electorate at this time due to my busy schedule.

However, while the minister was signing off this letterhis ministerial staff agreed that the minister wouldcome to my electorate on 12 June at 12 noon at TedAjani Reserve to discuss with the local residents thecondition of Thompsons Road and TemplestoweRoad. Someone forgot to tell the minister!

I now call upon the minister to advise me whichinformation is correct: is the minister coming to myelectorate as promised by his office or is his officesimply misleading local residents to avoid badpublicity? This comes on top of the minister’s refusingto meet with Grayson Andrew regarding the proposedpark-and-ride facility.

Will the minister give me an undertaking that he willeither come to my electorate to meet with the localresidents or be honest and advise them that theirlifestyles and amenities are of no interest to thisgovernment?

I also take this opportunity to congratulate Mr GrahamCouch and his committee on taking a keen interest inthe condition of the roads.

Ruth Cracknell

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for the Arts) — I risetoday to salute the life and achievements of a greatartist. Ruth Cracknell was a woman of great style, witand indeed artistry. She had a career in radio, intelevision, in review and in theatre — a career thatspanned 56 years. Ruth Cracknell was an outstandingartist. She showed extraordinary range and could doanything from Greek tragedy right through to comedy.

Ruth Cracknell was a great Australian. In fact, theNational Trust of Australia deemed her to be one ofAustralia’s 100 living treasures. She began herprofessional career in the 1940s in radio serials and shemoved to London to work for the BBC before returningto Australia in 1955. She was a remarkable woman notonly because of her achievements in theatre, televisionand review but also because she championed the rightsof women. Ruth hated the term ‘housewife’. She said,‘I am not married to a house; I am married to myblessed husband’, as she described Eric Phillips. Shehas attracted the respect and friendship of broadnumbers of Australians and beyond.

I am sure that many honourable members and manyVictorians will remember her outstanding performanceswith the Melbourne Theatre Company. In recent timeswho will ever forget her performance in Three TallWomen?

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired.

Freedom of information: Infrastructure

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — The government’s claimthat it is an open, accountable and transparentgovernment is in tatters today. Its shameless hypocrisyknows no bounds. To the litany of outrage to namessuch as James Gobbo, Michael Adams and DamienBonnice we can now add the name Don Coulson.

Until recently Mr Coulson was a career public servantwho worked for governments of all persuasions overthe last two decades. He was employed as a freedom ofinformation officer in the Department of Infrastructureand because he had the insolence or temerity to make adecision that his political masters did not agree with, hewas moved to a smaller government agency being thenwound up. Mr Coulson now finds himself redundantand sacked by this government.

GRIEVANCES


The decision was made by the Deputy Premier and theLeader of the House, who is in charge of theDepartment of Infrastructure. It is a disgrace. Thegovernment is prepared to ruin a decent and honourableman for its own grubby political ends. It is a disgrace!

Liberal Party: Geelong candidate

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — I would like toannounce today the discovery of an absolute rarity — aLiberal Party policy! It came in the form of a regionalindustry statement by the Liberal candidate for Geelongduring the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to thearea last Friday.

It seems the Liberal Party’s newly announced policy isthat it is opposed to the manufacturing industry becauseit says it does not provide jobs. In the company of theLeader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party candidatefor Geelong announced to the Geelong Advertiser thattourist industries in the region were key drivers in jobsgrowth, not industries like Ford, Shell and Alcoa. Thiswas only a week after Shell had announced a$340 million expansion of its plant and less than a yearafter Ford announced a $600 million boost to itsoperations — an announcement which the Liberal Partycandidate as the mayor at the time did not even botherto attend. Similarly, Alcoa has been investing heavily inrecent times.

Manufacturing is the heartbeat that drives the Geelongeconomy, and for the Liberal candidate to be talking itdown and attacking Geelong’s icon industries is againstthe best interests of our region. I call on the Leader ofthe Opposition to dump this turkey of a candidate andreplace him with someone — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired. The honourable memberfor Dromana has 35 seconds.

Point Nepean: land

Mr DIXON (Dromana) — The state governmenthas turned down an offer of 300 hectares of land atPoint Nepean from the federal government for thebargain basement price of $4 million. Since then thedefence department has implemented a process todevelop a master plan prior to the disposal of this landseeing the state government has missed out on it.

I ask the government to be an active participant in theprocess, because if it is not, Victoria risks this landbeing passed over to the private sector.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time set down formembers statements has expired.

GRIEVANCES

The SPEAKER — Order! The question is:

That grievances be noted.

Workcover: tenders

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — This morning I wish tohighlight both the incompetence and duplicity of theMinister for Workcover in his handling of tender issuesin the Victorian Workcover Authority (VWA). I firstwant to draw the attention of the house to a tenderprogram called the private investigators performanceprogram that related to workplace inspectors. Thistender process was so botched by the Minister forWorkcover that the whole process had to be withdrawnon the threat of an investigation by theAuditor-General.

The facts of the matter are broadly as follows. On26 April 2001 the Victorian Workcover Authoritywrote to every licensed inquiry agent asking them foran expression of interest on this new process to selectWorkcover inspectors — the inspectors who investigatemalingerers in the Workcover system, to put itparticularly bluntly. Registrations of interest werereceived on 11 May 2001. The third step in this processwas that as a result of the expression of interest thecompanies and the individuals were invited to lodge aformal registration of interest, which occurred on10 August 2001, and 83 of those were received.

The process then moved on to a request for tender fromthe successful registration of interest applicants. Thatoccurred on 8 November 2001, and 35 companiesand/or individuals were judged to be successful as aconsequence of this process. The VWA published thenames of the successful tenderers on 14 December2001, and 33 Workcover inspectors were named. On27 December — again a very odd date given theChristmas break — the VWA released a revised list ofsuccessful applicants for the inspector positions, whichadded two companies not initially included on the14 December list.

Who got these tenders to be Workcover inspectorsinvestigating malingerers? One company that got thatwork was Agama Investigations Pty Ltd, which hadnever held a Victorian private agent’s licence andtherefore did not qualify for this tender. Anothercompany that received an inspectorship under Labor’sbotched Workcover tender procedures was a companycalled Cygnus, Higgins, Shaw. That company did notobtain its licence until 21 December 2001, againbreaching the tender guidelines.

GRIEVANCES


Of even more significance, or more alarmingly, someof the companies that obtained these tenders had neverdone this type of work before — for example, theLabor government appointed a bed and breakfastoperator to investigate Workcover malingerers — butthe worst example of all under this minister’sstewardship is a recipient of this tender process tobecome an investigator of Workcover fraud who was infact a long-term Workcover recipient.


Ms ASHER — You could argue that he knew howto rort the system; he knew how to manage this!

I will not read the name of the recipient of this tenderinto Hansard, but I will indicate that the company heruns is called Centre State Assessors. The date of thisman’s injury was 2 September 1999. His claim wasregistered very speedily on 7 September 1999 and hewas paid Workcover until November 2001. The claimwas lodged for carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands.The point I am making is that this is the sort of personthat the Labor government, or the Minister forWorkcover, thought was a suitable person to investigatelong-term Workcover claims suspected to involvefraud.

It will come as no surprise to members of this housethat last week this process was aborted. TheAuditor-General had consented to a request — by anhonourable member for North Western Province in theother place whom I know well — to investigate thisbotched tender process which threw up some resultsthat are, I would have thought, unacceptable to thegeneral public. Under threat of an Auditor-General’sinvestigation the process has now been aborted by theminister and by the Workcover board. However, thebroader question remains that this process was a mostelongated process — it took from May right up untilnow; it took a year — and the minister was aware offaults in the process in December yet it took him untilMay, kicking and screaming, to abort a completelybotched tender process. This type of handling of tendersis becoming typical of this Labor government.

I move on to another tender process that causes meeven greater concern, because this second tender cannotsimply be explained by botching — it is preferentialtreatment of Labor mates.

An Honourable Member — Again!

Ms ASHER — Again.

Shannon’s Way Pty LtdMs ASHER (Brighton) —

The second contract I wish to draw attention to is aWorkcover contract with Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd, BillShannon of course being the head of Labor’s ad agencyand the man who runs Progressive Business, the majorfundraising arm of the Australian Labor Party.

This case shows how far the Labor Party will go tocover up its grubby deals with its mates. Shannon’sWay Pty Ltd, in the persons of Bill Shannon and MarieFerris — note that name, because this house will hear itagain — also tried to do everything to cover up theircontract with Workcover.

Industry sources say that this contract could be worthbetween $10 million and $12 million. This is notpeanuts; it is a very large contract. Under freedom ofinformation the opposition obtained access to a contractwhich had the amount of money deleted. Thegovernment, of course, claimed commercial inconfidence.

I remind honourable members that under its 1999policy this open and transparent government was goingto end the secret state. I quote from their election policyof 1999:

Labor remains committed to open government …

And what did it say Labor would be doing when ingovernment? It said it would be adopting:

… a proper definition of ‘commercial confidentiality’ andending the abuse of this term to conceal governmentactivities …

Surprise, surprise! The government and Shannon’sWay, that company of Labor mates, have relied oncommercial in confidence to try and fight access by thepublic to the grubby deal they have done with theVictorian Workcover Authority.

I turn to witness statements that were placed before theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)and to the statement of Marie Ferris, who is employedby Shannon’s Way. Ms Ferris has an interesting viewof Victorian taxpayers: she regards them as outsiders.In her witness statement she said that the release of thatinformation would damage Shannon’s Way. She wenton to say that all staff at Shannon’s Way signedconfidentiality agreements and that the company ‘treatsinformation of this type’ — that is, commercialinformation — ‘as covered strictly by the requirementthat it not, unless specifically authorised, be disclosed inany way to outsiders.

GRIEVANCES


What she is saying is that Victorian taxpayers areoutsiders — that is, outside this cosy ALP club thatgives business to itself. I think that completely sums upthe attitude of Shannon’s Way.

Even more alarming is the witness statement of PeterKelly, who subsequently became a marketing managerat Workcover. This is probably where we learn thegreat truth of this, because he said to VCAT:

On my first joining the VWA, I was surprised to learn thatShannon’s Way was the successful tenderer as the VWA’sadvertising agency. Shannon’s Way was not (and is not) alarge agency, and initially I thought that one of the largeradvertising agencies might have been expected to be selected,if for no other reason than the limited extent of in-houseresources available to Shannon’s Way to carry out such amajor contract.

There we have in evidence before VCAT some realconcerns about why this small company got the tender.It is no surprise to this side of politics that the companygot the tender, because it is a mate of the Labor Party.

At VCAT on Monday morning the opposition had awin. Noreen Megay, a senior member of VCAT,directed the Victorian Workcover Authority to release araft of documents to the opposition within 30 days. Shetoo made comment of Ms Ferris from Shannon’s Way.The tribunal member referred to Ms Ferris’s claim thatshe could not imagine any public interest might beserved by disclosure. The tribunal went on to find:

34. That evidence to my mind displays a narrow andclouded view of what is expected of private sectorcompanies dealing with government.

The tribunal continued:

As Mr Adams —

that is, my lawyer —

put it, the bar is lifted in the circumstances. Practices thatare completely acceptable and indeed expected betweenprivate sector organisations take on a different hue whenthe contract is between public and private entities andpublic money is involved.

The VCAT member then went on to indicate that shewas unimpressed by the VWA’s evidence that it wouldhave difficulty securing contracts in the future. So atribunal member was unimpressed by the evidence putforward by the VWA! Most alarmingly, she indicatedthat in her evidence to the tribunal Ms Ferris said thatmany of the contractual arrangements betweenShannon’s Way and the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority were not contained in the original tenderdocumentation but rather were developed as a result ofnegotiations after the contract was awarded toShannon’s Way.


Ms ASHER — An absolute deal behind the scenes!Documents denied to the opposition and deals behindthe scenes as found by VCAT: no wonder thisgovernment did not want to release those details to theopposition!

I wonder, given the 30-day ruling, when I will get thosedocuments. Do you think it might be on a Sunday? Doyou think it might be on a big news day? Will it be onday 29 or day 30 that the opposition finds out howmuch of a grubby deal has been done between theLabor Party and Bill Shannon?

I also note that Shannon’s Way, and Bill Shannon inparticular, will say anything to avoid scrutiny. In anedition of the B & T Marketing & Media magazinedated 14 May Bill Shannon:

… denied the agency has listed Cameron —

that refers to the Minister for Workcover —

as a client when pitching for Workcover. ‘That is absolutelyuntrue’, he said.

The ‘he’ is Bill Shannon. The problem was that theopposition had already got that document. The headingsays ‘Clients’, and listed under clients — surprise,surprise! — is ‘the office of the Minister for LocalGovernment and Workcover, the Honourable BobCameron’. The document goes on to say:

Please feel free to contact any of these people for a first-handopinion of our work.

This is a cover-up by government of its shabby dealwith Bill Shannon, as part of which he and Marie Ferristry to avoid any possible scrutiny, including going toVCAT, describing taxpayers as outsiders and refusingto release documentation. Now we have seen BillShannon openly lying in the media about some othermeasly documentation the opposition managed to getfrom the government in the first instance.

This is a disgraceful, shabby deal, and the case beforeVCAT is one of four concerning Shannon’s Way thatwe will pursue mercilessly. We will not tolerate thisgovernment’s shabby deals with Shannon’s Way orwith any other of its Labor mates.

Parliament: government conduct

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I grieve today aboutthe Bracks government’s failure to uphold thelong-established traditions of Westminsterparliamentary behaviour. As you would know, MadamDeputy Speaker, the Westminster tradition of

GRIEVANCES


parliamentary democracy relies on one being elected byone’s peers and on the government being electedaccording to who has the majority in this house.

Parliamentary democracy relies on the government andthe executive being responsible to the Parliament, andparticularly on ministers being responsible to theParliament. This set of principles has been developedover the centuries and has served us well for a longtime. I am therefore concerned about what I regard asthe erosion of those important principles and hence anattack on the system of parliamentary democracy.During the course of my contribution I intend to raise atleast seven different issues to illustrate where there hasbeen an erosion of these principles.

Firstly, I raise concerns about ministers’ abuse ofquestion time. In the House of Commons, which is thehome of parliamentary democracy, ministers give short,succinct answers to questions. In this house onnumerous occasions ministers give long, rambling andboring answers to questions, and so enrage the otherside of the house. I acknowledge this has gone on forsome time and it is not entirely the fault of one side.However, I am concerned about the tendency of someministers to go on with long answers that are irrelevantto the questions asked. This is understandable but alsounacceptable, particularly for a government that cameto power with promises of honest, open andaccountable government and a better standard ofbehaviour. I deplore what is happening during questiontime.

I am concerned also about the failure to maintain thedecorum and traditions of the house, firstly, by unrulybehaviour on both sides — and I acknowledge it is onboth sides — in many cases initiated by ministersrefusing to answer a question that has been legitimatelyput by those on this side of the house. I complimentMr Speaker on his attempts to maintain an even-handedattitude, within the limits he has, in order to getinformation from the ministers.

Another practice I deplore is the increasing tendencyfor honourable members to clap when there are notableguests in the gallery, or when somebody has donesomething notable. That is unparliamentary and shouldbe jumped on before it goes too far.

There are far more serious abuses of the traditions ofthe house. One is the failure of ministers to attend theadjournment debate. The adjournment debate is animportant forum for honourable members to raisematters on behalf of their constituents. A ministershould come into the house and respond there and then.

Increasingly ministers are not coming in to respondduring the adjournment debate.

Last night was a case in point in this house. TheMinister for Environment and Conservation respondedto a matter brought to her attention, but the Minister forConsumer Affairs was left to respond to the other11 matters that were raised by honourable membersfrom both sides of the house. As the honourablemember for Mordialloc pointed out, frequently whenmatters are referred to other ministers that is the lastyou hear of them, and there is not always a response.

Last night the Minister for Small Business in the otherhouse responded to all the matters that were raised inthat house. That is an illustration of the point I raiseabout ministers not being accountable to the Parliamentby coming in for the adjournment debate andresponding to matters raised by honourable members.

Another failure concerns written responses. Whenmatters are raised in the adjournment debate and theresponsible minister is not present, frequently there isno written response to the matter raised. I referred amatter to the Minister for Transport on 30 March and Istill do not have a response. I regard it as unacceptablethat a month and a half after having raised it in theadjournment debate — —

Dr Napthine — It is probably coming up with thefast rail link!

Mr MAUGHAN — It is probably coming up withthe fast rail link. It is certainly not with theEchuca–Moama bridge!

I am even more concerned about the failure of ministersto respond to their correspondence. For this honest,open and accountable government it is deplorable thatthe record of ministers responding to correspondence isgetting worse. I will give a number of examples. On17 December I wrote to the Minister for Transport. Istill do not have a response to that letter. On 24 JanuaryI wrote another letter to the Minister for Transport andhave received no response. On 6 March I wrote yetanother letter to that minister and have received noresponse.

Mr Jim Smith from Moama, a former member of theVictoria Police, wrote to the Minister for Police andEmergency Services on 12 December last regarding thepolice service medal. He received no response to thatletter. He wrote again on 19 March but has still notreceived a response. I intend taking that matter up — —

Mr Jasper — You are writing too many letters!

GRIEVANCES


Mr MAUGHAN — Writing too many letters butcertainly not getting too many replies.

The next matter concerns the previous Minister forEducation. A proposal was put forward to rationalisesecondary education in Echuca, and the minister at thattime rejected the proposal on the basis that there was noconsensus. I wrote to the minister seeking her definitionof ‘consensus’ because that was critical to the wholedebate. I have received no response, and that was about18 months ago.

I have a list of ministers not responding tocorrespondence. On 12 March I wrote to the Ministerfor Planning regarding a planning issue of greatconcern to Murray Human Services. Not only have Ireceived no acknowledgment, but I phoned on 3 Mayand was advised a response was being prepared. As oftoday I have not received a response.

On 5 February I wrote to the Minister for Educationand Training about the early years numeracy training atthe Tongala Primary School. I received anacknowledgment on 2 April but have still not received aresponse.

I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training on4 April; we still do not have a response. I wrote to theAttorney-General on 10 April; that was acknowledgedon the 22nd but still I have received no response. Theprevious Minister for Education was one of the worst.We had great difficulty getting responses from theprevious Minister for Education’s office.

Dr Napthine interjected.

Mr MAUGHAN — Absolutely hopeless! We wroteon 26 September last year. It was acknowledged on thesame day. We phoned on 8 April, 11 April and 3 May,and emailed on 3 May. We have still not got a responseto that letter, which was written on 26 September last.

I wrote to the Premier inviting him to come and open aneducational facility at Echuca. I knew from thePremier’s office that he could not do it, and that wasunderstandable. There were discussions about otherministers. However, during last week I got a letter backfrom the Premier’s office saying he could not do it andreferring me to the local member. The letter wasaddressed to the honourable member for Rodney; I amthe local member, and the letter referred me to the localmember. How silly can you get!

I also wish to grieve about the failure of ministers tonotify local members when they are visiting theirelectorates. This is honoured more in the breach thanthe observance. Some ministers are very good and let

local members know when they are coming. Others areabsolutely hopeless. It is an insult not just to the localmember, but to the 35 000 people they represent. WhenI was a very new member in this place a former LaborPremier, Joan Kirner, showed me enormous courtesywhen she came to Echuca. She took me around for thewhole of the day. Now ministers come and do not evennotify the local member that they are attending. It isabsolutely ridiculous. The whole of the cabinet — infact the whole of the caucus — had a two-day meetingin Echuca and I was never officially notified.

Ms Campbell — You did not want to come to that;come on!

Mr MAUGHAN — I did not want to come but itwould have been nice to know. There was a so-calledcommunity consultation, to which I did go, as did manyof my constituents. The point I make is that it was sosilly because within 24 hours of the arrangements beingmade I was told by both restaurants and by my localpaper that the cabinet was coming. More than that, thePremier’s office contacted my office to get some adviceon security arrangements. However, officially I wasnever told that the cabinet was coming to Echuca.

Another item I grieve about is the lack of detail onspecific projects in the budget papers. This year it hasbeen incredibly difficult for local members to finddetails of projects in their electorates, be they schools,hospitals or community facilities. At the same timeother individual projects have been highlighted in thebudget papers. I suspect that the government isselective in its choosing of the projects. With an honest,open and accountable government one would havethought that local members would be able to go throughthe budget papers and find out whether their particularproposal for a school, a hospital or a bridge has beenfunded. Anything but! Generally speaking, detailedinformation is not available when a minister’s office iscontacted.

Another matter I want to raise is that of membersstatements. Two ministers have used the small amountof time available for members statements — and Iwonder why government backbenchers are notprotesting about this — to make further statementswhen they already have plenty of opportunity to do so.There are a number of instances where there is a slowbut steady erosion of the principles that are held dear inthis house, the principles of parliamentary democracy. Icertainly protest about that. Parliamentary democracydepends on each and every one of us upholding thetraditions and protocols that have been established byparliaments in the commonwealth and the

GRIEVANCES


English-speaking world and handed down overdecades.

I grieve for this progressive erosion of the standards ofparliamentary behaviour in this house and amongstministers and I call on the Premier to ensure that hisministers treat question time with more respect. I callon him to ensure they respond to their correspondenceand that as a matter of principle they come in andrespond to matters raised in the adjournment. The lackof response to correspondence is appalling. ThePremier ought to speak to his ministers and stipulatethat correspondence is attended to.

The Premier should also instruct ministers to informtheir staff to notify local members as a matter ofcourtesy when they are planning to visit thoseelectorates. Local members, whatever their politicalaffiliations, are elected by their constituents — the35 000 people or thereabouts who elect them. The lackof courtesy and respect that I have highlighted isdirected not just towards the member who represents aparticular electorate, but also towards the 35 000 peoplewho have elected that member.

I deplore the declining standards of parliamentary andministerial behaviour and call on the Premier todemand a higher standard from his ministers generallyand in particular with regard to correspondence, theadjournment debate and the other issues I havementioned.

HIH Insurance: policy-holders

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for SeniorVictorians) — The Liberal Party has thumbed its noseat consumers seeking to have their domestic claimsconsidered by the Housing Guarantee Fund Ltd afterthe collapse of HIH Insurance Group. I grieve today forinnocent Victorian home owners abandoned by theLiberal Party who have callously left these consumerswith partly completed family homes or renovations. Itis absolutely appalling that the Liberal Party is notallowing these consumers to rightly receive their justdeserts.

Why does the Liberal Party do this? Is it because it iscontinuing its policy of looking after its mates who arecommercial developers and abandoning consumers?

It is a truism that leopards never change their spots, andit is certainly borne out by the Liberal Party because ithas thumbed its nose at families that this government istrying to assist. Perhaps the Liberals are looking for afat political donation from a number of these bigdevelopers. Perhaps that is why they are abandoningconsumers. But while they are thumbing their noses at

consumers the government is bending over backwardsto ensure that consumers are protected. It does not wantconsumers sleeping in draughty homes or leaking andotherwise unsafe bedrooms. In contrast, the LiberalParty does.

Mr Mulder — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, I raise a matter of relevance. The minister iscontinually referring to Victorians living in draughtyhomes and unfit accommodation.

Ms Campbell interjected.

Mr Mulder — Come down to Colac CommunityHealth Services and have a look at the nursing homebeds that you have refused to fund and that’s whatyou’ll see then — frail elderly people being ignored bygovernment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order.

Ms CAMPBELL — As this house is aware, andhonourable members should note, the House ContractsGuarantee (HIH) Bill 2001 was passed by thisParliament in the wake of the HIH collapse so thatconsumers would be in exactly the same position inrelation to their claims of incomplete or faulty homeconstructions and renovations had HIH Insurance notcollapsed.

The rescue package administered by the HousingGuarantee Fund Ltd assists three main categories ofHIH policy-holders or potential claimants: firstly, thosewhose building project was covered by HIH and notcompleted because the builder had gone out ofbusiness; secondly, those who had completed a home inthe past seven years and found a fault in the home thatwould have been covered by HIH; and, thirdly, thosewho have HIH insurance but cannot sell their homebecause they do not have a valid compulsory insurancepolicy. The government has provided $35 million forthose claims which have already arisen and which willbe made throughout the six and a half year warrantyperiod. The claims are being administered through theHGFL and as at 10 May 2002, $5.152 million in claimshad been approved and $4.596 million had been paidout.

In late 2001 the government moved an amending bill,the House Contracts Guarantee (HIH FurtherAmendment) Bill 2001, to ensure all those consumerswho should have been able to claim under the act butwere prevented by technical interpretation difficultieswould be able to claim. These are the people that I wishparticularly to talk about today. Because of the LiberalParty’s appalling and misguided policy those people’s

GRIEVANCES


claims have languished because for an astonishingseven months this house and the other place haverefused to pass the bill.

The bill is intended to address a number of potentiallyserious differences between the actual implementationof the package and Parliament’s underlying intentionsfor its operation. This is really the nub of the matter. Itis true that the opposition has snubbed these consumers.While they are in draughty, unfinished, dampconditions it has refused to pass the bill that shouldbe — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, MadamDeputy Speaker, I have been listening carefully to whatthe minister has been speaking about, and I ask you torule on whether the minister is breaching the rule ofanticipation. This issue that she is covering is coveredby legislation that is currently before the Parliament andtherefore she is breaching the rule of anticipation.

The Liberal Party has made it very clear that it supportsthe legislation with respect to looking after thoseconsumers who have been affected by the collapse, butit absolutely deplores the government’s trying to takeaway retrospectively the rights of other people. So thegovernment is trying to divide one class of peopleagainst the other. I ask you to rule on the rule ofanticipation with respect to the minister’s contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The latter partof the point of order was in fact a point of debate.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Leader ofthe Opposition knows better than to behave like that inthe house. I am advised that the rule of anticipationapplies only when the matter is listed on the noticepaper. It is not currently listed on the Assembly noticepaper. The minister, to continue.

Ms CAMPBELL — Currently we have200 consumers in this state whose claims cannot beconsidered because the bill has not yet been passed.Many of these consumers have contacted the HGFLand my office — in fact they have contacted oppositionmembers and the Leader of the Opposition — and havepleaded their case. They have pointed out to us asmembers of this house the effect of their claimslanguishing. Let me give the house a couple ofexamples.

Case 1 is that of a Greensborough family living in theirdream home constructed five years ago. From theoutside it is a neat and tidy house and appears like anyother house in the street. But inside it is a completely

different story. The foundations are subsiding and 10 to15-millimetre wide cracks have appeared and grownover many months. The rectification of this family’shome is estimated to cost a massive $80 000 to$100 000. You can imagine the utter disillusionment ofthis family! And you can understand why it isdisillusioned: the builder whose work is faulty seems toget by unscathed; the system has abandoned them; andthe insurer has collapsed.

Case 2 is that of a Richmond family whose home has aseries of faults costing a total of $23 000 to fix. Thebuilder declared bankruptcy but now continues to tradeunder another name and has refused to rectify the faultsdespite a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(VCAT) order against his old company. This family isnow left with nowhere to go because the initial HIHpolicy was in the name of the builder.

Case 3 is that of an Ascot Vale family who had acontract for an extension, erected to framing stage,which cost $78 000. Through shoddy building workthey have suffered flooding, faulty brickwork, faultyfloors and faulty subfloor supports. ThreeVCAT-sanctioned terms of settlement have not beencompleted by the incompetent builder, who returns,does a poor job and has to return yet again. The resulthas been that a two-month job has dragged on for fouryears. A certificate of occupancy is still to be issued,and rectification will cost a further $25 000.

I could go on but will not do so: suffice it to say that anumber of constituents, often in Liberal-held seats,have contacted my office pleading for assistance. Thecorrespondence I have received often signifies thatcopies have been sent to the Leader of the Oppositionand Liberal members of Parliament and their pleadinghas gone unheard because of this very callous approachof the Liberal Party.


Ms CAMPBELL — The National Party and theIndependents — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Leader ofthe Opposition!

Ms CAMPBELL — The National Party, theIndependents and the government want to look afterthese consumers, but the opposition does not. Itabsolutely does not.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I askopposition members to cease interjecting.

GRIEVANCES


Ms CAMPBELL — I could go on and on. Thehonourable member for Box Hill has receivedcorrespondence on this matter. Constituents say theyfind it appalling that their own member of Parliament isstopping rectification of work on their homes becausehe is acting in this house to block this legislation.

A final example I wish to offer is that of an Elthamresident who has written to the honourable member forEltham and the Leader of the Opposition. He notes:

I am appalled that the opposition is holding up this legislationas we have been significantly disadvantaged by the delay inpassing the legislation. In our particular situation we lodged aclaim with HIH and it had been approved for payment andrectification but shortly after HIH folded and thensubsequently our builder also went bankrupt.

It is his negligence which has caused the problems and wehave no recourse against him or his insurance company andwe are looking to the government and the opposition toremedy our position and put us in the same position as otherclaimants.

Again I note that the Nationals and the Independentsare prepared to support consumers, 200 of them to date,who need this house to pass appropriate legislation. Ithank the Independents and the Nationals for theircommonsense approach. I thank them on behalf offamilies, including the children in those families, whoat this point are unable to finish off their homeextensions. In an astounding display of sleight of handand smoke and mirrors, the Liberal Party argued thatthe initial act created rights and legitimate expectationsin developers who would be compensated for their loss.This is absolute rubbish!

We have a situation where consumers all over Victoriahave partially completed dwellings deteriorating in theweather. The government is looking after those people.One can hear a litany of problems being experienced byconsumers who seem to be endlessly waiting becausethe Liberal Party will not look after those people. TheLiberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition havecorrespondence — —


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Leader ofthe Opposition will cease interjecting!

Ms CAMPBELL — The Liberal Party andmembers of the opposition continually put consumers’interests way behind those of major developers. Peoplein this state are waiting for legislation to be passed andit is important that the Liberal Party makes sure thatpeople who are often only starting off in life and simplytrying to achieve the Australian dream by finishing thebuilding of their homes are able to do so.

On behalf of people whose correspondence is sitting inthe rooms of the Leader of the Opposition, I ask thatmembers of the Liberal Party come into this house andstate that they will look after 200 people who are, at thispoint — —


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Leader ofthe Opposition will cease interjecting!

Ms CAMPBELL — Those 200 people are waitingto have their homes finished.

In conclusion, I again point out that the correspondencespells out absolutely clearly to the Leader of theOpposition and to members of this house why thislegislation should be passed by the VictorianParliament.

Mr Nardella — Where are the rest of your people?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Melton!

Government: advertising

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — I riseto grieve about the gross hypocrisy of the Bracks Laborgovernment and the absolute waste of taxpayers’money instituted by the government on deceitful,misleading and blatant political advertising that it hasundertaken over the past few weeks. This is evidencedin today’s Age where there is another full page ofblatant political advertising. I call on the government tolive up to the standards it set prior to the 1999 election.I ask it to get real!

The Labor Party, not the taxpayers of Victoria, shouldbe funding that advertising. I call on the Premier to liveup to the standards he set in 1999 and to get the LaborParty to fund that advertising and return the millions ofdollars of taxpayers’ funds that have been used for thisblatant, misleading and deceitful political advertising.The money should be given to worthy causes inVictoria such as the Biala Early Intervention Centre,Irabina Childhood Autism Services, and the CerebralPalsy Education Centre. The Cerebral Palsy EducationCentre provides early intervention services for childrenaged zero to five who have multiple disabilities, bothphysical and intellectual, due to cerebral palsy. Thisgovernment and this former Minister for CommunityServices deserted them in their hour of need and wouldnot talk to them, would not fund them and left thosechildren to suffer — yet they spend millions of dollarson blatant political advertising! It is an absolutely crass,

GRIEVANCES


uncaring and hypocritical government, and the peopleof Victoria need to know that.

Let’s have a look at what this government and thePremier said when in opposition. I quote from thewords of the Labor Party of only a few short years ago:

Labor will put an end to the use of the public purse forinappropriate political advertising and promotion.

Political advertising, government promotion … have all beena huge drain on the public purse.

A further quote is:

Labor will end the … practice of misusing taxpayers’ moneyfor disguised political advertising and for market research thatis clearly party political.

We will implement the Auditor-General’s recommendationsfor limiting political advertising by stipulating thatgovernment information material should not:

promote or have the effect of promoting its interestsabove those of other political parties; and

attempt to secure political support for a political party.

All those quotes are sourced from the policy documententitled ‘Integrity in public life — Labor’s plan forproper standards’.

Labor’s plan for proper standards is in absolute tattersafter weeks and weeks of blatant party-politicaladvertising by the Bracks Labor government —advertising that has been funded by the taxpayers ofVictoria. That money would have been better spent on awhole range of services across this state.

Further, as absolute evidence of how blatantly politicalthis advertising is, it continues to refer to ‘the Bracksgovernment’. It is the Victorian government, and anyVictorian government advertising funded by Victoriantaxpayers should be labelled ‘the Victoriangovernment’ rather than being used to promote apolitical figure or a political party. To use the term ‘theBracks government’ is wrong.

The other question one has to ask is: why is all thisblatant political advertising, which the governmentmight argue is about attracting business and investmentto Victoria, placed in Victorian newspapers? If youwere trying to attract investment from interstate andoverseas why would you advertise in Victoriannewspapers?

In reality this advertising is not about attractingbusiness and investment and it is not about growingjobs in this state. It is about promoting the LaborParty — which business and increasingly Victorians areseeing as a do-nothing government — and about the

party’s attempts to overcome the perception in thecommunity that the Bracks Labor government is a lazy,do-nothing, review-everything, look-into-it governmentrather than a government that gets things done.

If you contrast that with what the Queensland Premierdoes when he looks to attract investment toQueensland, you see he advertises in Victoria. He says,‘Come to Queensland!’ and he has been very successfulin attracting jobs and investment from Victoria intoQueensland.

But what we get under this government is blatantparty-political advertising in the Age, the Herald Sunand regional and suburban newspapers which is aboutpromoting the Labor Party, the Premier and hisgovernment. It is not about promoting Victoria, it is notabout informing citizens. It is blatant party-politicaladvertising. I call on the Premier, if he has any scruplesand standards, to step in, stop that advertising andretrospectively pay the costs of the advertising from theLabor Party’s own funds and return the taxpayer fundsto good purpose in Victoria.

What is actually in these advertisements? They are notonly blatantly political, they are dishonest, misleadingand absolute lies. The Labor ads claim that Labor hascut payroll tax. The simple numbers in the budget tell acompletely different story. If you compare the 1998–99budget to this year’s budget you see that payroll taxcollections are up $580 million, or 27 per cent — amassive increase in payroll tax collections!

Even the budget for the next financial year, which washanded down the other day, shows a 3.9 per centincrease in payroll tax take from employers in Victoria.In reality there are no real payroll tax cuts becausepeople in Victoria are paying more, not less, payrolltax. Indeed the people of Victoria know that when theygot a B-grade budget from a B-grade government, theygot $1500 worth of additional taxes and charges underthe Bracks Labor government in two and a half years.

The blatantly political Labor Party advertisementsclaim that it is producing lower land tax for Victoria.Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth! Inthe budget that has just been handed down, on Labor’sown figures, land tax collections are going up 17.7 percent. So Victorians are paying more land tax, not less.Since the election of the Bracks Labor government landtax collections have gone up $242 million, or 66 percent, in three budgets. Yet it has the hide, the hypocrisyand the temerity to try to tell Victorians in a blatantlypolitical advertising campaign that payroll tax and landtax have gone down.

GRIEVANCES


It produces advertisements about the tax changes thatthe Bracks Labor government has delivered to thepeople of Victoria and claims credit for the abolition ofcertain taxes. The government says that it has abolishedthe financial institutions duty and the duty onmarketable securities, but when you read the fine printin the advertisement — there is a little asterisk thatlooks like a fly spot hidden in the advertisement, but itleads you to look right down the bottom; with yourmicroscope or magnifying glass you can look at the fineprint at the bottom — it shows that those two taxes thathave been abolished were part of the deal to introducetax reform to Australia. However, that deal was signedby the Kennett Liberal–National party government andthe Howard federal government.

These tax abolitions are nothing to do with the BracksLabor government; they are to the credit of the formerKennett government and the Howard government, yetthis hypocritical mob over there is claiming credit forthem.

It is just the same as it is doing in the letter to theHerald Sun on Monday from the Minister forTransport, who is trying to resurrect the major projectsportfolio, in which he says, ‘We’re building theCraigieburn bypass’, but that is 100 per cent federalfunded; ‘We’re building the Hallam bypass’, but thatproject was started under the Kennett government; and,‘We’re in charge of and building the upgrade of theMelbourne–Geelong road’. Who started that project?

An Honourable Member — Jeff Kennett.

Dr NAPTHINE — What an absolute joke! Thisgovernment is full of hypocrites who cannot keep theirhands out of taxpayers’ pockets.

We see further in these advertisements Labor claimsthat private investment and building investment figuresare improving for Victoria. Yet the figures from theAustralian Bureau of Statistics show a worrying trendfor investment in Victoria and that the level in buildingsand structures — —

Mr Nardella — Who wrote this for you?

Dr NAPTHINE — The honourable member forMelton would be interested in this because he presidesover — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Melton and the Leader of theOpposition!

Dr NAPTHINE — The honourable member forMelton ought to be concerned about the decline and the

real problems of the Japanese investment, Saizeriya,which is deserting his electorate and going to NewZealand.

The latest ABS figures show that investment inbuilding and structures in Victoria has declined everyquarter under the Bracks Labor government and is40 per cent lower than when Labor came togovernment. Investment in manufacturing in the year toDecember last was 15.5 per cent lower than the yearbefore and 16.7 per cent lower than it was under theprevious government. We know that since thebeginning of 2002 full-time employment in Victoriahas fallen each and every month, and we have lost atotal of nearly 5000 full-time jobs. We have seen majorindustries such as Arnott’s, Nestlé at Maryborough,Selectron, Email, BAE Systems, Hugo Boss, SouthPacific Tyres — which had a massive shedding ofjobs — all leave this state. Just last week another77 jobs were lost at Glaxosmithkline.

Those businesses are leaving the state because of highWorkcover charges, high land tax charges, high payrolltax and a government that does not understand or careabout business and investment in this state. Thisgovernment is trying to con the people of Victoria withblatant political advertising that in opposition itcriticised and said that it would do differently. It said itwould never do that sort of thing!

This government is spending more on blatant politicaladvertising than any previous government in Victoria’shistory. Millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayers’funds are being used to promote the Bracks Laborgovernment. I call on the Premier to show someintegrity and some honesty and stop this blatantpolitical advertising. He should get the Labor Party topay back the money to the taxpayers of Victoria anduse those millions of dollars for early interventionservices for disabled children in this state who reallycould do with the money — rather than continuing topromote his blatant political advertising.

This government is letting down the people of Victoria.For evidence of that we need look only at the figures inthe latest budgets: Mr Costello, the federal Treasurer,predicts a faster growth rate for Australia than the stateTreasurer predicts for Victoria. Victoria used to be theleading state in Australia for growth and investment; itis now slipping well behind the Australian average; it isnow dragging down Australia. It is about time thisgovernment concentrated on the real issues rather thancontinuing to be more interested in spin than substance.

GRIEVANCES


Calder Highway: funding

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I rise this morning toagain grieve for the lack of funding in last night’sfederal budget for the Calder Highway duplication toBendigo — that is, for work to be allocated on thecrucial Kyneton-to-Faraday section to complete thisvital transport link between Bendigo and Melbourne.Last night’s 2002–03 federal budget handed down bythe federal Treasurer allocated absolutely zerodollars — no money — to keeping up the momentumto complete the Calder Highway duplication to Bendigoby 2006.

In the federal government’s own media releases itproudly boasts that it will spend $410.7 million in thenext financial year on Victoria’s roads, but there is nonew money in that $410 million for the CalderHighway, no money to match the $70 million for theKyneton-to-Faraday section that was committed by ourstate Treasurer only one week ago. Clearly this puts atrisk the 2006 deadline that the state government iscontinuing to work towards to see the completeduplication of the Calder Highway to Bendigo. It isimportant that we do meet this deadline because theCalder Highway is a vital transport link betweenBendigo and Melbourne, and the lack of money in lastnight’s federal budget is putting this deadline at risk.That is recognised in today’s Bendigo Advertiser,which states:

Without the funding, the completion date for a fullyduplicated highway between Bendigo and Melbourne isexpected to blow out beyond 2006.

Clearly last night’s federal budget was not a good-newsbudget for motorists in Bendigo and central Victoria.

Last night’s budget has earmarked $14 million tocomplete the Carlsruhe section of the Calder Highway.However, as anyone who regularly travels the CalderHighway understands, work is already under way onthe Carlsruhe section. The state government has alreadycommitted its $25 million — its 50 per cent share of the$50 project — to complete that stretch of road. Weremember how the federal Minister for Transport andRegional Services John Anderson was dragged kickingand screaming to the table over two years to put on thetable the federal government’s share of the road ofnational importance funding — $25 million — and weare only just now in last night’s budget seeing thefunding for the completion of the Carlsruhe section ofthe Calder Highway.

The Calder Highway is a road of national importance. Itwas given that designation by the Howard governmentin November 1996. According to a media release of the

current federal Minister for Transport and RegionalServices it was given that designation because of itsrole as a strategic road link from Melbourne tonorth-west Victoria.

Honourable members are well aware that designatedroads of national importance attract funding on afifty-fifty basis between federal and state governments.But we are now seeing, in the clearest of terms, that thefederal coalition is trying to abandon the duplication ofthe Calder Highway to Bendigo and to abandon themotorists of Bendigo and central Victoria.

Mr McArthur interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Monbulk will cease interjectingin that manner!

Ms ALLAN — Let’s again look at the media releaseof the federal Minister for Transport and RegionalServices. On the one hand he acknowledges that theCalder Highway is a road of national importance thatshould attract fifty-fifty funding; on the other hand themedia release states:

The Victorian government’s current proposal is to duplicatethe Calder from Melbourne to Bendigo by 2006. While thefederal government will, when possible, assist Victoria tomeet its stated road strategy, the highway is principally a statearterial road and the responsibility for meeting Victoria’sstrategy rests with the Victorian government.

The federal government cannot have it both ways. Itcannot in the same media release say that the CalderHighway is a road of national importance that is toattract fifty-fifty funding between the federal and stategovernments and then turn around and say that theCalder Highway is a state arterial road. Clearly thefederal government is trying to back away from itscommitment to put its money on the table to completethe Calder Highway duplication by 2006.

In that same media release the federal minister, JohnAnderson, acknowledges that the expected cost of theKyneton-to-Faraday section is $140 million — that is,$70 million from the state, which is already on thetable, and $70 million from the federal government,which we are still waiting on. Unfortunately motoristsand people living in Bendigo and central Victoria willnow have to wait another 12 months to see if the federalgovernment will commit the funding next year. On theevidence of last night’s budget I think we will continueto be waiting for the federal government to match thecommitment. The state government has made thestrongest possible commitment to completing theCalder Highway duplication by 2006 by continuouslyallocating the necessary funds.

GRIEVANCES


It is interesting to note that last week, only the day afterthe state budget was delivered, the federal minister JohnAnderson made some comments on radio that gavethose of us in central Victoria — people like thehonourable member for Bendigo West — a bit of asneaking suspicion that no funds for the CalderHighway duplication would be forthcoming from lastnight’s federal budget. Certainly that is so when we seecomments like this from the federal minister just oneday after the state budget was delivered:

Victoria has done extraordinarily well out of the roadsprogram in recent times, but any further developments I’dwant to take forward in the appropriate way.

People and motorists in Bendigo and central Victorianow understand how members of the federalLiberal–National Party coalition approach things incountry Victoria. That statement shows their completelack of commitment to projects in country Victoria.They are too busy. Again, the federal Liberal–Nationalgovernment is falling into the same trap that the formerVictorian government fell into. Its members are moreinterested in funding glittering projects in the centre ofMelbourne while turning their backs on countryVictoria.

I draw a simple contrast: the Bracks government hasprovided $77 million funding for the Wimmera–Malleepipeline, which is a good policy commitment, a goodenvironmental outcome and a good economic result forthat region, but this is another project that the federalgovernment just could not bring itself to fund. It doesnot like country Victoria. It does not want to seecountry Victoria go ahead, and it continues to abandoncountry Victoria and central Victoria in particular.

I turn to the history of this matter. During last year’sfederal election campaign the Calder Highway was acrucial issue. The federal Liberal candidate at the time,Mr Maurie Sharkey, was also for a number of years thechair of the Calder Highway Improvement Committee.Even Maurie Sharkey, the Liberal Party’s own federalcandidate in a crucial marginal seat, was unable toconvince the federal Treasurer on his visit to Bendigoon 31 October — one week before the federalelection — of the importance of completing the CalderHighway duplication to Bendigo. The BendigoAdvertiser reported on 1 November that:

Mr Costello admitted Liberal candidate Maurie Sharkey hadspent half an hour yesterday trying to convince him of theimportance of the Calder.

Clearly the Liberal candidate failed, and if the federalLiberal candidate in a crucial marginal seat cannotconvince the federal Treasurer to put money on thetable for the duplication, I really fear that no-one would

be able to convince him. This again clearly shows thefederal government’s bias against country Victoria. It iscompletely bewildering that the federal Treasurerwould come to Bendigo a week out from the federalelection and make no commitment to the CalderHighway, leaving Bendigo motorists high and dry. TheBendigo Advertiser has rightly identified what theTreasurer said that day in Bendigo as mere weaselwords.

I turn to the federal Labor Party’s commitment, aroundwhich there was a bit of debate in my local communityduring the federal election campaign. The shadowTreasurer at the time, the now Labor leader SimonCrean, came to Bendigo the day after the federalTreasurer Peter Costello, and he made the firmestcommitment possible that a federal Labor governmentwould match the state government’s commitment tocomplete the duplication of the Calder Highway by2006.

That is a very simple commitment to make when youconsider that the Calder Highway is a road of nationalimportance (RONI), that the federal Labor oppositionwas continuing that commitment to the CalderHighway under the current RONI fundingarrangements and that the state Labor government has acommitment to completing the duplication of thehighway by 2006.

As I have said, it is clear that the federal coalitiongovernment does not share this commitment to thecompletion of the duplication by 2006. Clearly it has inmind a deadline for the completion of the duplication ofthe Calder Highway to Bendigo in the blue yonder orbeyond the horizon somewhere! That is furtherevidence of the federal government’s abandonment ofcountry Victoria.

Residents in central Victoria have a National Partyrepresentative — their very own ‘Roni’ — who hasfailed to secure funding from his own federal mates andcolleagues for this vital transport link betweenMelbourne and central Victoria. Let’s consider what theHonourable Ron Best, a member for North WesternProvince in the other place, has achieved for hiselectorate in his 14 years as a state member: he hasclosed schools in his electorate; he tried to close theDunolly hospital; he tried to privatise the Mildurahospital; and he was completely behind theprivatisation of the electricity industry, which has seena disastrous outcome for country Victoria. His finalachievement is that he has been unable to securefunding for the completion of the Calder Highway fromthe federal Liberal–National Party coalition — andfrom his own party’s federal minister, John Anderson.

GRIEVANCES


One would think that the National Party in Victoriamight be able to convince its National Party mate inCanberra — the federal Minister for Transport andRegional services — to put the money into the CalderHighway. Mr Best has completely failed as a localrepresentative in this area.

I am very angry that the federal government is playingpolitics with the Calder Highway. Our localrepresentatives should be campaigning up there inCanberra, demanding their fair share of funding for theCalder Highway from this federal government. It isvital that the Calder Highway is duplicated to Bendigoby 2006. It is an important transport link betweenMelbourne and Bendigo; it is important for themovement of significant amounts of freight; and mostimportantly, it is essential for road safety. The CalderHighway, particularly the stretch from Kyneton toBendigo, is notorious. It is a dangerous road at times,and it is vital that the highway is upgraded andduplicated in order to increase the safety of motoristswho travel on it regularly between central Victoria andMelbourne.

Clearly the federal government managed to securefunding for the Scoresby freeway, which will enableevery last metre of that piece of road to be completedvery quickly. It managed to pull that funding out duringthe by-election last July for the seat of Aston. Itmanaged to pork-barrel the eastern suburbs to prop upits stocks in that part of Victoria. Unfortunately forcentral Victorian motorists the federal government isscraping the bottom of the barrel to find money for theCalder Highway: it just does not want to commit thosefunds beyond the completion of the Carlsruhe section,and it has no commitment to the 2006 deadline. In fact,one might consider that it actually opposes thisdeadline.

When one contrasts the commitment of the federalgovernment to the Scoresby freeway with itscommitment to the Calder Highway, what it is doingbecomes clear: it is managing to prop up its stocks inMelbourne while abandoning central Victoria. I amvery disappointed for a number of people in Bendigowho have campaigned for many a year to secure theduplication of the Calder Highway between Melbourneand Bendigo, and I am disappointed for the motoristswho have to travel on this road on a regular basis.

When one considers that the state government hasplaced $70 million on the table already, it is a verysimple equation: the Calder Highway is a road ofnational importance and it is the subject of a fifty-fiftyfunding arrangement between the state and federalgovernments, so we now need to see $70 million from

the federal government for the Kyneton to Faradaysection to keep the momentum going towards the 2006deadline for the completion of the Calder Highwayduplication between Melbourne and Bendigo.

Gas: Gippsland pipeline

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I grieve todaybecause individuals, families and businesses insouth-west Gippsland pay unjustifiably high prices forliquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and have no access tothe cheaper, more convenient and better quality naturalgas. I grieve because successive governments havefailed to take steps to redress the overt, significant andongoing disadvantage suffered by individuals, familiesand businesses in our area and other rural areas of thestate.

When natural gas came to Melbourne in the 1980s wein Gippsland were excluded. When the previousgovernment was in power it let slip by our bestopportunity yet to put gas into our region when MurrayGoulburn, Leongatha, was swapping boiler systems.The company needed help and encouragement to put onnatural gas, and it did not get it!

I raised the issue with the previous government duringthe 1999 negotiations. The former Premier actuallyinitiated the conversation by asking me what myconstituents wanted most, and I said, ‘Gas’. He said hehad no memory of the issue being raised by his ownmembers, of whom there was a vast number in myregion, and I must say I was very surprised at that.

This government has so far made minute, inadequateand token efforts to deal with the issue — that is, it hasraised the non-mains winter energy concession rate by afew dollars, and it is considering an extension of theutility relief grants. But it has been unwilling or unableso far to give LPG users access to the full winter energyconcessions, it has failed to give us the benefits of theregulatory framework of the Essential ServicesCommission and it has failed to give us access to theutility relief grant scheme. The government has beenunwilling or unable so far to take positive steps toensure the extension of the natural gas pipelines intoour region.

The most significant concession that we have had so farhas been the setting up of the inquiry by the EssentialServices Commission into the supply of LPG inVictoria. That gain was made only after considerablepressure from me and my Independent colleagues, andthere is some concern about the terms of reference ofthis inquiry.

GRIEVANCES


It excludes autogas and it excludes industry, and just toquote from a response from the Australian LiquefiedPetroleum Gas Association:

… the consultative issues paper contains the statement that‘the scope of the inquiry is limited to cylinder or bottled LPGfor domestic users, and does not extend to industrial &commercial or Autogas users. While the commission’smotivation in seeking to simplify the situation … isunderstood, it must be stressed that the simplification bears norelationship to the reality of the energy market and gives riseto an analysis that is seriously flawed.

I ask that the Essential Services Commission (ESC)make sure it is not doing a flawed analysis.

The time for submissions to that inquiry has nowclosed. My submission is available, with others, on theEssential Services Commission’s web site. I do not payconsultants to do my submissions; I point out that it ismy own sweat and late night and weekend blood thathas gone into that submission. It should be notedpublicly that the only submissions to that inquiry fromMPs came from me, my colleague the Independentmember for Gippsland East, and the honourablemember for Benalla.

I am surrounded, in my area, by a bevy of big bovverboys from the coalition. They have recently startedspouting off in the local papers about how vital gasprovision is. I must say that I did wonder where theywere, because they have only just started workingagain. But despite their ability to spout off in the localpaper, not one of them was capable or willing to do thework, collect the information and prepare a submissionto that inquiry. I think that is a bit sad.

I had to further push the ESC to get some publichearings in my area. Not everybody wants to write adetailed submission to an inquiry that is far, far away.There will now be a public hearing in Wonthaggi, andalso one in Bairnsdale. The ESC’s gaze is not yetproperly on Gippsland; I advise the commission that itis time its gaze was very firmly focused on our area.The outcome I seek from this inquiry is affordable LPGand an extension of natural gas into our area. The onlyissue is how best to do that.

I read the submissions from various parts of theindustry and — oh my! — how they hate the idea ofregulation! The BHP Billiton submission says:

Any regulatory measures, such as price controls, wouldseriously disturb the risk/reward balance for oil and gasproducers in Victoria.

BHP Billiton says that if the price was lower it might beforced to export all our gas. I suggest to BHP Billitonthat gas is an asset of the people of Victoria, and that if

it cannot find a solution to the current pricing problemsperhaps rules should be set to ensure that somebodyelse is able to find those solutions.

The Kleenheat Gas submission says there may beunintended consequences of price regulation, such as atotal withdrawal from the market. Now Kleenheat saysthat cylinder LPG users in Victoria:

… have the lowest cylinder gas costs in Australia.

It quotes a price of $63.50 per cylinder of gas. I remindKleenheat that in my area we actually pay $72 for acylinder, and other members say they pay $75. Wehave paid up to $78 for a cylinder, so Kleenheat’saveraging system obviously does not work. It also saysthat:

There is rivalry along all parts of the supply chain.

I don’t think so! I think Kleenheat had better read mysubmission.

Elgas Ltd says:

… any government action which reduced these alreadyconstrained returns would make investment in servingcustomers unviable.

Excuse me, but somebody is making a big profit out ofLPG!

We have a locally produced, locally processed andlocally marketed product. The current unregulatedmarket allows the source of that product to charge aprice based very loosely and not transparently on theSaudi contract price, which itself is based very looselyon the oil price in the Middle East. On top of that, ourproducers are paid in US dollars and permitted toadd — in US dollars — a component for US-levelhandling, transport and port charges. That is patently anonsensical basis for the pricing of LPG in Victoria.

I recognise that the really desirable outcome of havingstate essential services owned and run by the state is anunrealistic wish, but I say to the government thathalfway, temporary, inequitable subsidies of gas,electricity or any other essential service, ornon-negotiated regulations, are not going to work.

I say to the government, ‘Find a solution. Get us mainsgas, not just a main pipeline but gas into our houses,our factories and community facilities’. That wouldhave to be the biggest priority for the south-westGippsland area.

I suggest that for the government to ensure that severalcompanies are piping gas down that pipeline might bethe only real way to get some genuine competition into

GRIEVANCES


the industry in the area. We have a chicken-and-eggproblem: we will get the development when we havethe infrastructure.

Our second-best opportunity to bring gas into myregion is here at the moment. A pipeline is being builtfrom the Yolla gas field to a processing plant planned tobe built between Nyora and Lang Lang, and then thegas line will go on to Pakenham. I want the governmentto work now with that company to take that opportunityto get our gas back into our region.

Secondly, the government must ensure that anysubsidies for LPG are absolutely equivalent to thoseavailable for other energy sources. Do not penalise usbecause only 2 per cent of the community uses LPG. Iwould like to tell the government that that 2 per cent ofthe population counts.

We live in a beautiful region. We have amazingcoastline, beautiful rural vistas and very easy access tothe metropolitan area — and it is getting better all thetime. It will get even better still when we get our trainback. We have extraordinarily valuable agricultural andprocessed products going out of our region. Get us thegas and let us move ahead. This measure is necessary,sensible and just; and I can only keep urging thegovernment to take some action now while theopportunity is before us with this new gas pipelinecoming into the region. Make sure that we too canmove along, move ahead and live in a properenvironment where our individuals, families andbusinesses are not penalised for their choice of area inwhich to live. Get us the gas!

Agriculture: disease and pest control

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — I grieve todayabout the state of animal health and disease control andthe government’s efforts at exotic pest control here inVictoria.

These are extraordinarily important issues to all peoplein country and regional Victoria. They impact onlifestyle, on the economy and on the social fabric ofcommunities right across country Victoria; yet we donot seem to have a government in control of theseissues or a minister who is active and effective on theissue. Instead, what we seem to have resembles thoseroad safety ads we see on long weekends and holidaysin which authorities urge drivers not to fall asleep at thewheel. We seem to have a minister asleep at the desk!

A number of topics can strike fear into the hearts ofanybody living in a rural area and involved inagriculture: anthrax; Newcastle disease; ovine Johne’sdisease; and fire ants. A chronology of events over the

two and a half years since the government came intopower reveals that we had an incursion of fire ants inMarch 2001 that was secret and undisclosed for somesix months afterwards. The government tried to keep ita secret. We have a continuing and endemic problemwith ovine Johne’s disease, and we have had two recentoutbreaks of anthrax in northern Victoria. Then, justthis month, we had a potentially devastating outbreak ofNewcastle disease.

Taking them in turn, fire ants are now well establishedin Queensland. They are an exotic pest from SouthAmerica and are causing up to $2.7 billion of damageto the United States economy every year. They areextraordinarily difficult to eradicate once they areestablished in the community. They landed in Victoriain March of 2001 — yet the minister said nothing aboutit.

The Department of Agriculture, to its credit, tookeffective control action that time and is carrying out amonitoring brief at the moment. We are, however,extraordinarily lucky that that incursion occurredthrough the nursery industry. The nursery inQueensland responsible for the delivery that ended upin a Melbourne warehouse met its responsibilities andnotified the Victorian authorities that the shipment hadtaken place, and our authorities went to check thewarehouse. As a result, the fire ants were discovered inpot plants. Hopefully they have been eradicated.

The problem is not the event that was discovered, butthe more likely threat of movements of products andplant material by families: the gift of the pot plant thatAunty Doris makes when the family goes toQueensland on holidays and then brings it back in theboot of the car; or the pot plants and household materialthat come down in the removalist van when a familyrelocates from Brisbane down to Victoria. It would bevery hard to identify and catch any infected shipmentswhen they come that way.

If fire ants are introduced into Victoria in that mannerthe most likely scenario is that we will hear about itsome years later when they have become wellestablished in a localised area. If that happens we cankiss goodbye to the outdoor way of life and thevaluable nursery and plant products industries.Barbecues and outdoor picnics will become things ofthe past as they have in large areas of the southernUnited States because these ants are extraordinarilyvicious and cause enormous harm. Dr David Beardsellfrom the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment was quoted as saying fire ants areprobably one of the worst pests to come here, right upthere with rabbits and cane toads. God forbid that they

GRIEVANCES


should become established in Victoria. The ministermust do more than he currently is doing about fire ants.

I refer to Newcastle disease. This month we had newsof a Newcastle disease outbreak on a poultry farm inthe Meredith area. As a result several hundred thousandchickens are being destroyed. The direct cost to theindustry of the destruction and eradication program is acouple of million dollars; $800 000 of that cost will bemet by the Victorian Chicken Meat Council, $200 000by the egg producers, and the rest by the state andfederal governments.

However, that is not the largest cost. There are verylarge impacts on Victoria’s export market already.Exports make up about 4 per cent of the chicken meattrade — roughly $750 million a week in sales in thatindustry — so there is a resultant loss to Victorianexporters of around $30 million a week in sales at themoment. There are other indirect costs to the industryand threats to jobs. The industry is calling for beefed-upbiosecurity measures on farms and is urging theminister to take some prompt action in that area.However, we have heard little from the minister. He hasbeen dozing on the job.

Let’s look at anthrax. There have been two recentoutbreaks of anthrax in northern Victoria. Anthrax is asoil-borne bacteria. The spores can remain dormant inthe soil for up to 50 years. Extraordinary vigilance isrequired to get this disease under control. In April andMay outbreaks have been reported on two separateproperties in the Tatura area. We now know that about95 properties will be indirectly affected by this situationand somewhere up around 10 000 cattle will need to bevaccinated. The departmental officers need to becongratulated on their action in this matter, but we needto do more if we are not to be exposed to further seriousrisks of anthrax outbreaks. I will deal with that in a littlemore detail later.

In relation to ovine Johne’s disease (OJD), honourablemembers all well remember the lead-up to the 1999election when the Labor Party played very cynicalpartisan politics with ovine Johne’s disease. It wentaround country Victoria and promised farmers a quickfix in relation to OJD. It said the previous governmenthad messed the issue up and that it would fix it in5 minutes. However, it has done very little. In effect thesame OJD programs are running as were running threeor four years ago. Farmers are not receiving the quickfix they were promised. It is the same old programwithout the compensation. All the government has doneis remove the compensation measures that werepreviously available. However, farms and farm familiesare still being bankrupted or severely damaged by OJD.

In the two and a half years since this government cameto power there have been more detections anddiagnoses. Many additional suspect properties are undersurveillance for OJD. There is increasing disruption tobusiness and to trade and farmers’ ways of life inrelation to OJD, yet no real progress has been madewith the disease despite the promise of a quick fix. Theminister has had two reviews on the issue, but all he hasdone is abolish the compensation program previously inplace.

Finally, after some months, he has reluctantly agreed tomeet the recommendation of his own reviewcommittee, the Fogarty committee, and pay off theincurred debt of the Sheep and Goat CompensationFund in relation to OJD. However, there is no practicalprogram operating in the community to assist farmersand farm families to deal with OJD, and the ministerhas to get his act in order.

Let’s look at what might be done. There is a shortage ofanimal health officers across Victoria, and thegovernment is not doing anything to address that. I amconstantly getting informal advice from people withinthe department about a lack of animal health officers. Iam constantly being advised that there are vacancies inthe animal health area which are not being filled, andthis is due to budgetary constraints at local and regionallevels.

The editorial in the Weekly Times of today’s date saidthat more effort has to be put into supportingveterinarians with adequate incentives and support inrelation to animal diseases and that we need more vetsin rural Victoria. Yes, I agree it would be good to havemore vets, but the front-line troops are often the animalhealth officers, what used to be called the stockinspector. Those people go around the farms and to thesaleyards. They are the people with experience and analert eye and they were often very good at identifyingproblems with pests and diseases in days gone by.However, they are short on the ground at the momentand the government needs to do something about it. It isa simple administrative action, requiring a little bit ofenergy and drive from the minister and a very fewdollars.

This government talks about the money it is spendingin country Victoria. Let’s have a few more animalhealth officers; let’s do something practical aboutanimal and disease control across Victoria, becausethey are easily established. Yes, it is good to have morevets, but the vets are often the second-line point ofcontact because by then the situation is so serious thatthe animal is either seriously ill or has died. That iswhat occurred with the two anthrax outbreaks near

GRIEVANCES


Tatura in the last couple of weeks. They were notdetected until the animals had died.

Similarly with the Newcastle disease outbreak atMeredith, there was presumably a breakdown inbiosecurity controls in some way at that operation. It isone of Victoria’s largest egg producers. As a resultconsumers will probably pay a lot more for their eggs.Increased animal health work would certainly assistthere. I have spoken to the president of the VictorianChicken Meat Council. It is urging the government totake action in relation to beefing up biosecurity controlsin the poultry industry. At the moment it argues there istoo much left to the behest of the operators and far toomuch risk, because some operators place a high valueon biosecurity measures and others do not. The industryis calling for tougher and more stringent action, and Ithink the minister should meet that need.

It is time for the minister to wake up. We all know —the industry knows; country Victoria knows — that theMinister for Agriculture is on his retirement ticket. Thisis a once-only job for Keith and he will be wanderingout of here. However, that does not absolve him fromthe responsibility of effectively dealing with animal anddisease control and exotic pest control issues inVictoria. He needs to do more; he needs to be morevigilant. If he is not then country Victoria will sufferand continue to suffer badly.

Rural and regional Victoria: formergovernment cutbacks

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I grieve today forthe many rural communities that suffered during thedark days and under the uncaring hands of the Kennettgovernment; the communities that lost their schools,teachers, community leaders and community centres —centres that were the heart of those communities. Forseven long years the Kennett government did its best toundermine the dedication of our state school teachers’commitment to our children, especially those from themore disadvantaged areas.

The Kennett government concentrated its educationcuts in areas of highest need, such as special needsteachers, disadvantaged schools, and closed schools inrural areas and disadvantaged areas such as Fitzroy andNorthcote. Not only did the previous government dothat, but it unashamedly targeted the most skilledteachers, those who had the most opportunity foremployment outside the education system because theyhad the skills and the confidence to go out there aftertaking a voluntary redundant package.

Mr Kilgour interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Savage) — Order!The honourable member for Shepparton is out of hisplace and disorderly.

Mr HARDMAN — Then they got jobs within thework force outside of the education field. The Bracksgovernment is bringing those people back and it is veryproud of that fact. One only has to look at the statisticsand read the case studies on people moving back toVictoria in the Sunday Age last weekend to realise that.I am sure opposition members cringed when they sawthat ex-Victorians are returning to Victoria because it isthe place to be. Under the Bracks government, Victoriais considered to be a state which cares for all its people,not just the wealthy private school students et cetera, asthe Howard government does. People want to live herenow because they know this government cares about allpeople, not just the top end of town or those in favourwith the government of the day. This is also evidencedin the migration rate, as I have said before. Labor isturning things around. The decimation and degradationof our state education system under the previousgovernment should be recorded so that the samescenario never happens again.

I turn now to the rebuilding of our education system inVictoria and the great work done by the Bracksgovernment to turn education around in our state. Iwould like to relate a personal anecdote which I believespeaks volumes for the Bracks government’sinvestment in education since coming to power. Aweek before the announcement of this budget I had thepleasure of visiting several schools in my electorate andannouncing two very important grants: one for sportsequipment and one for library equipment. Those grantswere received with acclamation by all concernedbecause they knew that they did not have to raise fundsto double their school sports equipment budget ordouble their library budget to buy books. Indeed, inmany cases they would have had to fundraiseconsiderably more or slug parents with extra voluntaryfees. Schools received this money because thisgovernment wants them to do a great job for our kids.

In my days as a school principal, the Kennettgovernment tried a few one-off grants, $600 here or acouple of hundred dollars there. Schools received theirgrants and they said, ‘What is that going to do? It is notgoing to lower class sizes for these kids. How are wegoing to help the kids in our classes learn to read andwrite with this lousy $600?’. This government has gotthe basics right and that is fantastic. It is probably thefirst time I have had the feeling, since I have been themember for Seymour, that people are less stressed andhappier to be teaching in this state. That is a really greatsign.

GRIEVANCES


Prior to the budget many things still needed to be done.This budget addresses some of those needs and I willgo into those a little later on. This contrasts with theactions of the miserly and mean-spirited federal Liberalgovernment which has once again shamelesslyneglected funding for our most needy students andschools. Even worse, it has done this while at the sametime significantly boosting funding for the richestprivate schools. This is appalling. As a society it is ourresponsibility to ensure that everyone has access to thebest possible opportunities in life. This can only beprovided through access to an education system thatprovides for all of our students. The federal governmenthas once again missed this point in the budget. That iswhy the Bracks government is rebuilding Victoria’sstate education system with investment in our schools,people and infrastructure. That fact is demonstrated inthis state budget and the previous one.

I grieve that again there seems to be no new money forTAFE institutes or universities. The federal governmentis still running down our higher education system bymaking no major investments. If Australia is to be aclever country, a high-tech country with great jobs forits people, I would expect that a federal governmentwith a vision for the future prosperity and opportunityfor all would see that investment in higher education isextraordinarily important.

At present there is a very serious shortage ofteachers — and nurses as well — in country areas, andthere is a teacher shortage in some curriculum areas,such as maths and science. Yet I see no funds in thefederal budget to address this problem in universities somore people across the nation can be trained to fill theplaces of an ageing work force that will be retiring verysoon, leaving a great gap in the teaching work force.From my reading of the newspapers this morning thereis hardly enough in the federal budget to meet therecurrent costs of universities. This is again an exampleof the Howard government’s mean-spiritedness.

Budget: educationMr HARDMAN (Seymour) —

In contrast to the gloomy picture of neglect which theformer state government left us with and themean-spiritedness of the Howard federal government, Ishall paint a brighter picture. Since coming to office theBracks government has provided an extra $2.75 billionto rebuild Victoria’s school system — and as I saidbefore, that includes both our people and our schoolinfrastructure. All of this investment is being used tomeet targets that will boost opportunities for allVictorians.

The latest state budget provides a $550 million boostfor education. That includes $81.6 million for300 additional secondary school teachers. It will enableschools to have smaller class sizes and provide moreindividual attention for their students, a better welfaresystem and a higher morale for their work force,because they will not be so stressed out.

The Bracks budget also includes $216.4 million forrebuilding schools and TAFE colleges. HeathcotePrimary School will receive $1.8 million to upgrade itsfacilities; Alexandra Secondary College, which will bepart of my electorate at the next state election, willreceive almost $1.9 million; and Yarra Glen PrimarySchool, which will also become part of my electorate,will receive almost $1 million. Previously thegovernment has provided funding for an upgrade ofHealesville Primary School, several upgrades forWhittlesea Secondary College and massive investmentsin the Wallan and Kilmore primary schools.

Right around the state the government is investing inthe infrastructure, and not just in people and in gettingteachers into those schools but in making workingconditions better for teachers and students. I am veryproud to see that the Bracks government is makingthose sound investments.

An amount of $34.6 million has been allocated for theprovision of 150 early numeracy teachers to continue tomeet our targets on numeracy. Only a week before thebudget we were talking about sports equipment andlibrary grants at one of the schools I visited. Theprincipal at Puckapunyal Primary School — that area isnow famous because of the kangaroo problem — toldme he was having problems with the numeracydiagnostic testing of the students, and that includedhaving to spend money to replace teachers to do thattesting, because it is quite intensive. The $34.6 millionwill help knock right on the head the real issue thatschool had. It was having to fund the testing out of itscasual relief teacher budget, which is there to replaceteachers who are sick, and the principal could not see away of doing this on an ongoing basis. It is great to seethis happening there, but more importantly it is great tosee the government targeting investment to numeracyand literacy, which we know are the most importantthings in enabling our students to succeed in futureyears.

The budget allocates $43.3 million to provide an extra285 teachers to lower class sizes in grades prep to 1 inorder to improve literacy rates. Many people would beaware that if teachers have time to concentrate onindividual students’ needs those students have a muchbetter chance to learn. The teachers also have a much

GRIEVANCES


better chance to pick up and address any problems thatstudents may have. That money will be extraordinarilywell spent in reducing further the average class sizes ingrades prep to 2 to the 21-student mark. I am verypleased to see that happening.

When I look at this budget, especially for education, Ithink to myself, ‘Why am I here? Why am I a LaborParty member?’. The answer is that it is because of mypassion to make sure that the best opportunities areprovided for everybody in Victoria and Australia. Thegovernment is proudly delivering on those thingsthrough this targeted funding in the budget.

There is also an allocation of $84.3 million to reformthe middle years of schooling program. That will meana large amount of money going into classes and intogetting schools to cooperate by looking at how they canbe innovative and provide for excellence in education.That money will also be very well spent. Schools willhave to target that funding and show how they will useit to improve the middle years. Many people will saythat despite a lot of effort being put in since theprevious government was in office to try to get middleyear reform happening, it remains a very difficult area.

This targeted funding will obviously make a bigdifference for those kids, especially for those in years 8and 9 who are very disconnected and not too sure whythey are at school. This will make their lives at schoolmore interesting, which will obviously mean a greatdeal for their future. Encouraging them to stay on atschool and continue their education will improve theirattitude towards education and learning. It is a fantasticinitiative, and I am proud to be part of a governmentthat is delivering in this area.

The budget allocates $47.7 million for theimplementation of the Victorian certificate of appliedlearning, which has been trialled over the past year. Itincludes 120 additional teachers as well, and it willprovide an alternative pathway for those students forwhom the VCE does not cater at the moment. Thatmeans those kids will stay at school and get a certificatethat actually means something. They will be able to saythey stayed at school until year 12, and they will have acertificate that shows that they followed a rigorousprogram that makes them a good person to employ. Itwill give them the confidence of knowing that they cando it. The kids who do not do that course are likely toend up out on the streets and on the large youthunemployment dole queue. I believe that money will beextremely well spent and will help meet the target ofhaving 90 per cent of students staying on at school untilyear 12.

The budget also allocates $3.6 million for Koorieducators and home liaison officers. A quick flickthrough the newspaper this morning showed that thefederal government is cutting funds in this particulararea. This is one of most disadvantaged areas in society,yet what does the federal government do? It cutsfunding to those groups. It needed to boost up the richprivate schools a little more, so it cut funding to themost needy people. That is what I call absolutelymean-spirited, and it is typical of the Howard federalgovernment, which does not care for Australians.

Another matter I must mention before I finish is theschool bus review. It will provide better access formany students, whether they be private or stategovernment students, and make it fairer for them byenabling them to get to schools when there might not benormal bus services. That is great, because it representsthe delivery of another election promise, as do many ofthe things I have been talking about. I am very proud tostand here today and say that that is being implemented,and it will provide a better system for all students inVictoria.

Crime: statistics

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — It gives me greatpleasure to join the debate. I grieve for the public andcommunity safety of this state and the blatantincompetence of the Bracks Labor government infailing to bring crime under control in Victoria. I haveto admit that the Bracks government has made a majorachievement in its almost 1000 days in government: ithas conveyed a clear message to the Victoriancommunity that it is soft on crime! I suspect that at thenext state election law and order will be a priority thatthe opposition will be pushing very strongly.

This government has been tagged a do-nothinggovernment, because although it promised to cut crime,it has delivered on nothing. To see that we only have tolook at the Bracks government’s document on law andorder that was taken to the last state election. It wasentitled ‘No more excuses on crime’. Of course that hasbeen changed. The government has done a review andset up a committee and changed its name to ‘Nothingbut excuses for crime’!

One of the first things Labor promised was:

… to protect the personal safety and security of all Victorians.

It failed to do that. It also said:

A first-term Labor government will be tough on crime andeven tougher on its causes in order to make the Victoriancommunity safer.

GRIEVANCES


It has failed. It also claimed:

Labor also recognises that the most effective way to combatthe rapid rise in Victoria’s violent crime rate is through theimplementation of a comprehensive crime prevention strategythat deals with not just the symptoms of crime, but also itscauses.

We are still waiting. The knockout blow in thedocument is:

Labor will not accept any more excuses on crime.

That is what the Labor Party told the Victoriancommunity at the last state election, and it is typical ofthis do-nothing government that it has not delivered onany of it. Nothing!

The Labor opposition went ahead and said:

Labor will develop and implement a comprehensiveanti-violence strategy.

We are still waiting. Further, it said:

A Labor government will address the increase in theproliferation of knives and other dangerous weapons in ourcommunity.

We are still waiting. In addition, it said:

Labor is committed to tackling the need for greater safety atshopping centres and other community venues.

We are still waiting. The then Labor opposition said:

Labor is committed to ensuring greater safety for patrons ofautomatic teller machines.

We are still waiting, although the minister promised inJanuary that he was going to review this because it wasan election promise, but let me tell you: there is not oneautomatic teller machine that is any safer.

Let’s look at some figures to prove what I have said. Inthe last 12 months the latest crime statistics from thepolice show very clearly that homicide is up 25.6 percent; robberies are up 26.5 per cent; aggravatedburglaries — that is, burglaries that occur when peopleare at home — are up 44.1 per cent; and theft of motorvehicles is up 14.9 per cent.

If you think that these increases are restricted to themetropolitan area, think again. Statistics for a couple ofregional areas show how this government has failed tocurtail crime across the state. In region 3, Mr ActingSpeaker, which covers the area that you represent,including Mildura, Shepparton and Bendigo, homicidesare up 8.6 per cent, and robberies increased 51.4 percent — and this is just in a 12-month period!Aggravated burglaries in that area increased by 30 per

cent; thefts of motor vehicles were up by 21 per cent;and rape was up by 22.6 per cent.

It is a broken promise that the government committeditself to reducing crime by 5 per cent. It has failed, andfailed so severely that we have to ask why it hashappened. One of the main reasons is that instead ofallowing the police to be out on the beat fighting crime,this government has had other work projects. It hasturned our police force into prison wardens and revenuecollectors.

Budget: policeMr WELLS (Wantirna) —

Let’s just look at some of the facts. We only have tolook at the last state budget — not the one just past butthe one prior to it — to see the situation. As anopposition, we thought that at last this government wasgoing to deliver on something to fix the overcrowdingin police cells. We have had situations where hundredsof our police force members have been tied up lookingafter prisoners in police cells. At the last state electionwe thought, ‘At last it is going to address this situation’,because the government was going to build brand-newprisons. It was going to build a 600-bed metropolitanMelbourne remand prison; a 300-bed metropolitanmedium security prison; two minimum security prisonsin rural areas, including a 120-bed and a 100-bedprison; and three 20-bed suburban prisons.

I challenge anyone on the government side to name onelocation — just one location! — for any one of thosepromises that were made 12 months ago to fixovercrowding in our police cells, but there is deafeningsilence. Not one address! We do not even knowwhether the land has been purchased. If it has, we in thegeneral community do not know where these placesare. The government promised a 600-bed prison, a300-bed medium prison, two rural prisons and three20-bed suburban ones, but they are promises it has notdelivered on 12 months later.

And what has happened? Our prison capacity is sittingat around 121 per cent occupancy. In budget paper 2 of2001–02, the minister promised:

… a reduction in the adult prison system utilisation level to anaverage of around 90 per cent …

He is right! World best practice is that prisons shouldoperate at occupancy levels of between 90 and 95 percent. The opposition agrees with the minister, but in the12 months since this document was written the prisonoccupancy levels have not improved one iota. It sits ataround 121 per cent. Of course the backlog ofovercrowding in prisons means that prisoners end upspending more time in police cells, and the police are

GRIEVANCES


not impressed. Police are paid to be out fighting crimeand ensuring that all streets across country andmetropolitan areas are safe.

The 2000–01 annual report of the Victoria Police statedthat, on average — that is, every single night lastyear — 273 prisoners were held in police custody.When you consider that there is room only for 120, youcan see these prisoners are packed in like sardines.Many in the community say, ‘That is bad luck. If theyare prisoners, they are on sentence and get what theydeserve’. Many would agree with that comment, butwhen you look at the figures for the 1999–2000financial year they show that on average 199 prisonerswere held in police custody, but under this governmentthey have been cranked up through blatantincompetence to an average of 273 prisoners. Thesituation has not improved at all. We are tying upvaluable police resources looking after prisoners, andthat is not what we pay our police force to do.

I look at what else our police force is doing under theBracks Labor government. Since its election in October1999 police fines are up from $99 million to$336 million — an increase of 240 per cent! In thecoming financial year fines are forecast to increase by85 per cent. This represents a $154 million increase onthe expected revised budget figure of $182 million in2001–02, which is forecast to be $336 million in2002–03. The number of police fines is expected toalmost double, from 903 000 to 1.7 million.

Again the government is tying up valuable policeresources as members of the force are stuck behinddesks, dishing out fines. You only have to look at thelatest budget figures to confirm that the government ishell bent on turning the members of our excellent policeforce into tax collectors and prison wardens.

Budget: drug programsMr WELLS (Wantirna) —

I conclude on an issue which many of us as parentswould agree on — that is, the last thing we want is forour kids to be involved in illegal drugs when they aregrowing up. It must be devastating for parents whosechildren are tied up with this problem. What has thegovernment done to address the needs of parents and toensure that their kids are safe from the scourge of drugpushers and drug traffickers? The state budget revealsthat this financial year the government will cut thenumber of hours police spend investigating illegal drugactivities from 600 000 to 560 000. That does not makesense.

