PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 2002... · Clark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP Mulder, Mr Terence...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 2

19, 20 and 21 March 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, 19 MARCH 2002

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMinister for Finance: chief of staff ..............................237Insurance: public liability ............................................237Police and prisons: government initiatives.................238Workcover: conciliation appointments.......238, 240, 242Courts: sentencing ........................................................239Wonthaggi and District Hospital.................................239Police: numbers and building program ......................240Prisons: beds.................................................................242

PETITIONSAlbury-Wodonga: council merger ...............................243Police: Leongatha station.............................................243Bena–Kongwak Road, Bena: safety ............................243

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEERural road safety and infrastructure ...........................244

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEEAlert Digest No. 2..........................................................244Statute Law (Further Revision) Bill.............................244Annual review................................................................244Members privacy code..................................................244

BLF CUSTODIAN54th report.....................................................................244

COUNCIL OF MAGISTRATESAnnual report ................................................................244

PAPERS ..............................................................................244APPROPRIATION MESSAGE............................................245NATIONAL POPULATION SUMMIT................................245BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Program.........................................................................245MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Minister for Finance: leaflet ........................................251Threepence a Book and Other Stories from

Moonee Valley ..........................................................251Police: Leongatha station.............................................252Safiya Yakubu Hussaini................................................252Frankston Hospital .......................................................252Mentone Track and Field Centre.................................253Justice Michael Kirby...................................................253Emergency services: volunteers...................................253St Vincent’s Hospital ....................................................253State Revenue Office: Ballarat.....................................254

HOUSE CONTRACTS GUARANTEE (HIH FURTHERAMENDMENT) BILLCouncil’s suggested amendment..................................254

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY (MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILLCouncil’s amendments..................................................277

ADJOURNMENTGas: North Bellarine supply ........................................296Members: government facility visits............................296Tertiary education and training: rural student

offers..........................................................................297Frankston Senior Citizens Club ...................................297

West Wimmera: waste management............................298Timber industry: Warragul ..........................................298Police: Sandringham....................................................299Housing: seniors...........................................................299Hastings: boat pens ......................................................300Insurance: public liability ............................................300Kingston: former mayor...............................................301Responses ......................................................................302

WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 2002

NATIONAL POPULATION SUMMIT................................305PAPERS ..............................................................................329AUDIT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Council’s amendments .................................................329MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Darebin: election material...........................................329Minister for Transport: performance ..........................329Commonwealth Youth Games......................................329Courts: sentencing........................................................330Building Business Bridges to Asia dinner...................330Timber industry: East Gippsland.................................330River banks: cleaning ...................................................331Michael Meakin ............................................................331Hazardous waste: dump site ........................................331David Anderson ............................................................331

FORENSIC HEALTH LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT)BILLInstruction to committee...............................................332

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRYSECURITY OF PAYMENT BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................332

ELECTORAL BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................332

HEALTH PRACTITIONER ACTS (FURTHERAMENDMENTS) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................332

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS)(AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading......................................333

JUDICIAL REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(AMENDMENT) BILLCouncil’s amendments .........................................333, 345

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICERoyal Melbourne Hospital .......................... 338, 341, 343Rural and regional Victoria: investment.....................339Electricity: Basslink......................................................340Insurance: public liability ............................................341Roads: black spot program..........................................342Housing: innovation program .....................................344Royal Melbourne Show ................................................344Water: use strategy.......................................................345

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY (MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILLCouncil’s amendments .........................................346, 361

CONTENTS

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS) BILLCouncil’s amendments................................................. 358

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBAN ANDREGIONAL LAND CORPORATION MANAGINGDIRECTORAssembly ministers....................................................... 373

ADJOURNMENTPolice: communications systems................................. 405Housing: at-risk tenants............................................... 405Schools: Edunet............................................................ 406Sherbourne Primary School ........................................ 406Housing: innovations program ................................... 406Vicroads: Mildura office.............................................. 407Ragwort......................................................................... 407Gippsland: community jobs program......................... 408Belle Vue Primary School............................................ 408Harness Racing Victoria: former CEO ...................... 408Mount Waverley Secondary College........................... 409Insurance: public liability............................................ 409Beaches: Sandringham................................................ 410Bulleen: park-and-ride facility .................................... 410Responses...................................................................... 410

THURSDAY, 21 MARCH 2002

NOTICE OF MOTION........................................................ 415JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation ................... 416MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Regional Infrastructure Development Fund............... 416Victorian Concert Orchestra....................................... 416Neighbourhood Watch: conference ............................ 417Minister for Senior Victorians: festival brochure...... 417Peter Elphick ................................................................ 417South Gippsland Highway: Bena realignment........... 418Geelong hospital .......................................................... 418Clunies Ross National Science and Technology

Award........................................................................ 418HM Prison Won Wron ................................................. 418Blackburn Lake Primary School ................................. 419Relighting Jeparit festival............................................ 419Bentleigh: victims of crime .......................................... 419

ELECTORAL BILLSecond reading............................................................. 419

HEALTH PRACTITIONER ACTS (FURTHERAMENDMENTS) BILLSecond reading............................................................. 423

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRYSECURITY OF PAYMENT BILLSecond reading............................................................. 426

FORENSIC HEALTH LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT)BILLSecond reading.............................................428, 438, 465Circulated amendments ............................................... 470Remaining stages ......................................................... 476

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS)(AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading..............................................................428Remaining stages ..........................................................429

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS) BILLCouncil’s amendments......................................... 429, 448

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICERoyal Melbourne Hospital ..........................451, 453, 455Schools: discretionary fund..........................................451Water: allocation framework .......................................452Timber industry: sustainability ........................... 453, 454Schools: funding............................................................455Employment: rural and regional Victoria...................456Manufacturing Hall of Fame .......................................456

ABSENCE OF MINISTER ..................................................452MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Longford gas plant............................................... 458, 477COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILLCouncil’s amendments..................................................476

ADJOURNMENTDuncan MacKinnon Reserve, Murrumbeena .............477Grace McKellar Centre, Geelong................................478South Gippsland: wind farms.......................................478Housing: Ballarat .........................................................479Insurance: public liability.............................................479Greater Geelong: mayor ..............................................480Knox: disabled parking permits...................................480Police: Endeavour Hills station...................................481State emblem..................................................................481Employment: Loddon–Mallee......................................481Vicroads: registration payments..................................482Liquor: low-alcohol beer..............................................482Responses.......................................................................483

CONTENTS

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2002

365. Health: Bennettswood — Royal DentalHospital waiting list.......................................489

433(i). Education: ministerial officers’pecuniary interests .........................................489

452. Police and emergency services: boatingaccidents .........................................................489

464. Transport: City Link infringements..................490466. Transport: W-class trams..................................490473. Transport: W-class trams..................................491474. Transport: tram insulation................................491487(b). Police and emergency services: Barwon

South ambulance facility ...............................491507. Finance: e-procurement program....................492508. Police and emergency services:

emergency medical response service............492510. Transport: Yarra Trams Collins Street

superstops .......................................................493511. Transport: City Link tolls..................................493513. Transport: fare evasion.....................................494516. Transport: Melbourne Airport rail link ...........494523. Transport: regional fast rail project ................495534. Transport: City Link tunnels.............................495535. Transport: Vicroads appointment ....................497540. Transport: Metcard fare evasion......................497543. Education: Torquay secondary school ............500545. Police and emergency services: 50 km/h

speed limit.......................................................500546. Education: Reading Recovery program...........501556. Treasurer: Bulleen land tax..............................501557. Health: Geelong hospital ..................................502558. Health: Barwon Health.....................................502560. Police and emergency services: Mount

Waverley police station..................................502561. Gaming: TAFE courses.....................................503569. Police and emergency services: Bayside

policing facility...............................................503570. Police and emergency services:

Sandringham crime rate ................................504574. Police and emergency services: Dromana

crime rate........................................................504575. Treasurer: Knox land tax..................................504576. Police and emergency services: South

Barwon crime rate .........................................505578. Premier: Community Support Fund.................505579. Transport: Melbourne–Sydney

Countrylink passenger services.....................506580. Treasurer: employee satisfaction survey .........507582(a). Premier: employment and conduct

principles ........................................................508583. Health: Bennettswood — Royal Dental

Hospital waiting list.......................................509584. Premier: Community Support Fund

guidelines........................................................510588(a). Premier: Office of Women’s Policy..................510

590. State and regional development: VicOnenetwork ...........................................................511

591. Premier: synchrotron project ..........................512592. State and regional development: tri-state

alliance ...........................................................512593. State and regional development: tri-state

alliance ...........................................................513596(b). Planning: water sources ...................................513597. Community services: community visitor

appointments ..................................................514598(a). Premier: volunteers festival..............................514598(b). Community services: volunteers festival..........515599(a). Premier: volunteers festival..............................515599(b). Community services: volunteers festival..........516606. Transport: Victrack infrastructure works........516607. Transport: Victrack rail services......................519612. Police and emergency services: Victoria

Police Workcover premiums.........................520617. Transport: regional fast rail project ................520623. Transport: tram route 109 project ...................520625. Transport: traffic management.........................521626. Transport: Metroplan strategy.........................521627. Transport: rural and regional bus

subsidies..........................................................522628. Transport: metropolitan bus subsidies ............523630. Transport: regional fast rail project ................523631. Transport: regional fast rail project ................524634. Transport: City Link concession fees...............524635. Transport: City Link outstanding issues ..........524636. Transport: city loop capacity............................526640. Transport: Infrastructure operating

expenses..........................................................526641. Transport: Infrastructure salaries....................527642. Transport: Infrastructure liabilities .................528643. Transport: Infrastructure revenue....................528644. Transport: Infrastructure/Vicroads road

services ...........................................................530645. Transport: Infrastructure outcomes.................530649. Transport: integrated transport measures.......532650. Transport: Nicholson Street, Essendon ...........533652. Transport: train and tram maintenance ..........533653. Transport: public transport ombudsman.........534657. Transport: tram route 109 project ...................535660. Transport: intersection treatments...................535662. Transport: Lilydale–Belgrave rail grade

separation.......................................................536663. Transport: Spencer Street station

upgrade...........................................................536664. Transport: Infrastructure/Vicroads

staffing ............................................................537669. Transport: Tullamarine Freeway

advertising signs ............................................539672. Transport: West Gate Bridge ...........................540673. Transport: Collins–Spring street

intersection .....................................................540674. Transport: tram route 109 project ...................540676. Transport: railway reserve maintenance.........541677. Transport: regional fast rail project ................542

CONTENTS

679. Transport: Collins–Spring streetintersection..................................................... 542

680. Transport: new rolling stock............................ 543681. Transport: Dingley freeway ............................. 544682. Transport: patronage figures........................... 544683. Transport: Blackburn–Mitcham third

train line......................................................... 544684. Transport: flyer trains ...................................... 545685. Transport: East Burwood–Knox City

tram line extension ........................................ 545686. Transport: Coolaroo–Craigieburn train

line extension ................................................. 545687. Transport: Epping–South Morang train

line extension ................................................. 546688. Transport: Cranbourne–East

Cranbourne train line extension................... 546689. Housing: waiting list......................................... 547690. Housing: housing estates.................................. 547691. Housing: Ashburton housing estate................. 548692. Transport: project funding............................... 548693. Transport: Box Hill tram line extension.......... 549694. Transport: City Circle penalties ...................... 549695. Transport: Middle Footscray station .............. 549696. Transport: Eastern Freeway–

Greensborough bypass link .......................... 550698. Transport: northern central corridor

study group .................................................... 550700. Transport: signalling works............................. 550702. Transport: W-class trams................................. 551703. Transport: industrial action............................. 552704. Transport: fare increases ................................. 552706. Police and emergency services: Bulleen

crime rate....................................................... 555707. Police and emergency services: Bulleen



crime rate....................................................... 555

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tuesday, 19 March 2002 ASSEMBLY 237

Tuesday, 19 March 2002

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


Minister for Finance: chief of staff

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Premier to the pay-off appointment of RolandLindell, Labor’s chief fundraiser and the husband of thehonourable member for Carrum, as the new chief ofstaff to the Minister for Finance and I ask: can thePremier inform the house of any other blatant examplesof Labor mates receiving well-paid, taxpayer-fundedjobs under his government?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I think that is typical ofa negative, carping opposition — absolutely typical.We should realise what the question asked by theLeader of the Opposition is about. He asked about thechief of staff to the Minister for Finance; that is what heasked about. That is his ministerial office: he askedabout his ministerial office! What he is questioning iswhether the husband of a member of Parliament can bethe chief of staff to a ministerial office. What aridiculous question. Of course he can! Let me make itabsolutely clear: these are political appointments,because they are in the minister’s private office.

You would have to question an opposition leader and aparty that refuses to even put their names to anadvertisement. You have to question that and ask whythe Leader of the Opposition would not put his name toor sign the Liberal Party’s name to an advertisement?

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Iam glad the Premier reads the advertisements — andthe Liberal Party’s name was on it. The point is aboutrelevance.

The SPEAKER — Order! Clearly, that is not apoint of order.

Mr BRACKS — Let me get back to the substanceof the question. Is Roland Lindell employed as chief ofstaff? The answer is yes. Is he a political appointment?Yes. Are all advisers to political office politicalappointments? Yes. It is a remarkable question. Welldone!

Insurance: public liability

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Myquestion is to the Minister for Finance. Given that this

morning I received a public assurance fromMr Raymond Jones, the president of the InsuranceCouncil of Australia, that the measures proposed by theNational Party to tackle the public liability insurancecrisis would reduce premiums if implemented — —

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr RYAN — It might be a laughing matter in someparts of the Parliament, but it is not in those areas of thestate that I represent.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask governmentbenches to come to order.

Mr RYAN — Given that this morning I was given apublic assurance from Mr Raymond Jones, thepresident of the Insurance Council of Australia, that themeasures proposed by the National Party to tackle thepublic liability insurance crisis would reduce premiumsif implemented, will the Minister for Finance now agreeto support those proposals?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I thankthe Leader of the National Party for his question and forhis ongoing interest in the issue of public liabilityinsurance. I commend him for it.

As I advised the house when we last sat, the proposalsput by the Leader of the National Party are being takenon board with all other proposals from people in thecommunity who have ideas on this issue. We areworking through them systematically in a nationalcontext. Next Wednesday I will attend a forumconducted by Senator Coonan on behalf of the federalgovernment with participation by all other state andterritory governments. At the forum the issues raised bythe Leader of the National Party and other issues will beon the table.

From the government’s perspective, we have beenmeeting with the stakeholders in the area. It has been anongoing issue. We are dealing with all of the issuesconcerning insurance and we are going for outcomes.We are dealing with not-for-profit organisations, as theLeader of the National Party is aware; we have beendealing with adventure tourism operators, as the Leaderof the National Party is aware; and we have beendealing with builders warranty insurance, as the Leaderof the National Party is aware. His views and ongoinginterest are welcome. Unlike the Liberal Party that wasasleep for five months on the matter of insurance, thegovernment welcomes his views, will take them onboard and will raise them next week at the summit.


238 ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 19 March 2002

Police and prisons: government initiatives

Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — Will the Premieradvise the house what action the government is takingto turn around the shameful state of our police force andprisons left by the Kennett government and to makeVictoria an even safer place to live?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — On behalf of thegovernment and honourable members on this side ofthe house I thank the honourable member for Oakleighfor saving the Murrumbeena police station. Under theprevious government it was to be closed!Congratulations to the honourable member forOakleigh for putting her hand up, for saving it and forhaving it in the budget. Well done!

In relation to police numbers, new police stations andnew prisons, this government has a great record ofachievement over the past two and a half years. TheMinister for Police and Emergency Services is in thehouse, and he constantly reminds honourable membersof the 1992 period when the Kennett governmentsought election in Victoria and promised1000 additional police officers. Do you know what itdid? It cut back police numbers by 800! ByOctober 1999, when the Labor Party came togovernment, there were something like 9286 full-timeequivalent sworn police officers in the state — it hadgone down to a low of 9286 officers!

Today I am pleased to report to the house that from thatlow of 9286 police officers we now have 10 000 policeofficers in Victoria — an increase of 700 over the pasttwo and a half years. The government will easily meetits target of 800 new police officers by the end of thisterm, even allowing for attrition — and we have thelowest attrition rate in Australia because of thegovernment’s measures.

If you move to police stations — and I mentioned thehonourable member for Oakleigh, who did a great jobwith her local police station — the government hascommitted to 51 new or replacement police stations at atotal cost of $100 million. That is $100 million of newinvestment in 51 police stations in metropolitanMelbourne and in regional and country Victoria. If youmove to prisons, the government has embarked on a$334 million overhaul of the prison system in Victoria.That will include a new 600-bed remand prison forMelbourne, a new 300-bed medium security prison anda new 120-bed minimum security prison atBeechworth.

I put on record my congratulations to the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services and the

Attorney-General, who work so well together inensuring a safer and better Victoria with more police,more police stations and a better and improved prisonsystem.

Workcover: conciliation appointments

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Premier to an advertisement in the Age ofNovember 2000 advertising a small number ofopportunities to join Workcover’s conciliationservice — a handful of jobs that attracted300 applications.

Each of these jobs commands a salary package of about$100 000 of taxpayers’ funds. Can the Premier informthe house if the two successful applicants, Mr DavidMcKenna and Ms Helen Casey, are the same DavidMcKenna who was the national industrial officer of theCommunity and Public Sector Union and the sameHelen Casey who was the president of the AustralianLiquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous WorkersUnion — two more Labor mates with politicalappointments?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I was quick enough towrite down the first name — David McKenna, but Icould not remember the second name.

Dr Napthine interjected.

Mr BRACKS — Helen Casey. I thank the Leaderof the Opposition. My understanding of these positionsis that the appointments come from a widecross-section of the community, from employers andfrom unions, and what would you expect otherwise inWorkcover conciliators except that they would have abackground in industrial matters, in industry, asemployers or in unions? So it is not a great surprise orshock to know that someone who might have a unionbackground is employed. Does this mean that theopposition leader is effectively saying that if you have aunion background you cannot be employed? Is thatwhat the opposition leader is saying? Somehow you areproscribing people from being employed anywhere.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Premier toaddress the Chair.

Mr BRACKS — I assume the intent behind thequestion is something about that. It is a ridiculousproposition. These positions were dealt with, as youwould expect, on merit, by application. The peopleinvolved come from a wide cross-section. I find it notsurprising at all that people would have backgrounds in



the union movement and/or business in coming to thosejobs.

Courts: sentencing

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — Will theAttorney-General inform the house about the outcomesof the Freiberg report on sentencing and explain howthis will contribute to the government’s efforts toimprove community safety in Victoria?

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I thank thehonourable member for Richmond for his question. Thegovernment is proud of the review on sentencing itcommissioned to be undertaken by Professor Freiberg.It was one of the most substantial reviews onsentencing ever undertaken in this state. I am pleased tosay that Professor Freiberg has now completed hisreview and has handed to me his final report, Pathwaysto Justice.

As honourable members would know, the purpose ofthe criminal law is to protect society from crime, andsentencing offenders is absolutely essential tocommunity safety. This government strongly believesthat judges and magistrates should retain judicialdiscretion, but also, obviously, that sentences should fitthe crime. Professor Freiberg’s report finds that publicconfidence is best addressed by improving the public’sknowledge of sentencing and of the system and bymaking the process more transparent. To achieve thisend one of the innovative recommendations ofProfessor Freiberg is to set up a sentencing advisorycouncil, which would allow informed communityviews to be incorporated into the sentencing processwithout resorting to blunt and inflexible options such asmandatory sentencing which, as we know, reducesjudicial discretion and often produces extremely unfairresults.

As Attorney-General I certainly give in-principlesupport to the creation of a sentencing advisory counciland will immediately commence work on developingthe appropriate model for the introduction of acomprehensive legislative reform package in the springsittings of Parliament this year.

Professor Freiberg also examined whether guidelinejudgments should be introduced in Victoria to promoteconsistency in sentencing and to guide other courts’sentencing penalties for particular crimes. The reviewstates that guideline judgments can certainly provide amechanism for broad community dialogue and aboutthe purposes of sanctions, the range of appropriatesentences and their effectiveness.

In relation to guideline judgments the Court of Appeal,according to Professor Freiberg, would be assisted bythe sentencing advisory council in its task of preparingguideline judgments, and this would significantlycontribute to community safety by ensuring communityinput into the sentencing process.

The report states that there is some opposition toguideline judgments. Some sections of the legalprofession and the judiciary do not support theproposal. I support in principle the creation of guidelinejudgments, and these too will be the subject ofimmediate work to establish the right mechanism bylegislation for introduction in the spring sittings ofParliament.

Professor Freiberg’s report also makes a series ofrecommendations which would alter the sentencinghierarchy by adding some new orders and refocusingexisting ones, and all of those recommendations will begiven serious consideration by the government.

The opposition has unfortunately been silent on theissue of sentencing despite the wide consultation byProfessor Freiberg in relation to this issue. Not onesubmission — not one — was made by the opposition.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask theAttorney-General to conclude his answer.

Mr HULLS — I conclude by reminding honourablemembers that the opposition members are divided, theyare carping, they do not care, and I welcome ProfessorFreiberg’s report. Not one submission!

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theAttorney-General is continuing to debate the question.You, Sir, have asked him to stop doing that and I wouldask you to make sure that he either sits down or stopsdebating the question.

The SPEAKER — Order! I have already asked theAttorney-General to conclude his answer.

Mr HULLS — I welcome the report of ProfessorFreiberg. I thank him for his extensive work. We willcontinue to seek the views of the community in relationto sentencing, and there will be a further consultationperiod of eight weeks in which time I hope that theopposition, in particular the shadow Attorney-General,will actually put pen to paper and make a submission.

Wonthaggi and District Hospital

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I refer theMinister for Health to his acknowledgment in June2001 that the waiting time for public dental treatment at



the Wonthaggi and District Hospital was 26 monthsand his announced measures to decrease that waitingtime. By 16 January 2002 the waiting time for publicdental treatment at Wonthaggi had blown out to anunacceptable 32 months. I ask the minister to give hisassurance that waiting times for public dental servicesat Wonthaggi hospital will be significantly andeffectively reduced within the next couple of months.

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I thankthe honourable member for Gippsland West for herquestion and for her continuing concern about publicdental patients in her electorate. Certainly there hasbeen a major problem with dental waiting lists eversince the commonwealth government took away allfunding for public dental — —


Mr THWAITES — Instead of being negative andcarping, opposition members should take the positivestep of speaking to their coalition colleagues inCanberra and ensuring that they do in fact put adequatefunds into — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the Minister for Health is clearly debating the issue.Clearly public dental patients are losing under Labor inWonthaggi.

The SPEAKER — Order! The latter part of thatpoint of order is clearly out of order. The Minister forHealth, answering the question.

Mr THWAITES — Unlike the Liberal Party andthe federal coalition, we are boosting funding for publicdental services, and in Wonthaggi there has been anincrease in funding from $273 400 in 1998–99 underthe previous government to $332 700 in this financialyear. That is a 22 per cent increase. In relation to publicdental funding in Gippsland generally, I advise thehouse that there has been a 37 per cent increase.However, Wonthaggi has had particular difficulties inrelation to attracting dentists to Gippsland. Given thosedifficulties I am now proposing a rural incentiveprogram that will encourage health professionals,including dental professionals, to areas such asGippsland.

In addition I will be seeking the possibility of patientswho are on the Wonthaggi waiting list, where there is alonger waiting period and where we have a shortage ofdentists, having the opportunity to transfer to the lists ofother dentists nearby, where there are shorter waitingperiods. I will be very happy to discuss the details ofthat with the honourable member, who has shown a

strong and passionate interest in the needs of publicdental patients in her electorate.


Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Premier once again to the small number ofWorkcover conciliation jobs that were offered last year,and I ask: was another successful candidate selectedfrom the almost 300 applications a Mr Chris Beattie,and is he the same Chris Beattie who is the husband ofthe honourable member for Tullamarine?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — Mr Speaker, as Iindicated previously, it comes as no surprise to me toknow that the sort of people who are sought for thisarea included employers and unionists. I understandthat Mr Chris Beattie has a union background also andthat it is very appropriate that he is employed in thisposition.

Let me make a few points to the Leader of theOpposition. These positions were of course filledindependently, on merit. Because someone happens tobe related to a member of Parliament does not precludethem from applying on merit for a position and gainingthat position on merit. That has happened in the past onall sides of the Parliament in all periods of governmentand in opposition, Mr Speaker. It is also useful to notethat people in that unit and area also come from theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry and other areas which are also relevantbackgrounds for those positions.

Police: numbers and building program

Ms LINDELL (Carrum) — Will the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services advise the house howthe government is improving community safety byincreasing the number of police and police stations andexplain how this will turn around the appalling state ofpolicing under the Kennett government?

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — I congratulate the honourablemember for Carrum on her question and her stronginterest in policing and law and order issues in thisstate, and particularly in getting the Mordialloc policestation built, which honourable members opposite,when they were in government, moved not one grain ofsand or one brick for. So the honourable member forCarrum can take a great deal of credit for andsatisfaction in that.

The Premier highlighted how the previous governmentcame into office promising 1000 extra police, but itactually cut 800. It is worse than that: in the 1999



budget, under pressure from the public, it decided it hadbetter promise 400 extra police. That is only half ofwhat it took out, but it promised another 400 police. Butwhat happened between the 1999 budget and when theLabor government came into office? They lost another200 police. They promised 1000 and cut 800; they thenpromised 400 and cut 200. So there is a bit of a patternemerging here!

Recently they have been bandying about this notionthat the number of police under this government hasgone down by 20. I have certified figures from VictoriaPolice that show that the increase in numbers from theday this government came to office to today isover 700. So these people have surrendered the right tobe believed. Who would you believe, Mr Speaker —Victoria Police or them?

I do not believe one word from them because they havedeceived the public three times already and willcontinue to do it. They have surrendered the right to bebelieved on police numbers and on any law-and-orderissue. We are delivering and shortly we will begraduating through the academy the 800th policeofficer who has come into the force since thegovernment came to office.

We have a crisis of believability. They are about asbelievable on police numbers as Senator Bill Heffernanis on judges; and when you take in the babies overboardscam, we have a pattern of deceit of the Australianelectorate.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to come back toanswering the question.

Mr HAERMEYER — On the issue of policestations — —


Mr HAERMEYER — You want to talk aboutDiamond Creek? We have a site in Main Street,Diamond Creek.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of theOpposition to cease interrupting.

Mr HAERMEYER — That was a dorky question,wasn’t it?

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition is not assisting proceedings. The ministershould not respond to interjections.

Mr HAERMEYER — I will try not to,Mr Speaker, but I was enjoying myself. The other thingthe previous government did was have a strategicfacilities development plan which entailed the closureof 34 police stations across the state — at Drysdale,Portarlington, Monbulk, Olinda, Hurstbridge, Kew andMurrumbeena — but there was not a word fromhonourable members opposite! Those police stationswill be either saved or replaced by police stations in thesame locations by this government.

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,clearly the minister is in a mythical kingdom, and I askyou to bring him back to answering the question ratherthan debating the issue.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister tocease debating the question and to come back toanswering it.

Mr HAERMEYER — I was simply referring to thestrategic facilities development plan of the previousgovernment for Victoria Police. This government isbuilding 17 new 24-hour police stations, and Prestonand Northcote police stations, the worst in the state, arebeing replaced — work that is long overdue on stationsneglected by the previous government. Also on the listare the Bacchus Marsh and Gisborne stations — and Icongratulate the honourable member for Gisborne —and the Seymour and Kilmore stations — and Icongratulate the honourable member for Seymour.

It is happening not just in Labor electorates — thegovernment is even building one in Bellarine — yettwo weeks ago the honourable member for Evelyn gotup in this house and said it is pork-barrelling! We arebuilding a 24-hour police station — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is in violation of your previous ruling inrespect of debating the question, and is in violation ofyour guideline in respect of succinctness.

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point oforder that the minister is debating the question. I askhim to conclude his answer.

Mr HAERMEYER — With respect, Mr Speaker, Iwas referring to the building program of thisgovernment for police stations, which I was askedabout. The Leader of the Opposition asked aboutDiamond Creek. Site construction there will be startingthis year. The previous government was going to closeHurstbridge nearby, but this government will not dothat.



What about Rowville in the electorate of thehonourable member for Wantirna? He said that thepolice station was not needed, but the government willbuild it. What about Belgrave? We have heard not aword from the honourable member for Monbulk, butthat police station will be built — no thanks to thehonourable member for Monbulk!

I am also pleased to announce to the house that thegovernment will proceed with the Endeavour Hillspolice station, despite the efforts of the honourablemember for Berwick, who has opposed it actively atevery point.

We are building 17 new 24-hour police stations, with32 police stations in smaller country communities. It isthe biggest building program of police stations inhistory. Unlike what the previous government did, andunlike the situation with the Dunolly police station,those we build will not be pubs with no beer!


Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Irefer the Minister for Workcover to the small number ofWorkcover conciliation jobs that were offered last year,jobs that attracted almost 300 applications and werepersonally appointed by the minister. Was anothersuccessful application selected from almost300 applications a Bruce Willey, and is this the sameBruce Willey who is the Premier’s brother-in-law?

Mr CAMERON (Minister for Workcover) — Thegovernment seeks to appoint good and competentpeople to positions. Certainly that has been the case inWorkcover. Why have we had to do that withWorkcover? Because we inherited a scheme that wasout of control. During the last term of the Kennettgovernment every year we heard that the funding ratiowould go up, but every year we had loss, loss, loss! Weinherited from the Kennett government, and as a resultof the Howard government, over $1 billion in Liberalliabilities.

Mr Rowe — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is debating the question, which was in relationto the appointment of a member to Workcover, not therunning of Workcover losses.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am not prepared touphold the point of order. The minister had justcommenced his answer.

Mr CAMERON — We have had to appoint goodand competent people, whether in the disputeregulations area or on the board, with people like JohnHarvey and Paul Barker; and it has had to be the case in

senior management, with people like Bill Mountfordand the senior management team. We appointedcompetent people as conciliators. I will tell the househow the process worked. There were over250 applications, and 4 women and 4 men wereappointed. They came from different and diversebackgrounds, but they all came from backgroundswhere they knew the Workcover system. I do not knowif Mr Willey has a relationship to the Premier, but I cantell the house that he came through the process becausehe was a good and competent person — as were theother people appointed — so we can improve theWorkcover system, so we can continue to turn itaround, so we can have a better dispute resolutionsystem and, more generally, so we can continue toimprove the funding position, because we have made adifference of half a billion dollars in the last year.

Prisons: beds

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — Will the Ministerfor Corrections inform the house of the government’slatest action in addressing the inadequate number andstandard of beds in Victorian prisons in helping turnaround the inadequate prison system that was operatingunder the Kennett government?

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Corrections) —In the last years of the previous government the prisonpopulation in this state increased by about one-third. Dohonourable members know how many net extra prisonbeds that government created over its term ingovernment? The figure was 100! In the process, yes, itbuilt three private prisons, but it also closed a numberof prisons, including Sale, Morwell River, Pentridge,the Metropolitan Reception Prison and Fairlea. A net100 additional prison beds! And people wonder whythe prison system is overcrowded.

That government also cut funding to communitycorrections — and people wonder why more and morepeople are ending up with prison sentences.

They also neglected drug treatment and rehabilitation.Where do people end up if they cannot getcommunity-based drug treatment and rehabilitation? Icommend the Minister for Health for his alleviation ofthis problem, because the waiting lists have shrunkdramatically, but these people also end up in prison. Sowhat we had was overcrowded prisons, and prisonersoverflowing into police cells.

This government has undertaken a $400 million revampof our corrections system — the biggest everundertaken — with 357 beds in the first budget,including additional beds at Barwon, Loddon, Fulham

PETITIONS


and the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. We have alsoincreased the size of Ararat and Langi Kal Kal. We arebuilding three new prisons: a 600-bed remand prisonand a 300-bed programs prison to be built here inMelbourne as well as a 120-bed new prison to replacethe old Beechworth facility. All of these prisons will bedelivered on time by late 2004, with a net outcome of1100 additional prison beds being provided in this state.

We are also providing a significant revamp of our onceexcellent community corrections system, which willrelieve pressure on our prison system to the tune ofsome 600 beds. That is also good sense because whatwe are doing is taking the lower order offenders anddealing with them through community corrections. Weare restoring the faith of magistrates in the communitycorrections system by increasing the level ofsupervision, which the previous lot allowed to languish.By not sending these people to prison we are actuallyincreasing tenfold the likelihood of their successfulrehabilitation. It also makes good economic sense. Itcosts $55 000 a year to keep someone in the prisonsystem, compared to about $10 000 to $20 000 ayear — —

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,I draw to your attention sessional order 3, which refersto succinctness. It is clear the minister is nowembarking on a ministerial statement. The governmenthas already advised the opposition that it intends tomake a ministerial statement on Thursday. If that is theone the minister is now making, we are happy to debateit right now, but in question time he should be succinct.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order. I do not believe the minister was infringingagainst sessional order 3. I will continue to hear him.

Mr HAERMEYER — As I was saying, it costs$55 000 a year for a prison bed and $10 000 to $20 000a year to keep somebody in and properly work themthrough community corrections, which makes goodsense because they are less likely to reoffend. So it isgood correctional policy, and I think it will ultimatelybring about a lower crime rate, but what we are alsotalking about is good economic policy. Victoria is andremains the safest state in Australia by a country mile.

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

PETITIONS

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

Albury-Wodonga: council merger

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 the minority Labor government hasmoved to amalgamate Wodonga City Council (Victoria) andAlbury City Council (New South Wales) without justificationor proper inquiry, and without a referendum of the citizens ofWodonga.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the minority Laborgovernment conduct a compulsory referendum of citizens ofWodonga enrolled on the state electoral roll, to vote onwhether or not such amalgamation takes place, thegovernment to be bound by the result of such referendum.

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

By Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) (6751 signatures)

Police: Leongatha station


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria express their strong support for the urgentconstruction of a new and more appropriate police station,resources and facilities in the town of Leongatha.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Victorian governmentwill as a matter of urgency make sufficient funds, resourcesand support available to enable the Leongatha police stationto be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week.


By Mr RYAN (Gippsland South) (2519 signatures)

Bena–Kongwak Road, Bena: safety


The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the state ofVictoria sheweth that on the Bena–Kongwak Road in thelocality of Bena there exists an unsafe road situationinvolving a timber road-over-rail bridge and a substandardroad alignment on one of the bridge approaches. Thisalignment is such that there is restricted visibility forapproaching traffic. The existing bridge is only a single lanein width, carries a relatively high volume of heavy vehicles,and is in need of repair.

Council has allocated a certain level of funding towards therealignment of the road and Victrack has offered to contributesome funds towards the project, however these committedfunds fall short of the total needed to complete the requiredworks.

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE


Your petitioners therefore pray that sufficient funding beallocated to allow the construction of a new two-laneroad-over-rail bridge on the Bena–Kongwak Road within theSouth Gippsland shire.


By Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) (380 signatures)

Laid on table.

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Benambra be considered next day on motion ofMr PLOWMAN (Benambra).

Ordered that petition presented by honourable memberfor Gippsland West be considered next day on motion ofMs DAVIES (Gippsland West).

Ordered that petition presented by the honourablemember for Gippsland South be considered next day onmotion of Mr RYAN (Gippsland South).

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE

Rural road safety and infrastructure

Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) presented report, togetherwith appendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report and appendices be printed.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 2

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented Alert Digest No. 2 of2002 on:

Constitution (Governor’s Salary) BillCorporations (Financial Services Reform

Amendments) BillElectricity Industry (Amendment) BillStatute Law (Further Revision) Bill

together with appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

Statute Law (Further Revision) Bill

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented report, together withappendix.

Laid on table.


Annual review

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) presented review for 2001,together with appendices.

Laid on table.


Members privacy code

Mr CARLI (Coburg) presented report, together withappendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report and appendices be printed.

BLF CUSTODIAN

54th report

The SPEAKER presented report given to him pursuantto section 7A of BLF (De-recognition) Act 1985 by thecustodian appointed under section 7(1) of that act.

Laid on table.


COUNCIL OF MAGISTRATES

Annual report

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) presented, by commandof the Governor, report for 2000–01.

Laid on table.


PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

East Grampians Health Service — Report for the year2000–01 (two papers)

Financial Management Act 1994 — Budget Sector — MidYear Financial Report incorporating the Quarterly FinancialReport for the period ended 31 December 2001

Municipal Association of Victoria and Civic Mutual Plus —Report for the year 2000–01 (two papers)

National Environment Protection Council — Report for theyear 2000–01

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

APPROPRIATION MESSAGE


Cardinia Planning Scheme — No. C19

Delatite Planning Scheme — No. C17

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme — No. C39

Kingston Planning Scheme — No. C23

Loddon Planning Scheme — No. C7

Manningham Planning Scheme — Nos C4, C23

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme — No. C26

Mitchell Planning Scheme — Nos C21, C23

Monash Planning Scheme — No. C30

Moreland Planning Scheme — No. C5

Wyndham Planning Scheme — No. C33

Yarra Planning Scheme — No. C33

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 — Code ofPractice for the Welfare of Horses at Horse HireEstablishments

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Cancer Act 1958 — SR No. 16

Evidence Act 1958 — SR No. 13

Health Services Act 1988 — SR No. 15

Reference Areas Act 1978 — SR No. 14

Road Safety Act 1986 — SR No. 12

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994:

Minister’s exception certificate in relation to Statutory RuleNo. 13

Ministers’ exemption certificates in relation to Statutory RuleNos 12, 14, 15, 16

The following proclamations fixing operative dateswere laid upon the Table by the Clerk pursuant to anOrder of the House dated 3 November 1999:

Health Records Act 2001 — Sections 7, 8, 13 to 17, 19, 85,86 (except sub-section (1)), 93, 95 to 99, 103(1), 103(2)(except paragraphs (a) and (c)), 109, 111 (1) and Schedule 1on 1 March 2002 (Gazette G9, 28 February 2002)

Melbourne City Link (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act2000 — Sections 4(2), 14, 22, 23, 33, 34, 38, 39 and 40 on1 March 2002 (Gazette S37, 26 February 2002)

Wildlife (Amendment) Act 1990 — Remaining provisions on28 February 2002 (Gazette G9, 28 February 2002).

APPROPRIATION MESSAGE

Message read recommending appropriation forConstitution (Governor’s Salary) Bill.

NATIONAL POPULATION SUMMIT

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — By leave, I move:

That so much of standing orders and sessional orders besuspended on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 so as to allow —

(1) This house to invite Mr Steve Vizard, Dr John Schubert,Mr Michael Krockenberger and Cr Ann Cox to attendon the floor of the house on Wednesday, 20 March 2002at 9.30 a.m. immediately after the prayer and address thehouse on the issues raised at the national populationsummit 2002 and to remain on the floor of the house,save in the event of a division, until the conclusion of alladdresses.

(2) Mr Steve Vizard to address the house for a maximum of20 minutes and the remaining guest speakers for amaximum of 10 minutes each.

(3) At the conclusion of all such addresses there shall bedebate on the motion ‘That this house takes note of thecomments made by the expert panel’.

(4) The Speaker to put the question at 12 noon (or sooner ifthere be no further debate) and the time limits for thelead speakers from the government, opposition and thirdparty will be 15 minutes each and, for all other speakers,5 minutes. No amendment to the motion to be acceptedby the Speaker.

(5) After such question has been resolved the house willproceed with business as set out in sessional orders, savethat the debate will be in lieu of the time for discussionof a matter of public importance due to be proposed bythe government under sessional order 9. The order ofbusiness will be formal business, statements bymembers, oral questions (at the set time provided bysessional orders) and government business as set downon the notice paper.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Program

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forGaming) — I move:

That, pursuant to sessional order 6(3), the orders of the day,government business, relating to the following bills beconsidered and completed by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday,21 March 2002:

Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments)Bill — Amendments of the Legislative Council

House Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment)Bill — Suggested amendment of the Legislative Council

Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill —Message from the Legislative Council



Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill — Message from theLegislative Council.

This government business program highlights thedeliberate frustration by the upper house of thegovernment’s legislative program. Here we have fourbills that have been either opposed or amended in theupper house — by political parties which, when theywere last in government, rubber-stamped every singlebit of legislation for seven and a half years! Here theyare now, when there is a new government, pretendingto be a house of review, but what they really want to dois delay and frustrate programs. That is what we aredealing with this week.

We have the Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill — abill that was rejected and that the Liberal Partymembers could not even agree among themselves whatto do with. When you are a divided political party, whatdo you do? You oppose things and you do not deal withthe hard issues. They rejected it and it is back here, andthere will be more debate about that bill this week.

We have the issue of the House Contracts Guarantee(HIH Further Amendment) Bill. HIH collapsed and wewanted to protect people building homes. It is importantto get that bill through, but again the bill has beenfrustrated and delayed in the upper house and it hascome back here. That is not providing the sort ofprotection that is needed.

We have the Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill. We have seen the huge fires inSydney and we have been lucky to have avoided majorfires in Victoria, yet this bill — which is aboutimproving fire protection — was again frustrated by theopposition parties in the upper house. It is a shame thatthis week we are having to deal with four bills that havealready gone through this house, but nonetheless thegovernment is determined and committed to pursuingthese bills.

It is important to raise this issue so that the publicunderstands why we are redebating these importantissues. But let it be understood that with this pretence ofa house of review, with all sorts of inquiries going on inthe upper house, really all the opposition parties aredoing is playing politics, frustrating government andtrying to slow down the legislative program. They haveno-one else to blame but themselves.

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — Well, well, well,what a nice little series of lies from a nice little failureof a minister. The former Minister for MajorProjects — —

Mr Pandazopoulos — On a point of order,Mr Speaker, I take offence at the honourable memberfor Monbulk calling me a liar, and I ask him towithdraw.

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister has takenoffence at the remarks uttered by the honourablemember for Monbulk. I ask him to cooperate bywithdrawing the remarks and not proceeding down thattrack.

Mr McARTHUR — Mr Speaker, as you wellknow, I pay careful attention to the procedures in thisplace. I did not call the minister a liar; I said that is aseries of lies. I invite you to look at the rulings from theChair over a number of years. It would beunparliamentary to say ‘You are a liar’, which I did notdo, but it is not unparliamentary to say ‘That is a lie’. Iwill demonstrate, in fact, that what the minister saidwas a series of lies and on that basis, no, Sir, I will notwithdraw it.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Monbulk correctly points out that no directaccusation was made at the minister and perhaps theChair was hasty in asking for a withdrawal. But Ishould point out to the house that the house should bevery cognisant of my decision on all occasions whensuch incidents arise.

Mr McARTHUR — As I was saying, the ministerhas just trotted out a series of lies. First up, he said thatthe Liberal Party opposed the farm dams legislation.Not true! It is a lie! We did not vote against the farmdams legislation; we put a series of eight amendmentsto it, four of which the government agreed to, one ofwhich it agreed to in the terms of the National Party,and two we are debating still and we will continue to doso. Isn’t it a dreadful thing for Parliament to actuallydebate legislation! Isn’t it terrible that the other placeshould consider legislation in detail and send it back ifthe government gets it wrong — which is what it hasdone.

Secondly, the minister said that the proposedamendment to the Country Fire Authority legislationwas aimed at improving firefighting. That is a lie too,because it is aimed at giving the minister direct controlover the CFA board so that he can appoint two newmembers of his own choosing to the board. Another lie,Minister. This is the minister who, as Minister forMajor Projects and Tourism, never turned a shovelfulof dirt — he has not even built a country outhouse —yet he comes in here and tells us about his marvellousgovernment business program. What is on it? Four setsof amendments from the upper house and one new bill!



This is the laziest government since the Second WorldWar. Victoria truly is losing under Labor, under thisminister and under that Premier, if he were here. Thereis nothing on the agenda, there is nothing on theprogram, there is no vision, there is no action and thereis no activity, Minister, and you should stir yourselfbecause your laziness will catch you out.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberis now transgressing in making his remarks across thetable to the minister. He should do so in the third personand through the Chair.

Mr McARTHUR — I accept your admonition,Mr Speaker. The minister should watch his laziness andhis government’s laziness because it will catch themout. They have no legislative program. We are dealingwith four sets of amendments this week, which will beeasily done, and we have one second-reading debate todeal with — that is, the Forensic Health Legislation(Amendment) Bill. Next week we will have three bills.There are four on the notice paper, but the governmenthas publicly stated to the employer organisations that itwill not be debating the Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill next week, so we will be left withthree new bills to discuss.

We have just seen the government give notice ofanother four bills. One of them makes changes to somereferences to dates in the farm dams legislation. Holdthe front page — that is really important! It may betechnically required, but legislatively it is hardly highstakes.

This is a government with no program, no agenda, noinitiative, no drive and no future. It is in total disarray.The left-wing unions are deserting it in droves, and theGreens are taking over its safe local council seats in theinner city. The honourable member for Richmond is introuble, the honourable member for Melbourne is introuble, the Pledge unions are pulling their funding, andthe government has nothing to do in here. No wonderwe are running stunts around this place. No wonderwe — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — The National Partywill not be opposing the business program proposed bythe government, but I wish to support the remarks madeby the honourable member for Monbulk. I think this isa very lightweight business program. As the honourablemember for Monbulk pointed out in his remarks,essentially we have four pieces of legislation withamendments coming back from the upper house. If we

really wanted to we could dispose of those veryquickly. We have one bill of substance this week — theforensic health legislation — and as the honourablemember for Monbulk pointed out, three bills, and threebills only, next week. Where is the reform program ofthis government? Where is it actually doing things?This Parliament has been sitting for more than twoyears now, and there has been no legislation of any realsubstance that has changed the direction of this stateand gone on and done things. We have had lots ofbits-and-pieces, mickey mouse legislation.

We are spending tomorrow morning talking about thenational population summit. What is the significance ofthat to the state of Victoria, given all the other thingsthat we could and should be doing? Where are all thesemajor projects that this government was going to do?Why can we not talk more about education? Why canwe not talk about the important issues affecting theenvironment?

Why will the government not talk about the timberindustry and the problems that have been caused to oursmaller country towns, which are literally going toclose because of this government’s failure to addressthe issue of the adequate supply of sawlogs? Whatabout the hundreds of people who were out thereprotesting a couple of weeks ago? What aboutaddressing some of those issues? What aboutaddressing some of the real issues to do with theenvironment, including environmental flows in ourrivers — for example, the Campaspe River? There are awhole range of issues in education. I have three issuesright now that we could be talking about. Thisgovernment, while talking about doing great things foreducation, is in fact cutting back on many of thoseprograms.

There is a range of things we could and should bedealing with rather than talking about a populationsummit, which we in this house can do very little otherthan talk about. We have had a summit on populationpolicy, which was interesting. Why are we wasting thetime of this house on that? I will tell you why —because the government has nothing of substance interms of legislation.

Government members rail against the upper house andhow it is frustrating their program. I would argue thatthe upper house serves a very useful purpose instopping stupid legislation. Good legislation willalways get through the upper house, whichever party isin control. Look back through the record: good, soundlegislation always gets through the upper house,whoever controls it. This talk about the upper housefrustrating the government’s business program is



absolute codswallop. It is part of this government’sagenda to build up this rationale about the upper housebeing of no use at all so it can say, ‘Let’s get rid of it’.You can see the build-up to try and abolish the upperhouse.

The government business program is very light. I lookforward to dealing with the farm dams legislation,because that certainly is very important to farmersthroughout the state — and no more so than in northernVictoria, where irrigation water is the lifeblood of mostof the towns that I represent, such as Cohuna, Echuca,Kyabram and Nathalia. In fact, it applies to the wholeof the Goulburn Valley, including Shepparton andNumurkah.

As I said, the National Party will not be opposing thegovernment’s business program. However, if we putour minds to it and deal with the legislation we couldknock off by tomorrow night and go home early. Isuggest that may not be a bad thing, particularly withEaster coming up next week.

Again, we have a very light program. Traditionally wenever sit on the Thursday before Easter, but this yearwe are because the Bracks government is trying to buildup a notion that it is working hard. We are sitting somany days and so many hours, but it is mickey mousestuff. I suggest that we deal with the government’sbusiness program as quickly as we can so that nextweek we might get through it by Wednesday night,knock off and all go home on Thursday to enjoy theEaster break.

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — The governmentbusiness program fundamentally reflects the style ofthis government — that is, it is inadequate and lazy.What we see before us is one bill; we have an entireweek to debate just one bill! This is not even the firstsitting week of the Legislative Assembly. Instead, thegovernment has chosen to list for debate four itemswhich are about amendments coming from theLegislative Council, and one bill of its own.

I wish to comment on the reflections by the Minister forGaming on the Legislative Council. Firstly, if he wishesto claim that the council is recalcitrant and blockinglegislation he had better look at the figures. He will notethat for every single bill the government has broughtbefore these chambers of Parliament the upper househas said no to five. Work that one out! You could notwork out major projects, but you might be able to workout a number or two!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Brighton to address her remarks throughthe Chair.

Ms ASHER — Only five have been rejected and therest have all gone through. Quite frankly, these fouramended bills coming before the Legislative Assemblyare about improvements made to the legislation by theLiberal and National parties.

Secondly, I make the point that if the Minister forGaming — —

Ms Lindell interjected.

Ms ASHER — My husband is free to vote whateverway he wants to. Your domestic arrangements maywell be different, but in our house we are independent!

I now move on to take up the point made by theMinister for Gaming about the upper house. On the onehand the Labor Party vigorously claims that theLegislative Council should be a house of review.

Mr Pandazopoulos interjected.

Ms ASHER — Absolutely. The Minister forGaming has just endorsed that, yet only 5 minutes agothe minister complained about the upper house makingamendments to government bills. He cannot have itboth ways.

Mr Pandazopoulos interjected.

Ms ASHER — He has just said yes, he can.However, there are some fundamental points of logic toaddress. If on the one hand the Labor Party wants toargue that the Legislative Council should perform alegitimate function as a house of review, it should notcomplain when amended and improved bills come backfor further, brief discussion by this chamber.

My fundamental point is that this scant businessprogram reflects the laziness of the Bracks government.It reflects its style: this is a do-nothing government. Wehave no major projects, no investment and no economicactivity, but we do have 700 reviews. Thegovernment’s business program reflects its do-nothingattitude. This is a government that is still rejoicing in itselection in 1999. This is a government still incelebratory mode; this is a government still partyingabout its success in 1999. However, it has forgotten thatit was elected to govern. It was elected to ensure thatwe have jobs in Victoria, it was elected to secureinvestment for Victoria, and it was elected to developsome major programs for Victoria. It was elected to doa range of major things. In short, it was elected to



govern — and that is what it is not doing. It isoccupying office, but we are seeing nothing but inertia.

We have an appalling government business programbefore the house — one new bill — that is completelyreflective of a do-nothing government. Victoria islosing under Labor!

Mr LANGDON (Ivanhoe) — It is with reluctancethat I join this debate, because there are such importantbills to get on to. I have listened to the diatribe from theother side. The honourable member for Brighton hassaid the Bracks government is a no-investment,do-nothing government with no major projects. I inviteher to come to my electorate, stand in front of theAustin hospital and tell the public that the Bracksgovernment is a do-nothing government with no majorprojects. I do not know what $325 million means to theopposition, but to the government and the electorate ofIvanhoe it means a lot of money with a lot of effortgoing into resources.

The honourable member for Brighton obviously doesnot know what is happening in Victoria. I do not likecommenting on interjections, but I heard thehonourable member for Carrum saying that if thehonourable member for Brighton moved outside herelectorate she might see what was happening. Clearlythe honourable member for Carrum is correct in sayingthe honourable member for Brighton should get out andsee what is happening in the real world. As I said,Ivanhoe is a prime example, with the Austin hospitalbeing a major development.

I also wish to comment on the contribution of thehonourable member for Rodney, who is not in thechamber at the moment. He was speaking about farmdams, which, if I recall correctly, took up an enormousamount of the house’s time during the spring session.The Deputy Speaker, the honourable member forEssendon, is in the chamber, and she sat in the Chairendlessly hearing about farm dams. This week a wholeday has been allocated to them. I am not sure if that isenough time for the honourable member for Benallaand others to get their thoughts out. The National andLiberal parties — —

Mr Doyle — Don’t you mean Benambra, or did youmean Benalla? I agree with you — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Malvern!

Mr LANGDON — I take your point.

Clearly the National Party and the Liberal Party havebeen at complete and utter odds, and that is what hashappened in the upper house.

The honourable member for Rodney said that the upperhouse has not been obstructionist or opposed bills. Whyare the four bills back here if it has not opposed them?Why are they back in the Legislative Assembly? Thegovernment tried to protect people insured under HIHthrough the HIH Insurance bill, but that bill has beendelayed by the upper house.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr LANGDON — H-I-H. See, I got that one right!Clearly the opposition has been obstructive. I haveheard all sorts of wails of woe about the upper housebeing a house of review. I can remember the sevenyears under the Kennett government — and I was nothere for the whole seven of them — —


Mr LANGDON — I certainly enjoyed 1996onwards! I cannot recall one bill coming back from theupper house in that time — —

An honourable member interjected.

Mr LANGDON — Surely not! Surely the house ofreview would review bills of governments from bothsides, not just the Bracks Labor government. This upperhouse likes being obstructionist. It is clearly the reasonwhy we are spending time debating the bills it returns.If it had not rejected and returned them, the bills wouldnow be legislation.

The government has had to bring in another farms damsbill — notice of that has been given today — to correctthe delay in the passage of the farms dams legislation.This farce is happening because of the upper house andthe practices of its members.

I commend and fully support the government’slegislative program. I am certain government memberswill speak at length on those bills. I am sure oppositionmembers will join us and again give their reasons forrejecting the bills rather than just letting the upperhouse do it. If they have the mettle to reject the bills,they should come into the house and tell us why.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — Like otherhonourable members I support the business agenda.This week we should nearly get through the program,and because of that I will nearly have enough timetoday to talk about what is coming up!



One bill is new, and the program will also give us theopportunity to discuss some of the bills that have comeback from the upper house. It has been an interestingdebate. While I was listening I cast my mind back towhen the house debated the bill on reform of the upperhouse. I thought we were having the same debate,because the discussion has been about the house ofreview and how it operates. We could nearly allocate abit more time to discussing that. That would be a goodidea.

Like the spokesman for the National Party, I think wecould allocate some time to discussing a number ofmatters such as the crippling impact of public liabilityinsurance on country Victorians, community groupsand small businesses. We could discuss why there hasnot been an agreement on the corporatisation of theSnowy River. We could almost discuss public liabilityinsurance when the amendments to the HIH Insurancebill come on. We could also discuss what has happenedwith the irrigation of farm dams bill. I am sure thatevery honourable member would love to have a reallygood discussion about that, because — —

Mr McArthur interjected.

Mr INGRAM — I could talk about the SnowyRiver, yes. I should not take up interjections, but I thinkwe can get through the agenda this week, so I supportthe program.

Maybe we should be discussing the sessional orders.We could debate them on Thursday morning to seewhat could be done. We could also discuss the motionthat the honourable member for Monbulk has on thenotice paper. We could also discuss notice of motion 27in the name of the honourable member for Mildura. Sothere are a number of matters on the notice paper thatcould be discussed, and they would be good debates forthis week.

Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — It is something of apleasure to debate against the second XI over there. TheLeader of the House is not even here to propose thegovernment business program; instead the Minister forTourism proposed it. Listening to him and thecontribution since from the honourable member forIvanhoe, I believe they must both be on some sort oftrip.

They have complained that there are four bills that havecome back with amendments by the upper house. Let’sfor a moment say that those bills were not in the house.If they were not here, what would honourable membersdebate? The answer is nothing. The only new bill on thegovernment business program, which I look forward to

speaking on, is the Forensic Health Legislation(Amendment) Bill. We could not go on with that bill,because immediately preceding this debate the Ministerfor Health rose in his place and moved to give aninstruction to the committee that he was making anaddition to the bill. In other words he said thattomorrow he will move that it be an instruction to thecommittee that it has the power to consideramendments and new clauses to the Forensic HealthLegislation (Amendment) Bill, which he went on todetail.

Under the rules of the house that means we cannot evendebate the one new bill that the government has on theprogram until it circulates the amendments — which ithas not yet done.

So the other side should thank the upper house forbringing in the only four matters which can now begone on with. The government’s own single bill, whichit brought in this week, cannot be debated because thegovernment has not circulated the amendments.Government members come in here and tell the housethat it is so handwringingly awful that the upper househas provided the business program. But the governmentshould thank the upper house, because without it thegovernment would not have a program. We would nothave to support this paucity of bills and debating theamendments from the upper house because thegovernment would have nothing to go on with. That isa hallmark of the government, and it could almost be itsmotto — ‘Nothing to go on with’. Isn’t that sensational!

Government members come in here and cry crocodiletears about four bills from the upper house they aregoing to debate and say, ‘We should be getting on withour program’. Even if we did not have those four billsthe truth is that, given the forms of this house, theywould not even be able to debate the single bill that isbefore the house. This is farcical. Of course theopposition will support this government businessprogram but we will not sit and listen to that litany ofexcuses from the other side about the upper house andthe business program and those po-faced excuses aboutthe business of the house when the reality is thegovernment has one bill which could not even proceedin debate.

The truth is that the minister proposing this governmentbusiness program was the minister for no majorprojects; he now has a new title: he is the minister forno government business.

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I support the agendaof the government for this week because I think thelegislation coming before this house this week is very

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


important. The farm dams project, as the shadowMinister for Agriculture knows, is very important forthe whole of the state. It is important for many majorprojects and developments to go on throughout thisstate, as the shadow Minister for Agriculture knows.There are many major projects within the Seymourelectorate: $7 million for divisional headquarters for theSeymour police station; $4 million for a new 24-hourpolice station in Kilmore — they have not had onethere before; and a new police station in Kinglake —only over half a million dollars, but a very importantlandmark decision by the Bracks government to put thatstation there. They are the kinds of major projects thatare happening around my electorate.

I believe this government’s agenda is a progressivereform agenda. We have changed many things. We areturning Victoria around. We are making education,health and police our major issues. Our major projectsare moving forward. As for the HIH buildersinsurance, many contractors have come to me about theproblems they were having with getting public liabilityinsurance, which is a really important issue. Ourgovernment is getting on with the job, turning Victoriaaround. With the Country Fire Authority, obviouslythere has been just a little bit of political work by theLiberal Party in the upper house trying to make themates thing carry on, but it is not true. I have spoken toCFA volunteers out there. They know the Liberal Partyis just telling a lot of pork pies around the electorateabout this piece of legislation.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired. The time set down for thisdebate has also expired.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Minister for Finance: leaflet

Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — I draw to theattention of the house the appalling sense of geographyof the honourable member for Dandenong North, theMinister for Finance — John Lenders, MP. A friend ofmine who lives just off Highbury Road in MountWaverley received in the letterbox this week a piece ofwhat I suppose you would call propaganda headed withthe name of the Honourable John Lenders, MP, whichsays:

As your local state Labor member of Parliament, it’s my jobto provide you with the help you need.

It goes on to talk about the things that he offers helpwith and gives a contact number. As I pointed out, thiswas delivered to a letterbox in Mount Waverley, justnear Highbury Road. The honourable member is themember for Dandenong North. The closest point thatDandenong North comes to that part of MountWaverley is at the corner of Monash Freeway andSpringvale Road — 6 kilometres as the crow flies fromthat area of Mount Waverley.

There are closer Labor members. The honourablemember for Oakleigh is a bit closer; the honourablemember for Burwood is a closer local Labor member,but it ain’t the honourable member for DandenongNorth! His electorate is nowhere near Mount Waverley.The leaflet has the parliamentary crest on it and it iscoloured green, the lower house colour; but I suppose itis some indication of the honourable member’s upperhouse aspirations. I think it might almost fall within thenew boundaries of Waverley Province, which issomething the honourable member for DandenongNorth hopes to assume at the next election, and he isrunning around telling the punters in Mount Waverleythat he is their local Labor member. Well, he ismistaken. He is either lost or dreadfully mistaken. It is along, long way from Dandenong North, baby, to MountWaverley, and you need to know it.

This is lunacy at its best, Mr Speaker. You canunderstand that the honourable member is shaken andconfused because he has just had the heady rush ofbeing appointed to cabinet and he is really wonderingwhat he needs to do to fix up the mess left by hispredecessor, but 6 kilometres away — —


Threepence a Book and Other Stories fromMoonee Valley

Mrs MADDIGAN (Essendon) — I congratulate theWingate Avenue Community Centre and the WingateAvenue Over 50s Club for their contribution to theirgreat publication Threepence a Book and Other Storiesfrom Moonee Valley, which they produced as acentenary of Federation project. This book is a greatrecord of some of the interesting historical stories inEssendon. It was organised by the staff and communitywho live at the Ascot Vale housing estate and waspublished also at the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds,so it is very strongly an Ascot Vale book.

Members of the committee who made a contribution tothis project include Justin Chubb, Geraldine Rayner,Mia Trujillo, Sharon Beaumont, Nessie McKenzie,

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Elaine Brogan, Jan Barrett, Barbara Chalkey, ReverendPeter Horman and Margaret Rutherford. There aresome great stories in here, some of which have the mostintriguing titles such as ‘The Lost Nickers Episode’,‘Bargains are for Everyone’ and ‘After a Race is Run,the Work Continues’ — I put that in especially for thehonourable member for Mitcham — they are greatstories about life in Essendon.

The book also covers some of the things that the areaalmost lost. There is one story about the closure of theAscot Vale library; we recall the commissioners underthe previous Liberal government attempted to close thatlibrary, but strong action by the residents managed tosave it. The book is a great read. It covers a wholerange of people in the Essendon community who havemade contributions to it, and the efforts of the peopleinvolved, particularly at Ascot Vale, are very much tobe admired. It is on sale at the Ascot Vale WingateCommunity Centre for $15, a very cheap buy, and Irecommend it to all members.

Police: Leongatha station

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Duringquestion time today we had the Minister for Police andEmergency Services chirping away about the 17 new24-hour police stations to be built in Victoria over thisnext budgetary period. In fact we need 18, and the 18this to be built at Leongatha. The purpose of my raisingthis issue is to support a petition which I tabled today inthe name of 2500 people from the Leongatha regionwho made a plea to Parliament through the minister toenable a new police station to be built at Leongatha andto have that police stations operate on a 24-hour basis.

As you would know, Mr Speaker, Leongatha is one ofthe absolute powerhouse centres in the state. It is notonly in its own right a very strong location but it attractsa lot of people to the area, particularly from a tourismperspective. It is the gateway from the west for thosewho want to go down to Wilsons Promontory. Over theholiday season, accordingly, there are many people inthe region. That in turn inflates the numbers of thosewho usually live in the area as a matter of generalcourse.

We need the minister to come to the police station andsee the facility for himself and then decisions can bemade about this very important issue. The local mediaare strongly supportive of it in the form of RichardSchmeiszl from the South Gippsland Times andMichael Giles of the Leongatha Greater Southern Star.We need this to happen and to happen soon becausethere is an urgent need for a new police stationoperating on a 24-hour basis in Leongatha.

Safiya Yakubu Hussaini

Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — Today I wish toput on record my support for Amnesty International’spublic campaign to save the life of Safiya YakubuHussaini, who is only about 30 years of age. She is aresident of the city of Tungar-Tudu in Sokoto, Nigeria.This young woman happens to be a widow whosubsequently became pregnant. It is my understandingthat a sharia court in the city of Sokoto has found herguilty of adultery and has condemned her to death. It isfurther my understanding through AmnestyInternational campaigns that this young woman will beburied to her waist and subsequently stoned to death.

I urge all members to take serious action by way ofwriting to the Nigerian ambassador and to the NigerianParliament pleading that the life of this woman besaved. Nigeria was a signatory to the last agreementand United Nations convention on the use of torture andother methods of that type. It is put upon us aslegislators of Australia, a country which has a veryproud record in human rights, to play a very active rolein saving the life of this woman.

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

Frankston Hospital

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — I place on record myabsolute astonishment at the receipt of a letter from thethen part-time Minister for Health last December. Ihave never in my life received such a letter, and I hopemost of us in this chamber would never receive asimilar letter from a minister of the Crown, which I canonly describe as puerile, petulant, patronising andpathetic. I will read a couple of sentences:

… I am extremely pleased that you are now interested in thehealth portfolio … despite your attempts to denigrate thesystem they —

here the minister is referring to Frankston Hospital —

will continue to provide excellent patient care.

Although I am delighted that the government has nowrecognised that this is quite an important issue, I amastonished that the now full-time Minister forHealth had no idea of the amount of times that thehonourable member for Frankston — long may shecontinue! — had stood in this chamber and spokenabout Frankston Hospital, lobbying extensively andgaining over $35 million for Frankston Hospital duringthe previous government. So the minister’s turningaround and saying ‘despite your attempts to denigratethe system’ shows that he needs to employ some more

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


bureaucrats in his office — and probably more than healready has!

I refer to a letter I received from the then chairman ofthe Peninsula Health Network:

Andrea has been a strong supporter of the Frankston Hospitaland most helpful in — —


Mentone Track and Field Centre

Ms LINDELL (Carrum) — I would like the houseto take note of and join with me in congratulating theMentone Track and Field Centre, and its committee ofmanagement, which has managed to realise therevitalisation of the athletics track at Dolamore Oval.This has been a wonderful example of a communityrallying its forces with the local council and the stategovernment to see a tremendous community result. Thecommittee is made up of representatives of theMentone Little Athletics Club, the Mentone VeteransAthletics Club and the Mentone Athletics Club.

The eight people on the committee — Andrew Farr,Garry Spencer, Duncan McKellar, Ted McCoy,Michael Johnston, Geoff Barrow, Marlene Gourlay andJustin Hanrahan — put in a tremendous effort thatresulted in combined funding of $365 000 for a newtrack at the Dolamore Oval, which is home to a worldrecord set by Ron Clarke. It is a terrific result from mylocal community that will provide a training facility ofexcellent quality, and I congratulate the committee onits efforts.

Justice Michael Kirby

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — I wrote these words lastweek, and this is the first opportunity I have had afterthe two-week adjournment to make this statement. I amgreatly concerned by the use of Parliament made bySenator Heffernan to broadcast allegations alreadyrejected by the proper authorities concerning JusticeKirby. I agree with Daryl Williams, the federalAttorney-General, that Justice Kirby is a brilliantlawyer and a courageous man. His courage is evidencednot only in his personal life but by his judgments, firstin his capacity as President of the New South WalesCourt of Appeal and then as a member of the HighCourt. He is a man of high integrity who has weatheredunfounded attacks with dignity and strength. He hasworked tirelessly to apply his considerable intellect andlegal skills to the service of the Australiancommunity — whether it be in foreign affairs, in lawreform or in his judgments.

His judgments in the High Court exhibit a refreshingconfidence born of his ability to see not only the presentbut the future, as well as his belief, which I share, thatneither the vitality of common law nor equity is dead.He has always had and retains my confidence andrespect. The use of parliamentary privilege is aprivilege of last resort, necessary in cases wherecorruption or some other factor has caused a breakdownin the proper authorities. Save for access to the federalOmbudsman, ordinary citizens do not have recourse topursue criminal allegations or vendettas alreadyrejected by the appropriate authorities — nor doparliamentarians. How Senator Heffernan can go aboutundoing the damage to Justice Kirby, I do not know.

Emergency services: volunteers

Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I rise tocongratulate the more than 600 Country Fire Authority(CFA) volunteers, Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment (DNRE) firefighters, police and otheremergency service personnel who joined with localservices throughout last night to protect the townshipsof and properties between Puckapunyal, Tallarook,Seymour and Broadford. I believe the fire had burnedup to 6100 hectares overnight, including a number ofoutbuildings and sheds. At least one house and 1000sheep have been lost. Given the area that was burnt it isamazing that even more damage was not done. A lot ofthe credit for this must go to the professionalism of theservices personnel, who banded together to preventfurther loss and damage to property and stock.

The crews of the 100 CFA and DNRE vehicles andtrucks worked all night on this fire. The last time I wasinformed — this morning — fresh crews were beingdeployed to take over in the area. As well as this, sixaircraft were utilised to fight the fire up until dark lastnight, and then they came back again this morning tostart again with the light. So once again, on behalf ofthe members of these communities I thank all thoseinvolved for their courage and selflessness and forattending to the protection of life and property in theSeymour area. It has been a great privilege to havethem look after us, and it was a great thing to see themat work last night.