Given the government’s claims of an increase in policenumbers, one would have thought that it would have

used some of those hours to ensure it cracked down onillegal drug activities. At the next state election Ibelieve that law and order will be an enormous issue.To date, the Bracks Labor government’s record on lawand order issues, including tackling crime, has been amiserable failure. I think the people in the generalcommunity will realise this and hold the government toaccount for the woeful job that it has done in law andorder.

Drayton Corp

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I grieve about acouple of subjects, but I want to start with the racingindustry, particularly the snake-oil salesmen who arenow using it as a vehicle for promoting dubious claimsabout moneymaking ventures.

I refer to a glossy brochure from a company under theworking title of Dray-Tec which arrived unsolicited atmy home the other day. It has the form and appearanceof a prospectus that one might expect a reputablecompany would publish to promote differentinvestment opportunities. Upon reading this brochure Ifound it was anything but a prospectus. I would go sofar as to say that despite its similarities to a prospectus itis hardly respectable and it is certainly not honourable.It is wildly inaccurate and, I suspect, of dubiousinformative value.

The brochure is loaded with pejoratives andexaggerations. I guess if you are a snake-oil salesmantrying to make money out of people through nothingother than a numbers game using the racing industry,you would dress it up in anything but those terms.However, it certainly starts off in those terms. Onpage 2 it makes the following claim:

Many economists are now admitting that Australia, as part ofAsia, cannot survive with its current standard of living.

…

Every man, woman and child in Australia has a debt of$42 000. Yet every man, woman and child has only $400 insavings deposits.

It does not aim to find a quick way to separate you fromyour money; rather it dresses itself up as some grandeconomic statement that will address the balance ofpayments in this country. The hyperbole goes on:

It is a well-kept secret that 49 per cent of the work force inAustralia is public service related (USA 7 per cent, UK 12 percent).

I would agree. It is such a well-kept secret that it isactually deceitful, and that is far from the case. It goeson to say that there are only 2.5 million fully employed

GRIEVANCES


workers across the country. For once I might agree withPeter Costello that that is an outrageously inaccurateclaim.

The brochure suggests:

In future, the smart people will survive … Those who followold so-called ‘paths to success’ will fail.

That is to say that traditional hard work is worthless,which is a disgraceful sentiment to be putting aroundtoday. But in the vein of snake-oil salesmen it goes onto extol the virtues of easy money and further suggests:

Those with the ability to think laterally and take the rareopportunity when it presents itself; those with the foresight totake a brilliant concept by the scruff of the neck and wring thelife out of it …

THEY WILL BE THE WINNERS

Of course they will be glorious winners — and therewill be no shortage of reward for them! It continues:

An 80-square waterfront home, a yacht for the weekends,three of your favourite cars in the garage. A floodlit tenniscourt with a well-stocked bar for your friends … dinner at thebest restaurant two or three times a week … maybe Bali forthe weekend. A Melbourne Cup winner, a country property,the best of schools for the kids, the top labels on your clothes.First-class air travel, a limousine to the casino, the penthousesuite thrown in.

There are no half measures in this advertisement.Finally:

It CAN be achieved … but only on one condition —

and you must invest your hard-earned income.

The claim is made by Drayton Corp — —

Ms Asher interjected.

Mr ROBINSON — I think it will be many yearsbefore Bill Shannon gets to this league.

What is Drayton Corp? The brochure talks about thecompany’s long history of dealing with the public inmany facets of the industry. Unfortunately for DraytonCorp, Australian Securities and InvestmentsCommission records show that the company’s historygoes back only two years, having been created in April2000. We can be extraordinarily doubtful of its claim tohaving a long history. It then goes on to bag the hell outof the bookmaking industry, suggesting that anyonewho bets with bookmakers cannot be a winner and thatthe future lies with taking up this investmentopportunity.

When it is all said and done this is nothing more than ablatant effort to try to seduce people into parting with

their hard-earned income for a software program thatwill allow them to park their brains at the door andmake investments based on numbers rather than tryingto judge horse flesh on its relative merits in races thatare conducted across Australia. As such it is to bediscouraged.

It is interesting that in its attempt to lay out for peoplethe virtues of investing in the product and the returnsthat are possible, the brochure I received providesadvice on what the returns would have been only upuntil July 2001, so insofar as it pretends to put acrossany information that is accurate it falls well short of themark. This is an invitation for fools. Dressed up as it iswith its hyperbole and exaggeration it is essentially aninvitation for people unsuspectingly to leave theirbrains at the door. The racing industry is promoting thisas nothing other than a numbers game, which isextraordinarily unfortunate. It is exactly the sort ofthing that we should be discouraging strongly.

The director of the company is a Michael Edward. I donot know Michael Edward; he is as entitled as anyoneto start up a business, and that is his right. However, itis perhaps not surprising — it is perhaps entirelyappropriate — that the company he operates, which Iunderstand is a $2 company, is based at SurfersParadise. If there is any part of Australia where byreputation you would think a company like this shouldbe located it is Surfers Paradise, where all the aspiringtwo-bob millionaires want to live, so he is well suited.But we need to put people like Michael Edward onnotice. He would want to make sure that everything heputs in his advertisements for investmentopportunities — I use that term loosely — is up toscratch.

I have asked Consumer and Business Affairs Victoriato investigate this matter because it is the sort ofsnake-oil hype and exaggeration that not only does theracing industry disservice but can seriously misleadpeople and undermine the hard work and effort Ireferred to earlier. The racing industry has a proudhistory and deserves better than the bumf that has beenput around by Dray-Tec.

Federal budget: Telstra saleMr ROBINSON (Mitcham) —

I want to grieve as well in the next few moments aboutthe federal government’s plans as enunciated in lastnight’s budget to sell off Telstra, and the impact of thaton Victorians. Prior to the last election the NationalParty in particular insisted on a principled stand —again I use that term loosely — that it would not allowthe remaining 51 per cent of Telstra to be sold untilservice levels had improved. That claim was made not

GRIEVANCES


so long ago. In fact, I can recall that claim being madeby the National Party in Canberra and the DeputyPrime Minister in the lead-up to last year’s federalelection.

However, last night, and in fact in the lead-up to lastnight, statements were made that Telstra would be sold.I understand the announcement last night was that theremaining part of Telstra’s public ownership will besold off in equal halves or thirds.

It is worth us considering the view — logically this isthe view that the National Party put forward — thatTelstra service levels have not improved to anywherenear the standard that is either desirable or required byVictorians, particularly those who live outsideMelbourne. I can recall only a few short weeks ago theHerald Sun in particular running a detailed account of apersonal tragedy up on the border in which Telstrafeatured. It was referred to constantly in that coverage. Iunderstand the facts of that were that Telstra had beenrequested on a number of occasions to repair a phone. Ithink the woman in question had a sight impairmentand she had a son who had a medical condition, and aspeople would recall when the son required anambulance the phone did not work. That was a greatpersonal tragedy, and I am sure all members across thehouse would want to extend their sympathy to anyonewho found themselves in that circumstance.

There is no hiding the fact that that story very muchmanifests the service inadequacies of Telstra, andno-one believes that in the time up until that incidenthappened Telstra had done enough to improve itsservice levels. Yet only a few weeks later the federalgovernment is indicating that it believes service levelshave improved enough for it to get on with the sale. Iwould dispute that contention very seriously. I do notbelieve there is a rising level of satisfaction with Telstraservice levels. I do not believe the National Party hasdelivered in any way, shape or form upon its principledinsistence, as it called it last year, that service levelswould need to improve before it gave the green light toany future sales of the remaining public ownership ofTelstra.

We on this side would call on the National Party tothink twice about this folly of selling off Telstra’spresent remaining ownership. There are very fewexamples of essential public services that have beenhanded over to the private sector being run in a way inwhich service levels and satisfaction actually increase.Despite all the hype about the sale of the electricityindustry, my experience in the electorate of Mitcham isthat people are no more satisfied than they werepreviously about the performance of the different

companies in that industry, and I think the same appliesto banks and to Telstra.

This is nothing less than a blatant revenue grab by thefederal Treasurer. We have seen suggestions recentlythat the federal government will tinker with servicecharges, with fees and connection charges, offering alittle bit for pensioners, but this has everything to dowith Telstra’s policy of fattening up the cow before it issold off at the altar of privatisation. Selling off Telstra isa bad move. It should be resisted. The National Partyshould develop a bit of spine on this and stand up forthe people it purports to represent by saying that servicelevels have certainly not improved enough and thatuntil the federal government understands that, the futuresale of Telstra should be off limits. If the NationalParty, having succeeded at the last federal election,thinks that this is an issue it can continue to ignore, thenthe National Party, certainly across this state, is in for arude shock.

Housing: administration

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I rise today togrieve for struggling Victorian families endeavouring toaccess our public housing system. Since the Bracksgovernment came to power we have witnessed inVictoria a litany of issues which amount to sheerincompetence on the part of the government, theminister, and unfortunately the Office of Housing,although I almost refrain from blaming a governmentoffice because it is the minister who should be showingleadership and controlling what happens in the way aparticular government office or department operates.

I do not believe it is enough to simply becompassionate about the needs of low-incomeVictorian families who often have very large problemssuch as lack of employment, disabilities — many areelderly or from non-English-speaking backgrounds —who want to access our public housing system. If youare going to run an Office of Housing it is not enoughto be compassionate about the needs of these people;you have to be able to run what amounts to a very largecompany. The Office of Housing has control over somenearly $800 million per year, and it is up to its staff notonly to show compassion towards the people out therebut also to run the Office of Housing in an efficient andproper manner.

In the past two years we have seen an absolute litany ofexamples of incompetence in a number of areas. Wehave seen a huge blow-out in rent arrears — that is,money owing to the state government through rents inpublic housing; we have seen a huge blow-out in baddebts in the Office of Housing and we have seen a huge

GRIEVANCES


blow-out in waiting lists — that is, people queuing up,waiting for homes which should be provided by thisgovernment.

Going back to the first issue, under this governmentpublic housing rent arrears have blown out by 50 percent in the last two years. An Auditor-General’s reportin November of last year showed that public housingrent arrears had jumped from $7.1 million in 1998–99to $10.6 million in 2000–01. That report also shows a52 per cent increase — some $11.9 million — of baddebts written off by this government. This is the kind ofirresponsible economic mismanagement thatcharacterises this government and also characterised theprevious Cain–Kirner Labor governments. Under theirtutelage rent arrears blew out from $6.4 million in 1984to $15.3 million in 1988. Under the previous Liberalgovernment, on the other hand, that debt was halved. Itis on the way up again and it has now reached$10.6 million.

The Office of Housing should be working with tenantsto ensure they can meet their rental commitments andavoid — I repeat, avoid — eviction and homelessness.For example, a Brotherhood of St Laurence report of2000 titled Policy in Arrears claims that some 20 percent of residents in the southern region of Melbournealone — which includes Frankston, Dandenong andCheltenham — were in arrears with their rent paymentsand that 70 families were evicted as a result. When ingovernment Victorian Liberals introduced reforms inthe collection of rent arrears which reduced the level ofrent arrears, as I have said, to $6.5 million in 1997–98.It can be done; all it takes is a little vision andcommitment.

Turning to waiting lists, in the period June 2000 toDecember 2001 — that is, just 18 months — thewaiting list for public housing has blown out by a huge11.7 per cent. Some 4807 families — nearly5000 families! — were added to the waiting list andjoined the queue. In June 2000 the number of applicantson the waiting list was 40 967; by December 2001 thatfigure had grown massively to 45 777. From June toSeptember 2001 alone, 1796 families joined the queuewaiting for a home, and from September to December2001 an additional 1163 families joined the queue. Thisis an absolute outrage, and the hardest hit areas were incountry Victoria. Over the period June 2000 toDecember 2001, waiting lists in the Loddon Malleeregion went up by 23 per cent; in Gippsland by 27 percent; in the Hume region by 40.3 per cent; and in theGrampians by a massive 52 per cent.

Victorian towns and the areas around them sufferedhugely. Waiting lists went up in Ballarat by 56 per cent;

in Horsham by 35 per cent; in Benalla by 75.7 per cent;in Shepparton by 28 per cent; in Wangaratta by 55 percent; in Wodonga by 61.6 per cent; in Bendigo by32 per cent; in Swan Hill by 17.8 per cent; in Milduraby 10.5 per cent; in Geelong by 15.7 per cent; and inPortland the waiting list for public housing in that18-month period alone went up by 85.3 per cent! Thewaiting list in Warrnambool went up by 40 per cent andin Morwell it went up by 44.4 per cent. What anabsolute disgrace!

This government has claimed a number of things,including that its system for people being able to jointhe waiting list for a house is fairer than it was. I do notbelieve its system is fairer and I do not believe it isfairer to make more people wait longer for publichousing. I believe that is most unfair. I believe thatalthough this minister claims she is so caring she is notin fact particularly caring at all and I think her systemdemonstrates huge incompetence. Under the previousgovernment waiting lists dropped by some 20 per cent.I believe a reduction can be achieved; all it takes is thewill and some form of competence.

I took a one-day trip down to Bendigo and while justdriving around public housing areas in the town I foundthree vacant homes — that is, homes not beingoccupied. I am sure the minister will tell me there was agood reason for that, but I cannot imagine one. Ithought that was absolutely appalling. I am also toldthat last year in areas like Cheltenham some of thecategory 1 people on the segmented early housingwaiting list had been waiting two years foraccommodation. Individuals and families in segment 1on the waiting list are people who suffer from recurrenthomelessness. They are not people who have assets, aflow of income and stable housing; they are people inreal need — and this government has turned its back onthem.

The second issue I raise about housing is that thisgovernment gave a commitment that it would find asolution to the problems with the home opportunityloans scheme introduced in the Cain–Kirner yearswhich has left some 8000 Victorians owing massiveamounts of money to the government as a result ofhome loans that have gone wrong. This government byits action — it is an absolutely appalling action and Ihave never heard of anything like it before — hastreated those people in a very vicious way and as aresult a quite appalling situation has arisen.

The Bracks government tried to gag borrowers groupsrepresenting some 8000 home opportunity loansscheme victims and coerce them into agreeing to agovernment proposal before they had even seen it. I

GRIEVANCES


have seen documents that attest to that. The peak bodiesrepresenting the 8000 home borrowers who have beenso badly affected by those loans and who now owethousands and thousands of dollars were invited to theoffice of the Minister for Housing to peruse a proposalthat was supposed to provide a systemic response andsolution to the issue of the huge amounts of moneyowed by those people to the government under thescheme.

Instead of the groups being shown the proposal, theywere asked to sign a memorandum of understandingwhich required them to fully accept the government’sproposal and, what is more, not to go out into the publicarena and make the proposal known and not tocommunicate the proposal to the members of theirgroups whom they were representing — in other words,to keep the proposals secret.

This is an absolutely appalling situation. It amounts togagging groups who are representing people who are introuble and looking for a solution. This governmentpromised a solution. I appreciate that it is a verydifficult problem. The previous government went togreat lengths to try to assist those people and it did soon a number of occasions. Firstly, the previousgovernment bit the bullet and offered borrowers a lowerfixed interest rate in 1993, resulting in the departmentsacrificing some $20 million in the hope of sorting outthe problems the borrowers faced. In 1994 further loanrestructuring was carried out by the previousgovernment, at an estimated cost of $60 million to$80 million.

The previous government tried to tackle the problem.The Bracks government made an absolute commitmentthat it would find a systemic solution — awhole-of-government solution — to the problem andnot deal with individuals on a case-by-case basis. Theproposal the government put before the borrowersreally meant that the borrowers would have to fullyaccept the government’s proposal without having seenthe detail in writing. They just had to agree that theywould accept the proposal fully and not transmit it toanybody else. I actually have a copy of thatmemorandum of understanding in front of me whichthe borrowers were asked to sign. It reads:

On the basis of this understanding, the consumer groupsconsider that the policy changes proposed by the governmentrepresent the maximum support that can reasonably beprovided to address the concerns expressed by the consumergroups and others.

A summary of that package is attached. It is provided on aconfidential basis and only for the information of theconsumer groups about present government intentions …

Each of the consumer groups supports the package in itsentirety and each is prepared to work with the government inthe implementation process.

Some of the groups actually refused to sign thismemorandum of understanding (MOU). They thoughtit was absolutely appalling; they did not believe thatwhat was being offered was in the best interests of thepeople they represented. The minister then had the gallto write them a letter inviting them to continue toparticipate in the process. They wrote back to theminister in March, informing her that they did notaccept the proposals they were given just verbally andthat they also objected very strongly to the way theywere treated when they were with the minister in heroffice.

In fact, one of the letters to the minister I have beforeme says:

… the current solution under offer is not acceptable.

The current offer neither reflects the social injustice nor doesit address the systemic problems our members are facing asper our previous discussion. Additionally the manner inwhich the current offer was tabled was patronising andauthoritarian at best.

The members of the group who wrote the letter madethe point that they objected to being asked to sign anMOU promising not to make the offer public, and theycommented in their letter that they had never breachedthe confidentiality previously asked of them.

All these issues add up to one thing: in relation topublic housing the government is letting the communitydown, and it is letting down those most in need. Inparticular it demonstrates a lack of competence onbehalf of the minister. It demonstrates that she lacks thecapacity and leadership to ensure that Victorians whoare most in need — that is, struggling Victorianfamilies on low incomes who depend upon governmentfor support and accommodation — are given thesupport they require. They are not being given thatsupport, and they are not being served well by thisgovernment, which I think has an appalling record inthis area.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The honourable member for Sunshine has 21⁄2 minutes.

Workplace safety: legislation

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — Today I rise togrieve at the lack of compassion on the part of theopposition given its unwillingness to support theCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill.The bill will enable a corporation to be prosecutedeffectively only if its gross negligence results in the

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


death or serious injury of an employee or worker. Thisis not a new liability for corporations, but the bill willenable such prosecutions to be brought moreeffectively. There are many similarities between theexisting liability of corporations for manslaughter underthe common law and the new corporation manslaughteroffence contained in the bill.

To be liable for either offence the corporation musthave owed a duty of care to the person injured or killed;must have failed to act as a reasonable corporationwould in all circumstances; and must have been grosslynegligent. That is, its conduct must have fallen so shortof the standard of care that a reasonable corporationwould exercise in the circumstances and present such ahigh risk of death or really serious injury that it meritscriminal punishment. The prosecution must prove allelements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The opposition came into this chamber yesterday andmisled the public by arguing that it would apply toevery employer in the state. It would only apply tothose who — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Loney) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired. The timefor raising matters on the grievance debate has expired.

Motion agreed to.

PATHOLOGY SERVICESACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) introduced a billto amend the Pathology Services Accreditation Act 1984to make further provision for the accreditation ofpathology services and for other purposes.

Read first time.

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM(PACKAGED LIQUOR LICENCES) BILL


Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) introduced a bill to amend the LiquorControl Reform Act 1998 with respect to packaged liquorlicences and for other purposes.

Read first time.

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACTS(CONCILIATION AND DISPUTE

RESOLUTION) BILL


Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) introduced abill to amend the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995to provide for the conciliation of domestic buildingdisputes, to amend the Building Act 1993 to increase thebuilding permit levy and to further regulate domesticbuilders, to amend the Victorian Civil and AdministrativeTribunal Act 1998 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

BUSINESS LICENSING LEGISLATION(AMENDMENT) BILL


Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) — I move:

That I have leave to introduce a bill to amend theAssociations Incorporation Act 1981, the Business NamesAct 1962, the Estate Agents Act 1980, the Motor Car TradersAct 1986 and the Travel Agents Act 1986 to facilitateelectronic transactions under those acts and to make furtherprovision for registers under those acts and to amend theBusiness Licensing Authority Act 1998 and for otherpurposes.

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I ask the ministerfor a brief description of the contents of the bill.

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for Consumer Affairs)(By leave) — This bill is to enable the acts so named tohave electronic lodgment attached to them so that wecan facilitate e-commerce.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

CORRECTIONS (INTERSTATE LEAVE OFABSENCE) BILL


Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Corrections) — Imove:

That I have leave to bring in a bill to amend the CorrectionsAct 1986 and for other purposes.

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I ask the minister toprovide a brief description of the bill.

NATIONAL PARKS (MARINE NATIONAL PARKS AND MARINE SANCTUARIES) BILL (No. 2)


Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Corrections) (Byleave) — The bill is basically to facilitatecorresponding interstate legislation to provide forinterstate leave for criminals, primarily incompassionate circumstances.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

NATIONAL PARKS (MARINE NATIONALPARKS AND MARINE SANCTUARIES)

BILL (No. 2)


Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) introduced a bill to amend the NationalParks Act 1975, the Fisheries Act 1995 and other acts toprovide for marine national parks and marinesanctuaries, to make further amendments to the NationalParks Act 1975 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION(FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 18 April; motion of Mr BRUMBY(Treasurer).

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) — This bill makes a rangeof amendments to different state taxation acts, and Iwill briefly summarise some of the main provisions. Itwill require stamp duty on the transfer of a motorvehicle acquired from a licensed motor car trader(LMCT) to be paid to the trader, who in turn will berequired to pay it within 14 days of the time of sale toVicroads at the same time as lodging the transferdocumentation. It will require both the purchaser andthe vendor of a motor car to sign the statement thatgives the market value of the vehicle on which duty ispaid.

The bill proposes to replace the current land valuationequalisation provisions of the Land Tax Act withindexation provisions, so that in the year in whichactual land values do not apply for land tax purposes —it will be every second year — the land value of aproperty is to be increased by an indexation factordetermined by the Valuer-General. The indexationfactor is intended to represent one half of the movementin the value of taxable land in the municipality

concerned between the previous valuation year and thefollowing valuation year.

The bill also proposes to exempt from land tax land thatis owned by a non-profit organisation, the principalobjectives of which are to conduct agricultural shows,farm machinery field days or similar where the land isused for those objectives. It also extends an exemptionfrom payroll tax for schools or colleges that were inexistence before 27 May 1997 to cover technicalschools, so long as education is provided predominantlyto students under 19 years of age, an amendment thatdoes not affect the ongoing exemption that applies to allregistered schools.

The bill also contains various technical andanti-avoidance amendments to the Duties Act, whichwere explained to the opposition very comprehensivelyand cogently by officers of the State Revenue Office(SRO). Based on the explanations given to theopposition by those officers, these miscellaneousamendments seem reasonable.

I will make some remarks on the principal provisions ofthe legislation, turning firstly to the changes to theregime for the collection of stamp duty on the transferof motor vehicles. In relation to these amendments Ipay tribute to my colleague the Deputy Leader of theOpposition, who led the charge in exposing thepotential for the evasion of duty that was opened up byprevious legislation of the Bracks government byenabling people to simply lodge the transferdocumentation, obtain a registration, not pay the dutyand have a fair chance of getting away with thatscot-free. This was a defect that was raised mostforcefully in the house by the deputy leader, and itappears her good work has at last borne fruit, at least tothe extent that the government is coming back to theParliament with a revised regime to attempt to tacklethe problem.


Mr CLARK — I welcome the acknowledgment bythe honourable member for Mitcham of the role of thedeputy leader in raising this issue.

Whether the new regime in the bill will work is adifferent matter. While SRO officers put forwardvarious reasons and explanations for the way thescheme works, it still appears to be a rather ramshackleoperation, certainly in terms of its legislative base. Itsday-to-day operation will have to wait to be seen. It isramshackle in that some of the obligations appear in theamendments to be inserted in the Duties Act and somearise out of regulations to be made by Vicroads. It is

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


hard to get a comprehensive description from any onesource of what the regime is supposed to be. Of course,when you have two separate sources for a combinedregime such as this, there is always the risk that the twowill not mesh properly and that there will be cracksthrough which duty can be evaded or paperwork mayslip.

In terms of the way the regime is intended to work, theaspect that has caused the most concern and raised themost queries is the change from the current system tothe new system when money is paid to a motor cartrader. Under the current system when the duty moneyis paid to a motor car trader it has to be remitted by wayof monthly return 21 days after the month in which thetransaction took place. Under the new regime themoney has to be remitted within 14 days of the sale, atthe time of lodging the transfer paperwork.

A number of motor car traders have raised with theopposition their concern about the impact of thischange on their cash flow. They make the point thatthey are collecting duty on behalf of the governmentand incurring expense in doing so. The benefits theymay have enjoyed in the past, which gave them somecompensation in terms of being able to hold the moneyfor a little while longer, are being removed.

The opposition has consulted with the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce on this issue. I willquote from the response we received from the VACC,which says:

Since July 2000 VACC has been concerned that, post theintroduction of GST, payment of stamp duties upon the saleof a motor vehicle has been confusing and open to avoidance.Accordingly, we were pleased to be part of the stakeholdersconsultation process on the new model initiated by the StateRevenue Office.

The new model for the collection of duty, which the billfacilitates, was put to our LMCT members in a surveyquestionnaire and 56 per cent of respondents agreed inprinciple with the model; 44 per cent did not agree.

However, the following two comments were dominant in thesurvey replies:

1. Members said that a fee should be paid for the work theyperform in collection and forwarding the transfer ofregistration and stamp duty documents and payments.

2. Members want the period for payment to be extendedbeyond the 14 days after sale. Many commented that theState Revenue Office system allowed payment by the21st day of the month, after sale.

It is agreed that processing payment of stamp duty throughVicroads will provide a simpler system and give theadvantage of access to payment by credit card (cash flowmanagement will be assisted by those who use the credit cardmethod).

On balance it is fair to say that the VACC accepts thechanges in the legislation, subject to the two significantcomments to which I have referred. Let’s hope that thegovernment takes on board those comments andcontinues to monitor how the scheme works in practice.

I move to the provisions of the bill that relate to landtax. Land tax is, of course, one of the taxes by whichthe Bracks government has been rapidly escalating itstax take since coming to office, giving very little backby way of a reduction. Depending on exactly whichseries of figures you use, in 1998–99 the land taxcollection was around $369 million; in 2001–02 it wasaround $519 million; and for the next financial year,2002–03, it is estimated to reach $611 million.

This is really ramping up the land tax take! Despite thegovernment’s loud blowing of trumpets about theraising of the threshold, the dollars that are beingreturned to taxpayers from that adjustment areminuscule compared with the increased tax take sincethe government came to office — about a $3 millionreturn from about a $156 million increase per annum sofar. There is more to come next year, and indeed almostcertainly more to be locked in over the following twoyears — because of the lag between valuation year andtax year — when the increase in valuations which hastaken place between the year 2000 and to date will flowthrough the system.

This bill makes a series of changes which are presentedas being technical and procedural. The State RevenueOffice told us that it had not done any modelling of therevenue effects of these measures. It said Treasury mayhave done this but the State Revenue Office did notknow the results. I hope the parliamentary secretary orthe Treasurer will inform the house about thismodelling. It can be argued that in the long term thisnew indexation model will even out but I would be verysurprised if the government had not modelled what theshort-term impact was going to be and concluded that itwould be at least neutral, if not favourable to it.

On top of that, the Property Council of Australiapointed out what appears to be a potentially seriousflaw in the logical structure of the model which mayresult in permanent ongoing windfalls to thegovernment. The flaw appears to be a serious oneindeed. It is contained in clause 16(2) of the bill, whichproposes to insert subsection (3) into section 3 of theLand Tax Act 1958. Proposed subsection (3) refers to aprescribed indexation factor:

… being a factor determined by the Valuer-General that in hisor her opinion reflects half the aggregate movement in the sitevalue of land classified residential, commercial or industrial



within that area between the applicable general valuation andthe subsequent general valuation.

A subsequent provision in proposed subsection (3A)says:

… the Valuer-General is to disregard the value of land that isexempt from land tax as a principal place of residence.

The concept is that you look at overall movements inthe value of taxable land in the municipality concernedbetween one valuation and the next. However, theProperty Council of Australia points out that what thisclause literally provides is that you have an indexationfactor based on the movements in the aggregate sitevalue of the taxable land in that municipality. In otherwords, if the total volume of taxable land in themunicipality concerned has changed over the relevantperiod, that movement in the aggregate value has to bereflected in the indexation factor.

For example, if there is a new commercial or industrialsubdivision on the suburban fringe so that new taxableproperties have been created, that will increase theaggregate value of land in the municipality concerned,even though the price of any particular block of landmay not have changed. In other words, the propertycouncil argues that in every second year you will get anin-built distortion in terms of how the indexation factorworks, resulting in properties in that middle year beingindexed up more than the true movement in their value.Then when the property is actually valued the followingyear that is going to flatten out. The property councilseems to have a very valid argument.

The Property Council of Australia also raised a numberof other concerns which can be put in the category of‘Why not go better than what we have got?’. In the pastwe had an equalisation factor that was necessarybecause land in different parts of the state was valued asat a different date. For fairness and equity everybodyneeds to be moved to a common date. The propertycouncil says that now that we have real valuationsevery second year, we do not need an equalisationfactor. It does not like the notion of an indexation factorbetween valuations. It says that other states move morequickly to adopt new valuations. It points out that whenthe indexation factor is being struck for a particular yearthe new valuations for the following year are already tohand, even though they are not being used.

If we wanted a model that did not drastically change theway the current model works, the question one wouldhave to ask is: if we are going to move to a ‘split thedifference system’, why not do this on an individualrather than an aggregate property basis? Given that thenew values for each property will be known, why not

split the difference between what the value was in theprevious year and what we know it is going to be in thefollowing year? That would be far more equitable thanthis current system which is based on the aggregatemovement of values in the municipality concerned.

The property council points out that, apart from theflaw I referred to earlier, basing the movement on theaggregate value means that different classes of propertyget hit with the same indexation factor, even though, forexample, the commercial sector may have moveddifferently from the industrial sector. That also was anissue with the equalisation factor, but again the propertycouncil asks, ‘We have the opportunity to do it better;why don’t we?’.

The property council is very critical of the lack ofopportunities to appeal. In a sense those opportunitieswere also limited under the previous regime, butbecause particular valuations lasted longer there weremore opportunities to appeal. Under the new regime theproblem has become particularly acute because by thetime you get your first land tax bill based on the newvaluation, the time that you have to lodge an objectionto that valuation has gone. You get only the oneopportunity when you get your council rate notice.Many councils do not base their rates on the site value,so it just looks to innocent landowners as an irrelevantpiece of information. Landowners do not know that ifthey do not object to that site value when they get theircouncil rate notice they lose all right to object whenthey get their land tax bill a few months later. That alsoseems to be a fair argument.

The property council also complains about the lack ofright to appeal against an equalisation or indexationfactor. It told me — which caused me considerableconcern — that last year in the City of Melbourne therehad been an error in the calculation of the equalisationfactor; that it was originally promulgated as 1.14 percent and then it was realised it should have been1.06 per cent and it had to be corrected. The propertycouncil rightly says, ‘Okay, this one was found and wascorrected’, but wonders how many go uncorrected,unknown and undiscovered, and the taxpayer has norights to raise any objection about that whatsoever. Thatis something with which the Law Institute of Victoriaalso concurs.

The law institute has written to the Treasurer asking foran amendment to deal with that issue and anamendment to deal with problems relating tosupplementary valuations and how equalisation factorsare applied in the same way to supplementaryvaluations as to the general valuations, even though thesupplementary valuation may have taken place at a later



date. That also, as the institute points out, is an issuewith the current regime. It will continue with the newregime and it asks, ‘Why not take this opportunity to fixit?’.

There is a final grievance which the property councilhas put to the opposition very strongly. It alleges thatthe State Revenue Office is extremely tardy in makingrefund payments even after land tax payers havesucceeded in their appeals or proceedings before theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)and have had an order issued in their favour. Theproperty council says there is no requirement in theLand Tax Act for setting times in which payments mustbe made. It quoted several examples where months, ifnot years, had passed between a taxpayer beingsuccessful at VCAT and the refund being issued. It saysthat if you get your refund within six months you aredoing well. That is certainly a real cause for concernand one I hope the Treasurer and the State RevenueOffice will speedily address.

The final area to which I refer is the exemption frompayroll tax for schools or colleges in existence before27 May 1997. This is something which is welcome andwhich, in the case of the National Theatre, has beenurged on the government by an honourable member forMonash Province in another place, the HonourableAndrea Coote, and by me after she drew it to myattention and also, to give him credit, by the honourablemember for Melton.

The National Theatre has been dragged through thecourts over this issue and put to a great deal of expense,when it was clear for all purposes of policy that thisbody, which conducts ballet and drama classes, shouldhave been entitled to the benefits of this exemption. Yetit was having great difficulty in obtaining it because ofa convoluted dispute about whether it fell within thedefinition of ‘technical education’, which requiredexamination of laws dating back, I think, as far as 1911.

I urged the Treasurer to adopt a policy decision on thismatter early to spare the expense. At last a policydecision has been taken, but a lot of the expense has notbeen spared. The Treasurer has tried to argue that theprevious government should have rectified this issue in1997. But I say to him this is not an issue that arose in1997. It arose subsequently and should have been dealtwith by the Treasurer a lot earlier than it has been. Atleast the fact that it has reached the house at this stage iswelcome.

Overall the opposition does not oppose the bill, but anumber of serious issues arise from it to which I hopethe government will respond.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — I join the debateon the State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment)Bill and inform the house that the National Party willnot oppose it. The main purposes of the bill are toamend the Duties Act 2000 with respect to dutiabletransactions, exemptions for trusts and mortgage duty;to revise motor vehicle duty, including the repeal ofprovisions for registration of used car dealers; and toamend the Land Tax Act 1958 to discontinue the use ofequalisation factors and introduce a new method fordetermining the valuation of the value of land for landtax purposes; to exempt land used for agriculturalshows and similar activities; and to amend the Pay-rollTax Act 1971 with respect to the exemptions for wagespaid by certain schools.

One might say these amendments are just the types ofamendments that come through with governmentsimproving and cleaning up different aspects of thetaxation area, and I guess it is not a bill that has causeda great deal of excitement around the place.

The first area that I shall address is the duty on usedcars. Under this bill from 1 July 2002 the motor carduty on used cars will become payable to Vicroads aspart of the registration/transfer process, thus eliminatingthe State Revenue Office from that process. This putsthe onus on the vendor or licensed motor car trader toremit the duty. It represents a much simpler collectionregime and ensures the purchaser knows of the dutyinvolved. It is interesting to note that this process willbe identical to that which currently applies to new carsand as such will simplify it.

I appreciate the fact that many car traders aroundVictoria are very comfortable with the methods that areused today and have expressed some feelings aboutthat. The VACC especially, which has certainly beenconsulted about this bill, has expressed views, and it isgenerally relaxed — —


Mr STEGGALL — What an interesting view! Heis not here, but I am sure the honourable member forMurray Valley will put his view on it. The VACC wasconsulted on the bill. Vicroads currently acceptspayment by credit card, whereas the State RevenueOffice (SRO) does not — I do not know whether it usesthem, but it does not accept payment by credit card.This legislation prepares for the next step of onlinedirect debit, which will offer additional efficiencies intransactions and the bonus of the cash flow delay.

Members of the VACC are concerned, as a lot of smallbusiness people are, about being unpaid tax collectors.



Some of them do not like Vicroads’ 14-day terms,whereas as was previously mentioned the SRO returnswere due on the 21st of the following month, and sosome use of money was available to people.

I think everyone would agree that the technology wehave throughout society is such that this is a naturalprogression and one which I am sure will be accepted. Iappreciate that as changes are made — and I guess theopposition is more au fait with this than thegovernment — certain people are going to feeldisenfranchised and uncomfortable with some of thoseimpacts. I guess the change in payment from the21st day of the month following is one of those areasthat some of our licensed motor car traders are going tofeel aggrieved about. But I am sure that later today thehonourable member for Murray Valley will give a fullexposé of that and we will have — —

Ms Asher — And also a tour!

Mr STEGGALL — We will have a tour of MurrayValley and a full explanation! I think this houseacknowledges the sincerity he has and the expertise hebrings to this place from the motor car trading industry.

The third part of the bill concerns land tax assessment.Today land tax is payable each calendar year upon theunimproved value of aggregated land holdings abovethe threshold. Municipal valuations have beenemployed to estimate those unimproved values.

Prior to 2000, municipal valuations could extend to asix-year cycle. They were four years in somemetropolitan council areas and six years in countryareas. It was one of those things that gave us anenormous amount of pain, particularly when a newvaluation came in with a six-year delay. In some areas,particularly in northern Victoria where we have seenenormous growth and development, six-year delays invaluations are huge and they have given legislators,councils and councillors a great deal of concern whenthey come around. To get some uniformity in land taxassessment, the Valuer-General has set an equalisationfactor for each municipality to allow the determinationof a notional value for each parcel at the assessmentfigure.

Debate interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.




Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Premier to the demotion of the freedom ofinformation (FOI) officer of the Department ofInfrastructure, Mr Don Coulson, following his decisionto release significant FOI documents, and to thesubsequent illegal intervention of the Deputy Premier’spersonal staff to overrule Mr Coulson’s decision. Canthe Premier inform the house why it is hisgovernment’s policy to punish experienced,independent public servants when they make decisionsthat are inconsistent with what the Labor Party wants?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. From the outset, I rejectthe proposition that he has put to the Parliament. I amadvised that in April last year, at his own request, theofficer involved moved to a new position in thedepartment. Therefore I totally reject the allegation andthe implication made by the Leader of the Opposition inhis question.

Forests: box-ironbark

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Myquestion is for the Premier. I refer to the government’ssupposed commitment to openness and accountabilityand further to the box-ironbark implementation panelreport prepared by former Labor senator John Button.Will the government release the Button report into theEnvironment Conservation Council’s box-ironbarkproposals, or does it have something to hide?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — The report undertakenby former senator John Button, the former federalMinister for Industry and Commerce, was on theimplementation of the box-ironbark recommendationsmade by the Environment Conservation Council. Thoserecommendations informed the government of keyissues, including adjustments that need to be made tosupport people on low incomes who, for example,might have used firewood for their homes or who mighthave relied on firewood for their income or theirexistence. Those recommendations have beenincorporated into a government decision to proceedwith this plan. I will take advice on this, but it has beenincorporated into the plan — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, onthe question of relevance, the question was quitespecific as to whether the Premier would release thedocument. Both opposition parties have been promisedbriefings by Mr Button which have not been delivered.



Both parties have asked for the report. The Premiershould answer the question by the Leader of theNational Party and advise whether the document will bereleased.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster is clearly attempting to make a point indebate. I shall not continue to hear him if he persists inthat vein. On the earlier part of his point of order on thequestion of relevance, I am of the view that the Premierwas being relevant and he was referring to the contentsof the report.

Mr BRACKS — It has formed part of thegovernment’s decision in its implementation of thatplan.

On the other matter which was raised in a point of orderby the honourable member for Doncaster on a briefingrequest from the former senator John Button, I am sureit can be facilitated and we will seek to do that asquickly as possible.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Premier is not torespond to the point of order raised by the honourablemember for Doncaster.

Calder Highway: funding

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — Will the Minister forTransport inform the house whether the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to fund the duplication ofthe Calder Highway was matched by the federalgovernment in last night’s budget?

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Lastnight’s federal budget betrayed the people of regionalVictoria — it betrayed the people of central andnorthern Victoria; it betrayed the people of Bendigo.The Howard government’s budget, delivered on behalfof the Liberal and National parties, failed to provide therequired funding for the next section of the CalderHighway upgrade.

In our budget last week this government, through theTreasurer, committed $70 million towards the nextsection of upgrading the Calder Highway affecting theKyneton to Faraday — —


Mr BATCHELOR — You can ask about thePakenham bypass. There was no money in the federalbudget.


Mr BATCHELOR — No there was not. There waszero! No money — —


Mr BATCHELOR — The Leader of theOpposition cannot read the federal budget papers.There was zero money for the Pakenham — —


Mr BATCHELOR — Yes, I will bet on it all right!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Minister forTransport and the Leader of the Opposition to desist.

Mr BATCHELOR — I will deal with thePakenham bypass in a minute. The Leader of theOpposition has bet me $100 — let the record show —that there was money for the Pakenham bypassannounced in this year’s federal budget. There was not.It was zero, Honourable Speaker, zero!


Mr BATCHELOR — That’s $100 you owe me!

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister, on thequestion!

Mr BATCHELOR — Not only did the federalgovernment fail to fund the Pakenham bypass in thisbudget but it failed to fund the Calder Highway. Thisgovernment committed $70 million towards thebuilding of the Kyneton to Faraday section of theCalder Highway upgrade, but we needed the federalgovernment to commit its $70 million so we couldproceed with the section beyond the Carlsruhe sectionthat is currently being upgraded.

There is a history of the Bracks Labor governmentleading the way in funding the Calder. When there wasuncertainty about the Carlsruhe section it was the Laborgovernment that led the way and committed the first$25 million, and the federal government had to playcatch up. Again, when they went to the last electionposturing and committing towards the Calder, whenthey had the opportunity — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Ibelieve that the minister is debating the issue. Thefederal government wants a priority list from him, andhe won’t give it to them. I believe he is debating theissue, and as has been said by other oppositionmembers, you, Sir, should bring him back to the point.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member for



Mordialloc. The Minister for Transport was providinginformation regarding the project about which he wasquestioned. Earlier in response to the question heveered off the subject, but at the point of the honourablemember taking the point of order, he had come back toanswering the question about the particular road.

Mr BATCHELOR — The failure by the federalgovernment to provide funding for the upgrade clearlyindicates that you cannot trust the Liberal and Nationalparties in terms of delivering road funding. But evenmore disturbing than this has been the efforts of recenttimes — within the past 24 hours — of Liberal senatorsto undermine and move away from the clear federalresponsibility there is to the Calder upgrade. The Calderhas been designated as a road of national importance,and as a consequence the federal government has aresponsibility to fund the upgrade on a fifty-fifty basisin partnership with the government of Victoria. Wehave put our $70 million on the table. The opportunitywas there for the federal government to do the same inlast night’s federal budget, but the federal government’sresponse is lacking.

Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen has written to theBendigo Advertiser distancing the federal governmentfrom its responsibility to upgrade this freeway in atimely way so the full duplication can be completed by2006. By the actions of Senator Tchen and the actionsof the federal government — indeed the federalTreasurer — this target that has been supported by theBracks government and supported by the people ofBendigo has now been put directly at risk. The federalgovernment’s actions are putting at risk the ability ofthe Calder Highway to be upgraded by 2006.

The attitude of the federal government is highlighted bywhat Senator Tchen said in his letter. He said that thegovernment of Victoria should be begging for morefunds. That is the arrogant attitude of the federalgovernment, and it is the arrogant attitude of the Liberaland National parties towards road funding in Victoria.This was a disgraceful attitude, and we are calling uponhim — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I remind the minister thathe needs to be succinct as well. I ask him to concludehis answer.

Mr BATCHELOR — The issue is that the federalTreasurer has moved away from this commitment. Wewant to know from opposition members in thisParliament whether they are on the side of the people ofVictoria or on the side of their partners in Canberra andwhether they will sabotage the upgrade of the CalderHighway.

Minister for Planning: second-reading speech

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — I refer the Ministerfor Planning to the great second-reading speech disasterof 2002, and I further refer the minister to her claim lastnight that the department was to blame. I ask: has theminister ordered a departmental inquiry to identify afall guy and will that public servant receive the sametreatment as the department’s former freedom ofinformation officer, Don Coulson?


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to cease interjecting forthwith.

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — As Ithink we are all aware, the wrong building amendmentbill second-reading speech was delivered to the houselast night and this has since been rectified. Both billssprang from the Auditor-General’s August 2000 reportinto the building industry. Both speeches and both billsimplement amendments to the Building Act, and theyimplement the Auditor-General’s recommendations forboth legislative and procedural changes to the buildingcontrol system.

As soon as I completed the speech I sought the correctdocument from the department and I had discussionswith the clerks of the house — who were extremelyhelpful, and I thank them for that — about correctingthe record and incorporating the appropriatesecond-reading speech. I appreciate the consideration ofthe house. I thank the opposition for agreeing to give usleave for that correction to be made — leave which Iunderstand was negotiated with the honourable memberfor Hawthorn, among others. I appreciate that.

In the spirit of that cooperation, I would expect that wewill have further support on the — —

Mr Baillieu — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Ido not wish to ask the question again, but the questionwent to the matter of the minister’s blaming thedepartment and an inquiry. I ask you, Sir, to bring herback to the question.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forHawthorn. The minister was being relevant in herresponse, and I will continue to hear her.

The minister has concluded her answer.



Disability services: funding

Ms ALLEN (Benalla) — I ask the Minister forCommunity Services to advise the house whether thegovernment’s commitment to increase spending ondisability services was matched by the federalgovernment in last night’s budget.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Community Services) — Ithank the honourable member for Benalla for thequestion. The Bracks government’s budget which wasdelivered last week was a clear demonstration of theway that Labor cares, particularly for people with adisability. Unfortunately, the federal budget which wasbrought down last night showed yet again that theLiberals do not care and that they particularly do notcare about funding and support for some of the mostvulnerable people in our community.


The SPEAKER — Order! There is far too muchaudible conversation and noise.

Ms PIKE — The Bracks government invested afurther $55.4 million in disability services. Included inthat was $25.4 million for the redevelopment ofservices at Kew.

So far over the last three Bracks budgets we havedelivered $156.9 million of additional resources forservices for people with disabilities. This is in absoluteand stark contrast with the mean federal Liberal budgetwhich attacked the very financial security of Victorianswith a disability. Not only did it attack the capacity forservices to be delivered to people with disabilities but itattacked their very income security.

Of course, the federal Liberals are mightily misleading.In spite of all their rhetoric, last night’s budget was aneffective 3 per cent cut to the commonwealth share offunding for disability accommodation support andcommunity services. The commonwealth governmenthas abandoned growth funding; it has ignored adequateindexation; it has abandoned work with the stateshaving previously committed to work on unmet needsin disability services. We needed an extra $7 millionjust to stop the commonwealth’s efforts from goingbackwards.

So last night’s federal budget was an absolute shockerfor Victorians with a disability, just as it was a shockingbudget for ordinary Victorians who rely on educationand health services. Just like their Liberal counterpartsin Victoria, the federal Liberals do not care about thebasic needs of ordinary people.

What a contrast to the additional resources andspending announced last week in the Bracks state Laborbudget, which invested in health, education andcommunity safety, and particularly in disabilityservices. It provided $12 million for preschool childrenwith a disability, $16 million more for home andcommunity-based services, $8 million more forsupported accommodation; $4 million more for theFutures for Adults program and, of course, as well asthat, $35.4 million for infrastructure for people withdisabilities, with $25.4 million of that for Kew.

On top of that there are other initiatives. Let mecongratulate the Minister for Transport who included$12.4 million for extra safety and wheelchair access atrailway crossings and $7.2 million to expand themultipurpose taxi program.

I reiterate: the Bracks government last week broughtdown a caring, compassionate budget that reallytargeted additional support services, additional capital,and additional infrastructure for people with adisability; the federal government last night broughtdown a mean, uncaring budget which will take usbackwards and which will affect not just the servicesbut also the very hip pockets of some of the mostvulnerable people in our community.

Water: Wimmera–Mallee pipeline

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I direct my question tothe Treasurer. Despite the Prime Minister, JohnHoward, recently telling the Wimmera-Mallee PipelineGroup, ‘I am impressed’, and Senator Ian Macdonald,the federal Minister for Forestry and Conservation,saying that the project was of national importance, thereis not one identifiable cent in the federal budget for theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. In view of the abject failureby the federal government to fund the pipeline, whatwill the Victorian government now do if urgent federalfunding is not forthcoming?

Mr BRUMBY (Treasurer) — I thank thehonourable member for Mildura for his question. It isworth putting on the public record his strong andunwavering support — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I warn the honourablemember for Doncaster!

Mr BRUMBY — What a pathetic effort from theshadow minister for conservation and environment, thehonourable member for Doncaster, who could notinfluence or persuade his federal colleagues to provideone single cent — not one single cent! — in last night’s



federal budget for the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.There was nothing for the study and nothing for thecapital works: there was absolutely nothing in lastnight’s federal budget for the Wimmera–Malleepipeline! Over recent months we have seen them allqueue up — the Deputy Prime Minister, the PrimeMinister, the Leader of the National Party, the shadowenvironment minister and the leader of the state LiberalParty — to say, ‘This is a great project. We support it100 per cent. We are going to deliver federal funding’.What happened last night? A big fat zero! Absolutelynothing. Would you describe it as incompetent; wouldyou describe it as negligent; would you describe it as anact of treachery? Whatever it was, here we are with aproject which has enjoyed extraordinary — —

Mr Ryan interjected.

Mr BRUMBY — Here we go. Hold it up!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theNational Party is not assisting proceedings.

Mr BRUMBY — I have here a copy of theWimmera Mail-Times, which said last week about theBracks government’s commitment, ‘Match this’. Whatdoes the Leader of the National Party have?


The SPEAKER — Order! Similarly, the Treasureris not assisting the proceedings of the house. It isdisorderly to display items.

Mr BRUMBY — The headline of the article heldup by the Leader of the National Party is probably‘Canberra stabs pipeline in the back’! Last night wewent through the federal budget to see what was in it.We have seen them all line up over the past few weeksto get their free bit of publicity up there in Canberra, sowe thought there might just be funding for the study.Not only was there no funding for the capital works outof a budget of $160 billion, but there was no funding toeven provide for that study.

The Bracks government said it would fund this project,and it funded it last week. It said it would build it, and itwill build this project! Last Friday the Premier and theMinister for Environment and Conservation travelled toHorsham. In front of hundreds of people they went toGreen Lake, where the Premier used to swim as achild — but you cannot swim there today. The Premierhas swum across it in record time and still holds therecord to this day.

Mr Thwaites — He walked across it!

Mr BRUMBY — Yes, he walked across it!

The Premier made it very clear to the people of thatregion that the commitment made by the Bracksgovernment is irrevocable. This commitment is notconditional — it is locked into the budget for the next10 years — and the government is absolutelydetermined to see this project proceed.

It is an extraordinary thing, given last night’s budget of$160 billion, that a succession of federal ministerialcolleagues have visited that area over the past fewmonths and all lined up to make commitments, yet lastnight the Liberal Party and the National Party could notdeliver on this great national project! What they saythey do and what they actually do are totally differentthings.

The state government knows this project is feasible; itknows how important it is to country Victorians, and itis irrevocably committed to it. There are nocircumstances in which the Bracks government will notbe committing to this project. But for it to proceed ontime, on plan and on cost, it needs the support of thefederal government. This government willcontinue — —


Mr BRUMBY — It is not subject to feasibility!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Treasurer should notpick up interjections. The honourable member forMordialloc should not interject. The minister needs tobe succinct and to conclude his answer.

Mr BRUMBY — I will conclude. This project hasalready been the subject of a feasibility study, whichwas jointly funded by this government and the federalgovernment. It was our initiative, but the federalgovernment joined in. The feasibility study shows thatfor every 10 litres you put into this system only 1 litrecomes out the other end. Some 83 000 megalitres arewasted.

This study is not about the feasibility; this study isabout the design. It is not a matter of whether theproject proceeds; it is a matter of how it proceeds. It isnot a feasibility study. The capital funding and thefunding for the design are absolutely crucial if thisproject is to proceed. The Bracks government iscommitted. We are bitterly disappointed with the lackof commitment by the federal government. We willcontinue with our campaign to get funding from thefederal government to match our commitment and toensure that this great project gets under way.



The SPEAKER — Order! The Treasurer is now notbeing succinct. I ask him to conclude his answer.

The Treasurer has concluded his answer.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — My questionto the Minister for Education and Training relates to herstate responsibility for universities. I refer the ministerto her press release of 14 March this year, whichtrumpets the Bracks government’s approval of a$32 million loan for the Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology to construct a campus in Vietnam, and Iask: what financial projections give the ministerconfidence that this $32 million loan will not be at risk?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member forWarrandyte for his question. I think his is now thesecond question out of 95 possible questions, so we areimproving the record!

The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology did gainapproval to build a campus in Vietnam, which is aproject RMIT has been working on for quite some timenow. It has funding from the World Bank, whichclearly went through the details of this project in greatdepth.


Ms KOSKY — I will not take up the interjection ofthe deputy opposition leader, because she may beembarrassed by the comment she just made.

The Department of Treasury and Finance also wentthrough the details of the project. The government alsosought and received support from the commonwealthgovernment, so it has gone through a number of steps.This government has not lent money for the project. Ihad very detailed discussions with RMIT, because Iwanted to be guaranteed that public dollars were notgoing into this project.

It is a good project that has very broad support rightacross the world, because it has both the support of theWorld Bank and funding from a private donor. Theproject, as well as providing education here for studentsfrom Vietnam, is about making sure that RMIT spreadsits educational excellence to Vietnam and aboutproviding education for people who have been missingout on high-quality higher education.

Hospitals: funding

Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — My question is to theMinister for Health. Will the minister advise the houseof the effect of last night’s federal budget on thedelivery of health services in Victoria and theimplication for our government’s hospital demandmanagement strategy?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I thankthe honourable member for her question, andunfortunately I have to advise her that it will cost her$6.20 more to get the medicine she may require. Thatsums up the federal budget: it’s mean and it’s tricky.

A week ago we saw the state Bracks government bringdown a budget that was widely praised. It was praisedby the Australian Medical Association, which said thiswas a budget that addresses the key health issues. Icompare that to last night’s federal budget, which wasdescribed by the AMA as disappointing and tragic.

Labor is boosting health care in Victoria, while we seethe federal government cutting health care andpunishing the sick, the mentally ill and families thatneed pharmaceuticals. The federal budget containssome $1.9 billion of cuts to the pharmaceutical benefitsscheme. The cost to a consumer of pharmaceuticalbenefits will increase by $6.20, some 30 per centincrease in one year.

Unfortunately, this will have a major negative effect onour public hospitals. The increase in the cost of drugsunder the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will forcepeople into our public hospital system, and it willincrease the demand on our emergency departments.The Leader of the Opposition questions this, but there isCanadian research which clearly indicates that theeffects of an increase in co-payments forpharmaceuticals for pensioners were demonstrated byan increase in the hospitalisation rate of 194 per centand an increase in emergency department visits of106 per cent. Professor Frank Lutenberg of theColumbia School of Business says that every$1 increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals equates to a$3.65 cut in hospital care expenditure.

The increased cost of these pharmaceuticalco-payments also threatens hospitals that are part of thepharmaceutical benefits scheme, because hospitals willnow bear the risk of increased bad debts, where patientsare unable to pay those extra pharmaceuticalco-payments. That means less money for our publichospitals.

Our public hospitals have had to cope with an increasein emergency demand of around 8.5 per cent in the last



year. And they have done that very well — ambulancebypass is down more than 50 per cent, waiting lists aredown — but the federal government is threatening allthat with these increased pharmaceutical costs. This$1.9 billion cut is a cost shift from the commonwealthto the states. The states will bear the cost of this — thestates and public hospitals.

We are seeing the same sort of behaviour on the part ofthe Liberal Party at the federal level as we saw at a statelevel. When the Liberals want to make savings they hiton the sick. They did it under the Kennett governmentand they are doing it now under the Howardgovernment. They would do it under the opposition ifthey were ever in government in order to implement hisunworkable tax policies.


Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — I again referthe Minister for Education and Training to her approvalof a $32 million loan to establish the Royal MelbourneInstitute of Technology campus in Vietnam, and I ask:why did the minister approve this loan against therepeated and considered advice of the Department ofTreasury and Finance?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — The honourable member for Warrandyteis incorrect in saying that it was repeated advice againstthe project.


Ms KOSKY — Do you want the response or not?

The Department of Treasury and Finance did initiallyraise concerns about the project and sought a lot ofadditional information and much more detailed workfrom Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT)in relation to the project. As well, I sought support fromthe federal government for this project because wewanted to make sure it had broad support.

There are always risks with international projects thatuniversities engage in. My job is to make sure that thepublic investment dollar in all universities is not in anyway compromised by the private and commercialactivities that universities engage in. As the honourablemember well knows, we have a governance reviewunder way at the moment to look at how we ensure thetransparency and accountability of both the commercialfunctions of universities and the public functions. But,yes, the Department of Treasury and Finance raisedconcerns and there was a lot more detailed work donewith RMIT before it could gain approval to borrow themoney.

Schools: funding

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — I ask theMinister for Education and Training to advise the housewhether the government’s commitment to increasededucation spending was matched by the federalgovernment in last night’s budget.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member for hisquestion. Last night’s federal budget was very much ofconcern for the state government, but also for peoplewithin our public education system and in ouruniversities in Victoria. The funding increase thatDr Nelson pointed to was a 6.5 per cent increase inspending in schools on the previous year. That willcover growth only in the public school system. Therewas a 5.7 per cent increase for government schoolsand — of course, surprise, surprise! — an 8.4 per centincrease for non-government schools. So thenon-government schools have yet again been lookedafter in the federal budget at the expense of governmentschools. The funding for government schools will onlycover growth and CPI increases. The message from thefederal government to very large numbers of studentswithin our public system and their parents is that theydo not count when it comes to education; it is only thenon-government schools that count as far as the federalgovernment is concerned.

We had major funding of $550 million extra in the statebudget for public education, but last night’s federalbudget released no additional funding for projects inschools. And it gets worse. While Dr Nelson is runningaround the countryside talking about the importance ofhigher education and the future directions of highereducation — I think it is called Higher Education at theCrossroads — higher education certainly is at thecrossroads. For the 20 000 eligible students in Victoriawho missed out on a university place this year there isno good news at all. They will not get looked after nextyear or, probably, the year after and the year after that.

While we have made record investments in educationin this state the federal government is not at allconcerned about educating our nation, and certainlyVictorians will be the worse for it. Victorians will missout incredibly because this state has the highest demandof any of the states for higher education places.

We need to take into account that while, as we know,you cannot trust the federal Liberals, you also cannottrust the state Liberals at all, because they will not doany better. The equation is that federal Liberals plusstate Liberals equals nothing for education!



Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the Minister for Transport, in a bet with me, said therewas no money for the Pakenham bypass in the federalbudget. I draw his attention to the documents — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition is clearly not taking a point of order. Isuggest to both the Leader of the Opposition and theMinister for Transport that they should make theirpersonal arrangements outside the chamber!


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — What aninteresting time we have had in the past hour. Now wehave to go back to debating mundane things such aschanges to land tax assessments so that all the moneythat is being skited about and argued about can bespent. For the last hour the house has heard a lot of spinand more spin. That spin is rather sickening to most ofus, but it goes on and on.

The taxation raised by the bill will go towards theVictorian component of many projects. When I look atthe money from land tax assessments that will gotowards the continued upgrade of the Calder Highway Iget wild when I hear Labor politicians carrying on inthe manner we have just heard, trying to put a negativespin on everything. People are not listening to ortrusting the government anymore, particularly thePremier and the Treasurer. It is rather sad to see theTreasurer come along with his answers every day,which are more along the lines of ‘Come in, spinner’than ‘Come in, Treasurer, and answer a few questions’!

The State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment)Bill provides for a strong taxation base, and it is fromthat base that the Treasurer has been able to put up hismoney for the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline. A couple ofthings need to be said about that, because we are sickand tired of the spin, the carry-on and the rubbish that isbeing talked in this place. The budget of which this landtax assessment bill is part contains the funding for theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. It contains $3.5 million forproving up the feasibility of the design and theprogram. That is the only area that has been funded inthis budget. Commitments have gone forward on thecondition that that area measures up.

The federal government has done the same thing. It hasput $3.5 million into this project on the same conditionsas the $3.5 million put in by the state. Today the twogovernments are in the same position. They haveagreed to go on to the final design and to prove up thefeasibility of this project, and then they will make theirdecisions to go further. In the state’s case, if the projectproves up, is feasible and the detail design is right, thenit has made a forward commitment to go ahead. Thefederal government has said that once it has beenproved up and the feasibility has been done, a furtherdecision will be made — and it will be made in nextyear’s budget.

Country Victorians in particular are getting sick andtired of this spin and more spin rubbish that is comingfrom senior members of the government, mainlythrough the Premier and the Treasurer. The edge of thetruth is a very dangerous area for the Labor Party andits senior members and parliamentarians to travel on. Irefer honourable members to what the Treasurer saidtoday, in what I thought was an absolutely rubbishyexhibition from a man who has some credibility andcan stand up and argue a case. However, by thearguments he used today he belittled himself and hisposition.

Last week the Deputy Prime Minister, the HonourableJohn Anderson, said on ABC radio:

If the Victorian government wants to approach us in thenormal way now, talk about matching the design work, thetechnical side of it with the 3.5 million, that’s fine, we willrun with that.

That money is there, and the programs are there. Hasthis government, through its bureaucracy and itsministers, had any discussion? There has been anexchange of letters between the Prime Minister and thePremier, but the facts about what has gone on regardingthe Wimmera–Mallee pipeline are not coming through.There is no truth in the discussions and the argumentsin this place. I suggest to government members that it isa very stupid way to go.

Today we also listened to the argument about theCalder Highway problem, which the taxation raisedfrom this bill will go a long way towards tackling. Ineed to put a few things on the record about the Calder.It suffered because of the construction of the HumeHighway back in the 1980s — and those of us from thenorth had to agree to the Hume Highway beingcompleted between Melbourne and Albury. That wasdone, and then work on the Calder was commenced.Unfortunately in recent times the Geelong road andCity Link have slowed us down a little, and now theScoresby freeway has jumped up.



Today the Minister for Transport had much to say andwas very critical of the federal government, but hecannot even settle on the route through the Harcourtsection, which is the next part of the Calder upgrade.Does the Labor Party think we are that stupid? It cannotget the planning right, and it has no intention of gettingits planning through this year. It will run through to thenext election before it decides on the Harcourt section.No-one will believe the Minister for Transport, either,after the way he carried on in this place today. I warnsenior members of government to beware of the folly ofbelieving their own spin. If they do, they will losecredibility very quickly.

Last week it was interesting to watch what happened inHorsham. Luckily the Wimmera Mail-Times got thestory right. The people of the Wimmera do not believewhat the government is saying. The Premier andTreasurer are losing credibility, because people knowthey are not telling the truth. They know thegovernment is trying to spin things, which can only doit damage. These subjects have been part of theplanning, the debates and the battles in the country forthe past 20 years. However, we have delivered, fromthe time when we eventually won our first battles backin the 1980s.

After former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser lost the1983 election it took us seven years to convince theLabor Party in Victoria and in Canberra to build thenorthern Mallee pipeline. Eventually we got it, sevenyears later, through a former Minister for Conservationand Environment, the Honourable Steve Crabb. So thegovernment should not come in here and say we are notfor the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.

The battle for the piping of the Wimmera–Mallee hasbeen going on for more than 45 years. Soon after thatproject was finished people were talking about thedream of piping. We did not have the technology then,but we do today — and we are building it. We havealready built a $52 million operation with the northernMallee pipeline. We have proved up the technology, wehave proved up the funding, and we have proved up theadvantage.

Honourable members might remember that last week Imentioned the lack of — —

Mr Savage — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, this is a taxation bill, not a bill about theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. We have listened to thehonourable member speaking about this for some time,and I think it has gone on long enough.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!I thank the honourable member for Mildura for hiscontribution. However, I believe that what thehonourable member for Swan Hill is talking about is todo with taxation, and I will allow that line of debate tocontinue.

Mr STEGGALL — Thank you, Mr ActingSpeaker. I get disappointed with the honourablemember for Mildura from time to time. We are not veryclose!

The work involved in the design and concept of whatwe have been trying to do in our country areas has beenlong and tortuous. We do not have city squares, we donot have Scoresby freeways, we do not have Geelongfreeways, and we cannot walk into governmentdepartments and demand hundreds of millions ofdollars, no matter what colour the government is. Wehave had to fight, battle and claw our way through sincethe early 1980s, and now we are succeeding. I will notstand in this place and listen to a Treasurer who, as Isaid before, has some credibility belittle himself bytrying to put a political spin on this bill. Maybe hemight understand why he got kicked out by his ownmob and why he is not the Premier. We know hisburning ambition is to get back.

As for arguments about the Wimmera–Mallee pipelineand the Calder Highway, I will just say, given thequestion time which we have just had, howdisappointing it is — and how dangerous — for thegovernment to travel down that path. In these last fewdays the politics of blame has changed. Remember thepolitics of blame that the Labor Party has been hittingus with over the former federal government and theGST? The former government missed out today, andthe GST is dead or has been forgotten. It seems that weare okay now that the GST is part of folklore. Even thefederal Leader of the Opposition has accepted that factat long last — although it took a while! It seems that theonly blame around today is being directed at the federalgovernment.

I point out to the ministers in this house that we all havea duty of governing this state and this country as a jointresponsibility, and we must make sure that themembers of the two parliaments understand theworkings between the two governments. In thisfederation of Australia we must make sure that we donot forget the fact that we operate as a commonwealthand that the state and federal governments havedifferent roles which are also complementary.

I will now return to the State Taxation Legislation(Further Amendment) Bill, from which the government



is going to get a lot of money to carry out work whichis vital to us all. This bill covers several areas. I havealready mentioned the changes in the duty on cars, andI was just starting on land tax when the sitting wassuspended for lunch. The National Party’s report states:

Land tax is payable each calendar year on the unimprovedvalue of (aggregated) land holdings above the threshold, andmunicipal valuations have been used to estimate thoseunimproved values.

Prior to 2000, municipal valuations could extend to a six-yearcycle (four years for metropolitan councils).

In country areas of course it was six years, and it gaveus a big problem when the six-year valuation cyclecame through. For land tax valuations of course theequalisation factor was in place. It did not happen forlocal government, and therefore local governmentvaluations were always way behind.

During the opposition’s term in government it decidedto standardise the date and reduce the time betweenvaluations. That has made a big difference, and this billis picking up on the next round, which is needed in thatarea. Since 2000 all municipalities have been requiredto undertake valuations on a common two-year cycle,using 1 January as the date.

The bill replaces the old equalisation factor with anindexation factor, which will still be set by theValuer-General. It should give a better approximationof the unimproved value — remembering always thatthe value is hypothetical, anyway. In any event the newsystem should reduce the dramatic fluctuations invaluations, and thus land tax assessments, thrown up bythe previous system.

While the minister can technically select any date atwhich the valuation will apply, the standardpresumption is a delay of two years, and this should notreally change under this legislation. This allows timefor the councils to complete their valuation process andfor the date to be loaded into the assessment formula ofthe State Revenue Office (SRO).

Although this term sounds excessive it must beremembered that the new valuation arrangements aretaking some bedding down across local government. Alarge percentage of councils had not completed theirvaluations from 1 January 2000 by 31 December 2000.So one year after the set date they had not actuallycompleted their valuations. The SRO cannot use thevaluation until the last council’s valuations are inbecause of the aggregation principle which applies tolandowners with more than one property, and thesemay be held in more than one municipality.

The new indexation factor will have application onlywhen the most recent valuation available to the SRO ismore than two years old. It will be applied on theValuer-General’s assessment of the average of the twomost recent valuations. For example, in 2002 theassessment will be based on the valuations in the year2000; in 2003 the assessment will be based on theValuer-General’s assessed average of 2000 and 2002;in 2004 the assessment will be based on 2002valuations; and in 2005 it will be the Valuer-General’sassessed average of 2002 and 2004, and so on.

Apart from the reduced time cycle between valuations,and thus the reduced chance of wild fluctuations in thetax assessed, the new system has the advantage that theprincipal place of residence, which was a fundamentalexclusion introduced under the coalition, is removedfrom the indexation factor set by the Valuer-General, sothis moving formula should be more accurate.

The State Revenue Office pays councils for thevaluations. I think the cost was about $10 million lasttime around. The new system and the extent to which itis fairer to taxpayers, in that the fluctuations are reducedand thus more readily budgeted for, is available onlybecause when in government the opposition partiestook the brave decision to reduce the valuation cycleand standardise the dates.

Every time we look at and work through legislativechanges, every time we come across the areas ofstewardship of the previous government and thedifficult changes and the break from the mould that itintroduced in many areas, I think — most people in thisplace will agree — that this government has the luxuryof an enormous amount of revenue at its disposal onlybecause those tough and hard decisions were taken. Isee nothing happening today in the way of difficultdecisions being taken by this government. In every wayit ducks, dodges, weaves and runs away from them.

Another area I wish to cover is the further exemption inthe Pay-roll Tax Act for non-government andnon-profit schools. It just tightens up the area, as thehonourable member for Box Hill mentioned earlier, tomake sure it preserves the exemptions and makes itclear that the Australian Ballet School and theAustralian National Theatre will be exempt frompayroll tax.

The other area that the bill cleans up and clarifies,which is near and dear to the hearts of National Partymembers, relates to field days and agricultural showsheld on land other than the Crown land on which manyof them operate. The matter has been resolved thanks tothe honourable member for Rodney and his

ELECTORAL BILL


representations for Elmore and the Elmore and districtmachinery field days and the Kyabram Show Society,both of which own their own land. It was unclear as tojust where they would sit with regard to land tax.Thankfully the Treasurer has responded positively tothe proposition that was put on the National Party’sbehalf by an honourable member for Western Provincein another place, the Honourable Roger Hallam. I amvery pleased to see the Treasurer has agreed to ourrequest and has now exempted field days andagricultural shows from land tax. That is cleared upnow and no-one will have to go back and chase upclarification in these areas again.

As I said at the commencement of my remarks, this is aclean-up bill. In many ways it represents the next stageof an ongoing process of improvement and change instate taxation legislation — in this case the Duties Act,the Land Tax Act and the Pay-roll Tax Act — in ourtaxing regime. The National Party will not to beopposing this bill.


Mr STEGGALL — If you were here in the firstplace — —

Mr Hulls — I was listening in my office.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!The Deputy Leader of the National Party will addresshis remarks through the Chair.

Mr STEGGALL — It is with great delight that Inote the Attorney-General was listening to the debatefrom the safety of his office, because he did not wish tocome here and defend — —

Mr Hulls — Ministerial office — I’ve got one andyou haven’t!

Mr STEGGALL — True.

Ms Asher — And he’s not arrogant.

Mr STEGGALL — No, I know my place. Iconclude by saying that I trust the changes that arecontained in this legislation will help to improve theoperation of the SRO and the method of duty collectionand clear up the position with regard to Vicroads andthe duty on the transfer of registration of used cars. Iwish the bill a speedy passage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr ROBINSON(Mitcham).


ELECTORAL BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 21 March; motion of Mr HULLS(Attorney-General).

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr HULLS(Attorney-General).



Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr BRUMBY (Treasurer).

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — That break hasallowed me to get my notes together in order to make acontribution to this important debate on the StateTaxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. Thegovernment acknowledges and appreciates the fact thatthe opposition parties will support the omnibus bill,which seeks to amend three acts — the Duties Act2000, the Land Tax Act 1958 and the Pay-roll Tax Act1971.

The bill before the house is effectively a housekeepingbill which has come out of the continuing efforts of theState Revenue Office to ensure that the taxationcollection arrangements in place in this state are moreefficient. The bill deals with some very complexarrangements, particularly with regard to the DutiesAct. In considering this matter and preparing the notesfor this contribution I had the opportunity to examinethe Duties Act, which runs to over 200 sections and is avery complex piece of legislation. Some of theamendments in the bill are technical in nature and theyare covered in the explanatory memorandum.

In summary, clause 3 deals with mortgage-backedsecurities and proposes to introduce changes which areclose to the changes made to the New South Waleslegislation and in line with contemporary businesspractices; clause 4 provides for an exemption ofmarketable security interests; clause 5 deals withdouble-duty relief; and clause 6 significantly tightensaggregation provisions to prevent avoidance, which isone of the mainstays of the effort at the State RevenueOffice to preserve the state’s taxation base. All of thosethings are very much mechanical annualisedamendments to the taxation framework, and wecommend the State Revenue Office in that regard.



Clauses 9 to 15 deal with duty arrangements andpenalties for motor car traders. There has already beensome commentary by the previous two speakers aboutmotor car duty collections and the arrangements in thatindustry. A fairly complex duty collection system hasevolved over the years and the bill attempts to make itsimpler. We have had a system with motor car dealersand duties payable, especially with the introduction ofthe goods and services tax, where stamp duty was paidon the higher price. People are familiar with the waythe GST has worked in that regard, but in order tocompensate for the extra duty being paid, the dealerswould increase their own charge to compensate for theGST and you would end up with taxes going back oneway and the other.

It ended up being very inefficient for the used carindustry, so the intention of the bill is to try to makethat simpler and at the same time to tighten upavoidance opportunities for people in that business. Thegovernment does not propose this legislation with aview that avoidance is rampant in the industry; it is aproblem everywhere. In an industry where tens ofthousands of cars are bought and sold each year andduty is payable on all or the vast majority of them, inpercentage terms even the smallest incidence ofavoidance adds up to many forgone dollars, so it is anarea that requires constant — —


Mr ROBINSON — On the duties of the vehicles, orare you talking more broadly?


Mr ROBINSON — On cars? My response to theDeputy Leader of the Opposition is that even a smallpercentage of avoidance by people within the carindustry, or those buying and selling privately, adds upto something significant. We might not be talking aboutseven or eight zeros after a number, but it is an area thatrequires the constant vigilance of the State RevenueOffice.

In his contribution the honourable member for Box Hillalluded to work done on avoidance by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition. I suspect that all honourablemembers who at times have developed some familiaritywith the industry through work in their electorateswould be familiar with avoidance issues. In that regardI am no different.

Three years ago I had an experience where one of myconstituents, a Blackburn resident, had purchased avehicle on the understanding that if his wife did notapprove the purchase he could return the car and get his

earlier car back. Having reached the verdict that the carwas not satisfactory, he took it back and, in that case,the car dealer had done a runner, so my constituent didnot have the opportunity of getting his car back. Thisled to inquiries with the State Revenue Office and I wasable to understand a little bit more about the way duty iscollected.

By the nature of the industry and, historically, by theway duty is collected, if people want to do a runner theycan do so. But I hope that my inquiries at that point andthe suggestion I made about how we might attend tothose people who seek to do a runner have made asmall contribution towards doing that. In that regard itis worth noting that the payment period for duty that isproposed by this bill actually narrows. I think it goesfrom 21 days to 14. The Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce and others recognise thatperhaps that will create some difficulty, but thegovernment does not believe it is unreasonable. Thegovernment believes it is important to ensure thatrevenue which is owed is paid in a timely fashion.

Another feature of the bill is that, as an anti-avoidanceprovision, the application for a transfer of registrationwill be taken as a taxation assessment. This avoids thesituation in which someone may submit, for the sake ofminimising the duty payable, a separate figure from theone actually paid. That has been possible under theexisting system. The new provision will deal with thatby providing that the application for transfer of thevehicle’s registration equals a taxation assessment, so itwill be harder for people to submit a lower figure to tryto avoid or minimise the duty payable.

Part 4 of the bill deals with the Pay-roll Tax Act, andthat has been adequately covered by the honourablemember for Swan Hill in his contribution. It deals withnot-for-profit institutions, including schools andcolleges, and will provide some relief to a limitednumber of schools that have sought it. The governmentis pleased to be able to assist the limited number ofschools in that category.

The honourable member for Swan Hill also referred tothe land tax exemptions contained in clause 17 and theireffect on agricultural shows. The government is happyto oblige and meet the requests that have been madeabout two events — namely, the organisation of theElmore and Kyabram field days. That demonstrates thegovernment’s commitment to country Victorians,particularly people outside the cities in rural areas. It isa symbolic step which will be greatly appreciated.

Part 3 of the bill deals with land tax. Again, this hasbeen covered reasonably well by previous speakers.



The essential element here is that equalisation factorswill be replaced by indexation factors, and the aim ofthe legislation is to ensure a more accurate valuation ofland when the tax is levied.

As has been described in contributions by previousspeakers, tax is applied each year to the unimprovedvalue of land. Land tax has been around for manyyears. I understand that it was originally acommonwealth tax which was given to the states,certainly to Victoria, back in 1958. It is one of a numberof taxes, including payroll tax, which was passed to thestates some years later.

Traditionally we have had a system of valuations beingcarried out in an unsynchronised manner across thestate — in some places it was every four years; inothers it was six — in which equalisation factors playedan important role. However, the problem withunsynchronised valuations is that equalisation willalways be a clumsy tool. It is amazing in one sense,looking back to 1958, that we have had a system inplace for 44 years which still to this day, at least prior tothese changes being hopefully agreed to, has reliedupon an equalisation factor and where there iswidespread acknowledgment of its clumsiness in tryingto devise an accurate valuation of land for the purposesof applying a tax each year.

The government is confident that the measures will notin their own right increase revenue and that they arerevenue neutral, which is certainly the intention. It is anattempt by the government to get a more accuratevaluation of lands and to smooth out the steep rises inland tax — the spikes, if you like — which areattributable to valuations undertaken in anunsynchronised fashion.

Importantly, as part of this proposal theValuer-General, under clause 16(2), will removehigh-value exempt residential land from his basecalculation of land tax. That will provide some relief inparticular municipalities where the high-valueresidential properties are included in the calculation ofthe base figures, which can lead to distortions. That issomething which the bill aims to remove.

In effect, the bill is housekeeping legislation introducedto try to ensure that we get a more efficient statetaxation system. The government is pleased with whatit has done in recent times to state taxation — it hasintroduced a number of reforms, particularly with landtax threshold valuations and payroll tax rates andthresholds — and some of those changes will bedebated in greater detail in the next few weeks.

This is sensible legislation which has broad support. Icongratulate the State Revenue Office for its continuingwork on this front. The field of taxation and duties isnot the most glamorous of industries to work in —anyone who has had the opportunity of wading throughthe Duties Act will not find it the most riveting read —but the work of the people in the State Revenue Officeis vital and will ensure that over the years governmentsof either colour will be able to estimate and rely uponreceipts well into the future in a sound and responsibleway. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I wish to make a numberof comments about the State Taxation Legislation(Further Amendment) Bill, which in the main amendsthe Duties Act. Honourable members will recall thatsome time ago the government brought in a new DutiesAct. It has already been back here for amendment andwe see further amendments here today. The bill alsomakes alterations to the Land Tax Act. I want to brieflyrun over just a couple of these issues.

The bill seeks to rectify the method of collection ofstamp duty on used cars. In the initial run of the DutiesAct the government made a mistake that resulted inrevenue being forgone by the state. This bill rectifies,we hope, that particular error. This new system requirestraders to notify changes in vehicle ownership.

The bill also changes the equalisation factor for land taxto an indexation factor. However, I have to say, giventhat my electorate of Brighton, which is in the City ofBayside, has suffered from the highest equalisationfactor in many years, that this will not bring relief.There are many people in my electorate who are assetrich and income poor, and these changes to land taxwill bring absolutely no tax relief to them.

The points I wish to make relate in the main to theamendments to the Duties Act. The government hasbeen aware of the problem with the collection of stampduty on used cars since 21 August 2001, because that iswhen I raised it in this house. I asked the Treasurer aquestion without notice, and in reply the Treasurer saidI was irresponsible to be making comments aboutstamp duty. He then asked me for further information,clearly indicating that he did not know what was goingon within the State Revenue Office (SRO). I raised itagain in debate in this place on 31 October. It has takenthe Treasurer nine months to address the problem ofrevenue collection — and by the commencement dateof this bill, 1 July, it will probably be 10 months.

In fairness to the Treasurer, I must say that he wrote tome indicating that I was correct in my earlierassessment of this, and he acknowledged that of course



people were simply telling dealers they would pay thestamp duty direct to the government while in fact theyopted not do so. In 2000–01 stamp duty on used cartransfers was $141.3 million. I would be interested toknow how much revenue the government lost becauseof this sloppy handling and the delays in bringing thisbill before the house.

Usually the State Revenue Office and this governmentare masters of tax collection. Indeed they are collecting$1.7 billion extra per annum over and above what theKennett government collected. The SRO is so masterfulin tax collection that we recently saw two Chineseinterns from the Beijing tax office come here to learnhow to collect tax. We have world best practice hereunder the Bracks government and the SRO.

In fact the Chinese trainees and the State RevenueOffice had a pretty good time, and this is how our taxeswere spent: commissioners dinner, catered for by theMask of China — $963; official hosting of this Chinesedelegation — $923, paid for by the taxpayer; a 2-hourcocktail party — another $700, paid for by thetaxpayer; hosting the Beijing delegation at the Jamborestaurant — another $344, paid for by the taxpayer forthese tax collector mandarins; luncheon for the Chinesedelegation at the Kingbo Chinese restaurant — $380; ayum cha lunch at the Dragon Boat restaurant — another$350; an official meeting at the Shark Fin Inn —another $262; and most curious of all, a dim simdelivery from the Dragon Boat for the Chinesedelegation at the SRO — $300. What an image! Thereare our tax collectors, who are raking in $1.7 billionextra, sitting there having a munch on $300 worth ofdim sims from the Dragon Boat restaurant.

This expenditure was not confined to the Chinesedelegation. We have seen receipts for a raft of parties inthe information provided to the opposition underfreedom of information. We have seen receipts for aball for our tax collectors at Albert by the Lake whichtaxpayers subsidised to the tune of $5575. That is whatthe taxpayers subsidised — a ball for the State RevenueOffice! They are missing out on collecting stamp duty.Instead they are collecting every other tax known toman — and they are having a ball, literally, at Albert bythe Lake.

I move on now to the Christmas parties hosted by theState Revenue Office. Let us have a look at 1999.

Ms Delahunty interjected.

Ms ASHER — Indeed! Let’s look at the Christmasfunction in 1999. I note that the original description was‘Christmas party’ and that someone scribbled off

‘party’ and wrote in ‘function’. Some $2500 worth ofcatering was provided by a company with theunfortunate name of Toff’s Catering. We then move onto the grog consumed at the Christmas party, and againwe see a huge bill. We move on to a commissionersChristmas function — and it seems one Christmas partyis not enough for these mandarins in the SRO. TheChristmas party was catered for by Beauty and theFeast Catering and included $480 of tandoori chicken,Kobe beef, Tai chickballs, pumpkin pies, et cetera. TheSRO tax collectors certainly enjoy spending taxpayers’money on entertainment.

We move on now to the Christmas party in 2000. TheSRO is a good client of Philip Murphy’s of Brighton,which is a good constituent business of mine. The SROspent $1500 there, and another $2000-plus was paid toToff’s Catering for the SRO party. Although $1200 wasrecouped from SRO staff, there was a taxpayer subsidyfor the SRO Christmas party of $2500. I note that theinvoice submitted by Toffs Catering states, ‘Paul to stayand serve at the special rate of $22 an hour’. These guysdid not even pour their own drinks; they had Paul tocome in and serve them!

Again in that year the commissioner had anotherChristmas celebration, and another $983 was spent. Butit is not confined to Christmas. On 20 August 2001Coles was the beneficiary of $789 for ‘groceries forSRO party’. No wonder Ballarat is welcoming theSRO! There will be a catering-led recovery in Ballarat,and it is starting already, because Ballarat ExpoCatering has been paid another $880.

There is more. As we are debating amendments to theDuties Act, I note that a significant number of taskforces were set up within the SRO to examine thelegislation and to examine the non-payment of stampduty on used cars. In fact I need to tell the house aboutthe hard work done by the SRO, with the Treasurerhaving his hands off the wheel — absolutely no control.Let me go through how our taxes were spent whilethese people considered the bill that is now before thehouse.

First of all there was what is described as a lunchmeeting with the Law Institute of Victoria’s state taxescommittee. They were discussing duties that day, and Inote this lunch meeting took place at the MenziesTavern, with a beverage bill of $32.30. Some meeting!It gets better.

Mr Hulls — Four lemon squashes!

Ms ASHER — Lemon squashes at the MenziesTavern! Pull the other one!



Mr Hulls — It might not be what you drink, butthat’s what I drink!

Ms ASHER — My drinks are not financed by thetaxpayer, that is the difference! We then go on to amonthly meeting with Vicroads on 1 March 2000, andagain we see cakes for that meeting. We then move onto an interjurisdictional meeting on insurance duty on29 March, which was held in the boardroom at505 Collins Street, where 18 bagels, cheese and fruitwere eaten — for a bill of $137. This was while theseguys were discussing the non-payment of stamp dutyon used cars. These were the meetings that were meantto rectify the problem. It has taken them nine months todo it because they were down at the Menzies Tavern!Another interjurisdictional meeting on insurance dutywas held on 30 March 2000, where 24 spring rolls anda fruit platter were eaten. They like their Chinese foodin the SRO, and that added up to another $119.

Mr Hulls — So freedom of information works!

Ms ASHER — Yes. We spent months and monthsand months getting this under freedom ofinformation — which included, can you believe it, theSRO asking me for a definition of hospitality! Theseguys know hospitality: these mandarins are masters atit.

Mr Hulls — Like your previous board?

Ms ASHER — I note there was a Vicroads liaisonmeeting on the issues in the bill. There is more, thistime from Hermes Fine Foods.

More cakes! More cakes for $18. Again, at aninterjurisdictional review of the Duties Act on 20 July2000, more spring rolls and more sandwiches werepurchased for another $72.90. This is why this bill hasbeen delayed for nine months. The Treasurer has hishands off the wheel and the mandarins have been eatingspring rolls and dim sims.

I turn to a receipt relating to a Vicroads liaison meetingabout motor car duty. Spot on! That is exactly whatthese guys are discussing. What are they doing?Surprise, surprise; they are having a bit more food —another $28 for a cake platter. This gives a whole newmeaning to ‘Let them eat cake’! These guys aremunching their way through cakes and eating their waythrough dim sims and spring rolls. But what is notgetting fixed is the used car duty and this bill, whichhas now taken nine months to get before this house.

I turn now to a receipt for a morning tea for a Vicroadsmeeting on 5 May 2001 — another $22 for cake. If Ican allow my French background to come to the fore,

the pièce de résistance — how do you like this one! —is a state tax committee lunch which the Law Instituteof Victoria had with the State Revenue Office.According to the cover sheet of the documentation ofthe SRO they were having a lunch. What were theydoing at this lunch? Could the taxpayer hope they mayhave been discussing the administration of the DutiesAct? Could the taxpayer hope that they were workingout this problem with used car duty?

The caterer has given some clue to what they weredoing: Epicure Catering has described the function as acocktail party. These guys were having a cocktail partyat a cost to the taxpayer of $605 when they were meantto be discussing state taxation, when they were meantto be working and discussing the Duties Act, and whenthey were meant to be trying to work out how toovercome the Treasurer’s negligence in leaving thisloophole whereby duty was not collected on used carsfor the state of Victoria.

Mr Hulls — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I understand that a fair amount of latitude isgiven in relation to debate on bills. This is the StateTaxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, andwhile the honourable member may be embarrassed thatwhen she was a minister she and other ministers andstaffers were known as a bunch of Sir Lunchalots whenthey were in government with their snouts in thetrough, Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you to direct her tocome back to the bill.

Ms ASHER — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, these receipts are exactly on the amendmentsproposed by the bill. I have just read out, for example, areceipt which reads ‘Vicroads liaison meeting (motorcar duty)’, which is the precise issue addressed by thebill before the house. For the record, I have not claimedone lunch from the taxpayer.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!There is no point of order. The honourable member forBrighton has been discussing the bill, and the StateRevenue Office has been mentioned often duringearlier debate.

Ms ASHER — The bill before the house allegedlysolves the problem of the Treasurer being unable to getthe Duties Act right in the first instance because he hadhis hands off the wheel and took nine months to correctthis error. When we look at the Menzies Tavern episodeand the dim sims, the spring rolls, the cake platters andall the entertaining we can see why the Treasurer tooknine months to solve this problem.


ELECTORAL BILL


Ms ASHER — And the $1000 dinner at the Maskof China. Ask the people of Niddrie if they think that isreasonable or not! Indeed, that explains why this bill isnine months late. However, some more importantissues of freedom of information have emerged fromthis matter. It is my understanding that Vicroadsadvised the SRO — and indeed the Treasurer — allalong that the original Duties Bill which set up thismechanism to collect this form of tax was wrong. Imade a freedom of information request of Vicroads forits advice to Treasury and/or the State Revenue Office.My application went in on 23 August 2001, and I amyet to receive the documentation.

I received what I regard as a frivolous response in thefirst instance. I note also that Vicroads has its ownletterhead for the freedom of information unit. I am notparticularly interested in its letterhead; I am interestedin the FOI application, which will show not only all thewining and dining but the negligence attached to thefact that Vicroads advised the SRO of this problem andthat still it has taken the Treasurer nine months to fix it.Initially I was told, frivolously, that there were6 million documents. Yes, they are the registrations. Iobviously then narrowed my request.

Mr Hulls — How many do you want?

Ms ASHER — None. I do not want any of them. Inarrowed my request to the advice. I want the advicewhich shows the incompetence of the SRO and theincompetence of the Treasurer in handling thisparticular issue. In fact, I am still waiting for Vicroadsresponse. I lodged an FOI application on 23 August2001 to find this out, and it has not been forthcoming.

This State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment)Bill is nine months too late. By the time it comes intooperation it will be over 10 months too late. Somerevenue will be forgone to Victoria. What we have seenin this nine months is a frolic and a hands-off approachby the Treasurer and a frolic by the mandarins at theState Revenue Office, where they have done nothing toattempt to rectify the problem other than eat cake, go toMenzies Tavern, attend cocktail parties, go toChristmas parties and the like.

It is unacceptable supervision by the Treasurer, whoshould stand condemned. While the Liberal oppositiondoes not oppose the State Tax Legislation (FurtherAmendment) Bill, it condemns the nine-month delayand the nine-month frolic it took to get the bill here.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LANGDON(Ivanhoe).


ELECTORAL BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr HULLS (Attorney-General).

Government amendments circulated by Mr HULLS(Attorney-General) pursuant to sessional orders.

Independent amendments circulated by Mr SAVAGE(Mildura) pursuant to sessional orders.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — It is my honour tolead the debate on this Electoral Bill on behalf of theLiberal opposition. This bill is a significant piece oflegislation because it relates to the fundamentals ofdemocracy in Victoria. While it is a large piece oflegislation, running to some 214 pages, many of theproposed changes it contains are not so muchsubstantive as modernising. In that sense, both politicalparties — the Attorney-General will correct me if I amwrong — are indebted to the Victorian ElectoralCommission for its detailed examination of the existingprovisions of the legislation relating to voting in thestate of Victoria and the conduct of elections, and thedetailed changes recommended by the VictorianElectoral Commission bring this legislation into thiscentury.

In the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech heindicated that there are several provisions of the actwhich need modernisation. In the second-readingspeech the Attorney-General said:

An example is section 251 of the act, which provides thatcarrying a gun, pistol, sword or bludgeon at an election ispunishable by a fine of not less than $4 nor more than $40.Accounts of elections in the 1850s suggest there was a realneed for this provision at that time, when a fine of up to £20would have been a deterrent. However, the provision serveslittle purpose today.


Mr PERTON — Indeed, as the Attorney-Generalsays with some humour, the Liberal, Labor, andNational parties only need it for the purposes ofpreselection today.

The second important change, for the purposes of boththe citizen and the potential candidate, is that thelegislation which has governed elections in this state,The Constitution Act Amendment Act, has probablybeen a little obscure in that the relationship to electoralmatters is not made clear. So the title, the Electoral Bill2002 — soon to be the Electoral Act 2002 — willgovern the conduct of elections in this state. All of themajor political parties in the state — Liberal, Labor and

ELECTORAL BILL


National, as well as the Democrats, the Greens, andothers — have examined the legislation and there willbe a number of amendments coming into the housethrough the Attorney-General. They are quite detailedand have been distributed to members. They willprovide a system for elections in this state that is moremodern and up to date; will provide some very clearrules in relation to elections and will also provide forgreater efficiency in elections for electoral officials,voters and candidates alike.

There are 12 parts to the bill. The first is made up ofpreliminary provisions relating to definitions and thelike. The second part relates to the Victorian ElectoralCommission and its structures and membership. Thethird relates to enrolment procedures and information.The fourth relates to registration of political parties.Part 5 relates to election procedures, part 6 to voting,part 7 to election results, part 8 to the Court of DisputedReturns and part 9 to enforcement and offences. Part 10is the general section, part 11 is about transitionalprovisions, and part 12 refers to public funding ofelections.

I could give a very long speech on behalf of theopposition on this matter, but as almost all of theprovisions of the new bill are pretty much commonground between the major parties and the Independentsas well — whilst they are moving amendments, thoseamendments are limited in scope — I shall not make along speech on the detail of all those provisions.

The most important changes from the status quo are, forinstance, in clause 3, which changes time-honouredterms such as ‘polling place’ and ‘returning officer’ tonew terms like ‘voting centre’ and ‘election manager’.They are changes that deliver the language of today.

Clause 25 gives the electoral commission the power toreject inappropriate names. I think we have all beenamused at times by the use of deed poll by candidatesto get across a political message — sometimes not interms that would be used in polite company.

Clause 26 increases the number of sources from whichthe Victorian Electoral Commissioner can gaininformation for updating the roll. That is useful forensuring that the roll is as clean as it can be. I think allhonourable members are aware that not only inoverseas jurisdictions but in Australia too there havebeen many allegations of inaccuracy of rolls and the useof that inaccuracy for the advantage of candidates.Clause 26 will provide the Victorian ElectoralCommission (VEC) with more sources that it can use toupdate the roll.

Clause 52 allows the VEC to review the registration ofa political party which averages less than 4 per centover all the electorates it contests.

Clause 91 reduces slightly the power of scrutineersduring voting. That has little practical relevance, as youwould be aware, Mr Acting Speaker. I for one havenever seen anyone use a scrutineer during voting; butobviously on occasions the returning officers raisepoints of difficulty with the representatives of theparties or candidates and members, and that isimportant, too.

Clause 100 is a real boost for the technology of the newcentury. As honourable members know, I am extremelypassionate about the potential for electronic democracyand for electronic voting. With this bill electronicvoting appears in the statute for the first time inVictoria. The clause headed ‘Interstate and overseasvoting centres’ states:

(1) This section applies to electors voting at an overseas orinterstate early voting centre appointed by theCommission.

(2) An elector voting in accordance with this section mayuse such means of electronic voting as is provided at theearly voting centre.

(3) The procedures applying in respect of electronic votingare as prescribed.

We do not have the regulations that will govern thattype of electronic voting. However, particularly in acountry where voting is compulsory, where people areparticularly mobile in both their social and workinglives, and given that people are part of a globalisedeconomy, it is quite clear that people will need to affordthemselves the opportunity to vote from places otherthan the voting centre nearest to their home address.

This is a first step. Electronic voting, as is indicated,will apply only to those voting overseas or interstate atan early voting centre. However, as the issues ofidentity are dealt with in the handling of those votes, Isuspect that election managers will probably usephotographic evidence or the like to give someoneaccess to the electronic polling device. I believeexperiments on systems that can be put in place willinvolve some sort of biometric identification, whetherfingerprints, iris identification or, ultimately, full facescans.

If it works interstate and overseas it will certainlyspread to local government, where many councilsalready allow for postal voting. I am sure that in manycases citizens would find it more convenient to useelectronic voting. Indeed, the problems of fraud in

ELECTORAL BILL


physical postal voting systems are probably greater thanthose that would be afforded by a person voting aftersome biometric identification. It is a first step. I hopethat it will be seen to work very well at the next stateelection and that it can then be introduced in a morewidespread way into local government elections and,ultimately, be commonplace in the state.

The issue for us as politicians and as Victorians andAustralians is that we have compulsory voting. ManyVictorians and Australians value the fact that one of ourcitizen duties is to vote. We do not have many othercompulsory duties, as people living in other countriesmay have. There is an increasing group in our societythat finds participating in the electoral process anirritation and while I think that in Victoria both majorparties want to maintain the positive benefits ofcompulsory voting, what we ought to do is take suchsteps as are possible to make it more convenient forbusy people with busy lives to cast their votes as easilyas possible.

The last remaining substantial change from the statusquo is a change from 6 metres to 3 metres in theminimum distance from polling stations that people canhand out materials. In many small polling centres theactivities of people handing out how-to-vote materialand the like to voters can be quite hampered by theexisting restriction. This provision will make it easier insmaller and more intimate polling places — or votingplaces, as they will now be called.

Some other changes that were suggested by theElectoral Commissioner and were contained in theoriginal bill will not now be proceeded with as a resultof the amendments that have been agreed between themajor parties, other parties and the Independents. Therewas a proposal that the register of voters would not beavailable for public inspection, and there is quite a bitof anxiety about that. In discussions, I have hadindications that the roll is used by churches and othergroups active in local areas to help them deal in aconstituency with the needs of those who haveparticular religious affiliations or the like. People whomay want to be involved to a greater extent in politicalactivity should have some rights of access.

The insertion of a new clause AA to follow clause 31will mean there is a list of electors, which is updatedevery six months, available for public inspection. It isthe classic conflict between the need for confidence inthe roll and the public register and the need for privacyabout which in this electronic age voters areincreasingly concerned.

There was a proposal by the Victorian ElectoralCommission (VEC) to remove the requirement to havesix nominators for non-party candidates. It is not anonerous restriction on candidates running for a seat tohave the sufficient respect of six people to have theirnominations countersigned, but it is a small filter thatprovides some seriousness to the electoral process andrequires a person not just to stand as a candidate on thespur of the moment but to do it as a serious decision.

Clause 83 was designed to allow political parties to notauthorise material where it was clear the party hadproduced it. That will alter again as a result of theamendments that will be moved. There was a proposalfor as-of-right early voting, which is an importantphilosophical change from the notion that polling day isa special day. In almost every democracy polling day isa special day. Many people take their children topolling places to have a look at the political process.Numbers of families go through polling places and thechildren diligently collect the how-to-vote cards to takeback to school for projects or for use in participating inmock elections.

The notion that there is a polling day, a day on whichcampaigning leads to a crescendo of activity and theday people make their decision, the day the mediafocuses on the activities of the party leaders withsignificant vote-counting broadcasts after the polls haveclosed, is significant. The notion that those who willvote ahead of polling day will have some special reasonfor doing so will remain.

A proposal from the Electoral Commissioner raised theproblem with the current legislation relating to thepostmarking of envelopes in which postal votes arereturned. The current legislation states that the votingclosing time is 6.00 p.m. Saturday. In reality this means6.00 p.m. Friday because Australia Post does not collectmail on Saturdays. The VEC proposal would haveenfranchised those who posted their postal votes onSaturday, but the by-product would have enfranchisedthose who posted their votes on Sunday. I do not knowof any electoral system that allows votes to be cast afterthe close of a polling day. Both the major parties haveagreed that that would be inappropriate.

The last provision proposed by the VEC, which I thinkall parties agreed not to proceed with, would have giventhe VEC the discretion not to follow up non-voters aftercertain by-elections. In this country by-elections are avery important part of the political process. I know thatpolitical leaders in this state and elsewhere have fromtime to time suggested that in a safe seat the death orresignation of a member ought not to lead to aby-election. All the work that has been done with voters

ELECTORAL BILL


indicates that they ought to be able to make that sort ofdecision.

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr PERTON — As the honourable member forRichmond interjects, they ought to have the opportunityin the event that the sitting member retires or dies tohave their own vote. Of course it has led to results fromtime to time that have changed the political climate.

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr PERTON — As the honourable member forRichmond points out, there was the Wills by-election.Even more significant in political terms was the Bassby-election that signalled the demise of the Whitlamfederal government, so these things remain importantand the opportunity for voters to participate inby-elections is very important. Were we to change therequirement to vote, which removing the imposition ofa fine would have done, it would have changed thenature of the by-election process.

As I have said, the bill is very long — 214 pages. Largeteams of people from all political parties and theIndependents have examined the legislation in detailand have agreed on a large set of amendments runningto around 13 pages. I shall not go through those indetail. I have indicated that it is a very detailed bill.

In the spirit of cooperation all the parties represented inthis Parliament are seeking to have modernisedlegislation and a more efficient legislative process. Wehave taken the advice of the independent ElectoralCommissioner on these matters and where appropriate,as practical political people working with practicalpolitics, we have rejected some of the changes proposedby the VEC which are not appropriate in the Victorianelectoral climate. Generally the mechanistic changes tothe legislation are probably not objectionable.

I know the honourable member for Mildura will movean amendment in relation to the availability of theelectoral roll. That has not been agreed to. Theavailability of the electoral roll now as a public registryto people who are not in the political process is animportant change. In respect of politicians, the newprovisions require that this information be treated withrespect. As politicians we are always trying to improvethe way we communicate with our electors. Obviouslythe use of enrolment information is required in order toundertake that communication with the voter.Clause 36(3) provides that:

The permitted purposes in relation to a member of theAssembly or the Council are —

(a) any purpose in connection with an election; and

(b) monitoring the accuracy of information contained on anelectoral roll or on the register of electors; and

(c) exercising the functions of a member in relation to themember’s constituents.

Those uses of the electoral roll would only beobjectionable to those who are most sensitive. Allpractising parliamentarians certainly respect thoseconstituent views.

The last area of change is probably that which haselicited the greatest interest from the media. I mustconfess that in my own electorate office I have notreceived a single phone call, letter or email — and mygood friend the Deputy Leader of the National Partyand my colleague the honourable member forRichmond indicate that they have not received materialfrom any voter objecting to the changes to electoralfunding.

The changes to the electoral funding provisions thatwill occur through the substantive provisions of this billand the amendments are in essence the same provisionsthat apply to elections at the federal level, so Victorianvoters, as federal voters, are used to this concept ofpublic funding of campaigns at the federal level. Thesesorts of changes have also been made in New SouthWales, Queensland and Tasmania. Public funding isfound in many European countries, and those of us whotake an interest in American presidential campaignswill be aware of the matching funds that are deliveredin those circumstances.

Essentially modern electoral campaigns requireever-increasing expenditure in order to provideinformation to and communicate with voters. We livein a time when the media does not always focus on stateelections and even on federal elections as closely asmany voters would like. Many is the time when a majorpolicy has been released by either party and thecoverage of it has been minuscule. Many voters wantmore than that. They want to be able to get access topolicies that will affect them, and they want access toinformation that is relevant not just to them as voters ina geographical area but to them and their circumstancesin particular electoral areas.

The communications methods that are demanded byconstituents include traditional television, newspaperand magazine advertising, but members often havevoters who ring, write or send emails requestingadditional information. The cost of postage is alwaysrising, as is the cost of electronic communications. Isuspect that at some time in the near future youngvoters will probably be demanding short messaging

ELECTORAL BILL


services through telephone systems. The cost ofcampaigns is ever increasing.

At the same time as the cost of electoral campaigns isincreasing there is greater scrutiny by the media of thegathering of electoral funds. Whether it is the$1000-a-head dinner held by some political party ordonations by major corporations or unions, there isincreasing scrutiny by the public of the source ofcampaign funds. What this means — and I think it iswhy we have not had any complaints about this bill inour offices — is that most voters quite like the idea of acleaner electoral process. They know that if a politicalparty or a candidate receives funding in a very publicway — in a way for which they are held accountableand through a process to which the publiccontributes — it means that in theory at least there willnot be the same reliance on major donors.

Political parties often have to make difficult decisions.Victoria has seen the introduction of gaming machinesin the late 1980s and a casino in the early 1990s, as wellas the activities of Tattersalls, Tabcorp and others. So inthe area of gaming, for instance, governments makesignificant decisions that have major financial impactson our community. I think the community wouldprobably have greater confidence in the systemknowing that it had this element of centralised funding.The term used in a lot of the academic literature whichsupports this indicates that the public regards publicfunding as ‘clean money’ versus the requirements forparties to finance their own campaigns.

Obviously there are different philosophical positions onthat. There are those who much prefer that the partiescontinue to obtain their funds from donations. But ingeneral certainly the literature and the pollinginformation that I have surveyed in preparation for thisspeech today indicate there is a general public comfortwith this notion of public funding because it is seen asreducing the reliance of parties and independentcandidates on people who fund their electioncampaigns, and who obviously would want theirdonations taken into account in policy making.

I do not think I need to add anything else to the debateat this stage. The arguments for the legislation aresound. The agreements across the Parliament haveimproved the legislation. It is very much based on thework of the independent Electoral Commissioner, whohas worked very hard on it. Obviously there will besome debate about public funding, but on behalf of theLiberal Party certainly the indication is that Victoriansaccept it at the federal level and that interstateAustralian voters in New South Wales, Queensland andTasmania have certainly not found that to be an

abhorrent way of funding campaigns. I think thegeneral changes introduced by this bill will improve theelectoral system of this state.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — It is alwaysfascinating to listen to politicians talk about elections,voting systems and all the other things that go withthem. It is the first time since I have been a member ofParliament that we have seen a total rewrite of theelectoral legislation, or The Constitution ActAmendment Act, the title of which has always been amouthful; it has always been confusing and not toomany of us understood why it was in the form that itwas.

As the honourable member for Doncaster said, somevery strange things are still sitting in that act and Iwelcome the rewrite of the legislation. It has been a bitstrange inasmuch as it has been a rather quiet debateliving up to the debate in this house. I have not been theNational Party person responsible for this bill — anhonourable member for North Eastern Province inanother place, the Honourable Bill Baxter, has been —so I am not so au fait with the amendments that havebeen circulated to members today, and, I might say,neither is Mr Baxter. So we will have to work with theamendments as they appear before us today without theknowledge that the honourable member for Doncasterhas alluded to.

Of course the minister knows the National Party isbasically comfortable with the direction of thelegislation. We were concerned about the part of the billdealing with the disclosure of information and publicfunding, but we believe that has been fixed up. Iunderstand the changes embodied in the 13 pages ofamendments that have just arrived will reflect more thecommonwealth method than was originally proposed inthis bill.

You never know what will happen in Parliament whenyou talk about electoral legislation. Usually we getrather excited about various things, particularly changesto the voting system. That has occurred in this placemany times, when it has been proposed to change frompreferential voting to a proportional representationsystem. I think we have had that debate five times in the19 years I have been in this place, and luckily that hasnot ever succeeded. That type of emotion will not bepresent in this debate.

I guess we in the country look at elections a littledifferently from those in the city, because the areas wecover are so different. Our application to politics, ourrelationship with our constituencies and theexpectations of country members are very different

ELECTORAL BILL


from those of city members. Whereas a city membermay be lucky enough to have two, three or fourcommunities in his or her area, under the newboundaries those of us who represent spread-outcountry electorates like Swan Hill will have about45 different communities in our electorates. That makesit difficult for them and for the members. However, wehave balanced up many times the systems that we havein place and have developed our own methods ofhandling them in the country.

This bill will bring about a bit more speed to thechanges that have been occurring — that is, the cutbackin the number of polling booths throughout ourelectorates. That has always been a problem probably toparties other than the National Party — the smallpolling booths have always been an advantage to us.That number has been dwindled back in recent timesand now it will be dwindled back even more. Theintroduction of postal voting that we have experiencedover the past few elections, where all those people whoare a certain distance from a polling booth — orelection place, as it will now be called — by right get apostal vote. That has changed the dynamics of a lot ofthe country voting in the past few years. I believe thatwill be speeded up under this legislation.

I guess if I made an observation about this bill it wouldbe that it is the start of many of the changes that we willsee introduced. The honourable member for Doncastermentioned clause 100 and the fact that electronic votingis now allowed overseas and interstate. One does nothave to be blind Freddy to see that society here willembrace that in a far greater way in the future.

I happen to disagree with the honourable member forDoncaster on the importance of the polling day. Sincethe pre-polling voting has been introduced in ourelectorates up to 20 per cent of the people pre-poll. Thatgives us some problems logistically; it also gives ussome advantages logistically in some areas.

Mr Wynne — They might want to get in early andvote for you.

Mr STEGGALL — That is right. At the lastelection they did, thankfully, because those who votedlater didn’t! It is an interesting point to address. At thelast election I was up against a very high-profileIndependent. I had what turned out to be a verycomfortable victory in the end, but I had to rely onLabor Party preferences, which were not counted untilthe Wednesday, when I won by 2500 votes.

The interesting point, though, is that the vote of thepre-poll was totally different from the vote of the

Saturday. If anyone studies the last election properlyand thoroughly — as many of us have done andagonised over it — they will see that something terriblehappened in the last four days of that electioncampaign.

Mr Hulls — No, it didn’t.

Mr STEGGALL — Well, it did from our point ofview. In my electorate the people who voted pre-polland by postal vote had a totally different voting profilefrom those who voted on the day.

So this bill comes to us in pretty good form, but Ibelieve that from now changes will be made to ourElectoral Act, as this will become, more regularly thanhas been the case in the past, when we had just nibbledat the edges with a few amendments to TheConstitution Act Amendment Act. Because of its nameit was always rather important and we probably thoughtwe should not be doing too much of that.

When we look at these voting systems — as I saidearlier, listening to politicians talking about votingsystems and elections is quite fascinating — I think thisdebate today will be quite low key and not shy, but thatis probably the word closest to describing it. I do notthink there is anything here that will excite anypoliticians. Basically it is straight up and down andtakes a reasonably sensible approach to some difficultareas. We have to get an electoral act that is able toaccount for the seat of Prahran, with its 12 squarekilometres of electors; the seat of Wimmera; the newseat of Lowan, which will have 31 000 squarekilometres; or the seat of Swan Hill, which has29 500 square kilometres.

We come from very different areas to represent peoplein this place, and our electoral system is there to showthat up and to make sure that we get as close as we canto reflecting the wishes, the will and the desires of thepeople who elect us to represent them. Counting theGeelong, Ballarat and Bendigo electorates, countrymembers have 25 per cent of the seats in this house.Country people will always be in a minority,particularly if you take out the major regionalelectorates — Bendigo East and Bendigo West,Ballarat East and Ballarat West, and Geelong andGeelong North.

At the last election both the Labor and Liberal partiestreated major regional electorates in a similar manner tothe way they treated metropolitan electorates. If thatremains the case, people in subregional and countryareas will be a smaller minority, being somewherearound 15 to 17 per cent of the population. The

ELECTORAL BILL


National Party therefore has a great interest in how it isgoing to work.

Surprisingly the funding and disclosure provisions ofthis legislation have not created much interest — andthey have created no interest at all in my electorateoffice. I guess it is about the acceptance of the changesin electoral arrangements that have occurred at thecommonwealth level, in New South Wales, inQueensland and in the Australian Capital Territory.Those changes have been successfully implemented,and people are probably a little more relaxed when theythink about it and see the funding methods, which givethe system a better chance to be as clean and as clear aspossible. It will never be pure, but at least it will beclear — and, I hope, as transparent as it can be. Thisgame is one where if a quarter is given, you can loseseverely, heavily and quickly.

The changes to the electoral commission seemreasonable, straightforward and understandable, and arebeing put down in a legislative form so we can see themand understand them. The enrolment procedures andinformation are in part 3. Part 4, which deals with theregistration of political parties, is reasonable and clearand something that people can work on and understand.

We are changing the terminology of electoralprocedures, and that is something that will be simpleenough for those who come after us. Returning officerswill become ‘election managers’. I have a few returningofficers who thought they were managers! Polling dayswill be ‘election days’, polling places will be ‘electionplaces’, pre-poll voting will be ‘early voting’, andpre-poll locations will be ‘early voting centres’.

Pre-poll voting and postal voting have become verypopular. Remember that in many parts of Victoria wehave a local government system where they havepurely postal voting, which we are responsible for. Ihate to mention this to the honourable member forDoncaster, who is alongside me, but gee, there are a lotof people who love postal votes! They do not face thepressure of electoral booths and all the hustle and bustleinvolved. We do not see it so much in country areas,but in Melbourne we have instances of exuberantcompetition. Would that be a reasonable thing to say?

Mr Wynne — Vigorous competition!

Mr STEGGALL — It is exuberant and vigorous atcertain polling booths throughout the metropolitan area,but we do not experience that in small country ones asyet. No doubt it will come!

Mr Perton — Yeah, but you are good at hiding theother cards behind the water shed, aren’t you?

Mr STEGGALL — That is different. That is an artthat goes back a long time, and those things areaccepted! In the country you do not leave yourhow-to-vote cards around if you are going for a cup oftea!

As we have seen in the federal election, how-to-votecards have always been an issue, but they have alwaysbeen special to Australian politics. Interestingly duringthe last federal election how-to-vote cards weredistributed and placed in pre-polling centres, which weare going to call early voting centres, so electoralmanagers were making sure that they were there forpeople who wished to use them. That was a bit of achange — a big change! — but one that makes a lot ofsense. I would think that that change will come, but itwill give political parties more headaches as it goesthrough.

I guess we have all had great experiences withhow-to-vote cards. We brought in changes after thePeter Batchelor issue in the 1980s. I see the minister’sclause is in here! We must make sure he does not makeit in any way strange! The Printer’s name will live ininfamy from his days as the secretary of the LaborParty and his involvement in the Nunawading Provincere-election matter! I have not actually caught up withthe final details of that, but I think the amendments goback to the present authorisation instead of what isproposed in the bill. I was quite comfortable with whatwas proposed in the bill. I am not sure why we wouldwant to go back, however it is not an issue that wewould be worried about.

Part 6 takes us through voting at an election day votingcentre, early voting and postal voting — as I havealready mentioned — and specific provisions relevantto people with special needs.

Part 7 covers election results. I do not think that itcontains anything new or strange.

Part 8 deals with the Court of Disputed Returns, whichis used occasionally. From my reading of this it isreasonably well laid out in pretty simple terms. It issomething that people can understand and see verysimply.

Part 9 outlines enforcement and offences. It is alwaysinteresting when those provisions come into play.Enforcement of compulsory voting, found in division 2,is a rather special area. As you travel around Australiayou find yourself defending the system of compulsoryvoting. I have always challenged my belief in it to seejust how strong I am. The more I look at what happens

ELECTORAL BILL


around the world, the more I note that people want todisassociate themselves from those in authority.

We have a generation of people not only in Australiabut it seems around the world turning away frominstitutions and the structures of their society and optingout in many ways. At least at election time compulsoryvoting makes them have a bit of a think, whether theyagree with it or not. They do not actually have to vote;they have to attend a voting station. We shouldmaintain that requirement in Australia because anysociety that does not bring its people along with itssystem of government will suffer failure in many ways.We have examples of that right around the world today.The enforcement of compulsory voting in Australia,which is subject to some amendments today, is animportant system that we should not hesitate to retain. Itwill be interesting if during this debate anyone wants toargue against compulsory voting, because it issomething I take as a given, having, as I said,challenged myself many times over the issue.

Part 10 contains the general provisions on evidentiaryprovisions, offences by corporations, refund of depositsand related matters.

Part 11 sets out transitional and consequentialprovisions, and part 12 covers the election funding andfinancial disclosure sections of the legislation.

As I said, I had expected this part to have more vigourbut it has not. Most of us have accepted the concept. Ithas been well debated around Australia, though weseem to be coming to it as a Johnny-come-lately. Manyparts of Australia have seen the challenges in that, andhave accepted and adopted it and it has worked well. Ido not see any reason why it will not continue to workwell here in Victoria.

From time to time the Electoral Act, as it will be knownin the future, will assist people with regard to voting.The provisions are pretty clear on any changes to thefunding operations. The provisions on disclosure thatare contained in the amendments, which we receivedtoday, take us back more to the federal system ofdisclosure than to those put up in the legislationprepared by the minister, and that is the main area wehave a problem with.

The National Party will not be opposing this legislation.We trust that the discussion on and debate about thenew legislation is welcomed. It is probably the start of arange of changes. Some of those changes will be madenow by amendment. The act will probably come backin the next few years for further amendment, but there

are enough changes in the bill for us to digest and put inplace to see how they work.

Each of us has an individual responsibility to try to doour best to make sure that this system is sincere andworks and that our constituents will not be confused byany changes. Although we are implementing a numberof changes, including the public funding, they are onlysubtle and will not confuse people. It is a nicesteady-as-you-go piece of legislation, changing a bithere and there. At the moment all the major politicalparties agree with it, though there might be some in thechamber who will not, and they have a great chance toput their case and be heard.


Mr STEGGALL — The Electoral Commission,having looked at the discussion of the last election andhaving experienced a few frustrations during it, haspresented to the government a set of practical andworkable procedures.

My surprise, I suppose, is that the Attorney-Generalactually picked up the recommendations and ran withthem. I am also a bit surprised but glad that he has notbeen a little more radical because this is an acceptableway of moving forward. Had he been a little moreradical we probably would have had the vigorousdebate that I expected to have on this bill.

Mr Perton — You have not seen theHulls-for-Premier amendment.

Mr STEGGALL — Crikey! If he can just hold hisseat he will be going well.


Mr STEGGALL — Carl had one huge — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! The honourable member for Swan Hill, on thebill.

Mr STEGGALL — Could I just say to theAttorney-General, through you, of course, Mr ActingSpeaker, that gentleman mentioned got an awful fright.He nearly got there!


Mr STEGGALL — So say all of you! I wish thisbill a speedy passage. I look forward to the ongoingdebate that it will bring about. I trust that we will notconfuse our population and our constituency in theprocess by changing the procedures with which they aremost familiar in electing their governments.

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to support theElectoral Bill and to thank my colleagues for theircontributions to the debate. Honourable members havegiven a very useful exposé on a number of aspects ofthe bill. It is appropriate for me to acknowledge at theoutset the work of the Attorney-General in instigatingthis important review of the Electoral Act. It has been abig week for the Attorney: yesterday he sought tointroduce reforms relating to workplaces and today hehas dealt with the reforms to the electoral process. Sothe reform agenda of the Bracks government goes on,and the 2002 Electoral Bill is further manifestation ofthat.

An enormous amount of work has been undertaken onthe bill, particularly by officers of the Department ofJustice, the staff of the Victorian Electoral Commission,who are here today, and staff from the private office ofthe minister. I pay my respects to those colleagues whohave put in an enormous amount of work to bring thebill to fruition today, and I publicly acknowledge theirefforts.

Victoria’s principal legislation, the Constitution ActAmendment Act 1958, incorporates provisions datingback to the 1850s. Although, as has been indicated byother speakers, it has been amended several times, ithas never been thoroughly revised. The act containssome extraordinary examples of what in modern timesare obvious redundancies. One example dealt with inthe second-reading speech was a provision that thecarrying of a gun, pistol, sword or bludgeon — I am notsure what a bludgeon is; I will have to take some advicefrom the Attorney-General about that item — ispunishable by a fine of not less than $4 nor more than$40. Further, in the 1850s it was suggested there was areal need for this provision, when a fine of up to ₤20would have been a deterrent. So when there areanachronistic provisions such as that it clearly falls tous to thoroughly review the act.

In his report on the 1999 state election, the ElectoralCommissioner recommended that a new electoral actfor Victoria be drafted. A comprehensive review by theVictorian Electoral Commission, known to us all as theVEC, has resulted in what is regarded by allparticipants in this house as substantial and necessaryreform. The bill before us today includes therecommendations made by the Electoral Commissionerand clearly sets out the rights and obligations of allparticipants in the electoral process. We all know theimportance of elections — they are the true test for allof us as members of Parliament. In our case within aminimum of every three years and sometimes betweenthe third and fourth year, we must ultimately standbefore the people and seek their further endorsement.

I well recall the importance of the electoral process.Many people take the electoral process for granted, butit is an essential part of our democracy and in ourprocess from time to time people are forced to exercisea democratic right at federal, state and localgovernment elections. In fact some people are a bitmiffed by that and find it a bit of an inconvenience toexercise those democratic rights.

My late mother-in-law, who passed away a couple ofyears ago — obviously she was a great supporter of theLabor Party — came from the former Yugoslavia,where the rights we so much enjoy in a country likeours were not afforded to her. She had to flee hercountry and held refugee status in Italy for a number ofyears. She ultimately moved to this great country ofAustralia, where her socialist principles remained intactto the day of her death. During the years that I knew hershe instilled in me the importance of the electoralprocess, of democracy, and that exercising theobligations of that democratic process is fundamentallyimportant to people. She regarded, as I am sure we alldo, the electoral system in this country as one of thebest of any democratic countries in the world. In thatcontext and by way of that background, I go briefly tosome of the reforms made by this bill.

The bill will improve the administration procedures forthe conduct of elections, making it easier for thecandidates and other election stakeholders to moreclearly understand the electoral process and procedures.It will enable the application of new technology to theconducting of the polls. I think we would all concedethat in 2002 that is a useful step forward. The bill willprovide the VEC with more flexibility, and membersfrom both sides of the house agree that it will enable theimprovement of the efficiency and management of theelection process.

Modern electoral legislation such as that recentlyrevised in the Australian Capital Territory andQueensland is considerably shorter in length than thecurrent Victorian act, while still containing all theessential principles. This bill contains the essentialelectoral principles and the more detailed administrativeprocedures are included by way of regulation. The 1958act establishes the Office of the ElectoralCommissioner with a range of functions and powersbut does not refer to the Victorian ElectoralCommission through which those functions and powersare carried out. The legislation before the house todayestablishes the Victorian Electoral Commission as abody corporate and transfers the ElectoralCommissioner’s functions, powers and duties to theVEC, so cleaning up any administrative anomaly.

ELECTORAL BILL


The VEC will be responsible for the maintenance of theenrolment system and the conduct of parliamentaryelections. As we know, in the current climate localgovernment takes on responsibility for the holding oflocal government elections.

There is a general perception that the VictorianElectoral Commission has status in our community. Itis one of those institutions which is very highlyregarded by the community, not only because of itsfunction but because of its impeccable role in runningelections in this state. It is above criticism generally bythe community and very highly regarded for its trueindependence in its role in managing the democraticprocess on behalf of the people of Victoria.

One of the provisions of the bill is that powercompanies will be required to provide data for electoralenrolment purposes to the VEC so that the VEC canassist electors to update enrolments.

We have an extraordinary turnover of enrollees in theseat of Richmond. We have a lot of residents who arerenters and, as I have said many times in the house, myelectorate hosts the largest proportion of public housingin the state of Victoria. There is a massive throughputof residents, particularly in the public housing estates.Indeed, in the high-rise towers the turnover of residentsis 25 per cent a year. So it is quite a challenge for theVEC and quite a challenge for me, having the honourof representing the people of Richmond, to ensure thatpeople are well aware of the key initiatives andoutcomes that the Bracks government is achieving andthat closer to election time there is an intensiveenrolment drive, because so many people fall off theroll. One of my responsibilities is to ensure that peoplehave the opportunity to exercise their democratic rightto vote in elections, in particular those good folk inpublic housing.

Honourable members can be assured that thegovernment and the VEC in its own right will beundertaking extensive enrolment drives. Having thecapacity to use the records of power companies isobviously a useful tool.

Safeguards to ensure that enrolment information is notmisused are provided for in this bill. Clause 36 inparticular restricts the use of this information providedto members of Parliament, registered political partiesand candidates. As the honourable member forDoncaster indicated in his contribution, it is appropriatethat there are some checks and balances in terms ofhow that is done.

The bill ensures that only political parties withsubstantial community support are registered. We donot want to get into situations of the rather unseemlycircumstances we have seen arise over the years.


Mr WYNNE — Indeed, as the honourable memberfor Doncaster indicated, there is a matter before thecourts today, which I will not transgress any further.Under clause 52 the electoral commission will have theauthority to review the registration of a political party atany time. The commission obviously must review theregistration of a political party after the election if theparty has obtained an average of less than 4 per cent ofthe first preference votes over all of the electorates ithas contested.

Part 5 of the bill includes substantial changes to electionprocedures and, importantly, includes the requirementfor candidates to be enrolled to vote and also to declarethat they are qualified to be elected to Parliament,which is not an unreasonable requirement. There issome history around some of these matters. Thequalifications of candidates who stand for Parliamenthave been tested on at least a couple of occasions in thefederal Parliament; I am not sure necessarily if that hashappened in the state arena.

New technology is a reality for us all, and thelegislation reflects this by providing for theauthorisation of electoral material on web sites, whichis clearly an emerging technology. Although I am a bitof a Luddite in relation to the use of computers, mystaff has done much of the work in establishing my website, and it is quite often visited by people to check upon the latest information about what is going on in theseat of Richmond. It is emerging technology which willbecome more powerful over the next decade or so.

By way of an aside to this debate, my son, who is nineyears of age and much more technologically proficientthan I, was commenting upon the various web sites ofmembers of Parliament, and his general advice to mewas that I needed to pick up my game because some ofmy colleagues were far more sophisticated in theirlinkages and so forth to other sites. I will mention thatto my senior electorate officer, who I think is listeningto this debate downstairs in my office.

Obviously this technology will create alternative votingoptions for people. I do not seek to canvass the issue ofpostal voting at local council elections, which wascanvassed in a previous contribution by the DeputyLeader of the National Party, and I have some personalviews around that. However, we all have a civic

ELECTORAL BILL


responsibility to make the effort to go out and vote. Formany people voting is part of quite a day out. Manypeople hold street stalls and community events aroundthe day of polling, and it is important. There is a lot ofsymbolism around the concept of exercising one’sdemocratic vote, and people’s capacity to go along to apolling booth, get their voting ticket and exert theirright to vote is fundamental for many people.

Ms Campbell interjected.

Mr WYNNE — Indeed, as the minister says, beingproud to be Australian and to exercise that democraticright is very important, and we should celebrate that.

Part 12 of the bill deals with issues around the questionof public funding. The purpose of this reform is tomake election contests fairer through the introductionof limited — I underline limited — public funding ofcampaigns. The limitations of public funding setVictoria apart from the commonwealth and theAustralian Capital Territory, where parties andcandidates receive funds regardless of how much theyhave spent on the election.

In Victoria, the provision of funds to candidates andparties will be limited to no more than the amount theyhave spent on the election, and that is quite animportant consideration in a public funding debate. Thegovernment believes this initiative is fair to all partiesand all candidates and introduces equity and a levelplaying field for all. It will reduce the dependence ofpolitical parties on corporate money and put them on amore equal footing.

The bill importantly introduces a capping of politicaldonations from the holders of casino operator andgaming operator licences. As these licence-holdersderive a direct benefit from the licence, specialarrangements are necessary to ensure they do not haveany undue influence on any political party ingovernment.

Aficionados of the electoral process will know that theprocess in the United States of America in particular isvirtually now out of control. Special interest groups inthat country have an extraordinary capacity to influencethe election of people to public office and the policypositions that elected officials may take. That is acourse that we in this country repudiate, and throughthe process we have established we can ensure that thevery crudest elements of the political process — that is,the attempts really to buy and influence a politicalprocess which is so much a hallmark of the Americansystem — do not taint the democratic system that weoperate in this country.

Powerful organisations such as the National RifleAssociation pour millions and millions of dollars intoelection campaigns in the United States, but we do nothave that sort of phenomenon here in this country.

The bill provides that donations are capped at $50 000for a financial year and that any amount above that willbe forfeited to the state. The reforms in this bill areaimed at enfranchising all Victorians by making iteasier for them to enrol, to update their enrolment andto cast their vote at election time. The government isintroducing strong accountability processes for politicalparties and candidates.

In summary, this is an important piece of legislationwhich brings the electoral process up to 21st centurystandards. It contains the appropriate checks andbalances. Yes, there is public funding; we know there issome disputation with some of our colleagues inrelation to that matter and I am sure they will detailtheir concerns about that in their contributions. Anational review in relation to disclosure is beingconducted and the Attorney-General will indicate in hiscontribution, both in summary and at the committeestage, some commitments the government will bemaking in relation to that commonwealth review andany outcomes of that process.

The bill is important work. I commend my colleaguesfrom the Victorian Electoral Commission and theDepartment of Justice who have done an absolutepower of work in bringing this bill here. I alsocommend my colleagues in the minister’s private officewho have been so intensively involved with this pieceof legislation. I commend it to the house.

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I am pleased to make acontribution to this debate on the Electoral Bill. At theoutset I would like to say that there are someappropriate changes in this bill, which I support.However, there are some changes which I do notbelieve are in the interests of every Victorian. I amdisappointed that the Independents received noconsultation on the development of this bill,considering that a significant component of the billaffects us as well as other honourable members ofParliament.

I vigorously oppose the public funding of electioncampaigns, and I think we are asking the people ofVictoria to do something they do not support. I notethat in the last state election nearly a quarter of a millionpeople did not vote. I guess there will now be someencouragement placed before the people of Victoria tomake sure they all do, because it is $1.20 a vote, andthat adds up to quite a significant amount of money.

ELECTORAL BILL


I conducted an electorate survey last year on a numberof issues, and this was one of them. Eighty per cent ofpeople said they were opposed to — —

Mr Perton — What was the question you asked?

Mr SAVAGE — I don’t respond to interjections,but the — —

Mr Perton — What was the question you asked?

Mr SAVAGE — The question was, ‘Do yousupport publicly funded or taxpayer-funded electoralcampaigns?’, which is what this is. Eighty per cent ofthose who responded said no, they did not support that.That was a very fundamental question. It does notmatter how you put the question, the facts are that wewill have taxpayer-funded election campaigns in future,which the Liberal Party has supported very vigorously.

I notice that there are not too many members in thishouse who are out there at the edge, advocating a strongposition. It is a bit like some men who like going tobrothels but who do not want to be caught going out, sothey leave by the back door. This is the same thing: youtake the money, but you go out the back door.

Mr Mulder — They’ve got a back door?

Mr SAVAGE — I hope they have.

One of the fundamentals of being a member ofParliament is making sure you reflect faithfully thewishes of the people you represent. I do not believe thatmembers in this place have done so on this bill,especially on the public funding part of it. There aremany unanswered questions, and I will be detailingsome of the concerns I have through a series ofamendments.

It seems to me that the bill will primarily supportpolitical parties, with a greater emphasis on them thanon the citizens of Victoria. The $1.20 a vote wouldbenefit me and my colleagues quite significantly — infact I suspect that it would benefit me more than anyother member apart from my two Independentcolleagues — because the funding goes to the politicalparty, not the member concerned, except in the case ofIndependents. But I have a great problem with askinganyone for money, let alone asking the taxpayer to fundmy election campaigns. Therefore it is one thing that inprinciple I will not ever support.

We also have to look at the fact that the $1.20 a vote isfor the forthcoming election. It will be indexed, andafter that it will be a lot more. If you double it up youmake $2.40, because every vote from the upper and

lower house — the primary votes — adds up to quite alot of money.

There is one aspect of the bill that I do support, and thatis the removal of the $5000 limitation on personalspending. That has always been a disadvantage tocandidates, and it is unreasonable. We all have ourwives sponsor us, or our friends and family, and it isappropriate that if you spend $10 000 or $15 000personally you are able to claim it as a tax deduction. Itis not unreasonable to have that sort of spending, andmaybe more, because political parties have nolimitation on what they can spend. That is one of theparts of the bill that is a change in the right direction.

On 8 December 1983 — prior to the introduction offederal election campaign funding — a Gallup poll inthe Herald showed that 73 per cent of Australians wereopposed to taxpayer-funded elections. When thefunding of federal election campaigns was beingdebated, the then National Party of Victoria directorsaid:

… public funding of political parties and candidates shouldonly be introduced if the majority of Australians approve of itthrough a referendum.

As I said, that was reported in the Age of 1 August1983. Even though political parties claim that fundingthem is for the democratic good, none of them is gameto be subjected to the same test.

When taxpayers started funding federal electioncampaigns in 1984 a vote in the House ofRepresentatives was worth 66 cents and a vote in theSenate was worth 33 cents, and the cost to the taxpayerwas $7.5 million. At the last federal election a vote wasworth $1.79, and taxpayers have just paid out$40 million on the endless political advertising we sawduring the political campaign. I am sure there are nomembers of our community right across the state whowould find political advertising in any way rewardingor the sort of thing you wait up for at night!

When that money was divided up $15 million went tothe Labor Party, $14.5 million went to the LiberalParty, $3 million went to the National Party and$2.5 million went to the Australian Democrats. Despitethe outlay, there is no evidence that taxpayer-fundedelection campaigns reduce the dependence of politicalparties on donations from business or the corporatesector, unions and individuals, or that large donors exertless influence over election outcomes and politicaldecisions.

Last year the brewer Lion Nathan’s director ofcorporate affairs said:

ELECTORAL BILL


We like to be even-handed with our political donations, butwe do not support parties whose policies are against theinterests of beer drinkers and our shareholders. We have noexpectation that our donations will give us an advantage orinfluence policy one way or the other. Equally, we don’tmake donations to parties with policies contrary to ourinterests.

There is an oxymoron in there: they say they do not askfor influence, but at the same time they do not givemoney to people who have contrary policies. Thatquote came from the Age of 14 February 2001.

In 1999 the chairman of Macquarie Bank told thebank’s annual general meeting that political donationscould lead to direct fees and government business. ALiberal party official has explained how the systemworks:

You would say to people, ‘We’re having an exclusive lunchand you’ll get to see the PM and these ministers, and you’llget a one-on-one close-to’. Often it is extremely helpful forthem to be able to say, ‘Look, I have raised this issue with theminister’. There’s obviously no guarantee they’ll be listenedto but … the opportunity to speak to people is obviously ofvalue.

Next week a couple of federal government ministers —the Minister for Finance and the Minister forCommunications, Information Technology and theArts — will be here, and I think the fee is $3500 for anopportunity to be at one of their meetings. That is proofthat the corporate fundraising component is notdiminished by public funding of election campaigns. Itjust puts another layer of costs on the Victoriancommunity in having to pay out huge amounts ofmoney for the running of a state election — and nowwe have added another $8 million on top of that.

The New South Wales Parliament passed a law fortaxpayer-funded elections in 1981, so they have beenthere for 21 years; yet 20 years later it seems that theALP needed a $25 000 donation from a Manila lawyerwho was in prison for murder charges! During the latestNew South Wales electoral cycle property developersdonated more than $1 million to the ALP — almostfour times the contribution from the unions during thatperiod.

Looking at some European nations, the Germanconstitutional court ruled in 1992 that taxpayer fundingfor election campaigns should be reduced because therewas a worry that the parties were becoming toodependent on taxpayer funds. In Italy taxpayer fundingfor elections stopped in 1993 because it was felt thatcorruption was being compounded rather than cured. In1984 a report to the House of Commons drew attentionto election funding scandals in France, Spain and Japan,

despite their having taxpayer-funded electioncampaigning.

It seems that the Liberal Party has an attitude towardstaxpayer-funded elections that has not changed over thelast 20 years. Back when Mr Fraser was Prime Ministera Liberal adviser wrote:

When the Liberals were in government, many at the nationalsecretariat regarded the government as an extension of theirown political activities and saw nothing wrong with usingtaxpayers’ funds to promote blatantly political Liberal Partycauses. So in opposition it is not hard to see that the Liberalmachine men would love the opportunity to all defray — —


Mr SAVAGE — Mr Acting Speaker! Thisman — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!The honourable member for Doncaster!

Mr SAVAGE — He is the only member of theLiberal Party who can find his voice, but his voice isinappropriate at the moment. If you listen to me — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!I ask the honourable member for Doncaster, if he wantsto make comments, to address them in the third personthrough me. I ask all honourable members to allowmembers on their feet to have their say. And when theChair is on his feet or calls the house to order, pleaseacknowledge him.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!The honourable member for Mildura, withoutinterruption.


Mr SAVAGE — I have just been detailing anumber of situations of public funding — —


Mr Wynne — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the honourable member for Doncaster isclearly seeking to provoke the honourable member forMildura. I am interested in hearing the honourablemember’s contribution. He has a contrary view to thegovernment’s position on public funding, and I aminterested in hearing it without its being disrupted in

ELECTORAL BILL


this disorderly way by the honourable member forDoncaster.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, the honourablemember for Richmond did not actually raise a point oforder, but standing orders are quite clear in saying thatinterjections are permitted by way of question. I amvery interested to know what the honourable memberthinks of the casino-sponsored dinner or breakfast forthe Labor Party the day after the budget.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!There is no point of order from either honourablemember. I enjoy, as do other honourable members, alittle bit of robust debate in this chamber; but when theChair asks for order it is very important that we allcontrol ourselves and bring ourselves back to order,otherwise the Speaker will be asked to return and thatwill not benefit any of us. I ask that the honourablemember for Mildura be given the opportunity to beheard and that if there are to be interjections that theybe made in a very simple manner.

Mr SAVAGE — Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Iwould like to make the point that I have never been inthe Crown Casino in my life, and I am not going to startnow. If the honourable member for Doncaster had hisears open he would have heard that I was mentioningsome activities of the New South Wales ALP that wereunacceptable in terms of public funding. Thehonourable member for Doncaster has a reputation inthis place for being badly behaved most of the time. Hedoes not like hearing the truth, but he is happy to put hisgrubby little hands in the taxpayers’ pockets for publicfunding.

Mr Perton — You are a hypocritical pig!

Mr SAVAGE — I would ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to withdraw that. I think he hasgone past an acceptable point.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!The honourable member for Mildura has taken offenceat the words used by the honourable member forDoncaster, and I ask the honourable member towithdraw them.

Mr Perton — Mr Acting Speaker, in deference toyou, despite the insulting words the honourablemember used against me, I withdraw the words towhich this honourable member takes objection.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!I suggest to the honourable member for Doncaster thatit might be an opportune time for him to relax!

Mr SAVAGE — It was a Liberal Party adviser whosaid:

So in opposition it is not hard to see that the Liberal machinemen would love the opportunity to defray their runningexpenses by leaning on the taxpayer. Indeed their attitudesuggests they basically support public funding — provided itis introduced by a Labor government. This way they can joinin the rape of the public purse while claiming it was forcedupon them by the ALP.

That was part of an article that appeared in theAustralian of 25 July 1983, so this has a long history. Itdoes not matter what sort of spin you put on it, it iswrong, and it is not publicly supported by the people ofVictoria. In fact it does not in any way diminishcorporate funding and the influence that big businesshas on all sides of politics.

We should reflect that during the last election in 1999this type of funding could have been pooled and used toresource the political parties in Victoria in a way thatwould have had an adverse impact on outcomes incertain seats. For example, the Liberal Party and theNational Party in 1999 would have been funded — —


Ms Davies — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I take offence at the comments made by thehonourable member for Doncaster, and I ask him towithdraw them.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!The honourable member for Gippsland West has takenoffence at some words used by the honourable memberfor Doncaster that were directed to — —

Ms Davies — I ask the honourable member towithdraw the comments he made.

Ms Asher — What were they?

Mr Wynne (to Ms Asher) — ‘Take the money onthe side’, is what was said.

Mr Perton — I understand the honourable memberobjects to my use of the words ‘money on the side’ todescribe the secret slush fund paid to her by thePremier’s office. Mr Acting Speaker, if you require meto withdraw those words I will, but the truth remainsthat they have taken secret money on the side from thePremier’s office and objected to its disclosure. Iwithdraw.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!The honourable member for Doncaster has withdrawn.The honourable member for Mildura, continuing.

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr SAVAGE — The funding that will be garneredby the political parties of Victoria could be used toadversely impact a by-election or a state election inareas where they want to remove somebody from thisplace. During the 1999 election I estimate that nearly$250 000 was put up against me by the National Partyand the Liberal Party. Of course my funding wasminimal and I am still here, but the point is that thisfunding could lead to further exacerbation andinfluence, which I do not believe would be a goodoutcome for many members of Parliament.

At a later stage I will detail the amendments that Ipropose on public funding and on the provision of anelectoral database for political parties 11 times a yearwhen it is only available to members of Parliament onone occasion. There are a couple of other proceduralmatters — for example, a person who stood at aprevious election and got more than 4 per cent of thevote cannot get information from the electoralcommission on where people voted and whether theyvoted postal or absentee.

There are some positive things in this bill, but there aresome disclosure provisions that have caused me someconcern. This place is supposed to be a people’s houseand a reflection of the will of the people of Victoria,and no matter what sort of spin you put on it, thispublicly funded component does not have good publicsupport — in fact, it is far from it. In some ways this isa sad day for democracy. The bill has too manyprovisions in it that are there to help political partiesrather than the people of Victoria.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Phillips) — Order!Before I call the honourable member for Polwarth, Iadvise honourable members that because the threeIndependents have indicated they will speak on the billthe speaking order will now be to go to an oppositionmember, then to another Independent, then to agovernment member, back to an Independent, and thenback to the opposition.

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — I will make a briefcontribution to the debate on the Electoral Bill. Themost contentious part of the bill, or the part that hasraised most concern among honourable members, ispublic funding. I note that the honourable member forMildura said he had surveyed his electorate and comeup with an 80 per cent negative response to thequestion, ‘Do you support the public funding ofelection campaigns?’. Had a potential candidate madethe following statement, ‘I cannot raise the funds tomount a campaign. However, I have a great messagefor the electorate and I believe there should be sometaxpayer assistance to run campaigns so that I am not

disadvantaged in relation to the position of some of theparties’, the response would possibly be directlyopposite to the response gained by the honourablemember for Mildura from his survey of hisconstituents.

It is an issue that I know everyone struggles with. Thesimple fact is that political parties in the federal arenaand in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT areall provided with a degree of taxpayers’ funds to assistthem with their campaigns. The issue of how politicalparties obtain their funding is always being raised.Taking the emphasis off having to go to corporationsand other sectors for assistance in running campaignsplaces a better slant on political parties in that there isgenuine overall taxpayer involvement in the running ofparticular campaigns.

An issue that concerns me, and the matter was alsoraised by the honourable members for Richmond andDoncaster, is about electoral rolls not being availablefor sale and only being available to parties andcandidates. I wonder how this will be controlled. Iunderstand the privacy issue surrounding this, but willthe electoral rolls be made available electronically? Ifso, once they are out in the arena, whether with politicalparties or with potential candidates, how will you policethem and control their distribution and the informationthat is contained in them?

Ms Davies — It is against the law.

Mr MULDER — It is one thing for it to be againstthe law, but how will you police it? How will you stopsomeone from changing the format of the electoral rollsso that they do not appear as electoral rolls but retain alltheir information and end up with mail order housesand other organisations that will use them forcommercial purposes, with no-one able to go back andtrack the origin of the documents? I have somedifficulty with that.

Recently I visited a small town in my electorate towelcome a new minister who had just moved into thearea to take up a position in one of the parishes. Thefirst thing he asked was, ‘Do you know where I can buyor get hold of an electoral roll, because I would like tomove out into the community and understand wherepeople are and who lives in various streets and roads, soI can canvass and speak to them?’. This bill says, ‘Thisinformation is not available to you anymore. You cantravel to the electoral office, view the information andlook at the electoral roll, but you cannot take theinformation away with you’. This would put him at adistinct disadvantage.

ELECTORAL BILL


Many years ago when I worked in the post office one ofthe people who frequently visited to look at theelectoral roll was a process server. Most people wouldwant to keep information on where they live, who theyare living with or what they had at arms length from theprocess server, but he always had access to informationin the electoral roll simply by viewing it. Given the waythis legislation has been put forward, I would havethought that the process of not making electoral rollsavailable to people who could use them for genuinepurposes will disadvantage and catch the wrong peoplein the net. I quote from the second-reading speechgiven by the Attorney-General on 21 March:

The bill provides for the (Victorian Electoral Commission)VEC to use technology to assist electors. For example, in thefuture the VEC will be able to use computers at the interstateand overseas early voting centres.

The bill also addresses the issue of people being able tovote earlier than would normally be the case, whereaspostal voting has been restricted to a certain set ofcircumstances. I think this clause indicates a drift awayfrom the traditional polling day and the traditionalability for political candidates to meet and greet peopleas they enter polling booths and put the views of theirparties. I have some difficulty with this. I think we arestarting to drift away from the real issue of polling daysand true elections. We may end up getting to thepoint — and this has been suggested when I have beenmanning polling booths — where we simply have acard inside each booth with every candidate’s name onit so that people can walk in and do what they wish.That way you could save a whole heap of paper. I thinkall politicians cop that comment every polling day.

There is a democratic process in place whereby peoplewho support a political party can be involved in thepolicy development of that party and play a role on theday by being involved and assisting the candidates theywant to support. That aspect of the electoral process isvery important, and I would not like to see it go by thewayside. I previously raised the issue of electoral rolls.It is one thing to put a process in place and say it isillegal to use the information in a certain manner andthat penalties will apply if it is, but when you ask howis it going to be policed, no-one knows. When this sortof legislation comes before Parliament I have difficultywith the fact that a mechanism of supposed control isbeing put in place without any real way of policing it ormaking it happen.

We come once again to this issue of capping politicaldonations from certain licensed persons. Given theinterconnection of business relationships betweenvarious companies, it is a token gesture. I cannotpossibly see how anyone could police or control this

process. If anyone wants to get under the guard of thatparticular provision there are a million contra deals thatcan be done in the business world — although I am notsaying that will happen. If you are going to introducelegislation which puts penalties in place, you must havea mechanism which you are confident will be able tocontrol it.

I only wanted to make a brief comment on thislegislation, and I think I have covered the major point,which relates to the rolls not being made available.

I have great difficulty with that because perhaps inlooking to protect the privacy of members of thecommunity we have actually disadvantaged manypeople who live there who have used electoral rolls inthe past for absolutely the right and proper purposes. Ibelieve they have been disadvantaged by the way thislegislation has been put together. Nevertheless I wishthe bill a speedy passage.

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I was initiallyvery pleased to see this bill coming into the house — allbut one part of the bill, which is the public fundingcomponent of it. The idea of setting up a new electoralbill was that The Constitution Act Amendment Act1958 was outdated and had been dealt with in bits andpieces so it was all over the place and not very logicallyorganised, and this bill was supposed to be logicallyorganised and in plain English and therefore mucheasier for everybody to understand.

My Independent colleagues and I had discussions withthe Electoral Commissioner. He was supportive and infact very encouraging of us, saying that he hoped wewould support the vast majority of the bill because hehad had a very significant part to play in thedevelopment of most of it — not in all sections, but inmost of it.

I am disappointed at the extent of the amendments thathave been circulated pretty much without priordiscussion with anybody but the opposition, and at thelast moment. I am very disappointed with thoseamendments, which I assume have been included aspart of the Liberal Party saying, ‘We’ll support the billif you put in these amendments’. Sadly, I think the billis weakened, to the extent that I will vote against it.

I had always stated my intention to vote against thoseparts of the bill which make provision for publicfunding of candidates in elections and which was goingto allow candidates who received more than 4 per centof the primary vote to be paid $1.20 for each primaryvote they received. The honourable member for

ELECTORAL BILL


Mildura has amendments relating to those clauses and Iwill be supporting them.

One part of the bill that I was strongly supportive ofwas part 12, which dealt with extra disclosure, andwhich was going to require parties and candidates todisclose the money they received for and spent onelections. It was going to mean that entities that werecontrolled by political parties or operating for theirbenefit had to be declared as associated entities, thatparties would have to name them, and that the entitieswould also have to disclose who had been fundingthem. That meant that when a trust made donations toparties, which had to be disclosed, the people who hadactually donated to the trust would also have to disclosewho they were.

Suddenly we have these proposed governmentamendments, which obviously the Liberal Party hasgone to some effort to have inserted into the bill. Thosedisclosure elements are gone, and I think that is a greatloss to the bill. Instead we have disclosure requirementswhich are related to annual returns by parties to theAustralian Electoral Commission. They are much moredistant disclosure requirements. I note theAttorney-General has undertaken to take note of theSenate inquiry into funding disclosures and is preparedto take on further amendments if they are deemednecessary by that inquiry. However, I am disappointedthat he has allowed himself to be pushed to the extentthat he has by the opposition parties on that issue.

Another amendment that I was originally quite pleasedto see was that the electoral commission was going tobe given the authority to ask the various differentbodies for information to enable the Victorian ElectoralCommission itself to initiate changes of address bypeople. There was going to be a requirement that if theelectoral commission realised somebody’s addresschanged through information it had, it would thennotify that person.

The original intention of that change was partly to assistsome of our more elderly citizens who move from theirown home into a nursing home. Those people stillreally like to vote, but when you are facing an elderlycitizen who may be getting a little vague about theexact detail of where they are, they might not be able toclearly deal with changing their enrolment forms andstating where they used to live. Part of the intention ofthis change was that the electoral commission couldupdate their enrolments and those people would still beenrolled.

Given that some people move too often and forget bitsand pieces of their lives as they get too busy, I would

have thought having the Victorian ElectoralCommission with that power to update the informationwas a very positive measure. Suddenly we have theseopposition-initiated amendments and that is gone.


Ms DAVIES — This was a government bill, andsuddenly without discussion, after the negotiations withthe opposition have concluded, we find there are a lotof amendments.

Another part of the original bill which I could see had avery definite purpose relates to the early votingprovisions. I understand some of the concerns about notwanting to have a whole week of voting if you canpossibly help it. But our society is changing. A lot ofpeople now work on weekends and live much busierlives. The ultimate aim that we are always supposed tobe considering in this sort of legislation is to make itpossible, easy and simple for people to exercise theirdemocratic right to vote.

The idea of making it easier for people to do a postal orabsentee vote was partly to cope with that, but it wasalso partly to cope with the reality of the situation. Nowit is not possible to force people to give reasons whythey want to put in an early vote. In fact, if people go toan early voting booth and say, ‘I want to vote earlybecause I am going to do such and such’, there isabsolutely no way you can tell whether they are tellingthe truth. The reality is that if people want to vote earlythey will vote early. By removing that particular changefrom the legislation, as these amendments do, all it doesis maintain the status quo, which was unenforceableand unrealistic anyway. I cannot understand why it isbeing done.

An original part of the bill was going to ensure thatelection officials had to ask people three questionsbefore they voted, including where they lived. Part ofthe intention is to make sure that people are actuallyvoting where they live.

Mr Steggall interjected.

Ms DAVIES — Yes, it is to make sure they arevoting where they live, that they are on the roll and thatsort of thing; but it is also to make sure that people areenrolling appropriately, so they are enrolling in the seatin which they genuinely live. That was the intention ofthat particular part of the bill. When we discussed thiswith the independent Electoral Commissioner wesuggested that for country kids that question posed aproblem. Many of our kids still see home as home,which is where their parents are, but they go up to townand change residences with frightening frequency —

ELECTORAL BILL


and my own son is an example of that. They do notidentify with any particular area in any number of thesearray of residences. If somebody asks them, ‘Where doyou live?’ there is a degree of ambiguity in thatquestion. They identify with home, but their currentabode may be any one of a number of differentaddresses.

So we asked the government and the ElectoralCommissioner to see if they could address the issue,and these house amendments attempt to do that byasking a question which I believe is worded, ‘Has theaddress on the roll been your principal place ofresidence in the last three months?’. We have been toldthat dealing with this particular issue will involveeducating the people who work in polling booths inmaking sure that the question is explained properly.However, there will need to be an education campaignto teach our kids what the intention of that question is.It is not clear.

We will need to make sure that young people and themore mobile part of the population understand thathome is the place you identify as your home. Even ifyou have temporary residences in other places, youshould be allowed to be legitimately enrolled in theplace you identify as your home. I have got a bit of await-and-see response on that matter, but I believe thereprobably needs to be a little more work done, and I askthe Attorney-General to consider it in some detail.

Various parts of the amendments do not matter all thatmuch. The original bill said that independent candidateswould not have to be nominated by six people on theelectoral roll. Peculiarly, that requirement has beenreinstated so they will still have to be nominated by sixpeople. If an independent candidate cannot get sixpeople to support their nomination, they are in bigtrouble! I do not mind the fact that that requirement hascome back.

The other amendment, which again I believe wasinserted after discussions with the Independents, wasthat the bill specifies that holders of relevant licencesshould not be allowed to give over $50 000 a year toany one political party. We suggested that perhapscompanies related to holders of those relevant licencesshould also be excluded or brought into that part of thelegislation, and we also suggested that it would beappropriate to add individuals and family members tothat clause. That suggestion has not been taken up;however, the change for companies related to holders ofa relevant licence has been.

The original bill provided that major political partiesdid not have to put the words ‘authorised by’ under

their advertising signs, but Independents were alwaysgoing to have to keep ‘authorised by’ acknowledgmentson their political advertising. With these amendments,political parties will have to authorise their advertising,and I do not mind that. As I understand it, the originalargument for not putting it in was that if an advertisingsign had a political party logo on it, then it should bethe central office of the political party which validatesthat advertising and was therefore responsible for it, andthat you should not be able to let some minor politicalcampaign say, ‘We can say what we like and the centralparty does not have to take responsibility’.

The other major change in the legislation that I amconcerned about and that I think is unfortunate is thatthe original bill said that postal vote envelopes that arepostmarked on the Sunday after an election would beaccepted as legitimate votes. This amended legislationsays that postal votes postmarked after election day willnot be accepted. That bothers me a bit. I can see arationale behind it, but post offices will not frank lettersposted after 7 o’clock on a Friday. We had discussionswith the Electoral Commissioner on this one. Hebelieves there are thousands of votes which are postedlate on Friday or during election day and that they arelegitimate postal votes, but because the post office willnot frank them until the next Monday, in future, if theseamendments are brought into law, those people will bedisenfranchised. Again, the whole intention of this billis to make sure that we make it easy for people who arepossibly leading fairly frenetic lives to offer legitimatevotes and to exercise their legitimate right to vote. Ithink that is an unfortunate amendment and one that hasbeen brought in at the last minute.

In conclusion, I very much support the amendmentsbrought by my colleague the honourable member forMildura. They will remove the matter of electionfunding from this bill. His amendments limit theobligation of the electoral commission to supply copiesof the electoral roll to registered parties when thoseparties do not hold those particular seats. I also supporthis amendments which encourage further disclosure. Iam very disturbed at the extent of the amendments tothe bill which have been brought in at the last minute. Ibelieve that the financial disclosure argumentssignificantly gut the bill, therefore I will not just beopposing the original part of the bill relating to electoralfunding; I will also oppose the entire bill.

Mr ASHLEY (Bayswater) — I rise to support thebill and perhaps I will throw in some different reasonsfor doing so than some members have done to date. Iwas going to confine my remarks to the public fundingcomponent of the bill, but I would like to take upsomething mentioned by the honourable member for

ELECTORAL BILL


Gippsland West in terms of post offices and postal votefranking.

While the honourable member for Gippsland West wasspeaking about that issue, it struck me that if we aretalking about the importance of the democratic right ofpeople to vote and record their wish and will aboutwhat happens next in the nation or the state, then onewould think that the very least that would be required ofthe post office would be that it would frank on theSaturday, the election day, every vote received — —

Ms Davies — They won’t do it. They’re not there!

Mr ASHLEY — They can be compelled by law todo that.

Ms Davies — This law does not compel them.

Mr ASHLEY — This is a state law, but it is notbeyond the realms of plausibility that the post office berequired to undertake that duty on election days, if onno other days in the year or during the electoral cycle.

Coming to the issue of public funding, it seems to methat when we deal with elections it might be said thatwe could add to the saying, ‘All is fair in love and war’the saying, ‘All is fair in elections’, because there is akind of rumbustiousness that often gets out of hand atelections and they tend to be free-for-alls. Over thecenturies the task has been to tame those passions andto give them reasonable expression and, by one meansor another, reduce what might be called undueinfluence.

It might sound strange that I should begin by tacklingsomething that has been in place for a long time, but thefirst area that is worth reflecting upon is the secretballot. It was put in place to overcome the problem ofpeople running the gauntlet of political personalities orothers who would arm-twist and bully them into votingone way or another. The issue was direct undueinfluence on voters. Historically we dealt with and to alarge extent overcame that problem by the creation ofthe secret ballot. However, I suggest when it comes tothe kind of compulsory preferential system of votingthat we have there is nevertheless pressure to somewhatprise open the secret ballot, if only metaphorically.

The objective of compulsory preferential voting is toshoehorn certain components of votes in one directionor another. I am not sure that that is entirely right andproper. Indeed, there is virtue in going to a system ofoptional preferential voting. There is a good deal to besaid for first-past-the-post voting. The strange thingabout this legislation is that it introduces a $1.20payment per vote as long as that vote is the first

preference. No-one will suggest that it would gofurther, but it is making a point about the validity of thatfirst vote, and not where it may go after that, which hassome degree of influence even if it is a cooperativeinfluence or a matter of convenience for many voters.

That brings me to another form of undue influence —that is, partisan funding. Partisan funding to onepolitical party or another is an attempt to influence howan individual or a group of individuals thinks and votes.

What we are dealing with is a tendency, historically,through partisan funding for undue influence to beexerted, both on the voter and, especially, on individualparties, so that parties to one degree or another becomebeholden to certain interest groups, whether on theLiberal or Labor side. Already today we have had acouple of flare-ups in the chamber, in part because thisissue makes us pretty prickly. That kind of thing willnot go away; it is part of human behaviour and attitudesand will always be part of elections.

The point about public funding is that in a strange andironic way it is actually a form of democratising theprocess of elections. It indicates, especially when thereis compulsory voting, that if people are compelled tovote at an election they should at least be given thehonour of having information presented in a way thatallows some of it at least to be outside the scope of theheavyweights who come in behind to exert the undueinfluence, if they can, both on the individual and on theparties they may support.

The significance of public funding is that it accords adegree of reality to the concept of free association. It isthe equivalent of saying, ‘It is right and proper for anation or a state to recognise the significance and worthof the individuals voting and recording their opinions inthat manner’. It may not take the process a long wayfurther down the path of democratisation, if you like —if I can use that term — but at least it is an attempt tohonour that basic sense of free association.

Independents are not deprived of public funding, butnevertheless the bill acknowledges the custom oforganising into one party or one group or another topursue goals, visions and objectives and to influenceoutcomes. In a strange way allowing that to take shapethrough public funding allows a society to gel in a waythat it may not otherwise.

At a time when there are many tensions in societies anda lot of stresses that tend to pull groups apart andindividuals away from one another public funding issomething that actually draws people back to a sense ofsolidarity, even beyond their party voting, when that

ELECTORAL BILL


kind of proposal is put in place. At least it says that youdo not give the same degree of scope, the same degreeof recognition, to the extreme candidate, the small,fractious, troublemaking individual, perhaps of the rightor the left, who may not have the best interests of anelectorate or a society in mind and who could quiteeasily garner a lot of support from groups within asociety that have a desire to make trouble and to breakthat society down.

So in a strange and ironic way I believe that thecomponent of public funding can help knit a societytogether and propel its democratic intention, recogniseit, and give it prominence.

With those few words I conclude my contribution. Insupporting the bill I say that the jury is out, and will beout on many of the things that the bill contains, and wewill only work some of those things out to betterconclusions over time and not necessarily over a shorttime.

Mr SMITH (Glen Waverley) — The way weconduct our elections is the basis of our form ofdemocracy. We are privileged to live in a countrywhere the population believes it has probably thegreatest form of freedom of any nation on earth. We areextraordinarily lucky in this respect. We have only tolook at the composition of this house to see the peoplewho have chosen Australia as their final destination, asthe place where they want to live in the end.

We as a Parliament have to be sure that the way inwhich we conduct our elections will prolong andpreserve our form of democracy, which is our form offreedom. That is what it is all about.

When we have a bill like this coming before the housemany of us have misgivings about public funding, andwe think about what an ideal situation might be; butthen we look at the federal government and we see thatit has been receiving public funding for at least15 years. The community has got used to it, and as aresult of the community becoming used to publicfunding the system itself has not been corrupted.

This is the argument that we have to look at when weare making up our minds as to whether we support oroppose a bill like this. They are some of theconsiderations that I have taken into account as I havelooked at the ideal situation.