St Vincent’s Hospital

Mr ROWE (Cranbourne) — I place on the recordmy gratitude and that of my wife to the staff ofSt Vincent’s Hospital for the safe arrival of mydaughter, Denise Anne, who was born at St Vincent’s

HOUSE CONTRACTS GUARANTEE (HIH FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


on Sunday, 10 March, at 9.07 a.m. after many hours ofsleeplessness on my part. I survived the labour quitewell, actually! I would also like to thank Dr MichaelGronow, who looked after Maria during herconfinement, and also Dr Guy Skinner, who attendedbefore the delivery on the night. I also thank theexcellent midwifery staff at St Vincent’s, who werekind, caring, understanding and compassionate towardsme, providing me with sustenance so that I was not theone passing out on the floor.

Madam Acting Speaker, they certainly looked afterMaria very well and provided great after-care service.Both the full-time staff and the excellent agency staffwere a credit to their profession. All nurses in the stateof Victoria, I am sure, give similar service and care toall of their patients. I once again thank St Vincent’s, thenursing staff and the doctors.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order!The honourable member for Ballarat East hasapproximately 20 seconds.

State Revenue Office: Ballarat

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I was going totalk about Sandy Gray of Ballarat, who recently wonthe national Clunies Ross science and technologyawards, but I will leave that until a later date. Instead,recently it was fantastic to be at the opening of the StateRevenue Office in Ballarat, when it was obvious thatthat the Bracks government is committed to supportingregional Victoria.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Barker) — Order!The time set down for members statements has expired.

HOUSE CONTRACTS GUARANTEE (HIHFURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Council’s suggested amendment

Message from Council relating to following suggestedamendment considered:

Clause 7, page 5, line 27 insert —

“(7) The exclusion by sub-section (1)(aa) of a developercovered by a HIH policy from an indemnity undersection 37 in respect of building work does not apply toa developer who lodged a claim with HGFL before1 November 2001.

(8) The exclusion by sub-section (1)(ba) of a lossindemnified under a HIH policy from an indemnityunder section 37 does not apply to a loss a claim forwhich was lodged with HGFL before 1 November2001.”.

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I move:

That this house does not make the suggested amendment.

The original bill was intended to assist home ownersstranded by the HIH collapse. This bill has now passedbetween the two chambers over a period of months. It isworth pausing at this stage to reflect on the process andon the role of the Legislative Council in the two and ahalf years since the formation of the Bracks Laborgovernment. It is appropriate for upper houses toreview legislation, which is why the legislation hascome back to this place. It is worth reflecting that in theseven years preceding the election of the Bracks Laborgovernment the upper house did not review legislation.It acted as a rubber stamp for the actions of anexecutive government that had no checks and balancesand acted as it liked, and during that time it seldom sat.

In the context of the House Contracts Guarantee (HIHFurther Amendment) Bill and the amendmentsuggested by the Legislative Council, we need first andforemost to put them into context of where they sit andin the context of what the upper house is doing. Theupper house is, firstly, basically taking great delight infrustrating the legislative program of the Bracksgovernment, and secondly, doing it in an ad hoc fashionthat does not deal with the crisis caused by the collapseof HIH but also does not deal with the meaningfulpackage put together by my predecessor as Minister forFinance, the Honourable Lynne Kosky, to deal withthat crisis. In saying it is done in an ad hoc and arbitraryfashion by the upper house I do not use those termslightly.

The legislation received support in this chamber fromthe government, as you would expect because it was agovernment bill; from the Independents; and from theNational Party. At every single juncture and everydivision as the bill passed between the houses it has hadthat tripartisan support, or whatever the term is if youcount three individual Independents — perhaps itshould be the Latin expression for five! It has had thesupport of three Independents and two political parties,but it has been blocked by a single party — that is, theLiberal Party — using its numbers in the LegislativeCouncil.

The reason amendments were required was that whenthe legislation originally came forward the bill wasprepared quickly. That criticism was levelled by theopposition against the government in both chambers. Iam the first to acknowledge that the bill was preparedquickly, but that was because of the situation in theVictorian economy where HIH had collapsed, buildingwork had stopped and projects had stopped midstream



and it was the responsibility of this government, as withother governments around the country, to deal promptlyand speedily to put in place economic certainty forbuilders and consumers who were exposed to theissues. Subsequent to the bill being drafted, and as partof that process of its being drafted quickly, the peopledrafting it did not have access to the HIH policies thatwere out and about and held by HIH and the claim files.so the government drafted the legislation promptly so itcould deal with the situation.

In the meantime the commonwealth government hasacknowledged the gravity of the HIH collapse and hasset up a royal commission into it. One of the issues thecommonwealth is examining is make sure the books areopen — that the royal commission and others can lookat HIH policies to try to get a profile of what happenedand what was there, so that governments and thecommunity can make informed decisions on thiscritical part of the insurance industry. As honourablemembers know, the insurance industry is under a lot ofstress in the community, part of it being the collapse ofHIH, and part of that collapse being due to HIHundercutting on its policies for a consistent period so itcould get market share, and that the rest of theinsurance industry followed it.

So when the bill was prepared, it was prepared quickly.Following on from that, and subsequent to it, unusualclauses in some of the HIH policies have come to light,which means the legislation does not operate as wasintended. These are issues that the former Minister forFinance alluded to in this house on 29 November,during her summing up on the legislation the last time itwas in this place. The problem clauses relate to policiesissued before 1999, as a new ministerial order cameinto effect in late 1998. The principal problems relate todevelopers being entitled to claim as owners — andhonourable members should remember that the 1998ministerial order allowed insurers to excludenon-completion claims by developers — clausesdenying any HIH liability if HIH ceased to trade, whichhappened when they went into liquidation on28 August 2001, and that the builder, not the owner,being the insured the owner had no indemnity from thestate because he or she had no claim against HIH.

These are particularly important matters because in theend the amending bill that my predecessor introducedto deal with those aspects had fundamentally to come tothe distinction between whether this legislation wasaimed at dealing with home owners who were strandedby the HIH collapse or whether it was meant to alsoencompass developers. The differences I have coveredare pertinent and germane because they essentiallyaffect that issue.

The original intent of the bill, as was outlined by theprevious Minister for Finance, was that it not be anall-encompassing life raft for developers. We do notwish developers ill at all, we wish them well, but thelegislation was designed to look after home owners —an issue that has been understood by the government,the Independents and the National Party, but to date notby the Liberal Party. On the face of it, if the LiberalParty wishes to pursue amendments in the LegislativeCouncil and in this place to deal with looking after adeveloper, including one in particular with a very largeclaim, it is entitled to do so. I, for one, certainly do notbegrudge it wishing to look after a developer. But wemust understand that the legislation was designed andintended to assist home owners stranded by the HIHcollapse and not to be a catch-all for anybody else whowants to get in on the act.

That is particularly so in a climate where withdifficulties in the insurance industry with builderswarranty insurance, public liability insurance and otherareas the tools available to a government to offer reliefto the community are severely restricted if payments of$8 million to $10 million are being made to developersas a way to solve the issue when the original intent ofthe act was to deal with home owners.

We could easily accede to the amendments and get thelegislation passed, but the cost to the state and to theVictorian building industry would be millions of dollarsthrough having to assist people when there was nointention of assisting them when this legislation wasoriginally proposed.

Getting back to my earlier comments about the originallegislation, a general requirement is still in operationthat claims are deemed accepted if an insurer does notrespond within 90 days. While this generally works asintended to stop insurers sitting on claims indefinitely,it causes problems for the rescue scheme. Anunscrupulous claimant could lodge a claim with HIHwhich, because it is in liquidation, would probably donothing with it. After 90 days the claimant could thenlodge a claim with the Housing Guarantee FundLimited and say that because HIH is deemed to haveaccepted the claim, the HGFL must also accept theclaim. In such a case HGFL could still argue about theamount of the claim but could not reject the claimoutright.

There is also a concern that some HIH builderswarranty policies may have included cover for thingsother than builders warranty — and I use the exampleof public liability, again a very topical issue. Suchadditional cover was not intended to be included in the



state’s rescue package, because claims for these typesof cover can be made against the commonwealth.

When this amending bill came before Parliament lastyear the opposition agreed with all the provisionsexcept for the exclusion of the developer claims. I willbe listening with interest when the lead speaker for theopposition speaks to hear whether that is still theintention of the opposition. As I said before, on theseissues the National Party supported the government.The opposition in the Legislative Council has pressedfor amendments to allow for developer claims madebefore the date of the second-reading speech. Thisagain comes exactly to the point about what prioritiesthis government must have, or this Parliament musthave, on funding. I will argue that this is not anentitlement of the developers. This is a particular issuethat the opposition wishes to make an entitlement of thedevelopers. We as a government, or we as a Parliament,are under no moral obligation to pay thesemillion-dollar sums to developers.

The opposition’s most recent message from the Councilis before the Assembly, and that is what we aredebating today. Some 150 claims from owners withcease-to-trade or builder-as-the-insured clauses in theircovering policies cannot be proceeded with until the billis passed. So 150 claims from owners are on hold whilethis debate continues between the two chambers as tothe appropriate course for dealing with this legislationand with these amendments pursued by the LegislativeCouncil, which would essentially skew thecompensation package to a very narrow class ofdeveloper, and one in particular.

The bill that we have been debating amends the HouseContracts Guarantee Act, which is the act under whichthe state HIH indemnity scheme operates. The rescuepackage is funded by a combination of levies on thebuilding industry and by recourse to consolidatedrevenue. It came into operation on 8 June 2001, the datethe indemnity scheme started — that is, it isretrospective — and advice from the VictorianGovernment Solicitor supports this approach.

It corrects the problems with some HIH policies, and itprovides that the principal place of residence of anowner is not counted in the number of homes thatdetermine whether or not an owner is a developer. Itinserts a new section indicating that the act is intendedto affect the rights of parties to proceedings that arecurrently before any court or tribunal. This ensures thatthere is no doubt that a particular property developerwith a current case — as I said before, worth$7.6 million, or 23 per cent of the fund — is intended tobe excluded from claiming under section 36A.

It overcomes the effect of a cease-to-trade clause in anHIH policy. If nothing were done, hundreds of homeowners would have no claim against the fund, contraryto the original intentions of proposed section 37(2). Thecost of these claims was factored into the originalcosting.

The legislation that is bouncing between the chambersalso inserts new subjects into section 38 that excludedevelopers from the state indemnity, exclude claimsrelating to insurance other than builders warrantyinsurance from the state indemnity, provide that a stateindemnity does not exist simply because more than90 days have passed since a claim under an HIH policywas received by HIH, and provide a state indemnity toa home owner despite the fact that under the HIHpolicy it was the builder, not the home owner, who wasthe insured. Finally, it provides explicitly that excludingdevelopers from claiming under the scheme does notaffect a subsequent owner’s right to claim.

In summary, we have a disagreement between thehouses and between the parties that revolves around theissue of whether the original intent of the legislationwas to cover a class of developer — in particular, asingle one with a $7.6 million claim on a very limitedfund — or whether it was to apply simply to homeowners, the consumers that were mentioned in everydispatch by the previous minister and in everydiscussion in this house and the Legislative Councilwhen the original legislation was passed. It was nevercontemplated that this amount go to developers. As Isaid, we in the government wish the developers no illwill. They are trading and doing their business as youwould expect. But this package was never designed toassist them.

By repeatedly insisting that these amendments go intothe legislation the Legislative Council is skewing theoriginal intention of the bill as evidenced in thesecond-reading speeches. It is skewing the intention outthere in the marketplace and among consumers, and itis slowing down the payment of important recompenseto a number of small home owners who have beenseverely disadvantaged in the first instance by thecollapse of HIH. As we know, that is an issue before aroyal commission that is separate to all of this, butclearly it is one of the most significant collapses in thecommercial history of this country and one that needsinvestigation so it does not happen again.

We are now caught up in a debate between the housesat a time when the government is under pressure fromthe opposition, from the National Party, from theIndependents and from businesses across this state toconsider relief to community groups and small



businesses that are struggling with the problems thatpublic liability insurance involves. We haveamendments before this house that are, with one sweepof a pen, meant to give millions of dollars to developersbecause the opposition and the Legislative Councilhave somehow or other read that entitlement into thislegislation. It was never there in a second-readingspeech, it was never there in a public presentation and itwas never talked about in the rescue packages. But outof the blue, out of the fine print, there is an argumentbeing put that this class of people should be protectedabove all other classes of people.

Much as we in the government dislike legislationbouncing backwards and forwards between thechambers, and much as we dislike going through thisprocess and delaying the legislation, we find itincredibly difficult as a government to surrender thatamount of taxpayers money for a single class of people,when it was never the intention of the bill to look afterthem in the first instance.

For these reasons, we as a government are arguing thatthis house do not make the amendment suggested bythe Legislative Council.

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) — In one sense it istempting to feel sorry for the Minister for Finance,because this is a very grave situation that is not of hismaking. It is one of the legacies he has inherited fromhis predecessor as Minister for Finance, along with thefailure of the government to come to grips with thepublic liability insurance issue. He is now belatedlystarting to realise that he might need to go about turningrhetoric into action. We have also seen the situationwhere, very late in the piece, he has had to make drasticcuts to home warranty insurance because of the failureof his predecessor, the Minister for Planning and theMinister for Consumer Affairs to get onto some of thefundamental issues in terms of regulating the buildingindustry, which, it became apparent, needed attentionfollowing the collapse of HIH Insurance.

So in that sense one might be tempted to have somesympathy for the Minister for Finance. But the reasonshe has given this chamber for continuing to oppose theamendments suggested by the Legislative Councilcause one’s sympathy to start to fade away rapidly,because he has used arguments to justify thegovernment’s position that would inflict a great deal ofharm on many small home buyers who have beenunable, due to the government’s actions, to obtain relieffrom the consequences of both the HIH collapse andthe drafting and other errors that were made in theoriginal June legislation. We also see the minister andhis government continuing to be willing to tear up

people’s rights with retrospective amendments tolegislation and then have the gall to say to this housethat it is simply a question of priorities.

If this question were being decided afresh, it may wellbe one about priorities. The question of priorities wasone that the minister’s predecessor should have beenturning her mind to when the original package wasbrought in. But the fundamental objection that theopposition has to some of the provisions in this billrelates to their retrospective operation. If the ministerlooks, as I presume he has, at the amendments that havebeen suggested by the other place, he will see it is clearthat those amendments relate solely to the question ofretrospectivity.

The opposition says that if the government makes apolicy decision that henceforth, from the date of thesecond-reading speech, it wants to change the extent towhich the state-established system grants relief tovarious people, then so be it. We have no objection tothe government making these changes prospectively.But we do object when the government wants to pullthe rug out from under people’s feet. These are peoplewho, as far as we know, come from a wide range ofdifferent circumstances and different backgrounds butwho share the common factor that they have relied onthe legislation that the government itself introduced intothis Parliament in June.

The minister has referred to a whole range ofamendments in this bill, and by enumerating all of themhe has tried to create the impression that theamendment that is at issue between the government andopposition arises out of technicalities and what hereferred to as unusual clauses in various insurancepolicies.

That is not in fact the case. When we go to theprovision that the minister is now telling the house wasnot intended to include a certain class of people whohave had domestic premises constructed for them, wesee it is absolutely crystal clear in terms of what it does.I refer the house to section 37, which was inserted intothe House Contracts Guarantee Act 1987 by virtue ofthe bill that was introduced into this Parliament in Junelast year. That section reads as follows:

37. Indemnity

Subject to this Part, the State must indemnify any person whois entitled to an indemnity under a HIH policy to the extent ofthe indemnity under that policy.

No ifs, no buts, no maybes. If the person concerned isentitled to an indemnity under an HIH policy, the state



is to indemnify that person to the extent of thatindemnity.

Let’s have a look at the definition of ‘HIH policy’,which is contained in what is now section 35 of theHouse Contracts Guarantee Act. That says that ‘HIHpolicy’ means a contract of insurance:

(a) which was underwritten by HIH (otherwise than as areinsurer) before the relevant date; and

(b) which at the time it was underwritten by HIH was —

(i) insurance required by order under section 135(1)(a)and (c) of the Building Act 1993 in relation to thecarrying out of domestic building work ormanaging or arranging the carrying out of domesticbuilding work; or

(ii) insurance required by order undersection 135(1)(b) and (c) of the Building Act 1993;and

(c) which relates to building work for which a buildingpermit was issued under the Building Act 1993 beforethe relevant date;

So if you distil all that down you see that ‘HIH policy’means a contract of insurance which was required to beissued by a ministerial order under the Building Act andwas issued before the relevant date, which is defined as30 April 2001. It is a pretty straightforward definition.Yet the minister wants to argue that certain people whohave had domestic building work undertaken on theirbehalf should have realised that despite what thegovernment said it meant something different — that is,it meant only to indemnify a subset of people who hadhad domestic building work conducted on their behalf.

The central point, which the opposition makes over andover again, is that it is not a question of what was in thegovernment’s mind, because believe it or not the publicof Victoria cannot be expected to read thegovernment’s mind. We are not back in the days ofancient Rome, when Caligula could nail to the top ofone of the pillars in the forum a decree that became lawwithout the citizens knowing about it.

Under the rule of law the government has to state itsintention in legislation. Once that legislation has beenenacted, it is up to the reasonable reader of thatlegislation — and ultimately, if there is a dispute it is upto the court — to decide what that legislation means.

The point the opposition has been making over andover again is that on any fair, open, honest andreasonable reading, the legislation the governmentbrought to this house in June covered the full gamut ofpeople who were entitled to an indemnity under an HIHpolicy.

The government has suggested that this was anoversight due to the drafting of various ministerialorders under the Building Act. A suggestion was madeat some point that the claims that have been lodged goback prior to the making of a revised ministerial orderin late 1998 and that therefore it was reasonable for thegovernment to have overlooked what the earlierministerial order said and to have drafted its legislationin the way it did.

In part that goes to a plea of mitigation or exonerationby the government in response to an accusation ofincompetence, but that is not what is fundamentally atissue here. The government did draft the legislation in ahurry, and although the opposition has not beenattempting to pass judgment on the correctness,competence or otherwise of how the legislation came tothe house, I have expressed previously and I repeattoday that I am rather surprised that this particular pointwas overlooked.

I will put some new material in relation to that on therecord. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, whenyou look at the ministerial order that was made in late1998 and published in the Government Gazette of30 October 1998 you see that that ministerial order isnot in line with the amendment that the government isputting before the house. The government was at onestage trying to argue that there is nothing more in thislegislation than a reflection of the position that wasincorporated in the ministerial order gazetted on30 October 1998. But in fact there are two significantdifferences between the ministerial order and theamending legislation that has been brought before thehouse. Even more importantly, the position thatprevailed at the time this legislation came before thehouse was that even under the ministerial orderapplying at that time a number of people who can beexcluded by this bill were being required to have anindemnity policy in order to comply with the order.

The government is in no position to say that thisproblem has arisen because of a hangover from theprevious ministerial order. The fact is that theministerial order that was current at the time thislegislation came before the house required thatcoverage be given to some of the people in some of thecircumstances that the government is now trying toexclude. That reinforces, as a subsidiary matter, theview that it is most surprising that the government nowsays it overlooked this point. Even more importantly, itundermines the argument that it was not perfectlyreasonable for people who read it to legitimatelyassume that they were covered by the June legislation.



I will refer to the most important of the provisions towhich I have alluded. Clause 5 of the ministerial orderincludes a range of provisions that enable coverage tobe excluded in various circumstances. One of thecircumstances in which cover is entitled to be excludedis where a developer has made a claim pursuant toclause 5.1.3 of the gazetted order. The excludingprovision is contained in clause 5.5, the relevantportions of which read:

Subject to clause 5.2, the policy may exclude or limitclaims under the policy:

… where the building owner is a developer and a claim ismade pursuant to clause 5.1.3, provided however that anyexclusion or limitation made in the policy with respect to thedeveloper shall be without prejudice to any rights under thepolicy of any subsequent owner for the time being of thebuilding or land in respect of which the domestic buildingwork was being carried out.

I turn to clause 5.1.3 and to the introductory words ofclause 5, which read:

A policy to be issued pursuant to clause 4.1 of this order shallcontain terms and conditions, which have the followingeffect:

5.1 The policy shall indemnify the building owner(“insured”) in respect of loss or damage, which resultsfrom:

…

5.1.3non-completion of the domestic building work dueto the:

(a) death or legal incapacity of the builder;

(b) disappearance of the builder;

(c) builder becoming insolvent;

(d) builder becoming insolvent underadministration;

(e) builder becoming an externally administeredcorporation;

(f) cancellation or suspension of the builder’sregistration as a building practitioner underthe Building Act 1993 without reinstatementof such registration within 30 days; or

(g) early termination of the major domesticbuilding contract by the building owner as aresult of the builder’s wrongful failure orrefusal to complete the domestic buildingwork …

What does all that mean? It means that it waspermissible from the commencement of this newministerial order for coverage to be partially excludedwhere the person benefiting from the policy wasdefined as a developer within the meaning of the

ministerial order. But the absolutely critical factor forthe purposes of the current debate is that the provisionof the ministerial order which allowed limitations onthe cover given to a building owner who was adeveloper was a limited exclusion only — it appliedonly in the case of non-completion — whereas theamendments the government is now seeking to makeprovision for a total exclusion in all circumstances ofpeople that the bill defines as developers.

The bottom line is that, as I indicated earlier, thegovernment is in no position to say that what it is doingin this bill simply reflects the provisions of theministerial order that was in force at the time theoriginal bill was introduced back in June. Therefore it isin no position to argue that people reading the Junelegislation should have realised that the government didnot intend to cover them. They were perfectly entitledto take the wording of the legislation at face value, andthere is nothing in the ministerial order that would leadthem to a contrary conclusion.

Indeed the fact that the ministerial order had provisionsof the sort I described while the June legislation wassilent would, if anything, confirm them in their viewthat the June legislation was intended to cover them. Itwould also confirm them in the view that thegovernment had looked at the drafting of variousministerial orders under the Building Act, because if thepersons who had prepared the legislation had gone tothe current ministerial order they would have realisedthat that order had, as the minister himself now says,come into effect in late 1998, that it was very likely thatthere was a prior ministerial order which had differentprovisions, and that the legislation would need toaddress those different provisions.

For all those reasons the opposition remains of the viewthat a fair and honest reading of the government’s Junelegislation is that all the people who had an indemnityunder an HIH policy were being covered by the stateand that they were entitled to act accordingly.

As I have previously described to the house, peoplewould have done things such as prepared financialreports, undertaken borrowings, decided on investmentprograms, made employment decisions and madedecisions on signing up other contracts — that is, madea whole range of perfectly legitimate or valid decisionsin their everyday lives, relying on the fact that thegovernment’s legislation covered them — yet thegovernment came along a few months later and said,‘Sorry, we made a mistake, and you will have to paythe price for it’.



The government does not seem to realise the concernabout sovereign risk, the undermining of confidenceabout investment in this state that follows from this sortof action. As I said on an earlier occasion, we have theTreasurer and Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment — whose parliamentary secretary isinterjecting at the moment — trying to attractinvestment into this state, yet they seem to think thatwhen it suits them they can tear up their legislation andtotally reverse the legal position that prevailedpreviously and that that is not going to worry people forthe future.

Unfortunately for all Victorians, this does worry peoplewho would otherwise consider investing in this state.They are going to say if the government can do it once,what is to stop it doing it again? How can I ever takethis government at its word when it offers me anincentive package or tells me that a planning permit orother support will be given for some project, when ittells me that the rule of law prevails in Victoria? Thegovernment shows that when it suits it to get itself outof a mess that it has created, it is quite willing to tear upthose rights.

The honourable member for Mitcham referred toanother group of home buyers who have been caughtup in the government’s action. Those are the peoplewho were excluded by drafting errors in the Junelegislation. The government is quite appropriatelycoming back to Parliament to seek to have this situationremedied, but it is not prepared to do anything to helpthose people unless it can also get this Parliament toagree to impose retrospective legislation on anothergroup of home owners. The government and itsinstrumentality, the Housing Guarantee Fund, havebeen telling people that the Liberal Party blocked thislegislation and that is why they cannot get their money.

When people who raise that issue with us are told thatthe Liberal Party fully supports the provisions that willenable these people to have their money and that thegovernment is holding them hostage to try to ram thewhole of this legislation through this Parliament, theirattitude changes very rapidly. They are decidedly angryat not only having been denied their money, but havingbeen misled by the government. Their dissatisfactionwith the government increases when it is pointed out tothem that it is perfectly open to the government to givethem now the money to which they are entitled. It couldhave given the people concerned the money to whichthey were entitled before Christmas and avoided all ofthis angst. But no, the government was not prepared tolift a finger to help these people. Rather, it was going tomake them suffer — to try to force the whole of thislegislation through the Parliament.

It would be perfectly open to the government to givethe people concerned an ex gratia payment funded outof Treasurer’s advance, and if the government wants itput on the record, the opposition has always beenwilling to agree that the government could add aprovision into this legislation to validate the ex gratiapayments that were made. There is absolutely nodifference amongst any honourable members in thischamber or in the other house as to the two measuresthat should go through in order to correct those draftingdefects in the June legislation that have raised doubtsabout the entitlement of two classes of home buyer toobtain relief under this fund. But no, the governmenthas not been prepared to help. The government wouldrather make these people suffer to try to put pressure onthe opposition. It is most disgraceful and regrettablethat the new Minister for Finance is continuing thetactic that was adopted by his predecessor.

This legislation has not gone anywhere over summer.What has the government attempted to do to resolvethis issue over summer? Has the government met withany of the nine people that the former minister referredto that the government has identified as being affectedby the provision in dispute? Has the government beenprepared to listen to their argument; to hear from themwhat consequences this retrospective removal of theirrights would have?

The minister certainly has not told us anything aboutthat today. There is no evidence whatsoever that thegovernment is prepared to allow these people to puttheir case, let alone try to find a way to resolve theissue. Has the government tried to reach a commercialsettlement over these claims? Has it tried to negotiatesome sort of reasonable outcome with these people?There is not the slightest skerrick of evidence that it hasattempted to do either of these things. So far as one cantell, over summer the government has simply sat on thelegislation and done nothing.

The minister has alluded to large claims, and we havehad interjections about developers. I am sure there is afair chance that as the debate continues speaker afterspeaker on the other side will demonise developers bysuggesting — as indeed the minister suggested — thatin some way they were trying to obtain some form ofunjust enrichment from this legislation and takeadvantage of some sort of loophole. I have made thepoint time and again that on any fair, open, honest andreasonable reading of the June legislation these peoplewere covered and that that right is now beingretrospectively taken away from them.

Lest we become caught up with the mental image of alarge corporation being denied the benefit of the



entitlement given to it by the June legislation, it hasbeen said to me over the past few days that two of thenine people who will now be denied coverage are, infact, people who are undertaking small multi-housedevelopments for family members. These are twopeople who already have cases pending at the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and whowill have their rights taken away by this legislation.

It is worth reiterating that the scope of this amendmentexcludes from entitlement to coverage building ownersor other persons for whom three or more homes arebeing built or proposed to be built on any one buildingsite or under a single major building contract. Incalculating the number of homes being built orproposed to be built, a home which is being built as theprincipal place of residence is to be disregarded.

This is not exactly a giant multinational, million-dollarcorporation being affected. It can be people who for thepurposes of their family, their extended family or theirrelations are building three or more homes — or four ormore if you count one of them as the principalresidence.

Mr Nardella — Cut it out.

Mr CLARK — Or it can be someone who haspotentially invested their life savings in a very modestsuburban residential development. They are the peoplewho will have their rights taken away just as much aswill the claimant who the minister said is claiming$7.6 million.

The honourable member for Melton said, ‘Cut it out’.He might think such people are dispensable, but I donot think a reasonable person would regard anyone asbeing dispensable. They certainly would have a greatdeal of sympathy for people in the category that I havereferred to, particularly when such persons have actedin good faith on the legislation that came to theParliament back in June. As I have said time and again,that is the essential test that needs to be applied here.

The legislation concerned did not involve a loophole; itwas absolutely plain and clear. The government nowsays it has done something it did not intend to do,which is fine for future change, but you cannot pull therug from underneath people’s feet retrospectively. Thatis a concern expressed by the opposition time andagain. It is a position that in the debate so far today thegovernment has done nothing to counteract. I hadhoped that in taking over the portfolio the new ministermight have been willing to look at the issue with fresheyes or make some effort to resolve the situation.Instead he and other honourable members opposite

seem determined to try to use this matter as a means ofattacking the Legislative Council.

Certainly the Premier’s arguments and those used bythe minister need only be applied in the context of theSenate for one to realise how absurd they are. I think itis universally recognised around this country — it is notsomething that necessarily pleases the government ofthe day — that the Senate has a legitimate role as ahouse of review, just as, in the same way, there is alegitimate role for the Legislative Council.

If anybody were to suggest imposing on the Senate thesort of gerrymander that the present government istrying to impose on the Legislative Council, therewould certainly be uproar. If anybody were to suggestthat senators should serve only three-year terms likemembers of the House of Representatives, there wouldbe uproar. That is the sort of nonsense the governmentwould have us believe.

Mr Haermeyer interjected.

Mr CLARK — To respond to the interjection of theMinister for Police and Emergency Services, ifanybody were to suggest that the Senate system couldbe improved by dividing each state into zones andinsisting on a quota of 16 per cent before anybodycould be elected, that also would be regarded as anoutrage.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this placeand the Leader of the Opposition in the other place andnumerous others have said, the Legislative Council isexercising a valuable and appropriate right of review.The government is not in a position to try to have itboth ways, on the one hand complaining when theLegislative Council exercises that function and on theother hand arguing that it does not exercise thatfunction.

Let’s judge each issue on its merits. That is ultimatelywhat the public will do and ultimately what this houseshould do. Let’s debate the issue of whether or not thesuggested amendments are correct and not use this as aform of collateral attack on another place. Nothing thathas been said in the debate today persuades theopposition to depart from the view that it has taken todate, and we urge the house to support the amendmentssuggested by the other place.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Thesematters have been the subject of considerable commenton previous occasions, and indeed in November 2001when I spoke to the legislation I went through itfulsomely. We are now in a position of having toconsider the Liberal Party’s amendments, and in this



instance the National Party is at odds with the LiberalParty and in support of the government. We do notaccept the amendments which have been proposed.

The starting point is that we are talking abouttaxpayers’ money, and that is a crucial issue forconsideration. What was proposed by the legislation inJune was that after the HIH debacle the governmentwould step into the shoes of the insurer and ensure thatpeople who were otherwise subject to cover throughHIH would be able to achieve that coverage. But in thisinstance, by virtue of the government being the place oflast resort, taxpayers’ money was used to fill the gapleft by the HIH disaster. I think that is a compellingissue with regard to the discussion.

The second issue that is also of great significance is thatin December 2001, during the course of debate in theother place, the Honourable Roger Hallam madeavailable to the house a letter dated 3 December 2001.It had been sent to a senior officer in the Department ofTreasury and Finance and was signed by MichaelStokes, the chief executive of the Housing GuaranteeFund. The letter states that in the history of the HGFthere had never been a claim by a developer upon theHIH insurer. The letter states:

… we have checked all claim payments made by HGF toHIH claimants and confirm that, as at today’s date, we havenot made any payments to developers.

While the matters mentioned by the honourablemember for Box Hill are valid taken in a vacuum, itmust also be said that the way in which the legislationhas historically operated should be a matter for theconsideration of the house in terms of its treatment ofthe Liberal Party’s proposals. The fact is, as thecorrespondence confirms, that the HGF has not paid outto developers who have made claims upon it. I do notknow whether developers have ever attempted to makea claim, but I must say — and I stand to be corrected —that I do not think as a matter of logic such would havebeen the case. That is so because nowhere in thematerial — and this is the third point — does the term‘developer’ appear.

The Housing Guarantee Fund was set up as a finalmeans of protection for people who were building theirown homes — the true Australian dream, to use thecolloquialism, of people who wanted to build and owntheir own homes. The HGF was established to standbehind them and to accommodate their needs in theevent that circumstances arose which were the subjectof indemnity through the HIH policy. I do not think itwas ever contemplated that the scheme would beextended to developers. The definitions containedwithin the relevant legislation make no reference to

developers and the operation of the scheme has neverentailed a payment to developers.

For those reasons the National Party believes that whenone looks at the totality of the circumstances there mustsurely have been an understanding among thedeveloper community that claims by them would not beaccommodated by the terms of the governmentstepping into the place of HIH after its collapse. Theoriginal scheme did not operate that way and I do notbelieve it can be said, when you look at the originallegislation, the second-reading speech and the debatesthat occurred at the time, that it can be justifiablyargued that the legislation in its original form was everintended to extend to developers. In so saying I wellappreciate that these issues involve hardship. Thehonourable member for Box Hill has pointed out thattwo of the claimants are at what might be termed thesmaller end of the debate; they are not makers of themultimillion dollar form of claims that have otherwisebeen spoken about. For those people I accept that whatI now say is difficult.

It is in that context that I make this further comment. Iurge the government to meet with these people. If it isthe case — I in turn accept the statement of thehonourable member for Box Hill that the governmenthas not met the people who comprise the nine who arenow to miss out if the amendment of the opposition isnot accepted — then at least the government can meetthe people and talk to them across the table to explainthe position to them, as bad as the news may be.

While the National Party supports the government inthis instance on this matter it is not good enough on thepart of the government that it is not prepared to meetwith the people who will bear the brunt of this, and Iurge the minister to convene a meeting or meetingswith those who will be impacted upon, so that albeitthat the news will not be good those people will at leasthave the opportunity of being able to address theminister as to the matters which they say comprise theirargument, and to in turn hear from the minister thebases upon which the government says that thosearguments cannot be accepted.

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I am pleased to jointhe debate on the suggested amendment to the HouseContracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill. Itis always good to start a contribution in the house withan analogy — and a sporting analogy at that! For thosepeople who might one day read Hansard and wonderwhy we had a protracted debate on a Tuesday afternoonon this issue, let me draw the following analogy. Thesituation is between the two houses, where thegovernment wants to pass legislation in one form and



one of the two parties in the upper house insists that anamendment be made. We have now for someconsiderable time been involved in a baseline rally, if Ican use the tennis analogy, where the governmentindicates repeatedly it does not wish to accept theamendment and the Liberal Party continues to insistthat the amendment should be added to the principalbill.

However, if you are in the position of the Liberal Partyinsisting on this non-baseline rally it is important toremember that its doubles partner does not share itsenthusiasm for the cause. If the Liberal Party looked atwhat its doubles partner has done, it would see that itleft the court some time ago. The National Party in thiscase has given repeated indications, as clear as daylight,that it does not support the Liberal Party position onthis matter, and it has given the most succinct reasoningfor that. To paraphrase the most succinct argument putforward by the Honourable Roger Hallam, a memberfor Western Province in another place, the amendmentsproposed by the Liberal Party in another place wouldeffectively create two classes of developers. Thehonourable member went further. He said not onlywould it create two classes of developers but that theintention of the bill when first presented to that house inJune last year was always clear. He said further that theintention of the bill was never to bail out commercialdevelopers.

If it is clear to the honourable member for WesternProvince in another place, if it is clear to all governmentmembers in both houses and if it is clear to the NationalParty leader in this place, I struggle to understand whyit is not clear to the Liberal Party, but perhaps I am notthe first person to be confounded by the pig-headedstubbornness that seems to be characterising the LiberalParty’s policies today.

The government will continue to oppose theamendments put forward by the Liberal Party. It wasinteresting that in his contribution the honourablemember for Box Hill effectively asked the governmentto adopt a double standard. Only three weeks ago wehad a situation in which the Liberal Party in particularwas extremely critical of the Bracks government forproviding some financial assistance to the transportfranchisees whose financial state of health hasdeteriorated due to continued and repeated failures ofthe ticketing machines. At that point the Liberal Partywas strident in its criticism that we had been too soft onthese commercial companies and that we should nothave provided financial assistance. Yet here we are,only a few days later, and the Liberal Party has changedits tune entirely and now says we should in fact bemuch softer in this instance and provide financial

assistance and coverage for commercial developerseven though their own conservative partners on theother side have said the intention of the legislation wasnever to do that. They cannot have it both ways. Theycannot claim on the one hand that we are too soft oncommercial interests and on the other hand that weshould be much harder.

The Liberal Party’s insistence on forcing theseamendments onto this piece of legislation is in myopinion an abuse of its majority in the upper house. TheWestminster system of Parliament, as all honourablemembers would understand, in bicameral parliaments atleast is that government is a product of this chamber. Itis a product of whichever party or series of parties canform a numerical superiority in this chamber, and that isthe case here. The government has proposed legislationand on the numbers here it has been passed andtransmitted to the upper house on no fewer than twooccasions and may well be transmitted again this time.We have had a circumstance in which the Liberal Partycontinues to dig in its heels and say, ‘We do not careunder what circumstances; we are going to reject thoseamendments’. They are in minutiae at least denying thisgovernment the opportunity to govern, which is aruthless exploitation of its numerical strength in thishouse.

I make the point that it does not always have to be thatway. We had a situation not so long ago when thegovernment introduced the Regional InfrastructureDevelopment Fund legislation — a very progressivepiece of legislation that has proved to be of enormouspopularity and benefit to people outside themetropolitan area. As I recall, the National Partyproposed some amendments to that legislation whichthe government rejected. It went off to the upper houseand I think the National Party again proposed theamendments. In that case they were carried by theLiberal Party. They came back here and were rejectedfor a second time by the lower house, which is wheregovernments are made and broken. At that point theNational Party relented. Its members understood theprinciple that the government has a prerogative togovern in the way that it sees fit. They had made theirpoint. The amendments were not thereafter insistedupon by the upper house, and we have had the passageof a fantastically successful piece of legislation that hasdelivered real benefits.

I do not understand why, if the junior conservativeparty can see the wisdom of making a stand in this casebut then relents in the public interest, the moreestablished, so-called, allegedly senior partner in theconservative ranks cannot do the same. This is clearlyan abuse of the Liberal Party’s numerical strength in the



upper house. The amendments have come to representthat, and the government should not be forced intoaccepting this situation. If the government accepted theamendments as they were proposed and the tacticsbehind them it would be at the beck and call of theLiberal Party on every single piece of legislationbecause the opposition would reserve its right due to itsnumerical superiority in the upper house to reject or totack on amendments every single time.

I understand that there is a sentiment that runs deepwithin the Liberal ranks opposite that they would loveto block supply. They would love to bring thisgovernment down by illegitimate means. They havedone it in the past; they would love to do it again. Weare just getting a taste of it with this piece of legislation.Well, they ought to be more courageous and come outand do it. They ought to come out and say that theyhave never, at least in the upper house, accepted thisgovernment’s legitimacy. They are prepared to put theirheads in the sand and not recognise the verdict ofpeople in a time-honoured tradition that has served thecommunity in this state well for the past 150-plus years;they do not accept the government’s legitimacy, andthis is just their very immature way of demonstratingthat.

The situation created by the insistence of the LiberalParty on having the bill amended is that we have some150 home owners in the state who have now for up tothe best part of a year been at their wit’s end as to howtheir dreams and aspirations in the form of a familyhome are ever going to be realised, because those150 individuals, couples and families were deniedinsurance coverage as a result of the calamitouscollapse of HIH. We will not go into the reasons for theHIH collapse except to say that a royal commission isbeing conducted into it — a not very well funded royalcommission when we look at the proportionately muchgreater resourcing going into the building industry royalcommission, but nevertheless there is a royalcommission going on into that matter. But those150 home owners have homes in various states ofcompletion.

Through heading a task force on the security ofpayment matter, which will materialise in a bill to bepresented to the house later this week, I had theopportunity in those deliberations to become familiarwith the collapse of Avonwood Homes two years ago.Avonwood collapsed and left a very large number ofhome owners in a similar situation where their homescould not be completed because the building companyin that case rather than the insurer had gone intoliquidation. It is a sober reflection upon the experienceof those people that for as long as it took the individual

circumstances of each person affected by that collapseto be addressed, their homes in various stages ofcompletion were left to rot. That is what happens inthese circumstances. Let us not forget the humanmisery and tragedy that goes with that. You have paidyour money, you have a dream home under way, aninsurance company collapses or, in the case ofAvonwood, goes into liquidation, and you are left on alimb because your circumstances cannot be covered byinsurance in this case and the project just stalls in thewind and rain and is not touched.

In the case of Avonwood I remind the house that a fairnumber of the people caught up in that matter hadhouses that had to be demolished because they stoodout in the wind and rain for a protracted period of time,and wind and rain will do that to houses that have notbeen completed, as I am sure you, Acting Speaker, areaware. I want to make the point to the honourablemember for Box Hill and his colleagues in the LiberalParty that for as long as they want to frustrate thegovernment and insist upon this amendment beingadded, it is their action that is denying those150 people.

They ought to have the courage to go out and look themin the eye and say, ‘I am sorry that your house will rotand that your dreams will vanish. I am sorry that yourhouse might have to be demolished and you will be leftin the lurch. We are sorry about that, but there is a pointof principle here. We have the numbers in the upperhouse, we have never accepted the legitimacy of theBracks government, and we are going to make a pointof this’.

I hope this does not come down to a stark choice, butthat seems to be the state of play. I hope it does notcome down to a simple choice between whether thegovernment of the day wants to back commercialdevelopers or whether it wants to back home ownerswho find themselves in the most terrible ofcircumstances. But that is the clear, simple choice thatthis is all boiling down to. That is the equation. I haveno problem on behalf of the people I represent inMitcham in saying that I stand four-square with thehome owners who are going through this terribleexperience. They deserve relief. They were offeredrelief in this bill from the earliest point. That was theclear intention — that they could get on with their lives.

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr ROBINSON — The honourable member forBox Hill interjects, saying they were draftingamendments. Well, golly heck, there are draftingamendments in every bill. The difference is that this



government is far less precious about introducing houseamendments to its own legislation than was itspredecessor, and it is far less concerned to aggregatebills and force them through the Parliament in the lastfew days, which leads to technical amendments havingto be introduced at some later stage. I remember that onthe last day of one parliamentary sittings under theformer government we had to deal with eight bills thatwere whacked together in an omnibus bill. They hadnothing in common except the time of the week — theyhad to get through. So of course there were technicalissues. At the time the bill was introduced it was saidthat there would be some problems, because that is thenature of the bills. But the essence of the government’sresponse was the need for speed.

These home owners are the people who, as I havedescribed, are in the most pressing of circumstances.We would hope and pray that none of us findsourselves in the circumstance where everything wehave worked for, saved for, planned for and dreamed ofcomes to a crashing halt, left standing in a paddock,rotting away. That is effectively what is happening, butthe essence of the government’s response was the needfor speed to try and deal with these people. Since Maylast year we have had problems because the LiberalParty has chosen, on a point of stubborn, pig-headedprinciple, to have these amendments added to the bill. Ido not understand why the Liberal Party cannot take theNational Party’s strategy on this and make its point andget on with life, because it would make the lives of thepeople we are trying to assist a lot easier.

I will go over the basics of this bill in summary onemore time. I do not often pay this compliment, but theywere clearly presented to the house by the Leader of theNational Party and, earlier, to the upper house by theHonourable Roger Hallam. The intention of thegovernment’s legislation was always clear: it wascertainly always clear to the National Party, and it wasclear to us. It was clear to the Liberal Party as wellwhen it was introduced. We do not want to create twoclasses of developers, as the Honourable Roger Hallamhas said, and we do not want to bail out commercialdevelopers. That was never the intention of the bill. Wewant to try and help those people who are findingthemselves in the most dire circumstances as a result ofa commercial collapse that they had nothing to do with.They are, after all, the innocent victims in all of this.

For as long as Liberal Party members stand up in thisplace and say ‘No, no, we must look after commercialdevelopers’, the Liberal Party will be betrayed by itsown rhetoric on special interests. We had a session thismorning when honourable members opposite made anumber of claims about the government looking after

sectional interests. This is an example of the boot beingon the other foot. Here we have commercial developersgetting on the phone when they realise that they are notcovered but that they might be covered if they couldonly get the amendment. And who are they ringing? Ifthey ring the National Party, they are told by theHonourable Roger Hallam, ‘This bill was not designedfor you, so do not try us’. If they ring the government,they find that the government has the same view. Ifthey ring the Liberal Party, the people they talk tocannot put the phone down quickly enough to draw upamendments.

If you want to talk about special interests, look at theLiberal Party’s position. It is trying to do a special dealwith developers who were never considered as needingcoverage in the original legislation. If you want to talkabout special interests and doing deals with people, let’sconsider that. We will not have time to consider thespecial deals that Ray Williams, the man who causedthe problem, is getting. Let’s not forget about him. Heis effectively getting a special deal from the federalgovernment, because they seem to be goingextraordinarily soft on him in the royal commission.But we will leave that for another day.

With its insistence upon these amendments the LiberalParty’s position is nothing more than an exploitation ofits numerical strength in the Legislative Council,however it is dressed up in an expedient argument. Iwill give the honourable member for Box Hill credit forthis: he can present a very technical argument withgreater enthusiasm and concentration than most people.He could talk the leg off a chair when it comes to thetechnical background to this bill, but in so doing hemisses the fundamental point — that we did notpropose this legislation to try and perfect the technicalaspects of the insurance industry as they apply tocommercial developers and their undertakings. Thatwas never the government’s intention. He needs to tryand uncomplicate this issue and recognise who it is weare trying to help.

For every minute that we play this protracted game oftennis, toing-and-froing between the two houses ofParliament, I want the Liberal Party to remember this:every day the wind and the rain are just rotting awaythose half-completed houses, and the misery beinginflicted by the Liberal Party’s failure to allow this billto pass is just multiplying. I do not believe that stancedoes the Liberal Party any credit whatsoever. Theamendments deserve to be rejected, so I hope we canget to the end of this protracted and ultimately veryunsatisfactory matter.



Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I do not support theLiberal Party’s amendment and I endorse some of theremarks made by the honourable member for Mitcham.The Housing Guarantee Fund was designed for homeowners, not developers. I understand that $7.5 million,which is a large amount of taxpayers’ money, isinvolved in this issue. I address the issue of liabilityinsurance in general terms because it is a pressing issuethat the house has to face. It is having a great impact onmany avenues of public resort and will continue to be apressing problem not just for regional areas but inmetropolitan areas of Victoria.

Prior to its collapse HIH was the second-largest insurerin Australia. Its collapse has had a grave impact on thefuture of the insurance industry. It was reported in theAustralian in February last that in 2000 insurerscollected $883 million in premiums for public andproduct liability, but paid out $1.18 billion, whichamounts to a $299 million loss before taking intoaccount the industry’s expenses. We can expect to seeconsiderable changes flow to premiums for liabilityinsurance and other insurances.

A good example of why this is happening is thedecision in a case in the New South Wales SupremeCourt on a Thursday in February when 27-year-oldLisa Denise Palmer won a $16 million payout for a1997 accident that left her paralysed and reliant on arespirator to breathe. When you have claims andpayouts of that amount it is no wonder significantimpacts are felt in the insurance industry.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority chiefexecutive, Graeme Thompson, who oversees thelegislation, says that could result in 1 in 10 ofAustralia’s 142 insurers being closed down or sold by30 June. The problems are significant.

The rate of economic return in 2000 for the insuranceindustry was 2.5 per cent, which is extremely low.Professional indemnity insurance is one of thecategories hardest hit — for example, in Mildura nogeneral practitioners who have obstetrics andgynaecological qualifications perform deliveries ofbabies because of the high cost of indemnity insurance.I am sure some honourable members would be awareof that situation through their own personal liabilities. Irecall my wife was paying $150 in insurance perdelivery, which is not sustainable.

The issues of public resort have been diminished sincethe impact of the insurance crisis. An article in the Ageof 17 March listed the huge number of communitiesscorched by the cost of insuring for risk. The listincludes the Broadford amateur country show, the

Thorpdale potato festival, the Hampton Street festivaland the Campbells Bridge bonfire. In my electorate thePatchewollock races, a meeting which has been heldevery Easter Saturday for 94 years, will not be held thisyear. Once such events are cancelled rarely are theyheld again. A huge number of events or issues may beimpacted on by these disastrous insurance outcomes.

What can be done? I guess the government isresponding in one way to the collapse of HIH and istrying to help home owners, which is a commendable,prompt and appropriate action, but the insuranceproblem extends far past the HIH collapse and theHousing Guarantee Fund. This issue is something thatmust be addressed with some urgency. The InsuranceCouncil of Australia (ICA) has set out some of theissues that we can address.

I am pleased that the Leader of the National Party hassuggested some positive and proactive ways of solvingsome of the problems. I hope that will be a significantconsideration of the government in its deliberationsover the next few weeks on how the issues can beresolved.

I am sure all honourable members have copies of whatthe ICA has suggested. The list includes better riskmanagement; better advice and use of insurancebrokers; local councils having an umbrella liabilitycover, although I am sure it will not be long before thecost of their insurance premiums will becomeimpossible to achieve; and the pooling of groups ofassociations who can collectively insure.

In the longer term some measures could include tortreform and perhaps uniform rules across Australia tolimit statutes of limitation. The ICA asks whether it isappropriate that we have levels of claim, so that claimscould not be made until a threshold were crossed.Perhaps Parliament could become involved in debatingthat suggestion. Another suggestion is the exemption ofvolunteers from liability. At the moment, with hugeincreases of up to 124 per cent for some forms ofinsurance, maybe we need look at the stamp duty leviedon premiums. If the increases on premiums are 124 percent, a huge slab of GST and stamp duty would havebeen placed on those premiums.

Education is another issue. We need to change some ofour attitudes so that people do not expect the returnssimilar to the amounts involved in winning Tattslotto orhaving a poker machine payout. We should aim to getrid of the mentality of no fee, no win. Although it maybe a dubious issue, when people feel they may be ableto get money through insurance claims it sometimesremoves their good judgment.



I do not endorse the suggested amendment. I wish thelegislation a speedy passage so that the unfortunatevictims of the HIH collapse can get on with their livesand have some certainty before them.

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — I support theHouse Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment)Bill as originally passed by this house. I note that thehonourable member for Mildura has given the house asobering account of some of the impacts of theproblems we have with insurance and the collapse ofHIH. In my electorate I have been able to help somelocal builders who had problems getting insurancecoverage following the collapse of HIH. They weregrateful for that. The question of liability insurance hasnow come to the fore and the Minister for Finance isactive in that regard.

Insurance premiums can affect the staging of streetfestivals and other activities. Recently a successfulstreet festival was held in Ashburton. All the peoplewith stalls at the festival had to ensure they had publicliability insurance. Also, I was relieved to find out frommembers of the House Committee that members ofParliament have extensive insurance coverage — somuch so that some of the traders at the street festivalsaid to me, ‘All the action should happen outside yourstall, such is the coverage you have’. Jokes aside, theissue of insurance has become serious and requiresaction.

Today the house has received a message from theLegislative Council transmitting an amendmentsuggested on the consideration and report of thecommittee of the whole of that house. It basically asksthis house to include in the bill developers who lodgedclaims with the Housing Guarantee Fund before1 November 2001. I remind the house it is the HousingGuarantee Fund, not a developer guarantee fund. Thatis very much the point and why the amendment movedby the honourable member for Box Hill in this placelast November was rejected. The amendment proposedby the honourable member for Box Hill did not havelegs. The house will recall that the Chairman ofCommittees ruled it inadmissible because it hadfinancial considerations. Indeed there was a discussionof standing order 170, which states:

No proposal for the appropriation of any public moneys shallbe made unless the purpose of the appropriation has beenrecommended to the house in the same session by a messagefrom the Governor …

Standing order 171 states:

No amendment of such proposal shall be moved which wouldincrease or extend the objectives and purposes or alter the

destination of the appropriation so recommended unless afurther message is received.

On that particular occasion no message was received,and therefore the Chairman of Committees ruled it out.But here we have the obstreperous Council puttingforward this proposal and asking us to consider it again.Of course it would involve a further appropriation ofpublic moneys, and putting it as an amendment wouldobviously require a message from the Governor. Thereis no such message, and the government, together withthe National Party and the three Independents, is not infavour of extending the provisions of the original bill tomake large payments to developers.

The Minister for Finance has already talked of a figureof about $8 million that may be claimed by thedevelopers. Certainly, as other speakers have said, andwas said last year when this was discussed in thischamber, and as has already been mentioned by theHonourable Roger Hallam in the Legislative Council, itwas not the intention of this particular bill to supportdevelopers. This is a bill which was intended to clear upsome matters, because we all agree that we needed todo things in a hurry given the emergency circumstancesbrought about by the collapse of HIH in May and Junelast year.

The Housing Guarantee Fund, as I said, is not adevelopers guarantee fund. The intention is to supportthe little people — those people who have the dream ofhaving their own home and having a builder realise itfor them. Those particular dreams, in the case of150 people, have evaporated with the demise of HIH.

This is typical of the Liberal Party. The leopards reallydo not change their spots, do they? It is trying, yetagain, to cry crocodile tears in the house about properprocess, fairness and honesty, when all it is doing issupporting the big end of town — the large-scaledevelopers, with a benefit of $8 million. As a homeowner, you would have to build a pretty big house tohave a claim of $8 million! Clearly large-scaledevelopers who are building many houses in the formof a multi-unit developments are trying to seek redressfrom the public purse.

Commercial developers enter into commercial contractswith builders. They are not home owners buildingdream homes, looking, in an emergency with no-oneelse to turn to, to seek ex gratia support from the stategovernment. Here we have a new brand of upper-classwelfare — indeed, it is a brand of commercial welfare.It is not a matter of promoting business; it is a matter ofcharity for large-scale developers.



It is big business putting its hands into the pocket of thegovernment rather than joining the normal process ofcreditors in an insolvency process. This is very muchshowing the true colours of the Liberal Party and who itis supporting. It is not supporting the little people. It isnot supporting the ordinary home owner. It issupporting the large-scale developers.

We have the spectre of the upper house in this situation.What is it seeking to achieve? What is an honourablemember for East Yarra Province in the other place, theHonourable David Davis, seeking to achieve in leadinghis party in the Legislative Council in sending thismessage to our chamber? What they have achieved is adelay now of a further three months affecting the claimsof these 150 home owners with a cease-to-trade or abuilder-as-the-insured clause in their contracts.

The honourable member for Mitcham portrayed theplight of these 150 home owners quite directly andgraphically as basically having their lives ruined. Theyhave been sitting there, possibly since May last year,looking at half-finished houses or blocks that are emptyor with maybe just the footings there, and of coursethey do not have the money to find redress in thosecircumstances but are seeking support from theHousing Guarantee Fund. These are small people whocannot get loans. They are not commercial, they do nothave big lines of credit with the banks, and they are putunder duress and continual suffering because of theaction of the Liberal Party.

I see the National Party has had the very good sense tosupport the bill in its original intent. It understands that‘housing guarantee’ means housing guarantee for thelittle people, for ordinary people. It is not a developerguarantee fund. That seems to have completely escapedthe Liberal Party — a member for East Yarra Provincein the upper house and the honourable member for BoxHill. However, it has not escaped the notice of otherjurisdictions. The salvage schemes operated by otherstates or even by the federal government, whichironically is a coalition of the Liberal Party and theNational Party, as I understand it do not includedevelopers in their schemes. Only the Liberal Party inVictoria is completely out of step.

Mr Clark interjected.

Mr STENSHOLT — Yes, completely out of stepwith the ordinary people. It is led in the upper house byone of the honourable members for East YarraProvince, but he was not even elected at the lastelection. That is how remote he is from — —

Mr Nardella — When was he elected — 1996?

Mr STENSHOLT — Something like that — so faraway that he has forgotten to look after ordinary people.You have to be out there looking after people in yourelectorate — and I acknowledge that the honourablemember for Box Hill does look after the people in hiselectorate; he is very often around because he is in theelectorate next to mine — but certainly the absentmember for East Yarra Province was not even electedat the last election. They are so far away from a normalrelationship with their electors they do not evenunderstand the hurt that these 150 people are goingthrough.

This is the message that we have. It is a message ofdelay. It is a message of obstruction. It is a message ofnot caring. This is the Liberal Party. It is out of touchand does not care, it is so far from the reality of normalpeople. It is obstructionist and is using the powers thatit has in the Legislative Council to obstruct rather thanto help redefine the lives of 150 families who havesuffered because of the collapse of HIH. It is a messagethat reinforces the image of the Legislative Council asan opportunistic body which is out of touch with theday-to-day realities of electorates.

This Liberal Party is a sad shadow of a party that doesnot understand what is going on here in Victoria at themoment. It is in thrall of the big developers in thisparticular case. How obvious and patent can it be in thisparticular case? The Minister for Finance mentioned afigure of up to $8 million. It is outrageous that theLiberal Party is seeking to have the public purseprovide a guarantee for possibly such large sums fordevelopers. If this message is the best effort of theLiberal members of the Legislative Council it is a sadmessage, and it is time that body was well and trulyreformed. Certainly 150 people out there are lookingfor some type of reform. They are looking for membersof Parliament who will support them, not oppose them,delay or be obstructionist, as the Council is in thisparticular case.

I commend the National Party. Obviously out there inthe country there is some commonsense being applied,and I commend commonsense. The National Party welland truly understands what is going on with thisparticular bill. It understands that it is out there lookingafter the little people. I commend it to continue to dothat because that is exactly what the Labor Partydoes — it looks after ordinary workers and it looks afterthe ordinary people. It looks after all Victorians becausethat is what it set itself to do and what it is out to do. Inthis particular case it is looking out for housingguarantees, not for large-scale development guarantees.



I wish the Liberal Party would reflect upon this exerciseof sending such messages to our house, reflect upontheir effect on people’s lives and reflect on how closethey are to the electorate. Indeed we have the spectre, aswas mentioned in the house earlier today, of theirsending out messages to the electorate where they areeven too scared to mention their own names. That ishow far they are away from the electorate. They fearlosing so much that they cannot even be seen or have abrave enough face to mention themselves. I hope theywould reflect on this exercise, stop being so stubbornand really understand the issues here.

Here we have an impact on 150 home owners whohave been waiting since last May. It was in the LiberalParty’s hands last November to provide relief. Indeedwhat I find quite disturbing is that after a ruling fromthe Chairman of Committees in regard to the proposalput by the honourable member for Box Hill the Liberalsstill went ahead in the Council and put it forward —that is, in spite of the very clear ruling in regard to billsunder standing order 170 that we really need a messagefrom the Governor if there is going to be appropriation,or indeed further appropriation of public moneys. Itshows what scant regard the Council has for properprocedures in financial and fiscal matters. Indeed it isvery much thumbing its nose at proper procedures.

I hope the Liberal Party will reflect on this one, look atthe lives of the 150 families who have been affected,stop being so stubborn and join with the Labor Party,and indeed with the National Party and theIndependents, in understanding that we have here theclear intent of looking after the houses of ordinarypeople — the workers and the general population ofVictoria — rather than providing special relief andpossibly giving huge handouts to developers under ascheme that is clearly not intended for them.

I very much commend the bill in its original form, and Ijoin with others in rejecting the message from theLegislative Council.

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — I rise to support the billand the amendment proposed by the LegislativeCouncil. It is regrettable that I follow the honourablemember for Burwood, who clearly does not understandthe nature of this amendment — that is, the power ofthe government to perhaps cure some ill that has beencaused by other parties — and who made a raw attemptat deriding the upper house and indeed my colleague,an honourable member for East Yarra Province inanother place, whose electorate overlaps mine.

I am also a neighbouring member to the honourablemember for Burwood in the corridor of East Yarra

Province, and I too see the Liberal Party membersgetting out among their communities. Indeed, I am verygrateful that the honourable member for Burwood wasable to visit one of my local schools — the Belle VuePrimary School — and I will be talking to him aboutwhat he can do by talking to the government aboutrectifying the problems of his government’s creationcaused by inappropriate and low revenue moneys.

But back to the bill. It is in the power of thisgovernment to make what is effectively an ex gratiapayment. No-one is suggesting the government isresponsible for the HIH collapse, and no-one issuggesting it has a legal responsibility in relation to thatcollapse; it has a moral obligation, perhaps. Of coursethe opposition supports that moral obligation to dealwith the 150 people who are still to have theirapplications processed and who fall within thedefinition of what the government originally intended.It is in the government’s power to do that and to curethose ills now. It can make that ex gratia payment now,and the shadow Treasurer has guaranteed that theopposition would endorse that ex gratia payment.

What the honourable member for Burwood, thehonourable member for Mitcham and the ministerclearly do not understand — and I know the ministerhas inherited this appalling piece of legislation — isthat, with all the power of government, this governmentdrafted the original legislation that created rights underit. They stand condemned because in appropriatecircumstances — in the most dire of circumstances, aswas alluded to in the original second-reading speech —retrospectivity can be introduced to the legislation. Butthe government got it wrong in its drafting. Now itstands up here and says, ‘We are terribly sorry, but wegot it wrong. The original legislation was wrong, andwe want to now amend it’. The trouble is they havecreated rights as a result of that original piece oflegislation.

What is appalling — the honourable member forBurwood and the honourable member for Mitcham donot understand this, and clearly the new Minister forFinance does not understand it either — is that it is anappalling step for the government to take away thoserights retrospectively. The government created thoserights and got it wrong in the first place, and it shouldbe standing by what it originally did.

That is not the most appalling part of this legislation forwhich the government stands condemned. To blameeverybody else — to blame an honourable member forEast Yarra Province and to blame the upper house — isjust a disgrace. It is typical of this government that itdoes not know what it does and is prepared to spray



blame around the room. I understand why thegovernment wants to correct the problems it createdwith the original drafting, and the oppositionnecessarily supports that — except when it deals withpeople who have had rights created by that originallegislation.

I do not see the necessity to make the changesretrospective. Under the Liberal Party amendmentsproposed in this house and under the amendmentproposed by the upper house the legislation will operatefrom 1 November, and the relevant applications wouldhave to be made by 1 November. A defined class ofpeople may be included under the original legislation;nobody else can be included. The government now hasthe power to solve the problem — it could be solvedtoday — by understanding what it has done. I couldinvoke the old adage, ‘Forgive them for they know notwhat they do’, but I think they do know what they havedone. I think they are prepared to stand there and say,‘All we are interested in is big developers and the bigend of town’.

I can tell the government that I have not received onephone call, one letter or one piece of substantialcorrespondence about these amendments. Nobody hasasked me to stand in this house and speak on this bill. Iam standing here on a matter of principle. That isprecisely what the honourable member for Mitchamsaid — the Liberal Party is standing on a matter ofprinciple — and I am proud that I am standing on amatter of principle. What galls me above everythingelse is that, even if the government is going to makethis retrospective, there are two parties who alreadyhave applications before the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT), and the governmentis going to change the rules on them.

There is no doubt that that is what the governmentintends to do. The original second-reading speech saysthat those people who have issued proceedings inVCAT will have their rights changed. The implicationof trampling on those people’s rights is perhaps one ofthe most appalling precedents in the administration ofjustice that we could ever see in this state. It means thegovernment feels it can correct and interpret people’srights and deprive a court of the opportunity to interpretthose rights, which is the classic tenet of theindependence of the judiciary.

We do not hear the Attorney-General spraying it acrossour side here that we are not standing up for theindependence of the judiciary. The Parliament willactually be passing a piece of legislation that will directa court as to how it is to interpret a piece of legislation,and that is disgraceful. The holding up of a court

proceeding while this legislation is passed is alsodisgraceful. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that isdisgraceful.

On top of that, the government is going against afundamental principle. Not only is the governmenttalking about retrospectivity in a fairly draconiancircumstance — I do not think this is a draconiancircumstance — the government is also going againstits own precedent, and a precedent that has been agolden thread running through the common law sinceparliaments first came into operation — that is thatonce somebody has gone to a court and asked that courtto determine and enunciate their rights, the game rulescannot be changed.

Towards the end of 2000 in this house the StateTaxation Acts (Further Miscellaneous Amendments)Bill was introduced, and that bill proposed a number ofamendments to legislation. One of those amendmentswas actually going to affect people who wereundertaking legal proceedings against the state ofVictoria. Indeed, it was those proceedings in relation tostamp duty and a rebate that necessitated the billcoming into the house. It was ultimately held over andpassed by the Parliament in March 2001 with theopposition’s support.

I will quote from a document from the State RevenueOffice relating to those amendments and those legalproceedings, and this issue encapsulates the goldenthread of principle that has run through the commonlaw for ages. The document refers to the government’sown bill relating to stamp duty that was passed by thisParliament in March of last year. It reads:

The entitlements of taxpayers that have already commencedlegal proceedings against the commissioner will not becurtailed by the proposed amendments.

I say to the government: you have set the precedent.Indeed, all you have done is adopted a golden rule, agolden thread and a precedent. I think it is absolutelydisgraceful that for two of the nine people that claimunder the legislation — claiming rights that you gavethem because you could not get it right in the firstplace — you are actually going to wind back the clockand change their rights, notwithstanding that they haveissued proceedings in the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal. I think that is disgraceful andthe government should stand condemned for what it isdoing today.

Mr NARDELLA (Melton) — We have just had anabsolutely appalling speech, to use the words of thehonourable member for Kew. What he is supportingand what the Liberal Party is supporting in the



amendments it rammed through the upper house arerights for developers. They are rights for privilegedpeople in our society and within our community. Ifanybody should be condemned, it should be theextremely lazy opposition members, because instead ofcoming in here and putting together a set ofamendments to our legislation, what they should havedone at the briefing and in the work they should havebeen doing in opposition was to pick the original flawwithin the legislation. They should have brought that tothe attention of this house and made sure that the rightsthat this Parliament gave in the original legislation,inadvertently and by mistake — I grant the honourablemember for Kew that — did not go through in theoriginal legislation in May.

But no, the Liberal opposition members are too bonelazy to do any of their work and to pick up the flaws inthe legislation because it is too hard for them. It is toomuch physical and mental work to actually read andunderstand the bills before the house and then make theappropriate amendments when they are introducedwithin the house. If anybody should be condemned itshould be the honourable member for Kew, a learnedlawyer and senior barrister within our communitybefore he came into Parliament, a member of the legalprofession who should have understood the bill beforethe house. Yet he comes in here and wants to talk aboutprinciples. He wants to talk about these poornine people within our society who are being affectedby this legislation and by this amendment.

These poor nine people have in the vicinity of $8million of work amongst them. That is who they areprotecting. If you do the sums it is about $900 000 ofdevelopment. Residents in my electorate — in Meltonand Bacchus Marsh, Diggers Rest, Rockbank andToolern Vale — would not know what $900 000looked like. The only time they ever see $900 000worth of property is when they go down the freewaypast Toorak, past Hawthorn, past the leafy suburb ofSouth Yarra. They have never seen and they will neverin their lives develop any house, any block of units, anyland worth anywhere in the vicinity of $900 000.

This is the privilege, these are the rights that theLiberal Party want to protect. The constituents andresidents in Sunbury represented by the honourablemember for Tullamarine would have nowhere close to$900 000 worth of development. Yet we have this cryby the Liberals — by the honourable members forBox Hill and for Kew — about principles, about howpoorly done by are these developers who are knockingdown old houses on large blocks of land anddeveloping an average of $900 000 worth of units onthem so that they can line their own pockets.

The type of principle understood by the Liberal Party ishow to help your mates line their pockets. They comein here and bleat about principles; they had noprinciples for seven years. I was in the upper house forseven years where not one opposition amendment, notone motion and not one resolution was adopted by theformer Kennett coalition government — none.

Ms Beattie — A house of review!

Mr NARDELLA — It is certainly not a house ofreview. It never was under the former government.Regardless of the arguments put, regardless of the logic,and regardless of the substantive matters placed beforethe former Kennett coalition government by theopposition, not once did it allow any amendment evenwhen it was wrong.

I will give you examples at a later stage where theLabor Party forced the Kennett government to putchanges in place. A prime example was the Workcoverlegislation. The honourable member for Kew spokeabout flawed legislation; the Workcover legislation wasflawed. He should talk to injured workers about flawedlegislation that took away people’s rights; not justordinary people and their families but injured workers,their families and the people they supported.Honourable members opposite come into this place andbleat about $800 000 or $900 000 developers who theythink the Labor Party should support. What an absolutenonsense!

As I have said before, I give credit to the National Partyfor understanding the matters and issues and putting areasoned position before the house. I take on board theposition of the Leader of the National Party.

Let me speak about John Lenders, the Minister forFinance. If those nine developers contacted his office Iam more than certain that he would listen to them andtry to work through some of the issues, although theywould need to understand that the legislation, as wasthe intent back in May last year, is not there to protectdevelopers. It is not there to protect the privileged whowere protected by the former Kennett government forseven long, dark years. The Liberal Party continuesdown that path today, which is its real shame. It cannotunderstand the grief, hurt and anger of the 150 familiesand households caused by the delay of this legislation.