However, it is also very important to know that as werealise the modern ways in which society has gone, werealise also that democracy itself is not always properlyresourced in a way that we would like. The AustralianLabor Party has union support and union money, and

that is no secret; it is the normal way that the partyoperates. In the past the conservative parties have reliedon companies being part of their source of electionfunding, which can be looked at in two ways. The mainpart of election funding goes to the advertising we seeon television, radio and in the metropolitan papers andthose sorts of areas. But there is also the local electionmoney that all of us have to go out and raise to bere-elected within those various electorates.

When it comes to the area of companies giving moneyto the conservative parties, over the years I suppose youcould say that the companies have become intimidatedinto not giving or they have not given money forwhatever other reason. I am sure that members of theLabor Party could give lots of reasons why they wouldthink that people would not want to give money to theconservative parties! But that is the theoretical side. Thepractical side is that the conservative parties have to beable to compete with the Labor Party in a way that willbe fair so that democracy can work, so that people canchoose between the parties of the right of centre and theleft of centre as we know them in Australia — not thefar right or the far left, because Australians aregenerally not interested in those types of parties.Because the companies that have traditionally beengiving them funds over the years have gone down thenconservative parties have to think again. Basically whatwe have with this bill is this conundrum. We in theLiberal Party have decided that we will support the billfor the reasons I have outlined.

One last thing that I would like to mention is that whenpeople are looking at elections again I would like themto consider the old idea of having people vote insubdivisions within electorates rather than being able tovote at any polling booth within their electorate,because I believe that over the years this has becomecorrupted. I cannot give any specific examples of itbecause I have not gone on to the — —

Mr Holding interjected.

Mr SMITH — As soon as I get that sort of responseI realise that the honourable member for Springvale isprobably up to his neck in that sort of thing and knowsall about it! But in any case I would draw the attentionof the house to the fact that this is one area that shouldbe considered in any future examination of how theelectoral process is working, because this is one areathat we need to look at very carefully. As far as this billbefore the house today is concerned, I am prepared togive it my support, as is the Liberal Party, and leave itat that.

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I am pleased tospeak on this bill. Those on both sides of the house willget an equal serving, I would have thought!

I would like to start with a quote from Charles deGaulle:

In order to become the master, the politician poses as theservant.

This legislation has come into this place posing as theservant of the people — it will deliver you. I refer to agovernment press release of 19 March which states:

Victoria will have the toughest disclosure laws for politicaldonations in Australia under new legislation to be introducedto state Parliament …

So the government is selling this, basically saying,‘This is going to be really good for democracy. It willpromote vibrant, good political discussion in Victoria’.

The problem has come about that a few things havebeen missed out in that discussion. The main one tofocus on is part 12 of the bill, which is the reason forthe bill. One of the main reasons for it is to bring in anelection commitment, the government says, to have itshands on the public purse. In other words thegovernment wants to get its sticky fingers inside thepocket of every voter in Victoria to take a little bit ofmoney out every time it goes to the polls.

I take a fairly cynical view of how democracy works,but it is amazing: the political parties seem to sellwithin areas the policies they want to sell. They have abig sheaf of policies, most of which never get to see thelight of day. I am sure in Narracan at the last electionnews of this legislation did not appear in the papers!

I am sure nothing about this legislation appeared on thefront page! This is not the major policy that the LaborParty spouted across Victoria, saying, ‘You vote for usand we will put our hands in your pockets to the tune of$6 million every time we go to an election!’.

Mr Savage — Eight million.

Mr INGRAM — Eight million dollars, I am sorry; Ido not want to be an auctioneer here. This happenseverywhere with a lot of policies. I did not see toomuch about the Labor Party’s social agenda flashing upin East Gippsland as a major Labor Party policyplatform. I did not see that happening.


Mr INGRAM — I will not take up interjections.The Independents had some discussions with ColinBarry, who is the Electoral Commissioner in Victoria

and who does a very good job. We were discussing theimplementation of this bill, and he gave a very clearindication to us that basically the first half of thisproposed legislation is a review of the electoral laws inVictoria because the existing ones are fairly ancient.They date back to 1958 and there have been very fewchanges made to them since then.

Ms Gillett — That is not ancient!

Mr INGRAM — They are nearly as old as I am.Mr Barry told us that there is a whole range of changesthat need to be done to bring the electoral laws in thestate up to date.

He said he basically had a free hand with no politicalinterference in the process he went through of updatingthe legislation to make it more relevant to today’ssociety, to the way we vote and to the way thingshappen out on the ground. We thought, ‘This is a reallygood process’. We were told that half of the provisionsin this bill will make changes to the Electoral Act andthat the review had been done totally free of politicalinfluence. The Independents tried to ring Mr Barry justbefore to inform him that 158 house amendments are tobe made to the bill before us today, most of whichrelate to the part of the bill that was said to be totallyfree of any political interference.

We woke up today, but unfortunately Colin Barry wasnot available. He told us this was a really good process,but unfortunately it appears that somewhere in theintervening period over the past few days the politicalparties have got their hands on a whole raft of changes.The National Party indicated that it had not beenconsulted, and we certainly have not been consulted onmost of them — some of them, yes, but not on most ofthem.

Mr Wilson interjected.

Mr INGRAM — I will not take up the interjection.A free and independent process to change the electorallaws somehow got a smidgin tainted on the side. Wewill obviously address the house amendments incommittee.

It would be good to go to a poll on this bill, particularlyon part 12, which deals with the public fundingprovisions, to see how many people out there in the realworld — the voters and the punters who are actuallygoing to vote at the next election — support thetaxpayer politically donating.


ELECTORAL BILL


Mr INGRAM — Yes, I know there are a fewmembers here putting their hands up because that willmean they will not have to go out and raise the funds.This is an indication that the political parties arestruggling to raise enough funds, and the reason for thatis that we are going down the road of the UnitedStates-style presidential campaigns. Parties put theirleader up as their figurehead and blast their advertisingacross the television media. This costs an incredibleamount of money, and the way we are structuring it isgetting away from what democracy is. We in this placeare the servants of our electorates, and we are elected torepresent our electorates. We are not here to represent apolitical party.

Too many people out there are disillusioned with thepolitical process. In a lot of city electorates the localmembers are nameless people who are members ofpolitical parties and who are hiding behind the shield ofthose political parties. Because they are now no longerservants of their electorates, they think they can comein here and stand behind the party banner and vote as ablock on whichever side of the house they sit.

Mr Wilson interjected.

Mr INGRAM — Very rarely. A fair few voters outthere today are feeling their pockets and their walletswith a real sense that they have been violated over thepast few days. Voters feel that someone has had theirgrubby hands in the voters’ pockets taking their moneyout against their will.

That does not mean that there are not some good partsof the bill. There are some positive things in this bill. Iwill return to that press release which spoke abouttightening up on the disclosure laws. One of theproposed amendments to the bill appears to water downthe disclosure laws. Instead of having the tightestdisclosure laws in Australia, all of a sudden one of thehouse amendments that the government will be movingappears to be watering down those disclosure laws.

What do we have now? We have a government saying,‘We had better withdraw that press release that wentout a while ago and say, “Hang on a second, we nolonger have the strongest disclosure laws in Victoria.We are just about the same as everyone else, but wewill still take your money and run” ‘.

A number of the amendments need to be addressed incommittee and I hope the Attorney-General will be hereto inform the house what the impact of those 158 houseamendments will be. Some of the amendments arereasonably major and the house deserves an

explanation of what they will do, and that can be givenat the committee stage.

When the honourable member for Gippsland West wasspeaking she had a few interjections about thedefinition of the principal place of residence. Whencountry students come to study in the city how shouldthey define their principal place of residence? Are theystill residents of the electorate they come from, wheremost of their worldly belongings are still kept? Thatdefinition needs to be tightened up.

Originally the bill dealt with putting party logos onelection material. We see this occurring often inelections where grubby local campaigns are generatedand authorised by someone who is not clearlyidentifiable as coming from a political party. Wediscussed with the Victorian Electoral Commission theway it had originally drawn up the legislation toprovide that when any material was clearly political innature and clearly identifiable as coming from apolitical party, the responsibility would go back directlyonto the head of the party secretary in the city.

In the past people on the ground were basically dodgingresponsibility by putting out election material in the lastcouple of days of election campaigns to generate smearcampaigns against candidates. Those provisions appearto have been changed by some of these houseamendments and that needs some clarification, becauseI thought it was a good thing that the bill had tightenedthose provisions up and imposed some responsibility inthose circumstances.

The real issue here is that we have a robust democracyin this country and it is incredibly important that wekeep it that way. The only way we will keep that is ifthe people out there who are voting believe they arevoting for their local member and not for a politicalparty. The further we follow that United States style ofcampaign, the more we diminish the impact of theindividual on policies.

One of the arguments that has been put fairly stronglyby those who are trying to sell this legislation is thatbringing in public funding will reduce the influence thatmajor corporations, unions and everyone else can haveon the political process. I am sure the Labor Partywould be very grateful for that, because a couple of itsunions seem to be running away a bit at the moment.Maybe because of that it is trying to get some of thatfunding.

Recently we have seen the federal governmentbasically charging cash for comment, cash for access toministers, and the same thing — cash for access to

ELECTORAL BILL


ministers — is happening in Victoria. This is going onright across the political spectrum. I think that is notwhat this is about.

Federally public funding is over $1.80 per vote in bothhouses of Parliament, but large corporations still have amajor influence over the political process and overpolicy. There is no less reliance on corporate donations;all we are doing is letting more flood in and putting thatadditional cash directly into highly focused political TVadvertising. One of the simple solutions to this wouldbe to get rid of political TV advertising; to get it back tothe grassroots where politics should be so that peopleare out there influencing their local people and reallyhave some connection with the people they represent.

I will be opposing the legislation. I think the bill will gothrough the committee stage. Some answers are neededon some of the amendments that have been brought inat the last minute. We will be asking for someexplanation of those. The major political parties have alot to answer for, for getting their grubby hands on thetaxpayers’ purse without asking them first. I think theywill be held to account for this process because it hasbeen in breach of the faith of the public and is againsteverything that members of Parliament should standfor.

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — I rise today insupport of the Electoral Bill 2001. It needs to be saidthat this is the result of a number of exercises that haveoccurred in the last century, particularly thosehousekeeping exercises that occurred in 1958, and priorto that in the 1890s and so on.

I think it is important to put on record that we havecome a long way in terms of the way in which ourdemocracy works. At our first election in 1843 onlyadult males who owned property worth more than £200could take part. Alternatively, those who had freeholdproperty or householders with an annual income of £20were given the right to vote in the New South WalesLegislative Council elections. It was subsequently,during the 1850s, that other colonists introduced partlyelected Legislative Councils and allowed a similarproperty-based suffrage.

Once we put it in context we recognise how far wehave come and how much progress has been madeduring the course of the last century and a bit. In 1859,all colonies except Western Australia had been grantedself-government and full parliamentary democracy. It isimportant to register that Victoria was the last state toextend the right to vote to women.

This bill’s main aims are to improve administrativeprocedures for the conduct of elections. It aims to makeit easier for country electorates and other electionstakeholders to understand electoral procedures; it willenable the application of new technologies to theconduct of elections; and last but not least it will makeprovisions for election funding and disclosure ofpolitical parties.

This bill will bring us into the 21st century. It will makeprovisions for people who are otherwise typicallyunable to vote.

For instance, it will provide for those who are confinedto hospitals and others who are overseas and are willingto vote prior to election day. It is not the case that thatcannot happen today, but the new provisions will makeit easier and will give them the automatic right to do so.

The bill recognises that society and lifestyles havechanged and that new and modern provisions need tobe made for people to have much better access to theballot box for the purpose of voting. The bill providesthat electors can cast an early postal vote as of rightinstead of having to satisfy certain criteria to be entitledto vote before election day. I genuinely believe that thisis an issue certainly of democracy but also of socialjustice, access and equity insofar as the passage of thislegislation enables people who are otherwise unable tovote to do so.

We should commend the Attorney-General foradvancing in this state modern legislation which will,amongst other things, ensure that the VictorianElectoral Commission can work at its best by allowingand enabling the introduction of new technologies —for example, computers — and making provision forpeople to be able to vote electronically interstate andoverseas. These are important arrangements, as are theprovisions that convert the current terminology intomodern language. For example, polling places are to becalled voting centres and we will now have electionmanagers. This language will be more easilyunderstood by the electors in the community.

I certainly do not take for granted the right to vote. It isimportant to place on the record that many members ofthe Victorian and Australian communities come fromcountries where the right to vote was taken away fromthem, and I include myself in that group. As honourablemembers may be aware, I came to Victoria fromUruguay in 1973 precisely because, amongst otherthings, the right to vote was taken away from us —from the people — by a military dictatorship.

ELECTORAL BILL


The same thing happened subsequently in Argentina,Chile and many other countries in Asia and Africawhose governments have taken away the most basicdemocratic right: the right to elect to those who governand manage the state and administer the funds andresources of the state or country. The right to vote is notto be taken for granted, and it is not to be assumed thatevery nation in the international community has thecapacity to manage its society, the state, its electionsand its government in a civil way and allow smoothpassage of legislation and smooth transfer from onegovernment to the next.

Honourable members will be aware that one in four orone in five of us comes from a country outsideAustralia, many of which countries have taken awaysuch rights. Consequently, with the utmost respect, Isay that there are members of our community, and Ihumbly suggest myself as an example, who reallyappreciate the value of the right to vote and who do nottake it lightly or jokingly. We come from lands wherethat right has been taken away from us and weappreciate it very much. Consequently we value thecontribution we can make to bills such as this.

In my objective judgment, this is the best democracythere is. Our democracy elects governments in not onlya peaceful but also a modern way and in as just amanner as is possible to achieve. I am also sure thereare ways that we can improve our electoral system, andwe will continue to work in that direction as previousgenerations have in order to bring us to where we aretoday.

I repeat that our first election, held in 1843, was onlyfor those who owned property. Today every member ofour community can vote: women, indigenous peopleand people from other communities who have becomeAustralian citizens, and so on. That says a lot that isgood about this community and we ought to beseriously proud of that and continue to improve ourdemocracy and ensure that in future the best democracyis upheld.

Before concluding, I commend the Attorney-Generaland this government for advancing this legislation. Itwill bring about and enable the use of new technologiesand will make sure that just about every other memberof the community who up to this point has haddifficulty in voting will now be able to vote. I wish thelegislation speedy passage.

Mr HOLDING (Springvale) — I am very pleasedto make a contribution to the debate on the ElectoralBill and happy to follow the honourable member forSunshine. I agree with his sentiments and his comments

about the scheme of electoral arrangements we have inVictoria. I also believe that the electoral system wehave in Australia, both here in Victoria and nationally,is the best electoral system and the best system ofmechanics for conducting elections anywhere in theworld.

At the outset, I congratulate Colin Barry, the VictorianElectoral Commissioner, and all his team at theVictorian Electoral Commission (VEC) for their inputinto this legislation and the work they do generally intheir conduct of elections.

One of the important things spelt out in this bill is thatthe VEC, as I understand the legislation, becomes abody corporate. That is a very important measure andconfirms the VEC’s central role in the conduct ofelections here in Victoria.

I looked at the absurd situation that existed in theUnited States during their last presidential election. Themost important feature that differentiated the system ofelectoral procedures we have here in Australia from thecircumstances that existed in the United States last yearis the role of the electoral authorities in United Statescompared with the role of the electoral authorities herein Australia.

In the United States the electoral machinery is actuallycontrolled by bipartisan appointees of the differentpolitical parties. So if you are unfortunate enough tolive in the state of Florida, which has a Republicanadministration, the electoral officials appointed arebasically the agents of the Florida Republican Party. Ifyou happen to live in a Democrat-held state such asMassachusetts, then the electoral officials are theelectoral agents and appointees of the Democratic Partyin Massachusetts.

We are lucky in Australia that our electoral machineryis controlled by independent, non-partisan, non-politicalfunctionaries. It is the single most significant feature ofAustralia’s democratic framework, and it is the mostimportant thing that differentiates our electoralframework from other democracies.

If we look at what happens in the United Kingdom wesee that the electoral machinery for a national electionis conducted by municipal authorities. For example,different municipal authorities have different electionactivities, and municipal authorities conduct the actualballots. The situation was outlined in the book WereYou Still Up for Portillo?. The municipal authoritiesconduct a race to be the first to announce the result ofthe election in their local municipal area. That way theycan get on national television and be the first seat to be

ELECTORAL BILL


declared. That does not contribute to the fair andthorough counting of the election; it is just a publicrelations exercise for the different municipal authorities.There are ridiculous situations, with police escorts forballot boxes. They hold the traffic lights in differentareas to make sure they get the ballots in and counted asquickly as possible, regardless of how accurate they arein getting the count, which is most unfortunate.


Mr HOLDING — Before the dinner break I wasdealing with the importance of the Victorian ElectoralCommission and the Australian Electoral Commissionas overarching institutions that ensure that fair andunbiased elections occur in Victoria and throughoutAustralia. The importance of the bill for the operationof fair elections in Victoria cannot be overstated.

The bill contains a raft of different measures that willimprove the operation of the legislative regime for theconduct of fair and free elections. It will introduce asystem of public funding, which I will not go into indetail. I know other honourable members haveexpressed their views on that measure. While Iacknowledge that there are a range of views in thechamber, it will serve to make our electoral systemmore robust and will ensure that the growing relianceon private dollars is at least partially offset by somepublic funds. While it will not put all candidates on anequal footing, it will at least give them some publicsupport for their election campaigns, provided they areable to at least reach the threshold of 4 per cent of theprimary vote.

In conclusion I refer to those aspects of the legislationthat will enable the operation of the VEC to betterreflect emerging technologies — for example, theprovision that will introduce the capacity for theelectronic counting of votes. It is important that thewhole raft of emerging technologies — not onlyinformation technologies but other technologies — areavailable to make sure the VEC remains at the cuttingedge of international electoral best practice.

I refer to clause 90, headed ‘Questions to be asked ofvoter’, which was touched on by the honourablemember for Gippsland West. I know there are somehouse amendments on this clause, so I will not quote itextensively. In essence the amendments will make itclear that when a voter casts a vote at an election itshould be in the electorate of his or her primary place ofresidence.

I support the sentiments of the honourable member forGippsland West, who is attempting to ensure that the

legislation makes it clear that for an elector who has arange of addresses — for example, a student — theirprimary address is the one with which they have astrong affinity. Perhaps it is where their parents live.For example, this legislation will allow a student who isstudying in Melbourne but whose parents live in thecountry to maintain that connection and have theirparents’ address as their primary place of residence,meaning that they will be able to vote in that electorate.

It is worth considering the origins of clause 90. As theAttorney-General pointed out in this house a couple ofyears ago, its origins lie in a situation that occurred atthe last state election. Honourable members will recallthat a member for Chelsea Province in the other place,the Honourable Cameron Boardman, had themisfortune to cast his ballot in the electoral district ofCarrum, even though at the time he was a resident inthe electoral district of Frankston. Honourable membersmay wonder why this was the cause of such commentor significance. Honourable members will recall thatthe electoral district of Carrum was probably thesecond-most marginal seat in the state — I think only alittle more than 100 votes decided the seat — so havingany voter on the roll in that electorate when they oughtto have been on the roll somewhere else wassignificant. If it had been any member of the public wewould be very concerned. We are even more concernedbecause it was a member of this Parliament.

I refer honourable members to an article in the HeraldSun of 3 April 2000 headed ‘Reprieve for poll-gaffeLib’. The issues were canvassed at length, and when theAttorney-General indicated that it was thegovernment’s intention to amend the law to ensure thiswould not occur in the future, the Honourable CameronBoardman was reported in the Herald Sun as saying:

I’ll believe the amendments when I see them.

I would direct the honourable member’s attention toclause 90. He is a very fortunate MP, in that havingtransgressed the spirit of the legislation, he will now bein the position of being able to vote on a law which hepreviously broke! I congratulate him on that. I lookforward to his contribution on the legislation in theupper house, and I commend the bill to honourablemembers.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I thankhonourable members for their contribution to thisdebate. In doing so I thank the Independents for theircontributions. I got the impression from hearing whatthey had to say that they may be opposing thislegislation — but we will probably have to wait andsee. They have a view in relation to public funding with

ELECTORAL BILL


which I disagree. That is the beauty of democracy, andfunding democracy is what this legislation is all about.

I believe the public funding aspect of the legislation isappropriate, because public funding occurs in mostother states. The whole purpose of public funding is toensure that the holding of elections is far less dependentupon corporate donations. The public has a perception,whether we like it or not, that at election time politicalparties, whether Liberal, Labor, or National, becomedependent on funds from corporate entities. People ask,‘Does this mean that those parties are influenced intheir policy-making decisions by corporate entities thatdonate funds?’.


Mr HULLS — I will not take up the interjection,because to do so would prolong this debate, and thenwe would have to go into all sorts of matters that I amsure would embarrass him. But that is the purpose ofthe funding aspect of the bill.

In relation to the disclosure aspect that the honourablemember for Mildura raised, the regime set out in thisbill is based on the commonwealth government’sdisclosure regime. An inquiry is currently beingconducted in the Senate on disclosure generally.Submissions have been made to that inquiry and it maywell be that as a result the commonwealth governmentdecides to amend its regime. If that is the case, the stategovernment will follow suit. I believe we need anational system on disclosure.

Regarding the cap on donations — if the honourablemember for Mildura wants to, we can deal with this inmore depth in committee — we made a commitment tocap political donations emanating from gamingenterprises. That includes Tattersalls, Tabcorp andCrown Casino. The original legislation did not relate toassociated entities, if you like, of Crown Casino. Thisbill and the amendments thereto broaden the originallegislation to encompass them. We believe, therefore,that is a more stringent regime. The original legislationalso enabled parties to receive public finances as ofright. This government believes that this ought to betightened up. The amendments relating to publicfunding are based on a reimbursement model, wherebyan appropriately audited certificate must be supplied bypolitical parties before they actually get the money. Soit is about reimbursement, rather than as-of-rightfunding.

A whole range of other matters in the bill have beenrequired by the Electoral Commissioner to bring ourdemocracy into the 21st century. For far too long a

whole range of issues associated with elections havebeen dealt with by different acts of Parliament, the mainone being the Constitution Act (Amendment) Act,which deals with elections. There has not been astand-alone electoral act. This is a total rewrite of thatlegislation, so we will now have a modern, 21st-centuryelectoral bill that will serve us well into the future.

I thank honourable members for their contributions onthis legislation. It is good legislation, and it is longoverdue. It fulfils a commitment that this governmentmade before the last election to introduce legislation toensure the public funding of election campaigns. I donot shy away from that in any way. I think that it isappropriate. I certainly wish this bill a very speedypassage.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!This bill requires to be passed by an absolute majority.As there is not an absolute majority of members in thehouse I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in chamber:

The SPEAKER — Order! The question is that thebill be now read a second time. All those of that opinionsay aye, to the contrary no. As there are some voices forthe noes I ask honourable members supporting the billto stand in their places.

Required number of members having risen:

The SPEAKER — Order! I am prepared to call thatthe second reading of this bill has been passed by anabsolute majority of the members of the LegislativeAssembly.

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1


1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 30 and 31, omit “funding andfinancial disclosure” and insert “expenditure”.

This amends clause 1 of the bill, which provides anoutline of the legislation. This amendment replaces thereference to ‘funding and financial disclosure’ with areference to ‘expenditure’ as a result of significantchanges to part 12 of the bill.

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I move:

1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 30 and 31, omit “election fundingand financial disclosure” and insert “disclosure ofelectoral expenditure”.

My amendment on this occasion is consequential. Itrelates to the removal of the words ‘election fundingand financial disclosure’ from the provision.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — The governmentwill be opposing the amendment moved by thehonourable member for Mildura. His amendmentreplaces the reference to ‘election funding and financialdisclosure’ with reference to the ‘disclosure of electoralexpenditure’. The government does not believe thehonourable member’s amendment is necessary becausethe government’s house amendment does effectivelythe same thing.

The CHAIRMAN — Order! In relation to votingon these amendments, there is only one differencebetween the amendment moved by theAttorney-General and the amendment moved by thehonourable member for Mildura, and that is the word‘election’. The committee has to vote in relation to theword ‘election’ before it gets to the amendment movedby the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General’samendment passes, the amendment of the honourablemember for Mildura no longer requires voting on. Sothe first question in relation to clause 1 is:

That the word ‘election’ stand part of the bill.

Committee divided on omission (members in favour voteno):

Ayes, 80Allan, Ms Lenders, MrAllen, Ms Lim, MrAsher, Ms Lindell, MsAshley, Mr Loney, MrBaillieu, Mr Lupton, MrBarker, Ms McArthur, MrBatchelor, Mr McCall, MsBeattie, Ms McIntosh, MrBracks, Mr Maclellan, MrBrumby, Mr Maughan, MrBurke, Ms Maxfield, MrCameron, Mr Mildenhall, MrCampbell, Ms Mulder, MrCarli, Mr Napthine, DrClark, Mr Nardella, MrCooper, Mr Overington, MsDelahunty, Mr Pandazopoulos, MrDelahunty, Ms Paterson, MrDixon, Mr Perton, MrDoyle, Mr Peulich, MrsDuncan, Ms Phillips, MrElliott, Mrs Pike, MsFyffe, Mrs Richardson, MrGarbutt, Ms Robinson, Mr

Gillett, Ms Rowe, MrHaermeyer, Mr Ryan, MrHamilton, Mr Seitz, MrHardman, Mr Shardey, MrsHelper, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Holding, Mr Spry, MrHoneywood, Mr Steggall, MrHoward, Mr Stensholt, MrHulls, Mr Thompson, MrJasper, Mr Thwaites, MrKosky, Ms Trezise, MrKotsiras, Mr Viney, MrLangdon, Mr (Teller) Vogels, MrLanguiller, Mr Wells, MrLeigh, Mr Wilson, MrLeighton, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 3Davies, Ms Savage, Mr (Teller)Ingram, Mr (Teller)

Question agreed to.

Mr Hulls’s amendment agreed to; amended clause agreedto; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3


2. Clause 3, page 3, line 22, omit “168” and insert “167”.

3. Clause 3, page 6, lines 5 and 6, omit “an electoral rollprepared under section 29” and insert “a list preparedunder section 29 of the names and addresses of electorswho are eligible to vote at a particular election”.


5. Clause 3, page 8, line 9, omit “167(1)” and insert“166(1)”.

6. Clause 3, page 8, line 26, after “21” insert “that containsthe names and addresses of all electors and theparticulars required under the Act”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clauses 4 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23


7. Clause 23, page 27, line 17, omit “Subject tosection 27(3), if” and insert “If”.


Clause 26


8. Clause 26, page 32, line 7, after “company” insert “or aretailer”.

ELECTORAL BILL


Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 27


9. Clause 27, page 32, lines 23 to 25, omit “make anyalterations to the register of electors that theCommission thinks necessary to”.

10. Clause 27, page 32, lines 27 to 31 and page 33, lines 1 to3, omit sub-clause (3).


Clause 32


11. Clause 32, omit this clause.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I ask theAttorney-General to explain what this amendmentactually does in practice.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — Thisamendment omits clause 32, which will be replaced bya new provision that will be inserted byamendment 154. Amendment 154 deals with thefinancial disclosure regime. There is to be a change inthe entire financial disclosure regime, as I said earlier,making it consistent with the commonwealth regime.As a result disclosure is dealt with throughout the act,so a whole range of amendments have to be made toensure that the disclosure regime is in sync with thecommonwealth disclosure regime. This amendment ispart of that.


Clause negatived.

Clause 33


12. Clause 33, page 36, lines 1 to 13, omit sub-clause (3)and insert —

“( ) Following a redivision under the ElectoralBoundaries Commission Act 1982, theCommission must provide each member of theAssembly, free of charge, a list specifying electorsfor the district for which the member was electedand a list specifying electors for the district whosename and boundary is published under section 15of that Act after the redivision and that, in theopinion of the Commission, most resembles thedistrict for which the member was elected and theparticulars of the electors on both lists —

(a) as soon as practicable after the redivision; and

(b) on receiving a request from the member notmore than once each year until the Assemblyis dissolved.

( ) Following a redivision under the ElectoralBoundaries Commission Act 1982, theCommission must provide each member of theCouncil, free of charge, a list specifying electorsfor the province for which the member was electedand a list specifying electors for the provincewhose name and boundary is published undersection 14 of that Act after the redivision and that,in the opinion of the Commission, most resemblesthe province for which the member was elected andthe particulars of the electors on both lists —

(a) as soon as practicable after the redivision; and

(b) on receiving a request from the member notmore than once each year until the dissolutionof the second Assembly after the member hasbeen elected.”.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — This appears tobe an amendment that reduces the public disclosurelaws. When this bill was first highlighted, it wasindicated that Victoria would have the toughestdisclosure laws for political donations in Australia.

This amendment seems to be watering down thatdisclosure regime, which the Attorney-General wasselling as one of the highlights of the bill when it wasfirst put up. I ask the Attorney-General whether thisamendment does water down the disclosure regime,particularly for those fundraising bodies set up bypolitical parties, thereby limiting accountability and theability to trace-back who is basically putting moneyinto those organisations. I ask the Attorney-General toexplain what the amendment does, what the reasonsbehind it are and why he is going against the originalintention of the legislation and his first public position.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — In relation to thematters raised by the honourable member,amendment 12 deals with clause 33, which relates theprovision of enrolment information to political parties,members and candidates. That clause provides that aftera redistribution of electoral boundaries the commissionmust provide — —

Mr Ingram — I had the wrong amendment.

Mr HULLS — We will deal with the issue raisedby the honourable member when we get to it, but thisparticular amendment does not relate to the matters hehas raised but to the provision of enrolment informationto political parties. I know the Independent members ofParliament expressed concern that they would bedisadvantaged by this because they would not beentitled to receive a list of electors for new districts.

ELECTORAL BILL


House amendment 12 amends clause 33 to require thecommission to provide a list of electors for themembers of both current districts and new districtswhich most resemble the current districts as soon aspossible after a redivision and, on request from themember, no more than one year after the assembly wasdissolved. So I would have thought this amendmentwill be of some assistance.

The provisions relating to the members in another placehave been amended slightly to require the commissionto provide lists of electors for both the members’current provinces and the new provinces which mostresemble the current provinces as soon as possible aftera redivision. But in relation to public funding, if thehonourable member wants to raise that when we get toit I will deal with it then.


2. Clause 33, page 35, line 17, omit “and their” and insert“for the district or province for which each member ofthe Assembly or Council endorsed by the party waselected and the electors’”.

3. Clause 33, page 35, line 23, omit “11 times” and insert“once”.

Amendment 2 relates to the electoral commissionhaving an obligation to supply copies of an electoralroll to a registered party in those districts and provincesrepresented by members of that party. In other words, ifthe party did not have members elected in that area theycould not claim information from the electoralcommission.

Amendment 3 relates to the limit of the entitlementbeing the same as that of a member of Parliament —one free request per year, not 11, as is the case with apolitical party.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I understand thenature of the honourable member’s amendment.However, the government is opposing it because webelieve this significantly reduces the amount ofinformation available to political parties. Theamendment proposes that a party is only entitled toreceive a list once a year upon request. We believe, as Isaid, that this would reduce the amount of informationavailable.

Mr Savage’s amendments negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 34




Clause negatived

Clause 35


14. Clause 35, line 28, after “34” insert “and on any findingmade under that section”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses36 to 44 agreed to.

Clause 45


15. Clause 45, page 43, line 29, after “registered” insert “ifthe political party had not made an application forregistration within the previous 6 months that wasrefused by the Commission”.

In moving this clause I take the liberty of going back tothe matter raised by the honourable member forGippsland East concerning my house amendment 11. Ithink I advised him that it was part of the disclosureregime linking into the commonwealth regime. This isa fairly complicated exercise.

Amendments 43 to 153, as well as amendments 157 to158, all relate in part to disclosure. My houseamendment 11, which he earlier referred to, omitsexisting clause 32 and substitutes a new clause 32,which as I said relates to my house amendment 154.Amendment 154 retains the status quo: clause 32provides that the latest print of any electoral roll isavailable for public inspection. Concern was expressedabout reduced public access to enrolment information,since at present an alphabetical list — that is the A-to-Zlist — of the names and addresses of all electors, whichis updated every six months, is available for inspectionon CD-ROM at the Victorian Electoral Commission.House amendment 154 amends the bill to ensure thatthe public continues to have access to the informationcurrently provided, so it retains the status quo.


Heading to clause 47


16. Heading to clause 47, line 10, omit “Parties” and insert“parties”.

Amendment agreed to; amended heading agreed to;clause 47 agreed to.

ELECTORAL BILL


Clause 48


17. Clause 48, page 46, line 27, after “Commission” insert“within 45 days after receiving the notice”.



Clause 65


19. Clause 65, page 60, line 21, omit “give” and insert“show”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clauses 66 to 68 agreed to.

Clause 69


20. Clause 69, page 63, line 15, after “candidate” insert “andby 6 persons entitled to vote at the election for which thecandidate is nominated”.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — During ourdiscussions in briefing on this bill, the VictorianElectoral Commissioner indicated that the changeproposed previously by the bill to not require sixpersons entitled to vote to sign a nomination caused theelectoral commission some problems in that whennominations were put in late the commissioner wouldhave to go around checking them. The commissionerbelieved that the change originally made by the bill wasa very positive one. I ask the Attorney-General toexplain why that change has been made and to indicatewhether it has been made after discussions with theVictorian Electoral Commissioner.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — It is true that theVictorian Electoral Commission (VEC) did make anumber of recommendations about the original bill —The Constitution Act Amendment Act — and it is truethat not all those recommendations have been adheredto.

In relation to this particular amendment, the billremoved the requirement that candidates not endorsedby a registered political party be nominated by sixpersons entitled to vote for the candidate’s electorate.Some concern was expressed by the VEC as to whetheror not that was still appropriate. The original bill madesome changes; on reflection it was agreed that a personnominating ought to be able to show that they have atleast some support. They will either need to be

nominated by a political party or, alternatively, theywill need to have six people sign their nomination form.

The reality is that if you cannot get six people to signyour nomination form it shows that you do not havemuch support around the place. I am quite sure that thehonourable member for Gippsland East, as popular ashe is in his electorate, would have absolutely noproblem at all getting at least six people to sign hisnomination form, so I do not think he has anything tofear from this amendment.


Clause 73


21. Clause 73, page 66, lines 29 to 31, omit sub-clause (1)and insert —

“( ) If there is more than one candidate for an electionin a district or province, an election must be held.”.


Clause 83


22. Clause 83, page 75, line 16, omit “T-shirt” and insert “anitem of clothing”.

23. Clause 83, page 75, line 17, after “badge,” insert “fridgemagnet,”.

24. Clause 83, page 75, lines 23 to 33, omit sub-clauses (5)and (6).


Clause 87


25. Clause 87, lines 11 to 13, omit these lines and insert“section 22(1), is enrolled in respect of the address of theperson’s principal place of residence or the address ofthe place that was the person’s principal place ofresidence”.


Clause 90


26. Clause 90, page 81, lines 9 and 10, omit “Have youlived at (the address shown on the electoral roll)” and

ELECTORAL BILL


insert “Has (the address shown on the electoral roll)been your principal place of residence”.


Clause 98


27. Clause 98, after line 17, insert —

“(2) In relation to voting at an early voting centre,sections 90 to 96 apply, so far as relevant.”.


Clause 99




Clause negatived.

Clauses 100 to 105 agreed to.

Clause 106


29. Clause 106, page 90, lines 9 and 10, omit these lines andinsert “day on or before election day; or”.


Clause 109


30. Clause 109, page 91, lines 30 and 31, omit “Have youlived at the address for which you are enrolled” andinsert “Has (the address shown on the electoral roll)been your principal place of residence”.


Clause 123


4. Clause 123, page 101, line 30, omit “ — “ and insert —

“; and

( ) each candidate at the election who received at least4% of the total number of first preference votes andwho makes a request in respect of the district orprovince for which the candidate soughtelection — “.

This amendment relates to where the VictorianElectoral Commission is to provide to candidates whopoll at least 4 per cent of the primary vote the sameinformation concerning voters as it is required toprovide to registered parties. The example I use is thatat the last state election Chris Hazelman in Sheppartonpolled 35 per cent of the vote but he would be excludedfrom getting this information because he is not a currentcandidate or member of Parliament.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — The governmentdoes not support this amendment. It is true that theamendment moved by the honourable member forMildura proposes amending clause 123, which providesthat after an election the Victorian ElectoralCommission must make the results available and mustprovide details of voters to registered political partiesand to independent members who request thisinformation. To ensure that this information is treatedas confidential, under the current bill the misuse of thisinformation will attract a penalty.

The amendment moved by the honourable member forMildura proposes amending this clause to require thecommission to provide to candidates who poll at least4 per cent of the primary vote the same informationconcerning voters as it would be required to provide tomembers of Parliament who are not members ofregistered political parties. The government and Ibelieve that the proposed amendment gives rise to somesubstantial privacy concerns because obviously theinformation would be far more widely available than iscurrently provided for by this bill.

Members of Parliament have ongoing and continuousresponsibilities to the Parliament after an election aswell as to their electorates. In contrast, of course,unsuccessful candidates do not have any real statusfollowing an election. While the honourable membercited the case of a candidate who received 35 per centof the vote, it has to be remembered that unsuccessfulcandidates have no status after elections; they aresimply defeated or failed candidates and have noresponsibilities to the electorate and no responsibilitiesto the Parliament. Indeed, there are other candidateswho would fit into the category of receiving perhapsjust on or over 4 per cent of the vote who would also becovered by the honourable member’s amendment. Thegovernment believes that because of the matters I haveraised this information should not be available, and itcannot support the amendment.

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I wish to make a furtherobservation on that particular clause, on the basis that,for instance, while Shepparton is held by the National

ELECTORAL BILL


Party, all other registered political parties can get thatinformation — that is where it is unfair.

We can say that a candidate is not a member ofParliament, so therefore he is not entitled to thatinformation — but neither is the Liberal Party nor theLabor Party, but they can get the information.Therefore it is unfair.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I understand thatmatter being raised by the honourable member. He is anIndependent and, indeed, one might say that there areadvantages in being a member of a political party.


Mr HULLS — Well, they might say that!

Indeed, this bill refers throughout to political partiesand party members — that is what the whole bill isabout. It is about the entitlements of registered politicalparties, and Independent members, but not failedcandidates. That is why there are differentarrangements for Independent members of Parliamentand political parties, as opposed to candidates only.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 124 to134 agreed to.

Clause 135


31. Clause 135, line 25, omit “prescribed sum” and insert“sum of $100”.


Clause 162




Clause negatived.

Clause 163 agreed to.

Clause 164


33. Clause 164, page 120, line 9, omit “163” and insert“162”.


Clause 165





Clause 166




Clause 167




Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clause 168 agreed to.

Clause 169




Clause 171


40. Clause 171, line 16, omit “167(1)” and insert “166(1)”.


Clause 174




Clause 182



ELECTORAL BILL



5. Clause 182, page 132, line 25, omit “Except asotherwise provided by section 223, the” and insert“The”.

The explanation is that these amendments relate to theremoval of provisions concerning election funding andfinancial disclosure. Their effect is to remove thoseprovisions and to allow the $5000 expenditure limit toremain. Candidates will still be subject to the currentobligations to file returns on election expenditure.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — This is wherethe thrust of the difference between the amendments bythe honourable member for Mildura and the proposedamendments of the government lies. Basically,amendments 5 to 105 proposed by the honourablemember for Mildura refer mainly to part 12 of the bill,which deals with election funding and disclosure.Amendment 5 by the honourable member for Mildurais to clause 182 of the bill and is only necessary as aconsequence of the proposed house amendments topart 12 — so it is a consequential amendment and wecan deal with all of those in due course.

The government opposes this amendment and willoppose all amendments numbered 5 to 105 by thehonourable member for Mildura for the reasons I havealready outlined — namely, that we believe in thepublic funding of elections. That was an electioncommitment and these amendments deal with that veryissue. The government also believes that with publicfunding the disclosure regime should be as per thecommonwealth and that there should be a nationaldisclosure regime. If the commonwealth tightens up itsregime, as I said, as a result of the current inquiry andmakes recommendations, we will go down that path.Indeed, I am more than happy to say that on the record.

As a result we will be opposing the honourable memberfor Mildura’s amendments 5 to 105.

Mr Savage’s amendment negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses183 to 206 agreed to.

Part heading preceding clause 207


6. Part heading preceding clause 207, omit “ELECTIONFUNDING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE” andinsert “DISCLOSURE OF ELECTORALEXPENDITURE”.


43. Part heading preceding clause 207, omit “FUNDINGAND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE” and insert“EXPENDITURE”.

Mr Savage’s amendment negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to; amended part heading agreed to.

Division heading preceding clause 207


7. Division heading preceding clause 207, omit thisheading.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 207


44. Clause 207, page 149, lines 6 to 33 and page 150, lines 1to 6, omit these lines.

45. Clause 207, page 150, line 9, after “payment” insert “,gift”.

46. Clause 207, page 150, lines 30 to 33 and page 151, lines1 to 9, omit these lines and insert —

‘“election period” in relation to an election, means theperiod that starts on the day on which the writ wasissued for the election and ends at 6 p.m. on electionday;

“electoral expenditure”, in relation to an election,means expenditure incurred within the period of12 months immediately before election day on —

(a) the broadcasting of an advertisement relatingto the election; or

(b) the publishing in a journal of anadvertisement relating to the election; or

(c) the display at a theatre or other place ofentertainment, of an advertisement relating tothe election; or

(d) the production of an advertisement relating tothe election, being an advertisement that isbroadcast, published or displayed asmentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e) the production of any material in relation tothe election (not being material referred to inparagraph (a), (b) or (c)) that is required undersection 83 to include the name and address ofthe author of the material or of the personauthorising the material; or

(f) the production and distribution of electoralmatter that is addressed to particular personsor organisations; or

ELECTORAL BILL


(g) fees or salaries paid to consultants oradvertising agents for —

(i) services provided, being servicesrelating to the election; or

(ii) material relating to the election; or

(h) the carrying out of an opinion poll, orother research, relating to the election;

“entitlement” means the amount determined inaccordance with section 211;’.

47. Clause 207, page 151, line 22, omit “Division 3” andinsert “this Part”.

48. Clause 207, page 151, lines 26 to 28, omit these lines.


‘“political donation” means a gift to a registeredpolitical party;’.

50. Clause 207, page 152, lines 4 to 7, omit these lines andinsert —

‘“relevant licence” means a licence granted under —

(a) section 13 of the Casino Control Act 1991;or

(b) section 33 of the Gaming Machine ControlAct 1991;

“statement” means the statement given to theCommission under section 208.’.


8. Clause 207, page 149, line 7, omit “210 or 211” andinsert “208”.


‘“election period”, in relation to an election,means the period that starts on the day on whichthe writ was issued for the election and ends at 6p.m. on election day;

“electoral expenditure”, in relation to an election,means expenditure incurred (whether or notincurred during the election period) on —

(a) the broadcasting, during the election period,of an advertisement relating to the election; or

(b) the publishing in a journal, during the electionperiod, of an advertisement relating to theelection; or

(c) the display, during the election period, at atheatre or other place of entertainment, of anadvertisement relating to the election; or

(d) the production of an advertisement relating tothe election, being an advertisement that isbroadcast, published or displayed asmentioned in paragraph (a), (b), or (c); or

(e) the production of any material (not beingmaterial referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or(c)) that is required under section 83 toinclude the name and address of the author ofthe material or of the person authorising thematerial and that is used during the electionperiod; or

(f) the production and distribution of electoralmatter that is addressed to particular personsor organisations and is distributed during theelection period; or

(g) fees paid to consultants or advertising agentsfor —

(i) services provided during the election period,being services relating to the election; or

(ii) material relating to the election that is usedduring the election period; or

(h) the carrying out, during the election period, ofan opinion poll, or other research, relating tothe election;’.

10. Clause 207, page 149, lines 8 to 33, page 150, lines 11 to33, page 151, lines 1 to 28, omit these lines.

11. Clause 207, page 151, line 32 and page 152, lines 1 to29, omit these lines.

Just for clarification, Madam Chairman, I thought someof these amendments of mine had failed because ofearlier amendments.

The CHAIRMAN — Order! I will check with theClerk.

We will continue voting on the amendments to makesure we have all the clauses covered.

Mr Savage’s amendments negatived; Mr Hulls’samendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 208


51. Clause 208, page 152, line 32, omit “Divisions 4, 5 and6 apply” and insert “This Part applies”.



Mr Savage’s amendment negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 209

The CHAIRMAN — Order! TheAttorney-General’s amendment 52 and the honourablemember for Mildura’s amendment 13 have the sameeffect.

ELECTORAL BILL




Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — This is theclause I was speaking to when I got confused aboutwhich clause we were up to. I seek some clarificationfrom the Attorney-General because of the press releasehe put out when he was selling the positives in the bill,such as the toughest disclosure laws. Does the clauseactually water down that disclosure, particularly inrelation to fundraising bodies and the membership ofthose bodies, and are they are required to be audited aswas required in the original bill?

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — It is true thatwhen the original bill was proposed the disclosureregime, because of public funding, was akin to asubmission that was made, as I recall, by the LaborParty to a Senate inquiry. That inquiry is yet to report.Because we have gone even further than that by puttinga cap on political donations from gaming entities — thehonourable member may recall that the original cap ongaming entities related to the operators of gamingenterprises but not associated entities — we havemoved amendments to the legislation to broaden it outto associated entities, so I believe we have a much morestringent disclosure regime in relation to a cap ongaming entities.

However, in relation to the other disclosuremechanisms that were originally proposed, we havereverted to the commonwealth disclosure regime untilsuch stage as the commonwealth inquiry is concludedand a report is made. It may well be that thecommonwealth government decides, subject to therecommendations of that inquiry, to amend its ownlegislation, which we believe ought be followed by thestates, and we would follow that. However, with thisbill we are going down the path of the currentcommonwealth disclosure regime. We believe that isappropriate for national consistency reasons.


Clause negatived.


The CHAIRMAN — Order! TheAttorney-General’s amendment 53 is the same as thehonourable member for Mildura’s amendment 14.



Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I ask theAttorney-General to explain clause 210, which isheaded ‘Agents of registered political parties’ andreads:

A registered political party must have an agent for thepurpose of this part.

The amendment omits that clause. Will theAttorney-General explain that and what that actuallydoes to the bill?

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — It relates to thedisclosure regime. We are changing the originaldisclosure regime in the bill that related to politicaldonations to that which currently exists, which is thecommonwealth disclosure regime. As a result theamendments that are being moved in this part of thebill, which alter part 12, ensure that the disclosureregime that will be required in Victoria for politicaldonations is akin to the commonwealth regime. Thereis a whole range of amendments of a consequentialnature as a result of the policy decision to have thesame regime in Victoria as the commonwealth regime.So there will be some 112 amendments that will relateto the disclosure regime. It is difficult to do them all asa block because they also link into the public fundingaspect of the bill and the proposed cap on politicaldonations from certain licence-holders.

In relation to that aspect, and this may answer somefurther questions the honourable member has, he willprobably remember that it was originally decided toplace a cap on donations from gaming operators andthat the best way to do that was to actually put a cap ondonations from licence-holders, the holders having gotthat licence from the Victorian government, the mainpurpose of that licence being to generate income. It wasthought that the best way to capture the government’spolicy of entrapping gaming operators was to broaden itout to all licence-holders, the purpose of which was togenerate income. However, on further examination thatmay have all sorts of unintended consequences, becausethere may well be some licence-holders who will beunintentionally caught by this.

I notice that the honourable member is agreeing thatthere may be some unintended consequences. So it wasdecided that that the best way to deal with this was tobroaden out the aspect in relation to gaming licences toassociated entities. In relation to other licence-holders,that matter will be referred to the Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee, which will have a look at howmany licences have been issued and the nature of thoselicences to ensure that there are no unintendedconsequences. An initial inquiry from my departmentseemed to suggest that there are hundreds of licences

ELECTORAL BILL


that may fit into this category. This government doesnot want any unintended consequences, and therefore ithas gone down the path of broadening out the cap ongaming operators to cover associated entities. It willhave a look at the broader licence aspect in due course.


Heading negatived.

The CHAIRMAN — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Mordialloc to stop reading his book, as it isa breach of standing order 46.

Clause 210




Clause negatived.

Clause 211




Clause negatived.

Clause 212




16. Clause 212, page 154, lines 24 to 30, omit these linesand insert — “the Commission by the candidate makingthe appointment; and”.

Mr Savage’s amendment negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to.

Clause negatived.

Clause 213



The CHAIRMAN — Order! Amendment 17 of thehonourable member for Mildura is the same asamendment 57 moved by the Attorney-General.


Clause negatived.

Clause 214





Clause negatived.

Clause 215



The CHAIRMAN — Order! Amendments 19 and20 of the honourable member for Mildura are the sameas amendment 59 moved by the Attorney-General.


Clause negatived.

Clause 216





Clause negatived.

Clause 217




Clause negatived.

Clause 218




Clause negatived.

ELECTORAL BILL




63. Division heading preceding clause 219, omit “3 —Election Funding” and insert “2 — ElectionExpenditure”.



Mr Savage’s amendment negatived; Mr Hulls’samendment agreed to; amended heading agreed to.



64. Clause heading to clause 219, omit “Generalentitlement to funds” and insert “Entitlement”.

Amendment agreed to; amended heading agreed to.

Clause 219



“(1) This section sets out the entitlement.”.

66. Clause 219, page 157, line 29, omit “Subject to thisDivision,” and insert “The sum of”.

67. Clause 219, page 158, line 1, omit “Division” and insert“section”.



The CHAIRMAN — Order! The honourablemember for Mildura’s amendment is to omit the wholeclause, while the Attorney-General’s amendment is tomake changes. So I will put the amendments from theAttorney-General first. If they pass, therefore theamendment of the honourable member for Mildurafails.

Mr Hulls’s amendments agreed to; Mr Savage’samendment negatived; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 220



“(1) An amount is only payable if the statementrequired to be given to the Commission has beengiven to the Commission.

(2) The amount payable is —

(a) if the statement specifies that not less than theentitlement has been spent or incurred inrelation to the election, the whole of theentitlement; or

(b) if the statement specifies that an amount thatis less than the entitlement has been spent orincurred in relation to the election, an amountequal to the amount specified in thestatement.”.

69. Clause 220, line 10, omit “under this Division”.

70. Clause 220, line 14, omit this line and insert “registeredofficer of the registered political party within 30 daysafter the Commission has been given the statement.”.


72. Clause 220, line 19, omit line 19 and insert “payment tothe candidate within 30 days after the Commission hasbeen given the statement.”.


These amendments are to ensure that public funding isnot public funding as of right but that the payment ofpublic funding will be conditional on the giving of anaudited statement on election expenditure to theVictorian Electoral Commissioner. They actuallytighten up the previous arrangement, which would haveallowed public funding as of right, making it one wherethere is a reimbursement arrangement.

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I just seek someclarification about the audited statement. Is that astatement that has to be signed by an auditor, so it hasto be an official document that people have to getsigned off by a registered person?

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — Yes. It is notproposed that it simply be, if I can use the expression, amickey mouse statement. It will actually have to be asigned statement. For the honourable member’sinformation, and for what it is worth, given that theamount of public funding under this bill is $1.20 pervote, with the types of advertising campaigns that themajor political parties run in this state it would be myexpectation that they would certainly be spending a lotmore than that. It will not be difficult to substantiate thereimbursement model, but we decided not to change thesituation to funding as of right, because, as thehonourable member may well know, there have beensome difficulties in other states with election campaignsand parties and accounting for public moneys.

Ms Davies — Not Independents!

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr HULLS — I acknowledge that, and I am happyfor that interjection to be recorded in Hansard. This isto ensure that does not happen. A statement has toverify where the money is spent.




Clause 221



75. Clause 221, lines 31 and 32, omit “and was the agent forthe purposes of this Part”.




Clause 222


76. Clause 222, page 159, line 9, omit “219(1)” and insert“211(2)”.



Mr Hulls’s amendment agreed to; Mr Savage’samendment negatived; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 223


77. Clause 223, page 160, line 30, omit “Division” andinsert “Part”.



Mr Hulls’s amendment agreed to; Mr Savage’samendment negatived; amended clause agreed to.




The CHAIRMAN — Order! Amendment 28 in thename of the honourable member for Mildura isidentical to the Attorney-General’s amendment, so thecommittee will vote on the Attorney-General’samendment.


Heading negatived.

Clause 224



The CHAIRMAN — Order! Amendment 29 in thename of the honourable member for Mildura is thesame as amendment 79 in the name of theAttorney-General.


Clause negatived.

Clause 225





Clause negatived.

Clause 226





Clause negatived.

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — Madam Chairman, I askthat the amendments from hereon in standing in myname be withdrawn.

Mr Savage’s amendments withdrawn by leave.

ELECTORAL BILL


Clause 227




Clause negatived.

Clauses 228 to 230






Clauses negatived.





Heading negatived.

Clauses 231 to 234







Clauses negatived.





Heading negatived.

Clauses 235 to 242











Clauses negatived.



100. Division heading preceding clause 243, omit “7” andinsert “3”.


Clause 243




Clause negatived.

Clause 244


102. Clause 244, line 17, omit “prescribed” and insert“relevant”.


“( ) For the purposes of calculating the total amount orvalue of the political donations made undersub-section (1) by the holder of a relevant licencethat is a company, any political donations madeduring the financial year to the same registeredpolitical party by a related company in relation tothe company that is the holder of the relevantlicence are to be included.

( ) For the purposes of this section, a company is arelated company if it is —

(a) a related body corporate within the meaningof section 50 of the Corporations Act; or

(b) a shareholder in the other company.”.


ELECTORAL BILL


Clause 245


104. Clause 245, line 22, omit “prescribed” and insert“relevant”.


106. Clause 245, line 31, omit “agent” and insert “registeredofficer”.






Clause 246




Clause negatived.

Clause 247


109. Clause 247, page 182, lines 8 to 30 and page 183, lines 1to 7, omit these lines and insert —

“(1) If the registered officer of a registered politicalparty gives a statement that contains particulars thatare, to the knowledge of the registered officer, falseor misleading in a material particular, the registeredofficer is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(2) If a candidate gives a statement that containsparticulars that are, to the knowledge of thecandidate, false or misleading in a materialparticular, the candidate is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.”.

110. Clause 247, page 183, line 9, omit “(3) or (4)” and insert“(1) or (2)”.

111. Clause 247, page 183, line 13, omit “Division 3” andinsert “this Part”.

112. Clause 247, page 183, line 14, omit “(5)” and insert“(3)”.

113. Clause 247, page 183, line 23, omit “return underDivision 4, 5 or 6” and insert “statement any”.

114. Clause 247, page 183, line 24, omit “return” and insert“statement”.

115. Clause 247, [page 183,] lines 29 to 34 and page 184,lines 1 to 20, omit these lines.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to;clause 248 agreed to.

Clause 249


116. Clause 249, [page 185,] line 6, omit “return under thisPart” and insert “statement”.


Clause 250




Clause negatived.



118. Clause heading to clause 251, omit “returns” and insert“statements”.


Clause 251


119. Clause 251, page 187, lines 6 and 7, omit “return underthis Part” and insert “statement”.


121. Clause 251, page 187, line 11, omit “return under thisPart” and insert “statement”.


123. Clause 251, page 187, line 15, omit this line andinsert —

“( ) If the statement was given by a person as theregistered officer of”.

124. Clause 251, page 187, lines 18 to 20, omitsub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert —

“(a) the person who gave the statement; or

(b) the person who is currently the registered officer ofthe registered political party.”.

ELECTORAL BILL







Clause 252




Clause negatived.

Division heading preceding clause 253.




Heading negatived.

Clauses 253 to 274

























Clauses negatived.




Amendment agreed to; amended heading agreed to;clause 275 agreed to.

New clauses


154. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 31 —

“AA. Inspection of list of electors and electoral rolls

(1) The Commission must prepare every 6 months alist of the names of electors (other than silentelectors) in alphabetical order and their addresses.

(2) The Commission must ensure that copies of thelatest list of electors are available for publicinspection free of charge at the office of theCommission during office hours.

(3) The Commission must ensure that copies of thelatest print of any electoral roll are available forpublic inspection free of charge at any place andduring times determined by the Commission.”.


“BB. Provision of enrolment information to others

(1) After receiving a request from any person ororganisation not referred to in section 33 for a listof electors and their particulars, the Commissionmust —

(a) identify the public interest in providing therequested information; and

(b) consult with the Privacy Commissionerappointed under the Information Privacy

ELECTORAL BILL


Act 2000 on the public interest in protectingthe privacy of personal information; and

(c) taking into account the advice of the PrivacyCommissioner, make a finding whether ornot the public interest in providing therequested information outweighs the publicinterest in protecting the privacy of personalinformation in the particular circumstances.

(2) Subject to sub-section (3), if the Commission hasmade a finding under sub-section (1) that thepublic interest in providing the requestedinformation outweighs the public interest inprotecting the privacy of personal information,the Commission may —

(a) provide to the person or organisation a listspecifying electors and their particulars; and

(b) charge a fee that covers the cost to theCommission of providing the list.

(3) The Commission must obtain from the person ororganisation to be provided with informationunder this section an undertaking that the personor organisation will —

(a) only use the information for the purpose forwhich the Commission agreed to providethe information; and

(b) not copy the information or give it to anyother person or organisation; and

(c) return the information to the Commission ordestroy the information after using it for thepurpose for which the Commission agreedto provide the information.

(4) If the Commission provides enrolmentinformation under this section —

(a) to a person or organisation that conductsmedical research; or

(b) to a person or organisation that provides ahealth screening program —

the Commission may include in the enrolmentinformation the age ranges of electors in a formdetermined by the Commission.

(5) The Commission must not provide particulars ofsilent electors under this section.

(6) The Commission must make available for publicinspection, free of charge, at the office of theCommission, any finding made undersub-section (1).”.

156. Insert the following new clause to precede clause 98 —

“CC. Electors who may apply to vote early or by post

For the purposes of this Division, a person maymake an application under section 99 or 101 ifthe person is —

(a) an elector who will not be within Victoriaduring the hours of voting on election day; or

(b) an elector who will be travelling on electionday under conditions which preclude theelector from voting at an election day votingcentre;

(c) an elector who will not be within8 kilometres, by the nearest practicable route,of an election day voting centre; or

(d) an elector who, by reason of being seriouslyill or infirm or of approaching maternity, willbe unable to travel to an election day votingcentre; or

(e) an elector who, because he or she will be at aplace (other than a hospital) caring for aperson who is seriously ill or infirm orapproaching maternity, will be unable totravel from that place to an election dayvoting centre; or

(f) an elector who will be a patient in a hospitalduring the hours of voting on election day; or

(g) an elector who on election day will be —

(i) serving a sentence of imprisonment; or

(ii) otherwise in lawful custody or detention;or

(h) an elector who is a silent elector; or

(i) an elector who because of his or herreligious beliefs or membership of areligious order —

(i) will be precluded from attending anelection day voting centre; or

(ii) for the greater part of the hours of votingon election day, will be precluded fromattending an election day voting centre;or

(j) an elector who will be required by theelector’s employer to remain at the elector’splace of employment under conditions whichprevent the elector from voting at an electionday voting centre.”.

157. Insert the following new clauses to precedeclause 219 —

“DD. Statement of expenditure

(1) For the purposes of having an entitlement undersection 211, the registered officer of a registeredpolitical party must, before the expiration of20 weeks after election day, give the Commissiona statement in an approved form specifying thatthe registered political party has spent or incurredin relation to the election —

(a) not less than the entitlement; or

ELECTORAL BILL


(b) less than the entitlement, being the amountspecified in the statement.

(2) For the purposes of having an entitlement undersection 211, a candidate in the election who wasnot endorsed by a registered political party must,before the expiration of 20 weeks after electionday, give the Commission a statement in anapproved form specifying that the candidate hasspent or incurred in relation to the election —

(a) not less than the entitlement; or

(b) less than the entitlement, being the amountspecified in the statement.

EE. Audit of statement

(1) A statement under section 208(1) must be given tothe Commission with the certificate of a registeredcompany auditor within the meaning of theCorporations Act.

(2) A statement under section 208(2) must be given tothe Commission with the certificate of anindependent auditor advising that the statement hasbeen audited in accordance with AustralianAccounting Standards as specified insection 334(1) of the Corporations Act.

(3) A certificate under sub-section (1) or (2) must statethat the auditor —

(a) was given full and free access at allreasonable times to all accounts, records,documents and papers relating directly orindirectly to any matter required to bespecified in the statement; and

(b) examined the material referred to inparagraph (a) for the purpose of giving thecertificate; and

(c) received all information and explanations thatthe auditor requested in respect of any matterrequired to be specified in the statement; and

(d) has no reason to believe that any matter statedin the statement is not correct.

(4) A statement is to be taken not to have been given tothe Commission unless the certificate required bythis section is attached to the statement.

FF. Powers of Commission

(1) If the Commission is satisfied on reasonablegrounds that information provided in the statementor the certificate is materially incorrect, theCommission may by notice in writing request theauditor to provide further information as specifiedin the notice within 14 days of the date of thenotice.

(2) If the auditor fails to provide the requestedinformation, the Commission may by notice inwriting request the registered officer of theregistered political party or the candidate to provide

further information as specified in the notice within14 days of the date of the notice.

(3) If the registered officer of the registered politicalparty or the candidate fails to provide the requestedinformation, the Commission may —

(a) withhold any payment under section 212 untilthe requested information is provided; or

(b) if a payment has already been made undersection 212, take proceedings to recover thepayment under section 212(5).”.


“GG. Provision of annual returns

(1) The registered officer of a registered political partymust give to the Commission a copy of the annualreturn provided on behalf of the registered politicalparty under section 314AC of the CommonwealthElectoral Act 1918 as soon as the annual return hasbeen provided under that section.

(2) The registered officer of the registered politicalparty must certify that the copy is a true copy of theannual return provided on behalf of the registeredpolitical party under section 314AC of theCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918.”.

New clauses agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Report considered.


That the house agree to the amendments made by thecommittee.

House divided on question:

Ayes, 80Allan, Ms Leighton, MrAllen, Ms Lenders, MrAsher, Ms Lim, MrAshley, Mr Lindell, MsBaillieu, Mr Loney, MrBarker, Ms Lupton, MrBatchelor, Mr McArthur, MrBeattie, Ms McCall, MsBracks, Mr McIntosh, MrBrumby, Mr Maddigan, MrsBurke, Ms Maughan, MrCameron, Mr Maxfield, MrCampbell, Ms Mildenhall, MrCarli, Mr Mulder, MrClark, Mr Napthine, DrCooper, Mr Nardella, MrDelahunty, Mr Overington, MsDelahunty, Ms Pandazopoulos, MrDixon, Mr Paterson, MrDoyle, Mr Perton, Mr

SUMMARY OFFENCES (SPRAY CANS) BILL


Duncan, Ms Peulich, MrsElliott, Mrs Pike, MsFyffe, Mrs Plowman, MrGarbutt, Ms Richardson, MrGillett, Ms Robinson, MrHaermeyer, Mr Ryan, MrHamilton, Mr Seitz, MrHardman, Mr Shardey, MrsHelper, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Holding, Mr Spry, MrHoneywood, Mr Steggall, MrHoward, Mr Stensholt, MrHulls, Mr Thompson, MrJasper, Mr Thwaites, MrKilgour, Mr Trezise, MrKosky, Ms Viney, MrKotsiras, Mr Vogels, MrLangdon, Mr (Teller) Wells, MrLanguiller, Mr Wilson, MrLeigh, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 3Davies, Ms (Teller) Savage, MrIngram, Mr (Teller)

Question agreed to.


The SPEAKER — Order! The time appointedunder sessional orders for me to interrupt the businessof the house has now arrived.

Sitting continued on motion of Mr HULLS(Attorney-General).

Third reading


That the bill be now read a third time.

As there are some voices for the noes, I ask all thosesupporting the bill to stand.

Required number of members having risen:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

Remaining stages


SUMMARY OFFENCES (SPRAY CANS)BILL


Received from Council.

Read first time on motion of Dr NAPTHINE (Leader ofthe Opposition).

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Imove:

That the bill be printed and, by leave, be read a second timeforthwith.

Leave refused.

Ordered to be printed and second reading to be madeorder of the day for next day.

Remaining business postponed on motion of Mr HULLS(Attorney-General).

ADJOURNMENT



Housing: eastern region

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I ask the Ministerfor Housing to conduct an independent investigationinto a matter that results from a letter writtenanonymously but written, in the words of the writer ofthe letter, as an act from a whistleblower. Theanonymous letter is written in relation to the operationof the eastern region housing office. I often ignoreletters written anonymously, but in this particular case Ihave not ignored the letter as I understand the ministerherself may have received this letter as it is dated2 May.

There are some very serious accusations made in thisletter, and I will go through them. The accusationsmade include: that the housing and homeless managerof the eastern region has appointed an acting managerand has made himself unavailable and unapproachablewhile apparently not resigning his position; that theacting housing manager intimidates staff, is guilty ofnepotism through the employment of family membersin the office and uses standover tactics with staff; thatthese matters have been raised with other managers butto no avail; that only some staff are in receipt ofperformance-based pay and that such people appear tobe the family and friends of the acting manager; that aparticular family member of the acting manager hasbeen promoted despite poor performance and theposition not being advertised; that team leaders in theeastern region have no qualifications, skills orprofessional training, and a specific example was givenin the letter; and that deals are being done withcontractors who are mates, without there being a propertender or competitive process and with lack of

ADJOURNMENT


accountability. As I said before, it is claimed in thisletter that these matters have been raised with othersenior managers, but to no avail.

I ask that the minister conduct an independent inquiryinto this matter. I further ask that the minister report theresults of this inquiry back to Parliament, as the issuesraised are serious and I believe that if they are found tobe untrue she should report to the Parliament so as toclear the name and the reputation of the staff involvedin these accusations.

Wimmera: disease and pest control

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Agriculture major concernsthat have been raised with me regarding white snailsand noxious weeds along railway lines, water channelsand roadside reserves. If the Wimmera–Mallee pipelineproject does happen, we might not have any channels.

At the present time white snails are causing particularconcern among members of the farming communitybecause farmers believe the government and therailway operators are not maintaining their land in anappropriate way. This is causing problems over anincreasing area of the Wimmera–Mallee region. Irequest the Minister for Agriculture to take action andbring together his department, other governmentagencies, private rail companies and the farmingcommunity to develop a strategy to reduce this whitesnail problem.

Currently highways and main roads are theresponsibility of Vicroads. Local government also hassome responsibility for road reserves. Wimmera-MalleeWater has the responsibility for channel banks unlessthere is agreement with adjoining landowners.EDI-PTR is a private company responsible for themanagement of open rail reserves. The Department ofNatural Resources and Environment has theresponsibility for controlling prohibited noxious weedsin most of these areas. DNRE also has a goodneighbour program to control noxious weeds whereprivate land adjoins national parks, reserves anduncommitted Crown land.

White snails have been identified in the Wimmera for15 years with the main concentration being aroundNatimuk, Nhill, Kaniva and Rainbow. Farmers in ruralcommunities have contacted me about this increasingproblem. The snails are spreading and in greaternumbers across the Wimmera. This year there seems tobe much more burning going on of stubbles and grassesacross the western part of Victoria. I am aware thatburning is an effective way of controlling white snails,

but the public land managers are not pulling theirweight in this matter. They are not being goodneighbours.

I am aware that DNRE held 5-hour workshops in threelocations at Kaniva, Natimuk and Rainbow last month,but that only five or six people attended each of theseforums. The cost to attend was $70. This problemoccurs mostly on Crown land, and yet the governmentis charging rural communities $70 a head to attendthese forums. With an increasing problem mostlycoming from Crown land reserves I again ask theMinister for Agriculture to take action and review thewhite snail problem in the Wimmera and to work withthe farming community, the various governmentagencies and the private companies to address thismajor problem.

Port of Geelong: rail access

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I raise an issue foraction by the Minister for Ports in another place and itrelates to the proposed construction of a dual gauge railline into Lascelles wharf at the port of Geelong. Ashonourable members would well appreciate, the port ofGeelong is a vital link in Geelong’s commercialtransport system and it is essential that it is linkedeffectively not only to road but also to rail.

At the present time that key wharf — Lascelleswharf — is not linked to rail and it relies solely on roadtransport for its linkages to the rest of Australia. Thisseverely limits the potential of the wharf, and thereforethe action I seek is for the minister to liaise with theGeelong port and appropriate government departmentsto ensure that work on this important project is startedand completed as soon as possible.

The importance of the rail link to Lascelles wharfwithin the port of Geelong can be recognised when oneconsiders that Geelong’s busiest wharf is not linked torail even though the national line is literally only metresaway from the wharf and the private operator of theport of Geelong, Toll Holdings, is currently planning amultimillion dollar expansion of the wharf.

The port of Geelong believes there is potential forfuture development at the wharf to an estimated valueof $620 million. The proposed rail link wouldcontribute significantly to the future plans anddevelopment of that wharf and it would assist the portof Geelong compete against not only its immediateneighbours — the ports of Melbourne, Hastings andPortland — but also nationally and internationally.Previously the port operator has invested heavily in the

ADJOURNMENT


facilities of Lascelles wharf to ensure that it iscompetitive with rival ports.

Toll Holdings believes Lascelles wharf is one of thebest bulk facilities in Australia. Of course, the rail linkto the National Line will significantly enhance thatreputation.

In relation to future development at Lascelles wharf, theport operator owns 30 hectares immediately adjacent tothe wharf and has definite plans to extend Lascelleswharf onto that land in the near to mid-term future.

With the connection of Lascelles wharf with the rail,Toll Holdings will seek to promote rail freight heavilyand extensively, not only for its bulk goods, but also forcontainers in the future.

This initiative is all about future investment — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired.

Disability services: family options package

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — I wish to raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for CommunityServices. I ask her to review the flexibility of the familyoptions package of Anja and Mark Turner, who areconstituents of mine, for their son Joshua. Joshua hasautism, severe to profound hearing loss, a moderateintellectual disability and Down syndrome and presentswith numerous behavioural and physical difficulties,including severe incontinence.

The Turners first came to see me in 1997 regarding thedifficulties they were having in getting help for Joshua.They were offered a family options package in August2000; that package was designed to provideout-of-home care for Joshua in a shared-carearrangement. However, the Turners made it very clearto me when they first came to see me and later that theywanted to care for Joshua at home, and were committedto giving him the same options as the other children intheir family, who have mild disabilities.

Eventually the department offered them $2600 amonth, which covered in-home support includingpersonal care, occasional respite holiday programs andassistance with incontinence products, amongst otherthings. However since then, although the value of thepackage has not changed, the flexibility of it has.

Mr and Mrs Turner have told me they cannot roll overany amounts from one month to the next. BecauseJoshua’s needs vary, they would like to be able to dothat. Of the original monthly amount, $738.74 has to be

kept for emergencies. If no emergencies arise in a givenmonth, then they cannot roll that money over either.

Also, they were told that the options package would beavailable until Joshua turned 18; they have now beeninformed it will cease when he turns 16 and receives apension. I realise the demand on the department forthese sorts of packages, but I am impressed with thedesire of this family to take care of Joshua at home, andask the minister to review that options package and seeif some more flexibility can be built into it.

Southern University Games

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I raise a matter thisevening for the Minister for Tourism, and the action Iseek is his support and the support of his department forthe 2002 Southern University Games, which are beingheld in Bendigo in July of this year. This event will beheld over four days in July, and there will be 14 eventsheld over those days. These days will attract around800 competitors to Bendigo, and there will also be anumber of officials, and friends of the competitors andofficials, who will travel to Bendigo for the games. Soquite clearly there are a number of economic spin-offsto the Bendigo community through flow-on into ourlocal economy and particularly into the hospitalityindustry. Also there are a great number of tourismbenefits, both to the local tourism officers themselvesand also in terms of the many opportunities to furtherpromote Bendigo as a fantastic tourist destination incentral Victoria.

This will be another great event for Bendigo, andBendigo certainly has a large number of top-qualityfacilities to enable it to host an event of this nature. Forexample, we have the Schweppes Centre, which isabout to undergo a $4 million redevelopment,$2 million of which funding has been allocated by theBracks government. That will convert that centre anddevelop it into a fantastic sporting venue. We also haveredevelopments under way — or about to be underway — at the Queen Elizabeth Oval and the aquaticcentre, and we have an international-level athleticstrack at Flora Hill; so we certainly have the facilities.

Bendigo is already host to a number of state, nationaland international events. This year Bendigo will hostpart of the World Masters Games, and in 2004 we aregoing to host the Commonwealth Youth Games — afantastic coup for Bendigo and central Victoria! Then,in the lead-up to the 2006 Commonwealth Games wewill be hosting the rifle shooting at the Wellsford riflerange as well as a number of other lead-up events tothose games.

ADJOURNMENT


Bendigo can rightly claim to be the sporting capital ofcountry Victoria and probably almost the sportingcapital of regional Australia, when you consider thelarge number of events and venues of top quality thatBendigo has.

The 2002 Southern University Games will be anotheropportunity to showcase Bendigo, both our sportingfacilities and our many tourist opportunities that gamessuch as these provide.

The action I seek from the minister is to give hissupport to enable promotional opportunities to beundertaken in the lead-up to be Southern UniversityGames to be held in July 2002.


Electricity: charges

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I rise to seek actionfrom the Minister for Finance. Considering that therecommendations from the Essential ServicesCommission on future electricity pricing are due laterthis year, the government should ensure that peopleliving in country and outer metropolitan areas continueto pay comparable prices to those paid by theirMelbourne counterparts.

I draw the attention of the minister to the report on thealuminium smelting industry undertaken by theAustralia Institute.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!There is too much audible conversation in the house. Iam having trouble hearing the honourable member forMildura. Honourable members in the house, pleasekeep quiet.

Mr SAVAGE — The author, Hal Turton, estimatesthat between 1996–97 and 2001–02 the losses sufferedby the SECV in supplying electricity to Alcoa at PointHenry and Portland were respectively between$175 million and $110 million annually. I am sure thatAlcoa would point out that due to the number of peopleit employs and the export dollars it generates Victoriagets good value for this subsidy. However, what thesefigures do is put in perspective the cost of ensuringcomparable electricity prices for all Victorians.

Comparable electricity prices are not only essential forthe survival of regional and rural communities but arecritical if regional Victoria is going to attract the newbusinesses and achieve increased population anddecentralisation. These benefits are as basic as the price

of a 45-cent stamp, which is soon to cost 50 cents.Electricity prices must reflect this reality.

Without diminishing the benefits Victoria may derivefrom the electricity subsidies to Alcoa, they pale whencompared with the benefits to Victoria from similarsubsidies to ensure an equitable electricity pricingpolicy for all Victorians.

Consequently I seek from the minister an assurance thatthe government will consider the recommendations ofthe commission, and will do so from that perspective.

Traralgon Racing Club

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — As a passionatesupporter of country racing I raise with the Minister forRacing the devastating news that Traralgon RacingClub has had its racing licence revoked. While CountryRacing Victoria attempts to salvage a reasonableoutcome for the citizens and racing enthusiasts ofTraralgon, Labor’s mates are attempting to underminethe entire process.

While these sensitive negotiations are taking placeLatrobe City Council’s Labor mayor and former LaborParty candidate for Narracan, Brendan Jenkins, iseyeing off the Traralgon racecourse for subdivision anda windfall gain for the council, which owns the land. Itis common knowledge that windfall gains from the salewould be used not to retain and refurbish the currentcouncil offices in Traralgon but to enable the council tomove to Morwell, where Brendan Jenkins and hisLabor council mates intend to build a Taj Mahal toentertain their union buddies.

Once in Morwell, the Labor mayor, Brendan Jenkins,who is also electorate officer and heir apparent to thehonourable member for Morwell, will have achievedhis objectives at the expense of the citizens ofTraralgon. This Labor and union mates scheme wouldhave Brendan Jenkins eventually sitting in thehonourable member for Morwell’s office directingtraffic through his newly created Taj Mahal and leavinga local government and sporting vacuum in Traralgon.

I call on the minister to work with Country RacingVictoria to ensure that Labor mayor Brendan Jenkinsdoes not get his hands on the Traralgon Racing Club’sland and in so doing destroy any chance of retaining aracetrack in Traralgon. While I agree that it is notappropriate for the minister to interfere in theday-to-day activities of the racing industry, I ask: if itwere Flemington, Ballarat or Bendigo turf clubs thathad encountered governance and financial problems,would the minister take the same hands-off approach as

ADJOURNMENT


he has with Traralgon? No! He would be in there, bootsand all, from day one fighting for these other clubs.

There is a whiff of foul air in Traralgon as I speak, thesmell of dirty Labor politics being played out at theexpense of the citizens of Traralgon.

Winton Motor Raceway

Ms ALLEN (Benalla) — I raise with the Ministerfor Tourism the very important issue of tourism in myelectorate, especially in the area of motor sports. I wantthe minister to take action to ensure that the bestpossible advantage can be taken by the Winton MotorRaceway to ensure that it can remain the foremostmotor sports raceway in country Victoria.

Winton Motor Raceway was originally built in 1949and has, over the years, grown to be the best countryraceway in Victoria, attracting many racing events, inparticular the famous Super V8s, which will be held inAugust this year. Other events to be held are the Super500 cc motorbike events, both of which types of eventsattract in the vicinity of 20 000 people. That is becausethey are very well known not only across countryVictoria but also throughout the state of Victoria andright across Australia.

I have been for a drive around Winton Motor Racewaywith the chief executive officer of the raceway, MickRonke, so I know getting into a racing car and beingdriven around the Winton raceway at high speed withan experienced driver is an exhilarating thing to do andI would recommend it to anyone.

Winton Motor Raceway is also the home of many ofthe training camps for the top name cars in Australia,including Holden and Toyota’s training facilities andfacilities for motorbikes and tyre testing.

A recent economic impact assessment commissionedby the Delatite shire and completed by EssentialEconomics found that the raceway has an economicvalue to the area of $24 million. This area reaches fromBenalla to Wangaratta and Shepparton. It means thebusinesses in those towns — from hotels, motels andbed and breakfasts to bakeries, cafes and restaurants,and many other businesses — reap the economic andemployment benefits brought by the tourists attendingthe raceway. The Benalla Auto Club has worked hardover the years to upgrade the raceway to aninternational standard so it can attract the race meetingsorganised by Avesco and Cams.

As a result of the economic impact it is now time forthe raceway to move forward and improve its standingnot only as the foremost raceway in country Victoria

but to ensure it remains one of regional Victoria’s mostexciting tourist destinations.

Point Nepean: land

Mr DIXON (Dromana) — I refer the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation to the federalDepartment of Defence land at Portsea. I ask theminister to ensure that the state government is an activeparticipant in the disposal process of that land, whichhas been initiated by the Department of Defence. Thedefence department is disposing of 300 hectares of landat Point Nepean, which is surrounded by theMornington Peninsula National Park. Two hundredhectares of the bushland is full of unexplodedordinance, but 100 hectares consists of open land,heritage buildings, the old quarantine station and somehousing.

On a number of occasions in this place I have raised thefuture of the army land at Point Nepean, and each timeI have been told the government is looking at the issueand will get back to me. Since the last time I raised it inthis place I have learnt that the federal governmentoffered the 300 hectares to the state government foronly $4 million, but this government turned it down. Sothe defence department has now implemented a processof developing a master plan before it actually disposesof that land, and some state government departmentswill be part of that process.