Let me give you a personal story of a constituent ofmine. Since May last year she has undergone twotragedies. One is the collapse of Avonwood Homes andthe other is the collapse of HIH. Unfortunately herfamily got the daily double. Avonwood Homescollapsed. There were flaws in the house and she went



to HIH to try to have them fixed. HIH collapsed and theBracks government put a rescue package in placewhich we have been trying to deal with ever since. It isan extremely complex situation. It is complex becauseAvonwood were a pack of grubs and could not build aquality home to save themselves. Then there was Adlerand the rest of them in HIH.

This family is making two payments every month. Oneis their rent and the other is their mortgage. They have acouple of lovely kids and it has been extremely difficultfor them. That is on a personal level. I know thesepeople and know they are really struggling. I have beenon the phone constantly advocating on their behalf. TheLiberal Party is heartless. It is not concerned aboutpeople like my constituents who are making doublepayments each month.

Undoubtedly the bill is about — and I will explain it tothe Liberal Party in simple terms — people building ahouse which is not complete and has flaws in it. Theowners may not be able to shift in so while they arepaying a mortgage they are also paying rent. That is thedifficulty causing those families to hurt. They arehurting as a direct result of the honourable member forBox Hill who comes into this house bleating about$900 000 developers.

These are the people who in their seven years in officehelped their mates — the Ron Walkers and the LloydWilliamses of the world — in their quest to line theirpockets. They come in here today not caring about the150 little people. They don’t give a stuff about them.They are irrelevant to this legislation and irrelevant totheir lives. They are on a good wicket. Some membersof the opposition have been senior counsel, like thehonourable member for Kew; another is the honourablemember for Box Hill. They have been earning bigbucks and have been looked after by their families. Yetwhen you talk about the people whom this amendmentwill look after, they do not care. They are heartless.They come into the house and continue to be heartless,and that is why they are on that side of the house.

Regarding the upper house and the amendments, I havetalked before about the seven long, dark years of theKennett government. I remind members on theopposition benches that the legislative program of agovernment should be determined in the LegislativeAssembly. We have a unique situation in that there arechecks and balances in this house, with theIndependents and the rigours that they place upon us asa government.

It is appropriate that the upper house debate bills,suggest changes and put changes in place as it sees

fit — but not in these types of circumstances, wheremembers opposite knew at the end of November orearly December that they would go out and destroy thelives of 150 households by delaying the bill, becausethe amendments in the upper house meant the billwould be laid over until today.

The legislation will be further delayed by this process.The government will get the bill through the lowerhouse this time around, but I call on honourablemembers from the Liberal Party to seriously considertheir position and to seriously consider the feelings, thethoughts and the tribulations of and the emotional andfinancial hardship suffered by the 150 families. On thisside of the house that is who we care about — whetherit is the honourable members for Tullamarine, Seymouror Geelong or the minister, the honourable member forPascoe Vale, who is at the table. We care about the150 families that the legislation is about, not the ninedevelopers — not the Collins Street farmers and the taxavoiders who are trying to increase their wealth. It isabout salvaging the livelihoods of the real people in oursociety, as well as their homes. That is what we aretalking about — people’s homes — —

Ms Beattie interjected.

Mr NARDELLA — As the honourable member forTullamarine has said, it is about the dreams and thewhole lifestyles of these people. That is why it isimportant that these people are looked after.

In his speech the honourable member for Box Hillreferred to examples where these poor people that hesupports are developing three or more units on a blockof land. What nonsense! Three or more units to lookafter their families? If there are genuine peopleundertaking that, I strongly suggest he urge them tocontact the Minister for Finance quickly. None of myconstituents can afford to build three units. The vastmajority, especially low-income people, have greatdifficulty building any units or buying any house in myelectorate. So it is just nonsense for the honourablemember for Box Hill to come into this house and talkabout how hard-done-by, small-business operatorswanting to develop three or more units on a block ofland should be looked after. These are the MonomeathAvenue amendments. The honourable members fromthe Liberal Party are the developers’ friends.

In my office I have dealt with developers who havegone into residential areas such as John Paul Drive inHillside, where there are clear covenants saying thatonly one dwelling can be constructed on a block ofland. Yet they go in there regardless of the covenantand develop two units because they will make money



out of it. They sell one house on one block and make$300 000, but if they sell two houses they make$600 000 and pocket a very substantial profit. These arethe types of people whom the Liberal Party issupporting with its amendments from the upper house.

One of the final things I want to say is that it is atragedy that no members from the Liberal Party otherthan the honourable member for Kew have supportedthe honourable member for Box Hill. It is a tragedy thatthis house has opposition members other than thehonourable member for Kew — I disagree with whathe said but at least he had the guts to say it — who arenot prepared to come in here and put on the record theirviews on why they should support $900 000 developersin this chamber over and above the 150 families,ordinary working people who want to build andcomplete their houses in the metropolitan and countryareas of Victoria. That is the tragedy. They will notstand up like the shadow minister, the honourablemember for Box Hill, because they know they have totoe the party line, which they know is indefensible.They know it is not right that they should support the$900 000 developers above and beyond the150 families that are in desperate straits.

Mr Hardman interjected.

Mr NARDELLA — Absolutely. As the honourablemember for Seymour said, that is another strategy. I donot support the amendments brought before the housethrough the upper house process. It is an illegitimateprocess, one that the Liberal Party is now absolutelyabusing, and I urge honourable members not to supportthese amendments.

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — I join the debate onthe amendments to the House Contracts Guarantee(HIH Further Amendment) Bill. I do not support theamendments either, and I commend the honourablemember for Melton for his rousing speech in support ofhis constituents. He is a true champion of hisconstituents because he knows them well, unlike thoseon the other side of the house.

I note there are no National Party members in the houseat this time. I read with interest the debate on the bill inthe upper house. The Honourable Roger Hallam said hewas embarrassed to be caught in the crossfire and thathe could not possibly support the Liberal Party’samendments. Obviously the National Party members ofthis house are so embarrassed that they are not presentin the house, and most of the Liberal Party members arealso embarrassed because they are not in the houseeither. The Liberal Party has run out of speakers on thisbill so it has no-one prepared to get up and speak in

favour of the amendments that it has proposed. What acowardly act that is!

The honourable member for Melton talked about ninedevelopers and $8 million. I want to talk about some ofthose issues. Last year some people in the area that hasbeen redistributed into my new seat of Yuroke — acouple living in Greenvale — came into my office andthe woman said, ‘We are very fortunate. My husbandhas lost his job with HIH but at least I have a good jobat Ansett that we can fall back on’. We have seenLiberal Party members in this house desert Ansettworkers by backing the comments of John Andersonabout Ansett being a carcass swinging in the breeze.Last week I led a delegation of local people up toCanberra to talk about some local responses for thoseAnsett workers.

As I said, some of those people were caught up in HIHtoo. As I drive through what will be my new electoratein Roxburgh Park, I see — like the honourable memberfor Melton said about Avonwood Homes — peoplecaught in this black hole. Again like the honourablemember for Melton I am not talking about people whoare millionaires; I am talking about some of the mostaffordable housing in this state, blocks worth $80 000or $90 000 bought by young couples building theirdream homes. They have scrimped and saved formonths, sometimes years; sometimes they are newlyarrived migrants. What the Liberal Party wants to do ishand a bucket of money — $8 million — to ninedevelopers. Some 150 people have been caught up inthis black hole since last May because those on that sideof the house continue to support their rich mates andwill leave working-class people in the lurch.

We will see the Liberal Party condemned at the nextelection for its non-caring attitude not only towards the150 people caught up in this mess but also towards theAnsett workers. There is a litany of examples of itsnon-caring attitude towards workers. When councilsamalgamated and people were caught up in compulsorycompetitive tendering, hundreds of people were put outof work — and again the Liberal Party did not care. Icould give numerous examples about its non-caringattitude. I could go on and on, and I probably will forabout another 15 minutes!

This bill was intended to assist home owners orpotential home owners stranded by the HIH collapse.Again the problem is with those on the other side of thehouse. I should make a distinction here: it is not all onthe other side of the house, because the National Partyand the Independents have the good sense to see what isright in this bill. The amendments before the housetoday are a disgraceful example of the way the Liberal



Party wants to shatter the dreams of 150 people and linethe pockets of nine developers — people who set out ona business venture to make money and were caught upin this, but that is the risk they took. They went on anexpedition to make money and now when it has notcome true they want to put their hands in the bucket aswell. I would rather the 150 ordinary working men andwomen see their problems solved than the ninedevelopers. As I said, the Liberal Party could not careless about those 150 people. To the Liberal Party theyare just factory fodder, or something like that. Theytreat them as less than human.

There were some unusual clauses in the HIH policy andsome of those things should have been corrected, butthe opposition did not do its work and the bill is backhere. The opposition did not do the work. It was lazy.And it is now whingeing and carping and whining likewe have seen so often.

This scheme should not be open to unscrupulousclaimants — and that is what these people are — tolodge a claim with HIH. I have friends who live inElwood where one deceased estate house was knockeddown to make way for five units on a corner block.Those units will go for $800 000 or so each. I do notfeel like rewarding these nine developers. They took agamble, they made a business decision andunfortunately they got caught. But the 150 people didnot make a business decision; they made a decision tobuild a home for themselves, for their children and fortheir future.

I am not talking about people who are going to build ahome and then move on and update to a $400 000home and sell that to buy a $800 000 home. I amtalking about people who perhaps pay $150 000 for ahouse and land package, like the constituents of thehonourable member for Melton, to build their dreamhome, make a place for their family and their future. Itis their suburban dream. Honourable members on theother side of the house might sneer at that suburbandream because it is not in Kew or Toorak or Doncaster.Nevertheless it is the dream of many people and theydo not deserve to have those dreams stripped awayfrom them because HIH could not get it right.

I will touch on the attitude of the Legislative Council.All of a sudden the Council has seen fit to startreviewing and amending bills. I heard on the radio thismorning that the Council wants to start acting like aSenate. If it wants to act like a Senate, it should startbehaving like a Senate instead of being theobstreperous, obstructionist house that it is. It shouldcome with us into the brave new world and forget aboutthe wigs, the red velvet and whatever. It should come

with us and be close to where the people are, because ifthe Council were to do that it would know that it isdoing the wrong thing by putting forward theseamendments.

As I say, even the National Party, typically aconservative party, can see the good sense in this bill.The Independents, the free spirits, the free-mindedpeople who judge every issue and scrutinise every pieceof legislation as it comes to them, can see the sense inthis bill. It is only the obstructionist upper house thatcannot see the sense in it. I commend the National Partyand the Independents for their foresight on this bill.

I know there are others wishing to speak on this bill —the honourable member for Coburg and the honourablemember for Werribee — so I shall end my contributionhere. But just the fact that the honourable member forCoburg will follow me and that the honourable memberfor Werribee will follow him indicates what the LiberalParty thinks of this bill. I do not see anybody at thetable defending their position. Where are they? Theyare not here. They are not even interested. Look atthem, talking amongst themselves while this importantpiece of legislation is debated. I oppose theamendments and I will now let the honourable memberfor Coburg talk about what it is like for his constituents.He might correct me, but I do not think they are inMonomeith Avenue or Lansell Road nor are theydipping their fingers in for $8 million.

I oppose the amendments. In conclusion, I wish topraise the National Party for seeing the light this timearound and I praise the Independents again for seeingthe light, as they always do. It is a shameful anddisgraceful exercise the way that the obstructionistupper house, which has no relevance in this century,has sent this bill back.

Mr CARLI (Coburg) — I rise in support of mycolleagues and to emphasise the important point thatthe House Contracts Guarantee (HIH FurtherAmendment) Bill was very much intended to pick uphome owners, ordinary people who were buying andbuilding homes and who got kicked by the HIHcollapse. That is where the intent was. It is unfortunatethat in the haste to put the bill together there were someunforeseen consequences. Part of what we areattempting to do now is to rectify those consequences.

One of the cases before us is of developers utilising, ifyou like, a loophole or unintended element of the bill totake a large proportion of the fund that was set upspecifically for those 150 people left stranded by thecollapse of HIH. There is a current attempt by adeveloper to claim $7.6 million — 23 per cent of the



fund that was established — and clearly that was neverthe intent. The government amended the bill to ensurethat it excluded developers from being able to claimand take the mass of the money out of the fund and thatit does what it was intended to do — that is, to assistthose home owners that have been stranded by the HIHcollapse.

As we know, HIH was one of the major corporatecollapses in Australian history, one of two major onesthat occurred last year, along with Ansett. The royalcommission will no doubt come out with findingsdemonstrating exactly why it collapsed, but alreadythere is evidence of mismanagement and overpaymentfor the various parts that came together to form HIH.As a result of a corporate collapse we have a lot ofpeople who were hurt and a huge impact right throughthe economy that we are still feeling at the moment inall parts of the insurance industry.

One of those consequences was clearly that of homeowners’ insurance that was taken out on theconstruction of buildings by the builders, but essentiallywhat was being insured was the home of the individualowner. We as a government saw fit to intervene quicklyin terms of the HIH collapse recognising that there wereindividuals and families who were obviously strugglingto purchase their homes, who had put everything intothose buildings and who were going to be hurt by thefact that there were cases where builders had gone bustand insurance was unable to cover them. That was theintention, to come in as a government to demonstratethat it is seeking to protect working people.

The problem that has arisen as a result of this bill andthe ministerial order that came into effect was to givedevelopers an ability to claim from the fund becausethey were entitled as owners and to basically allowthem to make claims in cases of non-completion bydevelopers. This was never the intention of the bill. Itcertainly was not the intention of the government fordevelopers to find loopholes to take money out of thefund. it is a question now of amending the bill to ensurethat we do not have unscrupulous people claimingmoney that clearly is not part of their entitlement. Thatwas not the intention of our public policy. What wasessentially a rescue package, in many ways hastily puttogether by the government, has obviously got flawsthat need to be corrected.

The government is very pleased to have had the supportof the National Party right through on this bill. We haveseen from some previous attempts and demonstrationsby the upper house that it is far from helpful in terms ofthese important cases.

Dare I say it, it is all about defending the rights ofordinary working people. It would seem that in everypiece of legislation that goes through this house anattitude of causing as much mischief as possible andblocking legislation is adopted by the upper house. Iendorse the comments of the honourable member forTullamarine, that we are now seeing a period ofhostility from the upper house even on legislation thatis clearly in the best interests of Victorians, andparticularly working Victorians.

Numerous pieces of legislation have been returned tothis house with amendments from the other place, butthey amount to purely intransigent resistance to thegovernment. That emphasises for us, as it emphasisesfor many in the community, the real need to reform theupper house; that opportunity should be taken. We needan upper house that is a house of review whichdemonstrates the various political positions andopinions in the state but which does not simply becomea forum where the opposition can express hostility tothe government. While the bill is a clear demonstrationof fixing up things that were done in haste, theamendment emphasises the difficulties we are nowhaving with the upper house and its attitude to resistingcommonsense.

I am pleased to be able to speak on the amendment. Thebill demonstrates a genuine attempt by the governmentto intervene in a period of great difficulty for the homeowners left stranded by the HIH collapse, theramifications of which will be witnessed for a numberof years. It has been an enormous corporate collapse. Ihope the royal commission leads to an improvement inand the regulation of the corporate sector to ensuresimilar incidents do not occur, not only because of theeconomic damage they cause but also because thiscollapse has hurt people. I am pleased that thehonourable member for Werribee, whose electoratecovers more of a growth area where insurance for homebuilders is crucial, will contribute to debate on theamendment.

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — I am pleased tocontribute to debate on the Legislative Council’ssuggested amendment to the House ContractsGuarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill. As thehonourable member for Coburg said, it is my privilegeto represent one of Victoria’s most dynamic growthcorridors. The collapse of HIH caused enormousdisruption, hurt, harm and fear to many people in theelectorate of Werribee.

The HIH bill seeks to remedy some of that distress,some of that uncertainty and some of that awful fearthat was created when HIH fell apart. The original bill



was intended to assist just these sorts of people, peoplelike the good people of Werribee and Wyndham Valeand Hoppers Crossing and Tarneit who had beenseverely damaged or felt that they would be damagedor threatened by the collapse of HIH. Given thegovernment’s commitment to governing for allVictorians and for taking care of people who arecaught, not through their own actions, in difficultsituations such as this, the bill was prepared quickly.People had to be given some sense of certainty, somesafety net, some safeguard, some feeling that theirgovernment was going to take timely steps to look afterthem. The bill having to be prepared quickly did notallow for much detailed research to be conducted onHIH’s policies and claim files. That could not be donein the short time available, as the more important timeframe the government was operating under was toquickly provide some safety, some security and somecertainty for first home and other home builders.

Subsequent to its initial action the governmentundertook that research and did its homework. It foundmany unusual clauses in some of HIH’s policies. Thosediscoveries meant that some of the legislation did notoperate as it was intended to operate. The problemclauses specifically relate to policies issued before1999. It needs to be remembered that a new ministerialorder came into effect late in 1998. The principalproblems relate to the following matters. Fordevelopers, they include being entitled to claim asowners. The 1998 ministerial order allowed insurers toexclude non-completion claims by developers. Anotherdifficulty was clauses that denied any HIH liability ifHIH ceased to trade, which is what happened when itwent into liquidation on 28 August 2001.

Another area of difficulty was that if the builder, not theowner, was the insured person, the owner had noindemnity from the state because he or she had noclaim against HIH. There is also a general requirement,which is still in operation, that claims are deemedaccepted if an insurer does not respond within 90 days.While this generally works as it was intended towork — that is, to stop insurers sitting on claimsindefinitely — it causes problems for the rescue schemethat the government developed and put into place. Thisis because any unscrupulous claimant could lodge aclaim with HIH, which, because it is in liquidation,would probably do nothing with it. That claim could besat on for 90 days. The claimant could then lodge aclaim with the rescue scheme and say that because HIHis deemed to have accepted the claim the HousingGuarantee Fund Ltd (HGFL) must also accept it. Insuch a case HGFL could still argue about the amount ofthe claim, but it could not reject the claim outright.

The government was also concerned that some HIHbuilders warranty policies may have included cover forthings other than builders warranty — for instance,public liability. Such additional cover was not intendedto be included in the state’s rescue package. Claims forthose types of cover can be made against thecommonwealth, as is appropriate.

When this amending bill came before Parliament lastyear the opposition agreed with all the provisions of thebill except the exclusion of developer claims. TheNational Party supported the government on the bill,and I take this opportunity to congratulate the NationalParty on its support. In the Legislative Council — thatmost unrepresentative of all upper house chambers inthis country — —

Mr Robinson interjected.

Ms GILLETT — As the honourable member forMitcham says, possibly the most unrepresentativechamber in the entire known universe! The upper househas pressed proposed amendments to allow developerclaims made before the date of the second-readingspeech of the bill. The opposition’s most recentmessage from the Legislative Council is now beforethis house for debate.

Some 150 claims from owners with cease-to-trade orbuilder-as-insured clauses in the covering policiescannot be proceeded with until the bill passes. That is alot of people, a lot of families, who are uncertain andfearful about the prospects of vulnerability that thatwould leave them open for.

As I said, it being my privilege to represent a growthcorridor in the state seat of Werribee, I have stronglylobbied and argued for this action to be taken quicklywhile not giving the opportunity for large developers tooffset their liabilities at the expense of families who areundertaking the building of a family home, many ofthem for the first and only time.

In detail, this bill amends the House ContractsGuarantee Act, under which the state HIH indemnityscheme operates. It retrospectively came into operationon 8 June 2001, the date on which the indemnityscheme started. This is appropriate retrospectivity,because otherwise we would end up with a gap throughwhich significant numbers of people would fall. Advicefrom the Victorian Government Solicitor also supportsthis approach, and it was found to be an appropriate useof retrospectivity by the Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee, which I have the privilege tochair.

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


It also corrects some of the problems with HIH policies.It provides that the principal place of residence of anowner is not counted in the number of homes thatdetermines whether that owner is a developer. It insertsa new section indicating that the act is intended to affectthe rights of parties to proceedings that are currentlybefore any court or tribunal. This ensures there is nodoubt that a particular property developer with a currentcase worth some $7.6 million, or 23 per cent of theentire fund, is intended to be excluded from claimingunder proposed section 36A. The bill also overcomesthe effect of a cease-to-trade clause in an HIH policy. Ifnothing were done, as in proposed section 37(2),hundreds of home owners would have no claim againstthe fund, contrary to the original intention of thelegislation. The cost of these claims was factored intothe original costing.

It inserts new subsections in section 38 that excludedevelopers from the state indemnity, exclude claimsrelating to insurance other than builder’s warrantyinsurance from the state indemnity, provide that stateindemnity does not simply exist because more than 90days have passed since a claim under an HIH policywas received by HIH, and provide a state indemnity toa home owner despite the fact that under the HIHpolicy it was the builder, not the home owner, who wasinsured. It provides explicitly that excluding developersfrom claiming under the scheme does not affect thesubsequent home owner’s right to claim.

In conclusion, this is a fine piece of legislationproduced by a fine government of which I am proud tobe a member, because it is looking after the people ofWerribee as they should be looked after — and that isthoroughly and in a timely fashion.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered to be returned to Council with messageintimating decision of house.

Sitting suspended 6.26 p.m. until 8.03 p.m.

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Council’s amendments

Message from Council relating to following amendmentsconsidered:

1. Clause 11, line 15, omit “section 115” and insert“sections 115 and 116”.

2. Clause 11, line 17, after this line insert —

‘“115. Transitional provision — Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2001 —Membership of Authority

(1) Despite the commencement of the Country FireAuthority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act2001, the Authority as constituted on and after thatcommencement is deemed to be the same body asthe Authority as constituted before thatcommencement.

(2) Despite the commencement of the Country FireAuthority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act2001, a person who is a member of that Authorityunder section 7 as in force immediately before thatcommencement, continues, subject to this Act, tobe a member until the expiry of that person’s termof office.’.

3. Clause 11, line 18, omit ‘“115” and insert “116”.

4. Clause 11, line 23, omit “9” and insert “10”.


NEW CLAUSE

6. Insert the following new clause to follow clause 2 —

‘A. Constitution of Authority

In section 7(1) of the Country Fire Authority Act1958, for paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) substitute —

“(d) one is to be selected by the Governor in Councilfrom a panel of not less than two names submittedby the Victorian Farmers Federation;

(e) one is to be selected by the Governor in Councilfrom a panel of not less than two names submittedby the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry;

(f) one is to be appointed by the Governor in Councilfrom a panel, submitted by the executivecommittee of the Municipal Association ofVictoria, of the names of two persons, each ofwhom, at the time of submission, is a councillor ofa municipal council with a municipal district thatis —

(i) wholly or partly within the country area ofVictoria; and

(ii) within an 80 kilometre radius of the GeneralPost Office (Corner of Elizabeth and BourkeStreets) Melbourne;

(g) one is to be appointed by the Governor in Councilfrom a panel, submitted by the executivecommittee of the Municipal Association ofVictoria, of the names of two persons, each ofwhom, at the time of submission, is a councillor ofa municipal council with a municipal district thatis —




(ii) outside an 80 kilometre radius of the GeneralPost Office (Corner of Elizabeth and BourkeStreets) Melbourne.’.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — I move:

That the amendments be disagreed with.

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — We will be vigorouslyopposing the proposition that has been put forward tothe Parliament by the government. Let me make it veryclear what the government is asking us to do in regardto this Country Fire Authority (CFA) bill with itsamendment. The government wants us to oppose ourown amendments that we put forward in the upperhouse. To vote against them does not make any sense atall.

The original bill is a shifty, underhanded piece of workby this minister. It is designed purely and simply tostack the CFA board. The government has alwaysdenied that that is the point — to stack the CFA board.The opposition does not trust him and neither do the63 000 volunteers. Let me read what this minister triedto do in the original bill. Clause 3 states:

Constitution of Authority

In section 7(1) of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, forparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) substitute —

(d) 2 are to be appointed by the Governor in Council on thenomination of the Minister;

In other words, when the Insurance Council ofAustralia did not want to put in its two nominations,what it led to was a default mechanism which had beenthere during the Kennett years, which meant that if theinsurance council did not want to put anyone up, thisminister was able to appoint two people to the board.But he wanted to go one step further and to put it intolegislation, to protect him, his union mates and theLabor Party hacks that he can put on the CFA board.He is running out of friends with the United FirefightersUnion (UFU), and I would be interested to know whohe had in mind to put at the top of the CFA board —whether it was going to be Peter Marshall or anotherone of the Labor Party hacks — because this would bethe first time ever that a minister or a government hadcontrol of the CFA board.

I explained about the default mechanism. That wasthere, as I mentioned quite clearly, in the Kennett years,but what makes this so important is that the minister hasindicated his clear intention that he would stack theboard, and he has actually tried to put it in legislation.

What has this minister tried to do? He told the CFAboard and his mates at the CFA that I welshed on adeal.

Mr Haermeyer — Did I?

Mr WELLS — That is what you and your adviserstold the CFA — that I welshed on a deal.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member will speak through the Chair.

Mr WELLS — The minister and/or his adviserstold the CFA that I welshed on a deal.

Let’s look at the sequence of events of what happenedwith this bill. The minister brought it in on19 September 2001. We wrote to the key stakeholderson 24 September and were given an excellent briefingby the minister, and we thanked him and his staff forthat. We had serious concerns so we contacted theparliamentary counsel and looked at those amendmentsand what we wanted to do. On 27 November — a veryimportant point — the bill went to the Liberal Partyroom and we decided not to oppose the bill but to moveamendments. At the conclusion of that Liberal Partymeeting, at 11.40 a.m. on 27 November, my officephoned Minister Haermeyer’s office. The person wewanted to talk was unavailable, but we left a message,‘Urgent re CFA bill’. That is what we said to theminister’s office. This was urgent. Can you believewhen we received correspondence back?


Mr WELLS — Two years later! We had neverreceived any correspondence back. We rang theminister’s office to tell him we wanted to talk to himabout this bill and that it was urgent. Never, ever did wereceive a phone call back. No matter how much wecomplained, we did not ever receive one piece ofcorrespondence back after contacting him at 11.40 a.m.saying this was urgent and, ‘We need to talk about thisto try and have the matter resolved’. Never did wereceive a piece of correspondence back.

The bill was debated in the Legislative Assembly, andon 29 November it was voted on. It then went to theLegislative Council, where its second reading wasmoved by the Minister for Sport and Recreation, theHonourable Justin Madden, and the amendments weremoved on 5 December.

Isn’t it interesting that after we tried to contact theoffice of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices to talk about this bill, the minister said tohimself, ‘Let’s play politics with this’, and he put out a



press release on 28 November headed ‘‘Playing politicswith CFA: Haermeyer’ — this is his own press release!It states:

The opposition has played cheap politics with changes to acrucial firefighting service on the eve of the summer fireseason, the Minister for Police and Emergency ServicesAndré Haermeyer said today.

‘As the Country Fire Authority and thousands of volunteersprepare for the upcoming season, the Liberal and Nationalparties want to score cheap political points in an irresponsiblecampaign in misinformation’, Mr Haermeyer said.

Let’s have a look at this. He has put this out on the eveof the firefighting season. He brought the bill into thisplace on 19 September. Why in blue blazes would hewant to wait two months to have it debated? If he wasserious about bringing the bill on, he would have had itdebated in late September or early October. He couldnot get his act together; he waited until the eve of thefire season, and then he started running around puttingout this sort of stuff, which fortunately did not get muchcoverage.

On 6 December he started saying — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order!The honourable member will address the ministerappropriately in the third person, through the Chair.

Mr WELLS — On 6 December the minister put outanother press release, in another stage of desperation,headed ‘Opposition delays important reforms on eve offire season’. Again I make the point that the ministerbrought the bill in on 19 September and waited twomonths before he wanted it debated in the lower house.The media release states:

‘Because the lower house has already risen this means theseimportant enhancements to fire safety, prior to yet anotherhigh-risk summer, cannot take effect until after the fireseason’, Mr Haermeyer said.

Whose fault is this? It is the minister’s fault. We statedvery strongly throughout this whole debate that wesupport the minister’s ban on the use of gas-firedscatterguns, we support the minister on thestrengthening of municipal fire prevention plans and wesupport the minister very strongly on the clarification ofthe availability of compensation to all volunteers. Wesaid in the spring session that on these three matters wehave no problems and we support the minister strongly.

It gets back to the issue of the intent of this bill. Clearlyan intent of this bill on the part of this minister was toensure that he had the right to appoint two members tothe board.

Mr Haermeyer — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I refer the honourable member for Wantirna tothe bill before the house. The bill before the house doesnot relate to any changes to the composition of the CFAboard other than the amendments that have beenproposed by the opposition.

Mr WELLS — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, that is no point of order. We know what theamendments are about. I am talking to the amendmentsand to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order!At this stage I do not uphold the point of order, but Iremind the honourable member for Wantirna of thedetails of the legislation and the amendments that arebefore the house.

Mr WELLS — Let me make this very clear,because the minister must have misunderstood what Isaid at the very start.

Ms Duncan — It was misunderstood by everyoneelse.

Mr WELLS — Yes, I understand the minister ismisunderstood. I agree with the honourable member forGisborne that the minister is misunderstood in manyplaces.

What the government is trying to do with theamendments is to take out the part where the ministerhas the ability to nominate the two people forappointment to the board. What would happen in thatcase is that there would be a default mechanism, whichmay not be known to the backbenchers on the Laborside, and the minister would still have the ability toappoint two members to the board. So I am talkingabout the bill and the minister’s amendments, which weare opposing.

A couple of weeks ago the honourable member forBenambra invited me up to Wodonga to meet withsome of the CFA volunteers there, and we had anexcellent response to that meeting. When we sat downto talk about CFA issues, the no. 1 issue that theywanted to make sure we knew about was that they didnot want this bill to proceed with the minister’samendments. The no. 1 request they raised with me andthe honourable member for Benambra was to make itvery clear that we, as the Liberal Party, should stick toour guns and not allow the amendments to be passedthat would allow that default mechanism to be put inplace.

There has been a suggestion by the minister and hiscrew saying, ‘Let’s leave this part of the bill out, and



we will come back to it in the spring sittings andaddress the issue of the board then’. The point is thatwe do not trust the minister! We do not trust theminister, the volunteers in Wodonga do not trust theminister, and the volunteers in Gippsland,Warrnambool and Horsham do not trust the minister!Let me tell you: this minister has no credibility withthose 63 000 volunteers. They do not believe him!

The minister has no credibility, and the reason for thatis that he tried a slimy, sleazy, underhanded method ofstacking the board in the first place, and the volunteerswoke up to it. That is why we have both the urbanassociation and the rural association writing to us, andboth organisations have said clearly, ‘We cannot have aposition where the minister is allowed to appoint theboard members’.

When you look at the composition of the board you seethat there is the Environment Protection Authorityrepresentative, the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment representative, the deputy chair andthe chairman, a total of four people; these two peoplethat the minister wanted to appoint would make it six;and the chairman having the casting vote would for thefirst time create a majority and enable the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to control the board.

The opposition proposed an amendment in the upperhouse which would get the minister out of an awkwardspot and allow him to gain some credibility with thevolunteers. If he had agreed to it he probably wouldhave been seen as a hero among the volunteers. But no,he could not, because of his mates at the UnitedFirefighters Union. This minister is hamstrung andhandcuffed to the UFU, and he could not make thatdecision. The amendment we moved — and I notice theNational Party had the same amendment — was goingto save this minister’s skin by saying, ‘If you are goingto appoint someone to the board, let’s get some realskill. Let’s get one person from the Victorian FarmersFederation — the farmers — and let’s get one personfrom the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerceand Industry’. With that you would have two peoplegoing onto the board with whom we were happy as aLiberal opposition, with whom the volunteers werehappy with — the whole 63 000 — and the onlyperson — —

Ms Duncan — All of them?

Mr WELLS — The honourable member forGisborne interjects and asks if it had total support. I cantell the honourable member for Gisborne that the debateon this bill has been going on for six months and I havenot received one letter or one phone call or met one

CFA volunteer who disagreed with our amendment. Iwould be interested to hear the honourable member forGisborne announce in her contribution which brigadesin her electorate were actually opposed to what we weresaying. Maybe she will be good enough to name themin the house, and then we could follow it up and contactthose volunteer brigades in her electorate and clarifywhy they were opposed to our amendment, becausethey certainly did not contact us and they certainly didnot contact the National Party. They did not contact anymembers of Parliament on this side of the house.

So we had a proposal designed to get the minister out ofa sticky situation which we were happy with, thevolunteers were happy with, and I suspect the CFA washappy with. The only people who were not happywould have been the United Firefighters Union andPeter Marshall. I am not sure whether Mr Marshall wasone of the people that the minister had designed wouldgo onto the board. Maybe that was the case, because heis a highly intelligent man and he has a very goodknowledge of the CFA. However, my concern wouldbe whether he would look after the interests of those63 000 volunteers rather than the 200 UFU members.

The other point which we designed as an amendment inthe upper house was to save this minister’s botching ofthe original bill, where it had two appointments fromthe Municipal Association of Victoria. What thisminister wanted to do, and what could have happenedthe way the bill was written, was that a person fromSpringvale and a person from Boronia could have beenon the CFA board.


Mr WELLS — That is right. The minister has justmentioned that the Warrnambool person is the urbanrepresentative. That is what the CFA people wanted,but the way this was written under the minister’sscheme — the one he botched — you could havesomeone from Springvale and someone from Boronia.That is not what people in country Victoria wanted;they wanted someone from rural Victoria. So what wedesigned was to have someone from within80 kilometres of the CBD and someone from outside80 kilometres of the CBD. It was a reasonableamendment that was accepted by the urban and ruralassociations, but for some reason the government didnot take it up. When I spoke to one of the minister’sstaff I told him we were happy to move on thisparticular one, not the other one. We are still waitingfor the phone call back to us. We sincerely believed thatthis was going to make it easier for the minister toappoint two people, because it was a ridiculoussituation hypothetically speaking to appoint someone



from Bayswater or Springvale or Boronia. To me at thetime that was totally unrealistic.

It is very disappointing that this bill has come back,because I believe that with our amendments itrepresented the will of the CFA volunteers. They putthat in writing to us. If they have written somethingdifferent — —


Mr WELLS — Absolutely! I am happy to producea letter from the urban and rural associations in whichthey say they want us to make sure that there is properrepresentation on the CFA board and not to allow theminister — —

Mr Haermeyer — They supported youramendments, did they? Is that what they said in theletter?

Mr WELLS — The minister does not listen. Let memake this very clear for the minister, through you,Acting Speaker: the urban and rural associations did notwant the minister to appoint his own nominees to theboard.


Mr WELLS — That is what they said? Is theminister acknowledging that point? Are youacknowledging that point?


Mr WELLS — I think he is. I think he is going toacknowledge that point.


Mr WELLS — He asks now, ‘Were theysupporting our amendments?’. When we phoned theurban and rural associations we said, ‘This is an ideathat has come to us from a number of the CFAvolunteers and regions. What do you think of thisidea?’. One of the brigades said, ‘We would prefer thatthe board be reduced by two’. We said, ‘Okay; but ifthe minister is not going to reduce the board then surelya better situation would be that you had two peopleappointed, one from the Victorian Farmers Federation(VFA) and one from Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry (VECCI)’. They said, ‘Yes,that would be better than the ministerial nominations’.

As I said, we are sincerely disappointed that the bill hascome back into the house. On the second amendment Ibelieve we could have worked together in a bipartisanway to make sure that the Municipal Association of

Victoria appointments would come one from the ruraland one from the urban areas. On the first amendment,as we have said all along, we will not allow the ministerto stack the board. I give fair warning that if thegovernment, through the Independents, knocks theamendments out they will be put back in the upperhouse.

Mr Wynne — This is ridiculous.

Mr WELLS — I agree, it is ridiculous.

Mr Wynne — It is ridiculous grandstanding.

Mr WELLS — I make the point very clearly, andthis is the disappointing part about it, that on 7 February2002 the opposition in good faith again contacted theminister’s office requesting the status of the bill. I amhappy to give the minister a copy of the emails sent tohis office. The matter was passed on to a particularperson for him to get back to us. On 7 February wecontacted the minister’s office to try and worksomething out and to get the status of the bill. When doyou think we got a response?

Mr Lupton — You never got one.

Mr Plowman — A month?

Mr WELLS — On 26 February I had no choice butto take the matter to the party room because nocorrespondence had been received from the minister’soffice. The decision was made to stick to our guns andmaintain the position held in the upper house. Can youbelieve that at 10 past 3 my office received a telephonecall advising that the CFA bill was coming on and weneeded to sit down and talk about it.

Ms Pike — You must have a leak in your partyroom.

Mr WELLS — No, we contacted the minister’soffice; we were happy to do it. On 7 February wecontacted the minister’s office in good faith to try andwork something out. We did not hear for three weeks. Itcame back and went to the party room, where we votedon it, in the same way the Labor Party does. At 10 past3 that afternoon — and only because the minister’soffice heard it was coming up because the minister’sadviser was listening to the box, maybe in theminister’s office — we were contacted and asked whatwe could do about working something out.

Have we been unfair about this, Minister, in trying tocontact your office to work something out?



Mr Haermeyer — How long do you need — ayear?

Mr WELLS — We contacted the minister’s officetwice last year to work something out. We did it againthis year in good faith. What more can the minister’soffice expect from the opposition? He told the CFA thatwe welshed on the deal, although we had not. We triedto contact the minister’s office, were ignored, and thenhe got upset because we wanted to oppose hisamendments.

I hope that while the bill is between the houses we canwork on some of the amendments. The minister maynot get what he wants regarding the nomination ofpeople to the CFA board. We do not want that inlegislation or through the default mechanism. I knowthat the minister will claim it occurred under the formergovernment as well, and I accept that and have noproblems with it, but had he not made his intentionsclear in the original bill that he wanted to nominatethese two people we may have had a different approachto his nominations to the board.

With those few words, we do not support the minister’samendments and will be sticking to our guns. We are aparty that will very strongly back the CFA volunteers.We give fair warning that we will bring back ouramendments in the upper house if the minister’s officeis not prepared to sit down and talk.

Mr KILGOUR (Shepparton) — I support thehonourable member for Wantirna on this issue. TheNational Party strongly supports the Liberal Party’spoints, which involve amendments also put by theNational Party. We have not changed our minds on theissue, and it has been a ridiculous situation that we havehad to wait until now for the minister to comment on it.

I note with interest the comment of the honourablemember for Richmond that this is ridiculousgrandstanding. The honourable member for Richmond,who obviously is a city-based politician, would neverhave sat down with the urban or rural associations totalk with them about how they feel about theseamendments and hear their concerns that the ministerwill appoint members of the United Firefighters Union(UFU) to the Country Fire Authority (CFA) board.

Let’s think about how long ago this matter was firstbrought before the house. I think it was the first week ofthe spring sitting. That was the very time that thehonourable member for Wantirna and I made it quiteclear to the government that we were not happy withsome of the issues contained in the bill. We were happyenough with what might be called the mechanical part

of the bill, where we talked about municipal fireprevention plans and some issues regarding gas-firedscatterguns and so on, and we now find there will be anamendment to allow regulations to be made for the safeusage of these appliances. These are hardly big-dealissues so far as the fire authority is concerned, but theywere raised with the minister and they wanted them putthrough.

It is interesting that over the Christmas period theminister issued a press release criticising the Liberaland National parties because they were affecting theeffectiveness of the CFA. It was hardly something thatthe volunteers could support, considering that theminister was not interested in talking to us about thoseCFA appointments.

When I sat down with the members of the executive ofthe urban association and we talked to the ruralassociation members, they clearly said they did notwant to see a continuation of what has been happening,where the minister has appointed people in place of theinsurance council.

I want to report what the urban association memberssaid to me. Their first preference was to have tworepresentatives from the insurance council on theCFA board. I absolutely support that; we all supportthat. However, if the insurance council says it does notwant to be represented on the board, it comes back tothe minister to nominate somebody. This is where theproblem is, because this is where the rural associationand the urban association quite clearly say, ‘We do nottrust the minister. We do not trust the government notto put members of the UFU on the board, which wouldbe a red rag to a bull to the 60 000 volunteer firefightersin Victoria’.

The other proposal they raised with me was that if wecannot have the members of the insurance council thenwe should decrease the board membership by two.They were quite clear about that. They clearly put thesuggestion that there should be two fewer members onthe board rather than having two members appointed bythe minister.

A further proposal was that if the minister was notprepared to deal with that we could have an additionalrepresentative from each of the urban association andthe rural association if he wanted to keep the board atthe 12 members as we have at the moment.

Then there were the two important proposals whichwere suggested by rural Victoria and which we putforward as opposition and National Party together. Thefirst was that there should be a member of the Victorian



Farmers Federation (VFF), whose members representthe massive amount of farmland covered by the variousbrigades of the CFA. The other was to have arepresentative from the Victorian Employers Chamberof Commerce and Industry (VECCI), which representsbusiness people whose businesses and buildings incountry towns and the outer metropolitan area also needto be protected by the CFA. I thought they wereexcellent suggestions. I thought we had a situationwhere the minister would surely sit down and talk to usabout them. But no, he just bludgeoned ahead and didnot bother to talk to us.

We put forward these amendments in the last week ofthe spring session. The minister had all the time heneeded over the summer break. He had an opportunityto sit down with us and work this out, because we wereprepared to talk to the minister about it. We wereprepared to say, ‘Well, if you do not accept the VFFand VECCI, who do you accept?’.

One of the minister’s staff suggested to me that inlooking at a skills-based board the minister might say,for instance, that one member of the board must be acertified practising accountant or a member of the legalprofession. I would be very happy to talk to the ministerabout that, because that is what happens on otherboards. We also see what happens on other boardswhere the Labor Party puts in union representation.Here we were — —

Ms Allan interjected.

Mr KILGOUR — The honourable member forBendigo East obviously does not have a clue aboutwhat has happened in the past when Laborgovernments have placed union representatives onboards. I wonder whether the honourable member forBendigo East has bothered to talk to the volunteers ofthe CFA to see how they feel about the issue. They feelvery strongly about it, and we strongly believe weshould not continue to have these two representativesappointed by the minister.

The minister has had plenty of time to change this.When I said to the minister’s staff member, ‘What isgoing on here? You knew about this issue in the firstweek of the spring session, and we still haven’t got anychange. We still haven’t sat down with the minister andtalked about it’, the suggestion was, ‘Oh well, if it’s tobe a skills-based board, we need to put this past a wholelot of people’.

The government has had six months to do this and ithas done nothing about it. The volunteers from the ruraland urban associations are saying, ‘We know what’s

behind this. They want to put one or two UFUmembers on the board, and we’re not going to have abar of it’. Yet here they have said to the minister, ‘Wewould accept the possibility of two coming off theboard; we would accept the insurance council, if thecouncil would accept it again; and we would accept twomore representatives, one from each association’. Theywill also accept a representative from the VFF and arepresentative from VECCI. But what does the ministerdo? He continues to go ahead, saying, ‘No, I want toput this through and continue to appoint the boardmembers’.

So we have a situation where we have been told by theminister’s staff, ‘If you withdraw this as far as the boardrepresentation is concerned, maybe later this year wewill make this change before the next boardappointment’. We are being asked to believe that thismob would put this through, and that is why we arenow saying that we will continue to support theamendments.

Let’s get this fixed up right now in a manner that thevolunteers of the CFA will accept. We support theamendments, and we will put them back again in theupper house if necessary. So when we are looking atone representative from the VFF and one from VECCI,in regard to the Municipal Association of Victoria allwe are trying to do is ensure we have a representativefrom the country areas of Victoria — —


Mr KILGOUR — The honourable member forBendigo East could hardly vote against that. We aresaying we could have a representative from the outermetropolitan area. So we could have one representativefrom within an 80-kilometre radius and onerepresentative from outside that. That is fair andequitable. It would give the real rural brigades and themore urban brigades a chance to be represented. I donot see a problem with that. We have had no responsefrom the minister’s office to say where we are wrong,but we have the full support of both the associationsrepresenting all those firefighters in rural Victoria.

We in the National Party have no doubt that we aredoing the right thing by those people whom werepresent, because we have sat down, talked to themand listened to them. Not only that, we have taken theiradvice. They were the people who brought forward theissue about VECCI and the VFF, not us. They came tous and said, ‘We think these two groups would be thepeople who would have a very good command of thesituation’ — and of course it is their property that needsto be protected by the CFA brigades right throughout



Victoria. So I am very happy to continue to support theamendments that were made in the upper house.

I would be very happy to ensure that the National Partysupports these amendments if they go back to the upperhouse. But we are happy to talk to the minister aboutwhether he has any other ideas about replacing thosetwo with somebody else who he thinks we might beable to get through to — except the union, because thatis certainly not what the volunteers want. We wouldhave been happy to talk about another demographic asfar as the municipal association is concerned, but aftersix months we still have not had the opportunity todiscuss with the minister the possibility of somechanges. So we are faced with the situation of sayingyes, we will support the people we represent in ruralVictoria, and yes, we will continue to try to put forwardthese amendments to make sure there is fairness andequity for the people who make up the magnificentbody of men and women who are the Country FireAuthority of Victoria.

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — When this bill was introducedto this house it came with a number of changes from theCountry Fire Authority (CFA) to significantly enhanceits capacity to provide for the safety of Victorians, toprevent fires from occurring and to make municipal fireprevention arrangements more enforceable. It wasabout prescribing or imposing restrictions on certaindevices like scatterguns in times of high fire danger,and it was also about ensuring certifications for days oftotal fire ban. In the past prosecutions for lighting fireson days of total fire ban had failed because of theunavailability of the original certificate. Veryimportantly it was about enshrining in legislation theright of CFA volunteers to compensation.

At the time the Office of the Emergency ServicesCommissioner thought it might be appropriate to usethis bill to formalise the arrangements that had been inplace under two governments and under three ministersregarding appointments to the CFA board, because theInsurance Council of Australia (ICA) had made it clearthat it wanted to extract itself from its responsibility offunding the fire services. I find it interesting that theNational Party is tangoing with the council on thatparticular proposal, because if the council were ever toget away with it, the fire services in this state would bedestroyed. To let the insurance council off the hook forfunding the fire services would be an outrage. It hasbeen done in other states, and all it did was pocket thefire services levy to obtain a windfall gain. It issomething this government will not entertain, because itwould devastate the CFA in particular.

However, because the insurance council was notnominating its representatives on the CFA board, thegovernment decided that this was something it had toformalise. The ICA had written to the governmentindicating that it wished to be relieved of itsresponsibility to make those appointments. TheMunicipal Association of Victoria (MAV) wrote to usindicating that it had a difficulty with the way thedistinction between rural and urban representatives wascodified and that it would like that distinction removed,but it said it would at the same time ensure that its ruralmembers were represented given the two appointmentsit is able to nominate.

We thought, ‘Okay, the first point has been existingpractice, and commonsense will prevail on the second’.At the moment we have the rather bizarre situationwhere the urban MAV representative on the CFA boardis a person from Warrnambool — although I must sayhe is an excellent representative for whom I have thehighest regard.

As I said, the ICA provisions dealing with theappointment of the CFA board have been in placeunder two governments and three ministers, and I havealready appointed or reappointed ICA representatives tothe board. No members of the United FirefightersUnion (UFU) are on it, as was suggested by thehonourable members for Wantirna and Shepparton. Nocriticisms of appointments were made; they wereregarded as good and decent. I was simply carrying onthe tradition that has been carried on by the previousgovernment, and it was a suggestion of the EmergencyServices Commissioner’s office that these practises bereflected in legislation. So we thought, ‘Okay, thisshould be non-controversial. We will simply add thison to the CFA bill’.

As soon as the opposition and the National Party werebriefed on it they made it fairly clear that they weregoing to play politics with the provisions. They weregoing to run out and say, ‘Oh look, the government istrying to stack the CFA board with UFU reps’. We hadthat suggestion coming from the honourable memberfor Wantirna, yet the Leader of the Opposition has beenout there today speaking almost in praise of the UnitedFirefighters Union over comments that have been madein the last few days. It is a rather incongruous position,but the point is that the opposition has tried to playpolitics with this.

This is an important piece of fire safety legislation,which we made very clear when we introduced it. Wewithdrew the provisions that related to the CFA board.We made it clear to the opposition and to the NationalParty that we would be prepared to treat with the issues



relating to the composition of the CFA board and theMAV issues relating to urban and rural representatives,but we did not want the important fire safety andvolunteer compensation provisions to which I havereferred to be caught up in a political bunfight. So wesaid, ‘Let’s have that debate at another time. Let’s talkabout the composition of the board in good faith. Wewill talk about it sensibly, but let these important safetyprovisions be dealt with in isolation. Let’s not put thesafety of Victorians at risk’.

The opposition and the National Party proceeded withtheir amendments prior to the summer fire season. Theythen misused their majority in Jurassic Park across thehallway, and they misused the — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order! Iassume the minister means the Legislative Council?

Mr HAERMEYER — You assume correctly,Mr Acting Speaker. They misused that majority on thelast parliamentary sitting day before Christmas. Theymoved these amendments knowing full well that thelower house had already risen and that the bill would sitover the entire summer period, a very high-risk fireseason, waiting to come back into this house so wecould again consider their amendments. The fire dangerperiod is still not over. We are saying, ‘Let’s deal withthese amendments, and let’s have a separate debateabout the composition of the CFA board at anothertime’.

That is what we are saying. These are important firesafety amendments and the opposition is trying to usethem as a vehicle to get through changes to the CFAboard. Make no mistake about it, Mr Acting Speaker, inthe bill before the house at the moment the onlyprovisions proposing changes to the CFA board arethose being proposed by the Liberal Party and theNational Party. They are the only ones in this housetonight trying to change the composition of the CFAboard, no-one else. Let’s take that away. Let’s deal withthe fire safety provisions and the provision ofcompensation to the volunteers, and let’s have thepolitical bunfight at another time. That is what we aresaying.

The honourable member for Wantirna has tried to buildup a case of how this is all about the government andthe minister trying to take control of the CFA board. Iremind the honourable member for Wantirna that he saton this side of the house when the previous governmentintroduced — —

Mr McArthur interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order!The honourable member for Monbulk has made hiscontribution.

Mr HAERMEYER — He says we wanted to put itinto legislation. The government withdrew that, but thatis not good enough for him. He still wants to make hischanges to the CFA board. He sat on this side of thehouse when the previous government introduced anunqualified general power for the minister to direct theCFA board. The reality is that I do not need control ofthe CFA board because the opposition when ingovernment already gave it to the minister. So what anirrational, nonsensical and absolutely stupid argument. Ido not need to control the CFA board because theformer government gave me the unqualified, absolutegeneral power to direct the CFA board. The formergovernment moved that amendment, but has it beenused once? No.

Mr Wells interjected.

Mr HAERMEYER — The honourable member forWantirna says, ‘Look, the only reason they are movingthese amendments is that we tried to put the existingpractice into legislation’, and other than that they wouldnot have bothered with them. That really shows thatthis is an opposition full of dorks.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order!The honourable member for Wantirna has made hiscontribution. The minister, without any assistance!

Mr HAERMEYER — Mr Acting Speaker, theydid not!

These provisions in relation to the appointment of theCFA board operated under three ministers of twogovernments. The opposition parties did not see fit tomake any changes but because we simply tried toreflect the existing practice in legislation suddenly theythink it is so important to make these changes that theyhave to hold up and frustrate important provisions inrelation to fire safety, fire prevention and the right ofvolunteers to compensation.

The honourable member for Wantirna and thehonourable member for Shepparton both raised thematter of the volunteer associations of the CFA. Thoseassociations have written to me, and I have seen thecorrespondence of the honourable member forWantirna. They have made it clear that they support thestatus quo.



Mr Wells — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the minister is clearly being misleading aboutthe views of the volunteers. They did not support thestatus quo. They want a reduction in the board or theInsurance Council of Australia back on. I find itoffensive on behalf of the volunteers for the minister tobe misrepresenting them.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Jasper) — Order!There is no point of order.

Mr HAERMEYER — I would be happy for thehonourable member for Wantirna to table the letter thathe showed me over the table just before, because itreflects very similar sentiments to those expressed in aletter to me from the same organisation, which says itsupports the status quo because it does not want to letthe Insurance Council of Australia off the hook inrelation to its responsibility for funding the firebrigades. I have to say there is some merit in itsargument so I am quite happy to accept the status quo.However, I am also quite happy to talk about thecomposition of the CFA board with the opposition andthe National Party, but let them not misrepresent theviews of the volunteer associations. The opposition andthe National Party have been running around implyingthat somehow the volunteer associations are supportingtheir position. That is not supported in the letters thoseassociations have written to these gentlemen opposite.

I am very proud to stand here tonight as the ministerwho actually signed off on a charter with the volunteersand the volunteer associations, because the previousgovernment did absolutely nothing about it. It just tookthem for granted and let the CFA’s funding rot away —its real funding declined after seven years of theprevious government. The honourable member forWantirna sat over here for seven years and nevermentioned the CFA once. Despite his having anelectorate entirely within the CFA’s coverage not oncedid he mention the CFA.

As I say, this is absolute pigheadedness on the part ofthe opposition parties. They are compromising thesafety of Victorians and the entitlements of volunteersto compensation. These are fairly sensible,commonsense amendments the government isproposing. Let’s take all of the histrionics and thebunfights about the composition of the board and talkabout them at another time, but let’s not hold a gun tothe heads of Victorians over fire safety simply becauseof the political agendas of these people who for sevenyears ran down the CFA, did nothing for it and took thevolunteers for granted. The honourable member forWantirna never even once mentioned them in thehouse — never even knew the CFA existed!

I call on the opposition and the National Party towithdraw their amendments. I am prepared to talk withthem and with the volunteer associations in good faithabout the construction of the CFA board. But I say tothe opposition: let these fire safety amendments throughwithout trying to use them as some sort of blackmail orleverage to try to get changes made to the CFA board.Opposition members, not the government, are the onlyones proposing changes to the board.

Mr LUPTON (Knox) — My understanding of theCountry Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments)Bill is that both the Liberal Party and the National Partysupport it in every aspect relating to fire safetyprovisions. The only concerns the opposition partieshave are in relation to the Country Fire Authority(CFA) board. For the minister to say we are trying tocompromise the fire safety aspects of the bill is totallyincorrect. It is the government’s bill; if it wants to havewords dropped, let it do so and see if there isagreement.

The National Party and the Liberal Party are purely andsimply concerned about the make-up of the CFA board.That is what it is all about. We should also be lookingat why the Insurance Council of Australia backed awayfrom having its members on the board. More than77 per cent of the CFA board’s expenditure comes fromthe ICA, yet it does not want any part of the CFAboard. The amendments moved by the Liberal Partyrefer to the make-up of the board. With two membersof the ICA withdrawing their willingness to bemembers of the board, under the existing legislation theminister can appoint a couple of people. Although theminister says he and previous ministers have notattempted to take control of the board, who is to saythat Victoria will not have a minister in the future whomay want to take control?

While the legislation gives the minister that right, theamendments would remove the ability of any ministerin the future to control the CFA board because theamendments propose that one of the representativeswould be chosen from two names submitted by theVictorian Farmers Federation (VFF); another would bechosen from two names submitted by the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry(VECCI).


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The CWA meeting on the back seat is making it a littlehard to hear, so could I ask those members to keep theirvoices down.



Mr LUPTON — As I was attempting to say beforethe CWA got involved in this discussion, the VFF andVECCI would be involved in providing representativesfor the board. If we go down the path of using theMunicipal Association of Victoria (MAV), it wouldnominate four councillors, two of whom would becomemembers of the board. The honourable members forShepparton and Wantirna made good points when theysaid the suggested amendments provided that two of thefour MAV nominees would be appointed, one fromoutside and one from inside an 80-kilometre radius ofthe central business district.

The honourable member for Wantirna indicated quiteclearly that an example could be where one membermay be appointed from Springvale and another fromBoronia. That would be totally ludicrous. I imagine thatsome of the members of the Country Women’sAssociation who are chatting up in the back corner haveprobably got fire brigades in their areas which areentitled to representation on the board. The board is avery important aspect of the Country Fire Authority.We should do everything possible for it to beconstructed in such a way that the present minister, orany future minister, will be able to take control. Purelyand simply, that is what this legislation is about.

I accept the fact that the current minister and formerministers have not attempted to do it — that is, not takecontrol of the board by appointing their ownrepresentatives. However, the fact remains that underthe legislation proposed by the minority Laborgovernment the minister has the right to appointmembers who will give him total and utter control ofthe board.

The Liberal Party and the National Party are not tryingto compromise fire safety within the state of Victoria.We are happy with the other amendments to the billwhich were put through. However we have expressedstrong concern about the make-up of the CFA boardand we are endeavouring to ensure that the board’smembership is constructed in such a way that nominister will ever be able to take control of it.

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr LUPTON — The honourable member forRichmond has turned around and interjected, but I amnot aware of any CFA station within a bull’s roar of thetown of Richmond, and I bet the same member has noteven discussed the legislation with any members of theCFA. I have three CFA stations within my electorateand I have discussed the legislation with their members.They are upset about the fact that the minister isproceeding down the lines he has indicated. I believe

the amendments provided by the Liberal Party in thismatter will make sound and sensible legislation. It willbe the Labor Party’s fault — the government’s fault —if it turns around and delays this legislation byprocrastinating. The government will be responsible forcompromising the safety of CFA volunteers.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — With the support ofmy colleagues behind me, I rise to support thegovernment’s position on the Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. As was rightlyidentified by honourable members in their previouscontributions, this bill came before this house in lastyear’s spring sittings and provided for a number ofoperational changes and improvements to the CountryFire Authority which, for all intents and purposes, werebroadly supported by both sides of the house. Ashonourable members would recall, those improvementsto the areas of enhanced public safety, volunteercompensation and improved safety regulations weredesigned to simplify and facilitate the operations of theCFA. Broadly speaking, from the point of view of bothsides of the house, there has been no debate about thatquestion. It has been generally conceded and that isappropriate.

Although I have come under attack from the other sideof the house in relation to my credentials vis-a-vis theCFA, I would have thought that all of us in this household the Country Fire Authority in the highest regard.CFA volunteers have made extraordinary efforts overthe summer months in relation to the mostextraordinary and devastating fires not only in ruralNew South Wales but, as some colleagues who wereliving in Sydney at the time have told me, right up intothe metropolitan area of Sydney. The Victorian CFAbrigades went there willingly to support their NewSouth Wales colleagues in fighting those fires. Onlyyesterday fires were raging at Puckapunyal, whichburnt out a large area of land and caused significant lossof livestock — even a house — and yet again the CFAwas called upon. Although Victoria has been blessedwith a mild summer which has not wreaked thedevastation of bushfires upon the community, somerural areas have been affected strongly.

The opposition parties can seek to make cheap politicalpoints about city-based electorates such as mine, but weas a government hold in high regard and respect thevolunteers of the Country Fire Authority. This bill wentto the very question of trying to streamline theefficiency of the CFA and assist municipal councils inthe preparation of their fire plans.

This bill essentially gets down to one fundamentalpoint, which has been debated at some length. The



honourable member for Wantirna, in his contribution,attempted to do some grandstanding around thisquestion of the representation on the board of theCountry Fire Authority. Now the accusation that is putforward in defence of the position that has been takenby the Liberal and National parties is that this is somecrude attempt by the government to stack the board ofthe Country Fire Authority. As we are well aware, theInsurance Council of Australia in the past providednominations for two positions on the board, and it iswell recognised, I think by both sides of the house, thatit was indicated very publicly by the ICA — and in factit was its stated policy position — that it no longerwished to participate on the board of the CFA, and thatis entirely reasonable.

Some debate occurred about the representation ofmetropolitan and non-metropolitan representativesthrough the Municipal Association of Victoria, but myunderstanding is that that issue has been resolved. Asthe Minister for Police and Emergency Services said inhis contribution earlier, the ICA stopped makingnominations in the mid-1990s. Since that time theminister of the day has made direct nominations underthe default provisions within section 7(2) of the currentact.

It seems to me to be a fairly extraordinary propositionthat here we have a piece of legislation that we do notseek to amend — we simply seek to get in place anumber of mechanisms that the CFA has called for,which will streamline the operation of the CFA and willassist municipal councils in their planning in relation tofires. We seek to do nothing more about the board ofthe CFA than to maintain the status quo — the statusquo that was in fact the operational raison d’être of theformer government. This was the mode of operationproposed and in fact enacted by the former governmentunder its own default provisions. So if it was goodenough for the opposition when it was in government,why is it not good enough now for this government tomaintain the status quo?

The crude accusation that this will be some sort ofattempt to stack the CFA board could have been madeof the former government. This is a responsiblegovernment, a government that has actually stood upand said, ‘We support the CFA’. But we do not supportthem by just seeking to verbalise this level of support;we have actually supported the CFA in practice, withresources and with money. So when tankers are needed,or when there is a need to upgrade facilities, thisgovernment has had a clear track record in relation tothe Country Fire Authority. What we propose in thisamendment is to assist the streamlining of the

operations of the CFA. Both sides of the house supportthat.

We make no further claims about the structure of theCFA board except for maintaining the status quo thatoperated under the previous government. What iswrong with that? If the opposition seeks to take thisgame-playing exercise back into the upper house, andseeks to assert its numbers in the upper house, it will bejudged by the CFA and by those thousands ofvolunteers for what it is — hypocritical, absolutelyhypocritical — and that would be an absolute disgrace.

Let this legislation go through. Let the mechanisticamendments proposed by the bill go through. They willassist the Country Fire Authority and municipalcouncils in preparing their fire prevention plans. Weseek to do nothing further to the board of the CFA thanto maintain the status quo, a status quo that we inheritedfrom the former government.

Mr COOPER (Mornington) — The honourablemember for Richmond not only suffers from being acity-based member of Parliament, he also does not havea sense of the history of the relationship between aLabor government and the Country Fire Authority(CFA) volunteers. Perhaps the honourable member forRichmond would do well to talk to a previous LaborMinister for Police and Emergency Services, theHonourable Race Matthews. He might find out fromRace Matthews the reasons why CFA volunteers do nottrust Labor governments.

Between 1985 and 1988 the then Minister for Policeand Emergency Services, Race Matthews, tried veryhard to amalgamate the Country Fire Authority and theMetropolitan Fire Brigade. Meetings of volunteers whoresented this and resisted it very strongly were heldacross the state. I went to many of those meetingsaround Victoria. The volunteers were angry and awarethat they were being betrayed by that minister and thatgovernment.

Since that time volunteers have believed that unlessthey stand up and protect themselves and distrustwhatever is said by ministers of a Labor governmentthey are likely to be sold out — and that is exactly whatwe have now. This government is trying, under thecover of the words of the minister, to sell out thevolunteers. The volunteers are not prepared to acceptthis.

The honourable member for Richmond, who hasunfortunately left the chamber, does not have and neverhas had a close connection with the Country FireAuthority, but I have. I have had a very close



connection. There are eight CFA brigades — and Iwelcome back the honourable member forRichmond — in my electorate: Somerville, Tyabb,Hastings, Bittern, Crib Point, Moorooduc, MountMartha and Mornington. In addition, the Mount Elizabrigade will be coming into the Mornington electorateafter the next election. I am a life member of thatbrigade and served for 20 years as both a fireman andan officer. I have had a long and close connection withthe Country Fire Authority as a volunteer firefighterand as an officer, and I have maintained myconnections and my close relationship with theauthority since I ceased being an active fireman back inthe mid-1980s.

I believe I know what the volunteers of my brigadeswant, and I know what the volunteers of many otherfire brigades around this state want, because I see themat demonstrations, at dinners, at all sorts of functions. Iknow what they want out of this. I know what they feeland what they believe is the attitude of this government.The reality is that the volunteer firefighters do not trustthis government or the minister, and they want to seethe board of the Country Fire Authority protected fromstacking. That is what it is all about. They want to seethe board of the authority protected from this minister’svery overt attempt to stack the board with a couple ofhis mates. I have no doubt he would want to put UnitedFirefighters Union (UFU) members on the board.

The opposition’s amendments are about ensuring thatthe board maintains some reasonable degree ofindependence and that it will be a board that reflects inits decisions and discussions the best interests of thevolunteer firefighters who protect communitiesthroughout rural and regional Victoria as well as asubstantial part of metropolitan Melbourne.

I simply cannot understand why this minister will standhere and say that he is not prepared to accept thoseamendments. He is prepared to say, ‘Pass the bill andwe will talk about it’. He is prepared to say anything totry to get us to buckle and give up, but he is notprepared to give us the assurance that he will do whatthe Country Fire Authority volunteers want — and thatis to protect the board from political interference.

If the minister is genuine in what he has said to thehouse today and in the remarks he has made publiclyover the past few months, why would he not acceptthese amendments? After all, it is not revolutionary. Weare not talking out of the ballpark. We are talking abouta situation where instead of coming from the InsuranceCouncil of Australia (ICA) two members of this boardcan come from a panel of names submitted by theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and

Industry (VECCI), by the Victorian Farmers Federation(VFF) and by the Municipal Association of Victoria(MAV). What is wrong with that? What is wrong withensuring by legislation in this bill that these twovacancies that will occur because the ICA does notwant to continue those positions will be taken up bypeople who truly represent the interests of regional andrural Victorians or outer suburban Victorians who areprotected by Country Fire Authority brigades?

What is wrong with that? Why is the minister duckingand weaving? Why is he manoeuvring around? Why ishe coming up with extraordinary responses such as,‘This all occurred on the last sitting day of theParliament. Then it went up to the upper house and theymade the amendments, and now it has had to lingerover the summer fire period’. What was wrong with theminister or this government calling this house backbefore Christmas last year to deal with theamendments? Why would they not bring the houseback if it was as important as the minister has usbelieve? Why was he not prepared to do that? Why didhe just say that the opposition by moving theseamendments and insisting upon them was putting thestate at risk?

What he has advanced as an argument is just a load ofabsolute rubbish, and the whole house knows it to besuch. This minister has twisted and turned. He hasdistorted, he has misrepresented and he has tried veryhard to wriggle out from the dilemma in which he hasplaced himself. This is a minister who has been caughtout because the opposition has moved an amendmentwhich is palpably acceptable, palpably reasonable and,very importantly, strongly supported by volunteerfirefighters around Victoria.

That is what this minister now cannot come to gripswith. He is saying to this house and to the volunteerfirefighters of Victoria that he does not want to havetwo places on this board reserved for people who willbe selected from a panel of names submitted byVECCI, by the VFF and the MAV — people whowould truly represent the best interests of rural andregional Victorians, and people who would beacceptable to the Country Fire Authority volunteers asindividuals who would represent their best interests aswell. Why is the minister walking away from that?

Mr Honeywood — He hates volunteers.

Mr COOPER — Why doesn’t he accept that theseamendments are reasonable? My colleague thehonourable member for Warrandyte says the ministerhates volunteers. I am not too sure that the ministerhates volunteers. I do not think that he really knows



what the volunteers want. The trouble with the ministeris that he only listens to those he wants to listen to. Hehas not gone around and listened to the volunteers as Ihave and as other members of the opposition have — asyou yourself, Mr Acting Speaker, have in the brigadesin your electorate. This is the very big difference. Wego out and listen to these people, and we are part ofthem.

Ms Duncan interjected.

Mr COOPER — The honourable member forGisborne scoffs. She scoffs at the fact that we talk tovolunteer firefighters. She scoffs at the fact andobviously does not believe volunteer firefighters haveany place in her life or in her electorate. She might liketo stand and tell us who among the brigades in herelectorate — —

Ms Duncan — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, the honourable member is knowinglymisleading the house by misquoting me. I ask him towithdraw those comments.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!There is no point of order.

Mr COOPER — The honourable member forGisborne not only makes no point of order — —

Ms Duncan — On a further point of order,Mr Acting Speaker, I take offence at the statements thehonourable member made which misrepresented me. Ifind them offensive, and I ask him to withdraw.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!Would the honourable member for Mornington like towithdraw those comments?

Mr COOPER — Mr Acting Speaker, I do not knowwhat I have misrepresented. She has not spoken. Howcan I misrepresent someone who has not contributed tothe debate?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!If the honourable member feels she has beenmisrepresented she has an opportunity to make apersonal statement at a later time.

Mr COOPER — This sensitive flower fromGisborne — —

Mr Hulls — On a further point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, it is my understanding that the honourablemember has taken offence at certain comments madeand asked for a withdrawal. It is my understanding that

your ruling was that the honourable member shouldwithdraw. I ask you to adhere to that ruling.