I am really urging the minister to be an active andinterested participant in that process, because theoverwhelming view of the community is that that landmust remain available for public use. The stategovernment therefore must be an active participant,because if it is not there is a real risk that that land willbe handed over to the private sector for development,and the local community certainly does not want that.

Western Region Disability Network

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — I raise for theattention of the compassionate Minister for CommunityServices the future of government support for theWestern Region Disability Network. This disabilitynetwork has some 330 members, made up of serviceproviders and people with disabilities. It operates as aregional peak body for the disability sector as well as avoice for people with disabilities in the westernsuburbs. It also provides the department with a vehicleto form strategic alliances and to formalise itsrelationships with the sector.

A number of groups in my electorate have written oftheir concern about the long-term future of the group.

ADJOURNMENT


They include the Westgate Community InitiativesGroup, the Maribyrnong City Council, Carer LinksWest, the Carer Respite Centre and the Parent to ParentWestern Network. The groups request sufficientfunding to be able to employ a development officer.The history of the position, which has been funded upuntil now, has been that that officer has been able topull together diverse interests in relation to disabilityissues and to be behind some quite positive changes andoutcomes for people with disabilities. Otherachievements that I am aware of include beingnominated as a best practice model in 2000 by theDepartment of Human Services; having their researchinto funding gaps used by the department to identifyregional funding priorities; and having the regionalnewsletter that is available in an electronic and hardcopy form acknowledged as an invaluable tool forsharing information and inspiring those working in thesector.

It is vital not only that this network continues with themomentum that it has developed over the last few yearsbut that a structure exists to represent the needs of thoseaffected by disabilities, to link individuals withappropriate services and to perform a robust role as anadvocate for people. I ask the minister to takeappropriate action.



Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — I raise a matterfor the attention of the Attorney-General, who I note isnot in the chamber. I refer to a story in today’s Ageunder the heading ‘Bracks staff gagged in FOI inquiry’:

The Victorian government is trying to prevent ministerialadvisers from appearing before a tribunal hearing intoallegations of government interference in a freedom ofinformation request.

I also refer to the allegations made earlier today by mycolleague the honourable member for Kew and to aquestion to the Premier asked today by the Leader ofthe Opposition. The action I am seeking from theAttorney-General — I wish he was in the chamber torespond to this issue — is that he conduct aninvestigation into the handling of freedom ofinformation (FOI) requests in the Department ofInfrastructure in accordance with his memorandum of2 February 2000.

In that memorandum the Attorney-General set thestandards for the handling of freedom of informationrequests in the state of Victoria. The policy, which was

established on 2 February 2000 and distributed widelyamong government agencies, told us that in the state ofVictoria freedom of information law should now beinterpreted by departments in a manner that reflects awillingness to disclose information. That memorandumalso told FOI officers and agencies that departmentsmust facilitate a general right of access to documentsheld by those departments.

As I said, in that memorandum the Attorney-Generalset the standards for the administration of freedom ofinformation in the state of Victoria. Those standardsshould be set in concrete. Yet the opposition is awarethat the rhetoric of the government of February 2000falls far short of its action in government. Theopposition is aware that Mr Don Coulson, the formerFOI officer for the Department of Infrastructure, anexcellent FOI officer who served Labor and coalitiongovernments with integrity and maintained all thestandards required of a public servant, has been shiftedsideways.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member’s time has expired. Thehonourable member for Ivanhoe has 1 minute30 seconds.

Consumer affairs: business names

Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) — I ask the Minister forConsumer Affairs to come into the house to explainwhat action the government is taking to assistconstituents who wish to register business names toascertain whether the names they propose to register arelikely to be available. I have had a few constituentscome to me with that problem, and obviously anyaction the minister could take to assist businesses wouldbe beneficial. Constituents have also been to see meabout concerns they have about being unable toascertain whether a name they wish to register isalready registered and whether the proprietor of thebusiness trading under that name has the correctbusiness identity.

I ask the Minister for Consumers Affairs to come intothe house and explain what action the government istaking to remedy this situation. That would obviouslyassist people from all over the state, including peoplewho want to get into small business, to register theirbusinesses by being able to ascertain whether the namehas already been registered and whether the identity ofthat business is correct.


ADJOURNMENT


Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the Government Whip has just raised a matterwhich has the appearance of a question rather than anadjournment matter. There have been many rulings onthis. The honourable member needs to ask for action.His guise in attempting to cover his question — which Ithink was actually a filler, because it lasted11⁄2 minutes — was to ask the minister to come in hereand answer it! The honourable member needs to call foraction in respect of government administration. Theadjournment debate is not an opportunity for ministerswho have missed out on question time and who are notprepared to make a ministerial statement to engage inpropaganda and spin.

I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, to rule that it isinappropriate when the only action sought is for theminister to answer a question. I think the poor oldGovernment Whip was filling in time for someone, andon this occasion he got it wrong.

Mr Langdon — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I clearly asked for action. I asked the ministerto come into the house to explain what action thegovernment is taking to assist businesses in registeringnew business names. That is action.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I uphold the point of order — —

Mr Thompson interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I inform the honourable member for Sandringham that Ihave already upheld the point of order. I advise theGovernment Whip that I was listening carefully for hisrequest for action, and I felt that he asked the ministerto come into the house to explain something and did notactually ask for specific action, as is required in theadjournment debate. I simply ask the GovernmentWhip to be aware of that fact the next time he raises anissue on the adjournment.

The time for raising matters in the adjournment debatehas expired.

Responses

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I call the Minister for Agriculture to reply to a matterraised by the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) —Mr Acting Speaker, I have been in this place for14 years, and in that time I have seen some great abusesof this Parliament by honourable members — who insome cases it would be very lax to describe as

honourable. Tonight I witnessed the greatest characterassassination, the greatest abuse of Parliament and thegreatest example of hiding in cowards’ castle that Ihave heard in 14 years.

The honourable member for Polwarth raised a matterwhich was really a character assassination of a personhe has never met regarding something he knowsnothing about and relying on information supplied bysome lunatic. The information could not be described inany other way. It is true that the Traralgon Racing Clubis in danger of folding. However, if the honourablemember had done his homework he would have knownthat the biggest sponsor of Traralgon Racing Club hasbeen the Latrobe City Council. The person he describedin his distasteful and unacceptable characterassassination, which is something this Parliament — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I called on the Minister for Agriculture to reply to thematter raised by the honourable member for Wimmera.My understanding is that the honourable member forPolwarth raised a matter for the Minister for Racing. Atthis stage the minister is, as I understand it, answeringon behalf of the Minister for Racing. I would havethought this should have been done by the minister atthe table, the Minister for Housing.

Mr HAMILTON — Mr Acting Speaker, I amraising a matter of parliamentary privilege that I believeshould be referred to the Privileges Committee. That ishow serious this matter is.

An Honourable Member — There areprocedures — —

Mr HAMILTON — I think it is contemptible.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the minister has risen in the guise ofresponding to a matter raised by another member, andthis is clearly an abuse of the parliamentary process. Ifhe believes that there has been a breach of privilege, heshould remember that there have been many rulings bythe Speaker to the effect that he ought to put the matterin writing and send it to the Speaker, who will considerit and if necessary refer it to the Privileges Committee.But I am afraid the minister is using cowards’ castle.

Mr Maxfield (to Mr Perton) — What a disgrace!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I have heard enough. I uphold the point of order, andask the Minister for Agriculture to return to the subjectraised by the honourable member for Wimmera.

ADJOURNMENT


Mr HAMILTON — The honourable member forWimmera is an honourable person. He raised his matterin a sincere and genuine way, representing hisconstituents and doing a great job as a local member.The example that that honourable member sets is one ofwhich any member in this house could be very proud.

The honourable member raised a matter relating to theincursion of white snails, which are very serious pestsin the grains district. Indeed, the white snail hasextended its infestation onto the calcareous soils in theWimmera. This is causing great concern to farmers,especially grain growers, because the white snailscertainly interfere with the cropping that occurs in thearea as well as reducing yields.

Some eight or nine months ago I visited one of the fielddays that the honourable member mentioned in hiscomments on this serious problem. The research workbeing done on the white snails is fundamentally beingled by the South Australian Research and DevelopmentInstitute — or SARDI, for short. The problem is ofgreater concern in South Australia, and that is whySouth Australia’s agriculture department has invested agreat deal of money in research into this problem.

There have been a number of field days, and as thehonourable member indicated, there have been anumber of attempts to deal with the problem, includingburning the stubble and the crop as well as undertakinga number of baiting experiments.

The thing that concerned me in what the honourablemember mentioned, which I was not aware of, was thatthere was a very small attendance at a couple of theworkshops and other efforts being made to involvelocal farmers. The honourable member indicated thatthe attendance fee of $70 was indeed substantial. Ibelieve that under the new guidelines a natural resourcemanagement claim to Farmbis should see those classesconducted at little or no cost to the farmers. I willcertainly follow up that matter.

The department has been working with other agencies,including the catchment management authority, theCrown land division and Vicroads, where there is ajoint responsibility for ensuring that we have some wayof controlling this very serious menace to the croppersin that part of the state.

I do not have the latest details, as the honourablemember has raised the matter with me this evening, butI will ensure that a full and comprehensive report isgiven on the current status of dealing with this pest,including the directions the department is pursuing inconjunction with the local Victorian Farmers

Federation district council, local individual farmers andthe people in South Australia. I can assure thehonourable member that that full and comprehensivereport will be provided to him and his constituents,more importantly, within the next few days. I thank thehonourable member for raising the matter and,especially, for the honourable way in which he raised it.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forTourism) — The honourable member for Bendigo Eastraised the matter of the Southern University Games,which will be held again in July in Bendigo. She is ahighly enthusiastic local member who is hugelycommitted to her area, and she is not only a big sportsfan but a big participant in sports events in Bendigo. Iknow she has been very — —


Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — It is basketball, allright? She is involved at the Schweppes Centre inBendigo, if you would really like to know.

The fact is that the honourable member has been verykeen to support events which showcase Bendigo as agreat local area for sports events for young people —including the university sports. That is basicallysomething the local community and the local councilhave been trying to brand themselves on.

Last year Tourism Victoria supported the SouthernUniversity Games and the government did say that,subject to its meeting its targets and commitments to itin terms of the success of the event — maximisingattendance into Bendigo — it would support it againthis financial year. I am pleased to report to thehonourable member that, following the success of theevent last year and its commitment to a four-day periodand 14 sports events that will bring about1800 competitors to the area, in order to maximise theavailable opportunities and the number of attendeesinvolved in these Southern University Games thegovernment will provide $10 000 in marketing supportfor the organisation.

It is great to win the right to hold an event, but you haveto work to make sure you get the visitors, and Bendigois a great place for such events. That is why it won theworld rights to hold the Commonwealth Youth Gamesin Bendigo in 2004. I congratulate the city, and I waspleased as minister to be involved in that. I thank thehonourable member for Bendigo East very much forher great work in supporting these events and for thesubmissions and presentations she has made to me.

The honourable member for Benalla, who is also ahuge enthusiast for tourism in her own wonderful area,

ADJOURNMENT


has on many occasions raised the issue of the WintonMotor Raceway with me and other ministers,irrespective of their portfolios. The action she seeksfrom me is to support the raceway so it is able tosupport its well-known events, which can broaden outto tourism and improve the branding of Wintonraceway.

Following the honourable member’s representations Ihave been working with Tourism Victoria to see whatsort of assistance the government can give WintonMotor Raceway. The Delatite shire is also of the sameview. We all agree that we need to work on a marketingstrategy for the raceway that helps it better brand itselfand better identify what events and which types willmaximise visitation to the area. It is really all aboutensuring that more visitors visit the area, not only todrive up for events and go back to Melbourne or otherplaces in Victoria but to stay overnight and spend moremoney.

The Winton raceway has been involved in twosignificant regional events — the V8 Supercar seriesand the Historic Winton Weekend. Those events havereally been identified as providing the opportunity toimprove the raceway’s profile among motor racingenthusiasts not only in Victoria but interstate.

So the funding now of $5000, which will be jointlymatched by the Delatite shire, will produce a strategythat identifies a set of objectives for the futuremarketing of the facility as an event destination, and itwill help to develop specific travel and accommodationpackages that are complementary to existing events andaimed at increasing the regional visitation length ofstay.

I thank the honourable member very much for raisingthe issue. Winton is a great part of Victoria, and othergreat towns all the way out to Shepparton benefit fromhaving events at Winton. I look forward to that studybeing done and to seeing how we can support WintonMotor Raceway with its great events in the future.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — The honourablemember for Mooroolbark raised with me the necessityto review the family options package for Joshua Turner,the son of Anja and Mark Turner. I will certainly bevery happy to look into that matter and respond to thehonourable member and to the family.

The honourable member for Footscray has raised withme a matter concerning ongoing funding for theWestern Region Disability Network. I want tocommend the honourable member not only for hisadvocacy for people with disabilities and their families

in the western suburbs but also for his support forgroups like the Western Region Disability Network,which works very closely with the Department ofHuman Services and other community groups in thearea to ensure that people have the best possible accessto appropriate services.

I have asked the department’s disability services,together with home and community care services, toexplore the availability of additional resources to fundthe Western Region Disability Network for a full-timeworker. They will be getting back to me with a reporton the matter, but in the meantime I have approved agrant of $76 000, a practice that has been in place forthe last four years. It is one of a number of flexiblefunding arrangements to support the network. I thankthe honourable member for bringing that matter to myattention.

The honourable member for Caulfield has been inreceipt of an anonymous letter which raises some veryserious matters and contains some significantallegations about staff in the eastern metropolitanregion of the Department of Human Services. Of coursethe Office of Housing is part of the eastern metropolitanregion of the Department of Human Services. I mustsay I find it quite concerning that the anonymous letterwas aired publicly in this matter and read in this houseand into Hansard so that the people against whom theallegations have been made have absolutely noopportunity to defend themselves. Some of the peoplewho were supposedly referred to are people of longstanding within the Department of Human Services,and I have full confidence in John Leatherland, who isthe regional director, and others in that region.

The purpose of this state’s Whistleblowers ProtectionAct 2001 is to encourage and facilitate disclosures ofthe improper conduct of public officers and publicbodies, and to provide protection for people who makesuch disclosures. As Minister for Community Servicesand Minister for Housing I am in receipt of manyanonymous letters which make all sorts of allegationsabout all sorts of members of the public — people wholive in public housing and people who have supposedlydone this and that to other people. Regarding thismatter, it is not my intention to start a witch-hunt. I seeno necessity for an independent inquiry; however, I willraise the matter with the appropriate people inmanagement, both within the eastern region of theDepartment of Human Services and also centrally sothat I can assure myself that these allegations are nottrue.

The honourable member for Geelong raised a matterfor the Minister for Ports in another place concerning

ADJOURNMENT


the rail link to the port of Geelong. I will pass thatmatter on to the minister.

The honourable member for Mildura raised a matter forthe Minister for Finance concerning a future electricitypricing regime. Again, I will pass that matter on to theminister.

The honourable member for Polwarth raised a numberof very serious allegations concerning the future ofracing in Traralgon, and I am sure that the Minister forRacing will — —

Mr Maxfield interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Narracan will stopinterjecting!


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I will not ask the honourable member for Narracanagain to stop interjecting! The minister continuing,without assistance!

Ms PIKE — Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I amsure that the Minister for Racing will provide theappropriate information concerning the matters thatwere raised.

The honourable member for Dromana raised a matterwith the Minister for Environment and Conservationconcerning the future disposal of Department ofDefence land in Point Nepean. That matter will bepassed on.

The honourable member for Bennettswood raised amatter for the attention of the Attorney-Generalregarding the handling of freedom of informationrequests in the Department of Infrastructure, and I amsure the Attorney-General will provide appropriateinformation on that matter.

The honourable member for Ivanhoe raised a matterwith the Minister for Consumer Affairs concerning theregistration of business — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I ruled the honourable member for Ivanhoe out of orderon that issue. The minister should take note of that.

Ms PIKE — I think they are all the matters I neededto respond to.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 10.56 p.m.

NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY

Thursday, 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY 1581

Thursday, 16 May 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.35 a.m. and read the prayer.

NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY

Annual report

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — By leave, I move:

That there be presented to this house a copy of the report ofthe National Crime Authority for the year 2000–01.

Motion agreed to.

Laid on table.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Rights of reply

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) presented reports on rightsof reply of Mr Alan Malcolm, Mr Tom Love andMr Kenneth E. Jarvis, together with appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPERS


National Parks Act 1975 — Advice of the National ParksAdvisory Council pursuant to s 11(1)(aa)

Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 — Response of theMinister for Community Services and Housing on the actiontaken with respect to the recommendations made by thePublic Accounts and Estimates Committee’s Report on theReview of the Auditor-General’s Special Report No. 43 —Protecting Victoria’s Children: The Role of the Departmentof Human Services

Robinvale District Health Services — Report for the year2000–01

Rochester and Elmore District Hospital — Report for the year2000–01.

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION(AMENDMENT) BILL

Council’s amendments

Returned from Council with message relating toamendments.

Ordered to be considered next day.


Adjournment

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I move:

That the house, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 May.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Ovens Landcare Network

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — This week thehonourable member for Benambra and I met with adelegation of members of the Ovens Landcare Networkled by its chairman, James Neary. This group wasformed in 1994 by 21 groups and more than1000 land-holders. These people came to see usbecause of their frustration with the poor performanceof the Minister for Environment and Conservation andthe Department of Natural Resources and Environment(DNRE).

Under this government, 11 catchment managementofficer (CMO) positions in the network’s area havedropped to 6 positions and those officers are required todo desk work and attend to other matters, whichprevents them from spending sufficient time on theground. The issue for this group is that these CMOs arenow required to cover very large areas and are notparticularly familiar with the land managementpractices of those areas.

The Ovens Landcare Network is particularly frustratedby the government’s lack of commitment to dealingwith the issue of weed control. It seeks increasedfunding for weed control, but this should not beprovided at the expense of other sections of theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment.

The network wants the government to put up or shutup. It sees a failure to prosecute those who do not takecare of their own land and believes that DNRE needs toimplement prosecutions as a last resort for persistentoffenders as opposed to letting the matter go. Mostimportantly, the network requires a more responsibleattitude on the part of the minister and the departmentin looking after Crown land so private landowners arenot impacted on.


MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1582 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 16 May 2002

Rushworth and district concert band

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I congratulate theRushworth and district concert band, which iscelebrating its 120th anniversary this year. The bandwas formed in 1882 and, like the township ofRushworth itself, has had a very colourful history. Asmembers would know, Rushworth was the centre of alarge and bustling goldmining community based on thecommunities of Whroo and Greytown late last century.The band has operated continually since 1882 exceptfor a brief period during the Second World War.

The band is known for its willingness to play at districtfunctions. In the early days it won tenders to playbecause it had its own horse-drawn wagon and couldundercut rival bands. It has also won its fair share oftrophies in competitions. While numbers are currentlylow, the band has members coming from Stanhope,Colbinabbin, Nagambie and Rushworth. The band isnoted for its loyal and long-serving members, includingGeoff Beck, with 61 years service; Stewart Nurse, with53 years; Graeme Collard, with 50 years, and DarrenButler, with 22 years. Four members have receivedawards from the Returned and Services League forplaying at more than 50 Anzac Day services.

I congratulate the Rushworth and District concert bandon the contribution it has made to the social, culturaland civic life of Rushworth and community. Icongratulate it on its 120 years of service and wish itevery success in the future.

Essendon traffic school

Mrs MADDIGAN (Essendon) — On Tuesdaymorning I had the great pleasure of attending theopening of the Essendon traffic school. I would like tocongratulate the City of Moonee Valley and theEssendon Rotary Club for this great new initiative. TheEssendon traffic school is a facility at which youngchildren can learn road rules and road safety. In fact, itstarted in Essendon more than 40 years ago but in thepast few years it has fallen into a state of disrepair. Itwas an initiative of the Essendon Rotary Club and theMoonee Valley council to get it up and running again. Iam glad to say that there were students using in onTuesday morning. It is great to see children having theopportunity to learn about road safety and road rules ina safe environment.

I would like to congratulate Gerard Feian from theMoonee Valley council, who assisted with the project,and members of the Essendon Rotary Club — AlanMurphy, Roger Priestley, Peter Condos and thepresident, Ian Singleton. I would also like to

acknowledge the work done on this project by adeceased club member, Alan Stuckey.

I would also like to thank the Minister for Transport,who very graciously gave us a new W-class tram forthe facility. There was an old tram on the site which hasbeen removed to the Bendigo tram museum. The tramhas always been a feature of the Essendon trafficschool, and I know the students are grateful to have theopportunity to learn road safety in relation to publictransport. The tram looks terrific; it has been throughthe tram workshop. I congratulate the men and womenwho worked on it. It was great to see the Essendontraffic school operating again.

Frankston: Premier’s comments

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — Some three weeks agothe Bracks cabinet came to Frankston. A glossybrochure was distributed to part but not all of theelectorate and a very short lead time was given to thecommunity for submissions. Some members of thecommunity putting in submissions are still waiting tohear whether they are going to be seen by the Bracksgovernment. The reports from some of those who wereseen were quite fascinating. Some people reportedbeing horrified by the very poor level of understandingof the issues facing the community displayed by thelocal Labor members of Parliament. Worse still, theywere horrified at how misinformed and poorly advisedthe members of the Bracks government had been bytheir own staff on issues that mattered to Frankston.

It got even worse! Having referred to Frankston as‘Dandenong by the sea’, the Premier then referred to itas ‘a very nice town that with a bit of developmentcould be just like St Kilda’. The locals might argue thatwith a bit of luck we unfortunately already haveSt Kilda’s drug problem and we already have a coupleof brothels, but the last thing any of us in Frankstonwould like to be is ‘Dandenong by the sea’ or St Kilda.

Environment: Brazilian forests

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — I wish to informthe house that the Brazilian Congress is now voting ona project that will reduce the Amazon forest to 50 percent of its size. The area to be deforested is four timesthe size of Portugal and would be mainly used foragriculture and pastures for livestock. All the wood is tobe sold in the form of woodchips by large multinationalcompanies to international markets. The truth is that thesoil in the Amazon forest is useless without the forestitself.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Its quality is very acidic and the region is prone toconstant floods. At this time more than 160 000 squarekilometres that were deforested for the same purposeare abandoned and in the process of becoming deserts.Deforestation and the subsequent processing of thewoodchips on this scale will also release the hugeamount of carbon currently locked up in the wood backinto the atmosphere, worsening the problem of climatechange. We cannot let this happen.

I will be sending electronic correspondence in relationto this matter and I encourage all honourable memberson both sides of the house to write to the Brazilianparliament and its president. I also encouragehonourable members to write to our Prime Minister andthe federal Minister for the Environment urging them tomake representation with respect to saving the Amazonforests in Brazil. This is an important matter to all of us,not just Brazilians and Latin Americans, but those of uswho care about the environment world wide.

Land tax: small business

Ms BURKE (Prahran) — Since the election of theBracks government in 1999, Victorians have been hitby a 66 per cent increase in land tax, despite the factthat during the same period the number of Victorianspaying land tax has increased by 28 109. People arebeing offered no relief.

One of my constituents, the proprietor of a communityswimming pool centre, has seen his land tax bill gofrom $1500 to $24 000 in just four years. Irrespectiveof his ability to generate an income, this smallcommunity centre simply cannot sustain theseconsistently exorbitant increases in land tax.

A second private individual has just received his landtax bill of $43 000, representing an increase of 227 percent. Given the immense increase in the number of landtax customers, it is certainly within the government’spower to share the costs of the tax more equitablyamongst the 151 000 people it affects. This wouldresult in simultaneously offering relief across the boardand providing a less disparate method of taxation for allVictorians.

This government is collecting a record amount of taxdollars from Victorians while offering no relief, whichit has the power to do.

Barwon Health: volunteer services program

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I take this opportunityto recognise a new voluntary service that has beenintroduced at Geelong Hospital and the Grace McKellarCentre. Through the recently formed Barwon Health

volunteer services program the welcome home servicehas been established.

Essentially this service provides transport home fromhospital for patients after their discharge. It wasrecognised by Barwon Health that many elderlypatients found it difficult to arrange transport homeafter their release. Patients are escorted home by ahospital volunteer who has been trained to provide sucha service.

Not only do volunteers provide transport home but theymay also settle patients back into their homes for up toan hour and report back to the hospital if there are anyconcerns. The welcome home service is a very practicaland simple idea that provides an important andcompassionate service to elderly patients.

I commend all volunteers involved in the program fortheir work in helping others in need. I also take thisopportunity to commend all the Barwon Healthvolunteers for their tireless work within that importantorganisation. I can assure this house that to a largedegree these volunteers are the lifeblood of the hospitaland they all do a magnificent job. I also commend thevolunteers’ manager, Nettie Hulme, for her work incoordinating the volunteer program.

Police: deployment

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — This statementcondemns the Bracks Labor government and theMinister for Police and Emergency Services for theircontinuing soft-on-crime policies, the latest of which isoverseeing both a reduction in police resources and theinvestigation of illegal drug crime.

As revealed in the state budget papers the number ofpolice investigation hours spent on illegal drugactivities will be 40 000 hours lower in 2001–02 thanwhat the government was budgeting for. Clearly, this isfurther evidence that the Bracks government is soft oncrime and follows its previous soft-on-crime proposalsof introducing mini-jails in suburban neighbourhoodsand the failed attempt to implement home detention,which has seen drug dealers serving sentences in theluxury of their own homes.

Most Victorians will be horrified to learn that theBracks Labor government is devoting less time to theinvestigation of illegal drug crimes. More resourcesshould be devoted to the fight against illegal drugsrather than less. This is what you get from a Laborgovernment that is fundamentally soft on crime.

The government’s attitude to illegal drugs has beenflawed from day one with its plan to introduce heroin

APPROPRIATION (2002/2003) BILL


injecting rooms. The bottom line is that the Victoriancommunity deserves a police force that is out on thestreets investigating illegal crime, not more policeofficers being tied up behind desks, babysittingprisoners or raising government revenue.

Budget: initiatives

Mr HELPER (Ripon) — I would like to share withmembers of this house the enthusiastic and fantasticresponse of people in my electorate of Ripon to the2002–03 state budget.

Some of the announced initiatives that applyspecifically to Ripon are the Ararat Primary Schoolwhich, after many years of neglect under the previousgovernment, received $1.78 million for majorredevelopment which is very much looked forward toby the school community; both Beaufort andSmythesdale police stations are to be rebuilt, andalready the Golden Plains Shire Council has expressedits gratitude for the rebuilding of the Smythesdalepolice station; Maryborough Hospital has a long historyof aspiring to have its aged care facilities upgraded andthe Bracks government has announced funding of$8 million for that purpose; and the education precinctin Maryborough is a project that has captured theimagination of the entire community and the budget hasgiven the green light to and a commitment by thegovernment to make this fantastic project a reality atlong last.

The budget contains many initiatives that affect manyelectorates in a very positive way, as they do in myelectorate. Initiatives in the areas of health, educationand community safety are very much appreciated bythe community of Ripon.


Bellarine Agricultural Society Show

Mr SPRY (Bellarine) — I wish to pay tribute to agroup of dedicated people on the Bellarine Peninsulawho have been responsible for the revival of theBellarine Agricultural Society Show — now one of thebest in Victoria. This well-patronised event was inrecess for a year when it was moved from the LakeLorne reserve in Drysdale.

Facilities and fundraising issues were a dauntingobstacle which only sheer determination andcommitment could overcome. Many people wereinvolved in finding an alternative venue and securinggovernment funding to ensure the event did not die.They included president Andrew Belfrage;

vice-presidents Peter Morton and Graham Wilson;secretary Lynnette Wilson; treasurer TrevorCunningham, who has handed over this year to RonCameron; and committee members Jean Morton, JaneWilson, Florrie Beck, Marie Harcombe, Lynette Kent,Donald McDonald, Graeme Brown, Paul Peterson andBarry Carew. All these people had major assistancefrom Bill Burns, one of the unsung and publicity-shyheroes of the show’s revival. On a glorious day early inMarch the event was staged in Portarlington touniversal acclaim, giving thousands of patronsenormous pleasure.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 7 May; motion of Mr BRUMBY(Treasurer).

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) — Victorians increasinglyrealise that Labor is levering up taxes, living offwindfalls, failing to deliver on infrastructure and majorprojects and letting the economic fundamentals of thestate run down. However, to date, many people havethought that Labor was at least spending its taxwindfalls to provide better services. Today I want to goto the core of Labor’s budget and show that that core isrotten.

The opposition’s analysis over the past nine days showsthat Labor’s spending is characterised by hype,blow-outs, misdirected priorities, shonky reporting,political advertising, bureaucracy and, most serious ofall, lack of results. Hospital waiting times are up; crimerates are up; juvenile justice centres are rife with drugs;and teacher–student ratios have remained virtuallyunchanged.

The more the government fails to achieve results for themoney being spent, the more the spin doctors spin.Let’s have a look at what the Bracks spin doctors havebeen up to. I refer to page 84 of budget paper no. 2,which lists as Bracks’ government priorities thefollowing:

… innovation, lifelong education, high quality health andcommunity services and public safety …

It all sounds marvellous, until you realise that,according to the spin doctors, 71 per cent of allgovernment spending is a priority. But even if you arenot a priority you do not have to worry. It does notmean the Bracks government thinks you are notimportant; your needs can still be, as page 84 of budgetpaper no. 2 puts it, ‘critical to achieving sustainable



economic growth’. If non-priorities can be critical, whatdoes that make a priority? Extra critical? Super critical?Hyper critical? The Bracks government spin doctorshave so debased the linguistic currency that even theyhave run out of hyperbole.

What does it mean if you make the list as a priorityunder the Bracks Labor government? Not necessarilyvery much at all. Between last year’s budget and thisyear’s budget the so-called priority of school educationhas received an increase of just 3 per cent. Heaven helpVictorian schools if they were not a priority!

Let’s move from the hype to the reality and turn to theexpected outcome for the current year. The watchwordhere is ‘blow-outs’. Total operating expenses for thisfinancial year are now expected to total$24 242 million — a massive $1285 million increaseabove the budget estimate of $22 957 million. In otherwords, over the past year, the financially responsibleand prudent Bracks government has had a$1285 million blow-out in unplanned, unbudgetedoperating expense increases.

If it were not for the $1541 million in unbudgetedwindfall revenue, this year’s budget would be in thered. Within two and a half years of coming to office thisfinancially responsible and prudent Bracks governmentwould have been writing the bottom line of Victoria’sfinances in red ink, with none of the valid reasons ofdefence and border security that the commonwealthgovernment has faced. Let the Bracks government notkid us that this $1285 million unbudgeted increase inspending only came about because it realised it had theextra money and decided to reward Victorians withsome extra but non-essential goodies. No, these extraexpenses were mainly unplanned increases in costswhich the Bracks government chose to incur or hadlittle choice but to incur.

There were higher-than-expected wage increases paidto police, health workers and the general public service,and the flow-on costs of these increases insuperannuation expenses. The wage increasesthemselves appear to have cost $130.9 million abovewhat was budgeted for, although this cost is notdisclosed as part of the government’s explanation of theblow-out. That is something I will come back to later.Nor is the flow-on cost into superannuation of thesewage agreements disclosed. However, the budgetpapers do disclose that in total there has been amammoth $542 million unbudgeted increase insuperannuation expenses in the current year.

Then there was the one-off $118 million special powerpayment, which in large part was forced on the

government by the instability it created in the powerindustry and its bungled failure to get extra generatingcapacity on line, on time. A further $69 million hasbeen paid to the tram and train franchisees as a result ofthe government’s failure to properly manage thefranchise contracts.

A further $116 million of the reported increase inexpenses has been due to an embarrassing error infailing to include in last year’s original budget estimatessome of the expenses of non-budget sector agenciessuch as the Docklands Authority. To be fair to thegovernment, this probably should be more accuratelyrecorded as a correction to the budget estimates and notas a blow-out. Also to be fair to the government, someincreases in other expenses have been matched bygrants from the commonwealth, such as the highlysuccessful first home owners grant. However, the totalof these expenses, although not clearly reported, doesnot appear to exceed around $200 million.

Even if you allow a generous $350 million in total forincreases which do not affect the bottom line, theblow-out in expenses in this current budget year hasbeen around $935 million, of which only $84 millionhas been in genuine initiatives to provide improvedservices or funding. The remaining $849 million hasbeen a sheer increase in expenses, which but for thewindfall revenue gain that has been received wouldhave comprehensively blown the $508.5 millionbudgeted surplus and would have landed us with abudget deficit of around $340 million. So much for thesound financial management by the Treasurer and thegovernment!

The budget is in the black thanks only to good luck andto $773 million in an unbudgeted tax windfall onproperty transfers and other transactions which hasbeen ripped out of the pockets of Victorian smallbusinesses, families and other taxpayers.

There is a further aspect of this blow-out that needs tobe reported to the house, because it goes to the shiftyand devious way in which the Treasurer is allowing themore politically sensitive aspects of the state finances tobe reported. I invite honourable members to comparethe explanation for the $708 million unbudgetedincrease in expenses that is given at pages 17 and 18 ofthe budget update released in January with theexplanation for the expected $1285 million increase inexpenses that is given at pages 227 and 228 of budgetpaper no. 2.

What is striking and amazing about this is that some ofthe explanations given for the blow-out in the Januarybudget update have disappeared entirely in the



explanation given in this month’s budget paper no. 2.The budget update refers to what it calls policydecisions totalling $254 million, partly offset byTreasurer’s advance, ‘which largely reflect industrialagreements in key service areas such as education,health and community safety’. However, there isabsolutely no mention of industrial agreements as areason for the blow-out in expenses, that is given inbudget paper no. 2. It has entirely disappeared, yet weknow that these agreements have not been cancelled.

We also know that the figures have not been rearrangedso they are entirely covered by the Treasurer’s advance,because costs over and above wage contingencyfunding are disclosed in appendix A of budget paperno. 2. And yet as far as the explanation given to thepublic of the cost blow-out is concerned, theseindustrial agreements have simply ceased to exist.

This blatant attempt to hide the cost of Labor’smismanaged wage agreements from the Victoriancommunity fails once more to match Labor’s professedcommitment to a solid budget surplus and transparentaccounts.

We should also continue to heed the warning soundedby the Auditor-General in his November 2001 report onthe finances of the state of Victoria. In the introductionto the report he explicitly warned the government of theneed to manage the impact of increased expenditurepressures, including wages growth. Regrettably thegovernment seems to have paid little attention to theadvice given by the Auditor-General, because theblow-outs continue into the figures for 2002–03, andthe budget papers again reveal a sorry tale.

Compared with last year’s budget estimates for2002–03, expected operating expenses for the year haveincreased by $352.3 million between the budget andJanuary’s budget update and by a further $829.7 millionbetween January and now, for a total increase of$1182 million. However, of that increase, thegovernment’s own figures show that only$477.8 million, or barely 40 per cent, is due to policyinitiatives, and even that 40 per cent due to policyinitiatives includes $155.6 million of wage increasesover and above the government’s contingencyprovision.

Some relatively minor increases have reasonableexplanations; however, $82.2 million of the increase isdue to revised superannuation estimates, a significantcomponent of which would appear to be the flow-oneffects of the pay deals. On top of that, a massive$481.6 million has gone on what the government

budget papers simply described as ‘other administrativevariations’.

An Honourable Member — What a joke!

Mr CLARK — One might ask exactly what this$481.6 million of other administrative variations is tohave knocked such a hole in the budget estimates;however, one will seek an answer to that question invain!

Page 41 of budget paper no. 2 simply says that around$200 million of this is due to the inclusion of variousnon-budget agencies, or to put it more truthfully, thefailure in last year’s budget to properly account forsales expenses of general government agencies. Therest of the increase is simply blandly ascribed to anincrease in the contingency provision and to theamortisation of motor vehicle leases. But it is worthnoting that the contingency provision included in thisyear’s budget for 2002–03 — the bucket of funds putaside for use at the Treasurer’s discretion — has beenset at $427 million in this year’s budget, a massive40 per cent increase on the $298.8 million ofcontingency provided in last year’s budget for 2001–02.We might well ask ourselves what the reasons are forthis.

Despite Labor’s professed commitment to opennessand transparency in budgeting and accounting, thebudget papers are full of omissions and anomalies thatmake it hard to find out the full facts of what Labor hasbeen doing with spending. The honourable member forWarrandyte has already exposed the fact that of the$216.4 million of asset investment initiativesannounced for schools, $52.1 million was a rollover ofthe Growing Victoria funding previously approved andannounced in 2001–02. In other words Labor hasboosted its claimed spending by recycling dollars intofresh announcements.

At page 218 of budget paper no. 2 the governmentclaims it is implementing only $5.5 million of savingsinitiatives. This is a cause for both concern andsuspicion — concern that a government can find only$5.5 million of savings out of spending of almost$25 billion. If that is all it can find, it really is nottrying. What has the expenditure review committeebeen doing? Under any government of any persuasionand of whatever commitment to increased spending,there should be more than $5.5 million of lower priorityspending that can be eliminated. A truly committedLabor believer like the former federal finance ministerPeter Walsh would be horrified!



However, this figure is in fact so low that it is also acause for suspicion that the Bracks government is nottelling the whole truth, that the government is as amatter of fact disclosing only those spending savingsthat are unlikely to open it up to criticism while buryingany more controversial cuts under the heading ofreprioritisation.

Appendix A of budget paper no. 2 lists the full cost ofeverything which the government claims has been anoutput initiative since last year’s budget other than thecomponent of wage increases that has been fundedfrom contingencies. These are the figures that thegovernment has been using in its various portfoliomedia releases to tell the public about the marvellousspending the government is undertaking. As I pointedout previously, these amounts are not all truly describedas output initiatives, but let’s leave that to one side forthe present.

The total of the claimed output initiatives in appendix Afor 2002–03 is $703.8 million. However, at page 27 ofbudget paper no. 2, which is the table that Treasury usesto show how prudent and responsible the governmentis, it shows a total of $477.8 million in so-called outputinitiatives. In other words, there is a $226 milliondiscrepancy. How is that discrepancy made up? By$226 million of reprioritisation in other portfolio areas.

Let me make it clear: the opposition is not criticisingthe principle of reprioritisation. Reprioritisation is aproper and responsible function of government to makesure that taxpayers get value for money and that limitedresources are allocated to the highest priorities.Whether or not any particular reprioritisation is a goodthing needs to be debated on the merits of the particularcase. However, this is a government which has claimedto set new standards of openness and transparency andyet has chosen to leave these reprioritisations buried,and the public is unable to form a view on their merits.

There is also another big missing piece of informationin the budget papers, namely the fate of the productivitydividend. Honourable members will well rememberthat Labor in opposition roundly condemned theprevious government over its 1.5 per cent productivitydividend requirement. The then opposition said wewere squeezing out savings where there was nothingleft to be squeezed, yet Labor kept the productivitydividend when it came to office. What has happened toit now? The budget papers are completely silent. Has itbeen secretly axed or has it been secretly retained? Anopen and transparent government needs to give us ananswer.

The government has also made an art form ofintroducing performance measures without disclosingwhat the past performance has been on the particularmeasure concerned. This effectively means thegovernment avoids being able to be judged on whetherthe measure is getting better or worse in the year ahead.

Some change in performance measures from year toyear can be expected, particularly in the early years of aperformance measuring regime as was introducedunder the previous government. However, theperformance measurement regime has now been goingon for several years and the system should be settlingdown, yet if we look at the proportion of targets in the2002–03 budget, for which figures for 2001–02 werenot reported, under the Department of Tourism, Sportand the Commonwealth Games, we see that 57 of108 targets do not have figures reported for 2001–02.

In the Department of Innovation, Industry and RegionalDevelopment, 100 of 231 targets have no previousfigures; in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, 43of 110 targets; in the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment, 94 of 265 targets; the Department ofEducation and Training, 32 of 142 targets; theDepartment of Infrastructure, 52 of 248 targets; and theDepartment of Human Services, 34 of 211 targets.

On the other hand a large number of performanceindicators that appeared in last year’s budget paperno. 3 are not present in this year’s budget papers, and Iseek leave to have incorporated into Hansard thedocument entitled ‘Budget paper no. 3 — performancemeasures in 2001–02 budget abolished in 2002–03’.

Leave granted; see document next page.



Budget Paper No. 3

Performance Measures in 2001–02 budget abolished in 2002–03

EducationSchool Education– Students receiving funding for shared specialists in small schools– Year 3 students receiving national benchmarks in reading– Year 3 indigenous students receiving national benchmarks in reading– Year 3 students reaching state standards in mathematics– Year 5 students reaching national benchmarks in reading– Year 5 students reaching state standards in mathematics– Students achieving satisfactory standards in Prep reading assessments– Students in non-metro regions achieving satisfactory standards in Prep reading assessments– Morale of primary school teachers on a 100-point scale– Participation rate of 15 year olds– Transition rate from years 10–11– Transition rate from years 10–11 in non-metro regions– Morale of secondary school teachers– Participation rate of 17 year olds– School leavers progressing to further education, training or work– Transition rate from year 11–12– Transition rate from 11–12 in non-metro regions

Student Welfare & Support– Schools implementing individual school drug education strategies

Services to Students with Disabilities & Impairments– Staff morale of specialist school teachers on a 100 point scale

Training & Tertiary Education places– Industry based contract compliance audits of registered training organisations

Higher Education– Students enrolling in ICT courses– Participation of stakeholders in consultation process

Human ServicesMental Health– Inpatient treatment capacity (available bed days)

Clinical community care– Community residential treatment capacity (available bed days)

Public Health & Drugs– Immunisation coverage at 17 years of age– Legionnaires inspections and investigations undertaken– Food safety training sessions conducted

DisAbility Services– Respite information provided to clients within 3 days



InfrastructurePassenger interchange development– Cruise ship passenger days– Approach to market for development proposals for Spencer Street Station precinct

Major regional road projects– Projects delivered in accordance with scope and standards

JusticeIncident, Emergency and Event Management– Proportion of the community who agree Victoria Police is timely in responding to calls for assistance

Investigation of crimes against the person– Number of crimes against the person investigated by Crime Squads and percentage cleared– Number of proactive targeted operations by Crime Squads and percentage resulting in arrests

Investigation of illegal drug activity– Number of proactive drug investigations by crime squads and percentage resulting in offence detection– Community rating of Vic Police performance in investigating drug dealing

Road Traffic Law Enforcement– Proportion of the community who think they are likely to be breath tested in next 3 months– Community rating of Vic Police in making roads safer

Victims Support– Grants made to Victims support networks

Innovation, Industry & Regional DevelopmentRegional Strategic Leadership– Satisfaction rating from Regional Development Victoria clients

Rural Community Development– Local leadership and community event grants

Natural Resources and Environment– Recreation facilities being provided– Recreation facilities assessed as being in good condition– Proportion of State forest where SFRI mapping is complete– Proportion of State forest where sustainable yield has been formally reviewed using SFRI data

Mr CLARK — Let me also briefly mention afurther discrepancy in the budget papers to which theMinister for Finance may wish to give some attention.Table 4.5 of budget paper no. 3 tells us that$268.512 million is being sought in appropriation forthe Department of Innovation, Industry and RegionalDevelopment (IIRD), and that $313.587 million isbeing sought for the Department of Tourism, Sport andthe Commonwealth Games.

However, if we look at the bill before the house we seethat the appropriation proposed for IIRD is$423.757 million, and for the Department of Tourism,Sport and the Commonwealth Games,$108.552 million. In other words the budget papers aretelling us one thing, but the bill is asking forparliamentary authority for a completely different set ofnumbers, and the government needs to find out prettyquickly which set of figures are in fact correct.



All of these various factors, all of these confusions, allof these fudges throw a very convenient smokescreenover the government’s activities, making it harder forthe public or Parliament to find out the truth abouteither the government’s spending or the results or lackthereof that it is achieving. However, one thing that isbecoming increasingly clear is Labor’s willingness tospend large sums of taxpayers’ money on politicalpropaganda. We all recall Labor’s promise aboutthis — its open government policy — and I quote:

We will implement the Auditor-General’s recommendationsfor limiting political advertising by stipulating thatgovernment information material should not promote or havethe effect of promoting its interests above those of otherpolitical parties and attempt to secure political support for apolitical party.

And yet we have today on the Premier’s own admissionaround $2 million being spent on a newspaper andother advertising campaign just to promote the Aprilbusiness statement. Large advertisements have beenpublished in Melbourne suburban as well as dailynewspapers supposedly to attract investment toVictoria! Would the government really have us believethat potential investors in Sydney, Brisbane, London orNew York are going to read and be influenced byadvertisements published in the Progress Press or theWhitehorse Leader, much as I love those newspapers?

We also have buried in the fine print of this budget thefact that the Bracks government has now boostedspending on the government information unit in theDepartment of Premier and Cabinet from around$7.3 million in 1999–2000 to $22.3 million today. Thisis the spin doctors being paid for out of the taxpayers’pockets. What hypocrisy, what humbug! When you goaround calling yourself Honest Steve or Honest Johnand then get caught out doing exactly what youpromised you would not do then you are doubly guiltyand your conduct deserves to be condemnedaccordingly.

One of the best tests of any budget is how much of anyextra money is going into the hands-on delivery ofservices, into the hard work of the grassroots, and howmuch is going into areas like policy and research —public servants sitting around tables debating over cupsof coffee, swotting numbers, writing reports andthinking up ideas for ministers who cannot think upideas for themselves. There are two blatant examplesrevealed in the budget papers, and I strongly suspectthat any further examples have been buried among thefine print of more worthy programs. Let’s look at theDepartment of Education and Training. While schooleducation has received a 3 per cent increase, policy,strategy, and information services have received a

massive 58.5 per cent increase — $12.4 million moreon ideas and propaganda!

In the Department of Premier and Cabinet, funding forstrategic policy advice and projects has risen by15.9 per cent. There will be more public servants toprovide ideas for a Premier who lacks them for himself.Yet more of these announced spending increases willgo into other areas that do not deliver services thepublic would necessarily value.

Turning to the Department of Justice, in 2002–03 thenumber of police fines issued to motorists is expectedto almost double, from 903 000 to 1.7 million. The costof processing fines will increase from $35.2 million to$55.1 million — a 56.5 per cent increase! The numberof infringements processed by the PERIN system is setto increase from 609 970 to 875 000, with the costrising from $17.8 million to $31.2 million — a 75 percent increase. Legal support for government has risenby 61.5 per cent, or $27.1 million. Honourablemembers will be interested to know that $26.8 millionof that represents funding to run a state election. TheDepartment of Treasury and Finance says that isexpected to be held in the 2002–03 financial year,which seems to be rather contrary to the Premier’sclaim that his intention is that this Parliament will runfull term.

Mr Lenders interjected.

Mr CLARK — To answer the interjection of theMinister for Finance, the previous government did notsay that the election was expected in the financial yearconcerned.

A further shifty fiddle of the figures has beenundertaken by the Bracks government — a fiddle thatneeds to be exposed both for its own sake and to showhow petty-minded and political the Bracks governmentcan be. When in budget paper no. 3 the Bracksgovernment reports changes in spending levels, whatdoes it compare them against? It compares them withthe figures set out in the previous year’s budget. But onthe other hand, when the Bracks government reportschanges to revenue, what does it compare them with? Itcompares them with the previous year’s revised figures.This almost always has the effect of reporting thehighest available figure for spending increases whilereporting the lowest available figure for revenueincreases. Thus, the government tries to look bothgenerous with its spending and restrained in its revenueraising at the same time.

This fiddle extends also to the way changes in the levelof commonwealth grants to Victoria are reported. We



heard ministers waxing eloquent yesterday on thealleged ills of the commonwealth government, but theirfigures reported in the budget papers comparecommonwealth grants with the previous year’s revisedestimate and not with the budget. Not only does thatdownplay the role of the commonwealth, but it alsomakes any commonwealth contribution to increasedstate government spending look smaller by comparison.

In fact, in education the overall state growth is budgetedat 2.3 per cent, whereas commonwealth specificpurpose payments (SPPs) are budgeted to grow by7.2 per cent. In health, commonwealth SPPs are in factbudgeted to grow by 8.3 per cent, compared with stategrowth of 7.6 per cent. It is also worth mentioning thatmoney from the commonwealth Medicare grant rose by$100 million — some 30 per cent of the total increasein acute health expenditure.

State overall spending on home and community care(HACC) has fallen by $7.9 million, but thecommonwealth HACC contribution has risen by$10.7 million.

Overall spending on drug prevention treatment andrehabilitation rose by just $2.7 million under thisBracks government, but the state got $5 million extrafrom the commonwealth government for Council ofAustralian Governments drug diversion initiatives.

We have the blow-outs, we have the wage deals, wehave the increased administrative costs, we have theconcealed cuts, and we have the mysterious lack ofexplanation about the productivity dividend.

Finally, after all of this, when the true increase infunding for services is looking pretty tattered, we canask the most important question of all: what are theresults that have been achieved from Labor’s spending?The answer is clear and stark: the spending is notmatched by results.

Let’s look at the hospitals. The Bracks governmentclaims to have spent over $1 billion more on the healthsystem, though on the two key quality-care indicatorsour health system has got worse. If we look at thenumber of people on waiting lists for semi-urgentelective surgery, we see the figure has increased from13 299 in the 1999 December quarter to 14 718 in the2001 December quarter — a rise of 11 per cent. If welook at people on waiting lists longer than clinicallyappropriate in the semi-urgent category, we see thenumber has increased from 4765 in the 1999 Decemberquarter to 6939 in the 2001 December quarter — a riseof 46 per cent.

Furthermore, the number of patients waiting on trolleysin emergency departments for longer than 12 hours hasincreased from 4032 in the 1999 December quarter to6096 in the 2001 December quarter — a rise of 52 percent. This is from a government that said it would fixthe health system. It has fixed it all right!

Let us now look at education. Two and a half yearsafter the last state election the Bracks government hasstill not met its no. 1 election promise to cap prep tograde 2 class sizes at 21 students or less. Despite itsrhetoric, indicative class-size figures released earlierthis year reveal that 58.6 per cent of prep to grade 2classes in Victorian government schools have class-sizefigures that remain above 21 students. Furthermore,161 individual schools around the state have classes ofmore than 30 students, and on top of that almost a thirdof primary classes have 25 or more students.

But there is an even more revealing indicator in thebudget papers, and that is the indicator ofteacher–student ratios. In 1998 the teacher–student ratioin primary schools was 1 teacher to 18.2 students. TheKennett government cut that ratio to 1 to 17.2 in 1999,and additional Kennett government funding saw theratio fall further to 1 to 16.9 by the start of 2000.However, since then the ratio has fallen by only 0.3 to1 to 16.6 in 2001 and remains unchanged at 1 to 16.6 in2002.

For all the extra funding the Bracks government says ithas poured into education and for all the publicity aboutreduced class sizes, the primary school teacher–studentratio has fallen by only 0.3 students per teacher in thefirst two years of the Bracks government, comparedwith a reduction of 1.3 students per teacher in the finaltwo years of the Kennett government.

One might ask: how can that be? The government owesthe parents of primary school students and the public atlarge an explanation of what is going on. On theavailable public information there would seem to beonly two explanations: the first is that much of theboasted education funding increase has simply gone tomeet growth in school populations and not on new orbetter services. Indeed, just yesterday in question timethe Minister for Education and Training made anenormously damaging admission when she told thishouse that a federal government funding increase toschools of 5.7 per cent would cover only growth andconsumer price index (CPI) increases and not providefor any new projects.

It would seem to follow as night follows day that if a5.7 per cent increase covers only growth and CPIincreases, a 3 per cent funding increase as provided by



the Bracks government means that Victoria’s schoolsare going backwards. All this talk of education being atop priority for the government is nothing but a fraud!

The second possible explanation of the teacher–studentratio — indeed, in light of the minister’s admission, avery likely one — is that while the government has cutprep to grade 2 primary class sizes it has done so at theexpense of squeezing out teachers in other areas such asmusic, physical education or languages other thanEnglish. It is one thing to lower class sizes; it is anotherthing to do so through sacrificing specialist teachers.

Let us now move on to look at crime. Despite the extrapolice the government says it has added to the policeforce, latest crime statistics show a significant increasein crime last year, including homicide incidents up26 per cent, robberies up 26 per cent, assaults up 10 percent, aggravated burglaries up 44 per cent and motorvehicle thefts up 16 per cent. At the same time as crimeis rising, the government is diverting police resourcesaway from fighting crime and into minding prisonersand chasing traffic fines. Prisoner supervision by policein 2001–02 is expected to increase by more than 45 percent to 480 000 hours compared with a budgeted330 000 hours.

Contrary to claims by the Minister for Police andEmergency Services on 30 November last year, whenhe stated that the crisis in police cells was ‘undercontrol’, with only 90 prisoners in police cells, in recenttimes up to 350 prisoners have been held in police cellsdesigned to hold only 120. Furthermore, when we lookat the number of hours police are expected to spendinvestigating illegal drug activity, we find that isexpected to be 40 000 hours lower in 2001–02 than thetarget level. In the meantime overcrowding in ourprisons has increased, with the average daily rate ofprison design capacity utilisation forecast to increase6.1 per cent to 120 per cent in 2001–02.

While all this is happening we find Labor’s electionpromises about police stations languishing, with longdelays in building new stations proposed for DiamondCreek, Maryborough, Rowville and Endeavour Hills,and other police stations not likely to be completedbefore the next election, including Belgrave, Croydon,Eltham, Kilmore, Preston and Seymour.

Let me just conclude my remarks on the issue ofspending by referring to the record of the previousgovernment, something about which honourablemembers opposite have had a great deal to say. Whenwe look at the figures in table D4 published in thisyear’s budget paper no. 2, we find they provide furthercompelling evidence on the record of the previous

government. It demonstrates beyond any doubt whatthis side of politics has been pointing out for years.Certainly in its early years when faced with $32 billionof debt from the guilty party, an annual interest bill ofover $2 billion and an unchanged policy deficit of$1.4 billion and growing, the previous government hadno choice but to cut spending.

But on the figures in this year’s budget papers, we cansee that in the period from 1995–96 to 1999–2000, theKennett government increased spending on police andfire protection by 14.6 per cent, on primary andsecondary education by 24.7 per cent, on health by18 per cent, and on social security and welfare by22.3 per cent.

In other words, as the debts were paid off, $800 millionof interest savings were achieved, and as economicgrowth took off the previous government stronglyincreased spending and boosted services as oureconomic prosperity gave us the capacity to affordthem — and unlike Labor’s, our spending producedresults.

Honourable members on this side of the house can beproud of what was achieved in improving servicesunder the previous government, and of what we willachieve again upon a return to government.

Let’s now look at taxes. Total tax revenue received bythe Bracks government in 2002–03, after allowing forthe tax revenue now being met from the goods andservices tax, is set to reach $11.495 billion, which is$2.639 billion — or almost 30 per cent — higher thanin 1998–99.

I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard the chartheaded ‘Total taxation (adjusted for GST)’.

Leave granted; see chart next page.

Mr CLARK — The increase I have referred to isequal to an amount approaching $1500 for everyVictorian household or family. This is despite Labor’stax cuts.

I also seek leave to have incorporated into Hansardtables headed, ‘Land tax’, ‘Police fines’, ‘Gamblingtaxes (adjusted for GST)’ and ‘Taxes on insurance’.

Leave granted; see charts next page.



8,5748,856

9,760

10,395

11,302 11,495 11,69611,983

12,303

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

$ m

illio

n

Total taxation (adjusted for GST)

Source: 1998-99 Financial Report, p.52, Budget Papers No.2 2001-02, p.125, 2002-03, Table D2 and p.278

$264m

$369m$411m

$525m $519.3m

$611.4m

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

$ m

illion

Land tax

Source: SRO Annual Report 2000-01 p.9, Financial Report 2000-01 p.9, Budget Paper No.3 2002-03 p.391



$93.5m $99m $99.5m

$177.5m $182.1m

$336.6m

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

$ m

illion

Police fines

Source: Budget Papers No.3 - 1998-99 p.440, 1999-00 p.390, 2001-02 p.406, 2002-02 p.402

$2,228m

$2,111m

$2,001m

$1,893m

$1,786m

$1,643m

$1,520m

$1,408m

$1,287m

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

$ m

illion

Gambling Taxes (adjusted for GST)

Source: Financial Reports 1999-00 pp.56, 144; 2000-01 p.9; Budget Paper No. 2 2002-03 pp. 155, 222, 278



Mr CLARK — What these tables show is that from1998–99 to 2001–02 revenue from stamp duty hasincreased by 84 per cent. By next year we can expect tosee land tax up 66 per cent, insurance taxes up 49 percent, police fines up a massive 240 per cent, andgambling taxes up 31 per cent. As well as the taxesfeatured in those charts, by next year we can alsoexpect to see payroll tax up 27 per cent and motoringtaxes up 17.4 per cent.

Let’s take a look at some of these taxes in more detail.Since September 1999, the cost of a medium-pricehouse in Melbourne has risen by 37.3 per cent.However, the stamp duty on that house has risen by54.4 per cent. The difference is due to bracket creep, asa higher and higher proportion of the value of a house istaxed at a duty rate of 6 per cent, which applies to thatpart of the value above $115 000.

The stamp duty on a median-price house in Melbourneis now $14 650, higher even than the standard $14 000first home owner grant which applied until recently topurchasers of new homes and the $10 000 current grantfor new homes — and it is certainly much higher thanthe $7000 first home owners grant for existing homes.Thus for the vast majority of home buyers aroundVictoria the first home owners grant provided under the

commonwealth government’s tax reforms is goingstraight back into the Bracks government’s pockets instamp duty.

The stamp duty rip-off has been even greater than54 per cent in a swathe of suburbs across Melbourne.Based on figures to December last year, people insuburbs including Mount Evelyn, Healesville,Maidstone, Chirnside Park, Sunbury, Spotswood,Warrandyte, Chadstone, Box Hill, Burwood East,Newport and St Albans have all experienced increasesin stamp duty of 80 per cent or more on the typicalhouse.

Among those hardest hit have been suburbs in Labor’sheartland, made up of homes bought by families wheredad works shift work at the car plant and mum cleansoffices at night in order to make ends meet. They arethe sort of suburb I grew up in and know well, and theyare the sorts of suburbs where families had trusted inLabor to look after them. The stamp duty on a typicalhouse in Sunshine has jumped from $3160 when theBracks government came to office to $7075 inDecember last year — a 124 per cent increase. Thatmeans that if mum is managing to earn $10 an hourafter tax from her night cleaning job, she has to put inan extra 400 hours of hard work mopping floors,

$912m

$870m$841m

$790m$786m

$642m

$579m

$532m$515m

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1,000.0

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

$ m

illion

Taxes on Insurance

Source: Financial Reports 1998-99 p.56, 1999-00 p.58, 2000-01 p.80; Budget Paper No.3 2002-03 p.391



emptying rubbish bins and not being able to kiss herkids goodnight just to earn the money to pay the extrastamp duty the Bracks government has imposed on thefamily home. That is the human cost of the tax slug thatthe Premier and the Treasurer so blithely ignore.

Soaring stamp duty not only affects young families andother first home buyers, it also hits growing familiesthat are looking to move to larger homes, single parentsstruggling to find new homes after a family breakdown,and pensioners and self-funded retirees seeking to moveto smaller homes while trying to live on lower incomesin retirement.

Stamp duty not only has a human cost that is directed atthe hip pocket, it also has indirect human and economiccosts. It puts a barrier in the way of people needing tomove to homes that would suit them better instead ofspending their money on renovations or modificationsto make the best of where they are now. For theindividual and for society, this results in unnecessaryand inefficient expense.

The cost is even greater for small businesses, which areincreasingly being faced with having to pay 5.5 per centstamp duty on the cost of buying their initial premisesor relocating to new premises. That cost is inevitablyreflected in higher prices for goods and services or inthe extra cost of staying in less-than-optimal premisesbecause the cost of moving is too great.

Access Economics, a group much loved by thegovernment, has found in a report entitled TheEconomic Impact of Reducing State Taxes on Propertythat reducing stamp duty on property transactionswould have a large positive impact on economicactivity. Stamp duty added to the cost of investmentmeans fewer investments than would otherwise be thecase, and reducing stamp duty would result in gains ineconomic welfare, economic activity and investments.

In the case of stamp duties on non-residentialproperties, the largest beneficiaries would be thewholesale retailer and repair industries, the businessservices industry, and the accommodation, restaurantsand clubs industry. The government’s own Harveyreport, which was commissioned and then dumped,reached similar conclusions about the adverse impact ofstamp duty. I need hardly remind the Treasurer, theMinister for Finance or the house that Victoria has thehighest stamp duty rates of any jurisdiction in thecountry on almost all property values and thatCommonwealth Grants Commission data shows thatVictoria is more reliant on stamp duty as a source ofrevenue than any other state.

Stamp duty on conveyancing accounted for 4.05 percent of Victoria’s total revenue base in 2000–01,compared with a national average of 3.24 per cent and3.09 per cent in New South Wales and 2.43 per cent inQueensland.

The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have madegreat play of the lift in the land tax threshold that theyhave announced, but that professed generosity can bereadily rebutted by pointing out that of the $156 millionin the increased annual land tax take since the Bracksgovernment came to office, they have given back just$3 million.

We can also talk about insurance taxes, where they areprofiteering from hardship, and I refer to the HIHcollapse, the crisis in public liability insurance anddifficulties with professional indemnity insurance,medical insurance and so forth. For all their professedconcern, they are simply pocketing massively increasedstamp duty as premium bills soar.

Similarly, the level of police fines is rocketing,undermining the credibility of the safety message andleading to a growing suspicion in the minds of theVictorian public that all this is about is revenue, notsafety.

Gambling taxes, of course, continue to escalate, despiteall the humbug we have heard in the past from Labor.

We also heard a lot of humbug from Labor about theGST. Labor says it does not like it, but the Treasurer isexploiting it for all it is worth. He knows in his heart ofhearts that the new tax system provides one of the bestdeals for the states in almost 50 years — ever since theintroduction of uniform taxation and the states losingtheir income-tax powers. He knows he is receivingbillions of dollars in GST revenue from commonwealthand that he is imposing a tax on a tax through the stampduty he levels on new homes and insurance.

Yet he has the nerve, in the massive taxpayer-fundedadvertisements we are seeing day after day, to claimcredit for GST-funded tax cuts! In addition, he fudgesthe facts about the impact of the GST on reduced levelsof Victorian taxation when he talks about what ishappening to our state tax levels.

The $1 billion in tax cuts that the Bracks governmenthas been boasting about is aggregated over a four orfive-year period, and much of it will be PaulKeating-style l-a-w law tax cuts, which are not likely tocome into effect until after the next state election.

To put those so-called tax cuts in context, the allegedtax cuts of $83 million given for next year in last



month’s business statement represent around $1 in $30of the Bracks government’s increased annual taxrevenue since 1998–99. To look at it another way, thetotal reduction in tax revenue for next year from thebusiness statement and from this budget is less than$1 in $7 of the extra tax windfall gained by the Bracksgovernment in the past 12 months alone.

If one looks at the stamp duty relief measures of theKennett government in the 1998–99 budget one seesthat the cost of those measures as a proportion of totalconveyancing duty that year was 4.3 per cent. Thatcompares with the paltry value of 0.8 per cent of stampduties on land transfers provided by way of the changesto concessions in 2002–03 by the Bracks government.The previous government gave a greater payroll tax ratecut in one budget than the Bracks government has inthree budgets. By the end of its term in office theprevious government had reduced taxes by$650 million per annum compared with 1993–94.

Under the Bracks government businesses are the luckyones. Victorian families have not got any reductionwhatsoever in their tax rates. That is all fine by thegovernment — it can just rake in the revenue — butordinary Victorians out in the community, the forgottenpeople under the ALP’s corporatist approach, can useevery dollar they can get.

I wish to also say something about a chart that appearson page 19 of budget paper no. 2. Honourable membersmay well have noticed it. It is a chart that purports toshow that taxes as a proportion of gross state product(GSP) last year fell in Victoria, and likewise in NewSouth Wales and Australia, but the chart shows the fallwas fastest in Victoria. All I can say about this chart isit looks like a fraud, it smells like a fraud, and it almostcertainly is a fraud.

This table purports to show that in 2001–02, the currentfinancial year, Victorian taxation revenue was around4.35 per cent of GSP. On the best estimation availableto the opposition, taxation to GSP in Victoria this yearis closer to 4.6 per cent than 4.35 per cent. Since, afteradjusting for GST tax changes, tax revenue has grownby 9.43 per cent over the past year, it also seemsinescapable that on any honest presentation the line onthe chart should show taxes to GSP in Victoria headingup rather than down.

I conclude the discussion of taxation by dealing withthe false claims being peddled by the Premier and theTreasurer about the opposition’s tax policies. Just sothere can be no possible misunderstanding whatsoeveron the part of the Premier or the Treasurer, let me makeit clear that the opposition has announced three, and not

more than three, tax policy commitments — policiesthat mark a clear and stark difference from the presentgovernment.

We are committed to cutting payroll tax below 5 percent; Labor is not. We are committed to giving genuinestamp duty relief; Labor is not. We are committed toabolishing Labor’s arbitrary and capricious$50 motorbike tax. Payroll tax cuts will cost$150 million per annum from 1 July 2003, with apart-year cost if there is a change in government beforethen. The motorbike tax removal will cost $10 million.We will release our stamp duty and overall tax policiesprior to the next state election and they will be based onwhat is affordable once we know how much the Bracksgovernment has left unspent.

I now want to turn to another much-trumpeted facet ofthe Bracks government, the issue of construction andcapital works. I make the point again that constructionhas not started on a single new major publicinfrastructure project since the Bracks governmentcame to office. The Minister for Major Projects did notlike me pointing this out in a newspaper article lastweek and he wrote a letter trying to refute it. However,his very reply condemns his government in his ownwords.

Let’s look at the projects he claimed as evidence ofBracks government achievement. The Craigieburnbypass is a fully federally funded project that has beendelayed by two years due to planning indecision by theformer Minister for Planning. The Geelong Freewayupgrade is a project of the previous government, as arethe new County Court and the Eastern Freewayextension. Furthermore, the minister himself, by mediapress release of 26 April, admitted that the EasternFreeway extension is behind time and over budget, withno tenderer yet selected and speculation in themarketplace that the tenders came in by tens of millionsof dollars over the budgeted figure.

Let’s look at the Sydenham rail extension and the BoxHill tram extension, projects that were locked in underthe previous government. I pay tribute to thehonourable member for Mornington. I can wellremember when he was Minister for Transport standingwith him in the median strip of Whitehorse Road, BoxHill when the contracts were announced. The mediaconference he and I held then in those windsweptenvirons was in stark contrast to the lavish,champagne-sipping media conference which the currentminister used to ceremonially shovel dirt from a pileinto a bucket to demonstrate his commitment to startingwork on the project — a most apt symbol of the purelynominal work which the minister actually does.



Let’s look at Docklands, another project for which theminister claimed credit and another brought to fruitionby the previous government, particularly by theHonourable Mark Birrell. Investment in the Docklandshas come from the private sector and has been drivenby low interest rates and the clearance of thecommercial office glut of the early 1990s.

Let’s look at some other Bracks government projects.The regional fast rail project costs have blown out from$80 million to $550 million. The Weekly Times of1 May reports the minister saying he does not expect toget any private money for the project. The Minister forFinance might be able to tell us how the governmentwill fund the project and what service improvementswill be delivered on the available funds now that theprivate sector is reportedly not going to put in anymoney whatsoever.

Let’s look at Spencer Street station. I think it is now14 times that the Spencer Street station upgrade hasbeen announced and reannounced, and we still do notknow exactly what is happening with it. We can alsoask what has happened to the rail gauge standardisation.

I refer to my own electorate and the Box Hill Hospitalcar park, which is a vital project for Box Hill. Thelocals are getting desperate and distraught about thedelays in this project which has been bogged down inTreasury and on the Treasurer’s desk waiting to besigned off under the Partnerships Victoria program.

There is also, of course, the film and TV studio atDocklands. It is rather curious that what has beenannounced publicly as a $40 million loan is included inthe budget papers as an asset investment initiative. Iwould be interested to know whether the government isclaiming the same $40 million both as a loan and asreported fixed asset investment.

A few major projects have been cancelled or havefallen over, including the Dingley bypass and the fastrail to the airport. Incidentally, at page 105 of budgetpaper no. 3 the Department of Infrastructure is claimingcredit for this failure. We are in a sorry state when adepartment boasts about its failure, but the public isentitled to know how much was wasted on this futileproject.

Coming back to hospital car parks, there is the AlfredHospital car park project where apparently none of thetenders were satisfactory after a lot of time and effortand the project has now gone back to the drawingboard.

To date the Bracks government has been a governmentof empty rhetoric and little action and this budget

confirms that fact. As the actual delivery of keyinfrastructure projects falls further and further behind,the rate at which the government announces projects isgetting faster and faster and is in fact growing at anunsustainable rate. It is as though it thinks moreannouncements can compensate for fewer results.

Let’s look at chapter 1 of budget paper no. 3. Over thepast four budgets we can see a steadily decliningpercentage of funds budgeted for spending in futureyears on capital works which have not already beencommitted. In 1999–2000, 33.1 per cent of the fundsexpected to be spent on capital works in the yearfollowing budget year had been left available for futureprojects. In the first Bracks government that numberrose slightly to 36 per cent. However, in the last budgetit fell to 15.3 per cent and in this budget it is down toonly 14 per cent. In other words, this year’s budget hasleft only $306 million of uncommitted capital worksfunds available for the next budget year, 2003–04,compared with $504.5 million of new capital spendingannounced in this year’s budget for 2002–03.

There are therefore only two ways in which thegovernment can sustain the level of capital worksannouncements at its current rate. The governmentmust either grow its total capital works spending byaround $200 million or 10 per cent a year indefinitelyor else have a significant proportion of its announcedcapital works spending fall over each year in order tomake room for fresh announcements next year. If thegovernment follows neither of these strategies, thedollars announced for new capital works in next year’sbudget will be forced to be far smaller than the amountsannounced this year. However, perhaps we should beconfident that enough of this year’s announcements willfail to materialise in order to leave room for the samefunds to be recommitted to new announcements nextyear. That is certainly consistent with the government’srecord to date.

Another telling demonstration of the Bracksgovernment’s difficulty in translating talk into actioncomes from figures published by the Australian Bureauof Statistics (ABS) on infrastructure spending. Thestatistics on spending on public engineeringinfrastructure show that last year the New South Walesgovernment spent $1550 million on such infrastructurewhile the Victorian government spent just $45 million.A more specific breakdown of the ABS figuresobtained by the opposition reveals the position to beeven more stark and completely refutes the argumentput forward by the Treasurer that the differencesbetween the states are due simply to the privatisationthat has taken place in Victoria. According to thesemore detailed ABS figures, the New South Wales



government spent $519 million on roads, bridges andwater storage in 2001 and the Victorian governmentspent only $29 million.

Needless to say, the Partnerships Victoria program,which is supposed to be the driver of so much of thisboasted infrastructure spending, is in complete disarray.It is a case of the longer the policy, the smaller thedelivery: as the policy documents have got fatter, thenumber of projects delivered has shrunk. Thecredibility of the Treasurer and the Minister for Financerests on ensuring that there is a bona fide process ofassessing the projects above $10 million in this budgetfor inclusion as public–private partnerships underPartnerships Victoria. If the Treasurer and the Ministerfor Finance fail to do that, all private sector confidencein the Partnerships Victoria policy will disappear. Todate, we have seen only two projects signed up underPartnerships Victoria: the County Court — which waswell advanced under the previous government — and a$15 million waste water treatment plant at Wodonga.

I turn now to the way the Bracks government deals withdebt and liabilities. I want to make the simple point thatthe figures the government includes in the budgetpapers in this area are a complete shonk. Thegovernment is using the device called Growing Victoriato manipulate the debt path to try to give the impressionthat future debt is falling when it is in fact rising. It islike saying that I keep my money in two pockets — theleft pocket and the right pocket — and when I work outexactly how much money I owe now and in the futurein net terms I count only the money in my right pocketand not the money in my left pocket. Therefore, infuture I can take money out of my left pocket to pay offdebt and make it look as though I am reducing debt. Itis not proper accounting.


Mr CLARK — To take up the very interjection Iwas hoping for from the Minister for Finance, if helooks at the part of the budget papers which has beensigned off by the Auditor-General he will find nomention of the Growing Victoria fund. Mention ofGrowing Victoria is scattered throughout the rest of thebudget papers but the government is not game to takethis figure within cooee of the Auditor-General for himto have a close look at because it knows that it does notaccord with accounting standards and that it is a shonk.It might be something that you show to the ratingsagencies, something for them to take into account, but itis not a fair, accurate, honest and accepted presentationof debt. It is simply there to produce one artificialeffect — that is, to make it look as though future debtfigures are falling when in fact they are rising.

One of the most embarrassing aspects of this wholesaga is that honourable and decent public servants areforced to go out in public, toe the government line andskate close to the borders of the truth in defending whatthey know is a shonky and reprehensible accountingtreatment.

I move now to look at the Victorian economy, whichthe Treasurer tries to tell us is leading the nation. Let’slook at our current position and where we are headingunder the Bracks government. Any assessment of theVictorian economy must be put into the context of theenormous success Victoria and Australia have had overthe past 20 years or so in transforming our economicperformance. Beginning in the early 1980s we saw atransformation take place with largely bipartisanpolitical support at a national level when the federalcoalition was in opposition; it is regrettable that thatbipartisanship has now almost ceased under the cynicaland opportunistic tactics of the federal ALP inopposition.

Under the Hawke and Keating governments we saw thefloating of our exchange rate, the opening up of ourbanking system, the commencement of retirementincome policy, the gradual reduction or elimination oftariffs and other import barriers, and introduction of thenational competition policy. At a federal level nationalcompetition policy has seen the privatisation of theCommonwealth Bank and Qantas by the ALP, as wellas the partial privatisation of Telstra.

Governments have also embraced national competitionpolicy at a state level and have built on it to raisestandards, reduce costs and introduce choice andcompetition to a wide range of government businessenterprises and government-provided services. Underthe Kennett government Victoria went further thanmost states with its privatisation of electricity, gas andregional ports, the franchising of the public transportsystem and the restructuring of the water industry.However, even states such as New South Wales whichhave not privatised their electricity industries haveintroduced competition and choice among state-ownedenterprises.

The states were also the first level of government tobring their expenditure and debt levels under controland return their budgets to surplus while the ALP at afederal level continued to run up deficits and debt. TheKennett government, in particular, paid off the GuiltyParty’s debts and cut more than $800 million each andevery year from the state’s interest bill. After theelection of the Howard government the federalgovernment followed suit in bringing its fiscal houseinto order. Despite a difficult Senate the federal



government has also made considerable progress inintroducing labour, market and taxation reforms.

These structural reforms have transformed Australiafrom a rigid and high-cost economy which had lowproductivity and an outdated manufacturing sector andwas heavily dependent on primary products for itsexports into an open, productive and vibrant economyable to win markets with many different products inmany different parts of the world. Thus we arefortunate now that we do not have the crushing interestrates and state debt of the 1980s.

Nonetheless, under the Bracks government we havegone from being a state which on many indicators wasleading the nation in growth, investment, job creationand business attraction to a state which is midfield andgoing back through the economic pack. Victoria’seconomic performance is narrowly based on a propertyand consumer spending boom with a little help fromrural exports. That is not only a conclusion of theopposition, it is also set out in chapter 3 of budget paperno. 2. Even the property boom owes little credit to thepresent government. The commercial property recoveryin Melbourne has been due to the city at last emergingfrom the overhang of construction of the late 1980s andearly 1990s, a legacy of the Cain–Kirner Laborgovernment. The residential boom has been due to lowinterest rates, the first home owner grants, and theeffects of the net immigration to Victoria which hasflowed from the economic recovery of the mid-1990s.

However, we are failing in other areas. In the year toFebruary, 21 100 jobs have been lost in manufacturingas companies like Hugo Boss, Orica and Holeproofhave closed down, scaled back or left Victoria.Victoria’s economic growth is at or below the nationalaverage even after being boosted in relative terms byNew South Wales’s post-Olympic slowdown and thedot-com shakeout. Our growth this year is forecast tobe equal to the national average of 3.75 per cent but weare forecast to drop back to 3.5 per cent next yearcompared with national growth continuing at 3.75 percent.

If we look at business confidence, we see that businesshas less confidence in the Victorian economy than inthe national economy. The March quarter 2002Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry survey released late last month showed that45 per cent of Victorian businesses expect theAustralian economy to perform more strongly over thenext 12 months but only 30 per cent expect that of theVictorian economy, and the rest expect the Victorianperformance to be the same or to get worse. The YellowPages survey for February shows a net 10 per cent

negative view of Victorian government polices amongbusinesses surveyed. This contrasts with a net 20 percent to 30 per cent positive view of the previousgovernment in the surveys conducted in 1999.

Of the family businesses surveyed for the PitcherPartners AXA Monash index in June last year, 66.1 percent had negative expectations of Victorian governmentpolicy and 78.9 per cent disagreed with the propositionthat the Victorian government was sensitive to familybusiness needs.

As the respected economic commentator BIS Shrapnelput it in its report entitled State Industry Prospects2001–2016, which was released early this year:

The Victorian economy has outstripped the national averageover the past five years, largely due to buoyant domesticdemand for manufactures and structural improvement in theireconomic fundamentals. However, growth will lag thenational average over the next three years due to the lack ofconstruction and investment drivers and weaker domesticdemand, which will impact on Victoria’s manufacturing andwholesale and distribution sectors.

The government boasts that Victoria’s unemploymentrate fell to 5.7 per cent in April, down from 5.8 per centin March, the lowest of any state in seasonally adjustedterms. However the reduction in the unemployment rateto 5.7 per cent was due to the loss of 11 700 job seekersin that month. In seasonally adjusted terms employmentin April fell by 8100, of which 5000 were losses infull-time employment. Full-time employment inVictoria has fallen in trend terms during every month of2002 from 1 688 300 in December 2001 to 1 683 500, aloss of 4800 full-time jobs. To put it another way, of the19 400 full-time job losses in Australia over the year toApril 2002, 48 per cent, or 9300, were located inVictoria.

Let’s look at business investment. The data formanufacturing investment in Victoria shows that in2001 manufacturing investment was $2.749 billion,15.5 per cent lower than a year earlier and 16.7 per centlower than in the last year of the Kennett government.The level of investment in manufacturing industry inVictoria is now at its lowest level since 1992.Investment in non-residential buildings and structureshas declined in every quarter under the Bracksgovernment and is now 40.1 per cent lower in trendterms than when the Bracks government came to office.

What should the state government be doing tocontribute to economic prosperity? It should be findingand encouraging areas of strength — as the HonourableMark Birrell did — such as the motor vehicle industry,pharmaceuticals, chemicals, telecommunicationsmanufacturing and food processing. It should then help



to make things happen in those areas through rapidapprovals and by keeping the union movement undercontrol. It should have a competitive tax regime, itshould minimise legal uncertainty and sovereign risk,and it should make sure that the necessary infrastructureis there when it is needed.

The Bracks government has been failing on all thesescores. The reputation of the Department of State andRegional Development, as it used to be called, has beenplunging. It lost Virgin Airlines to Queensland, themagnitude of which is only now being appreciated. Itsonly significant achievement was attracting the GMHengine plant, which cost lots of money to get and took adisturbingly long time to sign up. It has to be said thatthe department is not exactly exerting itself to attractnew investment. It is setting itself performance targetswhich are pretty low. If you look at targets for ‘Newinvestments facilitated and announced’, as well as‘Investment attracted in rural Victoria’ and ‘Exportsfacilitated’, you see that they are all well below thereported 2000–01 achievement levels set by thedepartment.