Mr Honeywood — On the point of order,Mr Acting Speaker, the honourable member forMornington had hardly got to his feet and just madereference to the honourable member for Gisbornewithout uttering a single extra word when thehonourable member for Gisborne hopped to her feetand took offence. There was no word uttered by thehonourable member for Mornington that could be takenoffence at because he had not even uttered a sentencebefore the honourable member jumped to her feet yetagain. I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that there isno cause for anything to be withdrawn given thatnothing was said.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I have heard enough on the point of order. I asked thehonourable member for Mornington if he wanted towithdraw any remarks that he thought the honourablemember for Gisborne may have found offensive. Therewere no unparliamentary remarks. Therefore thehonourable member for Mornington is quite at libertyto continue, and as I mentioned, if the honourablemember for Gisborne has further concerns she shouldmake that statement either in debate or as a personalexplanation.

Mr COOPER — The honourable member forGisborne can stand when it is her time to speak in thisdebate. She can tell us the names of the brigades in herelectorate that support the government’s approach tothis issue. We will be very interested to hear her namethose brigades and individuals if she wishes, and wewill follow up on that. We know all the brigades in herelectorate. We will go and ask whether or not thehonourable member for Gisborne has told the house thetruth.

That is what we want to know, because we know fullwell that the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices has not told the house the truth tonight. Weknow that by the way he has approached this issue: byobfuscation, by ducking and weaving, bymisrepresentation and by distorting the facts. Thereality is, as I have said before and as bears beingrepeated again, the opposition is saying the twovacancies on the board that have been created by thefact that the Insurance Council of Australia does notwant to take up those positions should be filled by apanel of names submitted by the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry, the VictorianFarmers Federation and the Municipal Association ofVictoria.



Why is the minister not prepared to do that? He hasasked us to accept his point that we should pass this billand then discuss the issue; then he will perhaps come toa conclusion that is the same as ours. The facts are thatneither the volunteer firefighters nor the oppositiontrusts this minister or this government. We simply donot trust them.

Mr Honeywood interjected.

Mr COOPER — And their track record, as thehonourable member for Warrandyte says, is appalling.

When it comes to jobs for the boys, as we heard atquestion time today and as we have seen with theReeves affair, they cannot be trusted. We know fullwell that the UFU will occupy at least one if not both ofthese positions if this minister gets his way. We knowfull well that that is the way it will happen and that ifwe back down the volunteer firefighters of this statewill believe — and quite rightly believe — that wehave sold them out. We are not going to sell them out.We will stand up for their right to believe that the boardof the CFA should be an independent — or as near aspossible to independent — body that has the bestinterests of country and rural Victoria and the bestinterests of volunteer firefighters at heart.

These are amendments that we have moved and that weare going to stick by. We will not be withdrawing theseamendments and we will not be blackmailed orbludgeoned by this minister or this government intowithdrawing our amendments and allowing thisminister to get away with what he wants to get awaywith. Either the minister and the government willaccept these amendments or this bill will sit on thenotice paper for a long, long time.

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I am very proud to besupporting the Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill. I am pleased to be supporting thisbill because it is all about providing more effectivework procedures for the CFA to operate under withinVictoria. This bill is not about stacking boards, this billis not about selling out volunteers and this bill is notabout selling out workers, because in fact it was theKennett government which for seven years sold out theCFA, sold out volunteers and sold out workers. That iswhy they are on that side of the house and why thisgovernment is on this side of the house.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the CFAcontinually improves its operations to ensure thesafekeeping of this state for the benefit of all Victorians,and as I said, I am more than happy and more thanproud to be supporting this bill in front of us tonight.

I am also pleased to be speaking on the bill because as aregional member of this Parliament I fully appreciatethe importance of the CFA and its work. The brigadeswithin my electorate — the Geelong City brigade andthe Geelong West brigade — are very proud brigadesand they do the community of Geelong very proudindeed.

I am not the only member of Parliament who has thisappreciation of our firefighters, because I firmly believeall Victorians hold in high esteem the work done notonly by volunteer firefighters but also by the full-timefirefighters who are employed within this state by thisgovernment. Perhaps only the nurses within our stateare held in such high esteem as our firefighters.

As a regional member, as I said, I truly appreciate theimportance of the CFA and of this bill. I am concernedthat the conservative parties within the upper house ofthis Parliament have delayed this bill over a long, hotsummer. One has only to look at the weather we haveexperienced over the past two to three days and at whathappened near Puckapunyal yesterday to appreciate theimportance of this bill and the need to ensure that wepass the important parts of it. This fire season is farfrom over and it is important that this house — bothsides of the Parliament — support this bill.

In attempting to get the important amendments through,the government and the minister have compromised onthe make-up of the CFA board. I commend the ministerfor the position he has taken in genuinely trying to getthe important parts of this bill through the Parliament.

I stress that this bill has absolutely nothing to do withthe composition of the CFA board, despite what theopposition has had to say tonight. This bill haseverything to do with issues such as the banning ofgas-fired scatterguns, it has all to do with strengtheningthe enforceability of council fire plans and it has all todo with clarifying the availability of compensation tovolunteer firefighters who are injured during the courseof their work.

In talking to volunteers, as I have done on numerousoccasions in the past couple of months, I have foundthat they are not particularly interested in the make-upof the board. They are interested in the practicality oftheir job and in issues such as the banning of gas-firedscatterguns in regional Victoria.

I am proud to say that many of my close friends arefirefighters, some being full-time firefighters and manyothers, volunteers. When talking about the Country FireAuthority one must always commend the work of itsvolunteers. As we all appreciate, these people give up



many, many hours of their own time for the good oftheir community. One family that comes to my mind isthe O’Toole family, which consists of Chris, Paul andDanny O’Toole. They are friends of mine, and I knowthe hours they put in and the contribution they make tothe Geelong City fire brigade. There are thousands offamilies and individuals like the O’Tooles in Geelong.

I am pleased to support this bill. In supporting it Iappreciate the fact that the life of a volunteer orfull-time firefighter is far from easy. It is certainly notall beer and skittles. The life of a firefighter consists ofmanaging risks. The risks have been highlighted overmany decades in the Geelong region and probablythroughout the history of Geelong as a community. Ican recall the Lara bushfires in the 1960s, and I clearlyremember the Ash Wednesday fires above Lorne andthroughout the Otways in 1983. Close friends of minewere involved in the Ash Wednesday bushfires, and Iknow they took considerable risks in protecting thecommunity of Geelong and the communities scatteredthroughout the Otway region above the township ofLorne.

Then there was the tragedy of Linton on12 December 1998. The Linton bushfire of 1998 willremain firmly etched in the history of Geelong as atragedy that took the lives of five volunteer firefightersfrom the Geelong West fire brigade, which is locatedwithin 500 metres of my electorate office in PakingtonStreet, Geelong West. As I have said on numerousoccasions, the five men who lost their lives onDecember 8 — firemen Armstrong, Davidson, Evans,Thomas and Vredeveldt — will never be forgotten bythe community of Geelong, and I dare say they willnever be forgotten by the township of Linton, thecommunity they were fighting to protect.

Since that time I have established a close workingrelationship with the Geelong West fire brigade.Unfortunately in November last year the fire brigadelost its headquarters when they were partially destroyedby fire. Much memorabilia and history were lost in thatfire. I raised this issue in an adjournment debate inDecember last year, when I asked the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to take action to ensurethat the Geelong West fire brigade’s headquarters werere-established as quickly as possible. I am pleased toreport that the minister has taken swift action and thatthat work is being done.

I raise this point because I believe it is a practicalexample of this government’s commitment to theCountry Fire Authority and this bill. As I said at theoutset, I am pleased to support the bill, because it seeksto provide a more effective CFA. It is not, as the

opposition would have us believe, about stackingboards. It is not about selling out volunteers, because ifthat were the case I would not be standing here tonightin support of the bill, I can assure you of that.

This bill provides some practical amendments for theCFA to work with. As I said before, it will ban the useof gas-fired scatterguns on days of high fire danger.Another practical example of this bill is that it assistsnot only the CFA but also regional and rural Victorians,particularly the amendments relating to councilresponsibilities with regard to municipal fire preventionplans. Importantly the bill requires the municipal fireprevention plans drawn up by councils to comply withnew guidelines as set down by the CFA in 2001.

Under the amendments made by the bill it will be theresponsibility of the regional or rural council tocontinually maintain its fire plan and to formallyapprove that plan in line with the CFA guidelines thathave been set down. The bottom line for thoseamendments is to ensure that community safety withregard to fire is maximised through councils’ fire plans.These amendments are practical steps being taken bythe Bracks government, and therefore I will besupporting the bill. This is an important bill, and theminister has taken steps to ensure that it is passed bythis Parliament by compromising on such contentiousissues as the CFA board, an issue that was debated inthe upper house late last year. As I said, it is animportant bill, and it needs to be passed by this house.As such the bill has my support, and I commend it tothe house.

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — Clearly thehonourable member for Geelong does not recognisethat we are not only debating the bill, we are debatingthe amendments. This is all about the composition ofthe board of the Country Fire Authority, the CFA.


Mr PLOWMAN — I am not going to speak for anylength of time because this whole issue has beendebated before. What I want to concentrate on is thatone specific situation where the volunteers areconcerned about the representation on that board. Theshadow Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesrecently visited my area, and we met with three groupsof volunteers. All of those groups were concerned aboutthe composition of the board. Why? Because this is thebiggest and the best volunteer organisation in Australia.

Mr Maxfield interjected.

Mr PLOWMAN — It is the best volunteerorganisation for firefighting in the world, and it is



important to ensure that the composition of the boardwill mean that this volunteer organisation remains thegreat organisation it is. The volunteers would not beconcerned about it unless they thought the UnitedFirefighters Union (UFU) had an agenda in trying tochange not only the way the CFA is administered butalso the way it is manned.


Mr PLOWMAN — When the shadow minister saidwe would put our amendments in the upper house, thehonourable member for Richmond said that ourconcerns about the membership of the board wereridiculous. That is not what the volunteers think. Thevolunteers are clearly concerned. The honourablemember for Richmond said that we do not want to seekan amendment to the legislation, we want to retain thestatus quo. The status quo under the current ministermeans that there will be two UFU members on theboard, and the volunteers know what that means.


Mr PLOWMAN — The honourable member forRichmond is not associated with the CFA. I was amember for 30 years before I entered Parliament. In myelectorate I know every CFA unit — and I have about30 of them. The CFA is the heart of each of thosedistricts. The local school and the CFA and the footyclub, if you have a footy club, are the nucleus of whatthose small communities are all about. They are allvolunteers. They are an essential part of thosecommunities. If we change the whole make-up of theCFA by changing the board, that is the first step inchanging this from the great volunteer organisation it isto being an organisation that is influenced by, run by,and then overcome by, the United Firefighters Union ofVictoria. I suggest that that is certainly not in the bestinterests of what I see as the greatest volunteerorganisation in Victoria.

As I said, I do not want to talk about the legislationbecause we have already — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Gisborne is out of herplace and disorderly.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Benambra, withoutassistance!

Mr PLOWMAN — Thank you, I was enjoying theassistance. I do not wish to debate the bill because theopposition agrees with the content of it, but theopposition cannot have it both ways. If it wants tointroduce change — —

Mr Wynne — You’re the opposition!

Mr PLOWMAN — Sorry, my apologies! Thegovernment cannot have it both ways. If it wishes tointroduce a drastic change in the composition of theboard by way of its membership, it cannot expect theopposition to let the bill go through withoutamendments to ensure that does not happen.

I will not go any further except to say that I amdisappointed that the Insurance Council of Australia hasdecided not to continue its role on the board. The nextbest alternative is that put by the shadow minister, andthat is that we have a representative from the VictorianFarmers Federation and a representative from theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry on the board. I pose this question togovernment members, particularly the honourablemember for Richmond: why would you want to opposethat?

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I rise to speak onthe Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill. As a member of the Country FireAuthority, I note with interest the opposition memberswho claim to be authorities and claim that as they travelaround their electorates their brigades and volunteersare up in arms over the evil state government and whatit wants to do. That is really surprising, because as I goaround the brigades that I keep in touch with, and as amember of my own brigade — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Narracan should ignoreinterjections close by from people who are out of theirplace and disorderly. The honourable member forNarracan, without assistance!

Mr MAXFIELD — As I travel around, not oncehas a volunteer rushed up to me and said, ‘You arechanging the board, what are you doing?’

Mr Honeywood — They think you are irrelevant!

Mr MAXFIELD — The reality is that it is not anissue. The volunteers in my area are interested in — —




The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Warrandyte should not beinterjecting across the table.

Mr MAXFIELD — They are interested in puttingout fires and in fire prevention. That is what thebrigades are really on about. They are not interested inthe opposition’s attempt to play political games andblackmail the community, rural constituents and thisgovernment into accepting changes that they want toram down our throats because of their ideologicalposition.

The opposition parties were in power for seven yearsbut did they introduce these changes or come forwardwith these proposals? No, but when a Laborgovernment puts up some sensible proposals forprotecting the community, the opposition wants toblock them and hold the community to ransom. Theopposition does not give a stuff what happens in ruralVictoria or whether somebody’s farm burns down ortheir crops are damaged. Opposition members want toplay political games because it will give them a politicalthrill. The opposition wants to make problems. It wantsto run around a few brigades and scare them. It will say,‘This evil government is doing terrible things’. But isthat what the volunteers are interested in? Of coursenot!

There is the situation with the urban association. Does itwant to change the current make-up of the board? No, itdoes not. Has the rural association come out in supportof the Liberal Party on this issue? No, it has not. Sowhere is the groundswell of support? The people out inthe country are not mentioning it. The only chance theycan get any support is if they rush out to a brigade, liethrough their teeth and hope they get the right response.What a pathetically low act from a group of people whoclearly do not know how to represent rural Victoria orthe interests of Victorians at large.

Clearly the behaviour of opposition members on thisbill, in trying to block it before Christmas, right throughthe fire season, knowing the Parliament would not beback until February, shows that the political game wasmore important than other issues that would enhancepublic safety. People in the fire brigade are interested inissues such as the banning of the use of gas-firedscatterguns at times of high risk, the strengthening ofthe enforcement of municipal fire prevention plans andthe clarified availability of compensation for volunteersinjured while firefighting. These are the sorts of issuesthat strike home with the volunteers. The issue ofcompensation is another. They are pretty important forthose out there on the fire grounds, for those who areputting their lives at risk.

The volunteers give a huge amount of their personaltime. Yesterday, for example, as I was out in my mobileoffice, I dropped in to fill up my gas bottle because weare getting ready for Farmworld and it will be usedthere over a number of days. As I was getting the gasbottle filled one of the members of our local firebrigade, Captain Graeme Higgs, stepped out of his carin his fire outfit. It was 4 o’clock and Graeme shouldhave been at home milking his cows. I said, ‘Graeme,what are you up to?’ and Graeme said, ‘Well, I’ve justbeen to one fire and I’m heading off to another’.

A dairy farmer who should have been at home milkinghis cows! What was he interested in yesterday when itwas windy and 35 degrees? He was interested inlooking after his community. He was interested in theissues — —


Mr MAXFIELD — I was out there in my mobileoffice.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Narracan should ignoreinterjections.

Mr MAXFIELD — I apologise, Mr ActingSpeaker, for getting sidetracked by that interjection. Iam happy to fulfil my role as a member of the CFA.Unfortunately as a member of Parliament I do notattend as many CFA activities as I used to. A few yearsago at the Dandenong fires that I fought in — they werepretty horrendous times with the strong winds and hightemperatures — there was a huge number of rural CFAvolunteers who, like myself, headed off in our trucks tothe edge of rural Melbourne, to the fringes of the hills,to protect the lives and buildings of those at risk. That iswhat the CFA is all about. The CFA is not interested inplaying political games. The volunteers know that theyare fulfilling a wonderful duty to their communities.

I place on record my admiration of those who recentlywent to Sydney. Locally, we have had a chance tothank those who travelled to Sydney at a time when alot of people were on holidays. For a lot of volunteersthat was their holidays. While a lot of members of thehouse were relaxing on the beach or having a quietdrink and taking it easy, there were many volunteersfrom this state who headed up to Sydney. They did nothead up there for a fun time or because they thought theweather might be nice. They went up there to put theirlives at risk. They were up there and were fighting fires,protecting the community.




Mr MAXFIELD — I shall ignore the interjections.Obviously not all CFA volunteers went to Sydney. Iacknowledge the fact that the way the CFA split itsresources ensured that at no time were the people ofVictoria exposed to risk because it ensured there wasenough coverage in Victoria at all times, and Icongratulate the management of the CFA for offeringthat support. This is what volunteerism is all about. Lastyear we — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable members for Bendigo East andRichmond should not be conducting conversationsacross the chamber. The honourable member forNarracan, without assistance.

Mr MAXFIELD — It is certainly disappointingthat honourable members opposite seem to regard thisissue as frivolous and amusing, but the issue ofexposing our community — —

Mr Smith interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Glen Waverley is out ofhis place and is disorderly.

Mr MAXFIELD — The opposition’s saying thatthe community is at risk disappoints me. When I cameto this place two and a half years ago I thought thatmembers of this place would at all times be acting in anhonourable and decent manner regarding legislativerequirements. They should certainly be about theutmost interests of our community. I did not think thathonourable members would be stooping to the levelthey are now. It is sad that a bill that involves fireprotection measures happens to be twisted, tamperedwith and distorted so as to somehow include themake-up of a board. What is the relationship betweenfire prevention and the make-up of a board?

Opposition members are playing politics because theyknow they stand for nothing, that they are completelyand utterly irrelevant. Because they have thatunrepresentative body in the other place they know thatthrough undemocratic means they have been able toblock the government and damage its ability to gothrough the proper legislative processes. The only thingthe other place is interested in is blocking legislationand having a Star Chamber, where it conductsridiculous investigations into people, madly meeting afew weeks before the federal election and thenforgetting about the issue afterwards. They are thepriorities under which the other place operates. Itshould provide sensible legislation that the ruralcommunities not only need but, importantly, require.

I suppose it wants to prove that it really does notdeserve to exist in its current form! It wants to showhow totally unrepresentative it is, and how it canmanipulate, twist and distort to deny the will of thepeople! We are in government for several reasons.Obviously one is because the opposition when ingovernment not only did not listen to ruralcommunities, but it is also because the majority ofVictorians decided that they wanted us to be here. Wereceived the majority of the two-party preferred vote.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Narracan, on theamendments before the house.

Mr MAXFIELD — The amendment will allow thechief executive officer of the Country Fire Authority tosign a certificate certifying that a total fire ban day wasdeclared on a particular day. A certificate will be takenas evidence in court that there was a total fire ban dayas recorded on that certificate. The bill is about thesimple mechanics of total fire ban days. These are theissues in the bill we are trying to have passed. It shouldnot have any resemblance to an issue of who theopposition does or does not want to put on a board. Ifopposition members were genuine and credible about it,why didn’t they introduce a bill on this issue in theseven years they were in power? Why have they waitedtwo and a half years into the term of this governmentbefore seeing the light? They are saying that they werewrong for seven years but now they have seen the light.

The sad thing is that tonight the opposition is playing apolitical game in a desperate attempt to show that it issomehow relevant to the community. It will send itsmembers out to speak to some CFA people and makeup fanciful stories about how the government is doingevil things to the board, which we are not. It will scarepeople a little by lying to them and then say, ‘We willrush back to the house and say that there is a problem,the rural people are revolting’. It is revolting behaviourby those opposite, who have deliberately misled thecommunity.

Mr Plowman — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I believe the honourable member for Narracanis boring and repetitious.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!There is no point of order.

Mr MAXFIELD — We also need to look at issuesto clarify the fire protection responsibilities betweenfire councils and the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment. The issue here is clearly that we needto ensure that the powers of the councils and the

ADJOURNMENT


responsibility of DNRE for land management are givenimportance. We have a variety of government and localgovernment bodies which effectively have differentresponsibilities for fire control and risk management —ensuring we do not have too much of a dangeroussituation out there. The reduction of fuel and the risk offires taking off and getting away from us is prettyimportant.

I stand here disappointed in the opposition’s positionbut very confident that this government is switched onto the needs of the rural community. This governmentis fair dinkum about making our environment a secureand safe one for all members of our community.

Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — I will make asmall contribution to the Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The minister let thecat out of the bag when he stated that it was bizarre thatthe urban fire brigade representative comes fromWarrnambool. The Warrnambool fire brigade is part ofthe urban fire brigade and representatives are elected bytheir peers, so why should the urban fire brigaderepresentative not come from Warrnambool?Obviously for the minister to say that it is bizarre thathe comes from Warrnambool is absolutely outrageous.

The Country Fire Authority (CFA) is the largestemergency organisation in Australia and is also unique.Most of its operations are carried out by theorganisation’s 64 000 volunteers; there are only1000 paid employees. Twelve hundred brigades makeup the urban and rural CFA throughout Victoria. CFAunpaid firefighters and emergency service personnel arefully committed to their brigades and to theircommunities. They put their lives at risk to serve andprotect us. Our CFA volunteers are deserving of thehighest accolades that we can bestow upon them inrecognition not only of their dedication andcommitment to serve but also of their willingness togain additional lifesaving skills by attending trainingdrills in their own time. We must remember always tovalue the importance of the power of volunteering andthat our state would grind to a halt without theirmassive contribution.

Debate interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Undersessional orders the time for the adjournment of thehouse has now expired.

Gas: North Bellarine supply

Mr SPRY (Bellarine) — I raise for the attention ofthe Minister for State and Regional Development thematter of the reticulation of gas to residents of NorthBellarine. Expectations were raised by the Labor Partyprior to the 1999 election with promises of gas withinthe first 12 months of a Labor government.Constituents have been very patient in the interveningtwo and a half years. Expectations were further raisedby press releases late last year stating that gas would beavailable to all Portarlington residents in 2002.

Last weekend I was approached by a number of veryconcerned residents who have delayed buyingappliances in the expectation of getting gas this year.They said the project staging has now been changedand they will not get gas until next year, 2003, nearlyfour years after being promised it by this Laborgovernment. For St Leonards residents the delay will beeven longer and they will not get gas until nearly fiveyears after they were originally promised.

I ask for an assurance from the minister that the newTXU gas timetables will not be altered yet again forresidents of these townships. I further ask for anassurance that pockets of residents in areas such as thebay end of Sproat Street in Portarlington, Turner Court,Franzel Avenue, the bottom end of Grassy Point Roadin Portarlington, Church Street, Indented Head, andproperties on the south end of Bluff Road and in factthe entire lower bluff region of St Leonards, which arenot currently included in any plans for gas reticulationfor North Bellarine, will not miss out altogether.

Members: government facility visits

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I ask the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services what action he has taken andwill take to look at the protocols for members ofParliament visiting police stations, fire stations andcorrectional services in view of claims in the media byopposition members that they have been precludedfrom entering those facilities unless the minister hasgiven personal approval.

I ask the minister what action he will take to review thatsituation, which was really what happened under theold Kennett regime. Government members then inopposition, including the minister, who was the shadowminister at the time, were locked out of and could notget access to those facilities. Staff and public servantswere told that they were not allowed to let members ofParliament, particularly from the opposition, ontopremises unless they had strict instructions andprotocols from the relevant minister. That order even

ADJOURNMENT


applied to educational and community servicesfacilities at the time. It was basically a blanket approachby the Kennett government.

In view of Liberal Party members of Parliamentclaiming that they have been locked out from havingaccess to the facilities I referred to, I ask that theminister take action to look at and review the situation.I am sure the situation was remedied a long time ago,but some public service officers in those facilities maystill not have received the message about giving accessto members of Parliament.

Opposition members may be coming up with thesesorts of statements for their regional papers to makemischief because they do not have positive stories toraise in their electorates because of the improvedservices the government has provided to countryVictoria. I am sure the minister will take action ifnecessary on those matters.

Tertiary education and training: rural studentoffers

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — The matter Iraise for the attention of the Minister for Education andTraining concerns a major inequity involving the earlyrelease of Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre(VTAC) offers and country students.

I ask the minister to examine the matter and address thismajor inequity, which disadvantages our countrystudents. I highlight that by saying that I have beencontacted by parents, teachers and career advisers rightacross the Wimmera.

As the minister is well aware, the first round of VTACuniversity and TAFE offers was released via specialeditions of the Herald Sun and the Age in Melbourne at8.00 p.m. on Monday, 21 January this year. However,country students had to wait until the next day to learnof their offers either by mail, newspapers or the VTACweb site. I hope the honourable member for BendigoEast knows this, because she is a country person too.


An Honourable Member — She will support this!

Mr DELAHUNTY — I am hoping she will supportthis. The offers to country students were made availableat 9.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 22 January — 13 hours aftercity-based students had access to theirs.

I will use an example. I know one set of parents whowere down in Melbourne on business and had theirstudent daughter with them. At 8.00 p.m., when they

were about to leave, they thought it would be a greatidea to pick up the paper. Unfortunately the student hadclicked on the web page to say that she did not want theinformation to appear in the paper. After a bit of panicthey realised what had happened, and they had to waituntil 9.00 a.m. the next day to get into the VTAC website, but it took at least 2 hours before they were able toaccess the information. Great anxiety was suffered bythe student and the parents, and importantly this studentwas put at great disadvantage.

I strongly believe that our country communities aregreatly disadvantaged by this process, which allowsmetropolitan students early access to accommodationon campus or in the costly — as we all know — privatemarket. Accommodation at many of the universitiescan be applied for early, but it is typical to then incur a$30 non-refundable administration fee. The demand foron-campus accommodation is much greater than thesupply, even though I believe regional students aretreated reasonably fairly. A number of universities,including RMIT and Victoria University, do not haveon-campus accommodation, and therefore studentshave to go to the high-rental accommodation inMelbourne.

It is important that the minister look at this, becauseeducation and training is vital for the continuingdevelopment of students from the Wimmera andcountry Victoria in general.

Our young people are our investment in our future.With the modern technology we have today geographiclocations should not cause disadvantage. I request thatthe minister address this major inequity and put in placea fairer system for VTAC offers in 2003.

Please let’s use the information technology we haveavailable. There is no reason why it cannot be put onthe web site the night before, at the same time as it isput in the city newspapers, to give our country studentsa go.

Frankston Senior Citizens Club

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — I draw the attentionof the Minister for Senior Victorians to an article onpage 3 in last week’s Frankston Standard, headed‘Seniors protest club demolition’. The action I seekfrom the minister is for her to investigate the mattersrelating to this article and to take them up with theFrankston City Council. The article reports:

Elderly people have threatened a sit-in at their Frankstonclubrooms to defy workmen clearing out their centre fordemolition in four months’ time.

ADJOURNMENT


The Frankston City Council has proposed that therooms of the Frankston Senior Citizens Club bedemolished for a new restaurant on the foreshore. Thedifficulty for the senior citizens is that their premisesare located in a place that the council now sees ascommercially viable and providing a commercialopportunity.

Mr Seitz interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Keilor!

Mr VINEY — I visited the club last week andtalked with the executive, and to say that the membersof the club are distressed would be an understatement.They were given undertakings by the council thatpremises of a similar or better standard would be foundfor the club and its members, but the council has so farnot been able to offer the club any such facilities. It hasbeen proposing second-rate — even third-rate —facilities well outside the Frankston central businessdistrict. Of course, one of the attractions of theseclubrooms is that senior citizens can get to them bynormal public transport. To relocate them to the outerareas of Frankston would not be suitable for the clubmembers and would breach the agreement they hadwith the council.

The club members are happy to share their facilities.They have joint arrangements with other clubs andorganisations, and their requests are modest. But thiscomes from a council that is currently considering new$15 million municipal offices for the glory of thecouncillors and its management. It is a council that isconsidering multimillion-dollar marinas and nowwishes to demolish the senior citizens’ club roomsbecause of what it sees as commercially valuableproperty. I for one express my support for theFrankston senior citizens.

West Wimmera: waste management

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — I raise a matter onbehalf of the ratepayers of the West Wimmera Shirerelating to rural and regional waste management issues.These ratepayers are now facing enormous expense inmeeting the requirements of the EnvironmentProtection Authority and the Bracks government’swaste management strategies. The Shire of WestWimmera has itself attempted to implement bestpractice, and following the waste management policy ofthe Desert Fringe Management Group it seeks theclosure of existing landfill sites and the subsequentestablishment of transfer stations to be serviced by acentral landfill to be located at Lemon Springs.

Sadly the cost analysis undertaken by the consultants tothe council, Meinhardts, has shown the initial cost ofconstruction to be $464 000, with an ongoing annualcost of $329 000. These are excessive costs, and it hastherefore been decided to construct a transfer station atLemon Springs, where the contractor will deposit wasteinto a semitrailer for transfer to the Dooen orNaracoorte landfill.

In other words, the cost is excessive for this remotecouncil and others like it. It does not matter whether itis Mildura, West Wimmera or any of the councils inthis geographical situation — these costs areunaffordable. This was taken up at the rural andregional mayors summit that was held at ParliamentHouse on 11 September 2001, where the council of themayors agreed to meet to form a collective view to putto the state government.

By a letter dated 10 December 2001 they wrote to theMinister for Environment and Conservation seeking tohave talks with the Environment Protection Authorityand trying to get solutions to the excessive landfill coststo regional councils. They have not received a response,and on their behalf I seek a response. These people arenot unreasonable. They want the best possible wastemanagement practice, but the cost structures of thosecouncils are completely different from those in the city.It is quite clear that the government is incapable ofdealing with the environmental needs of rural people.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member did not say to which minister hewas addressing his matter.

Mr PERTON — To the Minister for Environmentand Conservation.

Timber industry: Warragul

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I direct an issue tothe Minister for Environment and Conservation. I wishto discuss the issue of the gross failure by theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment tomake an assessment of timber resources within myarea. The results of that total gross failure by DNREand seven years of Kennett government neglect is thatwe are now staring at a 50 per cent reduction in takefrom the forests in the central Gippsland area. Thisgross failure by the opposition when in governmentmeans that the government has to deal with the issueand arrive at a solution that fixes the problem.

As to the failure by DNRE, it is clear that that failuregoes through the organisation. It is not the people onthe ground, but higher up in DNRE there is clearlygross failure. I applaud the government’s decision to

ADJOURNMENT


introduce a solution to the problem through Vicforests.Rural Victoria desperately needs Vicforests, and theharvesting of our timber in the forests certainly needsVicforests. I congratulate the minister on the decision tomove in the direction of Vicforests.

Already the State Revenue Office has been moved toBallarat, which is clearly an outstanding example of thegovernment creating jobs in rural Victoria. I stronglysupport the decision to place Vicforests — the newbody that will oversee the harvesting of our timber —in rural Victoria.

I urge the minister to consider Warragul as a site forVicforests. It is a good, central location for the timberindustry. It is close to the industry and its workers.Warragul is quite central to a large part of the Victoriantimber industry. I would strongly support the placementof Vicforests in Warragul because clearly it is a goodlocation for the industry. It is important to ensure thatthe people who will make or are making the decisionsare close to the industry. The problem is that thecity-centric previous government members basedeverything in Melbourne; they sat in their offices somany storeys up and completely disregarded ruralVictoria.

The Labor Party is in government in Victoria because itis responding to the needs of Victoria, an example ofwhich is placing Vicforests into rural Victoria. It isresponding to the needs of rural Victoria and of thetimber industry. It will not fail rural Victoria nor thosein the timber industry who need a proper sustainableindustry. The government will ensure the industry isplaced on a good footing. I call on the minister toinvestigate whether it is possible to have Vicforestsplaced in Warragul. It is a fine town in a fine electoratethat I am very proud to represent.

Police: Sandringham

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services on behalf of Mr Ian Armstrongand other residents of Station Street, Sandringham.

Mr Armstrong wrote to the Chief Commissioner ofPolice. His letter states, in part, that in the early hours oflast Saturday morning:

… 50 drunken hoons, male and female, exited theSandringham Hotel disco night and disturbed the peacebetween 3.00 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. in the morning.

They smashed beer pots into shop windows, urinated instreets, fell drunk in front of cars, yelled, screamed and foughtand threw bottles and rocks at the parked trains.

Mr Armstrong wrote that he rang the licensee of thehotel, who I understand has been very cooperative intrying to develop a good outcome for both themanagement of the discotheque and local residents inan area which is marked for increased residentialdensity. The hotel’s publican-manager advisedMr Armstrong that he rang the police three times butthey did not attend. Mr Armstrong subsequently rang000 to report the same incident at 3.40 a.m. but did notwitness any police presence. When he called the policelater on he was told they only had one van and hadother problems in the area.

I raise this matter in the context of a matter raised in thehouse earlier today about additional police stations inthe area. I ask the minister to see whether somethingfurther can be done to ensure there is an appropriate andproper police presence so that the neighbourhood canbe enjoyed by local residents.

Housing: seniors

Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — I notice the honourablemember for Bulleen standing in the chamber. I amproud to be the no. 1 ticket-holder for the OakleighSoccer Club!

I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister forHousing and seek her assistance for older people,particularly those in my electorate, who find themselvesin private rental properties and in quite difficultsituations. I am working with several older people —some single and some couples. I do not wish to submittheir names, but I will happily give them to theminister. There are a number of reasons why theseolder people are in these difficult situations — forexample, one older couple who came to Australia someyears ago with a reasonably grown-up family hasworked very hard to give their family a good start and agood life in Australia.

At that time they were unable to purchase a property, sothey live in a rental situation. They lived in theElwood–St Kilda area for many years, but with thechange in demographics in that area and the rapid risein rents, they had to move further out. This happens to alot of people around the Elwood, St Kilda, Carnegieand Murrumbeena areas. Many blocks of flats havebeen turned into apartments for young professionalpeople who wish to live in the inner and middlesuburbs.

I have been working with another gentleman who, forbusiness reasons, lost his home and has been living in arental property. Due to further problems with illness heis unable to supplement his income, so he is finding life

ADJOURNMENT


extremely difficult. As well as these people I amworking with in my electorate, I am aware that theVictorian homeless strategy final report, which wasrecently published, indicates there are some 30 000older Victorians living in private rentalaccommodation, some 20 000 of whom are pensionerswho receive commonwealth rent assistance. Again, aconsiderable number of these people receive rentalassistance, but they still spend more than 30 per cent oftheir income in rent.

This is becoming an increasing problem in the innerand middle suburbs where changes in demographicsand a change in the type of people who live in theseareas — for example, the Carnegie and Murrumbeenaarea has large, older blocks of flats. With the currentemphasis on apartment living for younger people, andalso for young couples, entire blocks of flats have beentaken over and people are being pushed out further intothe suburbs. When these people move into outersuburbs they have to enter the private rental market oreven caravan parks. Because of this they lose thesupport mechanisms that are available in areas wherethey have lived and worked for many years.

These trends are pushing people further out. InOakleigh the rents are constantly rising and the area ischanging, which is the case with most inner and middlesuburbs. I ask the minister if she could please giveurgent attention to these older people in particular whofind themselves in tenuous private rentalaccommodation.

Hastings: boat pens

Mr COOPER (Mornington) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Environment andConservation. I seek action from her in regard to therent her department proposes to charge for a small boatberthing facility at Hastings. Many years ago 30 boatpens were created by the then Port of MelbourneAuthority on a wing of the Hastings Pier. In 1991 theLabor government of the day commenced proceedingsto sell the facility. As most of the berths were occupiedby boats belonging to members of the Hastings YachtClub, their owners banded together with a few non-clubmembers and formed a non-profit body to tender for thesale of the facility. They created a body called HaymanPacific Pty Ltd and in 1994 that company’s tender wassuccessful and it took over the facility. The price of thetender was $84 000. I would like to emphasise thatHayman Pacific Pty Ltd is a non-profit cooperative thatoperates the facility on behalf of all the pen holders.

In July 2001 Hayman Pacific Pty Ltd was advised bythe Department of Natural Resources and Environment

that DNRE was of the opinion that it was a commercialbody and that, therefore, the rent would be lifted from$2400 per annum to $4800 per annum.

It is the view of the pen holders and the Hastings YachtClub that Hayman Pacific Pty Ltd is, as I said, anon-profit organisation that simply operates the facilityon behalf of the users of the facility and that it shouldtherefore be considered as a community use tenancy.Under that designation, the annual rent should be$104 per annum. I ask the minister whether she willaddress this issue before it gets out of hand.


Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Finance, and as I havenot had the opportunity to do so, may I start bycongratulating the minister on his appointment to thatposition.

I am seeking the minister’s urgent action on the issue ofpublic liability insurance and the massive increase inpremiums. I am requesting that the minister take actionto investigate these massive increases in two specificcases in my electorate.

The first one is to do with the Bendigo Easter Fair,which I am sure many members of the house are awareis held at Easter time every year. It is a fantasticcommunity event held over the four days of Easterwhich really does bring many visitors to Bendigo.Many families come for the weekend because there area range of activities, many of them free, which they canattend. A volunteer committee oversees the four-dayevent, and the event itself is run by many volunteers. Itculminates in a wonderful parade — the street paradeon Easter Monday — which has many entrants, againall community-based people.

This Easter fair is very important to Bendigo tourism.As I said, it brings many visitors to our region, andclearly the spin-offs for the local economy are huge.However, the Bendigo Easter Fair has been faced withsome massive public liability insurance increases, witha $20 000 increase in its public liability bill over the lasttwo years, which quite clearly is difficult to manage fora volunteer organisation.

The second organisation is the Bendigo Speedway,which operates from October to May every year, with10 events held every season. Motor sports have a verystrong following around the state, and again, theseevents bring many visitors to Bendigo — specifically atnight. The public liability increases, matched by someinsurance problems it is having at the track in Bendigo,

ADJOURNMENT


will unfortunately result in the closure of the BendigoSpeedway as of the end of the season in May this year.

These events have been run by Mr Dave Roberts, whohas done a wonderful job over the last few years inkeeping the Bendigo Speedway alive for the manypeople who follow motor sports and who come toBendigo specifically for those 10 events and toparticipate in these motor sports. So it will be quite sadfor the Bendigo Speedway to no longer be in existencefollowing the final session in May this year.

I am asking the minister to investigate the impact thesepublic liability increases are having on these twoorganisations in Bendigo.

Kingston: former mayor

Mr LEIGH (Mordialloc) — I raise a matter with theMinister for Local Government that concerns anadjournment speech that I made on 21 November aboutthe former mayor of the City of Kingston, the ALPmayor Mr Arthur Athanasopoulos, who in my viewbehaved in a corrupt manner and gained a benefit.

The papers I have here today are available to the housewithout any difficulties. On 9 April 1999 former MayorAthanasopoulos purchased some land for $115 000.After gaining a planning permit he sold it for $195 000.In answer to my claims at the time he made a statement,with which I have no problem, saying he had donenothing inappropriately.

I make available to the house tonight the handwrittensketches the mayor provided the city with so he couldget his planning permit that night. His development wasapproved by the council on 26 June 2000 on thestrength of a handwritten sketch. The formal plans forthe revised single-storey development were not lodgedwith the council until 7 July 2000. Effectively nomember of the public, council staff or councillors hadthe opportunity to view the drawings until 11 days afterhis development had been approved. I also have in mypossession a copy of those plans.

I challenged the councillor to provide documentaryevidence of any other unit development being approvedby the Kingston Labor council without the applicantproviding formal drawings prior to the approval of theproposed development.

I am seeking from the Minister for Local Governmentan investigation into what is happening here, becausethe councillor also claimed he was not a developer. Butthe statement contradicts public statements made by thecouncillor when he said he was not a developer in the

true sense of the word. He either lied to the Parliamentor to all Kingston residents.

His statement also states in respect of the draft reportarrangements for his area, for which he was a wardcouncillor, that he had nothing to do with gaining anybenefit, yet the dual occupancy development proposedby the council in January 2000 for a double-storeydevelopment — it in no way resembled a single-storeydevelopment — was approved sight unseen by thecouncil. The councillor was appointed chairperson ofthe Clayton South residential study steering committeein March, and it seems quite apparent that he was — —

Mr Haermeyer — On a point of order, MadamDeputy Speaker — —

Mr LEIGH — You are corrupt. You are trying tocover up for one of your crooked mates!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I remind thehonourable member for Mordialloc of standingorder 108.

Mr LEIGH — I am not talking to you. I am sayinghe is covering for one of his buddies. Here are theplans; look what you did! Go and investigate that!

Mr Haermeyer — Go and chew on your bone!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The minister,on a point of order.

Mr Leigh interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehonourable member for Mordialloc to be quiet.

Mr Haermeyer — On a point of order, thehonourable member for Mordialloc has made somevery serious allegations. Within the last week we havehad an instance of a federal member of Parliament inSenator Heffernan misusing the privilege of theParliament and waving around falsified documents. Thehonourable member for Mordialloc has quite a historyin this place of using the privilege of the Parliament todefame innocent civilians.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehouse to come to order. I ask the honourable memberfor Mordialloc to cease interjecting.

Mr Leigh — You are letting him get away with it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehonourable member for Mordialloc to behave himself. I

ADJOURNMENT


ask the minister to tell the house what the point of orderis and to stop debating the issue.

Mr Haermeyer — Madam Deputy Speaker, I amseeking an investigation by you or the Speaker of theauthenticity of the documents used by the honourablemember for Mordialloc, who is fast going down thetrack of becoming the Heffernan of this chamber.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the Speaker has indicated on a number ofoccasions that honourable members who raise spuriouspoints of order, particularly those who do so with theintention of diminishing the speaking time of otherhonourable members, will be dealt with harshly.

I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your dutyon this occasion is to call the Speaker into the house tosuspend the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices from the service of the house, because the onlyreason he raised that completely spurious point of orderwas to prevent the honourable member from raising thefull matter that he seeks to have investigated by theminister. It is an abuse of this Parliament, it is an abuseof the standing orders, and I ask you, as you have in thepast threatened this side of the house, to bring theSpeaker in and have him deal with this minister.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The ministerhas asked me to refer a matter to the Speaker, which Iwill do. The honourable member for Doncaster hasraised a point of order. I do not uphold the point oforder.

Mr Perton — That is a rubbish ruling.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, firstly, I have provided all my notes toHansard. The concern I have is that I have copies of theplans from the city, which bear the date stamp of thecity. I will hand them to you — you will note that Ihave no other documentation here — so that you canprovide them to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! If thehonourable member would give them to the Clerks, wewill make sure they get to the Speaker.

Mr Haermeyer — On a further point of order,Madam Deputy Speaker, before the honourablemember for Mordialloc got up to raise his point oforder, the honourable member for Doncaster said byinterjection towards you, ‘That is a rubbish ruling’. Thisshows complete disrespect for the Chair, and I ask youto deal with him appropriately.

Mr Perton — On the point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the minister has jackbooted his way to thatspot in the house and given a Nazi salute to a Speaker.This is not a man who has any respect for the Chair. Forhim to raise again another spurious point of ordershows the disrespect in which he holds the traditions ofthis house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehouse to settle down. I do not uphold the point of orderraised by the minister.

Mr Leigh — On a further point of order, MadamDeputy Speaker, do you accept the fact that I haveprovided all the documents?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I haveaccepted that point. The time has now ceased forraising matters during the adjournment debate.

Responses

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — The honourable member forKeilor raised a number of articles or reports in a localpapers in the Wodonga region, including the BorderMail, about a visit by the opposition spokesman onpolice and emergency services, the honourable memberfor Wantirna. In one of those articles on 7 March thehonourable member for Wantirna is reported as sayingbasically that he had been banned from visiting theWodonga fire station. He was not banned from visitingthe station. In fact honourable members andspokespeople from political parties have generally beenpretty free to go and visit Country Fire Authoritystations. I remind him, and he acknowledged this in anemail he sent to me this week, that it was in fact hisgovernment in 1993 that put in place a protocol thathonourable members should first seek permission of theminister to visit CFA stations.

Whatever that protocol was, it is not one that I haveupheld. What I have sought from both honourablemembers opposite and other honourable members,apart from when they are visiting CFA stations in theirown electorates, which they are free to do at any time,is that if spokesmen or leaders are going to fire stationsor police stations they in the case of fire stations do theCFA the courtesy first of ringing and letting them knowthey are coming — giving them a bit of notice so theycan properly facilitate the visit and an area manager orsomebody appropriate may be there. That is what wassought of the honourable member for Wantirna, and hisvisit to the Wodonga fire station was facilitated.

The other thing was that he had asked for the areamanager in Wodonga to call a meeting or gathering of

ADJOURNMENT


CFA brigade officials in the whole region so he couldconduct a political rally. That was totally inappropriateand was certainly never going to be agreed to, but thevisit to that fire station was facilitated. He got uptonight and I think somewhat misrepresented the viewsof the members at that particular fire station, but he didtalk about his visit to that fire station. This report ismischievous and deceptive.

The next day, Friday, he and the honourable memberfor Benambra were photographed for the Border Mailoutside the site of the Wodonga police station andcourthouse complex complaining that he was notgranted access. When I was in opposition I rememberan email or memo coming from the then Minister forPolice and Emergency Services, the Honourable PatMcNamara, saying in effect that in future Labormembers — it was not targeted at all members ofParliament — wishing to visit police stations had firstof all to seek his approval. When I visited my own localpolice station in Epping I was instructed to get theminister’s approval to walk in as a local resident andlocal member.

We have relaxed those protocols. Local members areentitled to visit their police stations whenever theywish. If they wish to have briefings or to beaccompanied by members from other areas or byshadow ministers or leaders of parties they are welcometo do that, but we request that in those circumstancesthey do us the courtesy of advising us so we can ensurethat police are able to provide the appropriate seniorpersonnel to make the visit fruitful. The situation is a lotmore relaxed than it was before, but it has never beenthe case that people could freely wander aroundbuilding sites. The police indicated that they had someconcern about people wandering around theconstruction site and that is the basis on which the visitto the construction site was not facilitated.

There is an open day coming up in a couple of weeks.The honourable members for Benambra and Wantirnaare both welcome, as is any member of the public, toturn up on that day. That is the day I will be going toinspect the police station and I am happy for thehonourable members for Benambra and Wantirna tocome and have a look at it with me. I note, however,that the honourable member for Benambra claims thathe should have been let in because ‘Our governmentplanned and funded the new police courthouse but Ihave not being given access’.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bit like the promise ofadditional police: ‘We planned it, we funded it but wenever saw any of it’. They talked about it but not onegrain of sand was moved. I am happy for the

honourable members for Benambra and Wantirna tocome through the police station on open day, but let itbe understood that they did absolutely nothing todeliver this police station. This government hasdelivered it. There was not one single grain of sandshifted under their government.

The honourable member for Sandringham raised theissue of drunken hooliganism in Station Street,Sandringham. I am sorry I have forgotten the date but Iwill get the details from Mr Armstrong. The honourablemember says there was some difficulty in getting policeattendance there. If it is as the honourable member forSandringham indicates it is a totally unacceptablesituation. I will seek a report from Victoria Police as towhy that has happened. We have provided the policeand restored the resources that were taken away fromthem, so there is no excuse for this type ofnon-response. I will seek a police report on theparticular incident for the honourable member forSandringham and advise him accordingly.

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — Thehonourable member for Bendigo East raised for me theissue of public liability premiums regarding theBendigo Easter Fair and the Bendigo Speedway.

Firstly, I have absolutely no doubt that the honourablemember for Bendigo East would be an enthusiasticparticipant in the Bendigo Easter Fair and at theBendigo Speedway. She is a very active local memberand I have no doubt that it would be from the heart thatshe expresses this because she reads what happens inher community and is the living soul of regionalVictoria. She raises this issue with sincerity and I take itseriously.

The issues she raises about these worthy communityorganisations finding it difficult to get public liabilityinsurance are key issues before this government andevery other government in this country, because thepublic liability insurance area is in some difficulty,particularly for not-for-profit organisations.

As the house would be aware following the HIHInsurance collapse last year and the events of11 September, there is enormous pressure on insuranceorganisations across the planet, and as that affects ushere in Australia reinsurers are reluctant to underwritesome of the long-tailed schemes, which most publicliability insurance is about.

The honourable member for Bendigo East asked whataction we as a government can take to restore publicliability insurance options for organisations like theBendigo Easter Fair and the Bendigo Speedway. There

ADJOURNMENT


are no simple solutions to this problem, but what thisgovernment has been doing over the past severalmonths includes, firstly, sitting down with thecommunity organisations — whether they benot-for-profit organisations or small businesses andothers — and going through the options for an enduringsolution to their problems.

I can certainly inform the honourable member forBendigo East that this government is working veryclosely with the Our Community group and theMunicipal Association of Victoria and that in the nearfuture we hope to have in place schemes that will dealwith the Bendigo Easter Fair issue and provideaffordable insurance for community organisations andnot-for-profit organisations. That is something we areworking very hard towards, as we are on generalschemes for insurance.

I thank the honourable member for Bendigo East forraising the issue. We will work as expeditiously aspossible to deal with the problems she raised.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — The honourable member for Wimmeraraised a matter relating to students from rural andregional Victoria not gaining access to informationabout Victorian tertiary admission offers at the sametime as metropolitan students. While I think thehonourable member is aware that the timing does notalter the results that students receive, because they aredetermined at the same time, his concern is thatstudents in country Victoria receive the information at alater stage than their metropolitan counterparts.

I am happy to write to the Victorian TertiaryAdmissions Committee to raise this issue. It is, ofcourse, an independent body, but I am happy to drawthis matter to its attention and see what it might be ableto do to ensure that students in country Victoria gainaccess to the same information at or close to the sametime as their metropolitan counterparts, understandingthat the results will still be the same whether they areavailable 1 hour or 24 hours later. However, I am happyto do so to make sure that that information is providedto rural students at the same time as metropolitanstudents.

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for SeniorVictorians) — The first matter directed to my attentionwas raised by the honourable member for FrankstonEast and related to the Frankston City Council’s plansto demolish a senior citizens club. I am happy to takeup that matter with the Frankston council.

I note that the honourable member has stated that whilethe council promised to provide the senior citizens withequal or better facilities they do not appear to beforthcoming, in spite of the fact that the council plans tobuild a $15 million council office block. I am happy totake that up with the council, and I am sure theFrankston senior citizens club would have a very strongview on where it would like ratepayers’ funds spent.

The honourable member for Bellarine raised for theMinister for State and Regional Development a matterrelating to the availability of reticulated gas in hiselectorate. I note that under the former government nopromises were made about reticulated gas in Bellarine.It was our government that put in a promise — and wewill be following that up — in relation to the citizens ofPortarlington and other sites in Bellarine.

The honourable member for Doncaster raised a matterfor the Minister for Environment and Conservationabout waste management costs in the West Wimmerashire. I will refer that to the minister.

The honourable member for Narracan raised a matterfor the Minister for Environment and Conservationabout what he sees as an admirable site for Vicforests inWarragul. He made the point that Warragul is a finetown with a fine council in a fine electorate. I am surethe people down there say with a fine member ofParliament representing them strongly in this house.

The honourable member for Mornington raised a matterfor the Minister for Environment and Conservationabout rental costs for small boat berths in and aroundHastings. I will refer that matter to the minister for herattention.

The honourable member for Oakleigh raised a matterfor the Minister for Housing about older couplesrequiring affordable accommodation given that they arebeing moved out from what are now becoming moreaffluent areas with a change of demographics inElwood and St Kilda. I will refer that to the minister.

I am sure the Minister for Local Government will givethe honourable member for Mordialloc’s claims all theattention they rightly deserve.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The house isnow adjourned.

House adjourned 10.49 p.m.


Wednesday, 20 March 2002 ASSEMBLY 305

Wednesday, 20 March 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.36 a.m. and read the prayer.


The SPEAKER — Order! The time set by aprevious resolution of the house has arrived to hear theaddresses by Mr Steve Vizard, Dr John Schubert,Mr Michael Krockenberger and Cr Ann Cox. They willaddress the house about the issues raised at the nationalpopulation summit 2002.

Serjeant-at-Arms escorted speakers into chamber.

The SPEAKER — Order! It gives me greatpleasure to welcome to the Legislative Assembly of theParliament of Victoria Mr Steve Vizard, the convenerof the national population summit; Dr John Schubert,the president of the Business Council of Australia;Mr Michael Krockenberger, strategies director,Australian Conservation Foundation; and Cr Ann Cox,the mayor of the Mildura Rural City Council. Welcometo each and every one of you.

I now call on Mr Steve Vizard to address theLegislative Assembly.

Mr VIZARD — Mr Speaker, honourable members,I stand before you with gratitude and trepidation —gratitude that I am invited to speak in this place onbehalf of the hundreds of attendees to the nationalpopulation summit and to personally deliver theirimportant message to you: a message imploring theneed for a constructive, informed, open debate onmatters relating to Australia’s population. Andtrepidation because the last time I prepared to makesuch a formal speech it turned out to be a set-up for anepisode of This is Your Life, and I wasted an entirespeech and spent an evening with a whole lot ofteachers I had not seen for 20 years.

A prosperous nation cherishes its past yet chooses itsfuture. It contemplates not merely what has been builtbut what we have yet to build. The citizens of aprosperous nation are challenged daily to answer thequestion: how shall I leave my nation a better place?The prosperity of every nation is more than the landand mountains, the forests and the seas. Every nation isgifted. The true and enduring prosperity of eachindividual nation, the unique wealth of a nation, is to befound in the sum of its people. The wealth of its people,unlike every other resource, is a wealth that can beshaped and unified, moved and grown, harnessed andreplenished, gathered and nurtured.

Our nation’s people are our greatest asset. In 10 years,50 years or 100 years from now, how many citizensshall our nation number? How shall we plan for them?Where will they live? Will it be in the cities? Will it bein the regions? Where will they come from? What willthey bring with them — in languages, in physicalwealth, in cultural wealth? How old will they be? Willthey be too young to work? Too old to labour? Whatskills will they possess? What will our land support —of water, of earth? What of our rainforests and ourpristine waterways? What of the productivity andcritical mass required to sustain industries capable ofcompeting in global markets to generate economicactivity to give us physical wealth?

Easy questions; complex, interconnected answers. Allpremised on one underlying fundamental question —that is, not merely what quality of life shall we choosefor our citizens today, but what sustainable quality oflife shall we choose for our citizens tomorrow? Whatpopulation can our nation carry? What populationought our nation carry? What population do we choosefor our nation to carry?

And from our choice flows so much. How we choose togrow our population — or not — and whether it bethrough immigration or by natural replacement. Howwe choose to build for our people. Where we putschools, hospitals, libraries or roads. How the worldperceives the fruits of our choice. Should we be anunderpopulated, empty place in an ever-crowded part ofthe world — or not? What will be the national securityconsequences, the defence consequences, the tradeconsequences?

It has been said that our nation has no populationpolicy. Partially this is true. Surprisingly, in all of thesematters Australia has little explicit public policyexpressly articulating population growth options,debating target numbers, forecasting scenarios andconsidering the consequences of population choiceswith integrated solutions that tie togetherenvironmental, economic and planning implications. Asa nation we do not have, nor have we recently had, aninformed, expressly publicly debated and testedpopulation policy.

Equally that proposition is false. Our nation does, infact, have a population policy — the policy our nationpractises daily. The policy we live and breathe eachday. A policy born of silence or pragmatism, or even ofneglect, is nonetheless a policy. The fruits of that policyare just as real — real living children and grandchildrenborn of real fertility rates and real immigrants who willlive, breathe, eat and inherit the nation we create for


306 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 20 March 2002

them, however much or however little we choose toplan for them.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of expresspolicy this space will be filled, just not as we mighthave hoped. The man at the end of my grandma’sstreet — the obese one who waddles the pavement withhis pair of equally obese labradors each day — inventshis own population policy, a policy which reduces towho is going to buy the vacant house next door to mine,how many of their foreign offspring are going tosqueeze into three bedrooms, and what unknownodours are going to pour from their kitchen windowand pollute the labradors’ kennels?

Jimoni, the Hungarian painter, constructs his owndebate. He left the old land 30 years ago and knowsthese people. They are dangerous, stick together, willnot learn the language. They are too lazy, he tells me, ashe takes another smoko and then dissects the affairs ofthe day with his mate in Hungarian.

Or the skinny guy at the BP service station, who tellsme about his population theory and who knows that ifthey come they will pinch his job because they areworkaholics and will work for nothing.

Or Uncle Pete’s missus, who reckons she cannot affordto have kids and leave work.

Or the group of economists I had lunch with last weekwho reckon we need to kick-start business by buildingdemand — more people, more spending, more growth.

Others, too, know this debate. The seven-year-old withthe saucer brown eyes who for two years has known12-foot wire mesh fences and the parching desert dustof Woomera; she who has seen men’s lips sewntogether and who makes daily playtime rituals inconcrete corners. Seven years old; she too knows thisdebate.

Millions of unconnected private debates; millions ofheads full of invasions and growth opportunities,foreign stenches and export chances, flotsam andjetsam, private arguments and sentiments — allunconnected by informed public debate, untested bydisseminated research and education, unchallenged byenduring, constructive, open, active, public discourse,and unengaged by an informed debate about ourpopulation policy.

It is true that the responsibility of making a hard, wisechoice about our nation’s population is a choice easilyfudged. The consequences of this generation’s planningmight not be felt for generations. Long lead times, biglag times — the very reason to plan provides the place

to hide. No-one will know our failure for a long time.The next generation alone will bear the consequencesof our omission. Glacial shifts measure the efforts ofour generation, remaining buried, undetected, secretedfor a long time after we have gone — leaving only ourkids and their kids to judge our carelessness or ourarrogance or our wisdom.

What can I do about an ageing population — about thefact that by the year 2050 the proportion of ourpopulation aged over 65 will have doubled from 12 percent to 27 per cent; about who will pay for them; aboutwho will support them; about the taxes for those in thework force; about the standard of living for retirees?What can I do about it? What can I do about Australia’sfalling fertility rate, currently 1.75 babies per woman,below population maintenance levels of 2.1? What canI do about the fact that even if we took our currentlevels of immigration, by 2100 our population wouldhave plummeted to around 10.8 million? What can I doabout it?

On 25 February this year I am pleased to report to youthat a national population summit was held inMelbourne for the express purpose of doing somethingabout it — to begin to publicly and constructivelychoose answers to these questions. What population canthis nation carry? What population ought this nationcarry? And what population do we choose for thisnation to carry? Over several hundred observers fromaround the nation attended the national populationsummit, participating with 40 leading Australianexperts in fields ranging from economics, theenvironment, demography, culture and internationalrelations.

For those observers of the population summit awaitingan outcome of unanimity or the determination of aprecise number for Australia’s population at precisedates over the next hundred years, I am equally able toreport to you that the summit was a complete failure.Rather, a debate was had, questions were asked and aprocess was begun.

Honourable members, I am pleased to report to you thatas a consequence of the summit and the recognition bykey participants — not so much about what populationpolicy should be substantively, but rather about theneed for a public process to develop a populationpolicy — delegates to the summit signed a formalcommuniqué.

The communiqué agrees upon an apolitical frameworkfor publicly debating, testing and developing a nationalpopulation policy in a constructive, vigorous andengaging way. The communiqué enunciates a series of



agreed principles: that Australia’s population, and itssize and composition and distribution, is a vital factordetermining Australia’s future as a nation and our placein the world, now and for generations to come; thatAustralia can actually shape its future by developingand adopting a national population policy; that thedevelopment and evolution of that policy should be aprocess coordinated by the federal government inpartnership with all governments, engaging allAustralians in open, informed, reasoned andconstructive debate about population; that that debatewill necessarily involve recognition of a range ofcomplex variables including the economy, theenvironment, infrastructure, national security,international relations, age distribution, culture andlifestyle; that our policy will be more than a series ofprescribed annual population targets and that the keyissues to be addressed in the policy will be populationdispersal and regional development; and that populationpolicy will distinguish between immigration practicesand will recognise that immigration practice shouldoperate not in isolation but within the broader contextof achieving an overarching objective of a nationalpopulation policy.

The communiqué was signed and continues to besigned by community leaders, diverse peak industryorganisations such as the Business Council of Australiaand the Australian Conservation Foundation, thePremiers of every state and the leaders of the territoriesof Australia. The communiqué will be delivered todayto the Prime Minister, and it is genuinely hoped that thefederal government will respond to the communiquéand call for a more open, bipartisan public debate in thespirit in which it has been developed and delivered.

The fundamental importance of our nation’s debateabout population policy must be measured by morethan head count and bricks and mortar. Ultimately anexamination of Australia’s population is anexamination of who we shall count amongst us. It is anexamination of our identity, of who we are and who wewish to become. It is an examination of how we wouldhave others see us; of how we see ourselves; of who wewould include and who we would exclude; of whatseparates us from others; of what binds us together.These are matters about which we need to makeinformed, wise, strategic choices — to make publicchoices.

It is not enough for our leaders to say that Australiacannot or should not choose. It is not enough for ourleaders to say that we cannot or should not debate suchmatters. It is not enough for our leaders to say that thesematters are too complex, too variable or too long term,that we cannot see the benefits in our own lifetime, that

‘it does not strike a chord with my electorate’, that‘there are no votes in it for me personally’, or that ittouches nerves.

Indeed the debate about population may be all of thosethings. But is not the very purpose of this debate, thevery purpose of developing a population policy, to seekto resolve those complex matters and not to leave themunattended? Is not the duty of leadership to counsel insuch matters, to help us to care and choose not just forthe short-term benefits of today’s talkback ortomorrow’s opinion polls but for the long term becauseit is proper, because it will make our people better andbecause it will make our nation stronger?

The duty of enlightened leadership is to help to show uswhy we must care and how we must choose. The dutyof enlightened leadership is to provide us with strongarguments, independent analysis and clear information,to connect experts and ordinary people, to communicatethe issues, to articulate the options, to stimulateconstructive public debate, to educate, to dispel myths,to diffuse prejudices, to encourage informed, open,public discourse, to connect and engage and to makesense of the millions of private arguments in each of theheads of each of our citizens. The duty of leadership isto provide our citizens with the tools and the will tochoose wisely. In short, in matters of nationalsignificance such as this, we simply require of ourleaders that they lead.

The plea from the summit, from speaker after speaker,was simple and modest — that is, we publicly debatethis matter, not to provide answers but to ask questions,not to end the debate but to renew it, not to createdivision but to make connections, not to usurp the roleof our leaders but rather to urge them to their task.

The development of a population policy will bemeasured in little steps, in the success of a populationsummit, in the signing of a communiqué, in a specialsitting of Parliament, in the development of whitepapers and debate on talkback radio and opinion piecesin the press, in the recognition by just one or two peakindustry bodies of the need to ventilate these issues, tospeak publicly, to dispel the mystique and fear andsecrecy that has clouded this debate, to developformative policies, to flesh them out, to integrate themand relate them to other policies.

Most importantly, the success of this debate, like thesummit and this special sitting, is not merely one ofsubstance, of where we end up, but rather how wemove this issue forward in a just and fair andcompassionate and apolitical way, in the recognitionthat a diverse group of Australians reflecting the gamut



of views on this issue can meet in an informed andconstructive way with a willingness to achieve a greaterend to help us to choose wisely.

Honourable members, I acknowledge the leadershipthat you have taken in initiating this special sitting. Onbehalf of all of the organisers, the delegates andattendees of the population summit, may I convey ourthanks and congratulations to the Premier and to thegovernment for so willingly and publicly initiating thisimportant debate about population. The Premier and thegovernment have played an active role in elevating thiskey issue as a matter of public debate. They havearticulated a fair and constructive approach on behalf ofthe people of the state and have demonstratedleadership.

I specifically want to thank the Premier for personallytaking on the debate, for raising the issue with themedia and with other state and federal colleagues and,critically, for supporting in real terms this debate ofnational significance. Equally, may I express mygratitude to the Leader of the Opposition and membersof the opposition for their support of this debate, andparticularly to the Leader of the Opposition forattending the summit and for directly participating onthe day. I would also like to acknowledge the support ofthe National Party and the honourable members forMildura, Gippsland East and Gippsland West insupporting the special sitting and elevating the issue.

I also want to thank the organisers of the summit,Mr Bert Dennis, the Premier’s department, my ownstaff, particularly Jacinta Love and Sophie Pennington,and all the delegates and attendees.

We count on your continued leadership. We thank youfor tackling this issue of national importance. We lookforward to your engaging in a fair, vital, active andcontinuing debate.

The SPEAKER — I now invite, Dr John Schubert,the president of the Business Council of Australia, toaddress the Assembly.

Dr SCHUBERT — Mr Speaker, Premier, Leader ofthe Opposition, honourable members, I am very pleasedto have the opportunity this morning to address thisforum in this historic venue, which has hosteddiscussions on a number of subjects over the yearswhich have been absolutely critical to Australia:federation, the constitution, reconciliation and,interestingly in the context of this morning’s discussion,the national call in the 1940s for Australia to populateor perish.

I congratulate the Premier, who initiated today’sdiscussion; it reflects an increasing understanding ofpopulation as an issue of national importance. I alsowelcome and acknowledge the support of the Leader ofthe Opposition and all members of Parliament.

For the first time since European settlement Australia isfacing the prospect of population decline. Based oncurrent projections of birth rates and migration levels,our population could peak at just under 24 millionpeople in less than 30 years and could decline quiterapidly after that. Tasmania, on the same projections,would have a declining population in less than 15 yearsand South Australia shortly thereafter. Today six of uswork to support every retiree. Without a major increasein either birth rates or in immigration, in less than30 years only three will be in the work force for everyretiree.

Australia is not alone in facing a similar, rapid ageingof the population. It is also faced by most other westerncountries. For example, Germany, Japan, Italy, theUnited Kingdom, the United States of America andCanada all have significant initiatives to attractmigrants to try to resolve this coming problem. Japanand Italy have been singled out, as honourablemembers may have read, as being destined for genteeldecline because of the dramatic fall in birth rates theyare experiencing.

It is this outlook for Australia and what it means for oureconomy and for our standard of living that is behindthe business council’s interest in population. Ourcanvas is quite broad, and despite my error in talkingabout dollars we are actually interested in a lot morethan that. Our concern is the ability of the Australianeconomy to grow and to create jobs, but it is also arecognition that unless that happens we will not be ableto fund a higher standard of living and the type ofsociety that all Australians want, and to keep inAustralia our best and brightest people.

The business council has undertaken a four-yearresearch program on the population which we arehappy to make available to members, but given the timeavailable this morning I will focus quite directly on thepart population plays in building Australia to be thebest place in the world in which to live, to learn, towork and to do business.

It is our view that Australia must grow faster than ourpeer countries. If it does not it is quite likely that it willbecome irrelevant in a globalising world where bothcapital and the best people are becoming increasinglymobile. Because of our small relative size and ourdistance from major centres and major countries, if we



do not grow faster than our peers then we will becomeirrelevant and will not be able to fund the fair, the cleanand the safe and prosperous society that all Australiansdesire.

We have had outstanding economic performance inAustralia over the last 10 years, which I do not think isgenerally recognised. Over the last decade our economyhas grown at close to 4 per cent, which outperforms theUnited States and virtually every other Westerneconomy. As a result Australia is now the 13th largesteconomy in the world, closely followed by countriessuch as Sweden, Norway, Taiwan and Russia. But it isessential that we retain that position because we canexpect that other developed countries will grow at therate of at least 2 to 3 per cent over the next decade andlonger. If Australia is to be noticed we will have togrow at about 4 per cent. That will also be required ifwe are to maintain our position in the league of nations.

Based on our experience over the last decade, if wecontinue the reform of our economy, which has been sosuccessful in leading to productivity growth andtherefore economic growth, and if we continue toembrace technological developments both well andquickly, then we can achieve 3 per cent growth throughproductivity. But that leaves a 1 per cent gap if we aregoing to achieve that 4 per cent target that I talkedabout, and that will have to be filled by a 1 per centincrease on average in people entering the work force.That in turn will require a population increase of about1.25 per cent.

Based on current birth rate projections, that will requireincreased migration levels above the current 90 000 byabout 50 000 to 140 000 over the next few years, andby the end of the decade that would need to rise to anincrease of about 80 000 over the current levels to about170 000. Those increased migration levels are requiredto increase the work force by 1 per cent and achieve the4 per cent growth target, which would keep us growingslightly faster than our peers and maintain our positionin the premier league of nations, and only in that waywill we be able to attract investments and jobs andimprove our comparative standard of living.

What does it mean from a population viewpoint? Itmeans that by 2012 our population would be22.1 million instead of 21.4 million — an additional700 000 people in over 10 years, something that shouldbe manageable.

A simple fact that we cannot escape is that withoutincreased immigration Australia faces a longer termdecline in population. We believe this is a critical issuefor Australia because population growth is a key driver

of economic growth, and that is a key driver of havingthe sort of society that most Australians desire.

Before I close I would like to make two observationsabout the environment, which is a critical considerationin growing our population. The first is that pastenvironmental performance has certainly been mixed,but with widespread use of technologies both alreadydeveloped and soon to be or currently being developed,coupled with increased awareness throughout thecommunity by virtually everyone, we will do a betterjob than we have done in the past and currently do.

The second point I make is that we need to understandclearly the links between population increase andenvironmental impact. We should recognise that manyenvironmental issues facing Australia are not linked topopulation growth but are linked directly toagricultural, mining and other production which is forexport markets, not for our local markets.