In terms of lack of certainty, what better example couldwe have than the electricity industry, with theoverturning of the Regulator-General’srecommendations and the uncertainty about the futureof the special power payments? Then there are theplanning delays caused by the former Minister forPlanning in relation to the Calder Highway, theShepparton bypass and the Craigieburn bypass, and thefailure to get an environment effects statement (EES)for Stonehaven under way; the damage to ourreputation in Japan and elsewhere caused by theSaizeriya industrial disruption and the subsequentturmoil, which has gone on for months; and the delay incoming up with a metropolitan planning strategy, whichwas due to be released in December last year —although the budget papers now tell us the best estimateis later in 2002.

In other words, the Bracks government is forcingVictoria to run its economic race with a heavy weightof Labor lead in the saddle. Before investors will investin Victoria each of these handicaps needs to beovercome: the handicap of stamp duty faced bybusinesses and their staff moving to Victoria; thehandicap of land tax aggregation; the handicap ofunchecked union militancy in key sectors; the handicapof a government prepared to stab investors in the backwhenever it suits its political games; and the handicapof a government unable to make decisions or stick tothem. These are the handicaps which are causingVictoria to miss out, not only through new investments

not arriving but also through existing firms closingdown and moving out.

Let me now step back from the detail of this budget andput Victoria, its finances and its economy in a broadercontext. What direction have we come from over recentyears? Where do we stand now? Where are we headingand where should we be heading? Over the last25 years around the world there has been an enormousintellectual and practical victory for commonsense,human dignity and opportunity. Free markets within aframework of intelligent, just and effective regulationhave been almost universally recognised as the enginesof prosperity and freedom. Socialism has been rejected.

In Australia, and in Victoria, we have made gains overthe past 25 years as great as or greater than those ofalmost any country in the world and we have benefitedgreatly from those reforms: Australia is now leading theWestern World in economic growth. We are muchmore prosperous and have far more funds available forpublic and community services as well as for privateuse. But we are not in a perfect world and there is still alot to be achieved. The question that must be asked ofany political party, of any government, of anyopposition is, ‘What is your vision for the future?’.

On this score the left of politics today is confused anddivided. Some, like Peter Walsh, have consistentlysupported the market economy and sound governmentfinances as the best way to help the true battlers. Some,like Lindsay Tanner and Clive Hamilton, are sincerelytrying to evolve a new philosophy. Some, indeed many,like those on Victorian Labor’s backbench, know whatthey are against but do not really know what they arefor. Finally, others, like most members of the currentBracks government cabinet, do not really care whatthey believe so long as it will get them elected and keepthem in office.

Like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm,members of the cabinet are now banqueting with thevery capitalists they told their supporters they wouldstand up to only two and a half years ago. A merechange of rhetoric and positioning does not producegood government. The fundamental flaws remain —lack of background, lack of ability and lack ofcommitment to any ideas or values other than their ownshort-term political advantage. The question votershave to ask themselves is whether these Orwellianfarmyard revolutionaries turned capitalists will run thefarm well or whether they will end up sendingVictorians to the knackery.

By contrast, the Liberal side of politics is ready, willingand able to build on the achievements of the past



25 years to strengthen what has been successful and tomodify and improve where change is needed. TheLiberal vision is a vision which gives a sense ofdirection for Victoria. It is a vision which comes out ofour fundamental belief in the ability and theresponsibility of individual human beings to build, tocreate and to achieve, not only for themselves and theirfamilies but for their communities and their fellowhuman beings.

The Liberal vision is not narrowly based onprofit-making enterprises, vital and productive as theseare, but extends to all contexts in which people cometogether to help achieve a common purpose — toschool councils, to country fire brigades, to sportingclubs, to meals-on-wheels volunteers. It also extends toinstitutions in the public sector — to hospital wards,research laboratories and police stations.

We want effective use of partnerships betweengovernment, the private sector and communityorganisations; we want effective regulation of businessand community activities; we want standards; we wantvalues; we want results; we want an easing of the taxburden; we want personal responsibility in business andin dealings with other people; we want strongerfamilies; we want a balancing of family and workinglives and we want a restoration to young people todayof a sense of purpose and confidence for the future.

We believe in self-help and in overcoming obstacles —not just in sitting back and waiting for someone else tofix problems, blaming our woes on others orcampaigning for government to do what we wantwithout being prepared to work hard to achieve asmuch as we can ourselves.

We also do not believe in achievement being driven byleaders and by governments through coercion orthrough centralised control of society; rather we believein achievement through people freely collaborating onprojects to achieve goals held in common or freelyinteracting to mutual advantage in pursuing theirseparate creative goals.

Furthermore, the Liberal belief in people’s potential forcreativity and achievement is in achievement not justby all but for all. We believe not just in achievement bypeople for themselves or their circle of family andfriends but also achievement for others generally.Generosity of spirit, compassion for others and indeed aduty to help flow from a desire to build and achievewhich has characterised Australians for generations.

However, a Liberal belief in human potential meansalso that we do not rush in to judge people who have a

need for help as being incapable of helping themselves,a judgment that too easily can lead to a demeaning offellow human beings. Nor do we as Liberals fail toappreciate that community organisations, self-helpgroups and other individuals can often provide throughtheir own voluntary and personally motivated actionsfar more beneficial help than can governments.

As Liberals we are not starry-eyed about ourselves orour fellow humans. We recognise that from time totime people do the wrong thing either through theiractions or through their inaction, and that any politicalor social system that fails to take account of this isdoomed to failure.

From these core beliefs in humanity’s potential,together with an understanding of its limitations, manyother values flow: self-discipline and personalresponsibility, because these are essential toachievement for oneself and for successful andproductive interaction with others; the rule of law andthe protection of persons and property, without whichpeople cannot create and build, free of disruption bygovernments or by crime. Governments have animportant role to ensure security against crime andlawlessness at home and against external threats fromcrime, terrorism and war abroad.

We also believe in democracy, diffusion of politicalpower and empowerment of local communities becausewe believe in self-government rather than governmentby others and because a diffusion of power is animportant defence against authoritarian rule.

We believe in families, which provide the security andsupport we need and are the best foundation for thevital long-term creative project of raising the nextgeneration. We believe in free enterprise as a system ofeconomic activity which experience shows is, withproper regulation, the structure within which humancreativity best meets most material needs.

We believe in cherishing and conserving the value ofour environment and our heritage. We believe in theintelligent building of infrastructure to improve ourcreative potential. We believe in volunteerism andvoluntary organisations, both for mutual self-help andto help those in need. We believe in higher educationstandards. We believe in enthusiasm for research,libraries, museums and the arts, based around the questfor knowledge and excellence. We believe in effectiveand caring help for those in need. We believe in highstandards of public service and we are opposed to redtape and bureaucracy which stifle innovation andachievement.



Under a Napthine Liberal government a budget will bebased and shaped around these values and this vision. Itwill be a budget and a government focused on easingthe tax burden to put money back into the pockets ofVictorian families and on winning and keepingVictorian jobs. It will be a budget focused on actuallyachieving results in better or expanded services, not juston spending money. It will be a budget focused onmaking projects actually happen, not just announcingthem or reannouncing them. It will be a budget focusedon making decisions on time after proper consultation,but not using reviews as an excuse for the inability todecide. It will be a budget focused on intelligentinvestment attraction and facilitation based onidentifying Victoria’s strengths, promoting thosestrengths and then helping investors actually find sites,get factories built, get jobs provided and get productionstarted on time and on budget.

This is the vision for a budget under a Napthinegovernment, and it is a vision that stands in starkcontrast to the budget we have before us today. This isthe budget of a fair-weather government that lacks thevision, the principles and the capacity to help Victoriansbuild the sort of future they seek for themselves and forfuture generations.

Honourable members applauded.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!That sort of applause is inappropriate!


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!Are you going to argue with the Chair?

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — It ismy pleasure to join the debate on this pre-electionbudget. I do so in circumstances where those listeningto it can justifiably say they have just heard atremendous contribution by the honourable member forBox Hill. He has focused his attention across the stateas a whole; I intend to focus my attention particularlyon country Victoria since, from a National Partyperspective, it is that all-important area beyond theborders of metropolitan Melbourne in which we haveparticular interests.

I begin by saying that in this budget this government byits own hand has turned its back on country Victoria. Itmade that very apparent in the course of the speechdelivered by the Treasurer on budget day that such isthe case. It has made no bones about it. It is echoed inthe Treasurer’s own line set out at page 4 of his budgetspeech under the heading ‘Stronger suburbs’:

… a major focus of this budget is the expanding suburbs andgrowth corridors of Melbourne.

These are the places where Victorian families are increasinglychoosing to live — and where much of Victoria’s futurepopulation growth will be concentrated.

That is precisely the focus of this government. Whatthey have done is return from whence they came. Thisis the ‘ET’ budget because this government has gonehome! It has returned to the suburbs which are itsorigins and it has set about the task of trying to winback support in suburban Melbourne, and in so doing ithas turned its back on country Victoria. By adoptingthat course it has also continued the process ofabandoning pre-election promises which were made tocountry Victorians. It has continued in its role ofmaintaining taxes and charges upon country Victoriansin a way that we have never seen before in our history.This series of pre-election promises, to which I willrefer in more detail as I make this contribution, havebeen ignored, more particularly in major projects.

I stop to emphasise ‘major projects;, because, inretrospect, of all the features that people would sayrepresented the banner headline of this governmentleading into the last election, it was all the squealing itdid on major projects. Whilst doing so — and I willreturn to it in a moment — one of the other big featureswe need to take into consideration from a countryVictorian perspective is that other indicators areemerging. Those indicators have arisen over the pasttwo and a half years since the government took officein October 1999.

They deal with such things as drug injecting rooms.The government attempted to implement that policybut, thankfully, it failed. We look back upon what wewould otherwise have in Victoria were it not for theforces of conservative politics, and now we have asituation where we simply do not have the problem onour streets to anywhere near the extent that we had itthen. The deaths that occur on our streets because ofheroin overdoses simply have been reduced to anextraordinary degree. That is not to say that we do notstill have the issue to contend with, but we arecontending with it in a way which does not involve theuse of drug injecting rooms which this governmentwanted to foist upon the Victorian community.

We have had legislation from the government onmatters such as racial and religious tolerance. CountryVictorians never saw the need for it and do not see theneed for it now. Mind you, we have seen nothing of itsince it was debated, passed and implemented by thisParliament, but by the same token at the time countryVictorians said to us that they did not want that



legislation. They saw it as a slur upon all theircommunities. That was the view from people of allethnic backgrounds as well as those who historicallyhave constituted our country centres.

Then we had the Fair Employment Bill, which was anendeavour by the government to throw back industrialrelations by an absolute age. Again, country Victoriansexpressed their concerns about it to the National Party.Ultimately it was defeated.

We have just had the debate on the industrialmanslaughter legislation — by whatever name it is nowknown — and although it has passed through this housein only the course of this past week, and by only onevote, the fact is that the conservative parties haveindicated their opposition to it because, again, itrepresents a throwback in industrial relations.

All of us are horrified by the prospect and the fact ofdeaths and injuries in the workplace. But this sort oflegislation is not going to address those issues at all,because it has an entirely different origin. CountryVictorians have again made it very clear that they donot want that legislation passed.

Then there is the so-called ongoing review of theactivities of the upper house, with, I suspect, theinevitable recommendations to be made to thegovernment. The bottom line is that if all this takeseffect the voice country Victorians now have inParliament will be reduced as the result of a deliberativeact by this Labor government. This governmentcomplains that the upper house is undemocratic whenin fact the rules are very simple: if you win the votes,you win the seats. That is how the system works: that ishow it has prevailed for more than 100 years, and that ishow it should continue to prevail. But of course thisgovernment has another agenda. By a combination ofthose factors and its failure to deal with major projects,this government has destroyed the trust that countryVictorians placed in it to greater and lesser degrees inthe lead-up to the last election.

The current discussion on the significantWimmera–Mallee pipeline project highlights thechicanery which reflects the way this governmentoperates. A few moments ago the Minister for Finance,who is at the table, said by way of interjection duringthe shadow Treasurer’s contribution that there shouldbe some discussion about the Wimmera–Malleepipeline. I said to him over the table, ‘Watch thisspace’, and I am delighted to say to him that now is theappropriate time to look at the Wimmera–Malleepipeline, not only in the sense of the issue itself and thehistorical features relating to it but more particularly in

the sense of demonstrating to country Victorians howthis government conducts itself. That includes all thesmoke-and-mirror tricks in which it indulges and theway it gets the spin doctors to run self-servingarguments when in fact the position is very different.The Wimmera–Mallee pipeline is probably the classicexample — although it is one of many which I will talkabout later — of how this government conducts itself.

The Victorian Labor government’s basic thesis on theWimmera–Mallee pipeline is that it will contribute$77 million to the project, without any qualification.We need only have listened to the hystericalcommentary of the Treasurer over the past couple ofdays, more particularly yesterday in question time, tohear that sentiment represented. The government hasalso said that the federal government has failed tosupport this project. Now it has moved on to saying thatit wants to belt the federal government for its apparentlack of action and to belt the state conservative partiesas well — and more particularly, the National Party.

I have the floor now, so I am going to defend theinterests of my party and the interests of countryVictorians and tell the true tale about this. Someanalysis is needed of what has happened over the lastlittle while. I say again that this offers a window intothe way in which Labor governments operate. Make nomistake, the way the government is conducting this istypically Labor. It is trying to transfer the devices itemploys in metropolitan politics to country politics. Imust tell Labor members that they have been sprung.People are gradually coming to the realisation,particularly over a project such as theWimmera–Mallee pipeline, that such is the case. I mustsay in that sense that I am a reluctant starter in this styleof politics, but Labor has set the agenda and I will notlet the opportunity go by without responding to it.

I refer particularly to the editorial in the WimmeraMail-Times of Friday, 10 May. Remember that this isthree days after the Labor Party produced its budget.The heading of this article is ‘Piping beyond partypolitics’, and the editor of the Wimmera Mail-Times isDanny Lannen, to whom I pay tribute. He owesconservative politics nothing, and he does not write hismaterial on the basis of looking to pay regard to anyonein particular. I have seen his articles over the years, andI can say that he writes them straight down the line in amanner which properly reflects the issues of the day.He wrote this editorial, which I think is instructive, so Iwant to record it in Hansard.

The editorial states:

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks and his Labor posse haveconvincingly upstaged the federal government over support



for piping 17 500 kilometres of Wimmera–Mallee waterchannels.

Here the Labor government would say, ‘So far, sogood’. The editorial continues:

The state government’s all-up $77 million backing of theproject has ostensibly exposed and embarrassed a federalgovernment which was not prepared to commit as much. Thecommonwealth will put up $3.5 million to get detailed pipeplanning under way but will remain deeply bothered bypublic perception that it is following a Labor lead.

The editorial then states:

It will console itself with knowledge that people in the realworld know that federal member for Mallee John Forest haschampioned the project in Canberra virtually until his voicebox has bled and that the commonwealth has shown itsintegrity by backing piping in the northern Mallee. The frenzyafter the budget has soured events. The project should be17 500 kilometres beyond party politics.

Isn’t he right! It should be beyond party politics, butLabor cannot help itself. Let’s go back a bit, puttingaside for a moment those intuitive comments by theeditor of the Wimmera Mail-Times, who has picked thisup in one and written an editorial accordingly. The firstthing is that the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline is old news,being a successor to the northern Mallee pipelineproject. These projects have been championed by someof the great figures in the National Party over a periodof decades, including Peter Fischer, John Forest, who isstill there and going strong, by my colleague fromSwan Hill, Barry Steggall, by my former colleague inthe seat of Wimmera, the Honourable Bill McGrath, bya current member for Western Province in anotherplace, the Honourable Roger Hallam, and mostparticularly in recent times by that great member for theelectorate of Wimmera, Mr Hugh Delahunty, who willbe the next federal member for Lowan — and what anabsolute champion he has been for this project!

As I said, the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline is a successorto the northern Mallee pipeline. I must say, and I makethis statement advisedly, that I have absolutely no doubtthat if you were to stand the backbenchers of this Laborgovernment up and ask them where the northern Malleepipeline is, let alone where the Wimmera–Malleepipeline is, you would get a blank stare from 95 percent of them. I venture to suggest that until a matter ofweeks ago most of them had never even heard of theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. And no names, no packdrill, but I know that until recent times some of themthought the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline was about a gasextension! Some of them reckon gas is going to gothrough this pipeline. That is the extent of the LaborParty’s knowledge of the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline!

The thing about the northern Mallee pipeline, which isthe immediate predecessor to this great project, is thatthe governments of the day in Victoria and Canberrabetween them established a process to define how itwould be built. It was based on the fact that intrinsicallyit was a state-based project.

The northern Mallee pipeline was one, and theWimmera–Mallee pipeline is also a state-based project.This situation is unlike the situation that applies to theroads of national importance — the Scoresby freewaydevelopment, for example — where sometimes you getinto this business of saying, ‘I’ll show you mine if youshow me yours’ and wondering who is going to go firstbetween the federal government and the stategovernment over funding, because there is a definedjoint interest in projects such as this. That is not the casewith this pipeline project. By its nature it is astate-based project but — and the ‘but’ is veryimportant — the qualification is, and we all understandit, that this is nevertheless a project of extraordinaryimportance to the Australian nation. It is of importancenot only to the state of Victoria and the people who liveacross in western Victoria who are impacted on by it,but also to the Australian nation.

What happened quite fairly, quite reasonably and quiteproperly over the years of the development of thenorthern Mallee pipeline was that governments atdifferent stages interacted to make certain the fundingwas able to be developed and made available.Something in the order of $29 million was contributedby each of those respective governments over aboutseven stages, and there was a clearly defined process.That process occurred on a department-to-departmentbasis. We all understand that it is one thing to stand upin a place like this Parliament or in Canberra and makecomments about the issues of the day, but that it isanother thing to say that correspondence is exchangedbetween the Premier of the state and the Prime Ministerof the nation regarding projects of importance such asthese.

These things do not function on the basis of lettersbeing exchanged at that level. The system does notoperate on the basis that the Premier of Victoria writesto the Prime Minister of Australia and says, ‘DearPrime Minister, In the case of the Wimmera–Malleepipeline we want you to put up $77 million’ and thePrime Minister sends him back a letter saying, ‘DearPremier, Lovely to hear from you. Here’s my cheque’.

That is not how the system works, and this governmentknows it. What it knows full well from the carefullydefined process that occurred in the instance of thenorthern Mallee pipeline is that the respective



departments within the respective governmentsinterrelate to achieve the outcome of having thatfunding made available. It is a defined process wellknown to all; it is subject to scrutiny at all levels; it istransparent; there is an element of cooperation betweenthem; and in the case of the northern Mallee pipelinethere were a few jigs and reels on the way through but,in essence, no politics. There were no politics in itbecause everybody recognised it as being important.That is why the final $4 million of federal governmentmoney was allocated to the northern Mallee pipelineproject in the budget the federal government producedthis week. That is a great outcome — a fabulousoutcome — and the funding is there.

However, the fact is that despite the Victoriangovernment’s commentary about the northern Malleepipeline there is nothing defined in the Victorian budgetin relation to it. I refer in particular to table A13 onpage 205 of budget paper no. 2 where there is referenceto asset investment initiatives, and it shows ‘Piping thesystem — Wimmera–Mallee (state component only)’and a figure of $7.8 million. What the National Partythinks is that the government of Victoria tried to putwithin that figure of $7.8 million the $4 million whichis the last stage of its funding for the northern Malleepipeline combined with the $3.8 million which it iscontributing to the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.

But it has made a mistake. In its own budget papers itdoes not even understand that it has not allocated themoney referable to the northern Mallee pipeline. Wehave had the Treasurer in here squealing about theseprojects, yet he has made an absolutely awful mistakein the context of his own budget papers. He does notunderstand them himself. There is nothing within thebudget papers that talks about the northern Malleepipeline. That is just another example that highlightshow ridiculous this government’s approach is.

Let us have a close look at the Wimmera–Malleepipeline and what was done. The government ofVictoria worked cooperatively with various otheragencies to conduct a study in relation to theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. The report, called theSustainable Water Management Study, says at page 3:

Funding for the study was provided by the federalgovernment, Victorian government (through the StateRegional Development Fund), Wimmera-Mallee Water,twelve municipal councils, four catchment managementauthorities and Powercor.

A partridge in a pear tree is about the only thingmissing!

Again, pursuant to an established process, the federalgovernment, the state government and those otheragencies and organisations came together to producethis document. At that point in time there was a clearunderstanding that there was cooperation between theparties. In fact, even the Treasurer in his machinationsyesterday during question time spoke about this. Ofcourse I cannot quote the Daily Hansard fromyesterday because it is part of the current session of thisParliament so it is not the sort of thing I would do, but ifI were quoting it I would read out that the Treasurer hadsaid, ‘It was our initiative but the federal governmentjoined in’. That is what I would be quoting if I werequoting Daily Hansard, but of course I would not dothat.


Mr RYAN — No. Someone says he is lying hishead off. No, he is not lying his head off; not at all. Ijump to his defence straightaway. What he did wasrecognise the basic principle I am talking about,because he said, ‘It was our initiative’, and of coursethat carries with it the clear implication that herecognised that the state of Victoria has primaryresponsibility for this whole project in the sense ofgovernment assistance. The state of Victoria took theinitiative and went off to the federal government andsucceeded in getting some funding to enable this reportI have with me to be prepared, and that is a terrificthing — a great thing — but it reflects a clearly definedprocess which everybody understood to be the basis ofthis approach.

In the report’s conclusions various comments are made,and the last couple of paragraphs on page 19 read thisway:

The project has strong support from a wide range of local andregional stakeholders, it is based on a methodology that hasbeen proven through the northern Mallee pipeline project,

there it is again, a reference to the northern Malleepipeline project —

and it will deliver significant benefits through one discreteproject. The diverse benefits of this project —

namely the Wimmera–Mallee project —

are unlikely to be matched by any other currently proposedinfrastructure project in Australia.

The study team concludes therefore, that the proposedstrategy is sufficiently developed to enable fundingdiscussions to proceed, with detailed design andimplementation recommended to occur as soon as possible.

That is how the report’s conclusions are finalised.



What is self-evident from that is that two aspectstumble out of this report. Firstly, funding discussionsare to be conducted; and secondly, detailed design andimplementation is to be done, and that is the second legof the process. But, again, the overriding factor and thebridge across all of this is that there are no politics.No-one is trying to stand anybody up or make a bigman of himself. This is not one level of governmentagainst another. There is a cooperative approachbetween the respective governments, the communityand the organisations referred to, all with the intentionof achieving an outcome that is absolutely magnificent.

So far so good. Enter the Treasurer. The whole thinghas run off the tracks! In his own inimitable fashion theTreasurer of the state of Victoria has pushed thisprocess off the tracks. Why? He did it because hewanted to score a cheap political point. He wanted tomake a big man of himself in circumstances where upuntil now everybody concerned has been very happy toparticipate on the constructive basis of ensuring we getthe outcome we want without getting into all the biffand clout that we have seen over this past week. But,no, this Treasurer could not help himself. So what wesaw in the course of this week was an unfortunatechapter of events unfolding in a situation where thiscarefully defined process that I have described has beenabandoned by this government. I have no doubt aboutwho is driving these events: it is our Treasurer who isdriving it.

What has happened is that despite the content of thisreport that refers to ‘Piping the system’, there has beenno formal request from Victoria to the federalgovernment in relation to funding requirements.No-one has turned up at the federal government’s doorand said, as has been done in the past, ‘Okay, we’reready to go. We’ve got this report here and we’re allset. This is a state-based project, yes, but pursuant tothis clearly defined principle that applied to thenorthern Mallee pipeline we want to get under way nowwith the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, so let’s go’.

So the first stage of that should have been, of course,the money that was needed to achieve this outcome —the finality of the feasibility and the design related to it.But none of those discussions had been held.

So what happened? Instead of talking to the federalgovernment cooperatively, our star state Treasurer, inconcert with the Premier, leaked an announcement —pardon the pun — before the budget that thegovernment was going to put $77 million in fundinginto this. Then on 7 May he came out with hiscommitment to fund this project for $77 million andthen proceeded to belt the federal government and the

state National Party in particular! The headlines wereabout $77 million, even though it was to be spread over10 years. But put the 10 years aside; let’s stick with themoney.

The Treasurer’s smart approach to this went wrong. Tofind out why we need to go back to Danny Lannen andthe Wimmera Mail-Times. He got onto it because of thesequence of events that unfolded within 48 hours andbecause he was smart enough. What occurred? Thebudget papers, which were presented on Tuesday,7 May, talked about the funding of this project.Interestingly, when you have a look at page 89 ofbudget paper no. 2, it says:

The construction of a new Wimmera–Mallee pipeline willprovide a more secure and higher quality water supply fordomestic and stock use. The Victorian government’scontribution of $77 million TEI —

total estimated investment —

is subject to —

and I emphasise this —

commonwealth matching funding …

That is the first thing. The second is:

… confirmation of the package’s feasibility through detaileddesign.

That is what this Treasurer said in his budget papers. Iwill read this last bit out again. He said it:

… is subject to commonwealth matching funding —

that is first, and the second is:

… confirmation of the package’s feasibility through detaileddesign.

The government has not put up this $77 million; rather,it is subject to these important qualifications. Yesterdayin question time — and I must own up: it was by wayof interjection, which I know was disorderly, but Icould not help myself — I said to the Treasurer acrossthe table that this was about putting up money for thefeasibility study aspects of it. If I were quoting him,Mr Acting Speaker, and I am not of course, I would saythat he said this study is not about the feasibility, thisstudy is about the design.

I will read out again, just in case anyone missed it, whatthe Treasurer’s own budget papers say. The provisionof $77 million:

… is subject to commonwealth matching funding andconfirmation of the package’s feasibility through detaileddesign.



How can the Treasurer possibly explain what ispatently, on the face of the words, the key conflict inthe position he is putting? I will tell you how heexplains it: on the basis of cheap gutter politics!

What happened after this? Forty-eight hours later wehad the Deputy Prime Minister on radio talking aboutthis project. Bear in mind that at this point in time noapplication had been made by the state of Victoria tothe federal government through the usual departmentalsources or through the established processes. Nor hasthe federal government got anything before it whichconstitutes the process that normally unfolds. Butundeterred, that champion of country people acrossAustralia, John Anderson, was prepared to hit theairwaves — and what a great job he did.

He was interviewed by Libby Price on ABC radio’smorning show at 9 o’clock on Thursday, 9 May. Ofcourse, he was being interviewed in a context in whichthe state government had apparently put up the$77 million, and people were saying ‘Where is yourmoney, Deputy Prime Minister?’.

John Anderson is saying, ‘No-one has asked us for themoney, for heaven’s sake!’ But out there the spindoctors are working overtime for this current Laborgovernment. So John Anderson said in response toquestions put to him by Libby Price:

But I think the courtesy, the normal thing to have done wouldhave been to have approached us, as we did with Scoresby,and said, ‘We want to take this forward. Will you join us?’.

… on the technical and the feasibility side, the answer is thatunless there are some hidden surprises or traps in it, if theyapproach us, yes, we will join them. And we will do that vitalwork, $3.5 million would be our contribution, to establish itsfull feasibility and complete the technical design of it and thenwe would take it from there.

I pause to say that that is exactly, precisely, what theTreasurer of Victoria has in his own budget papers. Iwill read it out again. The money — the $77 million:

… is subject to commonwealth matching funding —

and there it is, John Anderson has provided it —

and confirmation of the package’s feasibility through detaileddesign.

He, John Anderson, has put it up. Further on in thePrice interview he says:

… the central issue here, let’s just cut to the mustard on this.

Libby Price says, ‘Sure!’ and he says:

… people want to know that we support this. I say that ofcourse we do, we always have. We’ve put up $29 million and

another $4 million which we announced towards the end oflast year. That will certainly be in next week’s budget.

I pause to say that that, of course, relates to thecompletion of the northern Mallee pipeline project —the final payment, to which I have already referred. Hegoes on to say:

In relation to what we see as the next stage —

and here he is referring, of course, to theWimmera–Mallee pipeline —

which is the design and technical side of it, yes, we will, wewill join in with Victoria in doing that step.

That is what he said on radio. Further on in the courseof the interview Libby Price asks him:

Why would there be any reason that it wouldn’t stack up?

To which Mr Anderson says:

Well, I think it is unlikely there will be any reason that itwon’t stack up. But, I mean, that is just a normal way that Icertainly approach things and the commonwealth does, let’sdo the design work and we’ll go from there. That’s the waywe, for example, usually do it with roads.

He goes on to say on another point:

… what we’re saying is, on the design work —

which is stage 1 —

we’re saying precisely that. So let’s do the design work andthen we’ll look at how we take it forward after that.

Libby Price says:

So you are saying the design work has not been done?

The penny finally drops! Libby Price suddenly gets it:no design work has been done. She comes tounderstand, and the little light comes on: the Victoriangovernment is saying, ‘We will give you $77 million tobuild a house’, when there are no plans. No-one has anyplans for it! The government says it is going to give$77 million and no-one knows yet what the blazes it isgoing to do with it. Why? Because it has not designedit. The government needs $3.5 million as the first stageto design it.

So Libby Price says:

So you are saying the design work has not been done?

Mr Anderson says:

Well, with great respect, the whole point is that they’ve put up$3.5 million to do the design work and asked us to match it.So of course it hasn’t been done. That’s the detailed technicaldesign work.



The general concept, yes, it has. It’s been charged to me. I’vetalked about it many times with John Forrest and with theadvocates of the program.

The implication there is that the Victorian governmenthas not asked in the proper way: no-one has come to itdepartment by department. Mr Anderson concludes hiscommentary in the interview by saying — more inexasperation, I think, than anything else:

My understanding is that the Victorian government itself hassaid that it will follow the design work. Our positions wouldbe the same. We want to see the design work and … I’m notin a position as I sit here right now to say that I know that allof this is going to work.

So, look, I am not going to say right now that we wouldcommit ahead of having that design work completed. That’ssomething that the government will have to consider as wework through it.

But I just want to say to you, this is a good project. It issomething that I have always supported, inasmuch as we’vegot to where we are now. I think it is very cheap indeed to tryand paint [us] as non-supporters of it. And we’ll take itforward … that’s … not argued, subject to a successfulcompletion of design work.

He finishes with this, the killer statement in this wholecircus:

If the Victorian government wants to approach us in thenormal way now, talk about matching the design work, thetechnical side of it with the $3.5 million, that’s fine, we willrun with that.

There you go! Despite having been ambushed by ourVictorian government, which has abandoned any notionof decency over the project itself and which has optedrather for in-the-gutter grubby politics for which it isrenowned, in the space of 48 hours John Anderson isable to get that money organised and give thecommitment on behalf of the federal government thatthat $3.5 million will be available for design purposes.He also gives the clear commitment that after thedesign work is done, and presuming it comes up asanticipated, the government will then look to the rest ofthe funding. He has no concern about saying on radio,in effect, ‘If it comes up, as we all expect it to do, wewill support it — just as we did for the northern Malleepipeline’.

That process was then determined and followed, andwe would be following it here were it not for the factthat the Labor government cannot help itself. And itwould get away with it but for the fact that, as I havealready read out and will read out again, in his ownpapers the Treasurer, who is running this beat-up, hasgot written in his own hand that the Victoriangovernment’s $77 million is subject to commonwealthmatching funding — and it has now got it. The state

government would have got it before if it had asked forit properly. A confirmation of the package’s feasibilitycomes through after detailed design, and everybodyknows the Victorian government will get it.

Yesterday another stage of it unfolded, because his nibsthe Treasurer cannot help himself. He swanned in hereagain yesterday and wanted to give it all another bit of arun to see if he could make a bit more mileage out of it.But what he did not know, or had overlooked, was thatDanny Lannen, on the case again at the WimmeraMail-Times, had written another article on 10 May. Iventure to suggest that the Treasurer did not knowabout that!

The Treasurer came waltzing into the house holding upsome sort of a dodger, which I think was headed‘Match this’. However, on page 1 of the WimmeraMail-Times of Friday, 10 May, Danny Lannen wroteanother article, headed ‘Canberra backs pipingplanning’, which states:

Detailed planning of piping of the Wimmera–Mallee watersupply will go ahead after Tuesday’s federal budget isannounced.

The federal government will commit $3.5 million and allowplanners to get on with designing the pipe network andstacking up definitive costs, benefits and drawbacks.

The planning stage will include detailed communityconsultation.

I will not read it all, but the tenor of it is the same. Thearticle quotes the man now known as Pipeline Forrestthrough the west of Victoria, the no doubt frustratedHonourable John Forrest, federal member for Mallee,as saying:

There’s a process, Mr Bracks and Mr Brumby! It needs tosatisfy the Senate estimates and the public auditor, we need aproper, transparent process for these procedures.

The commonwealth is not reluctant, nor is it betraying. We’llmatch the money all right.


He stressed that the first step was the crucial step and that theproject didn’t need an immediate $77 million commitment.

‘I want the $3.5 million, that’s important, because it willfinally settle a lot of unanswered questions which are beingasked’, Mr Forrest said.

That’s the story of it. Nevertheless the Treasurer stillcannot help himself. He still comes into the housegrandstanding about it. After reading yesterday’s DailyHansard I believe the implication of the totality of whathe said is, ‘Even if the feds don’t commit to this, we are



going to build it’. What an outrageously stupid thing tosay. Why would he say it?

He would say it, firstly, because it is a cheap politicalpoint, and secondly, because even as he made thecomment he knew there was no risk. Why does heknow there is no risk? Because he knows that theprocess, once followed through, will produce acommitment from the federal government to matchVictoria’s, just as happened with the northern Malleepipeline project. When the Treasurer comes in here andthrows his arms about, preening himself and doing allthe usual things, the fact is that he knows he can saywhat he likes about this because in due course, once theprocess is pursued, the federal government will providethe money for certain. He knows it is not a risk.

Thirdly, even he would not make such an outrageousstatement without at least having some reference to it inhis forward estimates. What is in the government’sfigures? There is $77 million, but not $154 million. Thegovernment knows very well that there is one lot of$77 million, not two lots.

There is another feature of this too. The governmenthas made this grandiose commitment to $77 millionover 10 years in circumstances where it is subject to thesame sorts of commitments and qualifications whichthe federal government has imposed and whicheverybody knows apply. But I will tell honourablemembers about another little sleeper in all this. Atpage 16 of the report entitled Piping the System — ASustainable Water Management Strategy for theWimmera–Mallee Region, which was produced by thecommittee that is driving this great project, there are acouple of lines that I wonder if the Treasurer in hiswisdom has seen. It says:

Increasing infrastructure costs —

this is for the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline:

by 20 per cent still results in an economically viable project.

That came from the fact that at the moment we have anestimate of the overall cost of the project by SinclairKnight Merz which is thought to be $300 million orthereabouts, but that could be out by 20 per cent. Yethis nibs came in here and jumped the gun. Even thoughhe has not got the design work done and does not knowthe proper costs, he is throwing this amount of moneyaround.

I will tell honourable members another thing that is areal lark. None of the money can conceivably be spentfor about two years. As I said a while ago, this bunchwould actually have us accept that this enormous

amount of money can be committed to a project whichis yet to be designed. We all have an enormous amountof faith in it, but we do not yet know its precise form.That is an example of the way the Treasurer runs thefinances of the state.

In summary, what has happened? The Treasurer hasignored the process and used the project for cheappolitical gain. He has tried to play communities offagainst each other, abusing the trust of decent peoplesuch as Stuart Petering, Daryl Argyle and othermembers of this committee. He has abused the trustthose people have placed in him to score cheap politicalpoints.

Having I hope put to rest once and forever themythology running around about the Wimmera–Malleepipeline, what does it all mean in the broader context ofthis government’s actions? It means that when you lookthrough this window at the way in which governmentmembers conduct themselves and practise government,you see that they cannot be trusted. Of course it isabsolutely replete of such examples.

Let’s look at one of the other great Labor governmentgems running around. The Treasurer is squawkingabout the fact that last year the government spent — Iemphasise ‘the government spent’ — $1.46 billion oncapital projects in country Victoria. One of those has tobe the fast rail links project. Until today I have not hadthe opportunity to have a bit of a chat about the fast railproject in any sort of detail. The Minister for Financeand the Minister for Agriculture should sit back andmake themselves comfortable, because I want to talkabout this for a little while.

I want to talk about it from the starting position that thegovernment cannot deliver this project in the way inwhich it has painted it. In other words, the governmentsimply cannot satisfy the expectations that have beenbuilt up about it. Why do I say it is impossible? Youonly need have regard to the government’s own figuresand feasibility studies to clearly see that it cannot bedone.

Mr Hamilton interjected.

Mr RYAN — The Minister for Agriculture isinterjecting. I hope he keeps going, because while he isit means he is sitting here, and between times he mightlearn something. I just want to tell him more about thisbit of a gem. The Minister for Agriculture is as close asthis government has to a country representative in thisParliament, because he lives in Traralgon.

Mr Hamilton — No, Churchill, get it right.



Mr RYAN — In Churchill, I apologise, which is notfar from Traralgon. He and the Minister for Workcover,who lives in Bendigo, are the only 2 of the 18 ministerswho sit at the cabinet table who do not live inmetropolitan Melbourne. There is no interjection fromthe other side of the table which means I have to beright.

What this bunch running Victoria did was to decide onthis fast rail links project which, let it be said, as a basicconcept is a darn good idea.

Mr Hamilton — Very good.

Mr RYAN — Yes, it is; I have never said that thebasic concept is not good. It is a good idea if you candeliver it — but of course the government cannotdeliver it. When the government was looking atdeveloping this concept, and I take these commentsfrom its own material, it went along to the four regionalcommunities concerned — namely, Ballarat, Bendigo,Traralgon and Geelong. It asked the people of thosecommunities: ‘What is your expectation of a fast train?What do you, as communities residing in those fourcentres, categorise as a fast train?’. It is important to askthose questions, because you cannot spend the sort ofcapital that is involved in an undertaking such as thisunless at the end of the day you are going to smash theculture of the motor car. Otherwise all that will happenis that a huge amount of money will be spent, bothpublic and private — and I will turn to that in amoment — and the outcome you want will never beachieved.

If at the end of the day all you are going to do is havepeople driving down ever-improving roads parallel to aseries of shiny, new train tracks which do not deliverfast rail, then you have a disaster on your hands infinancial terms.

The government wisely went along to the communitiesin those four centres and asked them what they thoughtwas a fast train, what time they expected of a fast train.At Ballarat express trains at the moment take85 minutes, and the answer from the community was55 minutes. In Bendigo the express takes 100 minutes.and the answer was 60 minutes. In Traralgon — theMinister for Agriculture will be interested in this, if Icould interrupt his discussion for a moment — theexpress time at the moment is 115 minutes, and thecommunity regarded 60 minutes as being a fast train;the minister can keep talking now. In Geelong thecommunity reckoned 45 minutes was appropriate for afast train.

This project is all about whether the government is ableto deliver the full bottle $810 million project which itpromised and said soon after it was elected it woulddeliver. In a release from the office of the Premier on5 September 2000 the government said it was going todeliver these projects. The amount of money appearedin a press release dated 20 October 2000 from theMinister for Transport. The government said that thefull $810 million would deliver the followingoutcomes: in the case of Ballarat, the people would get60 minutes instead of the community’s wish of55 minutes; in Bendigo they would get 80 minutesinstead of the 60 minutes which the communityregarded as being appropriate; in Traralgon — sorry tointerrupt, Minister — the full $810 million projectwould deliver 90 minutes, not 60 minutes; and inGeelong it would be 45 minutes.

Of course, over time the thing started to unravelbecause the government cannot get the $810 million. Ithas committed $550 million but needs another$260 million from the private sector. We were told inMay last year by the Minister for Transport that thatmoney would be available in March this year — noappearance, your Worship. When I asked the Ministerfor Transport in question time the other day where itwas, it was not to be seen. The government does nothave the $260 million, so it is back to $550 million.

What will the government get for $550 million? InBallarat, where the community said 55 minutes was theideal time, the train will take 70 minutes. In Bendigo,where 60 minutes was the ideal, the train will now take90 minutes. In Traralgon — wait for it, Minister —where the community said it should take 60 minutes, itwill now take 100 minutes. Geelong is still looking at45 minutes.

The other little gem that runs with this is that all thesetrains, slow as they are, can only do these times if theyrun express. Let’s take the Minister for Agriculture’selectorate. He is down there at Churchill nearTraralgon. In between Traralgon and the Spencer Streetand Flinders Street stations where these rocket trainswill leave from we have trains stopping at Dandenong,Warragul, Moe, Morwell and, eventually, Traralgon.This train will run express from Dandenong toTraralgon. I do not know whether the Minister forAgriculture has broken the news to his constituents, butanyone in Moe who wants to catch this train will haveto run down the platform at about 155 kilometres anhour as it goes past or be bitterly disappointed.

That is on the basis of this government putting up$550 million. Of course, the news is worse. Thegovernment has already spent $55 million and is down



to $495 million; it had to pay $55 million out of the$550 million to buy these new trains which wereordered pursuant to an agreement with the formergovernment.

The government is down to $495 million and it keepspeeling the money away. It is said in some circles,reliably, that the government is down to $340 million inthe pot. The budget papers are instructive. On page 219of budget paper no. 2, under the heading ‘Appendix B:Growing Victoria infrastructure reserve’, we see$32 million under the allocation for the fast railinfrastructure project; that money was allocated in2001–02. I asked the Minister for Transport in questiontime the other day what happened to the money, wherehas it gone, what has it been spent on? We got thisabsolute waffle about what it is supposed to have beenspent on which left us none the wiser.

The other thing that is a bit of a hoot in the context ofall of this is that this train is supposed to be running in2005 — that was the original indication — yet there isan allocation of $128 million for 2005–06 in the budgetpapers this year. This does not sound too good.

I want to emphasise that I believe that if thegovernment could deliver the outcomes which peoplethink they are going to get through this project, it wouldbe a great thing. However, it is self-evident on thegovernment’s own figures that it cannot do it. Thegovernment is misleading people. The awful bottomline is that on the government’s own figures, if it builtwhat represents the community’s expectation it wouldcost $1.75 billion. That is what it would cost to buildthe fast trains the government has convinced the publicof Victoria in those regional centres will be built. Itwould take $1.75 billion, when on some estimates weare down to $340 million. It cannot be done. It wouldbe fabulous if it could be done but the governmentcannot do it. It all comes down to the fact that, on itsown figures, the government is looking at spendingsomething like $6.8 million for each minute of traveltime saved across those four corridors. That is a hell ofa lot of money.

The concept is terrific but, just as occurs in the world ofLabor politics where they have no idea aboutcommercial realities, the government has again made apromise that it cannot keep. That is the point of all ofthis. This is the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline mark 2. TheWimmera–Mallee pipeline is a mirage in the sense ofthe way this government has been conducting itselfover the past few days. It will happen eventually,pursuant to a defined process; and the governmentknows it, but it has interfered with it politically. Thisnext project for the fast rail links is of a similar order.

The government is supposed to have had this thing wellunder way by now; it said it would start construction bythe end of last year but not a track has been laid, not aspike has been driven. It is a mirage.

This is a window into these major projects that thegovernment keeps trumpeting about across countryVictoria — it does not exist. Let’s have a look at asmaller one. There are some terrific little issues in thebudget papers. Let’s go down to the other end of thescale in terms of financial allocations and look at thefox bounty. This is a good story.

Mr Stensholt — Three million dollars.

Mr RYAN — The honourable member forBurwood has reminded me. There are a lot of foxes inBurwood; it is very foxy down Burwood way. The bigpublicity is the fox bounty. This is a ripper, because lastyear my colleague in the other place the HonourableBill Baxter wrote to the Minister for Environment andConservation and made representations on behalf of hisconstituents to establish a fox bounty, boom boom!

Mr Helper — A visionary man.

Mr RYAN — Yes, a visionary man. Thehonourable member for Ripon agrees — a member ofthe Labor government.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Ripon is interjecting out ofhis place and is disorderly.

Mr RYAN — He is doing a darn sight better thanthe Minister for Agriculture, who has just left.

Bill Baxter wrote to the Minister for Environment andConservation and said, ‘How about a fox bounty — areal good idea — how about we have a fox bounty?’. Ihave in my hand a copy of the response from theminister to the Honourable Bill Baxter on 21 June.


Mr RYAN — I am reading from the document. Issomeone going to ask me to table it? No? I will read on.It says:

Dear Mr Baxter

Foxes: Bounty — —

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, if the Leaderof the National Party is going to quote from a documentI do hope he will make it available because it is such amiracle that he has received a letter from the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation!



The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!Is the Leader of the National Party prepared to makethe document available to the Parliament?

Mr RYAN — I certainly am, Mr Acting Speaker.The letter to Mr Baxter — and in fact the matter wasraised in the adjournment debate by Mr Baxter on23 May — begins in the usual way and says:

Bounty systems have been assessed worldwide for the controlof pest species, and in almost every situation they have beenrejected due to ineffective control. Bounties have been foundto be counterproductive when compared to more efficientmeans of control for the following reasons: utilising fundsthat could be more effectively spent on long-term controltechniques; can be subject to fraud and cause no appreciablereduction in numbers; and providing an incentive to harvest.

Fox bounty systems are generally ineffective as they do notallow the targeting of fox control where it is needed.

Boom boom!

People collecting foxes for a bounty payment concentrate onareas where foxes are abundant.

Don’t you like that line! Isn’t that an absolutescreamer? Can I read that again?

People collecting foxes for a bounty payment concentrate onareas where foxes are abundant.

You would have to say wow!

The areas where they are harder to obtain are often thosewhere fox control is most needed …

Let me get this: the idea is you catch them where theyare not. The minister goes on to say:

… such as areas where wildlife species are consideredthreatened or endangered. Bounty systems do not impose ahigher level of control that is beneficial for threatened speciesor even to significantly reduce attacks on most livestock. It isfor these reasons that the government does not endorse thebounty system as a means of enhancing fox control.

Scientific assessments of the relative merit of shooting,trapping and poisoning of foxes have strongly indicated thatshooting and trapping are heavily biased towards collection ofyoung or juvenile foxes.

Wait for it!

Many of these foxes would normally die during their firstyear of life.

That is what the minister says. I do not tell a lie, that iswhat she said in this letter. It finishes — —

Mr Maclellan — Does it finish with ‘Yourssincerely’?

Mr RYAN — It finishes:

Over the last eight years, the Department of NaturalResources and Environment has been promoting acoordinated group approach to fox control. I would encourageyour constituents to contact the local catchment managementofficer in their area regarding this approach.

Yours sincerely

That is what the letter says.

Mr Maclellan — She obviously lost the argumentin cabinet — got overruled!

Mr RYAN — Everybody was in there the other daywhen I asked the minister, ‘How can this be, or whenyou wrote that letter were you foxing?’ Remember, thatis what I asked her. Her answer was, ‘Labor listens’.

Mr Maclellan — To the foxes!

Mr RYAN — What an absolute hoot — ‘Laborlistens’! Doesn’t it give you a window into how thisgovernment is run? It is just priceless. So we now havea fox bounty. Many of my constituents have actuallyrung the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment to find out how the bounty system isgoing to work and no-one knows.

No names are given and there have been no packdrills — they have all been blueing with the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation about whether theyhave this. I do not think the Department of NaturalResources and Environment want it at all, which is whythey wrote the letter for the minister to sign on 21 June.Confusion reigns over there.

Time is on the wing and I wish to turn to other issues.Rail standardisation: $96 million. This was trumpetedby the Treasurer last year but it is an absolute mirage.Not a sleeper has been laid nor a spike driven — noappearance, your Worship. Nothing has been done —as I said, it is a complete mirage.

One good one — I cannot help but refer to a cityproject — is the fast-rail project from MelbourneAirport to the city. Sorry, it did not make the cut. It isbad enough when the government announces theseprojects and sticks with them but does not build them,but here is one that was announced and completelyabandoned.

I have a stack of paper concerning Basslink. Thisproject is good in principle. The problem is that thejoint advisory panel established by the governments ofVictoria, Tasmania and the commonwealth is simplynot following the terms of reference signed off by theHonourable John Thwaites during his time as theMinister for Planning.



I drew the attention of the current Minister for Planningto this issue in a letter written to her on 2 May. Icarefully set out how on even a cursory examination ofthe terms of reference signed off by the Bracksgovernment it is clear that they are not being followed. Iset it all out for her and sent her copies of appropriatematerial.

The minister was good enough to write back to me andsend me a copy of the letter she wrote to the Victorianco-chair of the Basslink advisory panel. Not only hasthe minister not told the panel that it must follow theterms of reference established by the government andwhich specify that public hearings must be held, orgiven the co-chair a bit of a crack over the knuckles andtold him the panel must comply with the terms ofreference, but she has encouraged him not to complywith them.

Her letter basically said that the government wants thepanel to get on with this. People out there are urging itto have more public hearings, but the minister says,‘Don’t do any of that business — get on with it’. In herletter she says that further limited hearings only shouldbe held and that she wants the report by the end of June2002.

Mr Maclellan — Labor listens.

Mr RYAN — Labor listens, as the former Ministerfor Planning and Local Government says. Funnilyenough, the very form of the letter sent by the ministerto the co-chair of the Basslink advisory panel is largelyreplicated in a letter that the Department ofInfrastructure has now sent to many of those poor soulswhose properties are in the path of the project. Thatletter from the department reflects the content of theletter from the minister which in turn was directed tothe joint advisory panel.

The essence of the matter is that people in Gippslandwho for years have simply gone about their ownbusiness, living their lives and accommodating thevarious natural problems that come particularly in thefarming environment, now must cope withrepresentatives of the Basslink organisation turning upat their doors and saying it is going to build this projectacross their land. Those people quite properly protestedabout the situation, a process was instituted, and just ashas happened with people affected by theWimmera–Mallee pipeline issue in the example I gavebefore, they are being abandoned by this governmentwhich will not require compliance with its own terms ofreference.

It is another good message to country Victorians andanother step in the chain which leads to a conclusion Iwill come to shortly. This is completely apart from thefact that if this project is to be built, on environmentalgrounds the government should do something to assistit to happen so that the cabling can be underground.

Mr Maclellan — They did it in Punt Road.

Mr RYAN — They did do it in Punt Road; that isquite right. It is not all bad news in the government.

There is a good initiative of a $13 million package forthe lakes. I see we have been joined by the honourablemember for Gippsland East and I know that he, quiterightly, accepts that it is a good project. It is a very goodidea. It is called — —

Mr Maclellan interjected.

Mr RYAN — Wait a minute, the punchline is mine;you will get a go later! The government has a$13 million project for cleaning up the lakes ofGippsland. It is a good idea. But nearby at DutsonDowns, which is 8000 hectares comprising in part thewaters of Lake Coleman which, in turn, comprise inpart the lakes system, a proposition is being advancedby the current government for a hazardous waste — —

Mr Maclellan — Tourist attraction.

Mr RYAN — A hazardous waste site which also, insome quarters, is said to double as a tourist attraction!

Mr Maclellan — Only Labor would think of it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The Leader of the National Party is performing veryeloquently this morning and does not require assistancefrom the honourable member for Pakenham, who is outof his place and disorderly.

Mr RYAN — A hazardous waste site committeehas been established by the government. When you donot have the wherewithal to make a decision yourself,you appoint a committee! What the government hasdone with this group of people who, in turn, have donetheir best to accommodate the problems to do with thehazardous waste issue, is sent them off on a task.Essentially the way the task is being run, with duerespect to all concerned, is that the committee, perfavour of the government said, ‘Hands up all thosepeople who would like to have a hazardous waste siteon their doorstep?’. Initially about 8 or 10 communitiesput up their hands.



Gippsland Water, on behalf of Gippslanders, which ishow the Minister for Major Projects, the HonourablePeter Batchelor, describes their role in life, recently saidthat Gippslanders were represented in this processthrough Gippsland Water. Gippsland Water, a whollystate-owned government authority, has proposed that itbe one of the sites for this proposition — immediatelyadjoining the Gippsland Lakes, includinginternationally recognised wetlands. As I said, it isclose to Lake Coleman, and the ocean is nearby. Thereare issues of water tables to contend with and, mostworryingly, a unique feature of this proposed site whichshould not escape attention is that it is adjacent to anRAAF bombing range! This is not good.

What is worse, as this committee has worked its waythrough the process of trying to determine which shouldbe the appropriate site, they have all dropped out! Weare left with two in name, but in fact when you getdown to it only one is left in the process, and that isDutson Downs. I have said to Gippsland Water, ‘Ourproblem can be solved if you withdraw yourapplication. You just write to the minister and say,“Thanks, but no thanks”. That will get Gippsland out ofit’. Otherwise what sort of a mockery is it of thisprocess that the committee is supposed to work its waythrough options and end up with only one option? Thatis a great way to run a process of this ilk! A $13 millionpackage for the Gippsland Lakes? Top idea! Sinkingthe Gippsland Lakes with the use of a facility such ashazardous waste sites? Not a good idea at all! Youshould not do it.

Time is on the wing, but there are all sorts of otherthings that demonstrate the incapacity of thisgovernment to manage the state’s affairs, and they arereflected in this budget.

There are questions of resource management, such asthe issue of forest industries, to which $80 million isallocated in this budget. For what? Nominally we knowwhat it is for, but what is the detail? Who is going to getwhat? How is it to be split up? How are communities tobe accommodated? What is the future with regard tothe hardwood timber industry in this state? Where arethe guarantees by this government? Where is thelegislative protection for the redefined regional forestagreements or, more particularly, for the sustainableyield that is now said to be appropriate? Where are allthese factors? What about the marine parks issue? Wewill have that discussion soon, too. We have an$80 million package for compensation for the timberindustries and a $3 million compensation package forthe fishing industry.

There are questions about the Snowy River. Where isthe water going to come from? Where has the moneyallocated in past budgets been spent? Where has itgone? Has it gone anywhere? There is not one morelitre of water in the Snowy River than there was inSeptember and October 1999. For all the talk, all thespin doctors, and all the smoke and mirrors, that is thefact of it. What about native vegetation issues? TheVictorian Farmers Federation is very concerned aboutthat amongst a variety of other things. We have acomplete mishmash of the way in which that area iscontrolled. There is the question of public policy withregard to these things that is absolutely vital to thefuture of the state.

Albeit briefly, I turn to financial management issueswhich already have been covered very well by thehonourable member for Box Hill. I do not want to dealwith them in any detail because I am conscious thatothers want to make contributions.

The budget papers for this year show that expenditureunder this government is expected to rise by$5.892 billion, or 31 per cent since 1998–99. Thepublic sector wage bill is forecast to rise by $2.1 billion,or 30 per cent, in that same time. Since 1998–99 thepurchase of supplies and services by thisgovernment — that is, consultancies and advertising —is forecast to rise by $3.7 billion, or 69.1 per cent, in2002–03.

There are some other gems that jump out of thesepapers. Over that same period of time stamp duty willbe up 84 per cent; land tax, 66 per cent; insurance taxes,49 per cent; payroll tax, 27 per cent; and motoringtaxes, 17.4 per cent.

In terms of sheer politics, my favourite relates togambling. Let me read to you Labor’s pre-electionpolicy in relation to government and the gamblingindustry. Under the heading ‘Dependence on thegambling dollar’, it states:

Revenue from gaming and the casino has formed anincreasing proportion of state budget income. While thissituation is allowed to continue, either by the consciouschoice of the state government or because of the inadequacyof the state’s revenue base, government is compromised in itsrole as the responsible regulator of the gambling industry.

Labor will seek a fairer revenue deal from the federalgovernment to reduce the state government’s reliance onrevenue from gambling.

That is what is says, but let’s have a quick look at theexpenditure which this government intends to reapfrom gambling. Page 155 of budget paper no. 2 shows aforecast of $1.455 billion for 2002–03. I will not go



through each annual forecast, but by 2005–06 the figureis expected to be $1.708 billion, an increase ofsomething in the order of $250 million.

All the rubbish we have heard from the governmentabout how it is going to rein in the gambling industry,all the stuff about the clocks and turning on the lights,and all the stuff that we are now seeing in the billpresently before the house amounts to absolutely zip! Itamounts to absolutely nothing because, on its ownforward estimates, the government is going to take anextra $250 million or thereabouts in taxation out of thepockets of Victorians over the course of the nextfour-odd years. It is chicanery on the go!

I will not go through all the figures, but in terms of ourfinancial status in Victoria the real question is: whathappens when the music stops? That is the worry. Atthe moment the economy is going okay and theAustralian nation is going okay. The real problem is theamount of expenditure built into the bottom line and theway in which such things as unfunded liabilities forsuperannuation are increasing. They are built into thebottom line and, in the case of unfunded liabilities forsuperannuation, those increases are there in the budgetpapers. The fact is that the government has got awaywith it so far because it had windfall gains on taxation.

I have heard my parliamentary colleagues in the LiberalParty saying that cuts can be implemented. With propermanagement, I think that is right, but by the same tokenthe real worry is, as I said: what happens when themusic stops? When the money stops coming in we willhave commitments such as those that are set out in thisgovernment’s budget and in its forward estimateswhich will have to be met. The honourable member forSpringvale is a recent addition to this place. He shouldhave been here 10 years ago because the music hadstopped well and truly. We were all in terrible trouble.We are heading back inevitably to the same track.

What conclusion can be drawn out of all of this forcountry Victoria? Quite rightly, country Victorians willbe — indeed they are — bitterly disappointed with thecontents of this budget, and there are three probablereasons. The first is that the promises the governmentmade about major projects — the cornerstone of thegovernment’s pre-election promise — have not beenmet, not at all.

For an example of this government’s chicanery I turn topages 15 and 16 of the Treasurer’s speech, dealing withmajor projects. He mentioned the redevelopment of theAustin hospital — a Melbourne-based major project;the new national neurological centre — aMelbourne-based major project; and the redevelopment

of Australia’s greatest sporting ground, the MelbourneCricket Ground, which is, needless to say, ametropolitan-based major project. I agree with thatbecause it is the home of those mighty Demons and Iwill be delighted to be in that new stand in due course.It is a good project and it is metropolitan based. TheTreasurer tried to claim a bit of credit for the Holdenengine plant — obviously Melbourne based. Hementioned the Scoresby freeway — say no more. Hementioned new state-of-the-art sports facilities acrossVictoria for the Commonwealth Games, but essentiallythey are Melbourne based.


Mr RYAN — They are referred to in his speech!The Minister for Finance interjects, ‘What about theshowgrounds?’. I am simply saying these are theprojects that the Treasurer chose to highlight as beingthe banner. He mentioned two projects in areas beyondMelbourne — the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, whichwe dealt with in fulsome detail this morning; and thenew regional fast rail links to Bendigo, Ballarat,Geelong and Traralgon, which we also dealt with. Theyare both mirages as at today. Unfortunately thisgovernment is taking people for a ride in the colloquialsense but not in fact.

In the end when it is all rolled up, the budget misses avision for country Victoria. Nothing in this budget talksabout who country Victorians are and what they aspireto in times to come. Nothing in it talks about how wewill get the best out of country Victoria infrastructuredevelopments. There is no mention about infrastructuredevelopments in the country environment, only thosewhich happen in a metropolitan environment.

How are we going do bridge that gap? How can weensure that our industries can compete on an equitablebasis, not only to look after communities outside ofmetropolitan Melbourne but more particularly to lookafter them in a way that is in the state’s interest as well?It is in all our interests that these things happen. Whatwill happen to our kids who are leaving our homes andcoming to a metropolitan environment? What willhappen to our communities? Ten thousand people haveleft western Victoria in the last five years. Where is thisgovernment’s vision to address the sorts of needs whichare absolutely apparent — to develop ways of keepingpeople in western Victoria and other parts of thecountry? The vision is lacking.

There is no vision in this budget because, as theTreasurer said when he commenced his contribution,Labor is going home; it is going back to the suburbs,



and I can say now that country Victorians will notforget it and will not forgive this government.

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — It givesme great pleasure to speak in support of the thirdBracks government budget. I have great joy in doing so.The Bracks government’s first budget was one ofrepairing damage to the social fabric of the state. Thesecond one was on rebuilding the infrastructure of thestate. The third one looks forward to the future of thestate, particularly in the areas of education andinnovation. The theme running through all threebudgets is that they are socially progressive and fiscallyresponsible.

I will go through some of the aspects of the budget thataffect the cities of Monash and Greater Dandenong,being the areas I represent as a member of Parliament,and I will also rebut parts of the very long responsesfrom the Liberal and National parties we have heardthis morning.

I will commence with a rebuttal of what was said by thehonourable member for Box Hill and the Leader of theNational Party. I congratulate the Leader of theNational Party. He is an entertaining speaker, and Iwish him well in a future role as a comedian after thisParliament, because we know well and truly from whatis going on in here that he and his party are beingstalked and hunted through this place by the LiberalParty, which has the sole objective these days of takingthe remaining seats in regional Victoria when the nextelection comes. I suspect that part of his passion for theWimmera–Mallee pipeline is also — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Mitcham is interjecting outof his place.

Mr LENDERS — I would imagine that part of hispassion for the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline comes notonly because the Treasurer well and truly got under hisskin by announcing and coming forward with aninitiative that should be dear to the National Party butalso because the Leader of the National Party fears thatat the critical time, perhaps the middle of a stateelection campaign, the federal Liberal Treasurer willannounce funding to assist the Liberal Party in itscampaign to take Lowan from the National Party.

I will talk more extensively on the Wimmera–Malleepipeline, which is one of the great initiatives from theBracks Labor government — one we would like tocollaborate on with the commonwealth. We know wecan collaborate with local government and users in the

area on this because not only is it an importanteconomic development issue — the Leader of theNational Party asked what are we doing to stopdepopulation of western Victoria and this is obviously asignificant project regarding that — but it is theultimate conservation and economic developmentproject. The Treasurer has gone through this a numberof times in this house. It is a sign of the Bracks Laborgovernment’s commitment to govern for the wholestate by developing infrastructure and adding toeconomic development and by being environmentallyresponsible, and it is an absolute ringing endorsementof the direction of this government.

I will talk about some of the issues the honourablemember for Box Hill raised on behalf of the LiberalParty. The honourable member closed his contributionwith a Liberal Party vision. Listening to it was likelistening to an Adam Smith lecture about economic dryissues. He gave no mention of growing the whole state,no mention of those two magical words ‘regionalVictoria’. Clearly the honourable member has forgottenthe seven long dark years of the Kennett governmentwhen regional Victoria was neglected, taken forgranted, treated as the toenails. He has not learnt, andneither has the Liberal Party. Not once in his addressdid he address any issues of regional Victoria other thanto knock the government for projects he says are nothappening in those areas.

The other thing that was missing in the addresses ofboth the honourable member for Box Hill and theLeader of the National Party was a mention — not evenone mention — of the key word in the budget,‘innovation’. Perhaps the honourable member for BoxHill is dreaming of the days when Jeff Kennett wasPremier and Alan Stockdale was Treasurer. Perhaps heis dreaming even further back. Perhaps he and theLeader of the National Party have not thought about it.Perhaps it is because they acknowledge that the BracksLabor government is leading this state, this country, ininnovation. It is such a theme of this budget that I willget back to innovation in more detail.

The honourable member for Brighton asked me toaddress the issue of tax, and I will be delighted to do so.I will go firstly through the history of tax. The line putby the honourable member for Box Hill was that theBracks Labor government has done nothing about tax,that it is a high-taxing government and that in theglorious years of Jeff Kennett taxes in Victoria werecut. I remind the honourable members for Box Hill andBrighton that there are many issues relating to tax thatthey should remember. Firstly, under the Kennettgovernment in May 1993 bank account debit tax rates



doubled and the insurance duty rate increased from7 per cent to 10 per cent.

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr LENDERS — The honourable member for BoxHill has the cheek to say that somehow we areresponsible for it! Motor vehicle registration doubledfrom $70 to $140. A 10-cent ticket levy was introduced.The tobacco franchise fee rate was increased. They arebut a few examples of what the previous governmentdid.

The honourable members for Box Hill and Brightonneglect to consider that every single tax rate in thisstate, other than the gaming machine levy on the threegaming operators, has remained static or gone downunder the Bracks government.

In the limited time available to me I remind thehonourable member for Brighton that this governmenthas either reduced or removed more than $1 billion oftaxes in this state! It has not just talked about payrolltax, it has cut it; and it has not only cut land tax but ithas reduced the base.

The honourable member for Box Hill in his previouslife as parliamentary secretary to the former Treasurerwas advocating in this place a broad-based flat land taxwhich would have slugged every small business in thisstate. If he is supporting the proposal for puttingthousands of dollars of flat taxes onto every smallbusiness, it says something about his rhetoric.

The Bracks government has abolished the duty onnon-residential leases; it has abolished financialinstitutions duty; it has abolished the duty on quotedmarketable securities; it has abolished the duty onunquoted marketable securities; it will abolish from1 July 2004 the duty on mortgages, which will assisthome buyers and business in this state; and the stampduty rate on property remains unchanged from thelevels it inherited from former Treasurer AlanStockdale.

The honourable member for Box Hill also says Victoriahas the highest stamp duty rates in the country. If hecompares the per-head-of-population rate with NewSouth Wales he might change his tune.

This government is happy to talk about tax; it is happyto talk about the history of the Stockdale regime; it ishappy to talk about the history of the honourablemember for Box Hill who wanted to broaden the landtax and put a slug on small businesses; and it isdelighted to talk about the history of the Bracks Laborgovernment, which has cut business taxes more than

any other government and brought Victoria below thenational average, in particular below New South Wales.

Where to on tax under the Liberal Party? It is veryinteresting that the honourable member for Box Hillcame in with a one-liner and succinctly cut the subjectof tax down to three single issues. Firstly, he talkedabout motorcycle licences — which is an issue for theTransport Accident Commission and not the budget, soI am surprised he is raising that in the budget debate —and he then went on to talk about two other issues.Over the past few months the Liberal Party has comeout with eight separate tax proposals on various issueswhich, if they were to be introduced, would blow thebudget and force the government to cut services, buttoday the honourable member for Box Hill is down tothree issues.

I wonder why he is down to three? Members of thehouse are familiar with a number of the opposition’spolicies, but today we are down to just three. Is thatbecause the honourable member for Box Hill isdistancing himself from the announcements of hisleader, the honourable member for Portland? Is hedistancing himself because he thinks the former shadowTreasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have beenirresponsible in what they have been promising in cuts?That could be the case. Was he qualifying that approachtoday when he said that a Liberal government wouldlook at genuine duty reform? Does that mean he isagain distancing himself from the ideas of his leader? Ileave those fairly important questions with the house.

Payroll tax is one of the most fundamental issues onwhich the parties differ. It is fine for the Leader of theOpposition to ruminate in statements on Ballarat radiothat payroll tax should be abolished, and it is fine forthe honourable member for Box Hill to say we shouldcut payroll tax by another 0.5 per cent, but what theyare not saying in this debate is what they will cut. Arethey going to run this state into a deficit or will theystart slashing education by cutting teacher numbers inschools again? Will they cut police numbers again?These are the questions that must ultimately beaddressed in this house.

I turn to other areas of the budget. The honourablemember for Box Hill asked rhetorically what Labor isdoing in particular areas. He got particularly excitedabout some of the areas of education in budget paperno. 3. He was incredibly critical that the governmentwas focusing on having a policy and a strategy ineducation and spending money on strategic advice ineducation. I suggest to the house in general and thehonourable member for Box Hill in particular that anygovernment that is concerned — as this government



is — to have an educated work force into the future,jobs for young people and a future for Victoria as aninnovative state, must focus on education. If agovernment is to focus on education, it has to put someeffort and energy into planning where it wants to go oneducation because if it is without a plan and a vision, itwill just stagnate.

This government is focusing on where it is going, and ifit is addressing key issues such as the middle years ofschooling and what it will do to keep kids in school sothey complete their schooling and go on to do a rangeof things, it needs to have a strategy, it needs to thinkand it needs to plan. They are all issues that thehonourable member for Box Hill criticised in hisspeech. They are key issues in schools in my electorate,which incorporates the cities of Monash and GreaterDandenong. This government is leading the way. Theopposition when in government closed schools and cutteacher numbers and did not really care about whathappened to the system.

As I said, neither the honourable member for Box Hillnor the Leader of the National Party mentioned theword ‘innovation’, which is a key feature of thisbudget. That again says something about what theirpriorities are and where their attention lies.

The next theme running through the Treasurer’s budgetspeech was stronger communities. I will address twoaspects of that issue. One is safety in communities. Thehonourable member for Box Hill, trying to frighten thehouse, referred to a number of crime statistics. He wasvery selective and they were taken out of context. Thefundamental underpinning of security in anycommunity is a decent and well-equipped police force.The Kennett government in those seven dark years ofadministration of Victoria slashed the police force. It islittle wonder that crime rates went up in Victoria duringthat time, because if you do not have a police force toenforce the laws, of course crime rates will go up.

The Bracks government committed itself to bringing800 more police into Victorian communities to makethem safer places. Those 800 police are in place and sothere are more police on the beat. That is the mostpositive contribution any government could make toreducing crime in the state. Again, this is a key issue inthe cities of Monash and Greater Dandenong in myelectorate.

The honourable member for Box Hill was very criticalof the government’s health initiatives. He was scathingin his comments and tried to use selective statistics inthe budget papers to show there is not a good story onhealth. What the honourable member for Box Hill did

not acknowledge was that the demand funding put intohealth by this government was extraordinary because itaddresses the key health issues.

The government is putting more nurses and othermedicos into health because that is important if waitinglists are to be reduced. The honourable member for BoxHill did not mention that this budget provides for30 000 extra patients being dealt with in the Victorianhealth system. He skirted over that particularlyimportant matter while he was finding little areas of thebudget to niggle and carry on about. He did not mentionthe ambulance bypass rates being down or theimprovements in that area. He did not mention theissues that are important to the people in the cities ofMonash and Greater Dandenong in my electorate andto the rest of the state.

I will touch on capital works. In this budget the BracksLabor government has committed $3 billion for capitalworks in this state. The figures for capital works in thebudget papers in the last years of the previousKennett–Stockdale government were less thanone-third that amount. The regional fast rail, theScoresby transport corridor and the Wimmera–Malleepipeline are all critical infrastructure projects forgrowing this state, but they are just not acknowledgedby the opposition. The honourable member for Box Hillchallenged me to name a single project that is up andrunning, and my colleague the honourable member forIvanhoe reminded me that construction of the Austinhospital — a major project — has commenced.

Speaking as someone representing an electorate in theeastern suburbs of Melbourne, I can inform the housethat the Scoresby transport corridor is good for theeconomic development of the state.

Mr Helper interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The Minister for Finance does not need the support ofthe honourable member for Ripon who, once again, isinterjecting out of his place and is disorderly.

Mr LENDERS — The final thing I will say aboutinfrastructure in this state is that the government isputting in resources where it matters. Whether it be theregional fast rail links out to our communities or theScoresby integrated transport corridor, they are veryimportant issues to the state.

The final matter I will touch on in transport is theinjection of funds into improving bus servicesthroughout the regional interface councils ofMelbourne. That initiative has been acknowledged by



local communities as being important and it is one inwhich I take great pride.

I will touch very briefly on business investment in thestate, which the honourable member for Box Hill wastrying to talk down, saying that things are not good andall is gloomy in Victoria — ‘It is all spin’ were thewords he used. He would well know that in the currentyear business investment figures in this state haveincreased by over 10 per cent, which is more thandouble the national average. That is a ringingendorsement of where we are in this state. I contrastwhere the Bracks government stands with the shamefulcomments made overseas by Tony Abbott, the federalMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations andSmall Business, when he talked down the state ofVictoria and said it is not a good place to invest. Heshould be ashamed of himself and I call upon thehonourable member for Box Hill to distance himselffrom those comments of Tony Abbott.

I pass now to the comments on the budget made by theLeader of the National Party. I mentioned before that heis quite entertaining. He is a good speaker, and I givehim full marks for that, but I am surprised by his attackon the suburbs. Growing the whole state involves vastresources being put into regional Victoria by thisgovernment but it also involves the necessary resourcesbeing put into the outer suburbs of Melbourne. It isparticularly churlish that the Leader of the NationalParty should attack the government on that point.

If he hates the city so much he will have some difficultytaking part in his coalition negotiations with the LiberalParty. I suggest that if he ever hopes to govern again inVictoria it will need to be in coalition with the LiberalParty. His speech was really a rehash of the speech hegave to the National Party State Council in Sheppartona few weeks ago. He had a bit of a trawl around socialissues and set out what would be necessary for theNational Party to form a coalition with the Liberal Partyagain. He says his is an independent party, but he ruledout any strategic alliance or coalition with the LaborParty because we are deadbeats — or whatever else hethinks we are.

The Leader of the National Party went through theprocess of justifying a return to coalition with theLiberal Party. The key issue, according to the speech onthe National Party web page, anyway, was that of acommitment to the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline. Nowonder he is so upset about the inability orunwillingness of the federal government to commit tothat pipeline, because it puts his grand strategy ofre-forming the coalition in some difficulty.

He spent a lot of his time defending the federal NationalParty and the honourable member for Wimmera — andI think the honourable member for Wimmera is a verygood man. It is interesting that his focus is on theNational Party’s vulnerability to the Liberal Party in theseat of Lowan at the next election. That is probably anunderpinning of the contradiction the National Partyfaces at the moment. It is trying to distance itself fromthe Liberal Party as an independent party while tryingto pretend there is a common goal between the two, yetin the end it is inevitably part of a conservativecoalition. It will remain part of that, even as it tries todistance itself from its real enemy, the Liberal Party,which will continue to be so.

What we have heard today is an interesting series ofcontributions from the opposition parties on this budget.The Treasurer came out last week with a fantasticbudget which is an ongoing commitment to the state ofVictoria, which looks to the future and which asks,‘Where do we as a government and community need totake this state into the future? How do we deal with thecompetitive pressures of our region? How is ourcommunity best positioned to go into that area? Whatsort of issues do we have in our own community?Where do we see ourselves? Where should we go?’.

So this is about the big picture, or the vision. Bothopposition speakers today have used the word ‘vision’,but theirs looks into the past — —

Mr Robinson — All the vision of a rear viewmirror!

Mr LENDERS — As the honourable member forMitcham says, ‘All the vision of a rear view mirror’.Very well put!

They were not looking to the future, they were lookingto the past. They were critical of any initiatives of thisgovernment. They skirted over the huge issue ofinnovation and where that places Victoria into thefuture. They did not mention it; it was of no interest tothem. They selectively skirted over the issue of taxes.They did not acknowledge the fact that every tax ratethat has not gone down is one we inherited from theprevious government. This is just a bit of a scarecampaign on taxes; it is not about looking to the future.They want to cut taxes, but do not identify whichservices they will cut.

The previous government cut thousands of teachers andclosed hundreds of schools, slashed health services andcut the police force. Is that what the opposition isplanning to do again? The opposition speakers did notmention that; it was not important to them. All they did



is put on the spin that they will deal with that if theyever get into government.

The opposition has no vision, whereas the budgetspeech presented by the Treasurer on behalf of theBracks government has a vision — for example, avision of what we as a state can do in education andhow we can help the good people working in that areato deal with the challenges they face.

The opposition does not acknowledge or is not preparedto deal with the issue of community building as we aredealing with it. We want to go out into communities torevitalise them and give them a chance. They are notimportant to members of the opposition — or if theyare important to them they remain very silent on thembecause of the leadership shown by the Bracksgovernment.

In concluding, I have a list of dozens and dozens ofcommunity groups which have endorsed the budget ofthe Bracks government for various reasons, includingthe fact that it is innovative and is leading us places.They include the Victorian Farmers Federation, whichtalks about the pipeline boost for western Victoria andabout a number of other projects. Agriculture is awinner in this budget. We have endorsements fromEnvironment Victoria for what we are doing for healthyrivers and for the four rivers in particular that we arehelping out. We have endorsements from the AustralianIndustry Group, because the budget provides a usefulstimulus for industry. The Association of AustralianMedical Research Institutes is also on the list.

This is a budget which leads, which builds the state andwhich shows vision. I commend it to the house.


Debate interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.



Latrobe hospital

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) —Given that the Premier misled the people of Victoria inhis comments regarding the demolition contracts at theLatrobe hospital, forcing the government Queen’sCounsel to again advise the building industry royalcommission that the Bracks Labor government hadacted inappropriately in delaying the awarding of acontract to the lowest and best tenderer, Able

Demolitions, simply because it refused to sign a dealwith the Premier’s Construction, Forestry, Mining andEnergy Union mates, I ask — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask governmentbenches to come to order.

Dr NAPTHINE — Can the Premier advise thehouse in what way he and his government behavedinappropriately, and can he assure the people ofVictoria that this will never happen again?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his question. The government’sposition has been made very clear by senior counsel forthe government to the royal commission. That is thetrue and correct position and I have nothing further toadd to that position.

Docklands: investment

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — Will thePremier advise the house of recent developmentsconcerning major investment in the Docklands?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Footscray for his question. I was verypleased to be at the Docklands precinct with theMinister for Major Projects today for a majorannouncement of some further development and furtherinvestment and jobs in the Docklands area.

We have a different policy position on the Docklands tothe previous government. We have deliberatelyinvested in trunk infrastructure by allowing theDocklands authority to build the extension of CollinsStreet — the $38 million extension of Collins Street —into the Docklands precinct. With the Minister forMajor Projects today I heard that that deliberate act bythe government of not putting that onto privatedevelopers by having it as trunk infrastructure, whichthe state undertakes, has resulted in millions andmillions of dollars of new investment. I heard today aspart of the announcement, for example, that thedevelopment would not have occurred this year or nextyear but would have been put off into the future exceptfor the construction of the Collins Street bridge andhaving a Collins Street address in the Docklands andhaving the whole of the city opened up to theDocklands.

I am very pleased today that on the Batman Hillprecinct, a 10 hectare site, 3 of those hectares have beengiven under tender arrangements by the Docklandsauthority to the Kuok group for a $700 million



development which will generate up to 500 jobs a yearfor the next eight years — a great project! Thisdevelopment will include four residential towers with atotal of 720 apartments, a commercial tower, a300-room hotel plus 300 serviced apartments; and willalso, importantly, restore the historic goods shed for afresh food market and food hall as well.

Construction of this major development is expected tostart early next year, 2003. It is further evidence that theDocklands precinct is going to be such a marvellousthing for Victoria, for Melbourne and for our city! Thisannouncement will bring the total value of constructionworks announced or under construction currently toabout $6.4 billion on the Docklands precinct.

I am very pleased that with our change of policy toensure that trunk infrastructure is met by the state andnot the developers in certain circumstances we havebrought forward these important construction projects.This one has clearly been brought forward. This is$700 million and 500 jobs. We are leading the countryin construction and development, and Docklands ispowering ahead.

Agriculture: farmers rights

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — I commend theMinister for Agriculture for his Living Together inRural Victoria package and his rural mediation service,both of which go part of the way to solvingright-to-farm problems in the state, but I now ask: whenwill the minister act to amend the nuisance provisionsof the Health Act to enshrine farmers right to farm inVictoria.

Mr HAMILTON (Minister for Agriculture) — Ithank the honourable member for his question and hisinterest in this important area, which is colloquiallycalled right to farm. The government has acted on therecommendations of the working party which was setup some 12 months ago.


Mr HAMILTON — The honourable memberinterjecting thinks that things happen overnight. TheKennett government had seven years to do somethingabout this and it did nothing. It has taken a Laborgovernment to progress this important area, which isimportant not only to farming communities but also tonon-farming communities, especially those interfaceareas that surround the Melbourne metropolitan areas.We need to make sure the practices and policies areimplemented in proper time, with due diligence, so thatthere is an obvious and clear benefit to all thoseconcerned.

The working party’s recommendations did not come upwith a legislative recommendation that we shouldlegislate a right-to-farm act. The recommendation wasresponsible and constructive and I believe will givegood outcomes. The honourable member indicated thatthe government has already implemented most of thoserecommendations. He did not add that the modellegislation, local law for local government, is beingimplemented again through local government. That isreally about the right to move stock backwards andforwards on roads. Most honourable members willrecall the rather unfortunate incident in the WesternDistrict involving cows being moved along the road.

As the honourable member indicated, the governmenthas implemented the rural disputes mediation centre,which was launched by the Attorney-General and me inFebruary this year. That process is working well and isbecoming an important part of people understandingnot only their rights but their responsibilities. Animportant outcome is the responsibility for farmers inVictoria to make sure they are using the latest and bestfarm practices to ensure they protect not only their ownrights but those of their neighbours.

The honourable member for Swan Hill knows that thegovernment has introduced legislation, which I hopewill be passed, in relation to the section 32 part of theplanning act which will make sure a caveat is placed onthe sale of rural land, especially in interface areas, sothat people are aware that they will have farmingneighbours.

The last part of the honourable member’s questionrelated to the review of the Health Act. That is goingon. I am sure the honourable member knows — he isexperienced enough and has been around this placelong enough to know — that these changes have to bemade so that there are no unintended consequences.One of the problems the Kennett governmentencountered on many occasions as a result of its bash,rush and push-through style of operation was that itended up with a lot of unintended negativeconsequences. This government will not do that. It willtake proper precautions, ensuring that it evaluates allarguments and consults with the widest group of peopleso that it will end up with a good outcome which willbe totally and completely supported by all Victorians.

Federation Square

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — Will the Minister forMajor Projects inform the house of the impact of thegovernment’s changes to the management ofFederation Square and how this is helping to fix up themess made of this project by the Kennett government?



Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Major Projects) —To understand the numerous steps that the Bracksgovernment is taking to fix up the mess left behind atFederation Square by the Kennett government, it isnecessary to understand the genesis of the problem —what caused it. Back in 1996 the Kennett governmentset aside $110 million for the square project. By 1997this had increased to $128 million, and at that stagesome alarms bells were ringing with the MelbourneCity Council, which asked to have its contributioncapped at $64 million.

In the same year, following the architecturalcompetition but, significantly, prior to letting thetenders, the Kennett government was told by itsquantity surveyors that the winning design would costsome $249 million. That is a 100 per cent blow-out, butworse was to come.

The Kennett government delivered its king hit tofinancial responsibility and cost control the followingyear, 1998, when it made the extraordinarymanagement decision not to novate the design contractto the managing contractors. That is the real cause of allthe problems down at Federation Square, because indoing so the state of Victoria had to accept all the risksfrom the omissions, the discrepancies and ambiguitiesranging from the design and documentation of theproject works.

This was a reckless and irresponsible decision and wascontrary to the original intentions and agreement withthe managing contractor, where those risks were to beborne by the contractor and not by the state. At the endof 1999 this government inherited a project that had notarget end cost, no target program, was behind scheduleand was haemorrhaging.

I am pleased to say that this government has reversedthis process and has begun to take control of the trendblow-outs that were created by the previousgovernment’s gross mismanagement. If the Bracksgovernment had not put the brakes on these projectcosts, who knows where the project would have endedup — $600 million, $700 million, who knows?

Over the past 12 months the government has made itclear that the publicly funded component of theFederation Square project should not exceed$400 million for the construction costs. Of course thatdoes not include the tenant fit-out costs. I have also toldthe Federation Square management company that thegovernment will be very unhappy if costs are not keptwithin those parameters. It has been told that anyadditional funding above this will be required to comefrom sponsorship or from loans. To put it in the

vernacular, I have told the Federation Squaremanagement that if it wants more money it will have tobeg, borrow or steal. I have laid it out clearly.

Under this government Federation Square is no longeropen-ended, unfunded or badly managed, as it wasunder the previous government. I am pleased to advisethe Parliament that this morning I was down atFederation Square with hundreds of workers who haveworked hard and long, both in the architectural officesand on the building site, to help build this project, andtogether with this government we will turn FederationSquare into a project that not only the workers on thesite but all of Melbourne can be proud of.

Hospitals: nurses

Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — I refer the Minister forHealth to a recent memo from Royal MelbourneHospital management which tells its nurses that theymay work extra shifts but for those extra shifts they willbe given a second separate employee number, a secondseparate pay slip and a second separate groupcertificate. Is it not true that this dodgy and possiblyillegal practice may cheat nurses of their full wageentitlements, avoids the government’s ban on agencynurses and creates a phantom work force of nurses?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — Thehonourable member for Malvern has no credibilitywhen it comes to any of these claims. Last week heproduced another memo which allegedly said that awhole lot of beds had been closed at the RoyalMelbourne Hospital. He took that to the media — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister has commenced to debate the issue. Isuggest he address the question as asked.

The SPEAKER — Order! At this point in time I donot uphold the point of order raised by the Leader of theOpposition.

Mr THWAITES — The honourable member forMalvern claimed to have a memo stating that the RoyalMelbourne Hospital had closed all those beds as a resultof the nurse agency strategy. The hospital said that thatwas completely false. Two months ago the honourablemember for Malvern made a similar claim to the one hehas made today.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Minister for Healthshould relate his comments to the question posed.

Mr THWAITES — The difficulty I face inanswering questions from the honourable member forMalvern is that they are based on false and misleading



statements. Once again the honourable member forMalvern has based his statements on — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister is defying your ruling and debating thequestion. If he believes that the allegations are false, lethim say so.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I waslistening intently to the Minister for Health in view ofthe directive I had given him moments earlier and hewas exploring the content of the question. I willcontinue to hear him.

Mr THWAITES — The government was forced totake action in relation to nurse agencies because theyhad increased their charges to hospitals by up to 100 percent: hospitals were having to pay up to $195 an hour tothe private agencies. The Royal Melbourne Hospitalwould have gone broke if it had continued to pay thoseexorbitant fees. The Liberal Party in this state is onceagain showing its true colours — it is just themouthpiece for those private agencies and it wants toprivatise the nurse work force. Since this agencymeasure was introduced the Royal Melbourne Hospitalhas done the right thing. The hospital is employingmore nurses and the opposition is opposing that. Thehonourable member for Malvern is opposing the factthat the hospital is employing more nurses. I ampleased to advise that on the last statistics I was giventhe Royal Melbourne Hospital has been able to engagean extra 63 nurses for its nurse bank.

I am pleased to advise the house that across the healthsystem our hospitals have employed an extra1000 nurses in the nurse banks. The honourablemember for Malvern and the private agencies are theonly people opposing this. The Royal AustralasianCollege of Surgeons has backed the government andsaid it is doing the right thing. The hospitals, doctors,nurses and the Australian Nursing Federation have allsaid that the government is doing the right thing — butthe opposition obviously wants to go back to the darkdays of the Kennett government and privatise. Thegovernment is not into privatising nurses. It is intohaving more public nurses and it is delivering on that.That is providing much better value for governmentmoney: we can treat more patients, we do not have toclose beds and we get a better service.

HIH Insurance: policy-holders

Mr LIM (Clayton) — Will the Minister forConsumer Affairs advise the house of what is beingdone to address the plight of consumers awaiting

consideration of domestic building claims by theHousing Guarantee Fund and what obstacles there areto this action?

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) — I thank the member for his question.Members would know that in 2001, in the wake of theHIH collapse, the house passed the House ContractsGuarantee (HIH) Bill. Members were concerned aboutthe effect the collapse of HIH Insurance would have onconsumers. We had people coming to our electorateoffices and Parliament House who knew the effect thecollapse of HIH had had on them personally and theirfamilies. This Parliament passed legislation that wouldenable people to be in the same position in relation totheir insurance claims for incomplete or faulty homeconstruction and renovation. The government hasprovided a $35 million package under which claims canbe assessed. That package is for claims that havealready arisen and claims that will be made in thesix-and-a-half-year warranty period. The claims arebeing administered through the Housing GuaranteeFund, with $5.1 million in claims having already beenapproved. As of 10 May more than $4.5 million hadbeen paid to Victorian consumers.

The government has introduced an amending bill, theHouse Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment)Bill, to provide for consumers who should have beenable to claim under the principal act but were preventedfrom doing so because of technical interpretationdifficulties. Those consumers include people whosebuilding contracts have a cease-to-trade provision,meaning that the policy collapses if the insurer closesdown, and people affected by certain HIH policieswhere it was the builder who was insured and not theactual home owner. The bill also seeks to clarify thestated purpose of the principal act which is not for thebenefit of developers. The stated purpose of the act isfor domestic buildings; big developers were not thesubject of the legislation.

Many of those consumers have contacted the HousingGuarantee Fund and the electorate offices of memberson both sides of the house. A number of them havewritten directly to the Leader of the Opposition and sentcarbon copies of those letters to their local members.They have also sent letters to me which they havecarbon copied to the Leader of the Opposition.However, the opposition still says to more than200 families, ‘You are out in the cold; we are notlooking after you’.

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,if the Minister for Consumer Affairs is going to godown this track, she should advise those 200 people



that if she withdraws the retrospective provisions of theproposed legislation, we will pass it tomorrow.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Monbulk is not taking a point of order butattempting to make a point in debate.

Ms CAMPBELL — The government has written tothese 200 people who live in Pakenham, in NarreWarren, in Berwick, in Sunshine and in Frankston.They are spread throughout this state and they need thislegislation passed before winter. The Nationals and theIndependents have supported the government. Theyknow that domestic building was covered by this HouseContract Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill.The Liberal Party continues to close its eyes todomestic — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it is arule of this house that it is not appropriate for anymember of this house to criticise any decision of theupper house. This minister has now strayed into thatarea and is attempting to criticise a decision made bythe upper house in amending that piece of legislation.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member for Berwick.I certainly did not hear the minister criticising adecision of the other house. However I point out to theminister that under sessional orders she needs to besuccinct and she should conclude her answer.

Ms CAMPBELL — Thank you, HonourableSpeaker, I would have thought the honourable memberin this case might have acted for his constituents andsupported them so that they were eligible — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister shouldaddress her remarks to the Chair.

Ms CAMPBELL — The Liberal Party has arguedthat the initial act created rights that in fact it does notcontain. All the Liberal Party wants to do — —


Ms CAMPBELL — Stop frothing!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of theOpposition not to interject in that vein, and I ask theminister not to respond to interjections. I have alreadyindicated the need for the minister to be succinct, and Iask her to conclude her answer.

Ms CAMPBELL — On behalf of those 200consumers who are waiting for this house to act, I saycongratulations to the Independents and congratulations

to the National Party. Those 200 people in Pakenham,Berwick, Narre Warren and country Victoria areeagerly waiting for the opposition to get a little moreinsight.


Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — I again raisewith the Minister for Education and Training the matterof the $32 million Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology loan for its Vietnam campus and I refer theminister to her answer in the house yesterday when shesaid:

The government also sought and received support from thecommonwealth government …

I ask: how does the minister reconcile her statementwith the fact that the commonwealth Minister forEducation, Science and Training wrote to thevice-chancellor of RMIT on at least two occasionsstating that the commonwealth government would notsupport this venture, act as guarantor or underwrite theVietnam campus?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member forWarrandyte for his question. I am not quite sure whatpoint the honourable member is attempting to get at. Heis trying to denigrate the reputation of RMIT, a fantasticuniversity, with a chancellor, Don Mercer, who was thechief executive officer (CEO) of the ANZ Bankbetween 1992 and — —

Mr Honeywood — On a point of order,Mr Speaker, I refer to your rulings regarding debating.Why is the Minister for Education and Trainingsupporting her former employer rather than answeringthe question?

The SPEAKER — Order! That is not a point oforder. I ask the minister to continue her answer.

Ms KOSKY — Don Mercer, the chancellor ofRMIT and former CEO of the ANZ Bank between1992 and 1997, is very highly respected among thebusiness community and the academic community. Iwould have thought that he has much more of afinancial background and knows far more about mattersof business than the honourable member forWarrandyte. It is outrageous that he is attempting toattack the reputation of very good people at RMIT.

There was indeed support from the commonwealthgovernment for this project. The former Minister forEducation, Training and Youth Affairs, the Honourable



David Kemp, MP, wrote to me on 19 November 2001indicating that:

The commonwealth has given its in-principle support for theproject … Specifically, the commonwealth considers that theRMIT International University Vietnam project has thepotential to bring benefits to RMIT, Vietnam and Australia.

But it gets better:

The commonwealth Treasury also advised that it briefedAustralia’s representative on the World Bank to support theproject.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the HonourableAlexander Downer, MP, wrote to the vice-chancellor ofRMIT on 17 September 2001 advising that:

The Australian government has indicated strong support forthe project. This includes my personal participation at lastyear’s RIUV launch in Vietnam, and the support provided bythe Australian government representatives at our diplomaticmissions in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in obtaining theVietnamese government’s approval of the project … I see theproject as a positive initiative and significant for Australia’sprofile in the region.

It is a shame that the honourable member forWarrandyte comes into this house not only ill-informedbut worse still to denigrate the reputations of people atRMIT, which is a fine university. Clearly, thecommonwealth government agrees with the Victoriangovernment that this project is very important. I hopethat the honourable member for Warrandyte will clarifyhis position in this matter.

Employment: rural and regional Victoria

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — Will the Ministerfor Employment inform the house of the latestdevelopments concerning employment in regionalVictoria, including the impact of the federalgovernment’s decision to shut down EmploymentNational?

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forEmployment) — Honourable members may recall thatlast month when the regional unemployment figurescame out the honourable member for Brighton told thehouse how outrageous it was that in regional Victoriaunemployment had increased to 7 per cent. At the timeI said that the question was disingenuous, coming froma party that did not care about jobs. It did not care aboutthem when in government, and neither do its federalcolleagues.

The figures that came out today prove just howdisingenuous that question was. They also prove howlazy opposition members are. They criticise thegovernment for a one-off monthly figure when

unemployment goes up, but are they asking questionstoday and congratulating the government because theregional unemployment rate in country Victoria hasgone down from a revised figure of 6.8 per cent — not7 per cent — to 6.2 per cent in the month of April?


Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — No, we do not. Thegovernment does not expect the opposition to issuepress releases congratulating it, but it does show howhypocritical this mob is. The figures show that theBracks government cares about country and regionalVictoria. It is doing what it can about growing jobsacross the whole state, and it is working to improve theeconomies of country and regional Victoria.

Over the last 12 months the average unemployment ratein country Victoria has been 6.4 per cent, compared toan average of 8.2 per cent in the last 12 months of theKennett government. Between October 1999 when theBracks government was elected and April this year thenumber of people in work increased by 36 500. Theparticipation rate increased from 59.5 per cent to61.4 percent. One would think that those figures meanthat country Victoria is now feeling a part of Victoriaand that the benefits are not just in Melbourne.

Comparing the last 12 months with the years prior toOctober 1999 under the previous government, you cansee that over one-third of the new jobs have beencreated in country Victoria, which again is good news.For the benefit of the house I advise that metropolitanunemployment has also gone down from 6.3 per cent to5.6 per cent.

The honourable member for Seymour asked about theimpact of federal programs. Unfortunately thecommonwealth government does not care, nor does itlisten. It made two announcements in the federal budgetthat will impact on Victoria. One of those is thedisgraceful announcement that it is taking 200 000Australians off disability support pensions and puttingthem on unemployment benefits.

Of course that will have an impact on Victoria. But thefederal government is closing Employment Nationalaround Australia, and what does that mean for Victoria?It means 200 jobs disappear from EmploymentNational. And what does it mean for many countrytowns that Employment National is in? It means noEmployment National in Ararat, Benalla, Bairnsdale,Ballarat, Bendigo, Echuca, Geelong, Horsham, Kerang,Maryborough, Mildura, Morwell, Moe, Sale, Seymour,Shepparton, Swan Hill, Traralgon, Wangaratta andWarragul. It is a shame. It is outrageous. The federal



government does not care about jobs. We are doing thebest we can. Unfortunately the federal governmentkeeps doing the wrong thing and gets in the way. Weneed a change of government up there. There isobviously going to be an election two years away. Weare doing what we can for the state.


Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — My questionis again to the Minister for Education and Training. Irefer to the $64 million development of the RMITcampus in Vietnam, of which $32 million is a stategovernment-approved loan. Is it a fact that a further$30 million for the RMIT Vietnam project has comefrom a Bermuda-based identity, Mr Charles Feeney,who is a longstanding major donor to the IrishRepublican Army, and did this raise any concerns withthe minister at the time?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I again thank the honourable member forWarrandyte for his question. RMIT got both financialand verbal support from a range of differentorganisations. I have already mentioned the verbalsupport. The organisation to which the honourablemember is referring is a major philanthropicorganisation that is recognised worldwide for havingput major funds into a whole range of projectsworldwide including not only academic, research anduniversity support for Third World countries but alsomajor funding for biotechnology around the world andhere in Australia. It is a major philanthropicorganisation and it has provided large support. This is aperson who has had an extremely successful businessbackground and has seen fit to provide some of theprofits he has made in his private work and put thatmoney into fantastic projects around the world.

What I cannot understand is that in raising the matter inthis way the honourable member for Warrandyte is notonly attempting to have a shot at me; he is having amajor shot at RMIT — at such people as Don Mercer,as I mentioned before — and also at the commonwealthgovernment and the World Bank. Worse still, itdemonstrates his absolute incapacity to have any viewsor any policies on education. He just chooses todenigrate other people who have made fantasticcontributions, not only in Australia but around theworld.

Taxation: government policy

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — Will the Treasureradvise the house of the policies the government isimplementing to provide genuine tax relief for

Victorians, and whether he is aware of other policiesannounced recently in this area?

Mr BRUMBY (Treasurer) — I thank thehonourable member for her question. At the outset, Isay that the Bracks government is very proud of itsrecord on tax cuts. Very proud indeed! Last year weprovided $774 million of tax cuts and this year weprovided a further $262 million in tax cuts. In total,there have been more than $1 billion in tax cuts, and wehave done that in just one term of office — our firstterm! We have cut payroll tax; cut land tax; abolishedduty on non-residential leases; and of course we areabolishing stamp duty on mortgages from 1 July 2004.

From 1 July this year we will abolish stamp duty onunquoted marketable securities.


Mr BRUMBY — The honourable member forDoncaster has asked what they are. I have an articlefrom the Australian Financial Review of 6 May headed‘Exodus risk adds to stamp duty pressure’. This articleindicates that there is a potential for the transfer ofthousands of new jobs from Sydney to Melbourne as aresult of this single tax initiative by the Bracksgovernment.

The government’s position on tax is very clear, unlikethe opposition’s, which is simply all over the place. Theopposition is all over the shop in terms of its taxpolicies. We all know that the opposition has six taxpolicies but it cannot decide which one to focus on.Around midnight last night in Melbourne — —

Mr Clark — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, aswith the previous similar question, the Treasurer iscommencing to debate the question by canvassingpolicies other than government policy, and I ask you,Sir, to bring him back to the question.

Mr BRUMBY — On the point of order,Honourable Speaker, I was asked what steps thegovernment is taking to provide genuine tax relief andwhether there had been any recently announcedalternatives to this policy. I am about to go to thequestion of recently announced alternatives to thispolicy, which is what I was asked about.

The SPEAKER — Order! On the point of orderraised by the honourable member for Box Hill, I am notprepared to uphold the point of order. However, Iindicate to the Treasurer that he must confine hisremarks in that area to government responsibility.



Mr BRUMBY — As I said, last night in Melbournewe had the Australian premiere of the Star Wars movie,Attack of the Clones. Just 10 hours later in Parliamentthis morning we had the Attack of the Clowns!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Chair is havingsome difficulty with the remarks of the Treasurer. I askhim to come back to answering the question.

Mr BRUMBY — We saw it all this morning: therewere backflips, somersaults, juggling — more circusacts than Ashton’s Circus!

This morning the shadow Treasurer said that theopposition had just three tax plans. He said the first wasthat he would cut payroll tax.

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the Treasurer is clearly debating the issue. There isplenty of opportunity for government members todebate the budget during the budget debate. There is noneed to waste question time on the Treasurer debatingthis issue.

The SPEAKER — Order! I once again ask theTreasurer to come back to answering the question.

Mr BRUMBY — The fact is we had theopposition’s budget response this morning, and we hadthree new tax policies that will throw the state budgetinto deficit.

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, havingadvised the Treasurer to come back to the questionfrom where he was, he got up and repeated exactlywhat he had said before you asked him to do that. He isclearly disobeying your instructions.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Treasurer tocome back to answering the question and to ceasedebating it.

Mr BRUMBY — What’s that? The third point oforder today from the honourable member? You aredoing very well indeed! The honourable member forPakenham is very impressed.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Treasurer toaddress the Chair.

Mr BRUMBY — The honourable member forPakenham has spent most of question time laughingthrough the points of order made by the honourablemember for Berwick.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Chair is growingweary of the Treasurer’s response to this question. I ask

him to come back to answer the question and toconclude his answer.

Mr BRUMBY — This year the Bracks governmentproduced a budget which forecasts a surplus for2002–03 of $522 million. We are determined tomaintain that surplus position. We are doing it whileincreasing the number of teachers in our schools, thenumber of nurses in our hospitals and the number ofpolice on our streets, and we are determined to continueto do that in the future.

I am pointing out to the house that the irresponsiblefiscal promises made by the opposition would throwthat budget into deficit, and if the opposition was everelected to government it would be sacking teachers,sacking nurses and sacking police to pay for theseirresponsible tax promises!

The government is committed to this. This morning wehad the unedifying spectacle of another three differenttax policies by the opposition.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time for questionswithout notice has expired, and a minimum number ofquestions has been answered.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — Business has been verypolite in its response to the Bracks government budget.However, I do not feel constrained to observe suchsimilar courtesies. The budget that we saw broughtdown in this place is a fraud on business, and the entire$2 million campaign based on the slogan ‘BuildingTomorrow’s Businesses Today’ is big on spin and notbig on much else.

In terms of what the government is offering business Iwill go through what these amendments mean.Government is offering business a payroll tax cut in therate from 5.45 per cent to 5.35 per cent from 1 July2002. That cost to government in the 2002–03 financialyear is $43 million, minuscule when compared with thegovernment’s increased tax collections in this area. Thegovernment has also offered to business an increase inthe payroll tax threshold from 1 July 2002 from$515 000 to $550 000 and again the cost in thatfinancial year is a total of $23 million — very small interms of the government’s overall tax collections andsmall in terms of expenditure by this government.



The government is offering a further reduction from5.35 per cent to 5.25 per cent in the rate of payroll taxfrom 1 July 2003. Again in relation to land tax, which isthe tax also impacting primarily on business, it hasoffered an increase in the threshold payable from$125 000 to $150 000 at the paltry cost to governmentof $3 million in the next financial year, so we have seenvery small tax concessions. They are big on spin, theyhave had a big beat up, but they are very small taxcollections in revenue forgone to government.

But if we look at the government’s increased taxcollections we can see that for the 2002–03 financialyear the government is expecting a 17.7 per centincrease in land tax collections and a 3.9 per centincrease in payroll tax collections. Likewise, taxes oninsurance and taxes on motor vehicles are alsoincreasing. Again we have heard big on spin from theTreasurer and from the Premier in relation to thebusiness climate in Victoria. But I think it is instructiveto look at the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry survey of business sentiment.The shadow Treasurer referred to this, and I amreferring to a release put out by VECCI on 29 April2002 which graphs business sentiment and businessconfidence in Victoria and in Australia.

What we saw prior to the election of the Bracks Laborgovernment is that, in the entire period from the start ofcollections of these statistics from September 1996,business sentiment in Victoria was always above thelevel of confidence that existed overall in Australia.What we have seen — surprise, surprise — reflected inthe December 1999 quarter figures since the election ofthe Bracks Labor government in September 1999 was achange to that. Ever since this government has been inpower we have seen sentiment in Victoria below that ofwhat exists at a commonwealth level. So business maywell be polite in its response to the government’sbudget, but the VECCI sentiment index says it all —that is, that business confidence in Victoria is down ascompared with business confidence in Australia overall.Indeed, if you look at the government’s own budgetpapers, you see that the government does not have aparticularly good outlook for business.

In terms of exports facilitated, which I would havethought was one of the primary performance indicatorsin the budget for the Treasurer in his capacity asMinister for State and Regional Development, we see aprogressive decline in what has been achieved. Atpage 165 of budget paper no. 3 we see that in thefinancial year 2000–01 $830 million of exports werefacilitated by this government. The expected outcomefor 2001–02 has dropped to $600 million, and the targetfor 2002–03 remains static at $600 million. If you were

to believe all the rhetoric and spin of the Treasurer, youmight expect these targets to be increasing rather thandecreasing.

To give the house a comparative view, the actualexports facilitated in 1998–99, the last full year of theKennett government, were over $2 billion. Thatprovides yet another neat contrast.

The second significant performance indicator isinvestments facilitated and announced. At page 164 ofbudget paper no. 3 we see a similar trend, whereby thegovernment has lowered its sights rather than raisingthem. Investments actually facilitated in 2000–01 were$1689 million. The figure for expected outcomes for2001–02 rose to $1800 million, but the government’starget for 2002–03 has been lowered. The target isdown to $1200 million, again indicating a governmentthat is lowering its sights and reducing its effort and iscontent to rest on its laurels.

In manufacturing we have seen the loss of just over21 000 manufacturing jobs. Labor promised during thelast election campaign that it would have a 5 per centunemployment rate, which it described at the time asrealistic, but again we see that Labor’s own budgetconfirms that it will not meet this target. I refer topage 55 of budget paper no. 2, where the governmentitself states that the actual unemployment rate for2000–01 was 6 per cent, with a forecast for 2001–02 of6.25 per cent and a forecast for 2002–03 of 6 per cent.The government itself acknowledges in these budgetpapers that the great promise it came up with will notbe met.

A cause for alarm for the opposition is the reduction infull-time employment. We heard the Minister forEmployment waxing lyrical about the employmentfigures, but if he conducted a deeper investigation intothose figures he would soon see that full-timeemployment has fallen in trend terms during everymonth of 2002. Of the 19 400 full-time job losses inAustralia to April 2002, 48 per cent were located inVictoria. There are some real warning signs for thegovernment if it cares to look further into those figures.

I found it very interesting that the Minister forEmployment made reference to commonwealthemployment programs, berating the commonwealth forits alleged cuts. The minister needs to look at his ownbudget papers, because he too has cut employmentprograms. I refer to budget paper no. 3, which showsthat in 2000–01 this government had a target of$64.9 million for employment services, but in actualterms it spent only $43.8 million on those services. Theexpected outcome for 2001–02 was $62.7 million, but



if he cares to look at his own budget papers the ministerwill see that for the year 2002–03 he himself has cut hisown employment programs to $46.3 million. I find itextraordinary that he can criticise the commonwealthfor doing what he has actually done himself.

I will make a couple of comments on major projects. Ofcourse, not one major project of the government’s owninitiative has been commenced in this term. Indeed theprevious Minister for Major Projects, who is now theMinister for Employment, was sacked — I assume forhaving no major projects of his own. In fact the onlyachievement of the Minister for Major Projects —either the former one or the current one — has been toappoint James Cain as head of the major projects unitand to move major projects from the Department ofInfrastructure to the Department of State and RegionalDevelopment and then back to the Department ofInfrastructure. That was it — moving the major projectsunit around and creating yet another job for the boys!

However, I have a report card on the seven state-fundedmajor projects that this government inherited from theprevious government. Again, the government hasblown out the time line on every single one of them.The netball and hockey centre, Federation Square, theNational Gallery of Victoria, the Sidney Myer MusicBowl refurbishment, the Vodaphone Arena, the statelibrary and the museum — every single one of theseven inherited projects is now delayed.

We see in this year’s budget papers a desire by thegovernment to hide major projects and reclassify them.At page 129 of budget paper no. 3 the government hasattempted to put road projects into major projects. Itnow has a new classification — ‘Metropolitan transportinfrastructure and public development projects’ — but areclassification will not fool the Victorian public. TheVictorian public is well aware that the government hasnot commenced one single major project.

In turn, under major public construction and landdevelopment in this year’s budget we see a total outputcost of $3 million. The government advises us that theprevious figures are not available; however, they areavailable, and if you look at last year’s budget papersyou will see that the major projects portfolio wasallocated $6 million. Actual funding for major projectsthat are classified in the budget has been cut by half.

I turn now to the toxic waste dump, which is the onlyidea the government has had for a major project. Thebudget reveals what I think everyone knew all along —that the government wants to defer the decision on theplacement of a toxic waste dump until after the nextelection. The decision date was going to be June 2002,

but the Minister for Major Projects gave a one-monthextension to the committee — one of 700 committeesand task forces Victoria has under this government. Wenow see at page 133 in budget paper no. 3 that thegovernment intends not making a decision untilDecember 2002. I am prepared to lay money on thisgovernment not announcing where the toxic wastedump will go before it calls an election!

We are waiting on some major projects to start. PerhapsSpencer Street could start. We look forward to therefurbishment of the showgrounds starting or even tosome of the federally funded projects that the stategovernment wants to take credit for. We will beobserving the government’s performance, but I will bevery surprised if it commences one major project of itsown in this term. At page 105 of budget paper no. 3,under the heading of significant achievements, thegovernment lists the doomed airport rail project. Thefact that it pulled a major project is now listed in thebudget as a significant achievement!

I turn now to the big loser in this budget, which istourism. I have to say that the government’sperformance in tourism since it has been elected tooffice has been nothing but disgraceful. I will runthrough the statistics in the budget papers on domesticvisitor nights, which are probably the key indicator oftourism performance. In 1998–99 there were55.4 million domestic visitor nights, but in the first yearof the Bracks Labor government — the followingyear — that had dropped to 52.5 million visitor nights.So in the first year of the ALP government we sawdomestic visitor nights drop by 2.9 million. That is thisgovernment’s performance on tourism.Notwithstanding that the figures in the budget arefudged, in 2000–01 there were 54 million domesticvisitor nights, which is still not at the level achievedunder the Kennett government. The expected target for2002–03 is now listed as 52 million to 54 million,which is still not at the level achieved under theprevious government.

Likewise, in terms of international visitor nights, theperformance has been appalling. In 1998–99 there were24.6 million visitor nights; it dropped in the first year ofLabor to 20.5 million. The target now is a broadtarget — somewhere between 20 million and22 million — and I would expect, given that in2000–01 only 20.6 million was achieved, which was atthe level previously reached by the Kennettgovernment, that the government’s performance ininternational tourism will not bring any credit upon it.

I make the point that all of these failures occurred priorto the Ansett collapse, and indeed prior to



11 September. It is no wonder the strategic plan fortourism, which is meant to cover the years 2002 til2006, was only released this week. Indeed, thegovernment has the embarrassment of a reference tothis plan being in this budget when in fact the budgetwas released before the strategic plan.

Again, we are seeing tourism funding cuts in thebudget. I fully understand that the $10 million wasmeant to be a one-off rescue package by thegovernment, but notwithstanding that, on thegovernment’s own budget estimates, funding is down3 per cent — a very poor performance.

But what is of enormous concern to the opposition isthat some major tourism projects which are muchneeded have been virtually ignored in the budget. Twomillion dollars has been set aside for a feasibility studyinto the extension of the Melbourne Convention andExhibition Centre. We need two projects here: we needa 5000-seat plenary convention centre, and we need anextension to the exhibition centre. Land has beenpurchased — the old Mazda site — to enable the latterto occur, and the previous government left behinddiagrams and a whole range of planning for theconvention centre. But that has been ignored.

More alarmingly, if you look at the annual report of theMelbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust, you willsee that a huge amount of research has been done bythat trust for the government which the government haseither ignored or has not had the capacity to implement.

I quote from Bob Annells, the chair of the trust, on page4 of the trust’s annual report for 2000–01:

The trust has developed over the last two years, detailedproposals for the future expansion of the centre’s facilities.

He goes on to say:

Detailed market assessment, economic impact assessment andfinancing studies have been completed, in addition to buildingconcept development.

He went on to argue very strongly that Melbourneneeds this centre immediately. As stated at page 13 ofthe annual report, we see that the trust has developed:

… a precinct master plan in relation to the future developmentof Melbourne’s convention and exhibition facilities. Adetailed competitor and market analysis has been undertakenwhich indicates that Melbourne requires the development ofan integrated convention and exhibition facility with capacityfor 5000-delegate conventions … The trust has alsoundertaken, with the assistance of KPMG, significantresearch into possible financing options including aPartnership Victoria approach to the funding of such anexpansion. In addition, KPMG have also undertaken a

significant economic impact assessment of the effects of theexpansion on the Victorian economy.

Currently the proposal is before government …

All of these studies have been done — how manystudies have I mentioned here: five, six? — and whatdoes the government do in this budget? It allocates$2 million for a feasibility study. What the governmentshould do is just get on with it.

As I said, tourism is a big loser in this budget — noconvention centre, no expansion to the exhibitioncentre, a budget cut which will impact adversely onregional tourism, and I think a fairly disgracefulapproach to tourism from the minister and from thegovernment.

I wish to conclude by raising a local issue, that is, I amparticularly disappointed not to see in this budgetfunding for Brighton Secondary College. The ministeris well aware — and I raised this prior to Christmas —that there is a hall where children play basketball andother games, and that hall has been built particularlybadly. Residents in East Brighton have had theiramenities spoiled by very noisy games of basketball,which is obviously a natural consequence of basketballhalls. In short, what is needed is somewhere between$100 000 and $180 000 to fix the problem for theresidents. We need that money to ensure that myresidents in East Brighton have quiet enjoyment of theirown premises.

I think it is a disgrace that this issue is festering. In thebudget we see funding for capital works for a range ofschools, including marginal schools, and I saw a coupleof million dollars for schools in the Premier’s electorateof Williamstown. This is a desperately needed amountof money for Brighton Secondary College.

This has an impact on the children because it controlswhen they can access the courts; but most importantlymy residents are being affected. They have a right toquiet enjoyment of their own properties. It is a disgracethat the government is allowing this issue to fester.

Money has been spent on schools all over Victoria butnot on this project. It is a disgrace, given that I firstraised this issue with the former Minister for Educationprior to Christmas and again with the current Ministerfor Education and Training. This is a desperatelyneeded noise attenuation project in my electorate and Icall on the minister to fund it now — not in next year’sbudget, not next month, not next week, but now!

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I am pleased and proudto speak in support of the Appropriation (2002/2003)Bill. In doing so I state that I am also very proud to be a



member of the Bracks Labor government — agovernment that has delivered, is delivering and willcontinue to deliver for all Victorians, including peopleliving in regional and rural Victoria.

The Bracks Labor government is governing for allVictorians and delivering on education, health,community safety and — very importantly — jobs. Inaddition, the Bracks Labor government is employingmore nurses, more teachers and more police. Thisbudget is all about investing in the future of Victoria: inreal jobs through a competitive economy; in excellencein education; and in growing the whole of the state.

The 2002–03 state budget has been hailed in myelectorate of Geelong as a budget for the people — andit delivers to the community of Geelong, as it has acrossVictoria. It delivers to Geelong on education, health andimportantly, as I said before, jobs. In education,Geelong primary schools, the Gordon Institute ofTAFE and kindergartens are the big winners.

The inner suburban primary schools in my electorate inGeelong were totally neglected by the Kennett regime.Classrooms were crying out for maintenance and wereabsolutely bursting at the seams with students, whileteachers were expected to teach and work in absolutelyovercrowded conditions. This Bracks budget hasdelivered on major refurbishment for numerous schoolsacross Geelong and I can assure honourable membersthat schools like Chilwell Primary School, EastGeelong Primary School, Tate Street Primary School,South Geelong Primary School — and the list goes on,Mr Acting Speaker — were celebrating the budget lastweek. Each of the four schools I have named hasreceived about $1.5 million to completely refurbish itspremises. Those school communities will benefit fromnew classrooms and other facilities that will take themwell and truly into the 21st century. Combine that withthe 925 teachers who have been recruited, and theeffect is that education and students are major winnersand major beneficiaries of this Bracks governmentbudget.

Kindergartens are also beneficiaries of the Bracksbudget and there are plenty in Geelong that did not missout: kinders like St Luke’s Kindergarten in Highton andthe Geelong West kindergarten received significantfunding for outdoor works and safety.

At the other end of the education scale the GordonInstitute of TAFE is close to beginning its majorrefurbishment stemming from funding of $15.6 millionin last year’s state budget. All in all, education inGeelong has moved forward in leaps and bounds underthe Bracks government.

I am also pleased to report that other majorbeneficiaries of the Bracks budget in Geelong includethe health sector. There is not a better place to starttalking about the health sector in Geelong than at theGrace McKellar Centre. That centre really highlightsthe difference between the Kennett regime and thecurrent Bracks government. It was once a proudinstitution in Geelong but was left to rot by the Kennettgovernment and had the ‘for sale’ sign placed on it. TheKennett government was going to sell off Geelong’sGrace McKellar Centre and, make no mistake about it,Kennett was going to sell it to the highest bidder.

Under the Bracks government the sell-off plans werescrapped and we now have a commitment to totallyrebuild the Grace McKellar Centre. Under this Bracksgovernment budget $3 million of additional funding isadded to last year’s $19 million allocation for stage 1 ofthe Grace McKellar Centre upgrade program and thatwill ensure the ongoing operation of that magnificentGeelong institution for many decades to come.

The Grace McKellar Centre is only one of thebeneficiaries in the Geelong health sector under theBracks government budget for 2002–03. At Geelonghospital the first change to be noted is the 160-pluscohort of additional nurses employed over the past18 months. This budget, in addition to supplyingnurses, has set aside $700 000 to replace ageing cardiaccatheter equipment. Replacement of that equipmentwill ensure that people with heart disease will not haveto go to Melbourne for treatment, which may have beenthe case had the current equipment broken down —and, as I understand it, that was on the cards. The$700 000 for the cardiac catheter equipment is a majorstep forward for the Geelong hospital and the people ofGeelong.

Importantly, $50 000 has been allocated for nursesafety. A duress system for nurses working in patients’homes will be updated through the allocation of thatfunding. Like education, health was another big winnerunder the Bracks 2002–03 budget.

As a former shipping manager at the port of Geelong Ifully understand and appreciate the importance of astrong port link to other transport modes such as roadand rail. The allocation of $5.1 million to link LascellesWharf with a dual gauge rail line will boost the port ofGeelong significantly. The dual gauge rail link will addto the $30 million already invested by the privateoperator in Lascelles Wharf in Geelong, and the futurebenefit of the government’s allocation of $5 million torail is best described in the words of Mr Keith Gordon,manager of Toll Geelong Port, as reported in theGeelong Advertiser of yesterday, 15 May, to the effect



that there is potential for further development aroundthe rail link that could be worth $60 million. The newrail link, he said, would spur Toll Geelong Port’s planto promote rail freight for containers and bulk goods inthe port of Geelong.

This is great news for the port of Geelong, the Geelongcommunity and the state of Victoria. The government isto be commended for its initiative in allocating fundsfor the rail link into the port of Geelong because thebottom line means more jobs for the community ofGeelong.

During my contribution to the debate I have only hadtime to touch on education, health and transport. I couldcontinue with items such as the $64 000 allocated to theGeelong regional library; $1.1 million to the importantvulnerable families program, which is run by the Cityof Geelong; $5000 to Lifeline; $7600 to Scope; andmoney to Noah’s Ark and to Gateways — which are allmagnificent community projects that have beensupported by this Bracks budget. The list goes on.

This magnificent budget has delivered major benefits toGeelong. It has won praise from across the Geelongcommunity. I refer to a couple of quotes reported in theGeelong Advertiser of 8 May, the day after the budgetwas handed down, which are testament to this fact. Forexample:

Geelong business leaders lauded the budget’s prudence andthe prospect of future surpluses.

Geelong Chamber of Commerce president Norm Lyons saidbusiness … welcomed investment in schools and health.

John Kranz, the secretary of the Geelong Trades HallCouncil, a magnificent organisation that has supportedGeelong for many years, is reported as saying:

It definitely gets the tick from us …

Statements by representatives of the City of Geelongare reported in the paper:

The state budget heralded strong employment growth inGeelong and new opportunities to attract growth industries,city hall chief Geoff Whitbread said yesterday.

…

Mayor Barbara Abley said … I’m absolutely delighted by thefocus on human services.

Finally, the editorial in the Geelong Advertiser ofWednesday, 8 May states:

A responsible financial document … a positive andconfidence-boosting budget.

As I said, this budget has won praise from across theGeelong community. It is an investment in Geelong’sfuture — in education, health, and jobs. Therefore Icommend the state budget to the house.

Mr LUPTON (Knox) — I do not know whether Iam in the right place. I thought we were talking aboutthe Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill. I just heard thehonourable member for Geelong quote a number oferstwhile citizens talking about what a magnificentbudget it is. After examining the budget I have a greatdeal of difficulty accepting that it is magnificent.

Basically it is a budget that has been put up by someonewho could be a snake oil salesman. Through the budgetwe have been fed a lot of lies, innuendo, and fudging ofthe figures. In the area of education this budget refers tosome $50 million-odd that was supposed to be allocatedlast year, was not spent, and then put in this year’sbudget — and then the honourable member forGeelong says it is a magnificent budget! It is a matter oflight and shade and is an absolute fiddle.

I take up the comments made by two excellentspeakers, the honourable member for Box Hill and theLeader of the National Party. They pulled the budgetapart, particularly when the Leader of the NationalParty talked about the very fast train and theWimmera–Mallee pipeline. Anybody on thegovernment benches who can say that the people ofVictoria, particularly those in country Victoria, havebeen told the truth in this budget did not listen to whatthe honourable member said.

I refer to my own area and some things that have beenpromised by the government in the past 12 to18 months. Waverley Park was going to be saved bythe Bracks Labor government. A commitment wasgiven and still stood even when everybody knew theAustralian Football League would not have a bar of itand that this government would not put any moneytowards it. Labor went to the last election with thepromise of saving Waverley Park, but it will never havefootball played on it as it was in the past.

The Knox hospital was promised by the Kennettgovernment. It was to be a tertiary hospital for people inthe outer east and was to provide facilities for openheart surgery and other benefits. I refer to a pressstatement from the Knox News of 27 May 1998, inwhich statements by the honourable member for AlbertPark, the current Minister for Health, are reported asfollows:

A state Labor government, if elected at the next poll, wouldbuild a ‘genuine’ public hospital in Knox, the oppositionhealth spokesman, John Thwaites, said last week.



‘We believe a public hospital should be built in the outereast’, Mr Thwaites said.

Since then the government has changed its mind andgone back on the deal. It has gone to the press and thepublic and said the money would be spent on theAngliss Hospital because the previous Kennettgovernment was going to close down and downgradethe Angliss and Maroondah hospitals.

I quote from the Knox News of some months later,15 December 1998:

The state government is rethinking its plans for the new Knoxpublic hospital with a larger scale project now on the drawingboards.

…

Mr Knowles —

then the Minister for Health —

said the original plan had proved too small to provide tertiaryservices at the level needed. It would provide services notcurrently available in the outer east, such as complex cardiacand respiratory services and neurosciences.

Yet the Minister for Health has been telling the peoplein the outer east that the previous government wasgoing to close down the hospital. I thought more of thePremier, but he has perpetuated this story.

I turn to deal with some of the documents leaked onlythe other day about the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Thedocuments reveal the hospital was operating at 22 bedsbelow capacity on 1 March this year and that thehospital planned 37 further bed closures from13 March; still further bed closures on weekends, with10 day beds to close; a 20 per cent reduction in capacityin operating theatre availability with two theatresclosing; closure of 8 emergency department cubicles; arefusal to accept patients from other hospitals; and arefusal to accept out-of-postcode admissions. Despitethe fact that the Royal Melbourne Hospital is one of thehospitals that has to be utilised by the people in theouter east because they do not have a hospital in ourarea, the government is not prepared to build the Knoxhospital which is so sorely needed.

I turn to the Scoresby freeway. In 1990, as mayor of theCity of Knox, I was fortunate enough to launch theproject. Honourable members will remember that whenthe government came to office it cancelled the Scoresbyfreeway project. It then said, ‘Yes, we will build it, butwe have not got any money’. In May last year thefederal government gave a commitment to fund theScoresby freeway, which was to be a road of nationalimportance, and said it was prepared to put its moneywhere its mouth was. Over the next few months the

Bracks Labor government continually moaned andgroaned and said that no money was available and thatno money had been put up by the federal government,despite its commitment.

In November last year the money to pay for its share,some $40 million-odd, was put on the table by thefederal government. Despite that, there was still nomoney from the Bracks Labor government. It was onlyin the last budget that money was allocated for theScoresby freeway, which is a vital project. It is nolonger just the Scoresby freeway but the Scoresbytransport corridor. However, the money has been madeavailable only in this year’s budget, which will take awhile to come to fruition.

I refer to some other particular items that thisgovernment has foisted on the people of Victoria. In thesix months to December 2001 compared with 2000,there was a $27 million or 12 per cent increase in taxeson insurance.

There has been a $46.8 million or 8.9 per cent increasein motor vehicle taxes and $37 million or 5.1 per cent ingaming revenue. In July 2002 Victorian families aregoing to pay $1500 a year more in taxes since thisgovernment came to office. That is after allowing forthe taxes which were replaced by the GST.

Land tax is up 66 per cent, from $369 million to anestimated $611.4 million. Insurance tax is up 49 percent, from $531.7 million to $789.9 million. If you sayit quickly this does not sound like a lot of money but weare talking big money here. Payroll tax is up 27 per centfrom $2131.9 million to $2710.1 million. Largeemployers will pay an extra $102 million, and youwonder why employment could be looking a bit shaky!Motor vehicle tax is up 17.4 per cent from$895.2 million to $1050.8 million. Police fines are up240 per cent from $99 million to $336.7 million. Butthese fines are not revenue raisers, Mr Acting Speaker;they are there to save lives!

I will give you an example of how they save lives. Onemorning I was driving to Parliament. At about10.30 a.m. I came off the off-ramp at Wellington Roadand there were the police setting up a speed camera atthe top of the off-ramp. They had four police cars readyto burst out and chase motor vehicles speeding downthe Monash Freeway. If that was not a revenue-raisingexercise I would be very disappointed! That was asituation where four police cars plus a couple of policemanning the camera were simply sitting at the off-rampto catch speeding motorists. I must say the road toll onthat section of the Monash Freeway would not beexcessive. There certainly have not been any mass road



accidents in which people were killed. This was purelyand simply a revenue-raising exercise by the VictoriaPolice to apprehend motorists who may have beengoing over the 100 kilometre-an-hour speed limit on athree-lane highway. On that subject, there are expectedto be more than 800 000 traffic tickets issued next year.

Gambling revenue has increased 31 per cent from$1407.9 million to $1893 million after adjustment forrevenue through the GST. We have heard all about howwe are going to pick up jobs in this state: 21 000manufacturing jobs have been lost with the closure ofHugo Boss, Orica and Holeproof, just to quote a few.

The government has announced a number of projects.In some places they are reannounced projects that werepreviously promised. Construction has not started onone new major infrastructure project since thisdo-nothing government came to power.

I have mentioned the Knox hospital and WaverleyPark, et cetera; now I would like to talk about educationin my electorate. Rowville is probably the fastestgrowing area in the Knox electorate. Despite the factthat I asked the then minister in the previousgovernment to investigate the possibility of theconstruction of a new or additional primary school —granted that the report was brought down in 2000;however it was flawed and I immediately asked theformer minister to have this matter revisited — nothinghas happened. In Rowville we have schools such asHeany Park Primary School, which was originally builtto accommodate 450 students, with 812 students.Lysterfield Primary School, built to accommodate 450students, has 625. Park Ridge Primary School, whichwas up to roughly 1000 students, has now dropped to745. Karoo Primary School has grown to 622 students,and Rowville Primary School, once one of the largestschools in Victoria, has 739 students.

I am concerned that Heany Park and Lysterfieldprimary schools are bursting at the seams. Their sitesare very small and the schools are exceeding theirnumbers quite dramatically. The government has beenunable to come up with a report to determine whether anew site should be provided.

I wrote to the Minister for Planning only a few weeksago advising her that a proposal had been put to theWaverley Golf Club for its removal and thedevelopment of its land for residential properties.Nothing has happened. I do not believe anyone in theeducation department has done anything about it. It isdisappointing that despite this opportunity members ofthe department are apparently sitting on their hands. If

something is being done, no-one has had the courtesy tospeak to me about the matter.

Wattleview Primary School in my electorate hasreceived an enormous boost of $1.178 million. Thedisappointing part about it is that the parents of childrenat that school must find $230 000 to complete thecapital works. The area around Wattleview is not awealthy one but an area of battlers, yet they areexpected to find this sort of money. I do not knowwhere the minister’s figures come from.

I have raised the question of the Mountain GatePrimary School before. It is a very good school withgrowing enrolments. Members of the school councilcame to see me because the school was below thenecessary standards for facilities, particularly in relationto office accommodation. After raising the matter withthe former Minister for Education I received a replyfrom her dated 21 November 2001 which states:

I am advised that the area of the existing permanentstaff-administration facilities at Mountain Gate PrimarySchool is actually over entitlement. The department’s dataindicates a total existing staff-administration area of306 square metres against an entitlement of 273 square metresat the current enrolment level.

After some investigation I found that what they haddone was measure every nook and cranny, everycupboard and every bit of coat space. The figures werefudged and the school will be revisited because it hasbeen deprived of the essentials necessary to run aschool of this type. Kent Park Primary School has beenseeking additional funding for years and at long last ithas been placed on the list for additional planning.

I have previously raised in the house a well-knowncase in relation to a disabled child who wantssupervised bus transport — about which I have still notreceived a reply. I went to the former Minister forEducation, who referred me to that magnificent pillar ofintegrity and genius, the Honourable TheoTheophanous in another place. I followed the matter upand was advised that on Friday of that week the letterwould be signed and sent to me.

The following week Parliament was sitting, somembers of my staff followed the matter up. They weretold that the letter was not in the office of the formerMinister for Education but had been referred to theHonourable Monica Gould, Minister for EducationServices, as the person overseeing supervised bustransport. Inquiries to her office brought the advice thatthe matter had been referred to the current Minister forEducation and Training. Her office then told me thatthe matter had again been referred to the Minister for



Education Services and, what do you know? I receiveda letter from her office — —

Mr Baillieu — This is turning Victoria around.

Mr LUPTON — Really going around. I received aletter from the Minister for Education Services sayingthat the application had been rejected. I then wrote toher to explain that some of the information provided tome by the parents of the disabled child was incorrect.Lo and behold I received — and bear in mind,Mr Acting Speaker, that I had written to the Ministerfor Education Services asking for clarification of thematter — a letter from the Minister for Education andTraining advising me that the letter I had written toher — which was never written — had been referred tothe Minister for Education Services because it was herportfolio. That shows the mentality of the Bracksgovernment and the way it is running its business.

It is a bit like the other day, when the Minister forPlanning read the wrong second-reading speech.Victoria is not going anywhere and nothing hasimproved.

Mr Viney interjected.

Mr LUPTON — I take up the interjection of thehonourable member for Frankston East.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! Interjections are disorderly and should beignored by the honourable member for Knox.

Mr LUPTON — I would like to, but I am speakingon the budget. The budget pays for the bureaucrats whoadminister the offices of the ministers. The money thatis spent should be closely examined. I have quoted twoexamples of things going off the rails.

I now turn to the situation of roads in the electorate ofKnox. Rowville is a growing suburb that includes partof Wellington Road between Taylors Lane andNapoleon Road. This particular road is a two-lanehighway. The morning peak starts at about 6.30 a.m.and goes through until about 9.30 a.m. Residentscannot get out of their neighbourhood areas because thetraffic is bumper to bumper.

I wrote to the Minister for Transport requesting fundingbecause it is estimated that the upgrading of this roadwill cost $7 million. There is a proposal to develop ashopping centre in the area but it cannot be built untilthe road is duplicated. The shopping centre will create550 jobs and bring ongoing employment. However,there is no money allocated to this project in the budget.Basically there is no money at all for roads in my area

despite it being bereft of any sort of good road system.Kelletts Road, Wellington Road and Napoleon Roadare all two-lane highways which are crammed tocapacity.

The budget has not looked after the eastern suburbs,particularly the electorate of Knox and the suburbs ofRowville, Ferntree Gully and Lysterfield. The Knoxtram has been proposed, but that will not come to theCity of Knox for a number of years. As I said, there isno money for any new works in my electorate. As theelected member for the area the budget is disappointingto me, but it will also be a disappointing budget for thepeople of Victoria when they sit down and analyse thefact that every family will pay $1500 a year more intaxes. Despite the government saying it was not goingto introduce any new taxes, every motorcyclist in thestate will be slugged $50 a year on some dream itbelieves may happen when it has done nothing of anyreal consequence or taken any progressive actions. It isa disgrace.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — Obviously I rise to speak in favour of theAppropriation Bill. As was quite clearly stated when itwas brought down last week, it really is an educationbudget. There is an added $550 million in educationand training initiatives, and that builds on the$2.2 billion of additional funds that this government hasput in due to its commitment to education and trainingin this state. That will mean an extra 925 teachers fromthis last budget, and that increase builds on the3000 additional teachers and staff that we have put backinto the system since we have been in office.

We are not putting those funds into education for extrateachers or to build new buildings but to make sure ourteachers are the best that we can buy and that ourschools are the best that we can build and so we makesure our educational outcomes are the best aroundAustralia.

The government put in $216 million to construct newschools and to modernise existing schools and TAFEfacilities. We put in over $43 million over a four-yearperiod to further reduce class sizes from prep to year 2in order to improve the standards of literacy andnumeracy around the state, particularly in those earlyyears where it matters the most. We also put in over$34 million over a three-year period for 150 additionalearly years numeracy teachers to lift the mathematicsand numeracy skills of our students so that in thoseearly years we can be assured that they are getting thebest education and, obviously, in later years they buildon the education they have gained in those early years.



The government also put in over $81 million for a newinitiative, Access to Excellence, which acknowledgesthat some schools have to address more issues such asthe socioeconomic status and language background ofstudents than other schools. In order to deal with thisthe government has provided 300 additional secondaryteachers for those schools that have higher than averageabsentee rates and lower than average of year 12 orequivalent completion in order to lower thestudent–teacher ratio in those schools so that studentscan gain more direct attention.

The government has also provided over $84 millionover a four-year period for a new middle-years reformpackage which will provide grants to primary andsecondary schools to employ 70 teachers, but also todevelop innovative solutions to keep students activelyengaged in education in those important years —years 5 to 9. I will come back to this later if timepermits.

Also, over $47 million over four years has beenprovided to employ 120 extra teachers to assist in thestatewide implementation of the new Victoriancertificate of applied learning, a certificate that has beentrialled this year and has been unbelievably successful.It sits alongside the Victorian certificate of education(VCE) and is aimed at those students who prefer tolearn in an applied learning style rather than anacademic style. It is part of the national trainingframework and is a credential that will be broadlyrecognised both educationally and also in the workforce.

Of course the government cannot go it alone in terms ofmaking sure that education and training is the bestpossible for the state. We need the support of thecommonwealth government, and we need the supportof other organisations in order to ensure that ourstudents — from primary right through to highereducation — are getting the best education that theycan. Therefore I was disappointed, to say the least,when this afternoon there was an unfair attack in thishouse on a person who has a fantastic reputation interms of making a major contribution to education andtraining, not only here in Victoria but across Australiaand around the world.

I refer to the attack made by the honourable member forWarrandyte on Mr Charles Feeney, who is known asChuck Feeney. I will refer to a couple of articles thathave been read about this extraordinary man. He is wellknown around the world and has made majorcontributions to education, to health and tonon-government organisations around the world. I referto an article that was circulated to the press gallery and

which appeared in Higher Education Ireland,8 February 2002. It is headed, ‘Mystery funderunveiled’ and states:

Mr Feeney has given away most of the fortune he madethrough duty-free shops. The University of Ulster, Queen’sUniversity Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, Limerick[university] and University College Cork have previouslybenefited from the organisation’s help. Mr Feeney has alsodonated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Sinn Fein’sWashington office, and is reputed to have helped broker theIRA cease-fire of 1994.

The article goes on to say:

Higher education projects account for 63 per cent of theorganisation’s charitable spend in 1998–2000 …

Not only is Mr Feeney concerned about educationaround the world, he is also concerned about peace,having assisted in the Irish Republican Army (IRA)cease-fire of 1994. I would have thought that this was aman whom we should regard highly and not demeanwithin this house.

The Time web site has an article dated 29 December1997–5 January 1998, vol. 150 no. 28. It refers toCharles Feeney and states:

The recipients did not know why the gifts came, or how toask for more. But still the money drizzled in, to universitiesand hospitals and service groups around the globe, paid incashier’s cheques and accompanied only by word that thegiver wished to remain anonymous. In January the shroudlifted, revealing a tale of such unsung goodness that somealmost wished its secrecy had been preserved.

Charles F. Feeney, 66, a businessman from New Jersey, hadduring the past decade given away more than $600 millionthrough his two charitable foundations. At least $3.5 billionmore … remains in the trusts’ coffers. Feeney’s beneficencealready ranks among the grandest of any living American andmay some day make him the most generous philanthropist ofall time.

The only thing that astonished more than the size of Feeney’slargesse was his determination to keep it hidden.


For years Forbes magazine listed him as one of the400 richest Americans, even though he has reportedly bledhis wealth of all but $5 million; Feeney abhors the list, but helet the fiction persist rather than betray his charity.

I refer to the same article, which indicates thecommitments by program that have been provided fromMr Feeney’s philanthropic trust.

Between 1998 and 2000 higher education received63 per cent of the grants, so $832 million was providedto education across the world by this philanthropictrust. Health received 16 per cent, or $215 million. Thenon-profit sector received $152 million; pre-collegiate



education, $98 million; ageing, $26 million; and‘other’, $19 million.

So this man, who has given almost all his wealth toensure that the world is well educated and the health ofthe world is looked after, was demeaned today in thishouse using parliamentary privilege.

A very important Australian who would be well knownto all members of this house was referred to in an articleon page 22 of the Saturday Age of 1 April as follows:

Ron Clarke was a great runner. Now he is leaping hurdles toget business to give to the community.

…

Mr Clarke announced this month that he was the Australianrepresentative for one of the world’s largest but formerlyshyest private charitable funds, the multibillion dollar UnitedStates-based Atlantic Foundation and Trust, which is believedto have quietly distributed hundreds of millions of US dollarsin donations around the globe from its inception in 1982 towhen its cover was blown in the late 1990s.

Mr Clarke says that in his first 18 months of representing thefoundation’s Atlantic Philanthropic Services company toDecember 31 he has assisted in $163 million of anonymousdonations to Australian projects, including to medicalresearchers and disability support groups.

I raise this in the house with some concern, because thisis a man who prefers to remain anonymous incontributing to many organisations around the world,including, indeed, Australia. But I have risen to my feetto speak about this man and his organisation in order topreserve his reputation, given that it has been attackedabsolutely unfairly in this house.

I have to say that it has taken me probably all of 1 hourto gather this information — it is not hard to find — onthe Internet. Did the honourable member forWarrandyte bother to find this information, or did he infact know all of it and only choose to present some of itto this Parliament in order to make an outrageous attackon this man and on the Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology?

I call on the honourable member for Warrandyte tocome into this house to apologise publicly to the peoplehe has defamed today, because they do not deservecheap shots. They have worked all of their lives tomake sure that education is improved across the world,and for him to take cheap shots in this place just so hecan get a 1-minute grab on the radio is demeaning andunfair to this house and certainly unfairly attacks thereputation of this organisation.

If the honourable member is unprepared to come intothis house and make a public apology, I ask that theLeader of the Opposition asks him to do so, because I

am concerned that this will have an impact on thequality and reputation of education and training in thisnation and in this state. I am sure that over the comingdays I will not be the only person who complainsbitterly about this attack. I am sure that people whohave supported this philanthropic trust and are inadmiration of this man will come to the opposition andask for a withdrawal of the comments that have beenmade in this house. If the honourable member forWarrandyte does not come into this house and makethose apologies, then he is a lesser person than Ithought he was.

We can all make mistakes. Most of us are able to movethrough the Internet pretty quickly, but he obviouslycannot. However, I will provide him with the Internetlinks so he can gain all the detailed information, someof which, I have to say, he handed out to the pressgallery — although he just did not quote all of it inParliament. He used this place to take cheap shots justbecause he is desperate for air time on the radio.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr SMITH (GlenWaverley).

Debate adjourned until next day.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 15 May; motion of Mr BRUMBY(Treasurer).

Mr CAMERON (Minister for LocalGovernment) — I would like to thank honourablemembers for putting their various views on thelegislation. Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you willappreciate that the government is looking forward tothe passage of this legislation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! As it is now4 o’clock I have to interrupt business pursuant to thehouse’s resolution of Tuesday, 14 May.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages


PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


PATHOLOGY SERVICESACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading



Pathology services are a vital part of Victoria’s healthsystem, not only for individual patient diagnosis butalso for public health programs. Many of our publichealth programs rely on pathology tests, which must beof the highest standard. For example, cervical screeninghas been responsible for more than a 40 per cent drop indeaths from cervical cancer since its inception.

The people of Victoria must have confidence in thepathology system which underpins the program, thequality of which is also vital for patient diagnosis.

Advances in medical science are occurring at a veryrapid pace. It is important that our pathology servicesnot only remain at the cutting edge of quality controlbut that Victoria’s regulation also remains at the cuttingedge.

Pathology services in Victoria are regulated by bothstate and commonwealth governments. It is an offenceto undertake pathology testing in Victoria withoutaccreditation under the Pathology Services(Accreditation) Act 1984. The Commonwealth HealthInsurance Act 1973 provides that a pathology testcannot be paid for by Medicare unless the pathologyservice is accredited under that act.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the PathologyServices (Accreditation) Act to enable the PathologyServices Accreditation Board to impose limitations orrestrictions on the type of pathology testing that may becarried out by an accredited pathology service; andremedy certain identified anomalies in the act.

The recent series of events, publicised in the media,relating to a laboratory and the standard of testingundertaken by this laboratory and other laboratories,has exposed some significant deficiencies in the act.These deficiencies impair the ability of the board to actin a timely manner to ensure that public health isprotected.

It is very important for the protection of public health inVictoria that the board is empowered to act quickly anddecisively to impose limitations on a laboratory’saccreditation. However, we are mindful that awholesale review of the accreditation regime inVictoria is required, particularly in light of a broader

national review of pathology accreditation beingundertaken by the commonwealth government.Notwithstanding any future review or new directions, itis important to ensure that immediate action can betaken by the board to protect public health.

This is as important for public health as the ability towithdraw a food product which is the cause of afood-poisoning outbreak.

The Pathology Services (Accreditation) Act 1984currently provides for the accreditation of pathologyservices by the Pathology Services Accreditation Boardin one of five categories specified by order in council.These categories mirror the categories adopted by theNational Association of Testing Authorities and theHealth Insurance Commission for their accreditationpurposes in order to ensure consistency withcommonwealth requirements.

The categories are:

G (General) — a pathology service consisting of alaboratory or group of laboratories at one locationwhere tests in one or more divisions of pathology areperformed and where there is direct full-time orequivalent professional and scientific accountabilityand supervision by a pathologist or scientist.

B (Branch) — a pathology service in which therange of pathology tests provided and the standard ofthe work is under the direction and control of adesignated pathologist or scientist employed in anaccredited category G service. The service musthave an on-site scientist providing day-to-daysupervision and an agreement with the category Gservice for direction and control and be either anintegral part of the category G laboratory, except forits location, or part of a regional pathology service.

M (Medical practitioner) — a pathology service inwhich tests approved by the board are performed byor under the supervision of a registered medicalpractitioner only for patients of the medical practicein which the practitioner works.

S (Specialised) — a service which performs only alimited range of tests approved by the board wherethose tests are either conducted on a particular targetpopulation or are of a specialised nature and areperformed under the supervision of a person havingspecial qualifications and skills acceptable to theboard in the field of those tests.

U (Unspecified) — services approved by the boardwhich do not fall within any other category.

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONCILIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION) BILL


The various categories relate primarily to requirementsfor the supervision and control of a pathology service inthat category rather than to the type of tests performed.The act and regulations do not currently attempt tospecify the types of tests that may be carried out by anaccredited pathology service.

Neither does the act provide the board with specificpowers to place limitations or restrictions on theaccreditation of a pathology service, for instance, toprevent the service from performing a particular type oftest that services in that category are otherwise entitledto perform.

There is a regulation-making power in the act whichenables regulations to specify tests or types of testswhich may or may not be performed in particularcategories of accredited pathology services. However,given the very diverse variety of tests that areperformed in category G and B services, it is notfeasible to prescribe the types of tests that may beperformed in these services.

The bill empowers the board to impose limitations orrestrictions on a pathology service in Victoria. The billempowers the board to impose these limitations eitherat the time of an initial application for accreditation orat annual renewal of accreditation or at any other timeduring the accreditation period. The bill will allowlimitations to be placed on the type of testing beingconducted by services with both deemed and fullaccreditation under the act.

Both deemed and fully accredited services will then besubject to suspension or cancellation if any limitation orrestriction is breached by the service. The performanceof a pathology test outside the range specificallyauthorised by the terms of a laboratory’s accreditationwill be an offence.

These provisions will give the board power to limit thetypes of testing a pathology service can carry out.

The bill will thus achieve a better protection of thepublic health.

In addition, the bill contains a number of consequentialamendments which give effect to the central provisionsof the bill.

I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr DOYLE (Malvern).


That the debate be adjourned for one week.

Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — On the question of time,the Liberal opposition is delighted to agree with thegovernment that this bill should have an adjournmentperiod of only one week. I hasten to say that it does notsee this as a precedent. The normal period ofadjournment is, of course, two weeks, but for the sakeof certainty and the peace of mind that we hope this billwill give a number of women who undergo these veryimportant screening procedures, we think that aone-week adjournment is entirely appropriate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday,23 May.

DOMESTIC BUILDING CONTRACTS(CONCILIATION AND DISPUTE

RESOLUTION) BILL

Second reading

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — Imove:


Following the 11 September disaster in New York, thecollapse of HIH and ensuing problems encounteredobtaining satisfactory re-insurance and the insuranceindustry’s move to reassess insured risks, insurersinformed the government that they could no longer becertain of obtaining adequate re-insurance, andtherefore of continuing to underwrite builders warrantyinsurance, if changes were not made to the statutoryproduct before their re-insurance treaties were due to berenegotiated. The government acted promptly, with theNew South Wales government, to negotiate a 10-pointplan intended to avoid the prospect of a future declinein underwriting.

The ability of builders to obtain warranty insurance onbehalf of consumers is critical to consumer protection.The compulsory insurance is designed to protectconsumers where their builder has been unable toaddress defective or unfinished work.

Part of the 10-point plan involves changing the contentof compulsory builders warranty insurance to make itfeasible for insurers to remain in the builders warrantyinsurance market. High-rise residential developments ofmore than three storeys were made exempt from10 April, and the monetary threshold for building workthat must have insurance will be increased from $5000to $12 000. The changes to the nature of thecompulsory builders warranty insurance requirementswill be effected by means of a new ministerial order tobe made under section 135 of the Building Act.

BUSINESS LICENSING LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


The 10-point plan includes provision for a catastrophefund to ensure that purchasers of high-rise dwellingswere protected in the event of major structural faults. InVictoria there is compulsory professional indemnityinsurance for all building practitioners, which is not thecase in New South Wales. Discussions are continuingas to how best to integrate builders warrantycatastrophe protection for high-rise in Victoria withprofessional indemnity insurance.

The other major response of this government to theinsurance problem is to introduce a coordinatedscheme, a building advisory service, designed tostrengthen existing consumer protection measures andpromote a better standard of building. This buildingadvisory service builds on existing systems. It willconsist of a coordinated inquiries, information,conciliation and dispute resolution system and willpromote a one-stop shop approach to the handling ofbuilding inquiries, complaints and disputes, combiningthe resources and expertise of Consumer and BusinessAffairs Victoria and the Building Commission into oneseamless service for consumers. The service will befunded by a new levy on building permits.

Consumers and builders will be able to access the newservice by phoning a dedicated line. Consumer Affairswill handle many inquiries by phone and will alsoprovide a suite of information products. Where theissue cannot be addressed by these means alone,Consumer Affairs will endeavour to resolve disputes bya dedicated conciliation team. If a dispute cannot beresolved and relates to technical issues, ConsumerAffairs may refer the dispute to technical expertsoverseen by the Building Commission to conduct anon-site examination of the disputed domestic buildingwork. Builders who do not rectify work judged by atechnical expert to be defective or substandard mayface disciplinary action by the Building PractitionersBoard.

Some of the features of the new service cannot besatisfactorily delivered under the current legislation.Accordingly, this bill makes a small series ofamendments to the Domestic Building Contracts Act1995, the Building Act 1993 and the Victorian Civiland Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

Part 2 of the bill introduces amendments to theDomestic Building Contracts Act 1995 to give theDirector of Consumer Affairs a new conciliationpower; to expand the scope of technical inspections byBuilding Commission-appointed inspectors; to specifycertain requirements for reports prepared by thebuilding practitioner inspectors; and to enable the

Director of Consumer Affairs to exchange informationwith the Building Commission.

Part 3 of the bill introduces amendments to the BuildingAct 1993. These amendments provide for theministerial order in relation to required insurance to beamended from time to time; make failure to carry outthe recommendations of an inspector’s report a groundfor disciplinary action against a registered buildingpractitioner; make provision for an increase from 1 July2002 in the building levy payable in respect of buildingpermits, to provide funds for the new building advisoryservice; and enable reports prepared under theDomestic Building Contracts Act to be used asevidence in proceedings under the Building Act andregulations.

Part 4 of the bill makes an amendment to the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to enablethe tribunal to request either the Director of ConsumerAffairs or the Building Commission to provide thetribunal with information in relation to a domesticbuilding dispute.

The scheme introduced by the bill will facilitate promptresolution of domestic building disputes.



Debate adjourned until Thursday, 30 May.

BUSINESS LICENSING LEGISLATION(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for ConsumerAffairs) — I move:


The bill amends the Associations Incorporation Act1981, the Business Names Act 1962, the Estate AgentsAct 1980, the Motor Car Traders Act 1986 and theTravel Agents Act 1986 to enable transactions undereach act to be delivered online via the Internet. The billalso proposes a number of further amendmentsnecessary for the efficient operation of each act.

The ability to transact business with government onlinewill deliver improved services to business, toassociations and their members and to consumers. Itwill result in increased convenience and improvedefficiency, particularly for rural and regional businesses

CORRECTIONS (INTERSTATE LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL


and consumers. Over time, most licence applicationsand renewals, applications for the registration of abusiness name or applications to form an incorporatedassociation will be able to be made online. Changes toregistered details, lodgment of an association’s annualstatement and lodgment of an auditor’s report will alsobe able to be conducted online. Consumers will be ableto identify the proprietors of a business they are dealingwith, or to satisfy themselves that a person holds theappropriate licence, by conducting an online search of apublic register. Online transactions will be quick andconvenient.

Although the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act2000 enables documents lodged electronically via theInternet to be authenticated by use of an electronicsignature or other agreed method, specific amendmentsto each act are required to remove other impediments toconducting business under the legislation online.

The bill will remove existing requirements that adocument lodged with Consumer and Business AffairsVictoria or the Business Licensing Authority be signedby more than one person and existing requirements thata document be accompanied by a statutory declaration.

Steps will be taken to ensure that business risks are notincreased by these changes. For example, onlinetransactions will be verified by use of a ‘pass code’issued to the person authorised to conduct thetransaction on behalf of a business. Where changes aremade to registered details in relation to a businessname, Consumer and Business Affairs Victoria willconfirm the changes with the business owners by letter.

The bill also makes significant changes in relation tothe public registers established by each act. The publicregisters play a vital role in consumer protection byenabling a consumer to access information about aperson with whom they are doing, or proposing to do,business.

The bill will insert a purpose for each register and willclarify the contents of each register. These changes willenable both consumers and business to know whatinformation is publicly accessible via the register andwill assist with meeting privacy obligations in relationto personal information.

The bill also inserts provisions that will enable a personto apply to have public access to their personalinformation held on a register restricted where there areexceptional circumstances. These provisions will, forexample, allow a person to apply to have public accessto their residential address restricted in circumstances

where the release of this information may jeopardise aperson’s safety.

The bill will also make a number of other amendmentsnecessary for the efficient administration of each act.

For example, the bill will make a number ofamendments to the Associations Incorporation Act1981. Significantly, the bill will:

enable small associations to appoint an unregisteredliquidator to oversee a voluntary winding up; and

allow an association to apply to the registrar forapproval to adopt an alternative process for alterationof the association’s rules.

The Business Licensing Authority Act 1998 is amendedto enable the authority to delegate many of the routinedecisions it makes on a day-to-day basis.

Consultation with consumer and industry groupsindicates widespread support for the online services thatwill be facilitated by this bill


Debate adjourned on motion of Ms BURKE (Prahran).


CORRECTIONS (INTERSTATE LEAVE OFABSENCE) BILL

Second reading

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Corrections) — Imove:


This bill enhances the operation of the criminal justicesystem. It builds on the government’s commitment tocreating a safer community and to the development of acorrections program which constructively andhumanely enforces orders of the courts and assists therehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners.

For technical reasons concerning the complementarityof jurisdictions’ laws, it is not currently possible togrant Victorian prisoners leave for temporaryattendances interstate in spite of the provisions in theCorrections Act purportedly for that purpose. Thismeans that even if the corrections authorities have noconcerns about granting a prisoner temporary leave, theprisoner cannot travel interstate for a family member’sfuneral, cannot travel interstate to visit a person who isseriously ill, cannot travel interstate for urgent medical



care. In short, the prisoner cannot travel interstate forany compassionate purpose. This bill addresses thatproblem.

The bill also enables the recognition of special kinshipand family obligations of Aboriginal prisoners and theneed to support attendance at funeral services, burials,and other occasions of special family significance inline with recommendation 171 of the RoyalCommission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

The bill recognises the government’s commitment toenhancing community safety. It will ensure thatVictorian prisoners travelling interstate on leave remainin lawful custody. In almost all cases, prisonerstravelling interstate will be escorted. In appropriatecircumstances, however, this requirement need notapply.

The safety of the community is further protected by thisscheme as it enables prisoners from other states onleave in Victoria to be apprehended and returned totheir state of origin if they fail to return or fail tocomply with conditions of the permit. Victorianprisoners who escape whilst on leave interstate may beapprehended under the provisions in the interstatelegislation and returned to Victoria.

The vast majority of current prisoners from other statesheld in Victorian prisons are from NSW. It is importantthat the current technical problems concerning the needfor substantial correspondence between Victoria’s andNSW’s laws, which have prevented the operation of thescheme in NSW, are overcome, provided that it doesnot compromise the safety and security of the prisoneror the community. The amendments in this bill willovercome the technical problems whilst at the sametime maintaining the safety and security of the prisonerand the community.

It is also expected that the scheme will operateeffectively in most other jurisdictions.

On balance, the criminal justice system will operatemore effectively and compassionately as a result of thislegislation. It is a small but significant measure inaddressing the needs of prisoners, whilst beingever-mindful of the primary consideration ofcommunity safety.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr WELLS (Wantirna).


NATIONAL PARKS (MARINE NATIONALPARKS AND MARINE SANCTUARIES)

BILL (No. 2)

Second reading

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I move:


The National Parks (Marine National Parks and MarineSanctuaries) Bill (No. 2) will establish a world-classsystem of marine national parks and marine sanctuariesfor Victoria and, in doing so, will implement one of thegovernment’s key environmental policy commitments.It will also contribute to the nationally agreed objectiveof establishing a comprehensive system of protectedareas representative of Australia’s biological diversity.

Thirteen marine national parks and eleven marinesanctuaries will be created. They will protectrepresentative samples of Victoria’s beautiful,distinctive and diverse underwater environments.Rocky reefs and sandy beaches, spectacular limestonecanyons and plunging granite slopes, intertidal mudflatsand tidal channels, waters exposed to the full force ofthe Southern Ocean and the more sheltered waters ofbays and inlets will all be represented. So, too, willtowering kelp forests and seagrass meadows,mangroves and salt marsh, and an extraordinary varietyof fish, corals, sponges and other animals of manycolours and shapes, from tiny organisms to large seamammals such as visiting whales, dolphins and seals.Visitors will be encouraged to enjoy, appreciate andlearn about this magnificent marine heritage.

The no-take marine national parks and sanctuaries willcover some 54 000 hectares, or 5.3 per cent, ofVictoria’s marine waters. By way of comparison, it isuseful to place this area in a broader national context.For example:

fishing is prohibited in zones covering some1.7 million hectares (or 4.7 per cent) of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park;

in Western Australia, there are substantial areas ofno-take sanctuary zones in Shark Bay and NingalooReef marine parks, and the whole of the132 000-hectare Hamelin Pool Marine NatureReserve is a no-take marine reserve; and

no-take areas have also been established in NewSouth Wales and Tasmania.



Concern for the whole marine environment

The subject of marine national parks has generatedmuch public interest and debate. I acknowledge thedivergent views on the matter, often strongly held,which have contributed to that debate, both inside andoutside Parliament. However, what is apparent is that,regardless of the position taken on marine nationalparks, there is a common interest in ensuring betterprotection and management of our precious marineenvironment.

The government shares that concern, which is reflectedin its commitment to sustainable management of thewhole of the marine and coastal environment. Thegovernment is committed to tackling the externalthreats to our marine environment. For example:

it has produced a new Victorian coastal strategywhich contains a range of initiatives andcommitments relating to protecting and improvingthe condition of our coastal, marine and estuarineenvironments and reducing adverse impacts onthem;

it is revising the state environment protection policyfor the waters of Victoria to ensure that there is aclear framework for the protection and, wherenecessary, rehabilitation of Victoria’s aquaticenvironments for the next 10 years;

it is increasing the focus on managing the impacts oncoastal waters caused by activities in the catchments;

it is implementing a stormwater action program tominimise the impact of stormwater discharges onaquatic environments;

it has recently released the Port Phillip Bayenvironment management plan, which focuses onthe management of nutrients entering the bay andmarine pests;

more broadly, the government is implementing astrategy that aims to prevent the introduction ofmarine pests, which includes improving themanagement of ship ballast water and ensuring arapid and effective response in the event that anintroduction does occur;

it has produced the state environment protectionpolicy for the waters of Western Port and itscatchment, with the aim of protecting andrehabilitating Western Port; and

it is undertaking a major program to improve thecondition of the Gippsland Lakes with a focus onreducing nutrient inputs.

The government is also committed to ensuring that ourimportant fisheries are managed on an ecologicallysustainable basis. It has shifted the rock lobster industryonto a quota management system, it has recentlyreleased an approved management plan for theVictorian abalone fishery, and it is currently initiatingmanagement planning processes for the rock lobster,giant crab, and bay and inlet fisheries.

Nonetheless, the government also recognises thatVictoria’s marine environment is special and that it isentirely appropriate to protect representative samples ofthis natural legacy in a system of highly protectedmarine national parks at the same time as implementingmeasures to ensure the sustainability of the whole of themarine environment.