Our conclusion is that increased immigration isessential. We believe we have to play greater attentionto immigration mechanisms such as language classes,civics classes and citizenship classes for migrants andpeople becoming Australian citizens. We believe that apopulation growth of about 1.25 per cent is essential ifAustralia is going to grow at 4 per cent, and we believethat that in turn is necessary if we are going to remainin the top tier of nations and not become irrelevant.

As a result, population growth is essential for Australiato fund the fair, clean, safe and prosperous society thatall Australians desire and to achieve our aspiration ofAustralia being the best place in the world to live, tolearn, to work and to do business.

Honourable members, I believe today’s discussion is avery significant one. It is a very important part of thenational debate on a subject that is absolutely criticalfor Australia’s future. I thank you for your invitation. Icongratulate you on this important initiative, and I lookforward with interest to the ensuing debate.

The SPEAKER — I now call upon Mr MichaelKrockenberger, strategies director of the AustralianConservation Foundation, to address us.

Mr KROCKENBERGER — Mr Speaker,Premier, Leader of the Opposition and honourablemembers, I thank you for the honour of addressing youand congratulate you on encouraging debate on theseissues.

I will begin with a personal story. My eight-year-olddaughter goes to school in Carlton. It has so manyMuslim kids that school events are planned with the



Islamic calendar in mind and halal food is served atsausage sizzles.

Her friends include the Ethiopian girl from across theroad who speaks Tigrinya and Amharic as well asAussie English. The girl’s mother is a cleaner at thecasino and works from 2.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. Otherfriends include the Somali girl two doors down whowears a headscarf to school, the Telugu-speaking HinduIndian girl whose father is a doctor, and theCantonese-speaking Chinese girl whose mother isdoing an MBA. Oh yes, she also has some friends withAnglo-Celtic names who, poor things, do not speak anylanguages other than English.

She is only eight, and she has been exposed toexperiences from many cultures. She studies Italian atschool, and on Friday nights her grandparents take herto German language school. She is not fluent yet, but itis a great start.

All these things make up the Australia I know, theAustralia I love and am proud of. Yes, we do Aussiecliché things too. My daughter eats Vegemite andwatches the footy just as I did when I was a kid, and wego to the beach down the Great Ocean Road. But mostof our Australia is not the picket-fence, sliced-whiteAustralia one sees in the margarine and laundry powderads; it is multicultural Australia.

Do I reckon postwar immigration has been good forAustralia? You bet! Do I think further immigration isgood for Australia? You bet! I think that we should takemany more refugees from troubled parts of the world.

But I fear population increase, too, not for socialreasons but for environmental reasons. You remembermy daughter’s Ethiopian friend? Her family’sdilapidated 1960s flats are to be demolished soon. Ishould be rejoicing as it will increase the value of ourhouse across the road, but I am not. Not only will wemiss the family when they move, but I have a fearabout where they are likely to move to — the outersuburbs.

I think Melbourne is one of the greatest cities on earth.There is certainly no city in Australia that I wouldrather live in. It fully deserves the title of the mostlivable city, though unfortunately not the mostsustainable.

But Melbourne is really two cities. Inner Melbourne hasAustralia’s best public transport, but the otherMelbourne, the outer suburbs, has Australia’s worstpublic transport. The only place the family will be ableto afford will be a brick veneer in a thistle-filled,wind-blown paddock miles from amenities. Although

relatively new, the house will be so badly designed itwill need lots of heating in winter and airconditioningin summer; and if the huge lawn is not to die, gallons ofwater will need to be sprinkled on it.

The family will need to buy a car — a huge, old gasguzzler will be all they can afford. They will drive toschool, to the shops, to the casino for work, and theywill be isolated from the vibrant inner-city community.Their environmental footprint will be much greater thanin Carlton, where it was much greater than in Ethiopia.Of course I am not suggesting that Ethiopia is Utopia;far from it. Our friends were refugees and came here fora better life, but if the family had migrated to Denmark,Sweden, Norway, Germany or even Canada theirenvironmental footprint would be smaller.

Research by the Australia Institute has shown that theaverage migrant comes from a country with less thanhalf the per capita greenhouse gas emissions ofAustralia, yet once here they will, on average, become atypical Australian emitter because they are subject toour public transport conditions, our electricitygeneration, our consumption patterns, et cetera. We areall more or less locked into typical Australianconsumption patterns. The electricity we use isgenerated from brown coal, the worst greenhousepolluter. How many of us have a rainwater tank? Ofcourse there are some ways we can reduce that impact.We could get a rainwater tank, we could get solarpanels, or we could at least sign up for green power.But all these things cost money and other things costtime and effort. It is not always easy being green,because our society and economy are not designed tomake it easy. We can do so much better than we donow. We are not impoverished Ethiopia.

While the former President of the United States, BillClinton, was here during the Tampa crisis he is reportedto have said that he could not understand all the fussabout 400 boat people, when unless climate change ismore effectively dealt with there will be 400 000 onAustralia’s shores. Isn’t ironic that the very samePacific Islanders to whom we are shunting off currentasylum seekers may themselves be seeking refuge onour shores when their homes are inundated by theeffects of climate change? How in all good consciencedo we say no to climate change refugees who point toour profligate use of energy as contributing to theirplight?

Perhaps we will have no choice about Australia’s futurepopulation — future Australians may include manygreenhouse refugees — but while we still have thechoice, should we increase Australia’s population,which primarily means increasing immigration? If we



retain the present economic structure the resoundingenvironmental answer would have to be no. However, ahigher population is possible with less environmentalimpact than we have now, but this would involvefundamental reforms that would both environmentallymodernise and enhance the productivity of oureconomy.

Let’s look at the current Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD)environmentaldata. Australia is the highest per capita greenhouse gasemitter, and Victoria is the highest in Australia.Australia has the third-highest greenhouse gasemissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP),behind only the ex-Soviet-bloc economies of theCzechoslovakian Republic and Poland. These measurestogether indicate that we are close to being the leastenergy-efficient country in the OECD. We are thesecond-highest producer of waste per head, behind theUSA. Australia is the driest inhabited continent, yet weuse more water per head than any other continentexcept North America.

A report to the recent World Economic Forum by Yaleand Columbia universities has shown that Australialags badly in terms of environmental performancecompared with similar countries, and with some factorsit lags behind the rest of the world.

While we perform very well on a few indicators,especially relating to science and food, we were badlyranked on many. Of 142 countries Australia was 128thin reducing air pollution, 125th in conservingbiodiversity, 125th in reducing waste and consumptionpressures, 105th in eco-efficiency and 134th inreducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia has a hot, heavy and wet economy — that is,one that uses a lot of energy and water and produces alot of waste to create wealth. According to theCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation it takes a quarter of a litre of petrol toproduce a dollar of GDP in Australia. This was themodel for a successful 20th century economy, but it isnot the model for the 21st century. The 21st centuryrequires the opposite: a cool, light and dry economy —that is, the real new economy, based on innovation,knowledge, doing more with less, value adding andbeing clever.

To achieve sustainability we need to do fourfundamental things: firstly, reduce the per capitaconsumption of fossil energy and materials — and anabsolute reduction of 70 per cent is required, accordingto CSIRO calculations; secondly, rapidly introducesustainable energy and energy-efficient transportation;

thirdly, develop new financial investments that benefit,not destroy, the environment; and fourthly, createindustry development strategies that promote thesustainable industries that are labour-intensive and lowon use of energy and materials.

Anyone who advocates a higher population forAustralia should be actively promoting these goals andbe a vigorous environmental advocate. These people,especially the business people who look forward to thefinancial rewards of bigger markets, need to support thefollowing first steps: ratifying the Kyoto protocol onclimate change — if Australia does not ratify we are indanger of missing lucrative international tradingopportunities; introducing a carbon tax — this is one ofthe most effective ways to drive innovation and createnew jobs; cutting the billions of dollars of annualsubsidies to fossil fuel use; introducing higher waterprices for agriculture and industry; and investing in landand water repair.

Then we can start to talk about population growth, butit is important to note that a new economy does notnecessarily need a lot of people. The old axiom of‘populate or perish’ does not apply in a globalisedworld. As the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr,has pointed out, population growth is an old economyapproach to economic productivity. The populationdebate needs to be not about sheer numbers but aboutwhat people are doing, what sort of lifestyles they have,what sort of technologies they use and what sort ofeconomy they live in. That is what advocates ofpopulation increase need to be stressing.

There is no doubt that increasing Australia’s populationunder current circumstances will increase ourenvironmental problems. Can we function with30 million people living under current conditions? No,not without gross environmental impact — even10 million is too many. Can we be a sustainablecountry of 30 million? Yes, if we are clever about it —and we can be humanitarian, too. I want a countrywhere we can take many more refugees and where eachnew Australian, and each old Australian, whether ofindigenous, Anglo-Celtic, Italian, Lebanese,Vietnamese or Ethiopian background, produces lessgreenhouse gas, uses less water and has lessenvironmental impact than in any other developedcountry. That is a country to be really proud of, andVictoria can lead the way.

The SPEAKER — I now call upon Cr Ann Cox,the mayor of the Mildura Rural City Council, to addressthe Assembly.



Cr COX — Mr Speaker, Mr Premier, ministers,Leader of the Opposition, and honourable members, thehonourable member for Mildura, Russell Savage, toldme that it is an honour to be asked to speak inParliament, but then he added, ‘We don’t let justanyone in’. So I stand before you today as the mayor ofthe Rural City of Mildura to speak on population inrural and regional areas. I believe it is appropriate for awoman to have the last word.

‘Populate or perish’ was the postwar message. In thelate 1940s and 1950s that was the clarion call inAustralia. Close on its heels was the Catholic Churchsaying, ‘Go forth and multiply’. My husband Brian andI were good citizens and Catholic. So in the next12 years we had seven children — seven beautifulAussies. Now we have 19 grandchildren, so weconsider we now have an Aussie dynasty. When wegathered for Christmas last year we had 33 seated at ourtable. I looked around and said, ‘That’s a family!’.

In the 1950s and the early 1960s Australia had anenthusiasm that I believe has not been matched since.There was pride in and a commitment to the future ofthis young country; everyone was happy to have a go.In addressing you today I remind you that I am likehistory, and the majority of you then were probably justthoughts in the minds of your parents.

The postwar increase in population was noticeablemostly in rural and regional areas, where the sheep hadthe lambs, the cows had the calves and the women hadthe babies. It was the most productive time. In fact, atthat stage most farmers could boast families that couldmake up a netball or cricket team.

Similarly, during the 1950s the population wasincreasing through the federal immigration program.Towns such as Mildura and Shepparton saw the firstItalians, Greeks and Yugoslavs seeking seasonalwork — and work they did! They put in hours that Ibelieve we had not seen previously. They had amission, and that was to bring their families toAustralia, where they could see such friendship andfreedom. That was their aim.

Now Mildura boasts English, Italians, Greeks,Yugoslavs, Dutch, Filipinos, Tongans, Vietnamese,Indians, Turks, Iranians and Iraqis as establishedmembers of its community. Now Mildura can boastabout its wonderful variety of restaurants, including theone run by Stefano.

The integration of the cultures has meant that Aussieshave learnt that meat and three vegies is not the norm,and the work ethic among the multicultural

communities, with their sharing among their familiesand their work, is something to be seen.

We have a fruit block close to an Italian family. Overthe years it became a nightmare for us as we wouldspend three months struggling with all the pruning onour 15-acre block, yet the large Italian family would getinto it and take only a week to prune the vines on theirblock.

However, increasingly migrants preferred to settle inthe big cities. That, coupled with a declining birthrate,farmers increasingly purchasing neighbouring farmsand falling commodity prices, led to the beginning ofthe rural and regional slump. It has been eating away atus ever since.

To hasten the decay, governments and nationalcompanies commenced withdrawing services, but thevicious cycle of population decline is relative toinfrastructure. That has led to the loss of communityinfrastructure and employment, the loss of communityservices and employment, the decline in the quality ofcommunity and commercial leadership, the increasedawareness of the risks of housing capital losses, and themigration of wealthy and skilled citizens. However, theAussie spirit is alive and well. Many Victorian smalltowns can boast success in staving off the finalabandonment of those towns.

The drift to the cities is caused by the lack ofhigh-profile jobs, the lack of higher education in ruraland regional Victoria, and the lack of competition onwages. Skilled labour is highly mobile and long-termcontracts are now rare. Currently, the Mildura RuralCity Council has a high turnover in skilled labour. Forinstance, its planning department, which is one of thebusiest planning departments in Victoria, has one seniorplanner and three junior planners. That makes theirwork very difficult. We have a situation of insecuretenure because people now have partners who work.Recently, two male senior planners left Mildurabecause their wives were higher up the career ladderthan they were. This is an increasing problem withinour regions.

However, regional and rural centres have positives,including affordability of land, lower costs of living,living closer to work and being able to enjoy a rurallifestyle and quality of life. I have a son who lives inLower Templestowe in Melbourne’s east. I said to him,‘Do you see the sunset and the stars?’, to which hereplied, ‘No’. When I looked out the hotel window lastnight I too could not see them because of the mist. So,come to Mildura to see the stars and the beautiful skies!



How do we entice the city-based population to realisethe existence of and to embrace rural benefits? Atpresent there is a Regional Cities Group comprisingmayors and chief executive officers from 10 regionalcities. Premier Bracks and Ministers Brumby andCameron recognise the work being done by this group.They have pledged to attend quarterly meetings andgive their undivided attention for between 1 hour and1.5 hours, which is much appreciated. Suddenly, wehad a focus. We had to produce agenda items and ideasfor them to advise on and provide assistance throughtheir various departments. The work became so greatthat councils jointly provided funds to secure theservices of Socom Response Public Relations Pty Ltd.

On 27 February we held a regional cities planning day.A few of the suggestions that came from the presentersat the forum were: to convene a regional summit onpopulation needs in rural and regional Victoria — and Isuggest Mildura would be the perfect place for that; andto enable immigrants to gain easier access to Australiaif they agree to locate to and remain in regional areasfor three years. The temporary visas would convert topermanent status after the expiration of the three years.

Further suggestions included: working out practicalcases for the better integration, use and efficiency ofcurrent assets; and developing a collective regionalcities vision — that is, setting targets and knowingexactly what you want to achieve. This is alreadyoccurring within our Regional Cities Group, and in2002 we will determine the special characteristics thatare part of a regional city.

It was also suggested that we should design a regionalcities logo and prepare regional cities maps and othersupport materials that outline and identify issues forregional cities. There will be continued work on themarketing program that will piggyback onto the touristJigsaw promotion. The group will continue to pursuethe regional investment plan. Premier Bracks hasundertaken to pursue this issue with other premiers. Wewill develop the principles and models that regionalcities want to see as part of the strategy for Victoria.

Where to with population growth, which is necessaryfor growth and prosperity in Victoria? Currently we donot reproduce ourselves. Fertility has become quite atopic of discussion in the light of our survival as anation — and I feel eminently qualified to speak aboutit. I assure you that there is love in the air in Mildura;we do reproduce ourselves, and I can tell you there areno 1.65 families in our community!

I suggest two areas could be explored. Firstly, up theante on babies. I am in favour of immigration, as I said,

but let Australian women have babies if they so wish.Let us continue our immigration. Women are anentrenched part of the work force, but there still remainmany who want to stay at home and would love to havemore babies. The federal government must make itworth while for them to have these babies. It shouldincrease the family allowance and not victimise thewealthy, for some of them are just asset rich.

I know many women will be commenting on my call tohave babies, but it is quite pleasant. I ran it past one ofmy sons, asking, ‘If the family allowance wereincreased, would they look at having more children?’.He and his wife have four. Many parents are anxiousabout secondary and tertiary education and the lifestyletheir children will have. My son said yes, if there werean increased family allowance they would certainlyhave more children.

While we search for ways and means to breathe lifeback into regional centres, let us not overlook the smallsatellite towns. Recently I was appalled to hear that if atown’s population dropped to a certain level it would bebest for all of us if we let it die. How disgusting!

Ouyen, which is one of our satellite towns, wasstruggling to keep its retail business alive. Ouyen Inc.was formed, and a plan to rejuvenate the town centrewas made known to all its residents — and their desirewas fired. The council commenced beautificationworks in the town centre, shops had a coat of paint, anda new air of enthusiasm was apparent.

Then Jeff Kennett came up with the vanilla slice event,and now coachloads of people come into Ouyen dailyto taste those beautiful treats. So if you have not tastedOuyen’s vanilla slice, I suggest you put that in yourdiaries. There is now a wayside stop in the centre oftown, and on a huge wall there is a beautiful muraldepicting the town’s history from the past to thepresent.

Currently Murrayville, with a population of 300, isbeing rejuvenated with the advent of Maurie Rangerbuying the Murrayville pub. He is married to RachelSporn, the Australian basketballer, and they have quitea following in Adelaide. They expect this following tolead to people coming out to see the beauties of theoutback. Maurie is currently renovating the old pub andmotel and, as a newcomer he sees with new eyes themany tourist attractions that surround Murrayville. Heis enthusiastically speaking with groups fromUnderbool, Walpeup and Ouyen to set up a MalleeTrack coach tour. Again, there is new life in a smalltown.



Personally I thank Premier Bracks and his governmentfor their policy of recognising and revitalising regionalVictoria. Their support for and cooperation with ourRegional Cities Group has spurred us on to great ideasand purpose. I suggest that all state governments andthe Federal Government take their example of puttinglife back into regional Victoria and Australia.

The SPEAKER — On behalf of all honourablemembers of the Legislative Assembly I express mygreat gratitude and thanks to our four speakers today fortheir well-considered, insightful and thought-provokingpresentations.

Serjeant-at-Arms escorted speakers to Speaker’s gallery.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I move:

That this house takes note of the comments made by theexpert panel.

The SPEAKER — Order! Who seconds themotion?

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Isecond the motion.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for seconding the motion and supportingthis resolution.

From the outset I also add my congratulations to yourcongratulations of the four speakers who presentedtoday — Mr Steve Vizard, Dr John Schubert,Mr Michael Krockenberger and Cr Ann Cox. Theyprovided a great diversity of opinion, which wasreflected in the recently held population summit. Ibelieve we saw here today a snippet or example of thatdebate and discussion, and the diversity of views whichoccurred through that population summit.

I thought all the contributions were extremely valuableand useful and were of great portent for our discussionand debate this morning. I suspect if there was a grab tobe gained today in the media Cr Ann Cox probably gotit! She follows on from the previous Premier, who wasprobably quite wrongly quoted when he was addressinga group of school students once when he indicated weshould increase the birth and population rates. He wason the same message and issue that we are directlytalking about today, and that is why I think he waswrongly quoted at that time.

But the message was exactly the same as the messagewe are debating today: we need to have regard to thefuture and the population growth of Victoria. If we donot we will be in some peril economically in ourattempts to compete on the global stage with the

regions with which we trade — the Asia–Pacificregion, the United States of America, Europe and theUnited Kingdom. If we do not we will also be a muchworse society with less diversity, less multiculturalismand fewer of the benefits we have accrued over many,many years.

We can look back to two great periods of immigrationin Victoria’s history. If we look back to the period ofthe gold rush, then we saw an amazing group of peoplecome from all over the world to populate and settle inVictoria. They were attracted by gold, yes, but theystayed here with their cultures and ideas, and theyenriched Victoria. At the time Melbourne was knownas Marvellous Melbourne — one of the most wealthyand diverse cities in the world. The legacy left by thosepeople from many countries — the Canadians, theAmericans, people from across Europe, the Asiancommunity and the Chinese who settled at that time —is a legacy that lasted a long, long time and was a greatbuilding block for that second great wave ofimmigration that occurred post-Second World War,which saw many more people settle here from morediverse backgrounds, which enriched our culture.

In the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics there were manyopportunities to remember what happened inMelbourne when the Olympic Games were held here in1956. If you look at the Melbourne of 1956 you seethere was a lack of diversity — hotels closing at6 o’clock and the inability to get a restaurant meal witha glass of wine — but all those features have changedenormously and permanently. Isn’t it much better now?Isn’t it a much better place to live? Aren’t we a muchmore diverse, exciting and vibrant community becauseof that? That is a great by-product of the post-SecondWorld War immigration intake.

We cannot ignore the future and we cannot ignoreplanning for it. That was the message of the fourspeakers who presented to us today — that we cannotsimply take our foot off the accelerator and say thatthings will happen, and let them happen withoutplanning, foresight and deliberative action. We heardthat from each of the speakers.

We heard it from Steve Vizard; we heard it fromMichael Krockenberger, who said, ‘Yes, I supportimmigration so long as it is environmentally sensitive,appropriate and sustainable’. We have to plan for that.We heard it from Dr John Schubert quite tellingly. Theimpact of doing nothing and not taking a stance ondeliberately guiding our future and population in thiscountry will effectively be one of economic stagnationand of losing the great growth that we have had overpast years as well.



We heard it from Cr Ann Cox, with a regionalperspective, which quite tellingly reminded this housethat some of the regions that have developed in thisstate have been developed because of immigration —whether it is Shepparton, Mildura, or in the gold rushperiod with the great gold towns of Ballarat, Bendigoand others. Immigration has been a great impetus forand input into that development.


Mr BRACKS — And it still is! I agree with thewelcome interjection.

But that was a deliberate policy we made by consensusin the post-Second World War period to have a set levelof immigration. We are in danger in not renewing thatmandate and of simply seeing population decline afteran increase, as was mentioned by Dr John Schubert, toa peak of 24 million people. In Victorian terms, if wedo not do anything to change the immigration intake orto have family-friendly policies in our employmentpractices, which encourages women and carers to comeback into the work force regularly, we will have apopulation of some 5 million people by the year 2005,which will lift us from 4.76 million people now, and apopulation in the year 2050 of about 6 millionpeople — that is, if we do nothing at all.

But that will not be good enough to do the very thingthat Dr John Schubert spoke about — that is, to engagewith our region the global community, to pursueeconomic growth at the levels we have seen it at and toensure we have the right skills in the work force toachieve that. It will mean that with an ageingpopulation, a population which is living longer, therewill be less people to support that population in thework force, less taxpayers to support the services andthe quality of life that is required. As was tellingly putby Dr John Schubert, we will move from a position ofsix people in the work force supporting one retiree to astatistic of three people in the work force supportingevery retiree.

We cannot afford to let that future happen. We cannotafford it in human terms, in economic terms, in terms ofour engagement of the region or what we have becomeused to as our quality of life, which I believe isexcellent here in Victoria. We cannot afford to wait48 years to have a population of 6 million. I believe weneed to take the sort of action we heard about today —that is, action to increase our immigration intake, tohave family-friendly policies in the work force, tochange the nature of work so it is much more flexibleand it is possible for women and carers to enter andre-enter the work force — to increase our immigration

intake nationally by 1.25 per cent. In Victorian terms Ihave indicated to the federal immigration minister in asubmission provided to him that the Victoriangovernment is prepared to take a greater share than itscurrent share of 25 per cent of national immigration.

We are prepared to do it, so if there is some concernabout setting a population target nationally orincreasing our immigration intake nationally, I haveindicated that we can relieve that difficulty and thepragmatic issue that he has by saying that Victoria willtake a greater share. It will lead to better diversity,better engagement with the global community andbetter economic growth. They are all things we aspireto and need for the very things that were presented to ustoday. If we do that we can bring the time to reach apopulation of 6 million back from 48 years — we canreduce that by some 25 years back to the year 2025.That is an important, achievable and realistic objectivewhilst we pursue issues of sustainability and planningfor the future.

I would like to indicate some of that planning which isbeing undertaken currently in Victoria. We have threemajor planks to planning for the future: planning forpopulation growth, planning for economic growth andplanning to ensure we have a sustainable economic andvital base for the future. One is the excellent workwhich is going on in the metropolitan strategy — ametropolitan strategy which looks at the size andpopulation of Melbourne, yes, but also at where itshould develop and occur — that is, where are thegrowth nodes? It is looking at it quite differently to theway we have looked at it before, of simply saying thatwe should have a developer-responding approach —that as developments occur we then plan subsequentlyand retrospectively for that development.

It is saying that we should take deliberative action andlook at the regions and the city together — look atBallarat, Bendigo, Geelong and the Latrobe Valley aspart of the labour market, as the place where you liveand work, and at the growth nodes along thosecorridors, while at the same time containing thegeographic growth of Melbourne and have infilldevelopment as part of it. That is our vision as part ofthe metropolitan strategy, which will be developedfurther and which is out for public discussion currently.

Secondly, on regional policy — the second plank ofplanning for this population increase — we have adeliberative Linking Victoria strategy, with fast rail andcommunication links to our regions to grow thosepopulation centres, because we know there isunder-utilised infrastructure and capacity which cantake more growth. It is much more economic and



beneficial for the state to invest in population growth,infrastructure and environmental support in thoseregions than it is in greenfield development sites on theoutskirts of Melbourne with all the costs incumbent inthat of building new schools, new hospitals, new railand public transport links and new child andcommunity centres when we know we have gotunder-utilised capacity in other areas.

It is much better and much more economical to investin transport and communication links to develop thoseregions as part of that strategy. That is the second andimportant part of the measures.

I will refer to one project which I think is veryimportant — I know the Leader of the National Partyshares this view with me, so I am not taking a libertywith him — and that is the Wimmera Mallee pipeline.It is an example of a project that can lead to populationgrowth in an area of the state — the north and west ofVictoria — which is in population decline. This projectis all about sustainable agriculture, a sustainableenvironment with better environmental flows in theriver system and, therefore, the ability and capacity togrow the population in an area of decline. That is anexample of a better use of resources, which I believecan achieve the very things that have been mentionedhere by the speakers.

The third measure — and we will be the onlygovernment in Australia to undertake such anexercise — is the work of the Infrastructure PlanningCouncil here in Victoria, headed up by MikeFitzpatrick. That Infrastructure Planning Council islooking beyond the immediate budget pressures oninfrastructure to say, ‘Let’s look at the 20-year outlook,and let’s have independent expert advice given to thegovernment on how that 20-year outlook can be bestdescribed and best planned for to ensure that we havesustainability and the infrastructure to support thiseconomic and environmental growth in the future’.That is exactly the advice we have received in the draftreport, and that is what we will receive in the future aswell. That measure is taking planning out of thepolitical cycle and putting it into a much morelong-term strategy.

Those are the three clear instruments for growth inVictoria. I was reminded also by Cr Ann Cox of ourother efforts in working with provincial and regionalmayors and with the state development minister, theinnovation minister and the local government ministeron the very issues that will assist and support thosecommunities in regional growth as well.

As I have mentioned, there are two clear mechanismsthat should be pursued to achieve some of theseoutcomes. One is an increase in the immigration intakein this country. I support the Business Council ofAustralia and its target for a 1.25 per cent increase inimmigration. That would lead to a sensible increase ineconomic growth and a sustainable population increase,so long as governments and jurisdictions around thecountry plan for that.

I also support changes to workplace arrangements toprovide much more flexibility in the workplace and toallow carers and women to enter and re-enter the workforce as well.

Other measures can be taken, and other countries havetaken the lead in adopting those measures whereasAustralia has fallen behind. For example, there is now avery competitive market in seeking and gaining skilledmigration. Countries are competing for skilled migrantsand for business migrants, and we are not in themarketplace; we are not out there competing. Countrieslike Canada have the material and other incentives outthere to attract those skilled migrants, in competitionwith other countries. We need to be in the marketplacenationally, but as a state we can also take action toensure that we make ourselves attractive to that skilledand business migration intake in the future.

These are practical and achievable measures, and as Isaid before, a practical measure could be to increase ourshare of the 25 per cent immigration intake as well.

Another matter which I will be taking up at the nationallevel is the need to develop a national population policythrough an intergovernmental population council. I amhopeful that the Prime Minister takes seriously thecommuniqué and the work of the population summitand sets up a such council, which would not bethreatening, which would be bipartisan and whichwould not be dictating targets but rather saying, ‘Let’sdecide by agreement in this country on the populationlevel we require and need’. That is an important andnecessary step, and I would, in a non-threatening andnon-political way, urge that on the federal government.

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Ithank in turn our four guest speakers — Mr SteveVizard, Dr John Schubert, Mr Michael Krockenbergerand Cr Ann Cox — for their contributions to thisdebate. Cr Ann Cox reminded us of the postwar themein Australia, ‘Populate or perish’, and I know thatCr Cox took that theme up with vigour! I can report toher that my father and my mother also responded to thatcall. I am not sure whether they were responding to thecall of the Prime Minister or the Pope, but they



contributed 10 children to the population of Victoria,and there are certainly many, many grandchildren inthat same dynasty.

Victoria has benefited significantly from two significantperiods of migration in addition to our natural increasein population — firstly, during the gold rush era of the1850s and 1860s, and secondly, the postwar migrationera, when the population of Victoria and the populationof Australia significantly increased. That migration wasof enormous benefit to the state and to our society.

However, in the latter part of last century there havebeen changes in our society that require us to thinkabout where Australia and Victoria are going. There hasbeen a declining birth rate — and as an aside I will takethis opportunity, using my veterinary background, tohighlight a difference with the people who arebemoaning the declining fertility rate in Australia. I donot think there is anything particularly wrong with ourfertility rate — speaking for myself, I am sure that isthe case — but there is certainly a declining birth rate,and there is a significant difference between the two.The birth rate declined to 1.75 children per woman in2000, and that is certainly below the level that isrequired, as Steve Vizard pointed out, to sustain ourpopulation.

The other thing that has been interesting in the past10 years or so has been an increasing migration rate outof Australia. Last year a record number ofAustralians — 41 080 — left Australia on a permanentbasis for various reasons. There has been a change inour traditional source of migrants, with countries suchas Italy and Ireland now attracting immigration ratherthan being sources of migrants to other countriesaround the world.

There has been a change in world circumstances, withthe collapse of communism, a more realistic approachin Australia to our place in the Asia–Pacific region, anda more realistic recognition of the value of migrantsfrom Indochinese areas. The old concepts of concernabout reds under the beds, the yellow peril and thedomino theory, which drove the populate or perishapproach, are no longer relevant. Hence there is a needto rethink where we are going in the 21st century with apopulation strategy for Victoria and Australia.

There was a variety of views among the speakers at thepopulation summit about what sort of strategy needs tobe adopted. Tim Flannery, who is a prominentbiologist, said fundamentally, ‘Populate and perish’. Hesaid that a population of 6 million to 12 million wouldgive enormous flexibility in dealing with environmentaland other problems. If you model the population of

Australia on 6 million to 12 million, you would need tohave a net negative migration of about 100 000 a yearover the next 20 or 30 years to get to that target.

Richard Pratt argued for a population of 50 million toensure economic growth and prosperity for all. FormerPrime Minister Malcolm Fraser said that a populationof 50 million would boost the economy, providenational stability and increase Australia’s influence onthe world stage. But if you were looking at a populationof 50 million by 2050, then with our current birth rateyou would need a migration level of nearly500 000 migrants per year, and that would be achallenge in any sense of the word. They are the figuresat various extremes that people have talked about inrelation to our population. Other commentators — JoanKirner, Sir Rupert Hamer and Neil Mitchell — said thatabout 25 million by 2050 should be the figure we lookat.

It is not as though Australia has not had a look at theseissues previously. In 1991 there was a nationalpopulation council. In 1994 the House ofRepresentatives standing committee on long-termstrategies, whose report became known as the Jonesreport, concluded that a population target was notappropriate for Australia.

They were both in-depth reports and were verycomprehensive in their review. They said setting anactual figure or a target was not appropriate but thatdiscussion of the issue was important. I agree thatdiscussion is certainly important.

If you look at the current state of play in Australia, as at30 June 2001 the population was 19.4 million. If youlook at the current demographic and migration trendsthe population will be about 25 million in 2050. In thelast financial year the population of Australia increasedby 1.2 per cent or 229 000, of which about half —47.8 per cent — was due to overseas migration and52.2 per cent to natural increase. So in the last12 months we have had an increase in population ofalmost 250 000, of which half came from migration andhalf from natural increase.

I believe that irrespective of our views on populationtargets both sides of the house agree that the postwarimmigration program and the gold rush immigrationprogram had an enormously positive effect on Victoriaand Australia. Our multicultural and cosmopolitansociety was enriched and enhanced as a result of thoseprograms. We all recognise the contribution of ourindigenous or Aboriginal community to the situation inAustralia and the important part it will play in itsongoing future. If 10 000 years ago you had asked the



Aboriginal community what was a sustainablepopulation in Australia I am sure the answer wouldhave been significantly less than even the currentpopulation.

It is important to place on record the fact thatimmigration to Victoria has produced enormousbenefits in a social sense, cultural sense, economicsense and a sporting sense. Migrants and sons anddaughters of migrants have made positive contributionsto all walks of life. People like Sir James Gobbo,Sir Arvi Parbo, Sir Gustav Nossal, the Barassis and theSilvagnis — in almost all walks of life prominentVictorians have come from a migrant background.

Victorians can be very proud that we are truly aharmonious, cosmopolitan society. One of the greatachievements of the Australian and Victorian migrationprograms is that people who have been brought herefrom over 208 countries speak 151 languages andfollow over 100 recognised faiths, yet we live in aharmonious, diverse, cosmopolitan society. That is anenormously proud track record that we should all beparticipating in — a track record that we shouldcelebrate and use to promote Victoria and Australia.

As I have said, I am one of 10 children. In my ownfamily we now have a cosmopolitan generationalchange. My sisters have married people fromCypriot–Greek, Chinese–Malaysian and traditionalAustralian backgrounds, so we have a very diverse setof cousins and in-laws.

Within our own Liberal Party we have an enormousrepresentation of people from different backgrounds,whether it be Greek, Dutch, French or the Baltic states.Recently the party was proud to preselect a candidate ofIndian background. Senator Tsebin Tchen, a Victoriansenator who represents the Liberal Party, is the firstChinese-born representative in the federal Parliament,and we are very proud of that.

I am also very proud of the way the former Premier,Jeff Kennett, led the charge against xenophobia,Pauline Hanson and One Nation. I think Jeff Kennettsaid that he would chase Pauline Hanson and OneNation down every burrow in Victoria. He certainly didthat, and I believe he had bipartisan support for thatapproach. The Pauline Hanson and xenophobicapproach gained little traction in Victoria. I give greatcredit to Jeff Kennett and the Liberal Party for that.

The current migration rate in Australia is the highest fora decade. In the early 1990s the migration rate toAustralia was 30 000 to 80 000 a year. Between 1996and 2001 it was 85 000 to 110 000 a year. The current

financial year sees the largest migration program in adecade. It is important to recognise that over the decadeof the 1990s there was an increase in migrationprograms. The mix of skilled and business migration,family reunions and refugees is an important mix,although I believe there needs to be a continuing andheavy emphasis on the skilled migration program.

We also need to be very cognisant of where ourmigrants go and how that affects the growth anddevelopment of Victoria and Australia. Unfortunately atthe moment one in three immigrants go to Sydney,which we need to do something about. Premier Carrhas spoken strongly against that high level of migrationto Sydney and the impact it is having on the Sydneyenvironment. We need to encourage migration to ourregional and rural areas. We need to be very positive intalking up the opportunities in rural and regionalVictoria so that skilled and business migration isencouraged to further stimulate the economic and jobopportunities in those areas.

We need to encourage a greater share of migration toVictoria, particularly business and skilled migration. Iagree with the Premier on that. However, how you dothat is not by setting quotas and not by telling peoplewhere they must go, but by providing an attractiveenvironment so they will want to come to Victoria. It isdisappointing that we have a situation here where weare losing opportunities under the current government.In the last 12 months we have lost jobs in this state. It isdifficult in that sort of environment to encourage skilledmigration and attract more migrants to this state. Weneed to ensure that Victoria is the place to which thesemigrants want to come because there are opportunitiesfor them and things to attract them.

We need to have vital infrastructure built. It is no goodjust talking about infrastructure: we want a governmentthat does something. We do not want a government thatcontinues to talk about it, continues to review it. ThePremier mentioned the Wimmera Mallee pipeline. Ichallenge the Premier. The Liberal Party has made acommitment to fund the state’s share of the WimmeraMallee pipeline. Do not just talk about it, Mr Premier;give your commitment of $77.5 million to fund thatpipeline. Mr Premier, where is your money for theScoresby freeway? Where is your money for thePakenham bypass? Where is your money for theKnox hospital? We cannot hope to attract an increasedshare of migration to this state if we have lessinfrastructure spending than Tasmania. That is thesituation under this government.

It is important that we debate these issues. It isimportant that we try to attract more migrants and more



business migration to Victoria. What we need to do isprovide the right sort of environment and the right sortof leadership to encourage those migrants to want to puttheir hands up showing they want to come here toVictoria. We should not be forcing people to come toVictoria. We should make Victoria an attractive placewhere they want to come. That, Mr Premier, is achallenge to you and your government: to actually dosomething to make it attractive; to actually invest ininfrastructure.

The Premier also mentioned the regional fast rail link.The facts of the matter are that not one sleeper has beenlaid; not one spike has been driven. The people on thoseroutes do not even know where the trains are going tostop or where the routes are going to go.

It is important that we debate population issues. It isimportant that we look to the future of this state and thiscountry. We need to make sure that we recognise theenormous benefits that migration has brought to thisstate and to Australia. It is important that we recognisethat a cosmopolitan Victoria is a richer, more vibrantsociety, a better place in which to bring up our children.We need to provide opportunities for our children andfuture migrants to grow and develop, have jobs andhave real economic opportunities in a sustainableenvironment in this state. That is the challenge for usand that is a challenge I am happy to participate in.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — It ismy pleasure to join the debate on the motion before thehouse. In so doing I also join with the Premier, theLeader of the Opposition, and with you, Mr Speaker, incongratulating and thanking our four speakers whohave joined us today: Steve Vizard, John Schubert,Michael Krockenberger and Cr Ann Cox. We are verygrateful for their attendance and for the contributionsthey have made to this important issue.

The motion talks about a debate regarding the issuesraised at the national population summit. For thepurpose of being able to deal with the motion, it isimportant to keep in mind what those issues actuallywere. In front of me I have the communiqué which wasproduced from the summit. In its preamble it talksabout population as a matter of national significance; anational population policy; a bipartisan policy; and anintegrated policy framework. Under that fourthcategory it refers specifically to a number of individualareas, those being the economy, environment andnatural resources, infrastructure, national security,international relations, urban and regional balance, agedistribution, culture, and quality of life. Under separatecategories it goes on to talk about a dynamic policy, animmigration practice, research and education. Then

there are a series of recommendations which deal withAustralia’s population policy and principally with thedevelopment of what is termed an intergovernmentpopulation council and the initiatives that council mightpursue.

It is by definition a very complex area to discuss and,given the amount of time available, I want toconcentrate on a particular area which perhaps does notdirectly pertain to those matters raised this morning butis very relevant to this whole issue. This is because thecomplexities of it have to be discussed in a mannerwhich takes account of all the parties and all the peoplewho are by right involved. You cannot have thisdiscussion in a vacuum. We have to have regard to thepragmatics of the way in which this state functions, andI focus my attention on Victoria because I believe theissues that are pertinent to Victoria are a microcosm ofthose pertinent to Australia, and these are in turnreflective of what is happening globally.

The particular issue that I want to talk about is inrelation to the enormous tension I see as growingoutside metropolitan Melbourne, around the rest ofVictoria. I believe that tension is very much about theissue of environmental management and naturalresources. Indeed, Mr Krockenberger made referencethis morning to some of the issues pertinent to that issuein particular, although it was a theme that came throughin the contributions from all four speakers.

The tension is happening because people in the areabeyond Melbourne are very concerned about this wholedebate. Rightly or wrongly, they perceive that thedebate is happening in an air of ignorance. They areworried that the discussion is unfolding about matterswhich make their communities tick and which are thebasis of the way they have functioned historically. Thedebate is occurring in an environment where peoplewho are often commenting on environmental issues donot know what is happening with them. The peoplewho are making the commentary do not understandhow country people in particular function within theambit of today’s requirements of the treatment of theenvironment.

We see it in the debates that unfold every day in thishouse and around this place; it is self-evident in anumber of matters that have occurred in and around theParliament only recently. For example, the timberindustry wants an informed debate. It wants itunderstood by all people that now the hardwood timberindustry in Victoria can access around 13 per cent ofthe available timber. About 13 per cent of the timber inVictoria is available to the hardwood industry but therest of it is locked up in various forms, either in national



parks and other forms of resource, by the terms of theregional forest agreements.

When the representatives of the industry came to theParliament last Thursday week and brought their trucksand their families and lined up on the front steps, themessage they wanted to send to the Parliament and tothose engaged in the whole debate was that they are notenvironmental vandals. They are people who workwithin the ambit of what is required in today’senvironment. They came to say that they understandthat there is a problem with the sustainable yield. Theywanted to make that point. I have said throughout that Ido not criticise this government for the changes that hadto be made, because the National Party was part ofgovernment when the changes and the figures werecalculated in the first instance. As I said on radio theother day, we were all gutted by the numbers — thereason why does not matter for the moment.

The timber industry wanted to ask this question: in timeto come, is there a commitment from this chamber andfrom the people of Victoria to support the industry ifthey can get a sustainable industry functioning? That iswhat they wanted to know. With due respect, Premier,it is why they were in part disappointed with the way inwhich I was derided. I invited everybody in this placeto take up the invitation extended by JamesNeville-Smith to have a look at how the industryfunctions around Victoria. The answer that I had towear was one that has reverberated around thosecommunities because they see that as being themessage that the importance of what they want to bringto the Parliament is being dismissed. It is important thatall members of Parliament get out on the ground andhave a look at how that industry functions.

If one looks at the fishing industry in all its forms, notonly commercial but also recreational, one sees that it isan industry very pertinent to the future of Victoria andto population issues in country Victoria. A lot of theways in which our communities have grown over theyears have been based around this industry.Governments of all persuasions are perfectly entitled tomake changes to the way the fishing industry is handledand marine resources are dealt with. But the people inthose communities are saying, ‘Make informeddecisions. Come out and talk to us. Get out in the boatwith us, if we are commercial fishers, and have a lookat Corner Inlet and the way in which we function. Talkto us and respect the fact that in many instances theseare generational activities that have been taken up bysuccessive members of families over a period ofanything up to 100 years’. They see the discussionhappening in an environment where their particular

point of view is not recognised and it causes them greatconcern.

Recreational fishers in Victoria want to do no morethan go down to the sea and fish, as they have donewith their fathers and their fathers before them. Theyare terribly troubled about the pertinent issues of whattheir communities are going to do in times to comewhen this sort of debate is unfolding in metropolitanMelbourne. Who are these people making thedecisions? Where are people from the affectedcommunities going to live? What are they going to doby way of jobs with dignity? They want to know thatthe people who are involved in the debate have madeinformed decisions about the issues.

The irrigation industry is at threat of becoming the dirtyterm that the timber industry has tended to become. Inthe country, we now use water in a vastly different waythan we did in decades gone by. That is not to say thatthere is not a problem or that there is no threat ofsalinity. It is not to say that the necessity of ensuringthat the Snowy and Murray rivers are safe is notunderstood. The communities where these thingshappen and where their future lies are worried that thisdebate is unfolding on an uninformed basis. A coupleof weekends ago, on behalf of the National Party Isuggested that Melbourne’s water usage ought to becapped. That was met in the main with very strongacclaim because the suggestion is a sensible one.Melbourne uses 480 000 megalitres of water each year.Who is monitoring that? Who is judging the use of thatwater in a way which is appropriate to this city’s needsboth now and in time to come? No-one is doing that.

Just as those issues happen in country Victoria and justas country Victorians live with the fact of having a capon their water supply, the same thing should happen inMelbourne. It is not a ‘them and us’ thing. It is not a‘poor boy, me’ thing. The communities out there arecalling for the treatment of these issues on a basis ofequity and on the basis that people who are making thedecisions and who are involved in the debate are doingso on an informed basis.

The issue of the farm dams debate has unfolded in thischamber. People who are otherwise friends havehistorically argued vehemently about an issue which ispertinent to the interests of country Victorians. Itprecisely reflects my point about the future of thecountry parts of this state. The issue of the managementof resources is vital to us, not only our existingpopulation but also to our future.

The Premier mentioned the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.He was on radio yesterday, although I did not hear him,



so this is second-hand. I understand that when it wasput to him that there was an element of competitionbetween funding the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline asopposed to the zoo it was a non-debate. The generaltenor of the position that was put to him was, ‘Ofcourse you fund the zoo. Of course you put $60 millioninto the zoo’. For God’s sake! What about theWimmera–Mallee pipeline, one of the great projects inthe nation, not only Victoria? It will cost thegovernment $75 million, and we have said that we willand are perfectly happy to fund it.

Years ago, when some of the members of this placewere only in primary school, we were responsible forinitiating this project. We were the ones who cranked itup and got it going. The deputation that went toCanberra the other day to discuss it with JohnAnderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, thefederal trade minister, and Rod Kemp, the federalenvironment minister — on behalf of not only theNational Party but the Liberal Party as well — did soon the basis that this is one of the great projects. In thecontext of this debate I am interested that the wholething was treated with derision on the radio. How canthat be so if we are going to have this debate?

This is an issue much greater than population numbersand where people live. We need more power inVictoria. I hear Mr Krockenberger’s comments aboutburning the coal. The Latrobe Valley has 500 years ofbrown coal reserves. It is without doubt its singlegreatest competitive edge. The challenge though isusing it in a way that enables us to get best outcomesand not do the damage of which he is fearful. I agreewith his basic point, but you cannot overlook the factthat the communities who are there and are dependentupon it have to have a way through this. You cannothave the discussion in a vacuum.

The issue of Basslink is unfolding. It is said we needmore power in Victoria, so the answer is to buildBasslink and build the towers across Gippsland! Whocares? How can you have an environmental discussionwhen this sort of approach is being taken and when thetechnology of the last millennium is being employedand everybody is ducking their heads and saying,‘That’s all right don’t worry about it’. These are thematters that people in country Victoria are worriedabout. It is a question of heritage. That is what they areconcerned about.

I say it is not just a question of public policy, it is aquestion of political philosophy. You cannot have thisdiscussion and divorce politics from it. Good, bad orindifferent, you cannot do it, because the two areinterrelated in a way that everyone has to respect.

I would like to read something which was sent to meyesterday via my colleague the honourable member forWimmera. It comes from a fellow named Neil Jacobs,who is the chief executive officer of the Hindmarshshire and a good bloke. He wrote this in the context oftoday’s debate, and over three pages he talks about anumber of issues pertinent to the interests of countryVictoria and what he sees as matters pertaining to itsdecline. The document states:

So what? Who cares? Just another case of rural adjustmentand people voting with their feet! Why are these ruralcommunities important?

In economic terms they support our rural exports (whichaccount for some robustness in the Australian dollar and havesome impact on general living standards). The ‘dumb’,‘unsexy’ commodities of fibre, grains and minerals accountedfor over 50 per cent of the value of our trade exports.

Our hi-tech, internationally exposed farmer still needs to go totown for a litre of milk or some hardware; he/she may wantbasic educational facilities for the children. It might be nice towatch the local footy team once in a while. It might be usefulto retain the functionality, utility, services and ‘community’ ofsmall towns — this may be of some benefit to our hi-tech,internationally exposed farmers.

He said other things as well, but time prohibits goingright through them. The point of all this is that if we aregoing to have this important debate — and I agree thatit is important to have it — we have to have it incontext. I warn the house that out there the people ofcountry and regional Victoria are becomingincreasingly fearful that the sort of heritage which istheirs and the sorts of things that drove the developmentof their communities are being pulled apart before theirvery eyes. They fear that the whole thing is unravelling.It is happening because there is an uninformed debateoccurring with regard to issues pertinent to themanagement of the environment and resources.

With the greatest respect to our four speakers today,because I understand that they have a more roundedview of it than the one I am putting in the raw, as itwere, I simply say that when we have this debate, forGod’s sake take these issues into account, because theyare critical not only to Victoria’s fortunes but also toAustralia’s. And in the end, they will touch upon thosemany shores to which the debate otherwise relates.

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — I risewith pleasure to join the debate and to thank andapplaud our guests today — Mr Steve Vizard, Dr JohnSchubert, Mr Michael Krockenberger and Cr Ann Cox.I thank them very much for their contributions and theirtime.

They kickstarted a valuable debate about our currentpopulation and future population that is fundamentally



about our sense of our place, our respect for our placeand our belief in having control over our place, whetherit is our continent, our state or our backyard.

So much of this so-called population debate is beingfuelled by what I would call prejudice, or at bestemotions, about the refugee issue. However, refugeesonly make up 10 percent of the migrant intake. In fact,illegal immigrants are very small in number. Thenumber of illegal overstayers, most particularlystudents from Europe and North America, are 10 timesgreater. Let’s move away from the prejudice and theemotions and look at a productive, informed debate,based on empirical evidence and, I hope, inventivesolutions.

I hope that as a government and a community we wantto look forward to how we can provide for our citizenswith an increased population and care for our continent.In his address to the house the Premier mentionedamong other things the metropolitan strategy. Thestrategy, which is in draft form at the moment and isabout to go out for public consultation, is the result oftwo years of detailed analysis of sharp and distinctdemographic, social and economic change. This is thecontext for the debate which, quite rightly, the Leaderof the National Party calls for.

So what are the sharp and distinct social, economic anddemographic changes? Firstly, Victoria’s population isgrowing. In 2000–01 Victoria’s population grew byover 62 000. Population growth in Victoria andAustralia will slow, though, in future as natural increasedeclines. If current trends were to continue, we wouldexpect the population of Victoria to grow to more than5 million by around 2005.

Secondly, overseas migration is changing. I referred inmy opening remarks to the fact that we have such asmall number of illegal overstays and a very smallnumber of refugees. We are also seeing a change in ourmigration strategy in that the long-term migrationprogram is receiving more attention than permanentsettlement. Business and student migrants are comingto this land but are often staying a few years and thenmoving on. Australia is facing substantial competitionfor the skilled migration program; skilled workers aremore global, more international and much more soughtafter — they are more mobile.

Thirdly, household growth is stronger than populationgrowth, a factor that is often overlooked. The ageingpopulation, smaller families and changes in familystructures — most particularly the latter — mean thataverage household sizes are shrinking. The exceptionswere outlined by Cr Ann Cox, and I must say the

Delahunty families also go against this trend. However,based on current figures the number of households —households, not numbers of people — in Victoria ispredicted to grow by about 790 000 over the next30 years, so whatever our population does we knowthat our households numbers will increase. The metrostrategy is therefore a response to the changinghousehold demographic. It is a response to peopleliving alone increasingly but wanting to live closer totransport facilities and other community facilities.

The falling birth rate is an important factor as well. TheAustralian Bureau of Statistics figures show that within20 years, 29 per cent of women in Australia will remainchildless. Those women who do have children willhave fewer children and they will have them later inlife, and that will have a continuing profound impact onthe way we care for and provide services for ourcitizens.

In conclusion, I again thank the speakers and lookforward to an informed debate rather than continuingprejudice.

Mrs SHARDEY (Caulfield) — I commend theAustralian Population Institute for organising thepopulation summit. The summit offered the opportunityfor members of the community and the participants tobecome informed about current trends, about currentpolicies and about the myriad issues and areas ofresearch required for the development of future policieswhich will affect the size of our population and also theresulting emerging needs of our population.

I go to some of the facts. It is estimated the Australianpopulation will grow from the current 19 million tosome 24 to 28 million in about 2050. Yes, Australia’sfertility or birth rate is below replacement level at1.7 children per woman. About a quarter of Australia’swomen are not having children and 18 per cent arehaving only one child. We face the problem of anageing population, with the number of aged peopleexpected to double in the next 20 to 30 years to 24 percent as a result of longer life expectancy and thepostwar expansion of our population with the babyboomers.

Other things being equal the falling birth rate willreduce the proportion of Australia’s working-agepopulation, which currently grows at about 180 000 peryear but which from 2020 is expected to grow by only140 000 per year. Immigration may affect the agestructure and skills level of the population to the extentthat the age structure and skills level of net migrationare different from those of Australia’s residentpopulation. We know that in recent years Australia’s



migrants have been younger and more skilled than ourcurrent population.

Since 1945 Australia has taken nearly 6 millionmigrants and some 600 000 refugees. In 2000–01Australia planned to take up to 97 000 migrants — oneof the highest figures in the world — withapproximately 12 000 of that number coming toAustralia under the humanitarian refugee program. Ontop of that, last year it was expected that the number ofskilled migrants would rise to 53 500. There is a splitbetween skilled migration and family reunion.

What are some of the arguments in the populationdebate? There are those who advocate a higher level ofnet overseas migration to ensure Australia’s populationwill grow faster and not stop growing, as is predicted,by the middle of the century. The argument is that byincreasing the number of migrants we will slow downthe rate of the ageing of the population, the economywill be stimulated and the full potential of Australia willbe reached. Others argue that immigration is aninefficient means of reducing age in our communitybecause massive levels of immigration would beneeded to make any significant impact on theproportion of the population that is aged. Additionally itis argued that most migrants who settle themselvesbecome part of the aged population over time, and weare seeing this now with the ageing of ourfirst-generation migrants who came after the war.

There are also those who are fearful that an increase inAustralia’s population will put further pressures onAustralia’s diverse and sometimes fragile environmentand natural resources. In trying to come to grips withfuture trends we must also take into account thatpopulation and population growth is unevenly spreadover Australia. For instance, the highest rates ofpopulation growth over the next 50 years will occur inthe Northern Territory and Western Australia.

As time is limited, perhaps I could turn to some of thethings we need to do. We need to accept that a numberof factors will affect our population growth, and manyof these will be beyond our control. However, there arethings we can do to ensure that we continue to conductresearch and continue to understand what are the limitsof our population to ensure that our population cangrow.

It is most important that governments try to marketVictoria overseas to ensure that it becomes a place ofdestination. We also need to protect the office ofbusiness skills migration, which started this work underthe previous government.

Ms CAMPBELL (Minister for SeniorVictorians) — In the population debate we need toresist the many myths that could lead us to view theageing of Australia’s population in negative or evenalarmist terms. I hope that we will resist the temptationto label older people as the problem or a social burdenthat looms ahead. Already Victorians over the age of 50represent 28 per cent of the total population. They willnot accept the label of being a social burden as theyage, nor should those over 60 accept it either. The thirdage span covers people over a 40 to 50 age span whohave a vast variety of experiences and aspirations andneeds. It is important that we look at the fact that as weage we embrace change and we embrace what many ofthese older people have to offer this community. Wesee this as a transitional time.

As I said, the doomsayers amongst us predict a crisis. Iwish today to point out that people need to be sure theyare speaking about the facts. Older people are not asocial burden. Population ageing will affect all of us,but we need to look at it as a time of transition. There isa misconception in the wider community that there is aclose correspondence between the size of an agedpopulation and increased public expenditure. Anexcellent paper by Dr Pamela Kinnear entitled‘Population ageing — crisis or transition?’, publishedby the Australia Institute in December 2001, shows thatthree assumptions were largely invalid.

I do not have time to examine all these assumptions indetail, but let’s just look at the first one that is deeplyheld — that is, that older people are a social andeconomic burden. At the most basic level the vastmajority of older Australians enjoy active, healthy andindependent lives. Ninety-three per cent of older peoplelive in private homes and only seven per cent are inresidential care. Of those over 80, only a third requirehelp with self-care activities, and that includes thoseliving within the residential care system or at home.

These figures surprise many people who believe thelevel of dependency among older people is muchhigher. That belief is not supported by evidence and hasa very negative impact on the majority of older peoplewho are independent. Seniors give a great deal to ourcommunity, and we should acclaim what they provide.The amount of time people spend in voluntary workactually increases with age. People aged over 55 spendaround a 100 hours a year in voluntary work. Peopleaged 35 to 54 spend around 75 hours in voluntary work,and those under 34, about 50 hours. Seniors contributefinancially as well. An analysis of private financialtransfers shows that people aged between 65 and 74 aresubstantial net providers of financial assistance to theiradult children and other family members.



In addition, the monetary worth of the child care givenlargely by grandmothers is huge. A small project in thenorthern suburbs last year studied 30 grandmothers andestimated that the child care they gave would be worth$500 000 a year. As a community we have toacknowledge that work is work, whether paid or not.We cannot run from the fact that older people dorequire more medical assistance. What is mostinteresting about this, however, is that expenditure onmedical care goes up not in direct correlation with aperson’s age but in direct correlation to their closenessto death. Costs for patients with terminal cancer, forexample, are not dependent on their age, and it is thesame for those who suffer severe heart attacks. Medicalcosts will go up, but not in direct proportion to theageing of the population.

There are three policy directions that I will brieflyoutline. First, we must have a policy commitment tosocial economic equality across a range of essentialareas such as education, health, housing and jobs.Second, we must look at policies to increase incentivesto employers to retain workers, and third, governmentsneed to look at seniors with a holistic andwhole-of-government approach.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte) — I come tothis debate as a committed multiculturalist and someonecommitted to significant but sustainable populationgrowth. I do not come to this debate merely as a resultof my professional involvement as a member ofParliament in a multicultural portfolio but, importantly,as one who has lived in Japan for two years, who hasgone to school in Tokyo and who has been part of theJapanese work force for 12 months. What I noticedfrom that experience was that if Australia is to progressfurther it cannot sustain a population of 20 million. Thathas been brought home to me at a personal level by thefact that my youngest brother has now lived in Tokyofor a decade, working for the Nintendo computer gamescompany designing computer games. He cannot get ajob here in Australia. We do not have sufficient criticalmass or population for a home-grown computer gamesindustry. So for the rest of his working life in thatparticular industry he will have to work in othercountries.

That brings home to me the fact that we need toestablish what we are good at as a nation state and whatwe are good at as a state in this nation. What we arevery good at is education, which is of world classstature in this country. It is wrong for us to ignore thefact that the federal government has made great stridesin ensuring that education policies result in greatermigration. For example, if the Premier had done hishomework today he would have been able to establish,

as we on this side of the house have done, that Australiais one of the only countries in the world to offerfull-fee-paying overseas students the opportunity tohave part-time work to supplement their income whilethey are studying. They can work up to 20 hours aweek. They do not need a green card here, unlike inNorth America or Great Britain.

If the Premier had done his homework he would haverealised not only that in its first term the current federalgovernment allowed for those students to receive bonuspoints for future migration applications if they had hadan education experience in Australia but that it has nowgone the extra mile and allowed for overseas studentswho pay full fees to be educated here in Australia tomake on-shore migration applications while they arestill studying. So things are happening and great stridesare being taken to ensure that we get the best andbrightest, the most skilled, and — most importantly —those who have already established their bona fidesbecause they are already aware of our culture and havealready been in our work force, albeit part-time, beforethey put their hands up to become migrants.

These are things which Australia is doing under aconservative federal government but which were notdone by previous federal Labor governments. Indeed,when we come to regional migration policies I wellrecall that at an annual immigration meeting inCanberra some years ago at which I represented thestate the current federal Minister for Immigration andMulticultural Affairs, the Honourable Philip Ruddock,tried to bring in regional-only migration to our ruralcommunities. But of course what stopped him fromdoing that was the Labor Party’s having brought inequal opportunity laws that do not allow for thisnation’s politicians to say, ‘You have to live in thatcorner of the state only. You cannot move toMelbourne’. So what stopped Philip Ruddock frombeing able to implement that regional-only policy toensure our rural communities were revitalised werethose very social justice policies that the Labor Partytrumpets, which do not allow for the internalquarantining of anyone who comes to this country forany period of time.

What is this state government doing to back up itsrhetoric. We have heard a lot of spin today from thePremier, but we have seen very little action. There is askilled-migration office. How many applications to thatskilled-migration office were actually made to thefederal government saying, ‘We want five engineers towork in the Victorian economy.’? As I understand it,very little has been achieved. A lot of window-dressinghas gone on.



Yesterday we celebrated the intake of Australia’s6 millionth migrant. A mother of two, she arrived withher husband from the Philippines. She is a systemsanalyst and her husband is a production engineer. Thatis an example of the type of skilled migration programthat the federal government is supporting.

The state government needs to do something about thattype of skilled migration program instead of putting ona window-dressing display today and talking about whois to get the media grab, as the Premier did withreference to the Mildura councillor — but all with nosubstance.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister assisting thePremier on Multicultural Affairs) — I have lookedforward to participating in this long overdue debate.The government has shown leadership in starting thedebate. I was concerned, particularly when I heard theLeader of the National Party speaking, about the dangerof these debates — that people want to use them forpolitical purposes.

The fact is that the debate started by people such asSteve Vizard is about doing something that is realisticand talks about the issues. We have to start with thequestion: are we comfortable with the population wenow have? Clearly, the answer during the debates at thepopulation summit and from today’s speakers is no.Why? We have heard about the demographic changesand what an ageing community means in relation tohow we can pay for our aged community in the futureand how we grow our economy.

We heard the honourable member for Warrandyte andother speakers refer to the need for critical mass and thefact that we are a small economy. We heard from theBusiness Council of Australia that we are a small fish ina big pond. Critical mass is a key part of the argument,and we need to debate those key issues because politicsis always about the short-term view; and the short-termview is always about positioning for the next election.That is where the danger exists in these types ofdebates, as we heard from some speakers today. Theyasked why we are not engaging in these debates at thefederal level.

We need to take a long-term view. The issue is notabout whether we pick a figure from the air in sayingwhat should be the aim for Australia’s population. It isnot about saying we need to have 30 million people bya certain date.

The issue is about what we can sustain on an annualgradual basis that helps us deal with the weaknessesthat we know exist in our economy — those

demographics and lack of critical mass. We can sustaingrowth if we plan for it. If we plan annually, forexample as Canada does, if something unforeseenoccurs we can turn off the tap temporarily to deal withit. It is not about rushing to a population target butabout growing in an appropriate way from where weare going.

Today we heard also about environmental issues. Thereis no doubt that environmental issues can be and needto be addressed in any of these debates, but they are notmutually exclusive. Because we have environmentalproblems it does not mean we should not think aboutthe long-term sustainability of our economy andgrowing our population.

We have heard, and we know, that we are notenvironmentally efficient in what we do. We also knowthat much of the environmental damage that hasoccurred is a result of poor practices of the past,including the past practices of degrading our land,particularly in rural Victoria. We know of the impactfrom industry and mining, as we heard from theBusiness Council of Australia, and a lot of theperceived negative impacts on the environment comefrom the export market and are not about population.We can deal with that.

We have been asked whether increased fertility is theanswer. Clearly it is part of the answer, but we willnever get it to sustainable levels. Why? Because inWestern economies we have seen that despite ourefforts — we can have friendly working environments,and so on, to encourage that — in the end the level ofmigration will always be the biggest issue about apopulation policy and what we can sustain.Unfortunately, we have not taken a long-term view;there has been a knee-jerk reaction and it is all aboutshort-term politics. We have tried to get away with apopulation figure for this year, but have not dealt withthe diverse complex issues by engaging with thecommunity on what we want.

As I travel around the state I hear in rural areas aboutthe number of people who no longer want to work thefarms and how difficult it is to get labourers to work onfarms. When I go to Shepparton they say, ‘Send all thetemporary protection visa people — the Afghanis andthe Iraqis — up here because they work hard and do agreat job’. We know that Australia in many regards wasbuilt on the backs of unskilled and semiskilledmigrants. We have expectations in the community thateverybody wants to be better than members of theprevious generation, but we will always need unskilledand semiskilled migrants. That debate gets lost butshould be considered.



Finally, we simply cannot rely on skilled and businessmigration. There are weaknesses in that argument. Thefirst thing you hear from business and skilled migrantsis, ‘Australia is not a destination in the same way asCanada is’. Why? Because the family reunion programis too tight and people are not as encouraged because itis only a matter of time before they want members oftheir families to join them in the future. You need todeal with the issue of family reunions in any populationdebate.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — I join this debateto put a different edge on it. I note the comments of theMinister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs,because one thing Australia needs to do is make surewe start having this debate from an informed position. Iam far from convinced that honourable members, andparticularly the majority of Victorians, understand whatis happening in our area. The Premier should have athink on whether you can have a national policy onpopulation or whether it should be more of a regionalpolicy. Australia is a huge country. The populationpolicy should be more in line with the regions than withthe states.

My real ask is for people to get out and understandwhat it is that country Victoria has to offer in thisdebate. I remind the house that 75 per cent of itsmembers live in Melbourne. If you add Ballarat,Geelong and Bendigo into the equation you get down toabout 16 politicians of the 88 in this house who actuallyrepresent country Victoria. That is one of our greatestproblems when we have a debate such as this.

The Minister assisting the Premier on MulticulturalAffairs talks about the environment and agriculture, buthe knows not of what he speaks. I understand that andhave to make some allowances for him.

In regional Victoria we have a growth rate that is goingextremely well. We are achieving a lot of the things weneed for drivers for population growth. We are havingtrouble getting people to take up those challenges.Country Victoria is keen on immigration. If you look atthe fast growth areas, particularly Robinvale in myelectorate, you see the Tongan, Vietnamese and Thaipopulations are outgrowing everybody as they come tothat area. As we get a balance of conservation issues —and it is a balance! — we need to have a proper debate.

A couple of weeks ago the National Party, in itsdiscussion paper, talked about putting a cap on thewater consumption for Melbourne to put the disciplinesin place so the community can start looking at futuredevelopment and planning requirements. We shouldstart worrying when we look at the harvestable amount

of water consumed in Melbourne, Ballarat andGeelong. We are not in good shape when ourpopulation is concentrated in Melbourne, Geelong andBallarat. Water is a huge issue, and it needs to beaddressed.

We in the country address the water problems with ourcaps, regulations and rules. We have started on it and itis now paying huge dividends. We in the country askthat Melbourne start doing the same thing. Thedifficulty I have with something like that is that I haveto convince 75 per cent of the members of this placethat they need to look at themselves and apply the samedisciplines and standards they push on country Victoria;we have just heard the minister talk about that. Weaccept it and we are travelling that way. We askhonourable members to join us and understand thevalue of our natural resource.

The management of our natural resources is vital. Onespeaker this morning was keen to emphasise that weshould be looking at food production areas forourselves. If we are to occupy our people and use ourresources properly we must remember that we needonly 20 per cent of our farmers to feed Australians,because 80 per cent of them produce for exportmarkets. We are part of the world, and a populationpolicy for Australia is very important, but it should notbe insular — that is, only in Melbourne or throughoutVictoria.

The population policy debate is something I welcome,and something that I believe we should really considerin regard to the issues we face here on a day-to-daybasis. The Wimmera–Mallee pipeline has beenmentioned, and for small communities and small townsit is an absolute must, and one of the best propositionsthat has ever been put before Australian governmentsfor country areas.

I hope that this will not just be a talkfest, and that fromthis country and city might better understand thepressures — —


Mrs MADDIGAN (Essendon) — LenaSommestad, in a magazine called Current Sweden,wrote in September 2001:

The present demographic situation in Europe and elsewhere,with low birth rates and ageing populations, highlights theimpact of gender relations and family life on economicdevelopment. According to a growing body of research,countries that fail to restructure their societies in line withmodern women’s demands for equal rights andresponsibilities run the risk of curbing population growth,



accelerating the ageing of the population, and, in the longerterm, slowing down economic growth.

There is an increasing amount of research available thatshows that in Western countries what has happened isthat fertility rates have been very closely linked togender equality. In societies which have made definiteefforts to ensure that women have equal opportunity tomen there has in fact been an increase in fertility.Sweden and America — being two — have shown thatbecause of policies actively undertaken by governmentsand, particularly in America, private groups, they havebrought back their fertility rates to sustainable levels.Whilst all Western communities showed a decliningfertility rate in the 1960s, some countries have turnedthat around through progressive policies.

As the Minister for Tourism has said, obviouslyincreasing fertility rates is not the only way to addressthe need to increase Australia’s population, but it isincumbent upon all governments, whether at thecommonwealth, state or local levels, to understand thatthey can have a significant impact on increasing fertilityrates both of people who have recently moved toAustralia or of people who have lived here longer, byhaving policies which recognise that our society ischanging.

An article in Population Briefs of spring 1996 entitled‘Gender equality and demographic change — a newagenda for girls and women’, identified four main areasthat can be addressed to ensure that fertility ratesincrease in Western societies. The four areas indicatedas important were: educating girls, meeting the needs ofadolescent girls, fostering women’s livelihoods andincreasing men’s parental responsibilities, so there areways that all levels of government can be involved. Butthere is also a role for private industry, because some ofthe research has shown that friendly workplaces forwomen also encourage fertility rates to increase.

A great deal has been written about Japan, because ithas very low fertility rates. In 1997 it was 1.39, whichmirrored the fact that education levels for girls in thatstate were almost the lowest of any Western country.Issues identified as helping to keep down fertility ratesin Japan are: levels of higher education, especially forlocal women; the ratio of female teachers to totalteaching staff is lower than in any other country,particularly in the case of primary, secondary andhigher education; and the fact that women have lowerrates of matriculation than men in Japan — and also inGermany and Korea, three countries which are notedfor having some of the lower fertility rates in the world.

It is important for us all to recognise this. Japan has anumber of strategies, in particular through its

government, to ensure that workplaces and societymake gender equality easier. It has an organisationcalled the Promotion of Gender Equality, which worksvery strongly on improving education opportunities forgirls. It has brought in equal opportunity laws toprovide equality for women in a whole range of areas,particularly in relation to sexual discrimination. It hasalso brought in laws relating to child-care andfamily-care leave. These strategies are taken to ensurethat women are able to be part of the work force andstill be able to have children.

It extends not only to women but also to the fathers ofchildren, who often perhaps are restrained from theinvolvement they would like to have in raising theirchildren by their work conditions as well. So not onlyhave they addressed issues relating to women’semployment, but also men’s employment.

What can we take from that in Australia and inVictoria? There are opportunities to encouragepopulations to increase fertility rates by taking some ofthe policies that the Bracks government has taken inthis state.

There is also a strong responsibility on thecommonwealth government in relation to some of itspolicy areas, particularly relating to child care, to ensurethat women do have the full capacity to work, have realparticipation in our work force, but also have the timeto be able to rear their children, with support from thestate.

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I appreciate theopportunity to speak on issues around populationpolicy.

The first point I make is that the most vital issue is toensure that our population is living as anenvironmentally sustainable population, and we arenowhere near that yet.

I note the national state of the environment report,which is just out, refers to urban sprawl, high-energyconsumption, stormwater pollution, biodiversitydecline, salinity and land clearing as major issues whichmust be addressed. They are issues for both urban andrural populations.

Our resource consumption is exceeding populationgrowth, and that cannot keep happening. I suggest thatmuch of that is a matter of lifestyle pressure rather thanraw numbers.

I also support the comments of the honourable memberfor Swan Hill that rural people are often much moreresource efficient with their use of water and energy



than urban people. For example, this state has a powergeneration shortage and the most environmentallysensible solution to that is to reduce the peak demandfor power. We should not be still encouraging thebuilding of square box houses and units with narrowwindows and no eaves which are only livable when youhave airconditioning.

We have to firstly promote energy efficiency by allpossible means. Likewise we have to promote waterefficiency by all possible means.

Secondly, we have to focus on generating power inenvironmentally sensible ways. That means doingthings like not taking the cheap option and allowingBasslink to pollute the ocean with chlorine and strayelectrical currents via a monopole cable. It means doingthings like not using second-hand gas turbines whichno-one wants in their backyard. We have to startgenerating power properly. That sensible notion hasbeen a long time coming.

Thirdly, we have to promote public transport. By that Imean better public transport between towns as well aspublic transport in the metropolitan area. We can spreadour population into much more environmentally andsocially friendly smaller communities with fast andaffordable train services. I urge the opposition to startsupporting the extension of train services back intorural areas. I believe the nation can learn to live insmaller and more sustainable units, but we need publictransport and good infrastructure to do that.

I join Cr Ann Cox from Mildura in urging society andthe government to take more positive measures to makechild rearing more possible. Women choose to haveless or no children partially when life is too difficult forthem to manage. We have to support families betterfinancially, we have to support flexibility in the workforce and we have to support families in spirit bywelcoming children and active mothering and parentingin our community.

I note the latest guidelines from the commercial TVregulator prevent the open televising of a breastfeedingadvertisement on daytime TV. This absurdly negativeapproach to that most basic human demonstration ofmothering is to be condemned. All mammals need tolearn mothering, and too many of our young women donot have enough information or encouragement tomother. I believe that is really sad, and it is ultimatelysterile in a very literal sense. We should be spending alot more of our time and resources teaching womenabout mothering, and teaching them that their bodiesare more likely to be fertile in their 20s than they are intheir late 30s and 40s. We have to organise society

around making that choice possible, but nevercompulsory. Instead I believe we have at the momentfar too much public promotion of a profit-generating,technologically suspect and ethically problematic IVFindustry.

Lastly, Australia is made up of people from many landsas well as our original inhabitants. Hybrid vigour is partof the Australian character, and I love it. We will notget good people continuing to want to come here unlessthis country builds on its reputation as a fair, humane,welcoming and harmonious but varied community.

I have a great deal of respect for our traditions ofdemocracy, the rule of law and an egalitarian andcommunity-focused society. We need to keep buildingon those traditions — all of us together.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster) — It is a great honour tospeak in this debate. The population policy debate isprimarily about vision and determining the society wewant to build.

We live in the most rapid period of change in humanhistory. In a survey for the Economist magazine lastyear, the 92-year-old economist Peter Druckerrightfully wrote:

We can also be sure that the society of 2030 will be verydifferent from that of today, and that it will bear littleresemblance to that predicted by today’s best-sellingfuturists … The central feature of the next society, as of itspredecessors, will be new institutions and new theories,ideologies and problems.

So for us to predict and make policy for 2050 is verydifficult indeed, and in the 2½ minutes available to me,I will focus on vision.

My vision of Victoria is of a prosperous, modern,cosmopolitan, liberal society living in harmony withnature. The first of the two great determinants of theVictoria and Australia I want to see is the rapid take-upof new technologies with long-term sustainedinvestment in new technologies, innovation andentrepreneurship. As Drucker says, new technologiesand services, not population, will be the principaldeterminant of economic growth.

The second great determinant is the environment. Ourfailure to date to halt environmental degradation andspecies extinction in our natural Victorian environmentshould urge us to caution.

As the son of refugees, I agree with Richard Pratt, whosaid at the summit:

PAPERS


Our evolution into a prosperous, cosmopolitan, pluralistsociety has been worth while … We have immigration inlarge measure to thank for it.

It appears to me that our immigration policies shouldtarget the talented and the skilled, and the mostimportant way of attracting them is to build acosmopolitan society that is safe, welcoming andattractive to those who want to live in a new society sothat they make Melbourne, Victoria and Australia theirchoice.

Motion agreed to.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Financial Management Act 1994 — Report from the Ministerfor Health that he had received the 2000–01 Annual Report ofthe Alexander and District Ambulance Service

Property Leasing Limited — Financial Statements for theperiod ended 6 December 2001 (two papers)

Wildlife Act 1975 — Wildlife (Control of Hunting) NoticesNos 1, 2/2002.

AUDIT (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


Returned from Council with message relating toamendments.

Ordered to be considered next day.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Darebin: election material

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — I stand to condemnthe Labor Party for using misleading information tosecure votes for its own candidates in the recentDarebin council elections. A pamphlet was produced inblue and white urging people to vote Liberal. Indeed,on the front of this pamphlet it states, ‘Only a Liberalcan fix James ward’. While I agree with the sentiment,the person who has put out this pamphlet is not amember of the Liberal Party. Ms Marianne Bowman isnot a Liberal Party member but she is falsely claimingto be a Liberal simply to give her preferences to the realAustralian Labor Party candidate, Mr Nick Katsis.

Mr Katsis is a member of the Labor Party. I am advisedhe is a member of the Darebin branch. He wassupported by Mr Martin Ferguson, who is the federalLabor member for Batman, and the Honourable Mary

Delahunty, the Minister for Planning and honourablemember for Northcote. It seems that Ms Dianne Asmarwas a major supporter of Mr Katsis. Ms Asmar has anuncle working in Mr Ferguson’s office and an auntyworking in Ms Delahunty’s office.

I ask that the Minister for Local Governmentinvestigate whether these two members of Parliamentwere involved in the production of this misleadingbrochure. In fact, during the election Ms MarianneBowman got only 341 votes and Mr Katsis got1189 votes.

The pamphlet is misleading. It talks about howMs Bowman is a Liberal and supports Liberal values,but in reality she is not a member of the Liberal Party. Iurge the minister to investigate the involvement ofMartin Ferguson, the Federal Labor member forBatman.

Minister for Transport: performance

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — The Minister forTransport and Leader of the House stands condemnedfor his failure to honour Westminster traditions and thelong-established protocols of this house by failing torespond to his correspondence and to matters raised inthe adjournment debate.

I wrote to the minister on 15 June 2001 — nine monthsago — and as at today still do not have a response. Iagain wrote to the minister on 19 December 2001 —three months ago — and as at today still do not have aresponse. I raised the matter in the adjournment debateon 27 February this year, and in spite of forewarningthe minister that I intended raising the matter, theminister failed to respond, and some three weeks afterthat event I still do not have a written response.

The matters raised concern the proposed construction ofa second Murray River crossing at Echuca and are ofvital importance to a number of the 35 000 constituentsI represent.

This government came to power, supported by theIndependents, promising the people of Victoria honest,open and accountable government. The minister’sperformance indicates his contempt for these principles,and the Premier and the Independents also standcondemned for condoning such totally unacceptablebehaviour from a minister.

Commonwealth Youth Games

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I congratulateBendigo on winning the right to host the 2004Commonwealth Youth Games. This is a very exciting

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


opportunity for Bendigo and for young athletes incentral Victoria, and it reflects the great sporting culturewe have in Bendigo. Bendigo now well and truly hasthe right to call itself the sporting capital of countryVictoria, if not the sporting capital of country Australia!

I congratulate the City of Greater Bendigo councillorsand officers, who worked very hard in pursuing theright to host the 2004 Commonwealth Youth Games,with the support of a number of local Bendigo athleticsorganisations. I also congratulate the Bracksgovernment, because this achievement well and trulyrecognises its commitment to regional Victoria. Wenow have the opportunity to put this event into countryVictoria, where it will bring great economic and touristbenefit to our region.

It is estimated that this event will bring $6 million intoour region’s economy and create 33 new jobs in ourarea, which is fantastic news for our region. It willcertainly place Bendigo on the international sportingmap and will be an important lead-up to Melbourne’shosting of the 2006 Commonwealth Games. The sameathletes will be appearing at both events, so we willcertainly have elite athletes from around the worldcoming to Bendigo to participate in the youth games. Itis a marvellous and exciting event for Bendigo, and Iagain congratulate the government on its commitmentto country Victoria and to Bendigo.

Mr Wilson interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I remind thehonourable member for Bennettswood that he is out ofhis seat, and ask him to cease interjecting.

Courts: sentencing

Mrs ELLIOTT (Mooroolbark) — On21 November 2000 two sisters, Penny and FayeCooper, both under 20 and their parents’ only children,were killed by a drunken and stoned driver, WendyKathryn Solomon, in Manchester Road, Mooroolbark.Ms Solomon had previously lost her licence three timesfor drink-driving and was not licensed at the time of theaccident. Ms Solomon was given a four-year jail term.

The outrage expressed to me as one of the localmembers of Parliament by members of theMooroolbark community is difficult to overstate. Whileacknowledging the separation of powers and thatjudges have a range of depositions at their disposal, Ireflect the views of my constituents when I say thatthey are appalled that the Premier said he could notcomment on the leniency of the sentence. As oneconstituent wrote:

Why? I want him to. I want him to have the courage to standup and say that this pathetic sentence is just that, pathetic! …What has to happen in our community for him to comment?How gutless!

… I hope you have some success in conveying my feelings ofdisgust to the necessary representatives of our community.

The Minister for Transport commented publicly on thefare evasion case judgment. Why does the Premier findhimself unable to comment on a case involving thedeath of two innocent young women?

Building Business Bridges to Asia dinner

Mr LIM (Clayton) — Tonight I will be hosting thethird annual Building Business Bridges to Asia dinnerwith the Premier and other cabinet ministers. This yearparticipants will come from a wide group of Asianbusiness community leaders, including Chinese, Indian,Vietnamese, Sri Lankan and Thai business people.

It is significant that while the Premier is taking the leadat the national level in terms of population andimmigration policy, he also recognises the importantcontribution that the Asian business community makesto Victoria’s economic development. Its importanceand its potential to contribute to the growth ofVictoria’s trade and business with Asia are significant,especially considering Australia’s geographical positionand the fact that Victoria’s top trading partners are inAsia.

The Bracks government believes the extensive businessnetwork and the vibrant cultural and family ties forgedin Asia by the Asian business community have a strongrole in building Victoria’s economic future. Thisgovernment is committed to forming partnerships withthe Asian business community to position itself to makethe most of the rapid changes in the Asia–Pacificregion.

The dinner is to consolidate this relationship betweenthe government and these important people and tocontinue the dialogue between the two partners to makethe most of the relationship for Victoria.

Timber industry: East Gippsland

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — I rise torecognise the visit to East Gippsland by the Treasurer,in his position as the chair of the ministerial task forceset up by the government to look at the issuessurrounding the reform of the timber industry in EastGippsland, and by the Minister for Consumer Affairs.The Treasurer and the minister met with representativesfrom the timber communities of Cann River, Orbost,Bonang, Buchan and Nowa Nowa, and a number of

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


issues were raised, including infrastructure and nationalparks, and a range of projects were put forward,including some very worthwhile educationopportunities. In addition, there was discussion about arange of issues that really damage our area — the lackof road infrastructure, the lack of tourism infrastructureand the lack of people on the ground to do the jobs thatneed to be done.

I thank the Treasurer and the Minister for ConsumerAffairs for coming to East Gippsland and forrecognising the importance of those timbercommunities.

River banks: cleaning

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — I raise a matter ofserious concern which I hope will be addressed by theMinister for Environment and Conservation and theMinister for Local Government — that is, the matter ofpublic safety and, in particular, the management andcleaning of our river banks.

Our river banks are precious territory and are alsoshared territories between many cities. There is agrowing problem — not new but growing — withdangerous debris assembled on those river banks andassociated territory, including discarded syringes,broken glass and other dangerous material. This occursparticularly near overpasses and bridges. In my ownelectorate I mention the Victoria Street–Barkers Roadbridge, the Swan Street bridge and the Bridge Roadbridge. Debris there has already caused suffering to myconstituents and I am sure to others. I note that thegovernment has engaged in beach-cleaning operationswhich have assisted the City of Port Phillip byproviding additional funds. I urge the government toalso provide additional funds for the cleaning of riverbanks.

Michael Meakin

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — I wish to place onrecord my thanks to Mr Michael Meakin of Brian MarkReal Estate in Werribee.

Just before last Christmas one family in Werribee had aseries of crises before them. They came to see me andwe worked intensively for a number of weeks on all ofthese issues, and thankfully many of them wereresolved.

In an effort to resolve some of their more complicatedfinancial issues relating to a questionable loan for theirhome I sought the advice of Michael Meakin who, as Isaid, is a local real estate agent. He was extremelyunderstanding and helpful. In short, through his

endeavours and generosity this family did not have tosuffer the distress of having their home repossessed.Michael’s principles and his generosity maintained thedignity and the self-esteem of this family. I wish tothank him publicly for his efforts and endeavours inhelping one family in Werribee.

Hazardous waste: dump site

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I wish to condemn theapproach of the Bracks government to theestablishment of a toxic waste dump in the state ofVictoria. After two and a half years of deferral,committees and indecision, we now have fourunsuitable sites, two in Dandenong too close to homes;one in Deer Park, with the Shire of Melton’s sloganbeing ‘A breath of fresh air’; and one right next to abombing range and far too close to the GippslandLakes.

The Liberal Party’s position on all of these sites is clear.Honourable members will remember that theHonourable Neil Lucas and the Honourable GordonRich-Phillips in another place have articulated Liberalopposition to the two Dandenong sites. But I want totalk about the performance of the Minister for Gaming,who represents the electorate of Dandenong, and thehonourable members for Melton and Springvale. Thehonourable member for Melton hid behind the door atthe public meeting and the honourable member forSpringvale skulked around down the back. TheMinister for Gaming said he would participate in thecommunity consultation process, but then he said itwould depend if Parliament was sitting and he wasn’tsure of the sitting dates.

His latest excuse is that he received a threat; it was avery late threat. I commend the honourable member forFootscray who turned up for the meeting and has beenlumbered with this task by the Minister for Gaming. Ifthe Minister for Gaming cannot front his constituents ata public meeting he should take a delegation. Theyknow the Liberal Party is opposed to these sites butwhere does — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired.

David Anderson

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I wish to place on publicrecord my congratulations to Mr David Anderson, theCity of Brimbank’s citizen of the year. Our communityneeds many more people like David Anderson. Hemoved into the area of Delahey some three years agotogether with his family. He and his wife have four

FORENSIC HEALTH LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


children and two grandchildren. As soon as Davidmoved into the area he did not just sit back and letsomebody else do the work in a new estate; hevolunteered his time as secretary of the Delahey ActionGroup and started working on improvements toinfrastructure. For that he is to be commended becausewhen you move into a new house in a new area youhave lawns to set up and gardens to take care of to setyour home up properly.

Mr Anderson has advocated strongly for the extensionof the bus route between Delahey and Watergardensand to many projects from Copperfield NeighbourhoodCentre to the path and embankment of Kings Road;also Watervale which is a new estate in the Shire ofMelton.

I am pleased and proud that there are people like DavidAnderson in my electorate. I ask that other people whomove into the electorate, particularly in the new growthareas, volunteer to work in their own time to improveand enhance their neighbourhood, not only throughinfrastructure works but in tree planting and parks andgardens and involving themselves in recreational clubs.

FORENSIC HEALTH LEGISLATION(AMENDMENT) BILL

Instruction to committee

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — By leave, Imove:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they havepower to consider amendments and new clauses to theForensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill which —

(1) Under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness tobe Tried) Act 1997 provide for the arrest of personsabsconding to Victoria from interstate and the powers ofcourts to deal with such persons;

(2) Under the Mental Health Act 1986 provide for:

(a) the issue of warrants to arrest security patientsabsent without leave who leave Victoria;

(b) a change in the conditions for transfer ofinvoluntary patients to and from Victoria;

(c) a change in the procedure for the apprehension ofpersons absent without leave from interstate mentalhealth facilities and the escort of such personsapprehended interstate;

(d) the arrest of interstate security patients abscondingto Victoria and the powers of the courts to dealwith such persons.

Motion agreed to.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT BILL

Introduction and first reading

For Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning), Mr Hullsintroduced a bill to provide for entitlements to progresspayments for persons who carry out construction work orwho supply related goods and services under constructioncontracts and for other purposes.

Read first time.

ELECTORAL BILL


Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill to re-enact withamendments the law relating to Victorian elections, to amendThe Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958 andconsequentially amend certain other acts and for otherpurposes.

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — I would like a summary ofthat bill.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) (By leave) — Thislegislation is about bringing The Constitution ActAmendment Act, or the Electoral Act, into the 21stcentury to modernise election procedures and to make iteasier for people to enrol to vote. It also will implementthe public funding of election campaigns. Thelegislation will have very stringent disclosurerequirements. It will also put a cap on amounts relatingto organisations that hold gaming licences or otherlicences, the major purpose of which is to generateincome. The amount of that cap is in the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

HEALTH PRACTITIONER ACTS(FURTHER AMENDMENTS) BILL


Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill to amend the MedicalPractice Act 1994, the Nurses Act 1993 and other actsrelating to health practitioners and for other purposes.

Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — Could the ministerprovide a brief explanation of that bill, and in particular

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS) (AMENDMENT) BILL


say which other health practitioner acts will be coveredby it?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) (Byleave) — The bill principally relates to medicalpractitioners and nurses. In regard to medicalpractitioners it relates to issues around the continuingperformance and non-performance of doctors. Inrelation to other health practitioners, to the best of myrecollection there is also a reference to the TraditionalChinese Medicine Practitioners Act, but I would wantto check that.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS)(AMENDMENT) BILL


For Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation), Mr Hulls introduced a bill to amend theWater (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2002 to change thedates of operation of various provisions of that act.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

JUDICIAL REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(AMENDMENT) BILL


Returned from Council with message insisting onfollowing amendments:

1. Clause 6, page 7, after line 2 insert —

“(4) A reference of a matter for an advisory opinionmust be in writing.

(5) The Attorney-General or, if an Order undersection 11(2) is in force, the relevant Minister,must cause notification of a reference under thissection to be published in the Government Gazettespecifying the matters referred to the Tribunal foran advisory opinion within 7 days of referring thematter to the Tribunal.”.

2. Clause 6, page 7, line 3, omit “(4)” and insert “(6)”.

3. Clause 8, line 26, after “recommendation” insert “or areport of an advisory opinion”.


That amendment 1 be agreed to with the followingamendment:

After proposed sub-section (5) insert —

“(6) Sub-sections (4) and (5) do not apply if theAttorney-General declares that an advisory opinionconcerns matters of a confidential or personalnature.”.

I will speak to that matter now. There are another twoamendments that in effect fit in with that amendment.

Honourable members will recall that the bill has beenbefore this house twice and, I think, twice in the upperhouse. When the bill was introduced the oppositionexpressed support for it but had some concerns aboutthe advisory opinions in proposed section 11A.

The purpose of the bill is to set up a new JudicialRemuneration Tribunal (JRT). This is a result of theHonan report, which said that the structure in Victoriawas the least independent of any in Australia. Thepurpose of the legislation is to bring Victorian judicialremuneration practice into line with equivalentinterstate jurisdictions and to allow the tribunal to makedeterminations on the conditions of service and leaveentitlements of judges. The overall purpose is to ensurethat Victoria has an independent judiciary, unfetteredby political interference. What greater proof of thenecessity for this type of legislation and for judicialindependence could there be than what we have seenrecently with the scurrilous attack on Justice MichaelKirby.

Dr Dean interjected.

Mr HULLS — It has plenty to do with the JRT,because in its new structure the JRT will be moreindependent. We need an independent structuredetermining judicial salaries, allowances and leaveentitlements for judges.

As I said, when the government introduced thelegislation my recollection is that the opposition hadsome concern with the advisory opinion aspect of thelegislation as set out in proposed section 11A, whichstates:

(1) The Attorney-General may refer any matter relating tosalaries, allowances or conditions of service of holdersof an office to the Tribunal for an advisory opinion.

(2) The Attorney-General may refer any matter relating tothe remuneration or conditions of service of actingmagistrates to the Tribunal for an advisory opinion.

JUDICIAL REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL (AMENDMENT) BILL


The opposition said that if that were the case thoseadvisory opinions ought to be in writing and ought tobe made public — that is, the request for the opinion.As a government we had some real concerns aboutprivacy issues, in particular as they related to individualmembers of the judiciary. We were not prepared toagree to the amendment.

During the break there have been discussions over thebill. As an open, transparent and consultativegovernment, and having had those discussions with theLiberal Party in relation to this matter, we have come tothe view that we are prepared to compromise somewhaton the amendment being proposed.

The amendment means that the privacy aspects ofparticular judicial officers would be protected. Webelieve the advisory opinions should be keptconfidential, and as a result of this amendment theywould still be, if they relate to personal mattersinvolving individual judicial officers. We are movingalong those lines because the government believes thatprivacy is absolutely crucial. I understand that theshadow Attorney-General is keen for the number ofthose advisory opinions sought by theAttorney-General — that is, the number of thoseconfidential matters — to be disclosed. I am more thanhappy for that to occur by way of compromise, as longas, of course, the private nature of the matters referredto in those advisory opinions is not disclosed. That is anappropriate compromise.

I repeat that in Victoria the JRT can makerecommendations to the government only as to salariesand allowances and that the Attorney-General can varya recommendation by tabling a statement in Parliament.As I said, the Honan report found that the JRT lackedan appropriate level of independence and that this hadthe consequence — and this is very important — ofimpacting on the judicial independence of Victorianjudicial officers.

These changes are long overdue. I have beendisappointed that the opposition has delayed the bill tothe extent that it has, because it has denied the judiciarythe improvements recommended by the Honan reportand supported by the government. I hope that with thiscompromise the opposition will not further delay thisimportant piece of legislation. The government istotally committed to promoting judicial independenceand establishing a clear, coherent and transparentsystem of judicial remuneration.

The house amendments that were moved by theopposition in committee sought to amend clause 6,which refers to the advisory opinions on referral from

the Attorney-General. The amendments proposed that areference for an advisory opinion must be in writingand that the reference and the advisory opinion oughtbe published in the Government Gazette.

The government argued continually that advisoryopinions should be kept confidential because they couldwell relate to personal matters involving individualjudicial officers. It was intended, as set out in theHonan report, that advisory opinions should also beable to act as a sounding board for theAttorney-General on matters referring to judicialremuneration. The opposition has suggested that theseopinions and referrals ought be made public; and thegovernment, by way of compromise to get thisimportant legislation through, is prepared to agree tothat on the basis that individuals’ rights of privacy areupheld and that any matters to be considered by cabinetremain confidential.

The compromise proposed by the opposition — it is ouramendment, but it comes after discussions with theopposition — provides that an advisory opinion will notbe published where the Attorney-General declares thatthe advisory opinion concerns matters of a confidentialor personal nature. We are committed to the progress ofthis legislation; we believe it has been delayed for fartoo long. We agree to the compromise. It is importantto the Bracks government that the functions of theJudicial Remuneration Tribunal are redefined as soonas possible and that we continue to support andstrengthen the independence of the judiciary.

Dr DEAN (Berwick) — Before I ask somequestions of the Attorney-General I would also like tomake some comments about this amendment. TheAttorney-General has almost got it right but as usualhas not quite hit the mark.

The bill as originally introduced allowed for advisoryopinions to be kept secret. There was absolutely noreason why such advisory opinions should be secret. Tosuggest that the Labor government has had tocompromise to enable things to become public hardlyfits in with the rhetoric of open and honest governmentthat we have heard from the Labour Party ad nauseamsince before the last election. So I am very pleased thatthe government has accepted the extensive amendmentthat was put in the upper house which ensures thatadvisory opinions are public.

Again the Attorney-General was right the first time, butthen he tried to correct himself in case some creditshould be given to the opposition. However, it was theopposition that went to the government, saying, ‘Youhave come up with an extraordinary possibility in that



you are going to be obtaining advice with respect to theterms and conditions of employment of particularjudges’. I must say that at the time I was pretty shockedby that, not only because it was not going to be publicbut because apparently one of the reasons was that thegovernment wanted to do private and confidential dealswith judges on allowances and income, which would bethe most gross breach of the separation of powers thatyou could ever imagine. The whole basis of dealingwith the judiciary is that it should be dealt with as awhole, and making private deals with specific judges isthe last thing any democracy wants to see. So givingthat as the reason was quite phenomenal.

Anyway the opposition did propose a way out, whichwas that the opposition’s amendment be accepted butfurther amended so that on, hopefully, the rare occasionwhen advice is given on a personal or confidentialmatter involving a judge it does not have to be publicbut a declaration has to be made. A declaration will bemade, but I want to be absolutely clear about this. Thegovernment said, ‘Let’s draw the amendment, if youdon’t mind’, and I said, ‘That is fine’. I guess I wouldhave asked that too. As usual, first of all they brought ina bill that provided for secret advice — but they havegiven up on that, so that is fine. Then we said, ‘Allright, we will let you do the amendment to get over thisproblem’. It basically says that if the Attorney-Generaldeclares that an advice is confidential it does not haveto be shown. So under this the Attorney-General, athome in the shower scrubbing under his armpits, orwherever he scrubs, can say to himself, ‘Oh, I think Iwill declare a certain advice should not be shown’. Hehas complied with the act; it can be confidential.

When we had discussions this problem was raised withthe government. It never suggested that it go away andfix up the amendment to have that sorted. I am nowbeing told that I agreed that the amendment should stayexactly as it is and that the Attorney-General shouldmake some statements in Parliament. Really, it is justincompetence on incompetence!

I will now ask the Attorney-General some questions sohopefully we can sort this out now so we do not haveto — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I shouldadvise the honourable member for Berwick that inconsidering amendments from the Council there is noprovision for the Attorney-General to speak againexcept by leave, so there is not normally provision forquestions and answers in the same way as there is whenthe chamber is considering house amendments.

Dr DEAN — I just asked the Clerks and got adifferent answer, so perhaps we can sort that one now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The Clerk justgave me that advice.

Dr DEAN — We do not go into committee, so thereis no opportunity to — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The only waythe Attorney-General can speak again is by leave of thehouse.

Dr DEAN — Then I would request that he begranted leave, because I need to assure myself — —

Mr Hulls — I am happy to be given leave, don’tworry about that!

Dr DEAN — Giving the Attorney-General leave foranything is a doubled-edged sword. Nevertheless I seekleave to have the Attorney-General — maybe he has toseek leave, who knows — given leave to respond tocertain matters.

Let me put the questions. First of all, I would like to beassured by the Attorney-General as to whom he makesthe declaration to, because this is not in the amendment.So when you make a declaration you usually make it tosomeone, somehow, by some sort of procedure that isnot there. So the first problem is to whom he is going tomake the declaration.

The second assurance I would like is that, having madethat declaration to a person or a body or through someprocedure, it is open to the opposition or any memberof the public to gain information that such a declarationhas been made. Otherwise this is a completely uselesspiece of paper, because he may or may not have made adeclaration — who knows? He could have if he wished.I am sure, being the fine upstanding gentleman that heclaims himself to be, he would not simply declareeverything to be confidential, therefore meaning thatadvice received on general matters would never appear.I am sure he would not do that, but the public ofVictoria would like to know that is the case.

So firstly, to whom is the declaration going to be made?And secondly, what avenues does he anticipate will beavailable for members of the public, including theopposition, to find out whether a declaration has beenmade? Depending on whoever has to seek leave, and Iwill certainly seek it if I can, I hope that it is fixed.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) (By leave) — Whatan absolute joke and a total misinterpretation of whathas occurred in this matter. For a start, to be saying that



the original legislation had as one of its aims the abilityfor private deals to be done with specific judges isabsolute nonsense and an outrage, and the shadowAttorney-General knows it is nonsense.

Ms Pike — It is an insult!

Mr HULLS — Indeed. I do not get insulted easily,but it is an absolute nonsense. I would hope that theshadow Attorney-General has taken the time to speakwith the judiciary about this legislation. I think I posedthis to him when this bill was first debated, and henodded and said, ‘Yes, I have spoken to them’. Iassume he meant the judiciary. My understanding isthat he had not at that stage.

The judiciary is supportive of this legislation. It is of theview, and I am of the view, that this legislation is longoverdue. We can recall what occurred when the shadowAttorney-General was in government and wasparliamentary secretary to the then Attorney-General.Recommendations were made — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, it was quite clear to everyone in the chamberthat the purpose of seeking leave for theAttorney-General to speak again was to enable him toanswer two important questions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! What is thepoint of order?

Dr Dean — The point of order is that theAttorney-General is straying from the amendment andgetting onto all sorts of other stuff as only he can. Heought to be brought back to the amendment with thethought in mind that the reason for the leave is toanswer two questions, which so far he has shownabsolutely no intention of doing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I do notuphold the point of order. The Attorney-General hasjust commenced responding and I am sure he is awarethat he needs to keep his comments to the amendment.

Mr HULLS — The legislation and the purposethereof is to ensure the independence of the judiciary.The purpose of the Honan review was to change theprevious system where governments could receive areport from the Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (JRT)and would change the recommendations of that reportand take them to cabinet, and indeed there wasabsolutely no transparency as to how judicialremuneration was set. There was at least the perception,if not the reality, that deals were being done with thejudiciary and that there was not an independent process.As a result, governments could put pressure on the

judiciary — this is the perception, if not the reality —to act in a certain way or forgo judicial salary increases.That is a totally inappropriate system to have in place;that is why we are changing it. We are turning aroundthe mess that was left by the previous government inrelation to judicial remuneration because we believe inan independent judiciary.


Mr HULLS — This is not just me saying it. This isHonan himself saying it, that the previous system wasthe least independent in Australia. So we are fixing it,and for the shadow Attorney-General to have theaudacity now to come into this place and pretendsomehow that yes, he agrees with judicial independencebut he was involved in the previous system; theprevious system was no good and he is glad we arefixing it up, but he does not want us to fix it up to theextent that we have, he wants further changes — it isjust nonsense. The opposition has no policies at all, andthe amendments make it clear that the process isindependent, transparent and accountable, and it is whatthe judiciary wants.

We have come to a compromise arrangement afterfurther consultation with the judiciary, and the shadowAttorney-General was seeking, I think, a guarantee, anassurance, that if I as Attorney-General seek personaland confidential advice from the JRT, the number oftimes that I seek such advice be made public. Thatwould be done through the JRT and I have no doubtthat the JRT would be more than happy, if thatoccurred, to write to whoever made the application andlet them know how many times the Attorney-Generalhad sought such confidential advice. I do not have theslightest problem with that. Any other nonsense that isbeing put forward by the opposition shows quite clearlythat either the shadow Attorney-General has not readthe bill or alternatively that he does not care about anindependent process. That is the reality.

The opposition did not care about an independentprocess when it was in government, and the shadowAttorney-General, as I recall, was ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General. He well knew thatthe previous process was flawed but he was like MarcelMarceau: he wanted to be seen around the place but didnot want to be heard on matters of substance. That isbecause he still has no policies at all and has nodirection and ought to have supported this legislationfrom the outset and ought to be supporting it now. It isimportant legislation and it ought now to go throughboth houses without further delay. I urge him to wakeup to himself and support this legislation.



Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Onthat note, I might say it is very timely that one whowould come closest to being a mediator in this process,fully qualified as I am, is able to make comment aboutthis amendment. In essence, through it all there are nowanswers to the two questions, which were reasonablequestions. They were to do with process, and Iunderstand the Attorney-General to have now answeredthose questions. The amendment that was initiallyproposed by the Liberal Party was reasonable, all in thenotion of openness and accountability. That amendmenthas been accepted in essence and again it is questions ofprocess that are the difference and those are at the edge,but between a couple of parliamentarians who havepretty strong views respectively. As mediator I ampleased to say we have a solution to all of this in a waythat I hope this house is prepared to accept, and that thatacceptance is reflected in the way the bill is treated inanother place.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise after the briefcontributions of the Leader of the National Party andthe honourable member for Berwick in relation to whatin essence is only one area of potential disputationbetween both sides of the house.

It is generally recognised that the JudicialRemuneration Tribunal (JRT) bill is needed and that weneed independence in the striking of conditions andsalaries of judges. To suggest, as the honourablemember for Berwick did during his contribution, thatthere was some potential for underhand dealingbetween the government and judiciary is completelywrong. The bill sets up an independent tribunal toaddress the questions in a clear and transparent fashion.

When the bill was debated some time ago issues wereraised by the government, particularly about theamendment proposed by the honourable member forBerwick in relation to advice that the Attorney-Generalmay seek to take from the JRT from time to time. Thegovernment was concerned about questions of privacywhere a confidential matter may come forward, as Isaid in my contribution when the bill was last before thehouse, perhaps around issues of maternity or paternityleave pertaining to judges of the court.

As we know, under the present Attorney-General manyjudicial appointments, excellent as they are, have beenof younger people who have taken up public service inthe judiciary. It is not past the pale that from time totime situations may occur of quite a private naturewhere that advice would be a potential embarrassmentto the member of the judiciary. We had that debate backand forth, and the honourable member for Berwick puthis view; and the government, its view.

In the upper house an amendment was put and the billhas now been returned to this place for consideration. Inthe interregnum, discussions have been held. I would beprepared to say the discussions with the honourablemember for Berwick have been constructive. When hewrote to me formally and suggested additionaldiscussions should occur around a compromiseproposal I responded by telephoning and advising him,‘Yes, in a spirit of cooperation’.


Mr WYNNE — Indeed. In a spirit of cooperationwe would seek to reach a middle-ground positionwhere, on the concerns raised by the honourablemember for Berwick and the government, we couldreach a middle-ground position that would satisfy theconcerns about transparency in the process but whichwould also protect the individual rights of judicialofficers.

I believe we have managed that quite difficult balancethat is required. The amendment before the house, inthe view of the government, achieves the ends that theshadow Attorney-General has sought. Discussions havebeen held in the past couple of days with theAttorney-General’s private office about the impact ofthat amendment. I believe the concerns have beensatisfied.

As I had understood it from the discussions heldyesterday with the shadow Attorney-General, the onlyoutstanding matters pertain to the question of whetherthe number of times the Attorney-General would seekexemption under confidentiality grounds would bepublished in some form and how that would be madeaccessible.

That was not an unreasonable request by thehonourable member for Berwick. It is not unreasonablethat the public should know when matters that are of aconfidential nature have been dealt with by the JRT. Inhis contribution to this debate the Attorney-General hassaid he would regard it as entirely proper that, shouldthe honourable member for Berwick or any member ofthe public seek to gain information about how manytimes the Attorney-General has sought to exempt amatter on the grounds of confidentiality, he wouldrightly expect the JRT to tell the inquirer.

It is clearly on the public record that theAttorney-General, on behalf of the government, hassatisfied that concern by the honourable member forBerwick. He could quite easily write to the JRT andseek that information, and that information should beforthcoming.



We have now reached a position, I believe, in a spirit ofcompromise where we have satisfied the concerns ofthe honourable member for Berwick. In that light I verymuch seek a speedy resolution to the matter. It isimportant we get the JRT up and going as anindependent tribunal. The bill shows a clear indicationof the continued support that the government has for thejudiciary. It absolutely reinforces its support for theseparation of powers.

I ask for a bipartisan position to be taken on the matter.In the spirit in which it has entered into the negotiationswith the honourable member for Berwick thegovernment believes it has fulfilled his concerns. TheAttorney-General has given his support for thepublication of the number of times he exempted himselfon confidentiality grounds in relation to advice he hassought. In that spirit of compromise I seek the supportof the opposition parties for this important piece oflegislation.

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — I refer to theamendments proposed by the Legislative Council andthe motion moved by the Attorney-General on how tohandle the amendments. I offer my support for what theAttorney-General suggests.

It is a good bill and it will give Victoria a better processso that matters are not left to the whim of the executive.The process has been a tortuous one with regard to theamendments that were suggested and defeated on thefloor of this house. The bill then passed to theLegislative Council, which disagreed with theamendments and returned the bill to this place. The billwas then returned to the Legislative Council, whichinsisted on the amendments, and it has now beenreturned to this house.

I was disappointed the Legislative Council insisted onthe amendments. I note the honourable member forForest Hill commented about a pox on both theirhouses, but it is really a pox on the Legislative Councilin its insistence on the amendments. The bill has beenup and down like a yoyo and the delay that the otherplace has caused is now becoming quite typical in termsof processes.

The Legislative Council is an obstructive andobstreperous place; it is a place that was absolutelysupine under the former government. I am disappointedin the performance of the Legislative Council inreturning the bill a second time without anyconstructive discussion or even having regarded the billas offering much-needed reform.

The previous system, as the Attorney-General said, hasbeen the least independent in Australia. This bill acts tofix up the mess left by the former government, whichnow in opposition seems to want to meddle. I suspectthere still seems to be a lack of respect for the judiciaryon the part of the opposition. We are reminded thatwhen it was last in government the Liberal Party evensacked judges, which was stunning because of the lackof respect for the separation of powers and theindependence of our judicial officers in Victoria.

Fortunately, as wise heads are getting together we arelooking at a compromise; we are looking for middleground. This is what has been offered by theAttorney-General in his suggestions on how to dealwith the amendments being returned for the secondtime by the Council to the Assembly. The suggestion isthat he should ensure publication except where thereare confidential and personal matters involved. As hasbeen mentioned, we are looking at a wider cross-sectionof the community on the judiciary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I mustinterrupt the honourable member for Burwood, whowill have the call when debate on the bill resumes.




Royal Melbourne Hospital

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Myquestion is to the Minister for Health. Given that thetragic deaths of two patients at the Royal MelbourneHospital occurred months ago and that twoinvestigations have now been completed, when exactlywas the minister first advised of these suspiciousdeaths, and does he accept ministerial responsibility forany delay in the information being properly conveyedto his department and to him as minister?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I thankthe Leader of the Opposition for his question. Clearlythis is a matter of grave concern for myself and for allmembers of this house.

I was first advised on Friday that an investigation wasunder way, but not complete, into this matter. The chiefexecutive officer of Melbourne Health advised that hegot the report on Monday of this week. I received awritten brief and a copy of the report yesterday. Thematter was publicly revealed yesterday but MelbourneHealth advised that it believed it was appropriate that a



public announcement be delayed until after the familiesof the patients concerned had been notified. I believethat is entirely appropriate. I think that answers the coreissues that the Leader of the Opposition raised.

I think it is of some concern that the honourablemember for Malvern was so desperate for publicity thathe implied that I was notified of this in October, whichis untrue.

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister is debating the issue. The issue is a veryserious matter. The question asked was when was headvised, which he has answered. The second part of thequestion was: does he accept responsibility as aminister for the delay in his being notified of somethingthat is happening in one of his major hospitals?

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the Leader of the Opposition that theminister was debating the question. In regard to thelatter part of his point of order, there is no point oforder; he was merely repeating his question.

Mr THWAITES — The point I was making wasdirectly on the point raised by the Leader of theOpposition. I was pointing out that the honourablemember for Malvern raised a false implication. Clearlythe honourable member for Malvern is so desperate toknock off the Leader of the Opposition that he will sayanything!

It is clear that the government has acted in this case onthe information it has received. The government wasworking on this issue last night trying to get the bestoutcome. I might compare that to the honourablemember for Malvern, who was at Florentino’s with aparliamentary secretary last night plotting againsthis — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Ithink it is absolutely outrageous that the Minister forHealth is proceeding down a track of trying to makepolitical capital out of something as serious as this.

The real issue is: why wasn’t he told in October by ahospital under his responsibility?

The SPEAKER — Order! I will not continue tohear the Leader of the Opposition any further on thepoint of order. However, I ask the minister to comeback to answering the question.

Mr THWAITES — The hospital has been doingwhat it has been able to do to notify those families. Thatis entirely appropriate. It was concerned about theseissues over the previous few days.

As I was indicating, the honourable member forMalvern was discussing positions with a parliamentarysecretary — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister must relatethe comments he is making to the question.

Mr THWAITES — The other side is prepared tothrow mud and try to politicise this issue, but the realproblem is that the opposition does not have a shadowhealth spokesperson who is prepared to look at theseissues. He was plotting with a member — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if theminister was not debating before, he certainly is now.

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point oforder. I ask the minister to come back to answering thequestion.

Mr THWAITES — I am very happy to do that. Ipose one question: why did the honourable member forCranbourne say he wanted education?

Rural and regional Victoria: investment

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I ask the Ministerfor State and Regional Development to inform thehouse how the Bracks government is deliveringinvestment and job opportunities in regional Victoria?

Mr BRUMBY (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment) — I thank the honourable member forBendigo East for her question. I respond in this way:country Victoria is in fact driving both the state’s andthe nation’s economic performance. If you look overrecent times we have seen country Victoria as a majordriver of recent economic success, with theunemployment rate coming down, building approvalsup and agricultural production performing extremelywell.

I am delighted to advise the house that since theelection of the Bracks government in October 1999,regional employment has grown by 6.9 per cent or39 000 jobs.

The regional unemployment rate is 6.2 per cent.Regional employment has grown by 2.7 per cent overthe last year compared to 2 per cent in Victoria aswhole. On the building figures for the last quarter,building approvals in the December quarter for countryVictoria were up by a massive 48.9 per cent on theDecember quarter of the previous year — probably oneof the largest increases in our history.



The Bracks government is actively supporting thiseconomic growth through a range of strategies,including the Regional Infrastructure DevelopmentFund and the fast rail links to the provincial centres. Weare also shifting economic activity to country Victoriawhenever we can. One example of that is the relocationof the State Revenue Office to Ballarat, which thePremier opened earlier this month. A headline in theBallarat Courier states, ‘Our jobs jackpot’. Twohundred jobs and $100 million of economic activitygoing into the Ballarat economy over six years. Asecond headline states, ‘Victoria’s most significantdecentralisation project ever’.

Do you know what we have done? We have donesomething that former Liberal and National Partygovernments could never do in this state — they couldnever shift that activity, and the Bracks government hasdone it.

Today I want to also advise the house that I amofficially releasing the feasibility study conducted byPricewaterhousecoopers into the relocation of the RuralFinance Corporation to Bendigo. This is another greatnews story for our state, so much so that we can see theopposition absolutely riveted by more goods news forcountry Victoria, more goods news for Bendigo, morejob opportunities and more investment.

This report says that Bendigo is the most appropriatelocation for hosting the head office, that it presents astrategic base for further developing the client base ofthe corporation in growth regions and that the regionalbenefits from this relocation would result in ongoingeconomic activity of more than $6 million per annumor $60 million over 10 years, creating permanently40 jobs in direct economic activity with more indirectand flow-on effects.

Bendigo already has strong financial credentials as afinancial centre, with other institutions in Bendigo,including the Bendigo Bank, Sandhurst Trustees, theBendigo Stock Exchange and — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,given that your guideline on succinctness of answerssuggests 5 minutes, I ask you to ask the minister toconclude his answer.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forDoncaster. The Treasurer has been speaking for only3½ minutes.

Mr BRUMBY — We have successfully shifted200 State Revenue Office jobs to Ballarat — the largest

decentralisation of government activity by anygovernment in Victoria’s history!

Not content to rest there, with the release of this reportwe are now close to a final decision in relation to theRural Finance Corporation, which will mean another40 permanent ongoing jobs for Bendigo. More recentlythe Premier announced that as part of our forestryreform packages we will also be locating the newcommercial entity, Vicforests, in country Victoria.

It is not surprising to see headlines like ‘Our jobsjackpot’ and it was not surprising to see in the Age justlast week the headline ‘Victoria leads the nation’sgrowth’. We are doing it. We are delivering in Victoria.We are turning around country Victoria and we areembarking on a new program to inject new investment,new opportunities and new jobs into Bendigo. We havedone it in Ballarat, we are doing it in Bendigo and wewill be moving on to other centres.

Electricity: Basslink

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I askthe Premier: will the government honour its promises torepresent the interests of country Victoria by ensuringthat any planning approval for the Basslink projectexcludes the use of pylons?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe National Party for his question. The joint advisorycommittee that was formed with representation fromthe commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoriangovernments released its report recently. The jointadvisory committee came up with a preferred draftroute for discussion and debate, which will be out forpublic comment until June of this year. That route is notthe route which the proponent has selected. Iunderstand that 5.9 kilometres of the route isunderground and that the rest is via pylons. That will beexamined by the government after public comment.

Our interest as a government is, of course, as a planningauthority. The proponent is the Tasmanian government.The designation of the project as a project of nationalimportance is a commonwealth governmentdesignation. The role of the state is as a planningauthority to assess — —

Mr Ryan interjected.

Mr BRACKS — We could be a beneficiary, but theprincipal and fundamental role of the state governmentis to assess on environment effects statement groundsand on planning grounds the proposal which is beingput up by the joint advisory committee, which is goingout for public comment. That matter will be determined



once we receive the final report from the joint advisorycommittee in the middle of this year.


Mr LANGUILLER (Sunshine) — Will theMinister for Finance advise the house of what actionthe government is taking to deliver new insuranceoptions for community organisations affected by thecurrent problems in public liability insurance?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I thankthe honourable member for Sunshine for his questionand for his continuing interest in the plight ofnot-for-profit organisations that are seeking publicliability insurance.

The Bracks government was the first in the country torecognise the seriousness of the situation in Australia’sinsurance market, particularly in the area of publicliability insurance, and the Bracks government was thefirst to act on it.

In September last year my predecessor as Minister forFinance, the Honourable Lynne Kosky, initiated asummit in this house attended by 100 community andsmall business groups. This was the first summit of itskind in Australia. Following that meeting we havecontinued to work with community and small businessto develop enduring solutions to a difficult issue.

Our action plan so far has been, firstly, to act on thedevelopment of this group insurance arrangement, andsecondly, to implement better risk mitigation issues. Iam very pleased to inform the house that our effortshave meant that today we can announce a verysignificant step forward. From 1 July thousands ofVictorian community organisations will be the first inthis country to benefit from a planned group publicliability insurance scheme.

The group insurance scheme is being developedthrough an alliance between the Bracks Laborgovernment, the Municipal Association of Victoria, theOur Community organisation and a leading brokingfirm, Jardine Lloyd Thompson. While there is nosimple solution to the problems in the insurance market,this is one measure that can have a real impact onballooning premiums for not-for-profit organisations.The pooled product I am talking of will be available tomany segments in the community sector including thearts; cultural, conservation and heritage, recreationaland youth groups; festivals; and disability groups.

I will be seeking national support for this communityinsurance product at the summit on — —

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,it certainly appears from this side of the chamber thatthe minister is carefully reading his response, and Iwonder if he would do the house the courtesy ofmaking the response available to all members.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order. I was watching the minister and he was clearlyreferring to notes. I will continue to hear him.

Mr LENDERS — The Bracks Labor governmentwell and truly understands that not-for-profitorganisations have been under pressure in this state andhave been looking to this government and to the federalgovernment for solutions to the immediate problemsthey have over lack of ability to get premiums and overthe cost of those premiums.

On this issue and on many others the Bracks Laborgovernment has listened, the Bracks Labor governmenthas considered the response from the community, and,most importantly, the Bracks Labor government hasacted to turn this problem around.


Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — My question is to theMinister for Health.

Mr Batchelor interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theHouse!

Mr DOYLE — Are you sure you want to politicisethis? There are people dying.

Mr Batchelor interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Leader of theHouse to cease interjecting in that way, and I ask thehonourable member for Malvern to cease respondingand to ask his question.

Mr DOYLE — Will the Minister for Health advisethe house why the Royal Melbourne Hospital chose toemploy a private investigator to complete aninvestigation into the suspicious deaths of two patientsrather than informing the Nurses Board of Victoria orthe Victoria Police at the earliest possible moment?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I thankthe honourable member for his question. It is interestingto see that he is now concentrating on health when hewas more interested last night in going through a list ofnames — —



Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,previously when the minister was going down this lineof argument you ruled it as debating. If the ministerpersists in doing this in relation to this question and anyother, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to suspend him from theservice of this house as he is continuing to flout yourprevious ruling.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forDoncaster. The minister had hardly been given anopportunity to begin answering the question.

Mr THWAITES — I was comparing the interestthat this side of the house has in patient care and qualitycompared to the interest of the questioner, who wasgoing through a list of names of members of theopposition last night to see which side they were on —the side of the Leader of the Opposition or thehonourable member for Malvern!


Mr THWAITES — That is what you were doing.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask all sides of thehouse to quieten down so that the Chair can hear whatthe Minister for Health is saying.

Mr THWAITES — The Royal Melbourne Hospitalreceived an anonymous tip-off about this issue inOctober last year. It conducted an investigation whichdid not substantiate the claims. However, nurses whowere very concerned about the issues continued to raisethem. The hospital then decided that there should be afurther investigation, which was appropriate.

A private investigator, who had access to all theappropriate documents and people, undertook a furtherinvestigation. That investigation found that there wereserious matters involved which had been referred to thecoroner and the police, which was the appropriate thingto do.

An independent inquiry has also been established intotwo aspects of the matter, one of which is the actions ofthe Royal Melbourne Hospital in responding to thoseinitial complaints. It may be that the hospital’s responsewas not appropriate. Therefore, it is absolutelyappropriate that this government establish an inquiry.


Mr THWAITES — You are more interested indoing the numbers. You are more interested in seeing ifthey’re on your side or his side!

The SPEAKER — Order! The proceedings are nothelped by the Leader of the Opposition interjecting.

Mr THWAITES — This independent inquiry isheaded by Beth Wilson, who is the Health ServicesCommissioner. I should have thought that Beth Wilsonis somebody that both sides of the house would haveabsolute confidence in. Beth Wilson and this panel willinquire into the very issues raised by the honourablemember in his question to determine whether thereought to have been other ways to handle this initialcomplaint and to make recommendations in relation tothat in both the particular instance and in general.

This government is interested in these issues. It is aboutquality of health. That is why it has put 2650 nursesback into the system. That is why this inquiry has beenset up. Unlike the opposition, we are more interested inthe patients than we are in doing the numbers andgetting the white car.

Roads: black spot program

Ms BEATTIE (Tullamarine) — Will the Ministerfor Transport inform the house how the government isdelivering safer and better roads for Victorians throughits $240 million black spot program?

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) —Today I am announcing a list of 129 of Victoria’s mostdangerous road accident black spots which will beaddressed by a funding program of $11.9 million. Thisis part of the government’s statewide accident blackspot program. It brings the total amount of fundingunder this program to $160 million. The list we arereleasing today is huge. It is a list that will save lives,will reduce accidents and will benefit the wholeVictorian community.

This is a huge achievement. It is the biggest black spotblitz ever undertaken in Australia’s history. Money isbeing allocated not only to roads that are theresponsibility of the state government but also to roadsin local metropolitan areas and in country Victoria.

The road safety experts have estimated that an averageof 10 lives per year will be saved, which will lead to areduction in road casualties of some 500. This blackspot accident program is part of our Arrive Alive roadsafety strategy designed to reduce the road toll by some20 per cent by 2007.



It is pleasing to see that even the National and Liberalparties are beginning to come on board and support theprogram. That was not always the case. Amazingly, thisexcellent program was opposed by the Liberal Partyjust two years ago. Two years ago the Liberal Party waseven running radio advertisements during the lastelection campaign attacking the Labor Party forproposing the $240 million accident black spotprogram. Make no mistake, if the Liberal Party hadbeen re-elected this program would never have got offthe ground, never have been implemented, and thesevital improvements to Melbourne’s road networkswould never have been made.

For example, in the electorate of Knox the latestfunding round provides urgently needed funding forroundabouts at locations such as the intersections ofCommercial Road and Westley Street andBlackwood Park and Ormonde roads. If the LiberalParty had been re-elected at the last state election theselocations would not have been funded because theywere opposed to this $240 million program. TheLiberal Party was opposed to the biggest blitz onaccident black spots in Australia’s history.

While the government is drawing up lists of accidentblack spots to save lives the opposition is drawing uplists of who is going to knife the Leader of theOpposition and who is not! The honourable membersfor Cranbourne and Malvern are divvying up thespoils — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, asyou can see, there is a consistent line by the ministersfor health and transport in debating the question andtrying to raise matters outside the questions asked. I askyou to rule that the minister is debating the question,and should he persist in this I ask that you use yourpowers under the standing orders to suspend him fromthis house.

Mr BATCHELOR — On the point of order,Mr Speaker, in my answer I was making the point thatlists are important. I admit that I made reference to a listof 129 accident black spots that we are now funding aspart of this. The question cannot be answered withoutaccurately drawing attention to that list. The fact thatthey are drawing up their own list is ample proof!

The SPEAKER — Order! I will not allow theMinister for Transport to continue in that vein on thepoint of order. I ask the minister to come back toanswering the question.

Mr BATCHELOR — As I indicated, Mr Speaker,this is a huge blitz on accident black spots. The

previous Liberal government spent $4 million a year;we have spent $160 million already. They have beenannounced, they have been allocated and it is a hugeboost. We are determined to see lives saved andaccidents reduced. For the Leader of the Opposition toattack this program now and to have attacked it in thepast is an absolute disgrace. He ought to pay moreattention to the lists that are being generated over there.The honourable member for Cranbourne wants to bethe education spokesperson. That is what is on their list,and he ought to have a look at it.


Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — Can the Minister forHealth confirm that the families of the two deceasedRoyal Melbourne Hospital patients were notified of thecircumstances of the deaths of their relatives onlyyesterday? Can he also inform the house who isresponsible for the unacceptable delay in informingthem?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) —Unfortunately the opposition clearly draws up itsquestions too far in advance and does not listen to myanswers. I have already answered that question. I wentthrough all the aspects, and if the shadow minister hadbeen listening he would have heard. MelbourneHealth — —

Mr Doyle — On a point of order of relevance,Mr Speaker, if the minister had answered this questionhe would have told us who was responsible. He has notdone so, and therefore he has not answered thequestion.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order, particularly the latter part, which was merelyrepeating the question.

Mr THWAITES — I simply point out that there isa coronial inquiry and there is a separate inquiry. Theirrole is to determine who is responsible. If the shadowminister wants to pre-empt the outcomes, let him dothat. I am not going to do that. The government has setup a proper — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order regardingrelevance, Mr Speaker, in seeking to help the ministerand help the house, it is clear that the minister did nothear the question. Perhaps the question should berepeated, because it was not a question that related towho was responsible for the deaths, it was a questionthat related to who was responsible for informing thefamilies.



The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition has again risen on a point of order simply torepeat the question. There is no point of order.

Mr THWAITES — Just for members of theopposition — because I know they are more interestedin a list of numbers for each side — I again point outthat the coronial inquiry will determine issues aroundthe deaths. There is a separate inquiry headed by BethWilson, which is to examine all the issues around theincident reporting, which is the issue that has beenraised by the honourable member. It is not appropriateto pre-empt that inquiry.

Housing: innovation program

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — Will the Ministerfor Housing advise the house what action thegovernment is taking to deliver decent and affordablesocial housing to low-income Victorians?

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — I thank thehonourable member for Geelong North for his question.I am very pleased to have the opportunity today toadvise the house of the latest partnerships between theBracks government and the community. Thesepartnerships will provide $25.8 million of new housing,which represents 16 new housing projects acrossVictoria. It is yet another example of the Bracksgovernment delivering decent and affordable housing tolow-income Victorians because it really cares about thelives of low-income people.

The projects are located around the state, includingBallarat, Bairnsdale, Ringwood, Robinvale, Gisborne,Preston and St Kilda. They are valuable partnerships forthese communities. The government demonstrates thisby the genuine dollar value that has been achievedthrough the partnerships. The Bracks government isproviding $17.25 million, but community agencies andlocal government are contributing $8.5 million worth ofland and funds. This builds on the $48 million packagethat I announced last year, which had a similar ratio ofgovernment funds to funds provided by people in thelocal community.

Apart from providing housing, the projects create340 jobs directly and a further 600 jobs indirectly. Theybuild on the others that the government announcedpreviously. It is great news for the building industry,and it is very good news for local communities. It isalso good news for those people who are beinghelped — people with disabilities, women escapingdomestic violence, low-income families, homelesspeople and older people. They are terrific programsbecause the government sat down and listened to the

needs of local communities. It cares aboutcommunities, it listens to what they want and then itacts. I am very proud of the way the government workswith local communities.

It is in stark contrast to opposition members, who reallydo not care about the important social justice initiativesthat are part of our community. It is disappointing notonly that the previous government neglected publichousing but that the opposition continues to reflect thefact that it does not care about low-income Victoriansor public housing. It stands for nothing and has notchanged. I have not heard anything that gives me anyencouragement that it shares the government’scommitment and wants to work to make sure thatlow-income people have affordable accommodation.

The government has a vision. It cares, it has a plan andit is acting to provide decent and affordable housing inpartnerships with the community.

Royal Melbourne Show

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I refer the Premier to thefact — —

Mr Batchelor — You’re on both lists!

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Minister forTransport to cease interjecting!

Ms ASHER — I refer the Premier to the fact thatthe future of the Royal Melbourne Show is at risk andthat the former government had pledged $50 million toupgrade the showgrounds two and a half years ago.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the house to cometo order, particularly the Treasurer. The Chair needs tohear the question posed by the honourable member.

Ms ASHER — Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will startagain. I refer the Premier to the fact that the future ofthe Royal Melbourne Show is at risk and that theformer government had pledged $50 million to upgradethe showgrounds two and a half years ago, and I ask: isit a fact that the Bracks government has conducted noless than four reviews by three different consultants,costing taxpayers almost $200 000, and that thisdo-nothing government has still not made a decision onthe future of the showgrounds?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Brighton for her question. I pose achallenge to her: from the records of the Liberal Partyor the former government can she somehow produce a



document which shows it was going to fund the show?I ask her to please produce it, because the organisers arenot aware of it, and there was nothing about it in theforward estimates. There were no contractualarrangements, and no offer was made. It was somethingthat was never, ever resolved by the previousgovernment.

In contrast, the government is working closely with theRoyal Agricultural Society of Victoria on solutions andproposals which are under consideration, which wouldbe expected as part of the budget process. So while theprevious government had nothing at all to produce, thisgovernment will fix up the mess left by the previousgovernment and will consider it as part of the budgetprocess.

Water: use strategy

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — Will theMinister for Environment and Conservation advise thehouse how the government is delivering on itscommitment to promote smarter water use to enhanceeconomic growth and to protect the environment?

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I thank the honourable member forFootscray for his question, and I am pleased to be ableto advise the house of action the government is takingto improve water management across the state, an arealong neglected under the previous government.

Briefly, we have moved towards smarter water useacross the state with a $30 million program to improvewater efficiency on farms; we have set a target forwater re-use in Melbourne at 20 per cent by 2010; Ihave established an independent group of experts toplan for Melbourne’s water use over the next 50 years;we have developed a healthy river strategy to improveour rivers; and we have made a monumentalcommitment, with the commonwealth and the NewSouth Wales governments, to increasing environmentalflows in the Snowy and the Murray rivers — that is, atarget of 21 per cent to be returned to the Snowy Riverover the next 10 years and 28 per cent in the longerterm.

This $375 million program will deliver large-scaleinvestment throughout the northern regions ofVictoria — to our irrigation areas — and provide themwith updated water infrastructure. The government isalready taking a number of actions: the Woorinenpipeline is under construction, Normanville and CaseysWeir are under development and the metering trial isunder way.

Last week I released a major study byGoulburn-Murray Water identifying further watersavings, and I am pleased to announce to the housetoday the commencement of another water savingsproject in northern Victoria — a $1.6 millionGoulburn-Murray Water and state government pipelinefor the Tatura region. The pilot will trial newtechnology for controlling water distribution throughoutthe irrigation system. It will provide many benefits towater customers, including better control andmeasurement of water flows, improved service toirrigators, reduced occupational safety risks, loweroperating costs and, perhaps most importantly,improved water efficiency and environmentalmanagement.

The government is keen to invest in a wide range ofopportunities which will deliver water savings, whichin turn we can deliver back to the environment throughincreased flows or increased development throughoutthe region. It is a triple-bottom-line outcome and onewhich the government is absolutely committed to. It isa number the government is committed to, in contrast tothe opposition, which is only interested in doing thenumbers!

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

JUDICIAL REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(AMENDMENT) BILL


Debate resumed.

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — Before the break Iwas speaking on the amendment which has come backto us from the Legislative Council. It seems to havebounced back like a yoyo, and delaying tactics are whatwe have come to expect of the Legislative Council. It istypical of that house. It is a Council which, as I havesaid, was supine under the previous government, buthere it has been obstreperous in delaying the process.

We are fortunate that the government has been able tocome up with a compromise proposal to cover therequirement that there be publication, and also to ensureconfidentiality of personal matters. We are all aware ofthe need to be very careful in preserving the institutionsof our democracy, and the judiciary is clearly one ofthose. In recent days we have been reminded mostforcefully of this in the federal Parliament, and I amvery disappointed with the performance of the PrimeMinister and the federal Attorney-General. The



government supports the judiciary and the changes inthe bill, which fixes up the mess of the previousgovernment. We support the compromises and I ask forbipartisan support for the proposals.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!I am of the opinion that the amendment needs to beagreed to by an absolute majority. As there is not anabsolute majority of the members of the house present,I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in chamber:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.



Omit “(6)” and insert “(7)”.




After “or” insert “, unless section 11A(6) applies,”.





Message from Council relating to following amendmentsfurther considered:









NEW CLAUSE












Debate resumed from 19 March; motion of Ms PIKE(Minister for Housing):




Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — I will continue onfrom my contribution last night on the Country FireAuthority (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. Wereached the stage where two Country Fire Authority(CFA) appointees previously eligible for nomination bythe Insurance Council of Australia were to becomeministerial appointees. Because the Insurance Councilof Australia decided several years ago not to nominate arepresentative to the government’s agencies throughoutAustralia, citing conflict of interest, lack of influenceand legal considerations, it decided to pull out. This hasmeant that the insurance industry has not beenrepresented for a number of years at the ICA’sinstigation, even though 77.5 per cent of the CFA’sbudget is funded through insurance policy fire levies onproperties within CFA boundaries.

The CFA board currently consists of 12 members. Theminister appoints two members nominated by theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment —the deputy chairman and the chairman, who has thecasting vote. Labor’s proposed changes would meanthat the Minister for Police and Emergency Serviceswould make six appointments, and with the chairman’scasting vote control of the CFA board would effectivelybelong to the minister. The CFA is one of the bestvolunteer fire fighting services in the world, and that isdue to its independence and the expertise it has built upover many years. Our amendments have been carefullydrafted in consultation with and with support from ruraland urban fire brigade associations and the manyconcerned volunteers who contacted us expressingopposition to Labor’s attempt to stack the CFA board.

In conclusion, issues affecting urban and ruralvolunteers can be very different, and therefore it is vitalthat there is a genuine separation between urban andrural representation of the CFA board. We are standingby our original amendments to ensure that there is botha rural and urban representation on the board. CFAvolunteers are seriously concerned about the latestproposal.

To reiterate, I found it amazing last night when theminister said it was bizarre that someone from an urbanfire brigade from Warrnambool should be representedon the CFA board. I find that an outrageous commentto make. That is why we clearly need to make sure thatwe have rural representation on this board.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I normally start mycontributions by saying I am pleased to contribute todebates, but unfortunately why we are really here andwhy we are debating this again today is because yetagain we have seen how partisan the upper house trulyis. Yet again we have seen why this state is in desperate

need of upper house reform, because of the way it isused in a purely political way by the conservativeforces in that house. Again we have seen the upperhouse obstruct government policy. We saw that mostclearly in the final sitting week of last year, when at theabsolute 11th hour the upper house tried to amend orreject five pieces of government legislation.


Ms ALLAN — I will touch on the upper house,because there has been much debate in country Victoriaabout it. Country Victorians are not silly; they knowwhen they are being sold a pup by the upper houserepresentatives. They saw those upper houserepresentatives sit silent for seven years as the formergovernment wreaked havoc on country Victoria. Theyknow the contribution of their upper house members ofParliament during the seven years of the Kennettgovernment was not to look after their interests incountry Victoria, and they know these are the samemembers of the upper house who on this bill areattempting — —

Mr Wells — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I do not mean to disrupt the flow of thehonourable member but this is about the Country FireAuthority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill; it hasnothing whatsoever to do with reform in the upperhouse, and I ask you to ask the honourable member tobring the discussion back to the legislation before thehouse.

Ms ALLAN — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I was clearly drawing the parallel between theimportance of this bill for country Victorians, had thehonourable member let me get to that point, and therole of the upper house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! Clearly the honourable member was drawing aparallel, but I remind her that she must restrict hercomments to the bill before the house, and should shedo the same thing in future I will pull her up.

Ms ALLAN — Thank you, Acting Speaker.Certainly the upper house has attempted to amend thisbill, which is why it has been brought back into theLegislative Assembly to be debated today. The Bracksgovernment strongly supports the Country FireAuthority, which is one of the key reasons behind thisbill. We have seen great initiatives in the Country FireAuthority under this government. One of the key areashas been through the minister’s introducing thestrategic resource initiative, where we have seen morethan $100 million go to the CFA over a four-year



period. This has brought enormous benefit to manypeople right across country Victoria who are in areascovered by the CFA. Some of the areas in my electoratewhich have benefited have included Strathfieldsaye,Eaglehawk and Maiden Gully.

They are all getting new and upgraded fire stations, sothis is very important to country infrastructure.Certainly the Country Fire Authority is a veryimportant part of the community and socialinfrastructure of country Victoria. However, we areseeing the opposition choosing to play politics on thismatter. I want the shadow minister to note that althoughhe might think he can make some interesting commentswhen he goes out into country Victoria and grandstandson country media, whether it be radio or television,there is always someone watching.

I have noted that the shadow minister has freneticallytried to whip up a campaign against this bill in countryVictoria for his own political interests and those of hisparty. What is this about? It is about a tired oldideological battle that the shadow minister is trying torun. What we are trying to introduce are some good,strong and needed reforms for the CFA. However, theopposition is trying to stymie this by bringing up a tiredold ideological battle about who it thinks is moreappropriate to have on the board and who it feelsshould represent country Victoria. A lot of countryVictorians think vastly differently to the opposition,which was clearly reflected in the election result of1999.

This bill is trying to do three key things — ban the useof gas-fired scatterguns at times of high fire risk;strengthen the enforceability of municipal fireprevention plans; and clarify the availability ofcompensation to volunteers who are injured whilefirefighting. These are all crucial parts of the bill forcountry communities, with the municipal fireprevention plans being mightily important in times ofhigh fire danger. The availability of compensation isalso vitally important to volunteers. These are peoplewho, whenever they are called out, put themselves onthe front line. We have heard many members of thisParliament talk about their involvement, either directlyor indirectly, with the CFA. I respect that and the workthe CFA does in protecting our local communities.However, they have unfortunately been let down by theopposition on this matter, because these changes arealmost like throwing the baby out with the bath water.The opposition is trying to block the changes and thegovernment’s program by using an incredibly outdatedmandate in the upper house that surely does not reflectthe wishes of country Victorians.