Development of the bill

The system of marine national parks and sanctuariesincluded in the bill is the result of more than 10 years ofdetailed investigation, extensive public consultation andongoing debate. It has its genesis in the specialinvestigation into marine, estuarine and coastalenvironments which the former Land ConservationCouncil (LCC) commenced in 1991 and which theformer Environment Conservation Council (ECC)continued, presenting its final report in 2000. Duringthat time, there were six periods of formal publicconsultation generating 4500 submissions, as well asnumerous meetings and discussions with a wide rangeof community and industry groups. I take thisopportunity to thank the former members of the LCCand the ECC and their staff for all the work they carriedout so diligently.

Following receipt of the ECC’s final report, thegovernment subsequently embarked on a period ofextensive consultation with many stakeholder groupsbefore introducing a bill into Parliament in May 2001.Although the bill was subsequently withdrawn when itbecame obvious that it would not be supported by theLiberal opposition, the government has continued topursue its goal of establishing a world-class system ofmarine national parks.

The government has listened to the concerns whichwere raised in the community regarding the 2001proposals and has endeavoured to address thoseconcerns in the development of its 2002 proposals.

The government released a proposals paper on26 March 2002 which broadly flagged the



government’s intention to reintroduce a bill to createmarine national parks. Following this, the governmentthen released a draft bill on 10 April for a period ofpublic comment. The government has since consultedwith key stakeholders and negotiated with the Liberalopposition over the proposals and, in the light of thoseconsultations and negotiations, has further modified theproposals to produce the bill which is now before thehouse.

Helping the fishing industry to adjust

In deciding to establish a system of no-take marinenational parks and sanctuaries, and in developing thebill, the government has been mindful of the potentialimpacts on the commercial fishing industry andassociated communities. It recognises the need toprovide measures to assist the industry to adjust to theintroduction of the marine national parks. It has alsolistened to the concerns raised over the 2001 bill.

Consequently, the draft bill released in April 2002:

retained the 2001 proposal to delay the prohibitionon fishing in some of the marine national parks and amarine sanctuary (until 1 April 2004);

included a compensation scheme in the legislationfor eligible rock lobster and other specified fisherylicence-holders;

included an independent compensation assessmentand appeals process involving a compensationassessment panel and a compensation appealstribunal;

extended the compensation scheme to coverspecified increased operating costs, as well asreduced catch, that can be reasonably attributed tothe fishing prohibition applying to the marinenational parks and four (instead of one) marinesanctuaries; and

excluded any provision to amend section 85 of theConstitution Act 1975 in relation to the jurisdictionof the Supreme Court.

Following the subsequent consultations with keystakeholders and the negotiations with the Liberalopposition, further amendments were made and arereflected in the current bill. Of particular note are thefollowing changes and additions to the draft bill:

the boundaries of Discovery Bay, Twelve Apostles,Port Phillip Heads, Corner Inlet and Cape HoweMarine National Parks have been amended to reducethe impacts of the parks on the commercial and

recreational fishing sectors and fishing charter boatoperators, and a boundary to Ricketts Point MarineSanctuary has been agreed;

the period for compensation for reduced catch foreligible fin fish and other specified fishery licenceholders has been extended from one to three years;

the basis for calculating the compensation to be paidto eligible fishery licence holders for reduced catchhas been clarified;

provision has been made to compensate eligiblefishing charter boat operators for increased operatingcosts which can be reasonably attributed to themarine national parks;

there is a provision for interim payments to be madeto those eligible fishery licence holders and charterboat operators who can demonstrate financialhardship;

a provision has been included to enable boatscarrying priority species (notably rock lobster andabalone) to stop in Point Hicks Marine NationalPark; and

a requirement to prepare reports on the condition ofspecified fisheries and to table them in Parliamenthas been included.

The government will provide a once-off rebate of up to$1000 for eligible rock lobster and other specifiedfishery licence holders and eligible charter boatoperators who seek professional advice in relation tothe applications which they may wish to make underthe compensation scheme.

The government remains firmly committed tosignificantly increased fisheries enforcement andcompliance measures. These will particularly benefitthe abalone sector. It therefore reaffirms itscommitment in the 2001–02 state budget to providingan additional $14.3 million over four years and$3.4 million each year thereafter. This will enable:

twenty-one new regional field-based fisheriesofficers to be appointed to achieve an enhanced levelof compliance, particularly in relation to abalonetheft;

three strategically located regional investigationsofficers to be appointed to plan coordinated major,intelligence-based, joint-agency enforcementoperations;



the special investigations group to be expanded toinclude three additional intelligence analysts andinvestigators to concentrate on illegal abaloneactivities;

a permanent fisheries station to be establishedbetween Geelong and Warrnambool; and

a new fisheries patrol vessel to be purchased tostrengthen the at-sea compliance capacity on theGippsland coast.

The government will work closely with the seafoodindustry to ensure that this increased enforcement effortis effective and targets the illegal take of priorityspecies.

The additional fisheries enforcement effort will becomplemented by 18 new positions for on-groundmanagement and planning of the marine national parksand sanctuaries. These will be located in centres alongthe Victorian coast from Portland to Mallacoota. Anagreement between the Department of NaturalResources and Environment and Parks Victoria willensure that there is a complementary enforcement effortacross the marine environment.

The government has also initiated discussions withNew South Wales over complementary enforcementmeasures which could be put in place on the stateborder. These, together with the strong enforcementprovision included in the bill in relation to Cape HoweMarine National Park, will help to reduce abalonepoaching in that vicinity.

The government also reaffirms its previous budgetcommitment to provide the abalone industry withscientific and technical support to help identify andsurvey areas of currently under-utilised resource thatcan help to replace the existing fishing grounds withinthe parks and sanctuaries.

Other assistance

The government anticipates that, following theintroduction of marine national parks, commercialfishers will be able to adjust their fishing operations totake account of the new circumstances. As previouslymentioned, the legislation includes a statutorycompensation scheme to assist the holders of specifiedcommercial fishery licences as they adjust their fishingoperations to areas outside the marine national parksand marine sanctuaries.

It is important to remember that, quite apart from thestatutory compensation scheme established in thelegislation, there is a variety of government enterprise

improvement, regional assistance and employmentprograms available through the Department ofInnovation, Industry and Regional Development.Should they be required, these programs are availableto provide assistance to businesses to help them toadjust to the introduction of the marine national parks,as well as offer support to affected workers in obtainingalternative employment.

Fishing charter boat operators, which are also includedin the statutory compensation scheme, are involved incarrying passengers for hire and reward on a vessel forrecreational fishing. While those operators will be ableto visit alternative areas to fish following theintroduction of marine national parks, the governmentwill provide access to programs to facilitate theiradjustment to the parks, should it be required.

The regional network of the Department of Innovation,Industry and Regional Development is available toprovide information to businesses, communities andindividuals and to work in partnership with them toaccess assistance programs that will help them to adjustto the introduction of marine national parks, if required.These regionally based staff will be able to monitorlocal circumstances, and if exceptional cases emerge,the government will ensure that they will be consideredquickly and a decision made on whether a specificassistance program is warranted beyond the scope ofstandard assistance programs.

Recreational fishing

The government continues to strongly supportrecreational fishing along the coast, and it hasdemonstrated this commitment in several ways. Forexample:

in the 2000–01 financial year, over half of the208 commercial fishing licences in bays and inletswere bought back at a cost of almost $8 million, andcommercial fishing has now ceased in Andersons,Shallow and Tamboon inlets;

in January 2002, the government announced fundingof $1 million to improve recreational boatingfacilities to help make Victorian waters safer andmore accessible for boat users — many of theseprojects involved constructing or improving jettiesand boat ramps at various coastal localities,including Limeburners Point in Corio Bay, Altona,Werribee South, Patterson River, Safety Beach,Stony Point, Warneet South, Tooradin, Corinellaforeshore, Marlo and Cape Conran.

The government has taken into account the potentialimpacts of the marine national parks on recreational



fishing. As a result of the consultations and negotiationswhich have occurred since the government’s2002 proposals were released, the following boundarychanges in particular will benefit recreational anglers:

Discovery Bay Marine National Park now excludesan extensive length of coastline;

Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park excludes a300-metre wide passage between the Swan Bay jettyand the entrance to Swan Bay, and part of LonsdaleBay;

the boundary of the marine sanctuary at RickettsPoint has been drawn to exclude an area near QuietCorner.

However, it is important to remember that, in theoverall context:

nearly 95 per cent of Victoria’s marine watersremain available for recreational fishing, including98 per cent of Port Phillip Bay, 94 per cent ofWestern Port and most of Corner Inlet; no other inletand none of the Gippsland Lakes are affected;

not one pier, jetty, wharf or breakwater is included inany marine national park or sanctuary; and

very few popular recreational fishing locations willbe affected — of more than 300 coastal fishinglocations identified in the 2001 Victorian fishingatlas, only 15 are located in marine national parksand sanctuaries.

The bill

I now turn to specific aspects of the bill.

Part 1 states that the National Parks (Marine NationalParks and Marine Sanctuaries) Act 2002 will come intooperation on 16 November 2002. All 13 marinenational parks and 11 marine sanctuaries will beestablished on that day.

Part 2 amends the National Parks Act 1975 to create themarine national parks and marine sanctuaries, providean appropriate management and enforcementframework, and prohibit certain activities, includingfishing. However, fishing will be allowed to continueuntil 1 April 2004 in Discovery Bay, Twelve Apostles,Corner Inlet and Cape Howe Marine National Parksand in that part of Point Cooke Marine Sanctuary wherefishing is not already prohibited.

The descriptions of the marine national parks andmarine sanctuaries are included in schedule 1 and refer,in the standard manner, to plans lodged in the central

plan office of the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment.

Most of the marine national parks will incorporate partsof national or other parks already established under theNational Parks Act. Clause 20 technically excises areasfrom the existing parks to the extent that there isoverlap with the new marine national parks andsanctuaries. This is justified because the land is merelybeing transferred from one category of park to anotherunder the National Parks Act, and the protection beingafforded to the areas is not diminished. The NationalParks Advisory Council has advised that it does notoppose such excisions.

An important aspect of the bill is to ensure that fish, aswell as other fauna, in marine national parks andsanctuaries are fully protected after the fishingprohibition applies. Clause 16 inserts new sections intothe National Parks Act to ensure that there areappropriate offences, penalties and powers to deal withillegal fishing activity and encourage a high level ofcompliance, particularly in connection with thehigh-value commercial species, abalone and rocklobster, that require a significant level of enforcement toprevent their illegal take.

Because of the inherent difficulties in detectingfisheries offences committed underwater, clause 16inserts section 45A(5) in the National Parks Act tocreate the offence to possess priority species on a boatin a marine national park or marine sanctuary.However, it will be a defence to be travelling throughthe park or sanctuary by the shortest practicable route.In addition, no-one would be prosecuted if they werelegitimately securing the safety of the vessel in a marinenational park or marine sanctuary due to stress ofweather. Section 45B enables a boat carrying priorityspecies to stop in Point Hicks Marine National Park,notwithstanding section 45A(5).

The new offence provisions in the National Parks Actare in addition to various offence provisions in theFisheries Act 1995 that might also apply in marinenational parks and marine sanctuaries. The insertion ofsection 45C in the National Parks Act, which appliesvarious enforcement and evidentiary powers in theFisheries Act to fisheries offences under the NationalParks Act, will also ensure that there is a commonenforcement regime applying to fisheries offencesacross all marine waters, regardless of which act theyare committed under.

Part 2 and part 4 (which amends the ExtractiveIndustries Development Act 1995 and the MineralResources Development Act 1990) will prohibit

UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS) BILL


mineral exploration and mining, and the searching forand extraction of stone in the marine national parks andsanctuaries. Part 2 — clauses 11 and 12 — will alsoprohibit petroleum extraction and prohibit petroleumexploration and new pipelines and sea-floor cablesexcept in specified circumstances. Petroleumexploration may only be permitted in a marine nationalpark or sanctuary if it does not have a detrimental effecton the sea floor or flora or fauna of the park.

Part 3 of the bill establishes the statutory compensationscheme for rock lobster and other specified fisherylicence holders in relation to reduced catch andincreased specified fishing operating costs and foreligible charter boat operators in relation to increasedspecified operating costs. Part 3 also establishes anassessment and appeals process involving acompensation assessment panel and a compensationappeals tribunal, and includes provision for interimpayments to be made to eligible applicants in cases offinancial hardship.

Part 5 revokes the fisheries and wildlife reservesspecified in schedules 2 and 3 respectively.

Conclusion

The introduction of this bill into Parliament in 2002reinforces the government’s commitment toestablishing a world-class system of marine nationalparks and marine sanctuaries in Victoria. However, theintroduction of the bill reflects not only thegovernment’s long-held commitment to the creation ofmarine national parks. It also reflects a groundswell ofcommunity support for the establishment of marinenational parks. I would therefore like to take thisopportunity to thank all those who have supported andencouraged the government’s actions, particularly thosewho have held on to the ideal of establishing marinenational parks in Victoria through what has been a verylong process.

I also wish to thank all those in the community whohave contributed to the lengthy debate, regardless oftheir particular point of view. As I have previouslymentioned, the government has listened and it sharesthe common concern for the marine environment whichruns through the divergent viewpoints.

The government has also listened to the arguments ofthose who claim that they will be affected by theproposals and, as should be abundantly clear, it hasframed its response to take those views into account. Inthis regard, I thank the representatives of the Liberalopposition who have worked in good faith through theissues with the government in the last few weeks to

arrive at a position which it would appear that bothmajor parties now support.

The creation of this magnificent system of marinenational parks and marine sanctuaries will be a majorachievement for Victoria and a leading example formarine conservation worldwide. It will be a system inwhich all Victorians can take pride and will be asplendid legacy for future generations.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PERTON(Doncaster).

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I move:

That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, 30 May.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — On the question oftime, Madam Deputy Speaker, the presence of manypeople in the gallery today is to some extent anindication of the interest that the community is taking inthis legislation. The consultation period has gone on foralmost 10 years and literally thousands of people havebeen involved in the consultation from the environmentmovement, from commercial fisheries and fromrecreational fishing groups. Indeed many members ofthe Liberal Party who represent communities in coastalelectorates have worked very hard on the consultationand the resultant principles that — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Doncaster is speaking on theissue of time!

Mr PERTON — The adjournment period movedby the minister is two weeks, and within that time wewill examine the legislation to make sure that itcomplies with the principles that have been agreed.Joining with the minister and the comments she madein the second-reading speech, I note that there has beena great deal of consultation and great deal of hard work.I also thank the minister and her officers for the workthey have done.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Thursday,30 May.

UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICALCONTROLS) BILL

Second reading

Mr BRUMBY (Treasurer) — I move:


UTILITY METERS (METROLOGICAL CONTROLS) BILL


The purpose of the Utility Meters (MetrologicalControls) Bill is to extend the operation of current trademeasurement laws to utility meters which are used tomeasure quantities of reticulated electricity, gas orwater.

In 1990, all states and territories except WesternAustralia agreed to the adoption of uniform trademeasurement legislation (UTML). UTML wasdesigned to ensure that transactions involvingquantifiable measures are conducted accurately andconsistently across all states and territories. Theincentive for UTML was to promote commercialcertainty and bring about a reduction in business costsand greater efficiency in the trade measurementindustry that services the marketplace and that theconfidence of consumers in the market should bemaintained through suitable protection provisions.

The Victorian Trade Measurement Act 1995, alongwith the Trade Measurement (Administration) Act1995, forms the basis of Victoria’s UTMLcommitments.

Some trade transactions however (and the measuringinstruments employed in making them) have beenexempted from UTML through section 6 of the TradeMeasurement Act. Among the exempted items areutility meters used to measure the consumption ofreticulated electricity, gas and water.

The utility meter exemption was agreed at a time whenutilities were publicly owned. Since the 1990s however,privatisation and corporatisation of utilities in Victoriameans that direct government control no longer applies.

While the commonwealth regulates the design of utilitymeters (under the National Measurement Amendment(Utility Meters) Act 1999) to ensure their initialaccuracy, responsibility for ensuring ongoing accuracyonce meters have been installed rests with states andterritories.

This bill will ensure that utility meters will be subject tothe same regulatory framework and scrutiny thatcurrently applies to other measuring instruments underVictorian trade measurement legislation. Effectivelythis means that those utility companies responsible formeter accuracy will now be subject to oversight byTrade Measurement Victoria inspectors and licensees.

The bill provides for separate commencement inrespect to each of the utility sectors (gas, electricity andwater) and will ensure a consistent and systematicapproach to ensuring utility meter accuracy that willenhance both business and consumer confidence in

relation to the ability of utility providers to accuratelymeasure consumption.

I will now deal briefly with the main provisions of theUtility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill.

Part 1 of the bill deals with definitional matters andexplains what is meant by use of a utility meter ‘fortrade’. Consistent with the Trade Measurement Act1995 the bill binds the Crown.

Part 2 of the bill is concerned with the administration ofthe act, and the functions and powers of theadministering authority.

Part 3 of the bill deals with the use of a utility meter fortrade. It prohibits the use of a utility meter unless theutility meter bears an inspector’s or licensee’s mark.The bill will create the offences of supplying, installingor using for trade a utility meter that is incorrect or notof an approved pattern, or causing a utility meter that isin use for trade to give an incorrect reading.

Part 4 of the bill relates to reverification andcertification of utility meters. Servicing companies maybe licensed to certify the accuracy of utility meters. Therequirements for reverification and certification of autility meter are that it must operate within theappropriate limits of error that may be tolerated underthe National Measurement Act, be of an approvedpattern, and meet the requirements of the NationalMeasurement Act for metric graduations. Part 4 alsomakes it the responsibility of the administeringauthority to arrange for the reverification andcertification of utility meters that are in use for trade.

Part 5 of the bill relates to licensing. A person whocertifies a utility meter is required to hold a servicinglicence or be the employee of a licensee. Individualservice personnel will not be licensed but the licensingauthority is able to exclude dishonest or incompetentpersonnel from the industry by issuing an order thatthey may not be employed to certify utility meters. Thebill makes provision for disciplinary action to be takenagainst licensees in certain circumstances and outlinesan appeals procedure.

Part 6 of the bill sets out the powers of inspectors inrelation to search, entry, inspection and seizure ofinstruments and records. The powers are almostidentical to those under the current Trade MeasurementAct 1995. Inspectors may at any reasonable time enterand search a building or a place for the purpose ofinvestigating an offence against the act or theregulations. The bill proposes that an inspector is notentitled to enter a part of premises used for residentialpurposes, except with the consent of the occupier or

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM (PACKAGED LIQUOR LICENCES) BILL


under the authority of a search warrant. In addition,part 6 provides for an increase by five times themaximum penalty for any offence committed by a bodycorporate and makes the director of a body corporateguilty of the same offence committed by the bodycorporate if the director knowingly authorised orpermitted the offence.

Part 7 of the bill is concerned with general matters.Under current arrangements, some utility serviceproviders operate in accordance with codes of conductforming part of their contract with the EssentialServices Commission. The bill provides that theadministering authority may adopt and approve a codeof conduct which applies in respect of utility metersused for trade in an industry and is in force on therelevant prescribed date for the industry. Part 7 alsomakes provision for the Governor in Council to makeregulations for or with respect to any matter or thingrequired or permitted by the act.

Part 8 of the bill relates to consequential amendments.This part essentially places a limit on the power of anauthority to make by-laws under the Water Act 1989which are inconsistent with the Utility Meters(Metrological Controls) Act 2002.

In conclusion, the bill will provide for a consistent andsystematic regulatory framework for ensuring theaccuracy of utility meters used for trade, and isconsistent with current Victorian trade measurementlegislation.


Debate adjourned on motion of Dr NAPTHINE (Leaderof the Opposition).


LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM(PACKAGED LIQUOR LICENCES) BILL

Second reading

Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) — I move:


The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor ControlReform Act 1998 (‘the act’) to ensure that Victoria’sliquor licensing framework promotes the responsibleretailing of liquor and a diverse industry with a strongand vibrant small business presence.

Before detailing the key provisions of the bill, I wish tobriefly outline the broader context within which theamendments are being proposed.

As a result of a national competition policy (NCP)legislative review in 1998, the previous governmentabolished the 8 per cent limit on general licences, whichrestricted a person or corporation from holding morethan 8 per cent of the total number of licences on issue.It also removed the needs-based criteria in relation topackaged liquor licences. This has resulted in asignificant increase in the number of packaged liquorlicences being approved. Today there are more than1370 packaged liquor licences in Victoria, with over80 per cent operated by independents.

In response to a National Competition Council report inJuly 1999 that Victoria was in breach of NCPcommitments, the government in 2000 undertook afurther review of the act’s 8 per cent limit on packagedliquor licence holdings. The review was highlyconsultative, involving two rounds of publicconsultation and a series of public forums acrossVictoria.

The key finding of the review was that the 8 per centrule was becoming ineffective over time in promotingindustry diversity, due to the growth in the overallnumber of licences arising from the 1998 reforms andthe changing nature of liquor retailing. As a result, thereview found that new strategies were required toensure that small businesses continued to have a strongpresence in the liquor market.

In January 2001 the government announced that the8 per cent rule would be phased out from the end of2003 or earlier if an industry and governmentagreement was reached. As promised, the governmentintroduced legislation to close the known loopholes thatwere being used to circumvent the 8 per cent rule. Thegovernment made a commitment at the time that itwould work closely with the industry to develop futurearrangements that ensured Victorians continued toenjoy a genuinely competitive, diverse and vibrantpackaged liquor market.

Since then, the Liquor Stores Association of Victoria,Master Grocers Association of Victoria, Coles Myerand Woolworths have been working towards anagreement for the future of the packaged liquorindustry. Combined, they represent two-thirds of thepackaged liquor licence holders. The discussions, whilechallenging, were motivated by a recognition by all theindustry parties that the current arrangements were notsustainable. In March 2002 the industry parties reachedan in-principle understanding on the core elements of

LIQUOR CONTROL REFORM (PACKAGED LIQUOR LICENCES) BILL


an agreement. The government is pleased that theindustry has now been able to reach a final agreement,which will deliver benefits to small liquor retailers.

The bill implements the legislative aspects of theindustry agreement. A major non-legislative initiativeunder the agreement is the creation of a $3 millionpackaged liquor industry development trust fund, whichwill see the two majors, Coles Myer and Woolworths,contribute $1.5 million each. This fund will enablesmall liquor retailers to have access to the right adviceand support to help them become more competitive.


Mr BRUMBY — Because I am looking at thehonourable member for Murray Valley, and I know hewants to go home on a Thursday afternoon!


Mr BRUMBY — I am reading the speech as fast asI can, but this is an important piece of legislation!


Mr BRUMBY — The Calder Highway would beall right if we got matching commonwealth funding.


Mr BRUMBY — I now turn to the details of thebill. It essentially seeks to achieve three outcomes:

genuine community involvement in the licenceapplication process;

the responsible sale of packaged liquor; and

a diverse and vibrant industry.

The community is entitled to have a genuineopportunity to scrutinise packaged liquor licenceapplications. While the act currently permits a person toobject to an application on the grounds of amenity, itdoes not define the concept. Clause 5 of the billprovides a comprehensive but non-exhaustivedefinition of amenity. The bill defines the amenity of anarea as the quality that the area has of being pleasantand agreeable and lists the factors that may be takeninto account when determining applications, such asparking, traffic and noise. The definition does notexclude other factors from being considered. Theinclusion of this definition gives the community greaterguidance when considering the impact of an applicationon the amenity of an area.

The bill promotes the responsible sale of liquor. A keyobjective of the act is to contribute to minimising harmarising from the abuse and misuse of alcohol. While thedirector of liquor licensing can refuse an application onthis ground, there is currently no provision under the actfor the public to object on such grounds. Clause 11 ofthe bill provides that a person or a municipal councilmay object to an application for the grant, variation orrelocation of a licence on the grounds that it would beconducive to or encourage the misuse and abuse ofalcohol.

The bill also ensures that the community is betterinformed of an application for the grant, variation orrelocation of a packaged liquor licence, which enablesit to exercise its rights under the act. Whereas the actcurrently provides that the applicant may need to placean advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area,clause 10 of the bill makes this a normal requirement.While this provision will apply to packaged liquorlicences, the bill also includes a power to prescribeother classes of licences.

Licensees or managers of liquor stores should also havethe skills to sell liquor in a responsible manner. Whilemany people in the industry undertake responsibleservice of alcohol training, it is currently not arequirement of the act. Clause 6 of the bill makes it acondition of a packaged liquor licence that has beengranted or transferred that within three months thelicensee complete a responsible service-of-alcoholprogram approved by the director. In the case ofexisting licensees or managers, they would need to havecompleted an approved program in the previousfinancial year, effective from 1 July 2003.

The bill provides that the minister — the Minister forSmall Business, of course — in consultation with theindustry, may determine a code of conduct, consistentwith the objects of the act, for packaged liquorlicensees. The initiative enables the government and theindustry to work together to deal with practices that areinconsistent with the act’s objectives of harmminimisation, diversity and the responsibledevelopment of the industry. The code of conduct willbe developed shortly, in consultation with the industry.

The third outcome promoted by the bill is a diverse andvibrant industry. The bill provides for a gradual andorderly phase-out of the 8 per cent limit on packagedliquor licence holdings over the next three and a halfyears to enable small liquor retailers the time to adjustand plan ahead. The percentage cap will be adjusted to10 per cent upon assent, then to 11 per cent from 1 July2003 and 12 per cent from 1 July 2004. The cap will beremoved from 1 January 2006.

ADJOURNMENT



Mr BRUMBY — From 2006 — 1 January 2006

An Honourable Member — Are you sure of that?

Mr BRUMBY — It’s the Commonwealth Games in2006.

An Honourable Member — Are you absolutelysure?

Mr BRUMBY — Absolutely sure — 1 January2006.

To ensure that the percentage limits are complied with,the bill strengthens the current related entity andcontrolling interest tests. A related entity will nowinclude a person or body corporate who has an interestof more than 1 per cent in another body corporate, hasan option to acquire an interest or holds a directorship.This provision will be effective from the date of thegovernment’s announcement (14 May 2002) and onlyaffects the major chains.

Clause 9 of the bill ensures that the most affected smallliquor retailers are protected during the phase-outperiod by generally requiring a major chain that wishesto obtain a licence to make a fair offer to the nearestindependent within a specified designated area, to bedetermined by the minister. The bill contains aprocedure that ensures small liquor retailers havesufficient time to consider an offer and specifies aformula to determine a minimum offer price. A majorchain will only be granted a new licence if all theindependents within the designated area reject a fairoffer or if there are no independents in the area. Thedirector of liquor licensing will need to be satisfied thatthe major chains have followed the correct procedurebefore the grant, transfer or relocation of a licence canoccur.

To ensure that these interim arrangements are notcompromised by recent entrants to the industry, alicensee granted, or who has transferred or relocatedinto the designated area, a licence after thegovernment’s announcement that the 8 per cent rulewould be phased out (23 January 2001) is not entitledto a buy-out offer. Nor would a major chain be entitledto a buy-out offer.

Section 85 statement

I wish to make a statement of the reasons why it is theintention of the bill to alter or vary section 85 of theConstitution Act 1975.

Section 179A of the act already states that it is theintention of section 26K to alter or vary section 85 ofthe Constitution Act 1975. Section 26K provides thatno compensation is payable by the state or the directorto any person for any loss or damage as a result of theenactment of division 3A.

The bill makes certain amendments to division 3A,such as replacing the controlling interest provision witha substantial interest provision, redefining ‘relevantday’ and repealing the director’s power to extend therelevant day by 90 days. These amendments arenecessary to enable the practical operation ofdivision 3A, given that the permitted percentage willvary in accordance with the bill.

The government has a clear commitment to ensure thatthe percentage limits are complied with during thecourse of the phase-out. The public has been wellinformed of this position. The only bodies corporateaffected by this division are those that, notwithstandingthe government’s policy commitment and the intent ofthe legislation, seek to increase their holdings ofpackaged liquor licences above the permittedpercentage. The proposed amendments ensurecompliance with the limits without exposing the state ordirector to the risk of compensation claims.

In conclusion, the bill provides for greater communityinvolvement and scrutiny in liquor licence applicationsand minimises the potential for abuse and misuse ofalcohol within the community. The new arrangementsdeliver significant benefits to small liquor retailers andensure that Victorians continue to enjoy a competitive,but fair, liquor industry.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs PEULICH(Bentleigh).


Remaining business postponed on motion ofMr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment).

ADJOURNMENT

Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) — I move:


ADJOURNMENT


Commonwealth Games: athlete qualification

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — The matter I raisefor the attention of the Minister for Sport andRecreation in another place through the Treasurer is aplea on behalf of two elite Victorian athletes, hurdlersKyle Van der Kuyp and Tim Ewen, who recently losttheir Athletics Australia tribunal appeal againstnon-selection for the Manchester CommonwealthGames.

I call on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to takeup their case through Athletics Victoria, which is amember organisation of Athletics Australia, to see whatif any opportunities exist for these two elite athletes toqualify for the Manchester Commonwealth Games.

Kyle Van der Kuyp has been a finalist at the worldchampionships and in the Olympic Games, he has beenmade the final of the Commonwealth Games on threeoccasions, and is currently ranked fourth on theCommonwealth Games ranking list for 2001. However,due to injury he was unable to reach the secondqualifier. He certainly was excluded on the margin.

Tim Ewen is likewise a very commendable younghurdler. He competed in all of the grands prix and wasonly beaten once by an Australian. All of thesecompetitions, with the exception of the one in Perth,were run into headwinds which prevented him fromachieving qualifying times.

Athletics Australia has a difficult task. It on the onehand must be seen to be upholding published criteriaand to be acting in an honest and transparent way, buton the other hand it must put in place processes andhave some capacity for discretion to make sure thatAustralia can field the best possible athletes at theseinternational competitions.

The particular merit of this case is that no other athleteshave qualified in this hurdles event, and if there is noopportunity for these athletes to qualify we will not besending any male hurdlers in this event.

The Cathy Freeman case demonstrates the need forsome discretion. We all commend and wish Cathy afull recovery and a speedy return to the track. I certainlyhad the opportunity of watching her win the goldmedal — it was an outstanding opportunity.

Where there are no others who have qualified, wherediscretion upholds natural justice and the rights of theindividual and promotes Australia’s interest in terms offielding the very best possible athletes, I call on theMinister for Sport and Recreation to see what can be

done to help these athletes qualify at the specialcompetition in Brisbane on 24 and 25 May.

Blackburn Lake Primary School

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I want to raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Educationand Training and, through her, the Minister forEducation Services in another place. It concernsBlackburn Lake Primary School in the electorate ofMitcham — a very fine, excellent school: state schoolsare great schools! — which is planning a forthcominggrand reopening of new facilities that have been fundedby the Bracks government and is very keen to ensurethat one of other of the ministers attend this very specialday in the history of the school.

The attendance of the minister at that opening would bevery appropriate given the fulsome support of theBracks government for the rebuilding of the BlackburnLake Primary School following a disastrous fire therein September 1999. The school principal, David Jewell,does a fantastic job — he is a great promoter andsupporter of state education. He recently advised methat not only had the school been accepted into theLandcare program — one of the few schools aroundthat has done that — but it has also won an award forthe design of its new facilities, again a very unusualevent.

He also advised that the school had recently acceptedthe enrolment of a child from a Singaporean familywhich has relocated to Melbourne. The family hadbecome aware of the great school because of theschool’s promotion on its web site, so it was a greattribute to the school that it promotes itself that way.

There is a history to the rebuilding works, which I willrelate to the house briefly. The fire happened inSeptember 1999, just before the state election of thatyear. We saw the former education minister — theformer honourable member for Hawthorn — rolling outwith his entourage and announcing that of course aLiberal government would rebuild the schoolimmediately. It would be rebuilt — this was September1999 — in time for the new school year, four monthslater.

This, of course, was a furphy. The minister had given acommitment to the press which he later acknowledgedwas impossible to deliver, but it was a good line. Therewe had the former Minister for Education totallydisregarding the rights — —

An Honourable Member — What have you done?

ADJOURNMENT


Mr ROBINSON — We’ve rebuilt the school! Andthat’s why we’re going to have a reopening — it’sterrific! And I am sorry that the honourable member forGlen Waverley won’t be invited, but that’s the way itgoes.

The facilities are going to be on a scale that issensational. The new entitlement facilities schedulegives the school far more than it would have receivedunder a Liberal government. The reopening will be agreat day, and I look forward to the minister being ableto attend and help celebrate this great event.

Landcare: funding

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) — I bring to theattention of the Minister for Environment andConservation the great success story across countryVictoria: the Landcare organisations.

Landcare organisations were established in the late1980s and developed through the 1990s with supportfrom the state governments in the programs theyimplemented and from funding provided by the federalgovernment. The real success of these Landcare groups,however, has been because of the coordinators andfacilitators who have been part of the process. Theyhave been able to establish the programs and utilise thevoluntary efforts of a large number of primaryproducers and other people in country areas to ensurethe success of the program.

Late last year there was concern for continued fundingof these facilitators and coordinators. I wrote to theminister earlier this year seeking information from heras to when continued funding for the Landcareorganisations would be approved and allocated toensure continued employment. She wrote back to me ina letter dated 7 March and confirmed that negotiationswere still taking place with the federal governmentrelating to Natural Heritage Trust funding. Further on inthe letter, however, the minister indicates that stateofficers were looking at securing funding for theLandcare organisations and expected that a satisfactorytransition process would be in place and completedprior to 30 September. She went on to say also in theletter that money would be provided through secondgeneration Landcare funding and that a task forcewould provide a report to the minister.

The problem we have is that many of those facilitatorsand coordinators are now looking to the future as far astheir employment is concerned. What we need is urgentconfirmation from the minister that the funding will beprovided, because many of those coordinators arefinishing in their positions prior to the end of this

financial year. I therefore seek from the minister anindication of when the funding will be provided to theLandcare organisations to ensure their continuedoperation in the programs they are providing, as well asof whether the funding will continue to be provided forthe facilitators and those in the organisations, both asfacilitators and coordinators.

Additionally, the minister needs to be able to indicate tothe house what further representations are being madeto the federal government to see that we do get fundingunder the Natural Heritage Trust program for theLandcare programs in north-eastern Victoria, and inparticular, the salinity programs.

Employment: rural and regional Victoria

Mr HELPER (Ripon) — I direct to the attention ofthe Minister for Employment the mismatch of skills inregional labour markets as occurs from time to time.

This issue was highlighted in the Wimmera Mail-Timesof 3 May under a headline that reads ‘Labor shortage is“stifling industry” ’. The article quotes Hindmarshmayor Rob Gersch as saying to fellow councillors atNhill earlier this week:

We have 40 to 50 jobs floating and have enormous problemsdeveloping this region because of lack of skills …

The action I seek from the minister is a reassurance forthe Wimmera community as well as the community inmy own electorate of Ripon that the Bracksgovernment is addressing the mismatch of skills in ourregional labour markets.

The issue is primarily the responsibility of the federalcoalition government, a responsibility which, sadly, itabrogates to a large extent. It is the federal governmentthat has primary responsibility for the delivery ofemployment services, and that fact goes very much tothe heart of the mismatch of skills in regional labourmarkets. I hope the federal government hears the pleasfrom, for example, Mr John Milling, manager of thewestern Victorian poultry producer and processorLuv-a-Duck, who was quoted as saying that theWimmera urgently needed unskilled, skilled andprofessional labour.

The sentiments expressed by the manager ofLuv-a-Duck have also been expressed to mecontinually in my electorate by large, medium andsmall manufacturers. They indicate to me that they havegrowth constraints which are a consequence of theshortage of middle management. There are a number ofways of addressing this problem, and I know the BracksLabor government and the minister are actively

ADJOURNMENT


working to overcome these mismatches of skills inregional labour markets.

The action I seek from the minister is that he reassurethe community of the Wimmera and my electorate ofRipon — and indeed all of regional Victoria — that weare on the ball while the feds are fumbling about.

Taxis: multipurpose

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — I ask the Ministerfor Transport to examine and reconsider the flexibilityof the multipurpose taxi program. I raise this matter onbehalf of a constituent whom I would like not to nameat this stage for reasons of her own privacy, but I amhappy to advise the minister of the details if necessary.

My constituent was, sadly, diagnosed with a braintumour on the day after the birth of her first child andwas subsequently moved from Wollongong toMelbourne for family support. She has undergonesurgery and radiotherapy and is currently undergoingchemotherapy, which will continue for some time. As aresult of her condition her drivers licence wascancelled.

As a consequence of all of those things she has been indiscussions with my office and we have assisted her tomake an application to the Victorian Taxi Directoratefor a multipurpose taxi program taxi card. Regrettablythe Department of Infrastructure has advised myconstituent that her application has not been acceptedon the basis that:

… your mobility problems do not appear to be of a permanentnature …

Her application was refused. There may be a technicalreason for that, but it does not seem to be an outcomethat is either reasonable or fair. I invite the minister toreconsider the case.

My constituent even asks whether it is possible for theDepartment of Infrastructure to issue a concession thatis only valid for a year, or even a card for a year, whichseems to be an interesting possibility in itself. Even apublic transport concession card would be of someassistance. Obviously there are others in similarsituations who would warrant consideration under thetaxi program. I ask the minister to give the matterconsideration. I am happy to provide the details if theminister wishes.

Traralgon Racing Club

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — In raising a matterwith the Minister for Racing I congratulate him on his

great support for country racing throughout Victoria. Irefer the minister to the great work involved in thecurrent promotion, encouragement and coordination ofracing throughout the Gippsland region. All thecouncils have come together in this work, a particularleader being the Latrobe City Council.

Recently a strategic program to integrate sports eventsthroughout the Gippsland region was released in adocument entitled Energy in Sport. This document hasa particular focus on racing, with the aim of building itup for the benefit of all clubs throughout the region. It isa terrific promotion. The Latrobe City Cup is one of theinitiatives resulting from this strategy, which as I said issquarely aimed at promoting and coordinating racing.Under this program racing clubs such as Morwell, Moe,Traralgon and others have come together to produce amajor racing event. This initiative is a direct example ofthe council packaging racing for the benefit of thewhole region.

A similar coordinated packaging of the region is beingapplied to greyhound racing, with councillors workingwith the Cranbourne, Warragul, Traralgon and Saleclubs to build a strong, viable and coordinated product.The same philosophy also has been successfullyapplied to motor racing, with the Thumper worldchampionships to be held in the region shortly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The honourable member has 1 minute in whichto ask for some action.

Mr LONEY — I certainly shall, Mr ActingSpeaker. Unfortunately in recent times this sort ofpositive promotion of racing has resulted in allegationsthat the Latrobe City Council has deliberately forcedthe closure of the Traralgon Racing Club for deviouspurposes. I ask the minister to act to ensure that the trueposition on these outrageous and defamatoryallegations is reported to the house as a matter of somepriority. It is completely unfair, given this positivepromotion.


Brauerander Park, Warrnambool

Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — I refer the Premierto a commitment he made in supporting the$6.4 million Brauerander Park development when thecommunity cabinet met in Warrnambool recently. ThePremier was reported in the Warrnambool Standard assaying:

ADJOURNMENT


‘We’re happy to contribute in a three-way partnershipbetween state, local and federal governments, and I think weare well on track to achieving that’, Mr Bracks said.

‘But we do need to check out the commitment that the federalgovernment has made, because it is less than clear —

whether it has made $1 million available. We all knowthat the federal government has made $1 millionavailable, and I ask that the government stick to itscommitment to provide $1 million. This is a great thingfor Warrnambool. Brauerander Park is a significantproposal: it consists of a 12-hectare site between BrauerCollege and the Warrnambool indoor sports stadium,which will be transformed into three sports areas and acar park. The main area will be an eight-lane athleticstrack around a hockey pitch, with surrounding areas forjumping and throwing field events. Other areas willinclude a multipurpose grassed oval for football,cricket, hockey and soccer, and a minigolf course.

I ask the Premier to acknowledge that all the conditionsplaced on his government’s support for this projecthave now been addressed. With a budget surplus ofaround $500 million there is no reason why the$1 million promised cannot be delivered immediately.This is a $6.4 million project. All the Warrnamboolcommunity requests is that the government match the$1 million from the Howard government, and it willraise the extra $4.4 million locally.

Rail: M Train service

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — I refer theMinister for Transport to M Train service 6362, whichis the 7.50 a.m. train from Williamstown to the city. Iraise this matter on behalf of the commuters whotravelled on the train this morning. The matter wasbrought to my attention by Mr John Preston of Seddon,speaking on behalf of others who catch this train fromthe Seddon railway station. Every day this week, and onmany previous occasions, this commuter train hascomprised only three carriages. I understand it is meantto consist of six carriages but is frequently reduced insize. Commuters on the train attribute the reduction insize to various theories, including that it has been doneto prevent vandalism or that it has taken an inordinateamount of time to change the lock on the driver’s door.

As the train leaves Williamstown at 7.50 a.m. andreaches Seddon station at 8.03 a.m. it is well patronised.Commuters frequently find themselves crammed intothose three carriages. There are insufficient places forcommuters to hold on to, such as seats or ceilinghangers, so people fear for their safety because of thespeed at which the train travels.

On arrival at Flinders Street station this morningcommuters were further inconvenienced in using thestairs on platform 10, which are in poor repair. Thecommuting experience of some of my constituents hasnot been of the highest quality, and I ask the Ministerfor Transport to take the matter up with M Train andthose responsible for the repair of Flinders Streetstation.

The prognosis for public transport in my area is quitegood, with the transit city proposal coming up and theintroduction of the regional fast rail service, so thegovernment is doing its bit. However, we need to keepprivate operators on their toes and ensure that they aresensitive to the needs of their customers, thecommuters — and my constituents.

Police: Broadmeadows station

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — I refer the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to a matter of graveconcern regarding a sexual assault that took place inBroadmeadows. I ask the minister to investigate theneeds of the police in that area, especially theavailability of police cars. The lack of a police responsein that area forced one of the residents ofBroadmeadows to contact my office asking for thismatter to be investigated. The attack on a 50-year-oldfemale victim occurred at approximately 6.25 p.m. on29 April. Fortunately residents came to her assistance.The victim had a mobile phone and called 000straightaway. After 20 minutes there was no sign of anypolice, until a phone call from the Broadmeadowspolice advised her there were no cars available to attendto her needs.

What makes the situation even worse is that the policeofficer asked if the victim could go down to the policestation by her own means to report the assault and makea statement. That is a very serious breach of duty by thepolice. A resident drove the victim down to the policestation to make the report. When the police phoned thevictim they had no idea of her condition or whether theattacker was still in the area. It is a dreadful situationwhen the police have to say, ‘We have no cars availableand no officers available’. This type of incident shouldbe addressed straightaway. The victim should not havehad to get herself and a witness down to theBroadmeadows police station to report the incident.

In this particular case the crime would never have beenreported if the victim had chosen not to go to the policestation at Broadmeadows. This is an unacceptablesituation. We need to encourage people who are victimsof crime, especially of sexual assault, to go to thepolice, and the police need to respond in an appropriate

ADJOURNMENT


and efficient manner to ensure that community safety isparamount.

Environment: greenhouse strategy

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I would like to bring a matterto the attention of the Minister for Energy andResources in another place, but first I congratulate theminister on the way she is handling her portfolio. She isdoing a good job, particularly in the fishing industry,with which I am familiar through working on therelevant parliamentary committee.

I now ask the minister to take further action oncontaining the greenhouse effect, particularly in regardto the supply of electricity to the manufacturingindustry, in view of the government’s commitment toreducing the depletion of the ozone layer. I would likethe minister to look at any new developments, payingparticular attention to manufacturing industries usingnew turbines for electricity generation and ensuring thatthose industries are conscious of the greenhouse effect.

The manufacturing industry is a big contributor to thedepletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effectin this state. I therefore ask the minister to take furtheraction, particularly given the legislation on carbontrading. Companies that operate those electricitygenerators need to be aware that reafforestation andother activities are being undertaken, and the ministershould continue to educate the community to use lessenergy, including less electricity, and remind us thatindividuals can also contribute to the reduction in thegreenhouse effect.

Australia is one of those countries which needs tominimise the greenhouse effect for the benefit of theislands which surround us, because with globalwarming they are in danger of their surrounding waterlevel rising. We have an obligation as a country and asa community to support and help the people on thoseislands surrounding Australia.

More important is the community saving for us. Wehave campaigns on using suntan lotions during thesummer because the ultraviolet rays from the sun arevery strong and can result in people getting skin cancer.The media constantly reminds us to slip, slop, slap,always wear a hat, and to be sun smart. I hope byreducing the carbon in the atmosphere, which isdamaging our ozone layer, we can go a long waytowards protecting further generations from developingskin cancer.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The

honourable member for Mordialloc has 2 minutes and40 seconds.

State Emergency Service: Moorabbin premises

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — I raise a serious matterfor the attention of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services. It concerns a letter I wrote to himon 8 May informing him what Moorabbin StateEmergency Service (SES) is about to face as aconsequence of the incompetence of the City ofKingston.

In November 2001 the City of Kingston sold a depotwhich includes the SES facility. This building will begoing as vacant possession to a car company on 1 July2002. As of today, after numerous meetings,discussions and phone calls about looking for a new sitefor this facility, the council has failed to act. As avoluntary organisation in my electorate and in theelectorates of the honourable member for Bentleigh andthe honourable member for Sandringham, the SESplays a vital role. To have this voluntary organisationfaced with eviction is an outrage.

I do not have a problem with a car dealer getting theland, but the council had a responsibility to provide anew facility, and it has not done so. The Minister forPolice and Emergency Services was recently at thisfacility giving it a glowing tribute, and indeed thecouncil thinks this organisation is so brilliant it made itthe community organisation of the year in January2002. This is how it treats a voluntary organisation!

As someone who worked in the insurance aspect of thebuilding industry and was often on roofs at midnightputting tarps over damaged buildings, I know full wellthe work these men and women do. They should not betreated, as they are, with utter contempt by the council.I understand that most of the councillors concerned areassociated with the other side of politics. It is time theymade a decision to look after the State EmergencyService. It is not good enough for an organisation suchas that to be thrown out.

Mr Nardella — Rubbish.

Mr LEIGH — A member of the government says,‘Rubbish’. I am known for being prepared to take it upto the government and have a real go at it, but I ampleading with the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices to come into the chamber and admit that hewill do something on behalf of the residents of our cityand on behalf of one of the great voluntaryorganisations in our community.

ADJOURNMENT


I have not made a personal attack on anyone over thisissue. Members of the Labor Party want to ridicule thematter, but I am concerned to see an outcome thatadvantages members of the SES who work on ourbehalf. I think the minister should come into thechamber tonight — he is in the building — and make adecision.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The time allotted for the adjournment debate hasexpired, which I know is a great disappointment to allhonourable members!

Responses

Mr HULLS (Minister for Racing) — Thehonourable member for Geelong North referred to areport called Energy in Sport, which was commissionedby the Latrobe City Council. As Minister for Racing Ihad the pleasure to present the Traralgon Cup last year,which, from memory, was won by Storm Edition. Itwas a great meeting attended by a great crowd. TheLatrobe City Council was fully supportive of that racemeeting and has been fully supportive of the TraralgonRacing Club over a long period of time.

I was surprised when I heard that specious allegationshad been made about the council in an attempt toundermine the Traralgon Racing Club, because it is myunderstanding that the Latrobe City Council has alwaysbeen fully supportive of the racing club.

However, I found it even more confusing when thoseallegations were made, it would appear, in the fullknowledge that they were incorrect. To his credit thehonourable member for Polwarth saw me prior toquestion time yesterday and asked whether I had seenthe media reports about the Traralgon Racing Club. AsMinister for Racing I had, and I was well aware of thefinancial difficulties the Traralgon Racing Club founditself in.

Country Racing Victoria put out a press release on theTraralgon Racing Club, which I presume thehonourable member for Polwarth had seen. Clearly theclub had been in financial difficulty for some time, andthe balance sheet of the club showed that its reportedcurrent assets of $146 472 were exceeded by theliabilities which totalled $177 660.

The press release went on to say that the situation withthe Traralgon Racing Club was unviable, with lossesbeing recorded over five consecutive years totalling inexcess of $385 000. The club has recorded netoperating losses in 8 of the past 10 years. Poorgovernance and business practices at the club hadseverely impeded its capacity to trade profitably over

this period and were the reasons given by CountryRacing Victoria for the problems faced by theTraralgon Racing Club.

An independent report was conducted by CountryRacing Victoria into the Traralgon Racing Club whichmakes it quite clear that the club has been badlymanaged. That will happen from time to time withclubs, whether they be racing clubs or other sorts ofclubs. The fact is that the report did not state that theproblems with the Traralgon Racing Club had anythingto do with the local council.

I would expect that the honourable member forPolwarth was well aware of that fact when he madesome accusations last night.

Mr Mulder — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, on a matter of relevance, the issue I referred toin the adjournment debate last night had nothing to dowith the past history of the club but was about CountryRacing Victoria trying to come to an arrangement — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The Minister for Racing was responding to amatter raised by the honourable member for GeelongNorth. From what I have heard thus far he has beenrelevant to the matter raised by the honourable member.What may have been said or intended last night is notrelevant to the matter before the Chair at the moment.

Mr HULLS — It concerns me when anyone makesallegations that attempt to undermine country racing.One would have thought that after the conversation thehonourable member for Polwarth had with me aboutthis matter he would have been better informed. Furtherto that, I understand that Mr George Corones, who, asthe honourable member for Polwarth would know, isthe president of Country Racing Victoria, also made itquite clear that the problems with the Traralgon RacingClub had nothing to do with the local council and werea result of mismanagement.

So there are two sources: the Minister for Racing andthe president of Country Racing Victoria. But further tothat, I understand that a gentleman by the name ofMr Peter Tyler, who is on the local council and indeedis the president of the local branch of the Liberal Partyin that area, was also contacted by the honourablemember for Polwarth about this particular matter. Thefact is that Peter Tyler, together with Lisa Proctor, aLabor member of the local council, had earlier attendedin a bipartisan way and on behalf of the council ameeting of track users and the race committee andabsolutely confirmed that the council will continue to

ADJOURNMENT


do everything it can to support the Traralgon RacingClub to keep it going as a racing club.

That occurred at a meeting last night, no doubt with thefull knowledge of the honourable member for Polwarth,but he still comes into this place and makes accusationsthat the local council is attempting to close down theclub and sell off the land. He has come into this houseand deliberately misrepresented the situation inrelation — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! I ask the minister to withdraw the remark‘deliberately misrepresented’!

Mr HULLS — The honourable member forPolwarth has misrepresented the situation in relation toTraralgon. He has spoken to the Minister for Racingand he has spoken to the council. Indeed he has spokento George Corones, and yet he still came in here andmade these specious allegations.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I am yet to hear the minister say that hewithdrew the words that you asked him to withdraw.He went on to say it in another way but he did notwithdraw, so it is still on the record.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! I asked the honourable gentleman to withdrawthe unparliamentary words.

Mr HULLS — I am happy to withdraw.

One wonders on what basis a person would come inhere and actually try to undermine country racing andmake inaccurate allegations in relation to the TraralgonRacing Club. I understand that the honourable memberhas an interest in racing and that he has someconnection with the Colac Racing Club. Word aroundthe racing traps is that he is known as the ColacClown — more polite people call him Mulder the Mug,or Terry the Tout. The fact is — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, as I understand the rules of this chamber, amember should be referred to in a proper manner, andgiven the references that the minister has made tosomeone who I assume is one of my colleagues,perhaps what he should do is refer to him as thehonourable member for Polwarth rather than usinginappropriate language.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Richardson) —Order! The requirement is that members shall addressother members by their correct titles. The Minister forRacing was making reference not directly to the

honourable member for Polwarth but about him. I knowit is a fine technical point, and I admire the honourablemember for Mordialloc for picking up on these things,but there is no point of order.

Mr HULLS — It is true. I would not call him theColac Clown and I would not call him Mulder the Mugand I would not call him Terry the Tout — but otherpeople do! He comes in here and makes allegations toundermine the Traralgon Racing Club. If he were ahorse he would have gone to the knackery by now andhe would be in a can of Pal dog food! Those allegationscould only come from somebody with a Pinocchionose. I expect that he would go to George Corones, theTraralgon Racing Club and the Latrobe council andapologise. They have been fully supportive of theTraralgon Racing Club and I expect they will continueto be. He ought to apologise and I expect to read abouthis apology in the local paper next week.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forEmployment) — The honourable member for Riponraised a matter for me in relation to an article in theWimmera Mail-Times quoting the mayor of Hindmarshshire, Rob Gersch, regarding skill shortages in localitiesand issues about the Wimmera DevelopmentAssociation. I note that article said that the mayor willraise the matter with me. I have not met the mayor, butI look forward to having some discussion with him.

Wearing my other hat as Minister for Tourism, Iattended the Grampians Gourmet Festival a couple ofweekends ago. I bumped into the chief executive officerof the Wimmera Development Association, who gaveme a letter which raised the issue of a mismatch ofskilled labour and skills needs in the area. Obviouslysupply and demand did not match and it is a real issue.If you had bigger unemployment figures you probablywould not have all the job opportunities and you wouldnot need to find people with the skills who actuallywant to go to Wimmera and work.

I note that he also referred to a headline about labour,but I think it was spelled L-a-b-o-r. That means us! Andtalk about a Labor shortage! I think it means theywould like to see Labor members of Parliament inWimmera in addition to the honourable member forRipon whose electorate covers part of that area. That isthe way that I read the headline. It is a very seriousissue.

On receiving the letter I contacted the employmentprograms division of the Department of Innovation,Industry and Regional Development and raised theissue with them. If there is anything we can do we willdo it. That is our role: trying to encourage people to

ADJOURNMENT


understand that there are job opportunities in local areasand match those who have the skills and are looking forwork with those communities and employers that needpeople with those skills.

On Wednesday, 8 May, not long after I had been backin Melbourne, the employment programs division senta representative to a meeting held with the WimmeraDevelopment Association, the Horsham council andYarriambiack shire. We discussed with them theopportunities that exist in attracting, assisting andmaintaining a skilled work force in the region.

The employment programs division will preparedetailed industry data on the region and will address aseminar organised for mid-June, next month, forindustry and employer representatives in the area.Obviously it is about taking a proactive, collectiveapproach to the locals and state agencies workingtogether. At that forum we will also let the locals knowabout the opportunities and programs we have in ourskilled migration program, for example, andrecruitment services such as the community businessesemployment program which has been doing good workin the area.

As the honourable member said, the federalgovernment is predominantly responsible foremployment programs and services through agenciessuch as Centrelink and the Job Network. I notice thatsome national employment offices in that local areawill be closed next year, thanks to the federalgovernment, so they will be much more reliant on us.

At every opportunity we are out there trying to assistand to create jobs. In the past 12 months thegovernment’s employment programs have beenassisting employers in the Wimmera area to fill skilledvacancies — for example, the community-basedemployment program has provided financial support ofaround $347 000 to link Wimmera employers to jobseekers, filling 446 jobs in that Wimmera region, whichis a pretty good job in 12 months. Thecommunity-based employment program is a freeservice to employers and also to those seeking work.

I am pleased to advise the honourable member thatthrough the government’s multicultural employmentprogram skilled migrants have also been placed withemployers in places such as Horsham, Kaniva andNhill. As well, in rounds 1, 2 and 3 in the CommunityJobs program area we have provided funding of closeto $511 000 and around $52 000 in training, so we aretraining up local unemployed people for jobopportunities in the local area. I look forward to hearingthe outcomes from the June meeting so that we can

work together to match available jobs with people whoare looking for jobs. I thank the WimmeraDevelopment Association for raising the issue, and atsome time I will catch up with the mayor of Hindmarshas well.

The honourable member for Wantirna raised for theMinister for Police and Emergency Services a seriousmatter about a sexual assault case in Broadmeadows.He raised the needs of police in the area and said thatpolice cars are one of the issues. I will certainly raisethat matter when I am with the Minister for Police andEmergency Services.

The honourable member for Mordialloc raised for theMinister for Police and Emergency Services the matterof a letter he wrote to him dated 8 May about theMoorabbin State Emergency Service and the problemsthe members of the SES are having with the Kingstoncouncil. He said they are being evicted from a building.The honourable member is also aware of the extraresources the government has provided for the SES,particularly with vehicles, around the state. I will raisethat matter with the minister.

The honourable member for Bentleigh raised a matterwith the Minister for Sport and Recreation about twosports athletes, Kyle Van der Kuyp and Tim Ewen, inrelation to an event on 24 and 25 May in Brisbane. Thehonourable member raised another matter which isdifficult to decipher. I will refer that matter also to theMinister for Sport and Recreation.

The honourable member for Mitcham raised throughthe Minister for Education and Training a matter for theMinister for Education Services concerning a project atthe Blackburn Lake Primary School. The localcommunity has been looking forward to the completionof that project for a long time and also to the opening ofnew facilities that have been funded by the government.The school community is really keen for the minister tovisit the school for that opening.

There has, of course, been a huge backlog in schoolconstruction across the state because of what thegovernment inherited. In the current budget we haveseen the biggest ever increase in capital worksinfrastructure for schools in any one year, so that isgreat news for Blackburn, as it is for other communitiesaround Victoria.

The honourable member for Hawthorn raised for theMinister for Transport the serious matter of theflexibility of multipurpose taxi programs and aconstituent who has had some problems with theflexibility of that program. Certainly if the honourable

ADJOURNMENT


member provides details of the case and the person tothe Minister for Transport that will be dealt withconfidentially to see if the minister can assist. I willcertainly be raising it with the Minister for Transport.

The honourable member for Murray Valley raised amatter for the Minister for Environment andConservation in relation to Landcare organisations andthe need for continued funding for facilitators andcoordinators. They do a wonderful job, and I will referthat to the minister.

The honourable member for Warrnambool raised amatter for the Premier. I understand he is asking thestate government to match a $1 million federal grant forBrauerander sports park, and the locals will raise theother $4 million-odd. I will raise that matter with thePremier. I remember a number of people raising thoseissues when we attended the community cabinetmeeting, which was very successful and resulted inmany positive results. I will talk to the Premier aboutthat one as well. We will also raise it with the Ministerfor Sport and Recreation on behalf of the honourablemember.

The honourable member for Footscray raised a matterfor the Minister for Transport in relation to M Train6362. I will raise that issue with the Minister forTransport.

The honourable member for Keilor raised a matter withthe Minister for Energy and Resources in relation tocontaining greenhouse effects. The government hasissued a discussion paper on the matter. It was anelection commitment to deal with the greenhousestrategy. I will raise the matter with the minister for thehonourable member.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 6.05 p.m. until Tuesday, 28 May.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers to the following questions on notice were circulated on the date shown.Questions have been incorporated from the notice paper of the Legislative Assembly.

Answers have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.The portfolio of the minister answering the question on notice starts each heading.

Tuesday, 14 May 2002

Transport: location of road accidents

755. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — of the total number of accidents onVictorian roads since 1985, what is the breakdown of their location on federal, state, local or private roads.

ANSWER:

The total number of accidents on Victorian roads from 1987–2001 is as follows:

Road Classification No. of Accidents

Federal Roads 10,473

State Roads 140,671

Local Roads 126,052

Private Roads 320

Total 277,516

Note that accident data was not collected by road classification in 1985 and 1986. The total number of accidentswas 18,952 and 20,427, in 1985 and 1986 respectively.

Transport: alcohol-related road deaths

756. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — of all road deaths, how many are alcoholrelated, and what are the annual figures since 1985.

ANSWER:

Information is not available with respect to all road deaths showing whether one of the active participants in theaccident was affected by alcohol or not. Information is available on drivers and riders who are killed. Thisinformation from 1985 to 2001 is in the table below.

Year Total numberkilled on the road

Number ofdrivers and riderskilled

% with BACover .05

Number withBAC over .05 *

1986 669 347 38.4 133

1987 705 373 38.3 143

1988 701 342 37.6 129

1989 776 397 32.4 129

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1990 548 282 29.7 84

1991 503 266 28.8 77

1992 396 192 20.8 40

1993 436 233 27.5 64

1994 378 210 25.1 53

1995 418 228 22.2 51

1996 417 233 23.5 55

1997 377 196 22.7 45

1998 390 193 24.7 48

1999 383 229 24.0 55

2000 407 240 22.9 52

2001 444 272 24.2 62

* Some drivers/riders killed are not tested. This data is based on the results where a test is conducted, andassumes that the proportions of those tested and not tested who have a BAC over .05 g/100 ml is the same.

Transport: Narre Warren railway crossing

762. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport —

(1) What plans are being implemented for the crossing.

(2) What is the cost of proposed works.

(3) When will the proposed works be completed.

(4) Who will fund the proposed works.

ANSWER:

Pre-construction planning to resolve the most appropriate scope of the project, including significant publicconsultation, was undertaken in 2000/2001. The planning and subsequent land acquisition have been completed ata cost of $1.5 million.

Construction of the project, estimated to cost $20 million, is being considered by the State Government forinclusion in a future program.

Work is expected to be completed within 18 months of construction commencing.

Transport: air rights redevelopment

764. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport —

(1) What was the cost of the redevelopment in Chapel Street, South Yarra.

(2) Of the total cost of that redevelopment, how much was funded by the State.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(3) What is the budgeted cost of the redevelopment of the ‘air rights’ and other associated redevelopmentworks at Elsternwick Station.

(4) Of the total cost of that redevelopment, how much was funded by the State.

(5) What is the status of the redevelopment of Burke Road at Camberwell Station.

(6) What works are anticipated in that redevelopment.

(7) What is the estimated cost of the redevelopment of the ‘air rights’ and other associated redevelopmentworks at Burke Road at Camberwell Station.

(8) Of the estimated costs for the redevelopment of ‘air rights’ at Camberwell Station, how much will befunded from the State.

(9) What is the status of the redevelopment of Dorcas Street in South Melbourne.

(10) What works are anticipated in that redevelopment.

(11) What is the estimated cost of the redevelopment of the ‘air rights’ and other associated redevelopmentworks at Dorcas Street.

(12) Of the estimated costs for the redevelopment of ‘air rights’ at Dorcas Street, how much will be fundedfrom the State.

ANSWER:

(1) The cost of the redevelopment was approximately $8 million.

(2) The State did not fund any of the development.

(3) The cost of the development at Elsternwick is approximately $15 million.

(4) None of the development was funded by the State.

(5) The preferred developer will be announced shortly.

(6) The development comprises retail and commercial with integrated transport linkages.

(7) The development is anticipated to cost approximately $20 million. However, the design is still in theconceptual stage.

(8) The State will not fund any of the works at Camberwell Station.

(9) The proposal to develop air rights at Dorcas Street is currently under review by the preferred developer inlight of planning and heritage restrictions.

(10) As above.

(11) As above.

(12) As above.

Transport: Metrol building

765. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what is the status of the Metrol buildingalongside Federation Square.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

The Metrol building alongside Federation Square was demolished in the year 2000.

Transport: train line validation figures

769. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the average daily validationfigures, for each year between 1996 and 2001 inclusive, for each of the train lines Lilydale, Belgrave,Alamein, Epping, Sandringham, Frankston, Williamstown, St Albans/Sydenham, Melton, Werribee,Broadmeadows, Upfield, Hurstbridge, Glen Waverley, Pakenham, Cranbourne and Stony Point.

ANSWER:

Information for the years 1996–1998 is incomplete as the ticketing system, which required validation of tickets,was progressively rolled out during this period and was not fully operational until December 1998.

Onelink validation data subsequently recorded from 1999 onwards is progressively archived and its recovery wouldrequire Onelink to allocate significant time and resources to retrieve.

Transport: tram line validation figures

770. MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the average daily validationfigures, for each year between 1996 and 2001 inclusive, for each of the tram lines Airport West (59), WestMaribyrnong (57), Footscray (82), West Coburg (55), North Coburg (19), East Coburg (1), WestPreston (11), Bundoora (86), East Brunswick (96), North Balwyn (48), Mont Albert (109), Wattle Park (70),East Burwood (75), Camberwell (72), Kew (69), North Richmond to St Kilda Beach (79), North Richmondto Prahran (78), East Melbourne (34), Route 12, Toorak (8), Glen Iris (6), Malvern (5), East Malvern (3),Carnegie (67), East Brighton (64), St Kilda Beach to Melbourne University (16) and South Melbourne toSt Kilda Beach (12).

ANSWER:

Information for the years 1996–1998 is incomplete as the ticketing system, which required validation of tickets,was progressively rolled out during this period and was not fully operational until December 1998.

The Onelink validation data subsequently recorded from 1999 onwards is progressively archived and its recoverywould require Onelink to allocate significant time and resources to retrieve.

Transport: Transport Accident Commission — accident black spot program

779(a). MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — to provide a summary of how muchhas been spent in each Victorian local government municipality under the program since its inception.

ANSWER:

The committed expenditure for each project in each Victorian local government municipality is listed in theGovernment’s arrive alive! web site at www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au.

Treasurer: Transport Accident Commission — accident black spot program

779(b). MR LEIGH to ask the Honourable the Treasurer — to provide a summary of how much has been spentin each Victorian local government municipality under the program since its inception.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed that:

This question does not fall within my Portfolio responsibilities and the Minister for Transport will respondaccordingly.

1668 ASSEMBLY

MEMBERS INDEX

14, 15 and 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY i

MEMBERS INDEX

ALLAN, Ms (Bendigo East)

Adjournment

Southern University Games, 1572

Grievances

Calder Highway: funding, 1492

Questions without notice

Calder Highway: funding, 1513

ALLEN, Ms (Benalla)

Adjournment

Winton Motor Raceway, 1574


Disability services: funding, 1515

ASHER, Ms (Brighton)

Bills

Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill, 1628Building (Further Amendment) Bill, 1440Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1425State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1524

Grievances

Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd, 1483Workcover: tenders, 1482

Points of order, 1526

ASHLEY, Mr (Bayswater)

Adjournment

Motor vehicles: permits, 1471

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1453Electoral Bill, 1544


BAILLIEU, Mr (Hawthorn)

Adjournment

Taxis: multipurpose, 1655

Bills

Building (Further Amendment) Bill, 1432

Points of order, 1429, 1514


Minister for Planning: second-reading speech, 1514

Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional PlanningStrategy

Amendment no. 114, 1392

BARKER, Ms (Oakleigh)

Members statements

Gordon Hockley, 1480


Hospitals: funding, 1517

Rulings, 1457

BATCHELOR, Mr (Thomastown) (Minister for Transport andMinister for Major Projects)

Bills

Building (Further Amendment) Bill, 1435

Business of the house

Program, 1387


Calder Highway: funding, 1513Federation Square, 1623

BEATTIE, Ms (Tullamarine)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1428



Melbourne Cricket Ground: redevelopment, 1382

BRACKS, Mr (Williamstown) (Premier and Minister forMulticultural Affairs)


Adjournment, 1581


MEMBERS INDEX

ii ASSEMBLY 14, 15 and 16 May 2002


Crime: statistics, 1383, 1384, 1385Docklands: investment, 1621Forests: box-ironbark, 1512Freedom of information: Infrastructure, 1512Kendell Airlines: sale, 1382Latrobe hospital, 1621Marine parks: establishment, 1383Melbourne Cricket Ground: redevelopment, 1382Road safety: motorcycle levy, 1381

BRUMBY, Mr (Broadmeadows) (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment, Treasurer and Minister for Innovation)

Bills

Liquor Control Reform (Packaged Liquor Licences) Bill, 1507,1650

Utility Meters (Metrological Controls) Bill, 1648



Taxation: government policy, 1627Water: Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, 1515

BURKE, Ms (Prahran)

Members statements

Land tax: small business, 1583

CAMERON, Mr (Bendigo West) (Minister for Local Governmentand Minister for Workcover)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1451State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1638

CAMPBELL, Ms (Pascoe Vale) (Minister for Senior Victoriansand Minister for Consumer Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 1476

Bills

Business Licensing Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 1507, 1641

Grievances

HIH Insurance: policy-holders, 1487

Members statements

Australian Retailers Association awards, 1480



CLARK, Mr (Box Hill)

Bills

Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill, 1584State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1508


COOPER, Mr (Mornington)

Members statements

Police: Somerville, 1479

DAVIES, Ms (Gippsland West)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1441, 1464,1465, 1466, 1467

Electoral Bill, 1542, 1563

Grievances

Gas: Gippsland pipeline, 1494



Schools: funding, 1384

DEAN, Dr (Berwick)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1407, 1464


DELAHUNTY, Mr (Wimmera)

Adjournment

Wimmera: disease and pest control, 1571

Bills


Members statements

Western Highway: parking bays and toilets, 1479



MEMBERS INDEX

14, 15 and 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY iii

DELAHUNTY, Ms (Northcote) (Minister for Planning, Ministerfor the Arts and Minister for Women’s Affairs)

Bills

Building (Further Amendment) Bill, 1432, 1440Domestic Building Contracts (Conciliation and Dispute

Resolution) Bill, 1507, 1640

Members statements

Ruth Cracknell, 1481


Minister for Planning: second-reading speech, 1514



DEPUTY SPEAKER and CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES,The (Mrs Maddigan)

Rulings, 1458, 1476, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1492, 1553, 1560, 1561,1562, 1648

DIXON, Mr (Dromana)

Adjournment

Point Nepean: land, 1574

Members statements

Point Nepean: land, 1482

DOYLE, Mr (Malvern)

Bills

Pathology Services Accreditation (Amendment) Bill, 1640


Hospitals: nurses, 1623

DUNCAN, Ms (Gisborne)

Bills


Members statements

Budget: initiatives, 1390

ELLIOTT, Mrs (Mooroolbark)

Adjournment

Disability services: family options package, 1572

Members statements


FYFFE, Mrs (Evelyn)

Members statements

Dental services: Yarra Ranges, 1480



GARBUTT, Ms (Bundoora) (Minister for Environment andConservation)

Adjournment

Responses, 1475

Bills

National Parks (Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries)Bill (No. 2), 1508

National Parks (Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries)Bill (No. 2), 1643, 1648


Marine parks: establishment, 1384

GILLETT, Ms (Werribee)

Adjournment

Seniors: services guide, 1470

Bills



Taxation: government policy, 1627

HAERMEYER, Mr (Yan Yean) (Minister for Police andEmergency Services and Minister for Corrections)

Bills

Corrections (Interstate Leave of Absence) Bill, 1507, 1508, 1642

National Crime Authority

Annual report, 1581

HAMILTON, Mr (Morwell) (Minister for Agriculture and Ministerfor Aboriginal Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 1576

MEMBERS INDEX

iv ASSEMBLY 14, 15 and 16 May 2002


Agriculturedisease and pest control, 1385farmers’ rights, 1622

HARDMAN, Mr (Seymour)

Adjournment

Kangaroos: control, 1472

Grievances

Budget: education, 1499Rural and regional Victoria: former government cutbacks, 1498


Employment: rural and regional Victoria, 1626

HELPER, Mr (Ripon)

Adjournment


Members statements

Budget: initiatives, 1584

HOLDING, Mr (Springvale)

Bills

Electoral Bill, 1550

HONEYWOOD, Mr (Warrandyte)

Bills




Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1517, 1518, 1625, 1627

HULLS, Mr (Niddrie) (Attorney-General, Minister forManufacturing Industry and Minister for Racing)

Adjournment

Responses, 1658

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1456, 1462,1463, 1464, 1466, 1467, 1468

Electoral Bill, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1557, 1558,1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (PlanningProceedings) Bill, 1401


INGRAM, Mr (Gippsland East)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1458Electoral Bill, 1547, 1554, 1556, 1561

Members statements

Insurance: public liability, 1480

JASPER, Mr (Murray Valley)

Adjournment

Landcare: funding, 1654

Bills


Members statements

Rural and regional Victoria: sport and recreation funding, 1389

KILGOUR, Mr (Shepparton)

Adjournment

Firearms: licences, 1470

Rulings, 1573, 1576, 1579, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1619

KOSKY, Ms (Altona) (Minister for Education and Training)

Bills

Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill, 1636


Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1517, 1518, 1625, 1627Schools: funding, 1384, 1518

KOTSIRAS, Mr (Bulleen)

Bills


Members statements

Minister for Transport: performance, 1481

LANGDON, Mr (Ivanhoe)

Adjournment

Consumer affairs: business names, 1575

MEMBERS INDEX

14, 15 and 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY v

Petitions

Commonwealth Games: athletes village, 1479Melbourne Maritime Museum: development, 1386


LANGUILLER, Mr (Sunshine)

Bills


Grievances

Workplace safety: legislation, 1506

Members statements

Environment: Brazilian forests, 1582


Schools: funding, 1518

LEIGH, Mr (Mordialloc)

Adjournment

Chisholm Institute of TAFE, 1474State Emergency Service: Moorabbin premises, 1657

Points of order, 1476, 1513, 1659

LEIGHTON, Mr (Preston)

Bills


Members statements

Reservoir: mobile phone tower, 1391

LENDERS, Mr (Dandenong North) (Minister for Finance andMinister for Industrial Relations)

Bills


Members statements

Wellington Secondary College, 1389

LIM, Mr (Clayton)

Bills


Members statements

Real estate agents: trust funds, 1391



LINDELL, Ms (Carrum)



LONEY, Mr (Geelong North)

Adjournment

Traralgon Racing Club, 1655

Bills


Members statements

Liberal Party: Geelong candidate, 1482

Privileges Committee

Rights of reply, 1581

LUPTON, Mr (Knox)

Bills

Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill, 1633Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1454

Rulings, 1520, 1522, 1526, 1603

McARTHUR, Mr (Monbulk)

Bills

Building (Further Amendment) Bill, 1438Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1443


Program, 1387

Grievances

Agriculture: disease and pest control, 1496

Members statements

National livestock identification scheme, 1390

Points of order, 1382, 1385, 1624

McCALL, Ms (Frankston)

Bills


MEMBERS INDEX

vi ASSEMBLY 14, 15 and 16 May 2002

Members statements

Frankston: Premier’s comments, 1582

McINTOSH, Mr (Kew)

Bills


Members statements

Freedom of information: Infrastructure, 1481

MACLELLAN, Mr (Pakenham)




MADDIGAN, Mrs (Essendon)

Members statements

Essendon traffic school, 1582

MAUGHAN, Mr (Rodney)

Bills



Program, 1388

Grievances

Parliament: government conduct, 1484

Members statements

Rushworth and district concert band, 1582

MAXFIELD, Mr (Narracan)

Bills




Agriculture: disease and pest control, 1385

MILDENHALL, Mr (Footscray)

Adjournment

Rail: M Train service, 1656Western Region Disability Network, 1574


Docklands: investment, 1621

MULDER, Mr (Polwarth)

Adjournment

Traralgon Racing Club, 1573

Bills



NAPTHINE, Dr (Portland) (Leader of the Opposition)

Adjournment

Police: Hamilton station, 1473

Bills

Summary Offences (Spray Cans) Bill, 1570

Grievances

Government: advertising, 1489

Points of order, 1488, 1519, 1623, 1624, 1628


Crime: statistics, 1383Freedom of information: Infrastructure, 1512Latrobe hospital, 1621Road safety: motorcycle levy, 1381

NARDELLA, Mr (Melton)

Rulings, 1449

PANDAZOPOULOS, Mr (Dandenong) (Minister for Gaming,Minister for Tourism, Minister for Employment and Ministerassisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 1577, 1659

Bills

Gaming Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 1404Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Bill, 1402



PATERSON, Mr (South Barwon)

Bills


MEMBERS INDEX

14, 15 and 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY vii

Members statements

Tourism: rural and regional Victoria, 1391

PERTON, Mr (Doncaster)

Bills

Electoral Bill, 1527National Parks (Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries)

Bill (No. 2), 1648

Members statements

Ovens Landcare Network, 1581

Points of order, 1436, 1437, 1512, 1540, 1576

PEULICH, Mrs (Bentleigh)

Adjournment

Commonwealth Games: athlete qualification, 1653Schools: ministerial visits, 1472

Petitions

Naval and maritime museum: establishment, 1386


Rulings, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433

PHILLIPS, Mr (Eltham)

Members statements

Parliament: question time, 1389

Rulings, 1539, 1540, 1541

PIKE, Ms (Melbourne) (Minister for Housing, Minister forCommunity Services and Minister assisting the Premier onCommunity Building)

Adjournment

Responses, 1578

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill, 1398



PLOWMAN, Mr (Benambra)

Bills


Rulings, 1534, 1636

RICHARDSON, Mr (Forest Hill)


Rulings, 1658, 1659

ROBINSON, Mr (Mitcham)

Adjournment

Blackburn Lake Primary School, 1653Planning: restrictive covenants, 1474

Bills

State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1522

Grievances

Drayton Corp, 1502Federal budget: Telstra sale, 1503

Members statements

Peter Rule, 1390

RYAN, Mr (Gippsland South) (Leader of the National Party)

Bills

Appropriation (2002/2003) Bill, 1603Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1414, 1464


Forests: box-ironbark, 1512Kendell Airlines: sale, 1382

SAVAGE, Mr (Mildura)

Adjournment

Electricity: charges, 1573

Bills

Electoral Bill, 1537, 1553, 1555, 1557, 1559, 1560, 1562, 1563,1564



Water: Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, 1515

Rulings, 1498

SEITZ, Mr (Keilor)

Adjournment

Environment: greenhouse strategy, 1657Public transport: western suburbs, 1471

MEMBERS INDEX

viii ASSEMBLY 14, 15 and 16 May 2002

Bills


SHARDEY, Mrs (Caulfield)

Adjournment

Housing: eastern region, 1570

Bills

Business Licensing Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 1507Corrections (Interstate Leave of Absence) Bill, 1507

Grievances

Housing: administration, 1504

SMITH, Mr (Glen Waverley)

Bills


SPEAKER, The (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos)

Condolences

Gordon Stanley Hockley, 1479

Rulings, 1381, 1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437,1438, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1519, 1621, 1623, 1624,1625, 1627, 1628

SPRY, Mr (Bellarine)

Adjournment

Planning: VCAT appeals, 1470

Bills


Members statements

Bellarine Agricultural Society Show, 1584

STEGGALL, Mr (Swan Hill)

Bills

Electoral Bill, 1531State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1511, 1519


Agriculture: farmers’ rights, 1622

THOMPSON, Mr (Sandringham)

Adjournment

Bridges: Sandridge, 1475

Bills


THWAITES, Mr (Albert Park) (Deputy Premier, Minister forHealth

Bills

Pathology Services Accreditation (Amendment) Bill, 1507, 1639,1640

Tobacco (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1395


Hospitalsfunding, 1517nurses, 1623

TREZISE, Mr (Geelong)

Adjournment

Jindara Community Programs, 1473Port of Geelong: rail access, 1571

Bills


Members statements

Barwon Health: volunteer services program, 1583



VOGELS, Mr (Warrnambool)

Adjournment

Brauerander Park, Warrnambool, 1655

WELLS, Mr (Wantirna)

Adjournment

Police: Broadmeadows station, 1656

Grievances

Budgetdrug programs, 1502police, 1501

Crime: statistics, 1500

Members statements

Police: deployment, 1583


Crime: statistics, 1384, 1385

MEMBERS INDEX

14, 15 and 16 May 2002 ASSEMBLY ix

WILSON, Mr (Bennettswood)

Adjournment

Freedom of information: Infrastructure, 1575

Bills


WYNNE, Mr (Richmond)

Bills




Federation Square, 1622

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · 2002. 9. 4. · Legislative Assembly Committees Privileges...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) · 2002. 9. 4. · Legislative Assembly Committees Privileges...