Country Victorians have a great need for this bill to bepassed. This came to light no more clearly than earlierthis week when there were fires around Puckapunyal, inthe electorate of Seymour. Although we are in lateMarch, there is clearly still a high risk of fire in countryVictoria, so it is unfortunate that this bill is still herewhen it could and should have been passed lastDecember. To conclude, I reiterate that the only reasonwe are debating this today is an outdated mandate in theupper house that does not reflect the wishes of countryVictoria at the last election. I support the — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! I told the honourable member I would not hearher further if she debated that issue. I ask her to comeback to the bill and her concluding remarks.

Ms ALLAN — I clearly urge the opposition toconsider that, because this bill is important to countryVictorians. Members opposite should be very mindfulof their majority in the upper house given their minorityin this house.

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — The matter theopposition has some concerns about — that is why weintroduced the amendment — relates to the balance ofpower on the Country Fire Authority board. This isquite simple: it is not that we are trying to block anyreforms that would make the CFA as safe as it possiblycan be or see it continue to be one of the bestfirefighting forces in the world. It is quite the reverse.What we are trying to avoid is there being any stage atwhich any minister, whether it be the current ministeror any future minister, could have the right to dictatethe membership of that board to the extent that he orshe may have a direct and adverse influence on itspolicies and behaviour. It is quite simple.

In the limited time available, given that many of uswish to speak, I place on the record my thanks to theFrankston CFA for the magnificent work its membersdo in my region and on the Mornington Peninsula. Firstof all I say thanks to the Carrum Downs CFA, which issupported by 8 female and 26 male volunteers; toBaxter, with 5 female and 26 male volunteers; to Skye,with 1 female and 26 male volunteers; to Mount Eliza,as mentioned by the honourable member forMornington, with 4 females, 37 males and 1 paidadministration support person; and finally the majorCFA station for the area, Frankston, which has6 females and 30 males, 1 of whom happens to be avolunteer and is the son of one of my electorateofficers. He does a magnificent job, and I am wellaware of the dangers he faces, and the trauma hismother goes through, when he is called out on anemergency. Thirty-four of these people are career



employees working four days on and four days off. As Isaid, I place on the record my congratulations and mythanks from the people of the community for theexcellent work they do.

Let’s make no mistake about what it means to be aCFA volunteer. I have some interesting extracts fromthe Internet site of the CFA volunteers about what itmeans to be a volunteer. They devote their time withoutreceiving any payment. They join for a wide variety ofreasons — to assist others, to learn new skills, to meetpeople and above all to protect the community. Theydevelop leadership and management capabilities, meetnew friends and become part of Victoria’s largestvolunteer team. Their motivations are without questionaltruistic, and they are great members of thecommunity. Where on earth would Victoria be withoutour volunteers? It is therefore the reason why we on thisside of the house have raised our concerns with thisamendment and why, when it went to the upper house,it was supported there and then returned here for furtherdiscussion.

Those volunteers deserve a CFA board that isbipartisan, broad based and as representative as possibleto ensure that no sectarian, partisan or political biascreeps in to influence the way it is run.

If the ICA does not nominate its representatives, theboard’s current structure would mean that ministerialnominees could, with the vote of the chairman of theboard, potentially have control through the views andpolicies of the minister of the day. I do not believe, andin all honesty I do not believe the house believes, thatthat situation would be in the best interests of the bestvolunteer firefighting force in the world — nor would itbe in the interests of the people of Victoria and thecommunity those volunteers seek to serve.

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — I have pleasure inspeaking on the Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill 2001. The house is witnessing apiece of dirty politics from the opposition. Thegovernment proposed to legislate the status quo. Forsome time two positions on the Country Fire Authority(CFA) board have been held by the Insurance Councilof Australia. As I understand it, the ICA has notnominated anybody to the board for many years.Therefore, instead of the ICA making any nomination ithas become the practice for the minister of the time toappoint people to those two positions. That is all thegovernment proposed to do — that is, legislate to say,‘Okay, the ICA is not interested in nominating. Let’sput in place the practice of the minister nominatingpeople for just those two positions’. That has been thestatus quo for many years.

Now the opposition is basically blackmailing the CFAby saying, ‘We propose that instead of the ICA or theminister making nominations for those two positions onthe CFA board, there must be one representativenominated by the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry (VECCI) and anothernominated by the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF)’.The government rejected that and said, ‘We willmaintain the status quo’. Then the opposition said, ‘No,we will not allow you to pass the bill at all unless youagree with our proposed changes to the board’.

I remind the house that the bill, which the governmenttried to have passed last December, contains someexcellent provisions. For example, until a volunteerwho has recently joined the CFA is actually taken onboard, during the period they are working as avolunteer they will be eligible for compensation. That isa critical provision, but that will not occur until the billis passed.

Also, the bill changes provisions about the way inwhich a day of total fire ban is declared. At present, ifthe Director of Public Prosecutions is prosecutinganybody caught lighting a fire on a day of total fire ban,an original certificate must be produced before thecourt. However, if that original certificate is unavailablethe proceedings cannot go forward. If such courtproceedings are being conducted on the same day attwo locations — maybe at either end of the state — oneproceedings cannot be held, because at present only oneoriginal fire-ban certificate is prepared. The bill seeks toovercome that anomaly.

The opposition has talked about how fabulous the CFAbrigades are, and everybody acknowledges that. Almostevery town in my electorate has a CFA brigade — forexample, Bullengarook, Woodend, Gisborne andRiddells Creek — and they all do a fabulous job.Nobody is saying the CFA does not do a great job. Thehouse has heard the opposition singing the praises ofthe CFA and claiming to speak on behalf of all63 000 CFA members.

The honourable member for Wantirna says he hasreceived only one or two letters, yet he claims to speakfor the 63 000 members. I have visited many CFAbrigades in my electorate during the last few weeks, butnot one person has raised with me the issue of the CFAboard.

Mr Wells — Did you ask them?

Ms DUNCAN — We had broad-rangingdiscussions about a number of matters, and I askedthem about issues they would like to raise about the



CFA. They listed a whole range of things, but they didnot mention the board.

The honourable member for Wantirna can continue toclaim that he speaks on behalf of the 63 000 CFAmembers. I do not say they do not have concerns, but Iassure him that the CFA people in my electorate havenot raised the board issue with me.

The opposition is playing dirty politics by saying,‘These positions should be filled by VECCI and theVFF’. We said, ‘Let’s leave it as it is’. But in the upperhouse the opposition said, ‘No, unless you agree withour proposal about nominees we will not allow you topass the remainder of the bill’. If anybody ever wantedan indication of the Legislative Council letting Victoriadown, this bill is a classic example.

While I am speaking on the bill I take the opportunityto reiterate my support for all the CFA brigades in myelectorate. The issues they have discussed with meinclude the provision of safety equipment, training andnew tanks. In my electorate many of the brigades havereceived all of those things over the last two and a halfyears.

The bill contains provisions critical to the operation ofthe CFA that are too important to play politics with.The government wants to maintain the status quo, butthe opposition would have you believe the governmentis trying to turn the CFA board on its head. Theopposition says that the former minister andgovernment could nominate people to the board andthat, ‘We, the Liberal Party of Victoria, can be trustedas we are squeaky clean and have the monopoly inspeaking for the CFA’. During their speeches yesterdaythe honourable members for Wantirna and Morningtonwere outraged, saying, ‘How dare the Laborgovernment purport to speak on behalf of CFAmembers. Only we, those born to rule, should be able tospeak on this issue!’. It is an outrage and disgusting. Ido not know whether people are aware of what is goingdown here. This was painted up to be all sorts of things.But it is all about the opposition imposing its will on theCFA board, not the government seeking to impose itswill.

The government is simply seeking to maintain thestatus quo, but the opposition says, ‘If you do not allowus to have our nominees on the board, we will not letyou pass the remainder of the bill which containscritical amendments to the legislation and which theCFA is keen to have passed’.

Earlier I spoke about the provision concerning theoriginal certificate declaring a day of total fire ban.

Another amendment concerns the requirement oncouncils to provide through the Department of NaturalResources and Environment a clear onus ofresponsibility for areas and municipal relationships withDNRE. It goes to who is responsible for firemanagement plans for DNRE land and propertyadjacent to DNRE land. This bill seeks to clarify thoseprovisions.

It also talks about the importance of compensation forvolunteers. We know how dangerous it can becomewhen CFA members are on the job. The other provisionis to regulate and apply restrictions on the use ofdevices such as gas scatterguns. That issue was raisedwith me by many of the CFA brigades in my electorate.Apples are grown in many parts of my electorate, andfarmers use scatterguns to scare the birds, but thoseguns can be a fire risk. The bill seeks to regulate theoperation of scatterguns.

‘But all those provisions must stay on hold’, says theopposition, ‘because we will not allow the bill to passuntil the government agrees with our request that theVFF and VECCI nominees be allowed on the board.No, we do not want the status quo, which was goodenough for us when in government but which is notgood enough for this government’. The rationale seemsto be, ‘Only we can be trusted’. That seems to be theargument being put by the opposition. That isdisgusting. The opposition is doing the CFA a greatdisservice. I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — I support the amendmentsmade by the Legislative Council. Governmentmembers and the minister have said that the oppositionis trying to compromise the fire safety aspects of thebill. That is absolutely incorrect.

We are concerned about the make-up of the CountryFire Authority board — that is what this is about. Weare responding to CFA volunteer concerns. At themoment, the CFA board consists of 12 members. Theminister appoints two members nominated by theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment, thedeputy chairman and the chairman, who has a castingvote. With Labor’s proposed change it would mean theemergency services minister of the day would make sixappointments, and with the chairman’s casting vote, theCFA board would effectively belong to the minister.

The CFA is one of the best volunteer firefightingservices in the world. This is due to its independenceand the expertise it has built up over many years. Thelast thing the CFA needs is a Labor or union hackplaced on the board to satisfy an insecure minister.



My first experience of the CFA was in 1967. I had onlybeen in Australia a few weeks when the Lara bushfireshappened. I was absolutely stunned at the volunteerswho were risking their lives, leaving their jobs, theirfamilies and their homes to save the people in the townsin that area. In 1967 I had never experienced or seen abushfire before, having come from a wet country likeEngland. I was just stunned by it. Then when we hadthe Ash Wednesday fires while I was living at YarraJunction, those fires burnt for quite a few days in theUpper Yarra. Powelltown was ringed by fire — the firecut through the town. Warburton was ringed by fire.We had great danger going on, yet the CFA volunteerscalmly and consistently worked hard. They put in hourafter hour, day after day to control the fires and to savethe homes, the possessions and the lives of the peopleof the Upper Yarra during those fires.

In 1991 we had more bushfires in the Upper Yarra. Ourown property was threatened — the cool store thatstored all our wine — the fires came very close. Again,the CFA volunteers appeared — they came to save theproperty. Cheerfully, willingly, they gave their all. Theydo not hesitate; they just leave their jobs, their families,their homes, to go and help other people, as isevidenced by the response to the New South Walesfires. Other people were on holidays, but the CFAvolunteers broke their holidays and went to help thepeople in New South Wales.

The CFA is concerned about the composition of theboard. The CFA does not need or want to be political,and I cannot understand why the minister will not agreeto our amendments. Is he so tied to the unions that hehas no flexibility to agree to a reasonable request? Whydoes he have problems with the Victorian FarmersFederation (VFF) and Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry (VECCI) submitting twonames each? They are respectable organisations. Icannot understand his concerns. We are not talkingabout something that is revolutionary; this is about twomembers of the board coming from a panel of namessubmitted by VECCI and the VFF instead of comingfrom the insurance council. VFF members understandthe issues confronting rural and regional Victoria: theyknow who to appoint to the board.

The CFA is concerned, and their concerns are valid. Itis the largest emergency organisation in Australia, withapproximately 64 000 volunteers and approximately1000 paid employees. There are 1200 brigades inVictoria. I respect and support each and every one ofthese men and women who, as I said before, sofrequently put their lives on the line for us. They do notwant the potential for the minister of the day — anyminister from any party of the day — to stack the

board. Politics does not belong in the CFA nor on theCFA board. I commend the amendments to the house.

Mr SEITZ (Keilor) — I rise to support the motionbefore the house and express my concern withyesterday’s people in the other place. Once again, theyare trying to tell Victorian people what they shoulddecide today. We know the majority of upper housemembers are yesterday’s people and were notaccountable to voters at the last election. Therefore forthem to try to impose their will on the government andthe minister of today is inexcusable. It is tantamount topolitical thuggery. I would not mind so much if theywere elected at the same time as me, but yesterday’speople trying to pull that sort of stunt is unacceptable tome and the people that I represent. I have Country FireAuthority stations in my electorate at Hillside andCaroline Springs and, as the honourable member forGisborne said, I had no representations expressingconcern at the change to the board.

It is only that opposition members have found somemythical excuse to try to deny volunteers the propercoverage which this legislation provides through theamendments. Entitlement to workers compensationshould be a right, not a guess, and not a matter ofhaving lawyers involved to prove their case andsubstantiate it. This is an important bill that needs to bepassed by the Parliament and clarified.

This year volunteers from the CFA went interstate tohelp our neighbouring state. Those people need morerespect and commitment from this government, whichthis government is trying to give. It is the obligation ofthose yesterday’s people in the other place to fall in lineand support the government, not to hold thegovernment to ransom. They are not elected to governthe state of Victoria and therefore they should bepassing this legislation without the amendments thatthey have now come back with in proposing to changethe board’s structure.

In the negotiations the minister and the government hadsaid, ‘Okay. You will not accept changes to the boardstructure. We will stay with the status quo’. No, that isnot good enough. We have more changes nowproposed by the yesterday’s people, using their powercontinually. If that continues with the yesterday’speople, I am sure that the next time the question comesup of whether the upper house should be reformed, oneway or the other the people of Victoria will vote in thedirection that it be reformed and perhaps evenabolished to allow a unicameral system in Victoria,which would be unique and would remove the power ofthe yesterday’s people to carry out their antics as wehave seen this week with the report they put up on the



investigation they had on the local government scenewith one Mark Conroy.

I support the bill for the people that I represent in myelectorate. As I said, the Sydenham CFA stationmembers operated from a tin shed with no equipmentuntil the Cain Labor government got in and boughtthem new machinery, a new fire truck and equipment.Later on we got a new station built for them rather thana tin shed, and they are treated as full partners in thefirefighting system rather than having to do their ownfundraising, providing their own trucks, vehicles andequipment, as happened with the people in Yuroke,who had to provide their own truck in the same sorts ofcircumstances because the Liberal government beforethe Cain government did not provide them with thefunds and wherewithal for equipment they need to carryout the responsibility they have in fire protection.

Those yesterday’s people who are now trying to playholier than thou in the upper house can forget thesesorts of antics because I certainly will go out and tellthe volunteers in my area the real story, that they arebeing denied as a matter of right access to workerscompensation and a voice in the decision making in thehierarchy of the CFA when it comes to fire ban daysand the use of scatterguns in the orchards, which are adanger: these volunteers should have the power to makethose decisions.

This government is prepared to give that power to theboard of the CFA, but the opposition is denying that tothem. But what is worse is that the yesterday’s peoplein the upper house are denying them those rights. Thosepeople should be called to question because they are theones that have absolutely no right to do that, and nocommitment to talk about the future of people. Ifsomebody gets burnt, it is today or tomorrow. If wehave an accident, as we saw this week with two housesburnt out, what answer do they have for them?

We need to have the best possible position in the CFA.We have to be able to compensate people who havetaken risks in protecting other people. For those reasonsI commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedypassage and hope that the upper house sees sense.

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — It is probablyworth starting out by knocking on the head a few of theinaccuracies put forward by the honourable member forGisborne not all that long ago. Unless she has let the catout of the bag and is telling the truth, we have beenadvised and assured by the government that no CountryFire Authority volunteer will be disadvantaged on theissue of compensation. That has been made plain, andunless the honourable member for Gisborne knows

something else, that has been put on the record, thatdespite this bill still being discussed by the house, novolunteer will be disadvantaged. The minister has giventhat assurance. So perhaps the honourable member forGisborne might care to plan her personal explanationshortly.

Also volunteers do not want the status quo. What thevolunteers want is that if the Insurance Council ofAustralia is not to be part of the CFA board, it wouldprefer that the board be reduced by two members. But itis quite plain that the government will not accept that.The insurance council has confirmed with theopposition that the VFF–VECCI model is the bestoption: if the board membership is not reduced by two,then the position being put forward by the LiberalParty — that is, a member put forward by the VFF anda member put forward by VECCI — is the next bestoption.

It is worth remembering why the volunteers are verysuspicious of the Labor government on this matter. Weall remember what the volunteers had to go throughduring the Cain–Kirner years when the real agenda thenwas to merge the CFA with the metropolitan firebrigade. Volunteers fought long and hard to resist theefforts of the responsible minister at the time, RaceMathews, and his agenda to merge the two authorities.It is little wonder, with the regrettable re-election of aLabor government, that they remain suspicious of whatmight be on the agenda from this current government.That is why the volunteers are suspicious of what theminister may have in mind if he has the power to stackthe board. They well remember the 1980s and they donot want to go down that track again.

The CFA volunteers — the more than 60 000 ofthem — want to protect the board from politicalinterference. What the Liberal Party is talking about isthat, instead of two members coming from theInsurance Council of Australia, one should come froma list of names submitted by VECCI and one shouldcome from a list submitted by the VFF to replace thoseICA members. What could possibly be wrong withthat?

It is difficult to understand why the Labor governmentis digging in so hard on what is essentially a very plainand clear matter. Despite some of the comments fromthe other side on this matter, frankly let’s thank ourlucky stars that the Legislative Council does exist and isa very healthy chamber that has been able to send thisbill back here so we can continue to argue the case thatthis current Labor government must not be allowed tostack the CFA board.



There are many wonderful brigades in my electorate ofSouth Barwon. It is a pleasure to assist them with theissues as they arise. It was a pleasure to assist, forinstance, the Connewarre fire brigade with a difficulty ithad with a badly maintained road which led to its CFAbuilding. Where I live at Bellbrae I am covered by theexcellent services from the Freshwater Creek firebrigade. It is well known in the Geelong, Surf Coastand Bellarine areas what a fantastic job the CFAvolunteers do. We owe them a great debt.

I should place on record again our cherished memoriesand the way we honour the five Geelong Westvolunteers who perished at Linton. They will always beremembered and will remain very much in the hearts ofeverybody in the Geelong region.

Mr HELPER (Ripon) — It gives me a great deal ofpleasure to speak on the Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The first thing I willdo in speaking to the bill is to recognise in a verygeneral sense the incredibly important role that theCountry Fire Authority performs not only in myelectorate but, indeed, predominantly throughout ruralVictoria. Not a month goes by without some CFAactivity being held that I am very fortunate, privilegedand honoured to be able to attend. On each of thoseoccasions I am absolutely amazed and delighted to seethe incredible volunteer spirit and the incrediblewillingness to serve the community that exists in mylocal CFA brigades.

Specifically, the bill seeks to do a number of things, butone of the things it does not seek to do, of course, is toalter the arrangements for the board of the CFA. It isinteresting to note what the opposition, as aconsequence of its recalcitrance, is prepared to put atthreat by opposing this bill and by not allowing the billto proceed in its current form.

The opposition seriously undermines the bill’sfunctions of enhancing the public safety in relation toCFA activities; it seriously undermines the bill’s abilityto allow compensation to flow to newly enlistedvolunteers to the CFA, and I will come back to thatpoint later; and it seriously undermines the bill’s abilityto deliver improved fire safety regulations.

I will come back to those points one by one. Theprovisions of the bill that deal with enhancing publicsafety clearly provide the structure for the declarationof total fire bans and for subsequent possibleprosecutions in a way that specifies more clearly whatthose functions are.

The second function that comes under the broadheading of enhanced public safety is one that is veryimportant to me — that is, the issue of allowing greaterinput into municipal fire prevention plans — and I willdwell for a moment on a matter that has arisen out ofthat issue which was raised by a constituent. Thecircumstance I wish to dwell on — without, of course,naming the constituent specifically — involves aconstituent who lives on the outskirts of a small town inmy electorate and who is most concerned thatmunicipal fire plans are, firstly, inadequate andsecondly, even if they were adequate, not enforceable.

This bill directly addresses those concerns, and they arevalid concerns and therefore rightly deserve to beaddressed. My constituent would certainly be mostupset if this entire bill were opposed in this house onthe basis of some ideological bent that the oppositionhas in relation to the structure of the CFA board, whichis something that has absolutely nothing to do with thebill before the house.

I can certainly commend the provisions of the bill thatrequire municipal councils to approve their municipalfire prevention plans and allow the CFA to actuallyorder those fire prevention plans, which is a veryworthy measure. I hope the opposition will ultimatelysee the benefit of that and, as a consequence of thatalone, support the entire bill.

I will turn to the other important purpose of the bill,being that of volunteer compensation. The opposition’santics and its ping-pong playing with this bill put at riskcompensation to volunteers who have very recentlysigned up but who have not been officially inductedinto the CFA. It may sound as though not too manycompensation issues could arise out of thosecircumstances, but even if there were only onecircumstance it could be a very tragic circumstance forthat individual and his or her friends and immediatefamily.

I urge the opposition to reconsider its recalcitrance inrelation to this bill so that those circumstances do notarise and are not capable of arising. Otherwise, ifvolunteers who have signed up in good faith to the CFAand who have not been formally inducted areunfortunate enough to injure themselves during thatvery early stage of induction into the CFA, they will notbe able to receive compensation.

I ask members of the opposition whether they can livewith themselves knowing they may be denyingsomebody in those circumstances the ability to gaincompensation for injuries received in performing theirduties which they have in good faith volunteered to the



community to do as members of the CFA. Will youguys be able to sleep at night? I ask you that questionbecause if you are not and if you have anyconscience — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Plowman) —Order! The honourable member will direct hiscomments through the Chair.

Mr HELPER — My apologies. If members of theopposition have any conscience, then they will supportthis bill if for no other reason than to ensure thatvolunteers who fall into that relatively narrow categorycan receive compensation as a matter of course, asopposed to the incredibly difficult circumstances theywould be forced into in terms of receivingcompensation.

The bill also touches on improved fire safetyregulations in a number of very practical areas. Forexample, it prohibits the use of gas-poweredscatterguns, which are used in country areas and inorchards and vineyards in particular to scare off birds,at times of extreme fire danger. I would have thoughtthat is a very practical and eminently sensibleproposition even for the opposition to support. Theopposition really needs to rethink its recalcitrance inrelation to this bill on this specific point.

The bill also allows safety measures to be put in placefor the use of certain appliances during periods of highfire danger. I do not know what the statisticalbreakdown is — it would be interesting to know that —but certainly a significant number of rural fires occur asa consequence of the use of appliances such as weldersand grinders, et cetera, during periods of high firedanger. We all understand in a practical sense thedangers that careless use of appliances pose at thosetimes. However, the bill is commendable in regard to itsregulation of that activity, because despite thecommonsense approach that we should all be taking tothese issues, fires continue to occur as a result ofcareless use of appliances.

The measures in the bill to improve fire safety througha regime of regulations fall mainly into the category ofproviding legislative and regulatory frameworks for thecommonsense that most of us exercise, particularly ifwe live in rural areas, because we know the devastationthat fire can cause. However, through carelessness andforgetfulness and for a range of reasons, some of whichare unpredictable, accidents still occur, and this billattempts to minimise and further reduce the risk ofthose accidents occurring.

In conclusion, I come back to the very important issue Imentioned before — that is, the issue of volunteercompensation. I genuinely urge the opposition todevelop a bit of heart and then have a change of heartand support this bill, keeping in mind the misfortunethat could occur in that narrow category of newlyenrolled, newly enlisted, newly subscribing CountryFire Authority volunteers if they were to suffer aninjury in the service of their voluntary activities. Todeny them compensation through the opposition’srecalcitrance and ideological bent on the board of theCFA is something that astounds me.

If opposition members do not stand up and argue theissue, if they do not come out into the open and arguethat the consequence of their opposition to this bill isthe denial of compensation to a narrow category ofvolunteer, then they should consider themselves to bedishonest in their opposition to the bill. I have a greatdeal of pleasure in supporting the bill. I wish it to havepassage, and I wish the opposition a change of heart onthis matter.

Mr SMITH (Glen Waverley) — I wish to refute alot of the claims made by the government on this billboth yesterday and today about the attitude of theopposition. The opposition is in favour of every part ofthe bill, except the obvious part that is the politicaldifference. The opposition would have let the bill goages ago, including its four main provisions — theCountry Fire Authority’s declarations on fire bans, themunicipal councils formally approving the fireprevention plans, the clarification of the entitlement ofCFA volunteers to compensation, and the gas-firedscatterguns being allowed to be fired during periods offire danger, although not on days of total fire ban.

I heard the honourable member for Ripon talking aboutideological bents, but what the opposition is doing iswhat the Labor Party claims to be doing — listening tothe community. I have copies of two letters whichearlier speakers have referred to. One is from theVictorian Rural Fire Brigades Association and the otheris from the Victorian Urban Fire Brigades Association.Those associations represent 100 per cent of allmembers of the CFA.

The whole crux of the matter is contained in a letter tothe honourable member for Wantirna from Mr PeterDavis, who is the secretary of the Victorian Urban FireBrigades Association. It was sent to the honourablemember for Wantirna on 28 September 2001, which isvery early in this debate.

If honourable members and their advisers listencarefully to this letter we will get the bent of where we



are going. That is not just ideological but is what thebrigades associations are saying. Mr Davis says:

If the government removes the insurance industry fromrepresentation on the CFA board, this could strengthen theindustry’s argument for removal of the current fundingarrangements. The association’s position is for thecontinuance of the insurance industry representation on theCFA board.

That is what we would all like to see, but that is notpractical. Let’s see why Mr Davis is saying that:

If, at some time in the future, the funding arrangementschange and the industry no longer contributes to the operationof the fire services, then the act could be changed — but notbefore any funding alterations occur. I believe thegovernment is putting the cart before the horse and presentingthe insurance industry with a golden opportunity tosuccessfully argue its case to cease contributing to theoperation of the fire services.

That is what it is all about. The insurance industry doesnot want to sit there as it has done for years because itwants the whole community to contribute towardsinsurance. It is saying it is unfair for it to have to coverclaims where people are not insuring their properties.People like you, Mr Acting Speaker, me and manyothers do contribute. I have a rural property and wecontribute because this is the way we operate.However, many people do not, although that is anotherargument.

What we as members of this house must do is listen tomembers of the rural and urban associations. I repeatMr Davis’s remarks:

I believe the government is putting the cart before the horseand presenting the insurance industry with a goldenopportunity to successfully argue its case to ceasecontributing to the operation of the fire services.

The letter goes on:

If the association is not successful with this argument, afall-back position would be to reduce the size of the CFAboard by removing the two insurance council representativesand not replacing them.

Of course this is the ideal situation, which is what theurban people want. It continues:

This would have cost savings to the CFA and result in asmaller board which, I believe, was favoured by the previousgovernment.

This is where the honourable member for Gisborne wascarrying on and on about a point she did notunderstand. This is what the previous government’sposition would have been. It goes on:

We would not agree, however, to any suggestion of reducedvolunteer representation as a consequence of a reduction in

the size of the board. By not replacing the two insurancerepresentatives we would ensure that the government did notappoint any ‘party favourites’ or other persons who may nothave any genuine interest in the organisation as such.

This is what the honourable member for Wantirna wassaying and what has been the continued position of theopposition. It is not our own ideological bent, as thehonourable member for Ripon called it, but what theVictorian Urban Fire Brigades Association is telling us.The opposition has consulted. It has done what thegovernment claims it is good at doing but is notdoing — we are consulting.

It is fascinating that in the letter from the VictorianRural Fire Brigades Association to the honourablemember for Shepparton dated 1 October last year,Mr Bob MacDonald, the executive officer, says:

Our preference would be that membership of the Authorityremain the same —

that is, that the insurance industry stays within theboard —

however, if this is not possible we would still like one of therepresentatives to the MAV to be from a rural area.

There is no reference there to any unions. He goes on tosay:

Further should the Insurance Council of Australia not wish tohave representation on the board then the board should bereduced in number by two.

That is not the Liberal Party’s point of view and not theNational Party’s point of view but the point of view ofthe Victorian Rural Fire Brigades Association and theurban members, who represent 100 per cent of the CFAmembership. Mr McDonald goes on to say:

Again we would prefer the representation to come from theinsurance council as they are a key stakeholder and for themnot to be on the Board would strengthen their argument not tocollect fire levies.

That is the guts of the position. I remember theincredible arguments we used to have when we were ingovernment and we brought in omnibus bills, but thisbill is an omnibus bill. This board representation issueis completely different to those other four issues that Ioutlined to the house before. This is the crux of it.

The government is not listening to what the CFAmembers want. It is listening to the insurance council,which wants everybody to collect fees — hence itsreason for not filling the two positions. That is anotherargument. It has nothing to do with what we are arguingabout here as to who fills them. Our point is this: thegovernment should excise this part of the legislation —the part about the boards — and then we will see where



we go from there. We will pass it in a matter of secondsif that is the case. The honourable member for Wantirnawill simply say, ‘Yes, we pass it’. The real reason forthis, which is not understood by some honourablemembers — I have been listening very carefully, hencemy reason as the former chairman of the committee towant to speak last on this particular bill — is that wehave had misrepresentations put to governmentmembers. There is no other way to describe it. Here arethe words; they are as clear as they can be. The wordsare there for people to read themselves, and they arenow there in Hansard.

The key issue is about representation on the board. Ofcourse we are in favour of addressing the other points,which are obviously of concern to the members of theCFA. This is something that could have been sorted outand gone quickly through in the spring sittings of theParliament. But no, it has been held up by this ‘dog inthe manger’ attitude of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services in the hope that somehow or otherthe embarrassment would come.

We are saying to the government, ‘Excise thisparticular part about the board from the bill and we willpass it tomorrow’. In the meantime they are the oneswho are responsible, because they have not made thepoints in the letters from both associations available totheir own members. Once they read those they will seefor themselves that they have been duped by theMinister for Police and Emergency Services. It is nowhis responsibility to get this bill through without theboard representation being part of it. We will continueto oppose the bill while that remains.

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I am pleased tospeak on the Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill. At least in some ways I am pleasedto speak on it, but in some ways I am disappointed thatthis bill has come back to this house yet again. This isanother example of a bill that has been frustrated by theupper house, where the Liberal and National partieshave played petty politics.

Before the Bracks government came into existence weknow that the upper house had agreed to bills on anongoing basis. However, this week we have found thatwe are dealing with a series of bills that have not beenagreed to by the upper house on the grounds of pettypolitics. So from that point of view I am disappointedthat I need to speak to the bill today. However, I hopethere will be a change of heart from the Liberal Partyon the bill.

The aims of the bill are straightforward: it aims toimprove the existing legislation and in doing so

improve public safety, deal with compensation tovolunteers, improve regulations in a forward-thinkingmanner and — at least when the bill first came up —ensure that this fire protection season we were in abetter position than ever to make sure our communitieswere as safe as possible.

Unfortunately, three months have gone by. The bill wasnot passed in the spring sittings and we are back to dealwith it now. We are not past the end of the fire-riskseason with a day of total fire ban just this past weekand the likelihood of more days of total fire ban ahead.The government wants to get the bill through theParliament so it can be in place for the latter part of thefire protection season.

As has been outlined by other speakers, three majorareas have been developed in the bill. One relates toenhanced public safety in regard to the declaration oftotal fire ban days so we can be clear that a total fireban day has been declared by way of a CFA officersigning a certificate and that certification being legallybinding. Other issues relate to municipal fire plans andimproving the requirements of municipalities to put inplace and enforce their fire plans. These are veryimportant issues to develop.

The bill looks at compensation for volunteers, an areawhich is vitally important to the ongoing success of ourvoluntary fire brigades. So I am keen that this aspect ofthe bill will ensure that anybody who fights a fire as avolunteer will be assured of compensation should theybe injured as a result of the great work they have done.

Right through the fire season we have heard of so manyoccasions where CFA units have been called out. In myown neighbourhood they were called out in January.Fortunately, there was no loss of life or housing,although there was loss of grazing land. Over the pastweek we heard that there was a fire in the Seymour areawhich was brought under control. We know that manyof our CFA officers went interstate to support NewSouth Wales during its recent horrific fires. CFAmembers have put their lives on the line time and timeagain to protect the community, and the bill helps toensure that if they are injured in any way as a result ofthe great action they are taking as volunteers they willbe assured of compensation.

The other issues in the bill relate to improved fire safetyregulation. Some simple issues have been built into thelegislation about the use of gas-powered scattergunswhich will not be made available on total fire ban daysand several other changes which improve public safetyand provide greater strength of regulation as has beenadvised through the CFA.



The government has taken on board the advice receivedfrom the CFA in putting together the bill. When the billfirst came before the house one of the contentiousissues which was argued over in the upper house andwhich meant that the bill came back to the LegislativeAssembly related to the make up of the board. When itcame back to the lower house we said, ‘Okay, we willaccept the position you have taken. We won’t attemptto change the board at all. We’ll allow the status quo’.However, when the bill went to the upper house again,we had feedback that it required further changes to theboard. So there has been another change of position andmore frustration over aspects of the bill which are nownot before the house. The bill does not attempt tochange the nature of the board, therefore there is nosound reason why the opposition should furtherfrustrate this important legislation.

I fully support the legislation. I encourage the LiberalParty and the National Party to review their stance, tosupport the bill and to ensure it has a safe passagethrough the upper house. I trust that the work of ourCFA volunteers and CFA units across the state will beable to be better supported as a result. I fully support thelegislation.

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — I am pleased tohave the opportunity to rise and speak on behalf of theWimmera electorate on the Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. Over the past coupleof years since I have been in this place we have hadmajor fires in western Victoria, particularly in theWimmera electorate at Stawell — some of the biggestfires in country Victoria since Ash Wednesday — andat Laharum, Goroke and this year at Balmoral. Theseevents validate the importance of the 63 000 volunteerswe have in the Country Fire Authority and theimportant role they play.

I turn to the purposes of the bill which are: firstly, tomake changes to the Country Fire Authority Act inregard to the members of the authority; secondly, to theuse of prescribed devices during fire danger periods;and thirdly, to the municipal fire prevention plans.

I pay credit to my colleague, the honourable memberfor Shepparton, who is our responsible spokespersonand who has consulted widely on the legislation. Heconsulted with the Municipal Association of Victoria(MAV), the Victorian Rural Fire Brigades Association;the Victorian Urban Fire Brigades Association;importantly, the Victorian Local GovernanceAssociation; and the Country Fire Authority. He alsospoke with the Shepparton brigade and importantlywith the Victorian Farmers Federation. I have also had

discussions with the members of the Country FireAuthority in the Wimmera electorate.

As we know in relation to the membership of theauthority, the MAV is currently required to nominatecouncillors from rural and urban wards and, now,changes to the criteria now remove that reference. Theother amendment is to remove the requirement for theInsurance Council of Australia to provide two membersand allow the minister to nominate two personsappointed by the Governor in Council — in otherwords, his two nominations.

Overall the National Party does not oppose the thrust ofthe bill, and nor do I. But I think the Liberal Party’samendments highlight the importance of the upperhouse, because they are commonsense amendments. Itis a shame they were not put first in this house. Theyare commonsense amendments because if the insurancecouncil is not to be represented it is important to have arepresentative from the VFF representing thesubstantial communities in our area, particularly inthose areas where wildfires exist — and I highlightedthose in the earlier part of my presentation — so theVFF has a major stake in what happens in fireprevention.

Importantly the other nominations proposed by theLiberal Party relate to the representative from theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry (VECCI), which is also a commonsenseapproach. I see no reason why the minister and thegovernment should not take these amendments onboard and therefore not hold this legislation up goingthrough Parliament.

I will get back to the 63 000 volunteers. As I said, theyplay an important role in our community and we needto ensure that they have appropriate training. Becauseof fires such as the one at Linton and other places weneed to make sure that anyone who works on these fireshas the minimum skills. That has been a very bigchange in process for our Country Fire Authoritymembers. I think they are now accepting that we needto get up to minimum standards, and a lot of traininghas been going on. It is just a shame that some of thegood volunteers who were doing the training werepushed aside for other members who have to drive outfrom Melbourne at large expense to the authority, and Ido not think they truly understand some of the details ofcountry fires. It was a shame to lose the expertise thatour volunteers were available to provide to fellowmembers.

The other important thing is to continue to provide ourvolunteers with appropriate equipment. CFA volunteers

WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS) BILL


have raised concerns with me that the funding of theCFA is under pressure. This has come about because oftwo matters: one is the fire insurance levy and the otheris that they have only been able to survive because ofspecial grants. I am hearing that the replacementprograms — —

Ms Asher interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lupton) — Order!The honourable member for Brighton!

Mr DELAHUNTY — The honourable member forBrighton is a good Essendon supporter, so I will let heroff this time!

I hear the replacement program is being slowed downby the government because of these financial pressures,and that will impact on our volunteers having theappropriate up-to-date equipment to assist them to dothe best they can in country areas.

I am also concerned about private fire appliances. Thisis a difficult one for the government, and we need toensure that we have as many resources as we can tofight fires, particularly the wildfires that occur inwestern Victoria. I know there need to be minimumstandards, and I ask the government to work with theVFF and the CFA volunteers to come up with someminimum standards for private fire appliances.

Dealing with the highlights of the bill, part of it coverspublic safety, which is important. It is not only publicsafety but also property safety that is important, andhere I want to say a big thankyou to the volunteers whoplay an important role in protecting property and peoplein the community. The municipal fire plans are animportant part of the legislation, and on that point Iwant to highlight the concern I have in western Victoriabecause of its many dry lakes.

I was pleased to see the Premier, the Leader of theOpposition and the Leader of the National Partyhighlight in the population debate this morning theimportance of the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, because Ithink it will help fill up some of those dry lakes. TheMinister for Environment and Conservation, who issitting at the table, is well aware of the concerns wehave in western Victoria because of the dry lakes.There has been a great deal of controversy between thecouncils, the catchment management authorities(CMAs), the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (DNRE) and the water authorities aboutwho is ultimately responsible for these dry lakes.

We saw the unfortunate circumstance in Green Lakewhere fairy grass was blowing across the highway and

a fire started because of a bus pulling up in the fairygrass. Luckily the great volunteers of the CFA werethere and were able to protect human safety, becausethere were tennis and cricket players where the fireroared through. They were very lucky that no-one wasbadly injured. Importantly much damage was done toproperty and the Horsham Rural City Council is veryconcerned. I wish I had with me an article from theWimmera Mail-Times highlighting that the council isdisgusted at the approach by the minister, who hasordered only $5000 compensation. Municipal fire plansare important because they mean that not only thecouncils but, DNRE, the CMAs and the waterauthorities need to play a role.

I conclude by saying that I think the amendments putup by the upper house are commonsense amendments.They should be supported by this government and bythe whole of this house. I implore honourable membersto do that at the next opportunity to vote on this issue

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LANGDON(Ivanhoe).

Debate adjourned until later this day.



Message from Council insisting on following amendmentsconsidered:

1. Clause 4, page 3, line 11, after “51(1A)” insert “or51(1B)”.

2. Clause 6, lines 4 to 11 omit all words and expressions onthese lines and insert —

‘(2) In section 8(6) of the Principal Act, after paragraph(c) insert —

“(ca) a restriction or prohibition on the use, otherthan domestic and stock use, of water froma spring or soak or water from a private dam(to the extent that it is not rainwater suppliedto the dam from the roof of a building)contained in an approved management plandrawn up under Division 3 of Part 3 for awater supply protection area; or”.’.

3. Clause 6, after line 11 insert —

“(3) In section 8(6)(d) of the Principal Act for “theprescriptions” substitute “any other prescriptions”


“(k) restrictions or prohibitions on the use, other thandomestic and stock use, of water from a spring orsoak or water from a private dam (to the extent that



it is not rainwater supplied to the dam from the roofof a building);”.

5. Clause 10, page 15, line 15, omit “(k)” and insert “(l)”.

6. Clause 10, page 15, line 17, omit “(l)” and insert “(m)”.

7. Clause 10, page 15, line 22, omit “(m)” and insert “(n)”.

8. Clause 10, page 15, line 30, omit “(n)” and insert “(o)”.

9. Clause 10, page 16, line 4, omit “(o)” and insert “(p)”.


“(14) Sub-section (13) does not apply to acontravention of a kind referred to in section63(1A).”.

11. Clause 19, lines 26 to 33 and page 29, lines 1 to 26, omitall words and expressions on these lines and insert —

“(1A) During the period commencing on 1 February2002 and ending on 31 January 2003, a personmay apply, without payment of an applicationfee, to the Minister for the issue of a registrationlicence to take and use water from a dam on awaterway other than a river, creek, stream orwatercourse for a use other than domestic andstock use.

(1B) If an approved management plan for a watersupply protection area prohibits or restricts theuse of water from a spring or soak or water froma private dam, a person may, during the period of12 months after the approval of that managementplan, apply, without payment of an applicationfee, to the Minister for the issue of a registrationlicence to take and use water from the spring orsoak or water from the dam (to the extent that it isnot rainwater supplied to the dam from the roofof a building or water supplied to the dam from awaterway or bore), for a use other than domesticand stock use.

(1C) Sub-section (1A) only applies, in relation to adam, to a person who at any time during theperiod of 10 years immediately before thecommencement of section 32 of the Water(Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2001 was takingand using water from the dam for a use (otherthan domestic and stock use) for which a licenceunder sub-section (1)(a) is not in force.

(1D) Sub-section (1B) only applies, in relation to aspring, soak or dam, to a person who at any timeduring the period of 10 years immediately beforethe approval of the relevant management planwas taking and using water from the spring orsoak or water from the dam (other than watersupplied to the dam from a waterway or bore) fora use other than domestic and stock use.”.

12. Clause 19, page 29, line 29 omit “(1C)” and insert“(1E)”.

13. Clause 19, page 30, lines 12 to 35, omit all words andexpressions on these lines and insert —

“(ba) in the case of an application under sub-section(1A) in relation to a dam by a person who at anytime during the period of 10 years immediatelybefore the commencement of section 32 of theWater (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2001 wastaking and using water from the dam for a use(other than domestic and stock use), set out themaximum volume of water to be used by theapplicant in each year during the period of thelicence, determined in accordance with thecriteria specified by Order under section 52A;and

(bb) in the case of an application under sub-section(1)(ba) or 1(B) in relation to a spring or soak ordam by a person who, at any time during theperiod of 10 years immediately before theapproval of a management plan for the watersupply protection area for which the applicationis made that prohibits or restricts the use of waterfrom the spring or soak or dam, was taking andusing water from the spring or soak or water fromthe dam (other than water supplied to the damfrom a waterway or bore) for a use other thandomestic and stock use, set out the maximumvolume of water to be used by the applicant ineach year during the period of the licence,determined in accordance with the criteriaspecified by Order under section 52A; and”.

14. Clause 22, lines 18 to 20, omit “the commencement ofsection 32 of the Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act2001” and insert “the approval of a management planunder Division 3 of Part 3 that prohibits or restricts theuse of water from the spring or soak or dam”.

15. Clause 26, lines 23 and 24, omit “licence issued undersection 51(1A)” and insert “registration licence”.

16. Clause 26, lines 31 to 33 and page 38, lines 1 and 2,omit all words and expressions on these lines andinsert —

“51(1A) remains in force for an unlimitedperiod.”.


‘(1) In section 58(1) of the Principal Act, for “51”substitute “51(1)”.’.


‘( ) In section 58(3) of the Principal Act, for “51”substitute “51(1)”.’.

19. Clause 28, lines 21 to 28, omit sub-clause (3).

20. Clause 32, line 24, after “must not” insert “incontravention of an approved management plan for awater supply protection area”.


“(4) If, an approved management plan for a watersupply protection area prohibits or restricts the useof water from a spring or soak or water from a dam



not on a waterway and at any time during theperiod of 10 years immediately before the approvalof the management plan, a person was taking andusing water from the spring or soak or water fromthe dam, sub-section (1A) does not apply in respectof that person in respect of that spring or soak ordam until the end of the period of 12 months afterthe approval of the management plan.”.


“(8) If an approved management plan for a water supplyprotection area prohibits or restricts the use ofwater from a spring or soak or water from a dam(other than water supplied to the dam from awaterway or a bore) for a use other than domesticand stock use, a person who —

(a) at any time during the period of 10 yearsimmediately before the approval of themanagement plan was taking and using waterfrom that spring or soak or water from thatdam (other than water supplied to the damfrom a waterway or a bore, for a use otherthan domestic or stock use; and

(b) before the end of the period of 12 monthsafter the approval of the management planapplies for a licence under section 51(1)(ba)in relation to the spring or soak or dam —

is not liable to pay an application fee in respect ofthe application.”.

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I move:

That amendments 1 to 15 be disagreed with.

I am very pleased indeed to be able to advise the housethat all parties have agreed to a resolution of thislong-running debate about the farm dams issue. Theresolution includes the government’s principles and thesubstance of the proposals that we made last year, andthey are now agreed to. There are some minor changeswhich have been agreed to regarding the transitionarrangements, but these are minor, and the principlesthat all new irrigation and commercial dams will belicensed, that existing ones will be registered and thatthe stream flow management planning process will beplaced into the Water Act have been agreed to.

To go back a little way, during the last sitting ofParliament the government put forward the Water(Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill. This bill was developedfollowing the original Farm Dams Irrigation ReviewCommittee chaired by Don Blackmore of theMurray-Darling Basin Commission, who consultedwidely throughout rural and regional Victoria and put aset of proposals to the government. Following that thegovernment had discussions with both the Liberal Partyand the National Party to ensure the bill met the tests of

equity, fairness and sustainability. That process gaverise to some amendments to our original proposals.Many of those were accepted but some were not. Wewent through a process then in parliamentary debatewhere we saw the Liberal Party change positions two,three or four times — and we are now getting the fourthposition.

The first proposal by the Liberal Party sought toguarantee people access to 3 per cent of the rainfall thatfell on their property. Clearly that was an issue ofprinciple and was rejected. The government does notaccept that sort of position. In the other place theLiberal Party changed that proposal to a second one andthen to a third, and it is the third position that we arefaced with now in this set of amendments we arerejecting. That third position was to limit licensing andregistration decisions to water supply protection areasonly — in other words, to wait until catchments becamestressed before you did anything about it.

The main problem with that amendment was that itfailed to tackle the major issue that the bill was broughtinto this house to address — that is, the need for awaterway determination — and it had been rejected byevery stakeholder outside of this Parliament. Thegovernment has rejected this latest Liberal Partyamendment from the Legislative Council, even thoughit has again been insisted upon.

Then we were facing a stalemate. I believe that theupper house amendments we are considering now wereput together very hastily. They show a lack ofunderstanding and they simply could not work. Theproposed amendments do nothing until the watercatchments and the rivers become stressed, and then itis almost too late. When the system has becomestressed it is then proposed to hand that problem over tothe local community and say, ‘You sort it out’. Clearlythat is not an acceptable process, and that is what thisgovernment is rejecting in these amendments.

Our proposal licenses all users and then provides a highlevel of security. All users will be able to rely on accessto that water. A proper licensing regime is aimed atpreventing overallocation in the first place — we arenot waiting until stress occurs — and managementplans are proposed in those catchments where they arestressed.

The problem with the Liberal Party’s proposals — theupper house proposals that we are now rejecting — isfirst that they perpetuate the water way definitionalproblems. The confusion and controversy that has beencaused and has been out there for years will continue ifwe accept these amendments. The main finding of the



three reports commissioned by the previousgovernment was that allocating water resources in acatchment based on an arbitrary definition of awaterway was simply unworkable. We have had thosethree reports from the previous government and anotherto me, the Blackmore report, which all stressed that thedefinition of a waterway was unworkable, yet that iswhat we are again confronted with in these upper houseamendments — and we are rejecting them.

These amendments would also increase the uncertainlyand risk for businesses. There will continue to beinstances where large off-waterway dams directly affecta neighbour’s water supply. There are many examplesthat I have seen, including in the electorate of theshadow minister for conservation and environment, thatdams built quite legally without a licence directly affecta neighbour where a major investment has been made,and the reliability of and access to that water supplywill be eroded and the investment put at risk. Thatwould continue if we accepted these amendments, andof course there would be an increased cost to business.That occurs when, as I said, a landowner immediatelyupstream faces a risk of reduced supply because of theactions of a neighbour.

We would also see costly disputes between the waterauthorities and the farmers on waterways continuingover waterway determinations. As we have seen, thatleads to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunaland to the courts, resulting in direct costs to thelandowner and endless disputes, so we are rejecting thatproposal once again.

Undoubtedly we need to resolve the problems causedby waterway determinations, provide security andreliability to potential developers and create satisfactoryenvironmental outcomes as well. So the resolution thatwe have now agreed to and are able to bring to thishouse has substantial support from both sides of thehouse and from the Independents as well. I have haddiscussions in recent weeks with the Victorian FarmersFederation (VFF) and other honourable members ofthis house to reach a three-point agreement thatproposes a change to the transitional arrangements but acommitment to the principles.

I am aware that the VFF has written to Liberal Partymembers opposite and in the other house outlining itssuggested circuit-breaker. We have considered itssuggestions and are prepared to make some concessionsto end the stalemate, without compromising the majorprinciple that all water resources in the catchmentshould come under the management regime. Thetransitional package changes which the VFF has soughtand which we have all agreed with included that the

package proposed by the government be raised from10 000 megalitres to 12 500 megalitres, and in order toreach agreement we have agreed to increase that limitto 14 500 megalitres.

The second point proposed by the VFF was that thegovernment developer announce exchange rates thatwould provide equity in trading of water rights betweenthe upper and lower catchments. We have beenworking on those exchange rates and have agreed aswell that the independent audit group established by theMurray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council review thoseexchange rates. So we have agreed to that point as well.The third matter proposed by the VFF is that thegovernment agree to an issue of unlimited-termregistration licences rather than for five-year terms asproposed in the bill. We would prefer five-year termsbut in the interests of agreement we will accept thatunlimited term.

I look forward to the passage of this bill through bothhouses of Parliament with the government’s principlesand substance intact.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McARTHUR(Monbulk).




Message from Council relating to amendments furtherconsidered.

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMs PIKE (Minister for Housing):


Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — There is no doubt thatas a member of Parliament representing a ruralelectorate I have developed an enormous appreciationof the work carried out by Country Fire Authority(CFA) volunteers in my electorate. I could have beenno prouder than when I turned on the television duringthe horrendous fires in New South Wales last Januarythan to see vehicles and personnel from within myelectorate that had been sent to fight those fires. Also, Iwas able to discuss with a person I classify as a veryclose friend his experiences after he had spent timefighting horrendous bushfires in the United States ofAmerica.



All too often we forget that the CFA volunteers are in aleague of their own in that quite often they enter intosituations of extreme danger. When they get called outwe know and understand that they need to leave theirfamilies to go to the fires; and their families know thatthey, as volunteers, answer the call to fight fires andoften put themselves into dangerous situations. When Ihave attended a number of CFA functions in ruralVictoria I have often said that in metropolitan areascareer firefighters are called out to fight fires, but incountry areas the firefighter who is called out may beyour next-door neighbour, your best friend or a familymember. Great camaraderie exists within CFAbrigades.

I know the Liberal Party has been accused by thegovernment of stalling the legislation to the detrimentof CFA volunteers, yet the volunteers I have spoken toin my electorate have said, ‘For heaven’s sake, don’tsell us out to the trade union movement, don’t allow thegovernment to push the legislation through and don’tallow it to stack the CFA board with unionrepresentatives and its hacks’.

The opposition, through the amendments that wouldchange the composition of the CFA board, is trying tohave some form of logic take precedence over what theLabor government proposes to do — that is, that arepresentative from the Victorian Employers Chamberof Commerce and Industry (VECCI) and arepresentative from the Victorian Farmers Federation(VFF) — —

Mr Vogels — Rural Victorians.

Mr MULDER — Yes, rural Victorians who knowand understand some of the situations I have justexplained about what volunteers go through. I cannotfor the life of me understand, unless there is someunderlying mode of deception that the minister wishesto implement, why the government is not prepared toaccept the amendments of the Liberal Party to take onboard, as I said earlier, representatives nominated byVECCI and the VFF with no affiliations with theLiberal Party, as would be the case in appointmentsmade by the minister.

You can imagine what would happen, particularly inlight of what has happened this week with Workcover,when Labor hacks, friends or relatives — you nameit! — with close affiliations with ministers andgovernment members have been thrown into highlypaid jobs. I ask honourable members to imagine whatwould happen if the bill as it stands were to pass so thatthe minister would be placed under pressure from theUnited Firefighters Union (UFU) and other unions and

mates who would be putting up their hands and saying,‘Bang us on the board, forget that we do not have anyconnection with rural Victoria or that we do not haveany expertise in the area. We want to stack the boardand do a final job on volunteers’.

Until now the UFU has given volunteers throughoutcountry Victoria one helluva working over. They seethis as being the absolute death knell. What has notbeen taken into account is the actual cost that would beimposed on the state if the UFU, the minister and theLabor government were successful in what they aretrying to do — that is, totally pull apart the volunteeroperation that now exists in country areas.

As a member of Parliament representing a ruralelectorate, last year I was fortunate to have been takento the Weering fires by a couple of volunteers whooperate in that area. It is a situation of comrades gettingtogether to protect each other’s properties. You may beable to see it on television or spend as much time as youlike reading about it in the newspapers, but you do notappreciate it until you have first-hand experience of abushfire. I saw volunteers rounding up hundreds ofsinged or badly burnt sheep and herding them intogroups so that very young personnel from theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmentcould shoot the sheep while the volunteer firefighterswatched. That was an horrendous experience.

The government continually talks about what a greatcontribution the CFA volunteers make, but when it hasan opportunity, as it has today, to back up its supposedsupport by bringing on board a member of a farmingorganisation from rural Victoria, as the honourablemember for Warrnambool said earlier, and somebodyfrom VECCI to support and take on board the cause ofthe volunteers — and generally to understand how ruralVictoria works, how the CFA volunteer organisationshapes up and the type of support they require, knowingvery well what it would do for them and their morale toknow they had board representatives on the CFA whounderstood their plight, what happens with theirfamilies and homes whenever a major fire breaksout — it resists.

The families see their loved ones go off to fight thosefires. There is always that sense of, ‘How bad is thisfire, will these people come home again?’. The LiberalParty’s amendment is nothing more than a recognitionof the fantastic work that CFA volunteers do.

As to how the two vacancies occurred on the CFAboard, the Insurance Council of Australia has differingpositions on how levies are collected. It believes firelevies should not be collected on fire insurance



premiums, thereby allowing certain sections of thecommunity to avoid paying the levies yet enjoy theprotection afforded by the CFA. They would prefer thatthe municipalities collected the levies on a rate basis sothat each person who has a property would end upcontributing to the CFA levy. That would expand thelevy and more money would be available to be spent onfire protection services.

I am amazed that from time to time the minister appearson television and attacks the Liberal Party bysuggesting it is holding up legislation that will endangervolunteers, whereas in fact the Liberal Party has saidtime and time again that it is more than prepared tosupport the legislation that provides CFA volunteersgreater protection in their day-to-day operations.

But the Liberal Party is not prepared to hand the CFAboard to the trade union movement or to one of theminister’s mates, whom he decides to prop up byhaving him on the CFA board, to sway the boardheavily and give the minister full control of the board.Then the minister would be able to work with his matesin the trade union movement, and we know what wouldhappen then — chaos, with a history of CFA volunteersbeing done over time and time again. The Liberal Partyis not prepared to stand by and let that happen.

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — I rise to supportthe minister and the minister’s motion that theseamendments to the Country Fire Authority(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill be disagreed with. Iregard the Country Fire Authority as a very importantorganisation in Victoria. While I have a city electorateand there are no CFA units in my electorate, I well andtruly understand the importance of the CFA and the63 000 volunteers who are working there. After all, Iam a Victorian, and the Bracks Labor government ishere to govern for all Victorians. It is very importantthat all Victorians understand and pull together,particularly since the last few weeks have been very dryand we saw some larger fires last weekend, although Iunderstand there are always fires and incidents the CFAis looking out for. I was listening to the radio the otherday and heard someone from the CFA pointing out thatthese marvellous volunteers that we have throughoutVictoria are called out to work on smaller fires or spillsvirtually every day or every weekend.

I came to appreciate them when I spent some time outin rural Victoria both as a student and later as a teacherin the Western District and I very much appreciated thework of the units out there. Of course, as many peoplefrom suburban Melbourne do, I have relatives in thecountry. They work with these units, understand thework these volunteers do and the training they

undertake, and go off with their units to other parts ofAustralia when there is a problem to help out there, aswe saw earlier this year with the problems in NewSouth Wales, where the response by Victorian unitswas absolutely magnificent.

As Victorians, we appreciate just how dangerous thisparticular form of volunteering is. It can, as we haveseen, lead to very sad situations of loss of life, becausethere is such dedication among the volunteers of theCFA out there fighting the fires and coping withwhatever situation arises at the local level. On behalf ofmy constituents in Burwood, I appreciate the workthese thousands of volunteers do throughout Victoria inmaking sure this fundamental aspect of safety iscovered throughout the state.

I have some experience in this area work wise: I haveworked for many years on Australia’s overseas aidprogram.

It might seem a little remote from Victoria, but at onestage I was working on programs in Indonesia. Somehonourable members would probably remember theenormous forest fires in Kalimantan in Indonesia,where literally thousands of square miles were underfire, with an enormous smoke haze right throughout theregion. Australian firefighters were there providingadvice and assistance. I came to very much appreciatethe techniques and systems that were used byAustralian firefighters from the rural brigades — theCFA here in Victoria — which could be applied inother countries and other environments. We very muchappreciated the work they performed in Indonesia.

Here in Victoria problems can come very close tohome. I hope that over the next few months we do nothave these sort of problems, because we are nowstarting to have an extended dry spell.

This bill provides for a range of necessary changes. Itprovides, for example, for the banning of gas-firedscatterguns in times of high fire risk. It aims to providefor the strength and enforceability of municipal fireprevention plans and to clarify the availability ofcompensation to all volunteers injured whilefirefighting. These are all very important provisions,which this bill aims to put into state legislation.

I know CFA volunteers have been very much lookingforward to the introduction of this bill, butunfortunately we have struck a bit of a problem. It hasbeen stalled by the Liberal Party and the National Party,particularly in the Legislative Council. Indeed, theyhave sent back six amendments, asking that these beconsidered by the Assembly. As the minister has



foreshadowed, he has already moved that theseamendments be disagreed with. I find it veryunfortunate that the Council has yet again shown that itis not an engine of change but an engine of obstruction.It has shown once again that it is willing to use itsparticular power in the other place to hold up a wholeraft of necessary changes which are desired by CFAmembers, and indeed the authority itself, and whichwill improve their conditions and their ability to fightfires and respond to emergencies.

Rather than that, the opposition is playing politics withthe board of the Country Fire Authority, seeking tosuggest changes as to who should be on the particularpanel and coming up with a range of proposals. Havingsomebody from the Victorian Farmers Federation, forexample, is one of its suggestions, as well as somebody,interestingly enough, from the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry. I must admit Ifind the VECCI proposal particularly interesting. I havenot examined the membership list of VECCI lately, butit does not seem to be necessarily one which is out thereamong the volunteer units. VECCI certainly plays avery important role in the field of commerce here inVictoria, but I wonder what role it might play in thevolunteer units of the CFA. A number of othersuggestions have been made as to who might be on theCFA board.

When this was discussed previously in the Assembly,my understanding was that the minister had alreadymade some suggestions about how it should be handledand even suggested some amendments, but they wererejected out of hand by the Legislative Council. TheCouncil has now added a further three-month delay tothe possible passing of this bill and therefore thepassing into law of the necessary changes that this billaims to implement.

I find it very unfortunate that the Council, half ofwhich, as we know, was elected a long time ago, seems,under the sway of the Liberal Party and the NationalParty, to be very much a force for obstruction, for doingnothing, for having no policies and for stoppingnecessary change and the legislative reform that thisbill, for example, is offering. Indeed, in playing aroundthe margins of organisations like the CFA — and thereare others — the Liberal and National parties in theCouncil have proved to be quite obstructionist — andthe same is true of other bills that have come and arecoming before us this week.

This shows that the Liberal and National Partymembers of the Council do not seem to have theconcerns and needs of the 63 000 volunteers in the CFAat heart. They are looking to play games with the board

and the structure on the management side — it is morethan the management side; it is really the top politicalstructure — rather than looking at what needs to bedone at the operational level.

As we know with any sort of organisation or operation,doing things on the ground is the most importantthing — actually getting things done, getting services tooperate most efficiently and providing the people whowork in those services with the necessary means,processes and organisational structure. Making surethey have the right milieu in terms of regulations toavoid problems is very important. In other words, theseare very much the practical and commonsense sorts ofactivities which are very much needed.

We have a bill which seeks to put these things intoeffect. It aims to enhance public safety, to simplify, forexample, evidentiary provisions regarding total firebans, and to ensure that municipal councils approvetheir fire prevention plans and the CFA is allowed toaudit them. There are very practical, organisationalmatters which have to be put in place.

What are the Liberal Party and the National Partyseeking to do about this? Instead of giving 63 000volunteers the wherewithal to conduct their business, toenhance fire safety in rural and regional Victoria andthe outskirts of Melbourne — there are many CFAswithin metropolitan Melbourne — and to run theiroperations effectively, they are basically putting a stopto this for many months while they say, ‘We wantso-and-so on the board’, or ‘We want so-and-sorepresented from somewhere else on the board’, ratherthan looking at the heart of the matter, which is theoperations of the Country Fire Authority.

They seem to be more concerned about the umbrellastructure of the organisation than about theon-the-ground application of procedures and ensuringthat the actual operating mechanisms run efficiently.

The bill also, for example, seeks to clarify the fireprotection responsibilities of local councils and theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment. Itis very important to clarify such responsibilities so thatwhen it comes to the on-the-ground activities, thepeople who are out there — the 63 000 volunteers —know what they are doing, know what theirresponsibilities are and know what the responsibilitiesof other organisations are. This bill seeks to clarifywhat has to be done.

What have we seen from the Liberal and Nationalparties in the Legislative Council? We have seen themdo nothing and stand for nothing. They just want to



play politics with the board — and playing boardpolitics is pretty typical of them. Here they are from thetop end of town, used to being on the boards ofcorporations, handling the 63 000 CFA volunteers as ifthey were BHP!

We are dealing with the lives of volunteers who workhard on the ground. We are not dealing with theboardrooms in Collins Street, we are dealing withpeople out there in the bush — and we are looking tomake these things work for them. We are also aimingthrough this bill to look after all CFA volunteers and toclarify their entitlements to compensation. Don’t theLiberal Party and the National Party care about lookingafter the 63 000 volunteers? Don’t they want to lookafter volunteers who happen to get injured? What arethe opposition parties doing? If they were reallyconcerned about volunteers who are injured they wouldhave passed this bill, and issues about the board’scomposition could have been looked at later on. But no,here we are, still talking about the very important issueof volunteer compensation.

The CFA regards this issue as very important, becauseit affects the wellbeing of its 63 000 volunteers andtheir families; and although many volunteers comefrom the same families, we are talking about manythousands of families. It is important that we make surethat the procedures for compensating injured CFAvolunteers are clarified and that any doubt about theavailability of such compensation is removed.

The Labor Party fundamentally looks after the smallpeople, and that is what we are doing with this bill —looking after ordinary people. We are not looking afterthe boardrooms of Collins Street; we are out therelooking after the 63 000 volunteers and their families.We want to make sure the CFA organisation workswell on the ground, which is why it is important that theprovisions in this bill are passed.

What would happen if it were dry for another month ortwo and problems sprang up around Easter time? Wedo not want this to happen, of course, but what wouldhappen if we had another Good Friday incident and thisbill had not been passed by the Liberal Party or theNational Party? These things would be left in abeyance,and the 63 000 volunteers would not be looked after.The Liberal Party and the National Party would onceagain have failed in their duty of care to all Victorians,in particular to rural and regional Victorians. We knowthey have failed rural and regional Victorians often inthe past, and they are still failing them by proposingthese amendments and not passing this bill.

The people in rural and regional Australia know whostands for them, and the people in rural and regionalVictoria know that in putting forward this particular billthe Labor Party stands for them, beside them, with themand as them. Rural and regional Victorians know thatthe Labor Party supports them through this bill as itdoes through so many activities in rural and regionalVictoria.

This bill is a litmus test of support for the 63 000 CFAvolunteers. The Liberal and National Party members ofthe Legislative Council have failed that test and, onceagain, failed it very badly. Insofar as the Liberal andNational parties continue to pursue these amendmentsin this house, they are again failing rural and regionalVictoria and the 63 000 volunteers of the Country FireAuthority. The sad and sorry Liberal and Nationalparties are continuing to fail Victorians.

Mr MACLELLAN (Pakenham) — We have justheard from the honourable member for Burwood thesuggestion that Liberal and National Party members donot really care for volunteers. I suppose we should atfirst glance accept that that was a serious comment, thathe was not just making a political comment, that hereally believes what he says in the house and that all theconcern for volunteers rests with the honourablemember for Burwood, who I imagine does not have aCountry Fire Authority (CFA) group in his electorate.

Ms Gillett interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN — As the honourable memberfor Werribee says so tellingly, that is — to quote her —beside the point. In other words, according to thehonourable member for Werribee, it is beside the pointwhether you have a CFA group in your electorate, andit is an unfair criticism to make of the honourablemember for Burwood that he alone exemplifies theunderstanding of and the care and concern for the63 000 volunteers who make the CFA an effectivefirefighting force in the outer suburbs of Melbourne andin rural and regional Victoria.

His deep and abiding knowledge of the work of theCFA was compounded by the fact that he decided torefer to the tragedy of Ash Wednesday, which, as youknow, Mr Acting Speaker, was concentrated not only inthe Macedon area but also in the area that I represent —in particular Cockatoo and Beaconsfield Upper —where hundreds of homes were destroyed and where,but for the volunteers, even more lives would have beenlost.

Apparently the honourable member for Burwood is theonly one who understands these issues. He is the only



one who cares about the volunteers. He is the only onewho has the sensitivity and the understanding to knowwhat the volunteers of the CFA really want. Apparentlyas a member of the opposition and as a member of theLiberal Party — and if our National Party friends wereinvolved in the debate at the moment they would haveto do the same — I have to hang my head in shame andsay, ‘Here we are merely playing politics with thissensitive and creative issue’.

What we want to do is to get the message across tomembers of the government after a couple of years thatthe way forward is by discussion and compromise.Apparently they are under the misapprehension that theLegislative Council will not amend bills and that theLegislative Council will not take a stance on an issueand send amendments to us in the LegislativeAssembly. It is quite clear from the debate both todayand earlier in the week that many parts of this bill areagreeable to all sides of the house.

I do not think there is any reason why we should notsee those parts of the bill advance. The difficulty wehave is that the government is proposing to reject someamendments made by the Legislative Council and ismaking some pathetic effort to blame somebody else.The minister did that before the end of last year whenhe issued his press releases saying the Liberal andNational parties were holding up the bill and it wouldmake all the difference in the coming fire season. Latelast year we had the scare campaign, the effort to tryand unsettle the members of the Country Fire Authorityby saying that because the bill was being amended thefire season would be more difficult to deal with.

Now, as we are on the brink of Easter and hopefully anautumn break — if we are lucky enough to have one —there will be less fire danger, so the government istrying to think of new reasons why amending the bill isan absolute affront to CFA volunteers. They have comeup with the idea that they alone are the caring, sharingLabor Party with respect to volunteers.

I would have thought that with the imminent departurefrom the Labor Party of Mr Marshall, the secretary ofthe firefighters union, they might have had a rathermore refreshed attitude about the matter. But apparentlybecause he has not yet resigned they are still stuck inthe mode of, ‘You do what we say or nothing’. Isuppose if that is the case it is time the government wasgiven a rather bloodied nose over the matter by theLegislative Council. What the other place should do isinsist on its amendments and see if it can make someadvisory moves to give the government anunderstanding that it takes two houses to passlegislation; it takes compromise and discussion.

Unfortunately, as the honourable member for Werribeewould be well aware, the Minister for Police andEmergency Services is a minister with whom it isintensely difficult to have a rational discussion. I amsure she would have found how difficult it is to have arational discussion with the Minister for Police andEmergency Services, as would many other members ofthis house. He does not seem to understand that he canhave 90 per cent of the bill but he cannot have the bitthat would give him control of the CFA board. That isthe understanding that is missing. The honourablemember for Burwood does not understand that he canhave all the bill excepting the bit about the ministerhaving control of the CFA board. It is something whichCFA volunteers understand. They understand that theopposition and the National Party together have takenthe stand that they are not prepared to allow the CFAboard to be appointed by the minister.

We heard from the honourable member for Burwoodwhat I suppose was his view about theinappropriateness of the involvement of the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry.Apparently he also has some view that the distancefrom Melbourne, the attempt to get representativesfrom broader rural and regional Victoria rather thansimply having a couple of outer suburbanrepresentatives, is an inappropriate move. I suppose heis, in effect, rejecting the Legislative Council andrejecting the idea that a Labor government cannot doexactly what it wants.

Perhaps he is used to a more authoritarian tradition inwhich a single leader gives directions down the line andeverybody snaps to, but that is not the parliamentarytradition. The parliamentary tradition is that inevitablythere are compromises to be made. If you want your billand you want to get the provisions of the bill, you seekaccommodation with those who might have a differentview. You do not just say that all the good is on oneside and all the evil on another. You do not say that theLegislative Council ought not to be there. Wishing itaway will not see it go.

As a former Labor Premier of this state said to me at theCaulfield races, ‘The government seems not to knowwhat power is about. It doesn’t seem to know that youwill only get constitutional reform in Victoria bycompromise — discussion first and compromise’. Thiswas the Premier who conducted an eight-monthdiscussion with the National and Liberal parties andachieved a constitutional settlement which the presentgovernment now wants to change.

He was intensely proud of his willingness to be flexibleand his willingness to argue — and it was not always



positive. It did not always go in just one direction.Sometimes for internal reasons there was backtrackingby one party or the other but, in the end, goodwill, goodsense and compromise won out.

It seems that at the two-year mark this government stillhas not learnt compromise. I can only suggest that itsmembers read that former Premier’s biography. Somany of them seem not to have read John Cain’s bookbecause they seem to have missed the lesson itcontains.


Mr MACLELLAN — There is one uneducatedone. She probably thinks I am recommending the seniorJohn Cain’s book, but I am not. I mean the most recentJohn Cain, the one you might have met.

Ask him for a copy of his book. Just borrow one andread it and see the messages that are there for you,because the messages are all about how Laborgovernments get derailed. There are also messages tobe learnt about how progress can be made, how we canevolve reasonable steps forward which do not includegiving the Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesthe power to stack the CFA board. If that means that thescatterguns and the other provisions do not go forward,I suppose that is what happens.

If the government wants to be stubborn and silly aboutit, that will be the outcome. It looks to me as if thehonourable member for Burwood was telling us, if Iread him correctly — and of course he does not haveany CFA services in his electorate — that that is justthe silly sort of thing the government intends to do. Itwould rather not have the bill if it cannot have thepower to stack the CFA board. That is its choice. It isthe government. What the government cannot expect isthat the opposition and the National Party are going tofall in a heap and say: to get the scattergun provisionswe will let you stack the board. It is not going tohappen.

Mr Spry interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Pakenham should ignoreinterjections.

Mr MACLELLAN — Not only ignoreinterjections, but ignore the people making them, Isuppose. Because the honourable member for Bellarineis such a distinguished member of this house I naturallypaused to listen very carefully — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!He is also out of his place and disorderly.

Mr MACLELLAN — I think it is all the moreimportant that we should listen because, as I wassaying, we must listen, we must discuss and we mustcompromise. There is no real chance, I think, that bylistening, discussing and compromising, we are goingto find a mechanism for giving the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services, of all people, the power tomake appointments to the CFA board and expect that63 000 volunteers are going to be happy with that. Thesignal we are getting from the volunteers is that theywould prefer not to have the minister appoint the board.They would prefer to have a board which isindependent of the government and which reflects that.


Mr MACLELLAN — Do you have a problem? Ithought you might have a problem with an independentboard. I thought you might have a problem with CFAmembers expressing — —


Mr MACLELLAN — It has been independent.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The contribution in this debate is supposedly comingfrom the honourable member for Pakenham. Themember on my right has had her opportunity on aprevious occasion. I ask the honourable member toignore interjections from across the chamber. Thehonourable member for Pakenham, without assistance!


Mr MACLELLAN — I am sure the honourablemember for Gisborne, who is still interjecting,Mr Acting Speaker, does not need to have the answer tothe question, but the answer is that it was introduced sothat if an organisation refused or failed to makeappointments, then the minister could makeappointments.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!I remind the honourable member for Gisborne that shehas made her contribution to this debate and I wouldask her to cease interjecting.

Mr MACLELLAN — She makes such wonderfuland intelligent contributions to the debate that I thinkshe should be encouraged. She is another one of theonly people in the house that have a grasp of the



situation! She is one of these rare creatures that has thisdeep and penetrating understanding of things. Not onlythat, she has this wonderful ability to point out theshallowness of other people, how they do notunderstand as deeply and intuitively as she does.


Mr MACLELLAN — The honourable membernow says that I choose to mislead. I was not misleadingthe honourable member. I was simply saying that in myview the opposition does not wish the minister to makethe appointments; that if the government wants theother parts of the bill there is a need to compromise;and that the bill is unlikely to proceed with a power forthe minister to make appointments, because thisparticular minister does not have the confidence of theCFA volunteers to enable him to make theappointments while leaving them with the feeling that itis their organisation.

In other words, putting it frankly, neither the oppositionnor the National Party trusts this government. Toomany appointments reflect untalented people who comefrom the right faction, branch or background and arenot associated with independence. I think the CFA andits volunteers are looking to the opposition to take astand on the matter. I see the bill disappearing, becausethere seem to be signals from the government that if itdoes not get what it wants it would rather lose it.

If I asked the CFA volunteers in my area whether theywanted a board appointed by the minister the answerwould be no. It would be no, whether it was a LiberalParty minister or a Labor Party minister.


Mr MACLELLAN — The honourable member forGisborne is again saying, ‘Rubbish!’, because she doesnot believe the CFA volunteers in my area would saythey do not want a Liberal Party minister appointing theCFA board. I suggest she might one day go and askthem. When asked the direct question, ‘Would you likeeither a Liberal Party minister or a Labor Party ministerto appoint the CFA board?’, the answer from the CFAvolunteers is, ‘No, we would like an independentboard’. The honourable member for Gisborne hastrouble with that concept, because she is used to theidea that she is in government and that what she wantshappens. She has no appreciation or understanding thatcompromise, let alone compromise with another place,is essential for the progress of the bill.

All I can say is that the honourable members forGisborne and Burwood and the minister will have tolearn that one of the things that is needed as part of the

parliamentary process is that the Legislative Assemblyand the Legislative Council agree. On this occasionthere is strong disagreement. There does not seem to beany effort to try to reach the middle ground, and itseems that a stance will be made on both sides — fromthe government, saying no to the bill; and from theopposition, saying no to the minister’s power to stackthe CFA board.

Ms GILLETT (Werribee) — It is my distinct andunique pleasure to follow my colleague the honourablemember for Pakenham in this debate on the CountryFire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Iknew that if I lived long enough I would hear memberson the other side who had been part of the Kennettgovernment lecture this government on discussion andcompromise being the only ways to get what you want.It is beyond belief their saying that only by discussionand compromise is a government able to achieve itsagenda!

We cannot afford to lose our sense of humour in thisplace, so I guess there was discussion and compromisewhen 100 000 unionists marched up Bourke Street andthe Kennett government listened to them. Itcompromised and discussed? No! I guess it wasdiscussion and compromise that came from theprevious Premier when he decided that the best place toput a toxic dump was in Werribee. Of course helistened and he compromised — not one iota! So tohear my colleague the honourable member forPakenham talk about discussion and compromise beingthe only ways for a government to achieve itsobjectives I find remarkable and laudable, as well as themost dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus Ihave ever seen or read about anywhere in my entire life.I applaud him for the life-changing approach that hasovercome him.

I only wish it could also overcome some of hiscolleagues in the upper house, who, on the contrary, arenot interested in discussion and compromise. Indeedthey criticise this government roundly for its capacity todiscuss, listen and engage with the Victoriancommunity. The upper house is not interested indiscussion or compromise. It is interested in having itsown way. Upper house opposition members areinterested in asserting their rights — some strangenotion of a born-to-rule right — to dictate to agovernment what it can and cannot do.

The Country Fire Authority (MiscellaneousAmendments) Bill is a terrific piece of legislation. Asmy colleague, the honourable member for Burwood,indicated before the honourable member for Pakenham



made his contribution, some 63 000 volunteers areaffected by various aspects of it.

I think I have recovered sufficiently from the discourseof the honourable member for Pakenham on discussionand compromise being the road to success to talk a littleabout the bill, why it is so important and why the issuethat seems to be obsessing opposition members of theupper house is really trivial and minor and ought to beforgotten about.

The board as it is now constituted is not being changedin any massive or sinister way. The Attorney-Generalappoints judges and the judiciary remains independent,and there is no reason that the same principle cannotflow to appointments to the board of the Country FireAuthority (CFA). I find the argument that the ministerwill directly interfere and put his or her own people intopositions a bit difficult to cope with. For seven years theKennett government had no checks and balancesattached to it and had no imperative to discuss orcompromise with anybody — and as a consequence itdid not.

On the other hand, this government has a powerful setof disciplines that require it — even if by nature it wasnot inclined — to discuss and compromise, which it is.But even if it was not, it operates in an environmentwhere it has a hostile upper house, where it mustcooperate, listen, discuss, compromise and meet theneeds of three important Independent members ofParliament. So I reject the notion that the government issomehow untrustworthy and cannot be trusted to makeappropriate appointments. The Attorney-General hasmade some fine appointments to the judiciary, and thejudiciary remains independent.

The bill does a number of important things. One majoraspect is that it is designed to enhance public safety. Itis designed to simplify the evidentiary provisionsregarding total fire ban days for court proceedings. TheCFA regards this as an important amendment to assistwith total fire ban prosecutions. The amendments willallow the chief executive officer of the CFA to sign acertificate certifying that a total fire ban day wasdeclared on a particular day. That certificate will thenbe taken as evidence in a court that there was a total fireban on the day recorded on it. It is simple andstraightforward and is an important improvement. Atpresent the original declaration of a total fire ban day isrequired, and this gives rise to difficulties whenprosecutions are occurring simultaneously at differentlocations in the state. In the past some prosecutions forlighting fires on a total fire ban day have failed becauseof the unavailability of the original certificate.

The second major aspect of the reforms in the billrequires municipal councils to approve their municipalfire prevention plans and allow the CFA to audit suchplans. The legislation takes a proactive approach to givecouncils and the CFA a better set of workingarrangements one with other. The CFA regards this asan important amendment to promote and prioritise fireprevention planning in local councils. The amendmentwill further expand the importance of the municipal fireprevention plan by requiring councils to formallyapprove such plans and any amendments to them. Theamendment is seen as an important community safetyaction by raising the status of rapid communityresponse plans and ensuring that preparedness of thelocal community for events involving fire are given ahigh priority.

The third aspect of the bill is its capacity to clarify thefire protection responsibilities between councils and theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment.The CFA regards this as an important amendment toensure that the act is clear on these areas ofresponsibility for municipal councils and DNRE. Atpresent the act is unclear on the power of councils todevelop fire prevention plans which cover land whichDNRE is responsible for managing. The amendmentwill provide clarification of a council’s power byclearly stating that councils are only empowered todevelop fire prevention plans in areas which are notcontrolled by DNRE. The act already requiresmunicipal fire prevention committees which areresponsible for land adjacent to DNRE land to have aDNRE representative on their committees.

One of the most important aspects of the bill deals withprovisions for volunteer compensation. This part of thebill attempts to clarify the entitlement of all CFAvolunteers to compensation. The amendment is neededto ensure that all CFA members, including applicants,have access to compensation if they are injured whileacting as a CFA member. Obviously the CFA regardsthis as a critical amendment because the wellbeing ofvolunteers and their families is fundamental to theongoing success of CFA operations. This amendmentwill address any doubt that may remain about theavailability of compensation to applicant volunteers andmembers, those who have newly joined the CFA buthave yet to have their applications officially acceptedbut who may suffer injury or damage while they arefighting fires. The act is currently unclear on the statusof applicant members and this amendment will providecertainty that applicant volunteers, often young people,and members are afforded the same compensationprotection as other fully appointed members.



One of the final aspects of the bill is to make provisionfor improved fire safety regulation. The bill aims toprovide extra regulation-making powers to prescribeand impose restrictions on certain devices like gasscatterguns in times of high fire danger. Thesegas-powered scatterguns are frequently used to scarebirds in orchards, vineyards or other rural or regionalareas. In times of extreme fire danger these devices canpose a significant fire risk. This amendment will allowregulations to be made that may require certain safetymeasures to be taken if these appliances are used duringa fire danger period. The provision will allow forvarious farm devices to be prescribed in the regulationsand their use in a restricted manner that will minimiseany potential fire risk in times of high fire danger. Thedevices will be prescribed only after consultation withindustry groups and the wider farming community. It isfurther testament to the capacity of this government todiscuss, compromise and get things right by talking topeople who are directly involved.

The bill originally proposed to replace two InsuranceCouncil of Australia members on the CFA board withministerial nominees. This appointment method wouldhave been completely consistent with current practiceand was provided at the request of the InsuranceCouncil of Australia (ICA). The opposition opposed theproposal and, as a result, the bill was amended by thegovernment in the lower house to reinstate the statusquo.

However, the opposition then opposed the amended billin the upper house after the Assembly had risen. Itreintroduced the board structure issues and amended thebill to delete the two existing ICA positions from theboard and replace them with one from the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry andthe other from the Victorian Farmers Federation. Thisdelayed the required public safety improvements andvolunteer compensation changes, creating completelyunnecessary delays and problems with the CFA, andmore importantly, unnecessary and totally unacceptablerisks for the community and Country Fire Authorityvolunteers.

The five aspects of the bill that I have just covered areimportant matters for the CFA. They have significantimplications for its operational effectiveness, andimportantly, for public safety. Debate about the board isreally best addressed as a separate issue because of theinevitable controversy it involves across a broadcross-section of community stakeholders. This issueshould not be allowed to hold up the five importantchanges that the CFA needs through this current pieceof legislation.

It is important for me to pay tribute to our volunteerbrigades, as the honourable member for Pakenham didbecause he looks after a growth corridor just as I do.This piece of legislation is actually trying to look afterthose volunteer brigades, care for them and indicate thatwe want them protected in every sort of way.

I am privileged to have five CFA brigades operatingwithin the boundaries of the current state seat ofWerribee — the Truganina fire brigade; the Little Riverfire brigade; the Werribee CFA brigade, which is theoldest in my area; the Hoppers Crossing fire brigade,amongst the newest and the most dynamic; and a littleCFA brigade at Wyndam Vale, which is growing veryquickly.

We are privileged to have waiting lists in each of thosebrigades for volunteers. We are also privileged as acommunity to have young people, women andmembers of all cultural and ethnic backgroundsrepresented in those brigades.

People need to know and understand, and probablyhave it publicly said, that CFA brigades do much morefor a community than look after it in times of firedanger. CFA brigades, certainly in Melbourne’s outermetropolitan ring and into rural and regional areas ofVictoria, are important community structures as well.They are part of a community-building infrastructurethat is invaluable in growing communities, becauseskills are learnt in a CFA brigade and friendships aremade not just between individuals but betweenfamilies. I know that in the Werribee and HoppersCrossing brigades there are families whose children andgrandchildren are in the same brigade as their mumsand dads or grandmas and grandpas, and it is a fantasticthing to see.

I would find it a terrible waste and a great shame if theobsession of the upper house members with somebizarre view that the minister is trying to rule theuniverse through making two appointments to the CFAboard rendered them incapable of seeing the enormousbenefit that this piece of legislation will have for ourcommunities that are served by CFA brigades. Thelegislation also gives important recognition to CFAvolunteers, who heaven only knows do a fantastic jobfor us every day of the week, even if there are not firesto be put out.

With those few remarks I commend the bill in thischamber and wish it a safe and speedy passage in theother place, where I hope that good sense andcommonsense will prevail.



Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill) — It seems to methat we have been down this path before. The LaborParty has always been trumpeting its view that theLegislative Council should act as a house of review,that it does not and because it does not it should beabolished, reconstructed or changed in some way. Butthe reality is that when the Legislative Council does actas a house of review the Labor Party hates the wholeidea, calls it obstructionist and regards it asunrepresentative because it is not dominated by theLabor Party. The reason the Legislative Council is notdominated by the Labor Party is that the Labor Partydid not get enough votes!

Ms Beattie — Who has your seat?

Mr RICHARDSON — It is not the Labor Partythat has my seat, I will tell you! The fact is that in thecase of this bill the Legislative Council has acted as theLabor Party says it should, as a house of review.

I am so pleased the honourable member for Gisborne ishere. I will be looking forward to this. This will be nice;this will be lovely. If I flag at all, will the honourablemember say something, and get me — —


Mr RICHARDSON — Yes, just crank it up.

The Labor Party is now upset because the LegislativeCouncil has acted as it has always said it should — thatis, as a house of review. It has reviewed the flawedlegislation that has come forward from the Laborgovernment and has found there is one component of itwith which it does not agree. It does not agree with thatcomponent which would enable the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services to appoint two members of theCountry Fire Authority (CFA) board, because quitefrankly it does not trust this government. We do nottrust that minister to act in the best interests of theCountry Fire Authority. Rather, we believe he will actin the best interests of the United Firefighters Union.

It is curious that the minister has this link with the UFUwhen the secretary of the union has just given the LaborParty the flick. He is going to leave and has threatenedto take the whole union with him, along with DeanMighell and the Electrical Trades Union. So it is allstarting to get a bit schizophrenic over there, and youhave to work out what you are going to do with theUnited Firefighters Union. That is the problem.

With all of the other components of the legislation wehave no objection. They are eminently sensible, andthere is just that one component. The honourablemember for Burwood — that charismatic and imposing

figure — suggested there was something curious aboutthe view that the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry should be approached toprovide a member of the board, along with theVictorian Farmers Federation, and he spoke as if theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry only inhabited the boardrooms of CollinsStreet and the big end of town, which shows that he hasnot been out of town much himself. There arebusinesses operating, there are shops and factories andthere are people who belong to the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry in rural andregional Victoria — the very place where the CountryFire Authority has the responsibility of protecting theircommunities.

So it is eminently sensible that the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry should beinvolved in the board activities of the Country FireAuthority. And since the Country Fire Authority fightsmost of its fires on farmland, it also seems to meeminently sensible for the Victorian Farmers Federationto have a representative on the board.

We are talking here about representatives on the boardof the CFA. We are opposed to a suspect minister in asuspect government having the power to appoint peoplehe chooses to an important board of this kind. Webelieve the board should be representative and take intoaccount the interests of all the players who have a stakein the reason for the Country Fire Authority’s existence.It should not be something a Labor minister canmanipulate to serve his own interests or those ofparticular trade union groups.

Let it be made quite clear that the United FirefightersUnion has been trying to knock off the volunteers foryears and years. The UFU sees this as its greatopportunity. With a suspect minister and a suspectgovernment stumbling from day to day, this is thechance! And the minister, of course, said, ‘We’ve got aproblem with the United Firefighters Union. This is mychance to try and stitch something up with them’. It isall starting to fall into place. The outcome, of course,would be the domination of the CFA board by peoplewhose interest is in changing forever the structure of theCountry Fire Authority, because to them the volunteersare the enemy.

Just as we found during the previous Laborgovernment — those disgraceful years of Cain andKirner — volunteers of any kind were the enemy.Those two Labor governments during the 1980s and1990s did everything they could to underminevolunteerism. It was very curious during theInternational Year of Volunteers that we had the Labor



Party jumping up and down saying what great workvolunteers were doing and wasn’t volunteerism such awonderful thing when during the Cain and Kirner yearsthe union-dominated Labor government did everythingit could to undermine volunteerism and put in its placepaid union members to do the jobs that volunteers hadbeen doing so willingly and effectively for so manyyears.

Not surprisingly during that period the public service,the people on the public payroll, increased at a rategreater than the increase for the entire nation. That iswhat they are after. That is what is really behind theproposition now before the house and which was beforethe Legislative Council. The Legislative Council sawthrough it and said yes, the bill as a whole is fine,except for that bit that allows this minister in thisgovernment to appoint two people to the board of theCountry Fire Authority. The authority is too special andtoo precious to become the plaything of somebody likeAndré Haermeyer. It has served the community toolong for us to allow this to happen. The 63 000volunteers who risk their lives and sometimes lose theirlives are too special to be placed in jeopardy of thiskind.

So the government has a choice. It can follow theadvice of the honourable member for Pakenham, whohas served in this place for slightly longer than I haveand has seen governments and ministers come and go.He has seen change and continuity, and he gave somesensible advice to the government — that is, that youcannot achieve your objectives by bluff and bluster andconfrontation all the time. If you want to achieve anobjective when there is some disagreement, you need totalk about it with the person who is disagreeing. But allthis government has done is to shout ‘Obstructionism!’.It appears it has chosen to lose all its legislation unlessit can have all that it wants. It appears that it is notprepared to engage in further discussion on the stickingpoint, which is the unacceptability of a suspect ministerand a suspect government having the power to appointmembers to the Country Fire Authority board. That iswhat it is about. If there can be some movement on that,there is every possibility of the entire thing beingagreed to.

Unless the government is prepared to follow the wisecounsel of the honourable member for Pakenham it willnot achieve its objective. It will do a great disservice tothe CFA; and it will do a great disservice to people inrural and regional Victoria.

I remind the government that its responsibility is not todo disservice to the people, but to serve, and serve well,the people it was elected to serve. If it persists on its

present course it will be doing a grave disservice ratherthan providing good and faithful service.

Ms LINDELL (Carrum) — It gives me greatpleasure to contribute to debate on the Country FireAuthority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It is animportant piece of legislation for my constituents inCarrum, who have been serviced over many decades byfine Country Fire Authority units at Edithvale, Chelseaand Carrum. I certainly would like recorded myappreciation and the appreciation of the community Ihave the honour to represent of the volunteers in theCFA units who are so much a part of my localcommunity and who give many hours of their leisuretime and the time of their families to provide the mostexcellent service possible.

The responsibility of those of us who legislate is toensure as much as possible that we provide for the CFAthe very safest conditions possible. The legislationattempts to do that by banning the use of gas-firedscatterguns at times of high fire risk; by strengtheningthe enforceability of municipal fire prevention plans;and by clarifying the availability of compensation to allvolunteers injured while firefighting.

We have a grave responsibility. In my electorate themunicipal reorganisation left quite a complexarrangement, where the northern part of the City ofKingston is covered by the Metropolitan Fire Brigadewhile the southern part is covered by the CFA. Whenthe commissioners came into office they had no ideasabout a municipal fire plan. South of the MordiallocCreek we still struggle to have the municipal authorityreact and be responsive to the needs of the CFA; it is avery difficult area. The bill was to be passed to help theCFA and to promote and prioritise its fire preventionplans in local council.

My contribution will be brief. As I said, I particularlyexpress my appreciation and that of my localcommunity to the CFA units at Edithvale, Carrum andChelsea.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr ROWE(Cranbourne).


SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBAN AND REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION MANAGING DIRECTOR


SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBANAND REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Assembly ministers

Message received from Council seeking concurrence withresolution.

Council’s resolution:

The Legislative Council requests that the LegislativeAssembly grant leave to the Honourable S. P. Bracks, MP,Premier of Victoria, the Honourable J. W. Thwaites, MP,Deputy Premier of Victoria and Minister for Health, and theHonourable J. M. Brumby, MP, Treasurer, to attend, if theythink fit, to be examined as witnesses, and give evidencebefore the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on theUrban and Regional Land Corporation managing director andanswer questions in relation to the committee’s terms ofreference.

Mr HULLS (Attorney-General) — By leave, Imove:

That this house refuses to consent to the honourable ministersappearing before the select committee of the LegislativeCouncil on the Urban and Regional Land Corporationmanaging director.

This upper house inquiry is a sham. It is a StarChamber and it already has a predetermined outcomebecause, as we well know, in January last the Leader ofthe Opposition gave to this inquiry its ridinginstructions. He made it clear that the upper houseinquiry had to find somebody guilty of something; infact, on the Neil Mitchell program the Leader of theOpposition said that the process was dodgy: it showedthat the Premier lied to the people of Victoria. He said,‘Let’s have an inquiry to find out if that is the case’.The fact is he has already indicated what thepredetermined outcome of any inquiry is and hasdecided to set up a sham inquiry to try to give somecover of credence to his outrageous accusations.

Not only is the upper house inquiry a sham, but theprocess to set it up was without precedent and totallyinappropriate. As we know, when normal inquiries areset up — if they are fair dinkum — they will have amember of one party as the chair and a member ofanother party as the deputy chair. What has happenedwith this inquiry is that it is being chaired by theHonourable Neil Lucas, a member of the Liberal Party,and the deputy chair — despite the fact that the LaborParty nominated members to be deputy chair of thecommittee — is the Honourable Roger Hallam. Theyhave breached all relevant precedents in relation to thesetting up of this particular inquiry.

Further, and it is already on the public record,statements have been made by me and others in relationto the fitness of the chair of this inquiry to be in thatposition.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Inote you already have the standing orders in yourhands; I am sure you have been listening to theAttorney-General’s speech and are having the samethoughts — that is, there is a prohibition on anymember of this house casting aspersions on a memberof the other house. As you would have heard, theAttorney-General has commenced to go down thatpath. I ask you to bring him back to order and preventhim flouting standing orders in that way.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the honourable member forDoncaster but I bring to the attention of the housestanding order 97, which states:

No member shall use offensive words against either house ofParliament; nor against any statute, unless for the purpose ofmoving for its repeal.

I ask the Attorney-General not to offend against thatstanding order.

Mr HULLS — I certainly will not cast anyaspersions on any individual members of the upperhouse, save to say that the entire upper house is anabsolute blight on democracy in this state. Forgoodness’ sake — in what other job in Australia do youonly have a performance review every eight years!

So what we now have is an unrepresentative upperhouse conducting a mickey mouse witch-hunt into anappointment that never went ahead. The establishmentof this select committee is an abuse of the power of theLegislative Council, a place that has become aretirement village for village idiots! Talking aboutcryogenics, one might describe it as a cryogenicchamber — —

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,there is a possibility that you were distracted by seekinga book to find a precedent, but I rely on the fact thatyou would have at least heard in part theAttorney-General describe the other place as a place ofvillage idiots. I suggest to you that he has breachedstanding orders applicable in relation to references tothe other place, and that you should bring him to order.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am of the opinion thatthe Attorney-General is using offensive words againstthe upper house, and I ask him to withdraw thoseparticular words and refrain from doing so.




The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to cooperate by not interjecting.

Mr HULLS — I certainly withdraw the commentthat the upper house is a retirement village for villageidiots, because I was actually referring only to coalitionmembers!

The SPEAKER — Order! It has to be anunequivocal withdrawal.

Mr HULLS — I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Proof of the fact that this inquiry is nothing other than apolitical witch-hunt is not only that the commentsalready made by the Leader of the Opposition pre-emptthe outcome of this inquiry, but also the fact that theupper house did not conduct an inquiry in seven yearsunder the Kennett regime. Worse than that, it did notamend any legislation in seven years. It was nothingmore than a rubber stamp under the Kennett regime!

Mr Perton — On a point of order on the question ofrelevance, Mr Speaker, this is a debate on a motionmoved by the Attorney-General himself that this houserefuses to consent to ministers appearing before theselect committee of the Legislative Council on theappointment of the Urban and Regional LandCorporation’s managing director. It is not a debate onthe Attorney-General’s views on the upper house, upperhouse reform or the performance of the upper house —the question is whether these ministers should appearbefore an upper house committee to answer veryserious allegations. The Attorney-General should beconfined to debating the question of why this houseshould refuse to consent to having these ministersappear and not using it as an excuse for a generaldiatribe against the upper house.

Mr HULLS — On the point of order, Mr Speaker,my comments are directly related to the motion,because what I am setting out are reasons why thePremier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer oughtnot to appear before the upper house committee. I amgoing into the history of the upper house and its historyin relation to inquiries, and how this inquiry isunprecedented — and that is one of the bases underwhich there is no merit at all in those ministersappearing before the upper house committee. Mycomments about the upper house and its inactivityunder the Kennett regime are absolutely on point.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am not prepared touphold the point of order at this stage of proceedings.However, I warn the Attorney-General that he does not

have free reign: he must relate his terms to the contextin which he has framed his motion.

Mr HULLS — The fact is that after seven years ofcryovac inaction, the upper house has now decided thatthey ought to have an inquiry. They have nowconducted or at least commenced two inquiries so far,both inquiries being no more than political witch-hunts.

The Premier should not, and nor should the DeputyPremier or the Treasurer, involve themselves in what isan abuse of process by the upper house in what is nomore than a kangaroo court. When you look at not onlythe way this inquiry was set up but the processes thathave been undertaken since the inquiry was set up, youcan only come to one conclusion, and that is all relevantconventions and precedents have been breached, andindeed the inquiry itself is an absolute and utter abuseof process.

Further to that, if anyone has taken any notice of whathas occurred in the upper house inquiry and of theevidence that has been given before that inquiry — andI am sure certain members on that side of the househave, not the least of whom is the honourable memberfor Hawthorn, who is now entering the house; I am surehe has taken great note of what has been happening inthat upper house inquiry because he actually got amention — they would know the only evidence that hascome out in this upper house inquiry is the fact that oneof the key witnesses admitted they are a friend of, infact a golfing partner of, the former Treasurer, AlanStockdale, and that the other key witness has admittedthey are a friend of the honourable member forHawthorn. They are the only key witnesses who havegiven any evidence to support the allegations made bythe Leader of the Opposition.

But it is a bit more disturbing than that. I say that as thehonourable member for Hawthorn leaves the chamber,and now comes back. He realises he may well have acase to answer himself, because evidence that wasgiven by one particular witness before the upper houseinquiry indicated that the honourable member forHawthorn had indeed spoken to her prior to her givingevidence. That is the evidence that has come out in theinquiry.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theAttorney-General has just flouted the rules againstcasting an aspersion against another member of thishouse in using the words that the honourable memberfor Hawthorn might have a case to answer, and theroute that he is travelling along now would clearly floutthe rules of this house.



The SPEAKER — Order! I caution theAttorney-General that he must not cast aspersions in thecomments he makes in relation to any other member.However, I am of the opinion that that was not in factthe case with the remark made by theAttorney-General. Therefore, I am not prepared touphold the point of order.

Mr HULLS — Sensitive little flower.

Mr Robinson interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Mitcham!

Mr HULLS — I will not take up the interjection ofthe honourable member for Mitcham, who said he ismore like a weed than a flower.

The SPEAKER — Order! It would be mostdisorderly to take up the interjection. The honourablemember for Mitcham should not be interjecting.

Mr HULLS — We have had evidence given by afriend of Alan Stockdale, a golfing partner, and wehave also had evidence given by a friend of thehonourable member for Hawthorn. So as you can see,this is earth-shattering stuff. What we have now is aninvitation being issued purely as a political stunt. Thisinquiry has absolutely backfired on the opposition andit is trying to breathe more air into it by pulling thispolitical stunt and suggesting that the Premier, theDeputy Premier and the Treasurer ought dignify theupper house, ought dignify this mickey mousewitch-hunt by giving evidence before — —

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask theAttorney-General not to use such terminology indescribing the upper house.

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,in rising on this, can I point out to the Attorney-Generalthat this invitation is entirely in accord with theprocedures and customs between the houses. It is inaccord with the practices advised by May. There isnothing unusual about it. It is in the best traditions ofboth places.

The SPEAKER — Order! It seems to me that thehonourable member for Monbulk is making a point indebate. He will get the call at the appropriate time.There is no point of order.

Mr HULLS — So it would be totally inappropriatefor any member of this place, let alone the Premier, theDeputy Premier and the Treasurer, to dignify the upperhouse inquiry by attending before it.

The other point that needs to be made is that since wehave come back in this sitting of Parliament there havebeen something like 25 opportunities given to theopposition to ask questions of members of thegovernment. I do not recall — and I have been here atquestion time each day — one question being askedabout this particular matter that is so earth-shattering —not one question. The opposition now says the fact thatit has not asked any questions about this matter shouldnot be relevant, and that despite that the Premier shouldwaste his time, the Treasurer should waste his time andthe Deputy Premier should waste his time by goingbefore an inquiry that, as I have said, is nothing morethan a political witch-hunt. It would be totallyinappropriate for the Premier or any other member ofthis place to dignify this inquiry by so doing,particularly when you take into account — —

Dr Dean — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as Iunderstand it this committee is made up of members onboth sides of the upper house and is a committee thathas been put together by that upper house. To thereforesay that the upper house would put together awitch-hunt when referring to a committee that has beenduly and appropriately put together — to suggest thatthe upper house committee legally and appropriatelyconstituted from both sides of the house would be awitch-hunt — is to cast aspersions on the upper house. Iask you to ask the minister to withdraw the allegationthat the upper house would create a witch-hunt.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order. I indicated earlier that an honourable memberin participating in this debate should not use offensivewords. I deem those not to be offensive words.

Mr Perton interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster!

Mr HULLS — I recall being in this place — —


Mr HULLS — Good! I’m glad you do. I will takeup that interjection.

The SPEAKER — Order! It is disorderly to take upan interjection.

Mr HULLS — The honourable member says herecalls when I was in opposition, and so do I, and Irecall — —




The SPEAKER — Order! It is also disorderly tointerject. I ask the honourable member for Doncaster tocooperate with the Chair by not interjecting.

Mr HULLS — I very well recall the KNF scandal. Ivery well recall the casino tender process scandal. Ivery well recall the nobbling of the Director of PublicProsecutions. I well recall the Intergraph scandal. I wellrecall the share deals scandal. I well recall the creditcard scandal. I well recall the dirty, rotten privatisationdeals. How many upper house inquiries were there atthat time into those dirty rotten stinking deals? Not one!

The SPEAKER — Order! The Attorney-General isnow straying far and wide from the motion he hasmoved. I ask him to come back to within the confinesof the motion.

Mr HULLS — I would like to say they were thegood old days, but they were the rotten old days. Therewas not one inquiry into any of those matters, yet nowwe have a political witch-hunt conducted by the upperhouse into the appointment of the chairman of theUrban and Regional Land Corporation. What we arenow expected to do is dignify this witch-hunt byallowing the Premier and other ministers to appearbefore that upper house inquiry. Not on your life!Absolutely not at all!

The upper house inquiry also wants to have ministerialadvisers appear before it. So not only is the inquiryattempting to breach all relevant precedents andprotocols in relation to ministers, but also it wantsministerial advisers — indeed it has attempted tosubpoena ministerial advisers — to give evidence inrelation to this matter.


Mr HULLS — The honourable member wouldknow that it is a well-established — —



Mr HULLS — It is a well-establishedparliamentary principle and a well-establishedparliamentary rule that a house of Parliament cannotcompel a member of another house to appear before it.Of course this rule reflects the relevant House ofCommons practice.

Clearly it would be a breach of privilege for acommittee of the Legislative Council — or theLegislative Council itself — to use any coercive powers

against a member of the Legislative Assembly. That isa longstanding principle.

I remind honourable members that ministerial advisersare actually engaged to advise ministers in theirpolitical and not their executive capacity. Indeed, if aminister is protected then that protection should not beable to be circumvented by the summonsing ofministerial advisers.

The criticism that is spewing across from the other sideof the chamber will start to become a little bit quieterwhen I quote none other than the Prime Minister tosupport my argument. None other than Honest JohnHoward fully supports what I am saying. Honourablemembers will recall the recent media headline,‘Howard gags key figures in boat row’. Some wouldsay that Honest John is a man of precedent, and he hasdecided that the proper precedents and the properprinciples ought be followed. As a result, he has saidthat it is inappropriate, unprecedented and a breach ofall practices for ministerial advisers to appear before theSenate inquiry. Not only that, he has the full support ofhis entire cabinet.

Honourable members may recall the article in the Ageof 12 March, which states:

Cabinet yesterday decided to block the Senate’s request toquestion key ministerial staff …

You will notice the difference between what that Senateinquiry did and what the inquiry of the upper house ofthis Parliament has done. The Senate inquiry actuallyinvited people to appear. That is the precedent that hasbeen followed, and that is the practice. Despite the factthat these ministerial advisers have been invited, thePrime Minister has said, ‘No, they are not coming alongbecause it is a breach of precedent. They are notmembers of the executive, they are political advisers;therefore, they are not going to appear’.

That practice has not been followed here. This mob inthe upper house — these opposition party membersconducting this upper house inquiry — have decided tochuck all precedents and all normal practices out thewindow and go straight for the subpoena, withoutgiving any invitation not just to ministerial advisers butto any witnesses at all. That is a total breach of practiceand a total breach of procedure, and if anyone disagreeswith me I am happy to receive any correspondencefrom them and I will send it on to John Howard and wewill send them a joint opinion.

The other issue that has been raised is the request, ‘Giveus your legal advice’. There are some lawyers over onthe other side of the house. They well know that legal



advice is covered by legal professional privilege. Alllawyers worth their salt — all lawyers who did not gettheir qualifications out of a Weeties packet —understand that.


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Berwick!

Mr HULLS — I recall — and I have to say, to behonest — —



Mr HULLS — I now fess up that from time to timewhen we were in opposition, and this is a trueconfession, I used to ask for — nay, demand! — thatthe government of the day release legal advice. I usedto do it because I knew that when it did not release it Icould go out to the media and say, ‘Look, they arecovering up! They are not releasing the legal advice’,but I well knew that that legal advice was covered bylegal professional privilege.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to desist.

Mr HULLS — We all play these political gamesfrom time to time. It would have been nice had thegovernment released its advice but I knew it would notrelease it, and I knew that by asking for the advice Iwould probably get a bit of a political run.

There is a whole range of examples of the formerKennett government refusing to release legal advicebecause it was covered by legal professional privilege.There is a plethora of examples in the Victorian Civiland Administrative Tribunal and in other areas wherelegal advice was sought and where the governmentrefused on the ground that it could not be releasedbecause it was covered by legal professional privilege.The legal advice was not released and the formerPremier claimed legal professional privilege; I am surethe former Attorney-General claimed legal professionalprivilege; and the relevant parliamentary secretaryprobably claimed legal professional privilege as well.The fact is that legal advice is so covered and will notbe released.

Can I conclude by saying that — —


Mr HULLS — I am happy to!

Ms Beattie interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Tullamarine!

Mr Maclellan interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Pakenham!

Mr HULLS — When I say conclude, I mean that Iwill be concluding some time tonight!


The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster is trying the patience of the Chair.

Mr HULLS — Government is great, but this is likethe good old days. Some of the evidence that has comeout before this inquiry — I hope the honourablemember for Hawthorn speaks on this motion and givessome explanation in relation to some of the evidencethat has been given, particularly the evidence in relationto his speaking to one of the witnesses prior to theirgiving evidence, and I am sure he will explain himselfin relation to that — shows how clearly inappropriatethis inquiry is. A former head of the Urban andRegional Land Corporation, a Mr Des Glynn, madesome statements before the inquiry that certainpeople — and he named them — had told him aboutcertain things that had occurred and certainconversations that had taken place in relation to agentleman by the name of Jim Reeves. All thesubsequent evidence shows quite clearly that that didnot occur at all — and that is evidence given by peopleon oath in relation to that matter.

The questions that were not allowed to be asked, thequestions that were not answered and, in fact, thequestions that really go to the credibility — —


Mr HULLS — Absolutely! The question that goesto the credibility of this inquiry and why there were noinquiries made under the former government is howDes Glynn himself came to be appointed as head of theUrban and Regional Land Corporation. The fact is thatthe committee, despite — —


Mr HULLS — I will tell you where it is comingfrom. If you had taken time to read the evidence of theinquiry and read what has happened in that inquiry, you



would know. If you are conducting an inquiry into theUrban and Regional Land Corporation and you aremaking complaints about how a person was appointed,you have to make comparisons with how other peoplewere appointed. The only way you can do that is byensuring that those who were involved in previousappointments come before that inquiry. Moves weremade to have those people give evidence. Moves weremade to have former Premier Jeff Kennett come beforethat inquiry; moves were made to have formerTreasurer Alan Stockdale come before that inquiry; andI understand that some moves were made to have theformer Minister for Planning come before that inquiry.

However, those requests were refused.

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,you will have heard the Attorney-General say thatmoves were made to have me appear before an upperhouse committee. I am perfectly willing to appearbefore an upper house committee if theAttorney-General will amend his motion to allow thishouse to give me authority to do so.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Pakenham well knows that that is not a point oforder but rather a point in debate which he might careto make when he is called to participate in the debate.There is no point of order.

Mr HULLS — The way this inquiry wasconstituted, the way the numbers were stacked and theway the positions of chair and deputy chair were takenin an unprecedented way by members of the coalitionmake this upper house inquiry at best a joke and atworst no more than a political witch-hunt.

Having said that, I have written to the inquiry on anumber of occasions. I hope honourable members havetaken the time to look at its first interim report, whichwas handed down today. If they read it, it is importantthat they also read some of the dissenting views thatwere put and ignored by the majority on the committee.

All the interim report has done is quote letters. We havethis great inquiry which has been set up to do the dirtywork of the Leader of the Opposition and to give somesort of umbrella of credence to his outrageousaccusations. All it has done is quote from letters I havewritten to it, which make it quite clear that properprocess has not been followed. As Attorney-General Imust oversight proper process in this state — includingproper process in relation to inquiries.

Proper process has not been followed by this mickeymouse political witch-hunt. I have attempted to alert themembers of the upper house inquiry to that fact by

writing to them on numerous occasions. As we know,all relevant documents have now been released, andthey have shown nothing. All the relevant senior publicservants have given evidence which has shown nothing.What else does the opposition have up its sleeve? Thereare no rabbits up there! They have nothing up thereexcept attempts to get further political mileage. Theway they do that is by having a message come down tothis house suggesting that the Premier of this state, theDeputy Premier and the Treasurer ought to giveevidence before this mickey mouse political witch-hunt.

The fact is that they are not going to do it, and thismotion makes it clear that they ought not do it. It wouldbe a breach of relevant precedent and a breach ofpractice. The government will not be a party to thispolitical witch-hunt, this mickey mouse inquiry. Isuggest that all honourable members in this placesupport the motion now before the house.

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — There is everyreason for Victorians to be deeply concerned atwhat — —

Mr Holding — Are they holding your table at theNaval and Military Club?

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Springvale!

Mr Perton (to Mr Holding) — They wouldn’t keepone for you at the Ararat pub, would they?

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Doncaster has been warned a number of times.

Mr BAILLIEU — There is every reason forVictorians to be deeply concerned at what theAttorney-General has just said. What we havewitnessed here is the Attorney-General reverting toform. The Attorney-General, who made his name as abully in opposition, has sat passively in this house formonths but is now returning to form.

Victorians have every reason to be concerned. Anupper house inquiry that has been formally andproperly established has today delivered an interimreport. Who has sought to interfere in the properconduct of that inquiry? None other than theAttorney-General. The extraordinary thing is that theAttorney-General would have no role to play in thisappointment, no role at all. But he has sought tointerfere in the proper conduct of the upper houseinquiry, which the government did not wish to proceedbut which every newspaper in this state believed shouldproceed and when every commentator in this statebelieved there were questions to be answered.



Let me quote from the conclusions of the interim reportreleased today. Item 37 of the committee’s interimreport, which is headed ‘Conclusion’, reads:

Delays in the provision of information, the placement ofconditions on the release of information, the breach ofsummonses by ministers and ministerial staff, the failure toprovide the committee with any tangible legal advice insupport of the many assertions made in the correspondence ofthe Attorney-General, the failure to provide typewrittentranscripts of illegible material, and the responses of thePremier that pre-empt the deliberations both of the LegislativeCouncil and the Legislative Assembly, are evidence of asystematic attempt to divert the Select Committee on theUrban and Regional Land Corporation managing directorfrom meeting its obligations under the terms of referencegiven to it by the Legislative Council.

Item 38 states:

The committee believes that such responses represent directexecutive interference in the affairs of one house of theParliament of Victoria.

Item 39 states:

The committee therefore formally reports to the LegislativeCouncil its dissatisfaction at these matters and seeks directionfrom the house on how the committee might now fullydischarge the responsibilities conferred on it under the termsof reference.

Mr Holding interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Springvale is being disorderly by interjecting.

Mr BAILLIEU — Why would the selectcommittee conclude that? The committee concludedthat because the Attorney-General himself has sought tointervene — and the Minister for Local Government asActing Attorney-General — and has written to thecommittee on seven occasions in an attempt tocircumvent the committee’s proper conduct. It is anextraordinary thing that we have had theAttorney-General on his feet, not the Premier. Where isthe Premier to answer this proposition? Where is theDeputy Premier, the former Minister for Planning, whowas intimately involved in the improper activities ofthis appointment. Where is the Treasurer, whoseinvolvement in this extraordinary course of events hasyet to be revealed?

Mr Hulls — Did you speak to a witness?

The SPEAKER — Order! The Attorney-General!

Mr BAILLIEU — In his contribution, which wasinterestingly brief, the Attorney-General sought tocontinue what has occurred with the upper houseinquiry, which is a deliberate and calculated attack on

witnesses by slurring them and misrepresenting thestatements they have made. The Attorney-General hasrepeated and made even worse the misrepresentationswhich have occurred. It is extraordinary that the chieflaw officer of Victoria should stoop to such conduct.This is the Attorney-General — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition!

Mr BAILLIEU — The Attorney-General is incharge of the proper conduct of the law in Victoria, yethe has by his actions in relation to the inquiry and herethis evening demonstrated his contempt for properconduct. He has demonstrated his contempt forVictorians, demonstrated his contempt for theParliament and demonstrated yet again that he is unfitto be the Attorney-General. On how many occasionshas that been demonstrated over the last two and a halfyears? We have an Attorney-General who has sought tointerfere and intervene in so many cases, which wehave seen demonstrated in this house. We have anAttorney-General who, as I have said, is not fit to holdthe office.


Mr BAILLIEU — His intervention in this inquiryis extraordinary. It is an extraordinary thing for theno. 1 chief law officer in this state to behave in thisway.


Mr BAILLIEU — The Attorney-General continuesat the table — —

Mr Loney interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Geelong North!

Mr BAILLIEU — He continues to misrepresentevidence given at the inquiry. I am more than happy togo through the evidence in detail. But the reality is —and I intend to continue this discussion — —

Mr Hulls interjected.

Mr BAILLIEU — The reality is — and theAttorney-General laughs because he has contempt forthe people of Victoria — that there are seriousunanswered questions which only the Premier, theTreasurer and the former Minister for Planning, theDeputy Premier, can answer.



Mr Hulls interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Attorney-General!

Mr BAILLIEU — Once again theAttorney-General displays his contempt for the houseand his contempt for this Parliament. As I said, theformer Minister for Planning, the Deputy Premier — —


Dr Dean — I know where the Premier is. He istalking to his past friends.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberfor Berwick!

Mr BAILLIEU — The Attorney-General haschosen to be the lead speaker on this item in lieu of thePremier, who has perhaps the most serious questions toanswer, together with the Treasurer and the formerMinister for Planning. There is a pattern here involvingministers who have done everything they possibly canto block the uncovering of the truth in this sordid affair.It is being made clear by witnesses to the inquiry thatthe Urban and Regional Land Corporation was coercedinto appointing Jim Reeves — and they were coercedagainst the provisions of the Urban and Regional LandCorporation Act.


Mr BAILLIEU — As I was saying before thedinner break, the manner and the undertakings of theAttorney-General are a great concern to me and oughtbe a great concern to all Victorians — —


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the governmentbenches to come to order.

Mr BAILLIEU — This state has anAttorney-General who has become renowned forstuffing things up, for bullying, for getting it wrong andfor conducting stunts instead of substance. On so manyoccasions he has delivered the opportunity to describethe government as a complete failure in the area ofgovernance and the conduct of the law.

To have an Attorney-General who can abuse theprocesses as this Attorney-General has done, whom theupper house inquiry has condemned in its interim reportfor what it describes as ‘executive interference’ in theconduct of the inquiry — and that is a direct quote fromthe conclusion of the interim report of the inquiry — isan extraordinary indictment on the government thatpromised the people standards far in excess of any that

the Attorney-General could ever meet — and he has notmet them. He has become, as the government hasbecome, famous for stunts and spin. That is all we see.In the course of this very tawdry Reeves affair, thePremier was very aptly described in the media asSlippery Steve.

The SPEAKER — Order! I caution the honourablemember about referring to honourable members in theway he does. He must use their correct titles.

Mr BAILLIEU — Mr Speaker, I referred to thePremier, but I referred to a tag given to him by themedia not by me. That is not to say necessarily that I donot agree with the tag.

The SPEAKER — Order! It is still disorderly whendebating in this chamber to refer to honourablemembers other than by their correct titles.

Mr BAILLIEU — Indeed the Premier has beendescribed in the media, and properly so, as slippery, andwe have seen countless occasions when that has beenthe case — when the Premier has sought to evade thetruth and to stand in the way of the truth. We only haveto refer to the infamous donation issue. I am surehonourable members would recall the Premier denyingthat he had ever discussed the possibility of donations.In fact he said he absolutely had not, yet only the dayafter, the Premier’s own chief of staff was forced toadmit that maybe it had been discussed and ‘absolutely’does not mean ‘absolutely’ when it comes to thePremier. Sadly, that has been the case in this tawdryJim Reeves affair.

From the very first day it was established thegovernment sought to obfuscate the inquiry, and I amhappy to provide evidence of that as we go through.The government has also sought to divert attentionfrom the inquiry.

On day one of the inquiry in open sitting with witnessesthe government deliberately chose to arrange threepress conferences at great distance — and forgive meand forgive the media for knowing exactly what thestunt was. Each day since the stunts have continued,and the government has sought to ensure that minimumattention is given to this inquiry. The fact is that theinquiry will not go away and the issue will not go away,and the ministers and the Premier must face up toaccounting to the people and accounting to thisParliament. They cannot run.

It amuses me that the Attorney-General would comeinto this house shortly before the dinner break, withoutwarning, and bring on this debate — and good for him;we are happy to have the debate — thinking that in the



course of doing so the government could avoid scrutinyby putting on this debate at short notice. We arecomfortable about having the debate, but once againthis government has sought to do something after themedia has disappeared, when there is minimal attention.It will not wash because the scrutiny is on thisgovernment, on this Premier and on the ministers whohave failed dismally in all of their responsibilities inthis tawdry Reeves affair.

I quote from an editorial in the Australian entitled‘Bracks blunders on mate’s job’:

For a man leading a minority government, he has had a dreamrun … Mr Bracks has fair warning that nothing can be takenfor granted. If he wants another term, he will need to earn it.

He has not earned it here! I turn to a lead editorial fromthe Age of Friday, 30 November 2001 entitled, ‘A sadadvertisement for open government’. It is subtitled,‘Inept answers about the job for a friend called bothcompetence and integrity into question’. I will comeback to the editorial, but there are some particular itemsI will quote now:

The circumstances —

that is the circumstances of the Jim Reeves affair —

demand a parliamentary inquiry …

The editorial continues:

Nonetheless, he —

being Dr Napthine —

is on firm ground in demanding that Mr Bracks andMr Thwaites answer to an inquiry. The maintenance of openand accountable government requires no less.

That was the clarion call of the Premier, who promisedus a new style of leadership. What we have is all styleand no substance, because we have a Premier who hascontinued to be evasive; we have an Attorney-Generalwho sought to interfere in proper process; we have aformer Minister for Planning, and now Deputy Premierand Minister for Health, who sought to evade dueprocess; and we have a Treasurer who has beencomplicit in the evasion of due process. That is thereality — the sorry reality — of this Jim Reeves affair.

I quote from another editorial, this time from theHerald Sun of Friday, 30 November 2001, entitled ‘Avery messy affair’ — and I will come back to thesubstance of the editorial later:

Unfortunately, a parliamentary inquiry is now necessary toarrive at the whole truth of the Reeves affair.

There we have leading newspapers publishing editorialsstrongly in favour of an upper house inquiry. An upperhouse inquiry was convened, and has been conductedproperly and carefully. It has called witnesses, andthose witnesses began to be heard in February.

The interesting thing is that we heard from theAttorney-General, and we hear it constantly from thePremier and other members of the government, thatsomehow the upper house is and has been a rubberstamp, and yet we also hear from them that the upperhouse ought to be a house of review.

An Honourable Member — They do not want toget rid of it. They say they want to make it stronger.

Mr BAILLIEU — No, the Premier is on the recordas saying that he does not want the upper house to go,and that has always amused me, given his history; buthe is on the record as saying the upper house should bethere and it should be a house of review. What hasoccurred from 1992 to 1998 is that some 50 bills havebeen amended by the upper house, not as theAttorney-General said as a rubber stamp but as a valid,legitimate, properly conducted house of review. In thisvery case the upper house is doing exactly what thisgovernment and the Premier have for years called uponit to do — to effect its review capacity — and that iswhat has been happening in this inquiry.

The reality is that the inquiry has been established bythe upper house, conducted under the rules of the upperhouse and under the rules of parliamentary procedureestablished in the Westminster system throughhundreds of years. It has been established in perfectalliance with all the precedents we have seen in thishouse, in the federal Parliament and in otherWestminster-style parliaments around the world. Thisinquiry has been called for the purpose of clearing theair, of getting to the truth and of allowing the people ofVictoria to hear what involvement the Premier had inthis shallow appointment of his best mate, Jim Reeves,to a very highly paid government position whenMr Reeves clearly had dubious qualifications to do thejob, and what role in that matter the Deputy Premierhad when he was Minister for Planning, and what rolethe Treasurer had in that matter — and he did have aresponsibility. Interestingly we now have anAttorney-General involved as well, because theAttorney-General has sought actively to intervene inthis matter.

Lest honourable members be in any doubt about theresponsibilities here, I want to turn briefly to the actwhich governs the Urban and Regional LandCorporation (URLC). It was the appointment of a chief



executive officer and a managing director to replace thecorporation’s previous chief executive and managingdirector, Mr Des Glynn, that gave rise to this affair andto this appointment, and obviously, eventually, to theinquiry.

I will go through in turn the processes of appointment.Clause 6 in schedule 1 of the Urban and Regional LandCorporation Act 1997 deals with the appointment of thechief executive officer and other staff. I want to gothrough this carefully, because honourable membersneed to understand what is involved here. Two factorsare involved — the appointment of a chief executiveofficer and the appointment of a managing director.Mr Glynn, who was the previous chief executive, wasalso appointed as a managing director, and as themanaging director he became a member of the board.

The URLC, as it is now known, is an independentstatutory body. It has a board. It conducts commercialactivity, which involves the development of land forresidential use and for a variety of activities, and it hasbeen very successful over the years. But when it comesto appointing the chief executive officer the process isset out clearly in clause 6 of schedule 1 of the act.Clause 6(1) states:

The board of the URLC, after consultation with the Ministerand the Treasurer, may appoint a person as the chiefexecutive officer of the URLC.

Subclause (1) has been there for many years, althoughit was amended last year by an act of Parliament toinclude the letter ‘R’.

I want to stress that that was the only change to thatclause. So the clause essentially says that the board mayappoint a person as chief executive officer afterconsultation with the minister and the Treasurer, theminister being the Minister for Planning, who is theresponsible minister for the Urban and Regional LandCorporation Act. But it includes the Treasurer, and theTreasurer has been included in this appointment processfor many, many years. The purpose of that inclusion isto ensure that the Department of Treasury and Financemaintains an interest and a role in the conduct ofcommercial enterprises and government, and it is abouta sensible, dual responsibility of government.

I now go to clause 6(2) of schedule 1:

The chief executive officer of the URLC holds office on afull-time basis and on such terms and conditions as aredetermined by the board, after consultation with the ministerand the Treasurer, and specified in the instrument ofappointment.

Clause 6 (3) of schedule 1 says:

The board, after consultation with the minister and theTreasurer, may remove the chief executive officer ofURLC …

That deals with the appointment of a chief executiveofficer. I want to stress that it is the board’sresponsibility. We have heard an awful lot of evidenceto the inquiry which confirms that that is both the viewof the board and the interpretation of the act bydepartmental officers. Despite the actual conduct of theministers involved, the responsibility lies with the boardafter consultation. The reality is that the chief executiveofficer may also be a director of the board. As forbecoming a director of the board, we go to clause 3 (1)of schedule 1 of the act, which indicates that:

… the chairperson, deputy chairperson and other directors ofURLC shall be appointed by the Governor in Council.

That is a government appointment. So becoming adirector of the board is by government appointment.The two are separate: it is a separate process and aseparate responsibility. But the essential responsibilityof the board here was to appoint a chief executiveofficer and then, if it saw fit, to move on to appoint amanaging director of the board. There were twoprocesses.

I want to stress, and honourable members shouldclearly understand, that in the appointment of a chiefexecutive officer the board had to consult with theMinister for Planning, at the time Mr Thwaites, and theTreasurer. It is interesting to contemplate who was notto be consulted and who was not required to beconsulted. There is no requirement for the Premier to beconsulted, and there is no requirement for theAttorney-General to be consulted. But here we have astraightforward appointment. It is not difficult; it hasbeen done a number of times in the last 15 years. Butsomehow or other in the course of this Reeves affair wehave the Premier on a hook, we have the DeputyPremier and former Minister for Planning on a hook,and we have the Attorney-General on a hook. How didthis happen? How did they all get involved? Is it justpossible that they are all involved because the Premierwanted his mate appointed?


Mr BAILLIEU — I am sorry, his past mate. Let’svery simply review what happened. In the first placethe board appointed a consultancy firm of some renowncalled Heidrick and Struggles, which has experience ingovernment appointments despite the governmentmembers of the inquiry suggesting that it did not. Itdoes have experience in government appointments, andit is a well-respected international firm.



Heidrick and Struggles conducted a search anddelivered to the board a short list of possible candidates.The process for doing so was cleared with the Ministerfor Planning — and I can tell you that the Minister forPlanning has overall responsibility for the act. Theboard appointed a subcommittee to interview thecandidates. The subcommittee then conductedinterviews, which process included the head of theDepartment of Infrastructure, Professor LyndsayNeilson. The interesting thing that has emerged fromthe evidence is that Professor Neilson asked to beincluded in those interviews — and as I said, that wasdone.

The subcommittee then prepared recommendations andcommentaries on the candidates. The selectioncommittee, which comprised board membersMs Dickschen and Mr Davis, then reviewed thecommentaries on the candidates and made arecommendation to the board, which the boardaccepted. We have been told in the inquiry that aftersome discussion, including reference checks,confirmation of information and questions, the boardrecommended by way of a letter to the Minister forPlanning and the Treasurer that the relevant ministersgive consideration to the appointment of Mr MarkHenesy-Smith as the chief executive officer of theURLC.

All that is very straightforward and the evidence givento the inquiry, despite the best efforts of the governmentmembers on the inquiry, is clear. From the conduct ofthat process everything went according to Hoyle.

Then, somehow or other, something hit the fan becausethere was a change in the government ranks. Suddenlythe process was being condemned by ProfessorNeilson, even though he had actively participated.Suddenly the former Minister for Planning, the DeputyPremier, became involved. The evidence in the inquiryalready suggests that it was the Deputy Premier whoinstructed that a second round of interviews beconducted — quite contrary to the provisions of the act.The head of the Department of Infrastructure, ProfessorNeilson, gathered together two colleagues to conductthe second round of interviews.

Who did he gather together? One was the acting headof the Department of Treasury and Finance, Mr GrantHehir, and I guess you could say there was some sensein that because the Treasurer’s office had a role underthe act to be involved. Who else did he assemble in hislittle trio to conduct the second round of interviews? Hedragged in Mr Terry Moran, the head of theDepartment of Premier and Cabinet.

One would have to ask why did the head of theDepartment of Infrastructure, in making his positionclear, decide to gather up the head of the Department ofPremier and Cabinet when clearly, any responsibilityfor consultation rested just with the Department ofTreasury and Finance and the Department ofInfrastructure under the Minister for Planning? It wouldseem the Department of Treasury and Finance did notagree with the Department of Infrastructure aboutMr Reeves. That is a fact.

How, then, could one bridge that gap? By dragging inthe head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Butwhy go to the Premier’s department? Because thePremier wanted Jim Reeves from the start; Jim Reeveswas or is the Premier’s best mate. I will turn to JimReeves in a minute.

The net result was that despite the proper, rigorous andexpress protests of the board, a second round ofinterviews was conducted. The chairman of the boardagreed to attend those interviews only as an observerand only after express protests in writing to theTreasurer and the then Minister for Planning. Who wasincluded in the interviews?

At least six candidates were short-listed by the boardand the search consultants. The extraordinary thing isthat Mr Reeves, on the evidence presented to theinquiry, was not in the top three. If you intended to runa second round of interviews and interview only 3 ofthe 6 or 7 candidates short-listed by the board, youwould have thought you would choose the top three —but, no! Who did the department heads decide toshort-list? They decided to short-list Mr Reeves. Itcomes as a shock to us that that could possibly happen.Suffice to say, Mr Reeves was short-listed. Who elsewas short-listed? Mr Henesy-Smith — —

Mr Doyle — Mr Glynn?

Mr BAILLIEU — His name was submitted, butMr Glynn was not short-listed because he had said hewas intending to retire. As early as the middle ofMay 2001 at an administrative executive conferenceweekend retreat Mr Glynn had said he would notcontinue his appointment. Why? Because he had beentold that the Premier wanted Mr Reeves. I will returnlater to that evidence. The Treasurer had written toMr Glynn, saying what a great job he had done. I thankthe honourable member for Malvern for reminding me.

Mr Mark Henesy-Smith was included and had been theboard’s choice; it had written about him to thegovernment. Then there was a third candidate. Who? Itis important to understand who the third candidate was



as it was Mr Bryce Moore who, after Mr Glynn left theoffice as managing director and chief executive,became the acting chief executive; apparently he wasselected internally.

So the three candidates — not the top three — wereallegedly chosen by Professor Neilson. But there issome dispute about that because the Deputy Premierwas also involved. Those interviews proceeded, and Iwill turn to the evidence of that as presented to theinquiry. Despite the indication at those interviews onthe evidence that Mr Reeves had significantshortcomings and despite the protestations of the board,the government then wrote to the board recommendingthat the board appoint Mr Reeves. That is an exampleof consultation Bracks-style, Thwaites-style andTreasury-style! It is called simple coercion of the board.

There is no doubt that the board felt coerced andpressured to make that decision. There is no doubt thatthe chairman was pressured to correspond accordinglyto the extent that letters were written on his behalf andhe was asked to sign them. That evidence has been ledto the inquiry.

Mr Reeves was appointed against the will of the board,against the conduct of due process, against therecommendation of the executive search consultants,and contrary to the professed aspirations of thegovernment that it was open, honest and accountable.In the process hundreds of thousands of dollars werespent on a sham selection process which thegovernment concocted to appoint Mr Reeves. It did soat the behest of a Premier who was and is — or perhapsis no longer — the best mate of Mr Reeves.

The extraordinary thing is that when the matter wasfirst raised in this house the Premier went into classicevasion mode. A succession of pathetic defences hasbeen put up by the government. The very first lineissued by the Premier in defence of the appointmentwas when, in this house, he described Jim Reeves as thebest person for the job. There is plenty of evidence ledby the executive search consultants, by the boardmembers and by those in the industry to say Mr Reeveswas far from the best person for the job.

Then the Premier changed tack a little. Mr Reeves wasno longer the best person for the job; instead he waswell qualified for the job. The Premier then began torefer to Mr Reeves’s work on what he called theSEQ 2000 project — the South-East Queensland 2000project. The Premier indicated that Mr Reeves hadmanaged, planned and developed that area. That bringsme to Mr Reeves, but I will come back to this defensivechain of the Premier’s.

But who is Mr Reeves? What do we know about him?

Mr Cameron — He was well qualified for the job.

Mr BAILLIEU — The Minister for LocalGovernment still says he was well qualified for the job.

Mr Cameron — No, that’s what you just said2 minutes ago.

Mr BAILLIEU — No, I said that the Premier hadclaimed he was well qualified for the job when theevidence is not to that effect.

Let me quote some material about Mr Reeves. TheHerald Sun of Saturday, 29 May 1999, ran a generousarticle about the now Premier, the then Leader of theOpposition. It referred, I believe, to a Ballarat identitynamed Wacka McKay and an army of young blokesthat he had assembled at some stage in the past inBallarat. I quote:

One of them was Steve Bracks. Another was his mate, JimReeves. With a couple of friends in tow they decided to takeon Wacka and the conservative forces on the city council …But the young blokes learnt quickly, a little too quickly forWacka.

Bracks helped to run Reeves’s campaign, dropping pamphletsinto hundreds of letterboxes, running off flyers andnetworking Reeves’s way into the town hall. The campaignworked so well that Reeves sent Wacka packing. Easily.Reeves built on that success and became mayor himself in1986–87. Reeves went from Ballarat mayor to assistantfederal secretary of the ALP —

hello, assistant federal secretary to the ALP; there’s alittle signal to us! —

and is now chief of staff to Brisbane lord mayor Jim Soorley.

That is in 1999. The reality is that Jim Reeves had been,until this recent move, the chief of staff to the LordMayor of Brisbane for seven and a half years. Prior tothat Mr Reeves spent barely two years, perhaps lessthan that, with an organisation called the South-EastQueensland 2000 project, which was established tolook at growth in the south-east Queensland corridor.Prior to that he was mayor of Ballarat and he ran abrewery. The fascinating thing about the brewery, and Iwill come back to that later, is that it went bust with upto $4 million worth of funds squandered. Shareholders’funds, taxpayers’ funds and creditor’s funds —including the Australian Taxation Office and workersentitlements — were squandered. That is the reality ofJim Reeves’s commercial experience.

Mr Thompson interjected.

Mr BAILLIEU — Yes, employee entitlements.



Mrs Fyffe — Total catastrophe!

Mr BAILLIEU — A catastrophe indeed. That isJim Reeves’s commercial experience. His urbanrenewal experience was as part of a project whichstarted early in the 1990s, I believe, to look at thesouth-east Queensland corridor. And where did he goafter that? He became the chief of staff to the LordMayor of Brisbane. That is Mr Reeves’s snapshothistory.

I go again to a quote from the Age of Saturday,23 October 1999, in an article about Mr Bracks, thethen new Premier, who is quoted as referring to the truebelievers:

Jim Reeves becomes, at 25, one of the youngest peopleelected to Ballarat council. Soon after, he becomes its mayor.He goes on to work for the party in Canberra. Today he ischief of staff to Brisbane’s ALP lord mayor, Jim Soorley.

Mr Reeves is quoted in the article about the nowPremier:

Jim Reeves, earthier but equally committed to the party,remembers first meeting Bracks in the mid-70s ‘when wewere courting sheilas on the opposite sides of the same street’.

So Jim Reeves and the Premier chased babes aroundBallarat together. They are mates. Jim is further quoted:

He liked him right off. ‘There’s a sort of straightness aboutSteve, but it’s not dourness’, he says. ‘There’s a sort ofboyishness. He’s fun, he’s humorous, but at the same timequite strong, quite devout in his convictions and values’.

We have seen those values diminish over the last twoand a half years. The article further states:

Bracks’s politics, he ventures —

this is Reeves venturing —

were formed in the counter-culture of the ‘60s: ‘I supposehe’s a sort of Vietnam-era hippy-left amalgam’.

That is Mr Reeves’s view of the Premier. The reality isthat Jim Reeves is a close mate and close confidant ofthe Premier.

Mr Bracks interjected.

Mr BAILLIEU — The Premier is in the chamber,and he has interjected, ‘Yes, that’s right’. Goodness me,how time has changed. Only recently he was describedby the Premier as an historic friend and a past friend —a shameless, shameless abandonment. The cock wascrowing there, Premier, and you abandoned your ownfriends in the pursuit. The Premier abandoned hisfriends to save his own skin because he knew he hadbeen caught out.

It is fascinating to do a search of Mr Reeves’sexperience in urban renewal and to search for hisqualifications in this area. When you do you find he hasnext to none. It comes as no surprise that those whointerviewed Mr Reeves and those who considered hiscredentials found that he had significant shortcomingswhen he was being considered for the position of chiefexecutive officer and managing director of the URLC.

Perhaps the only person who has spoken out on hisbehalf is Trevor Reddacliff. I will come back to him,but Trevor Reddacliff has been a strong supporter ofMr Reeves, and there is plenty of evidence to suggestthat there are strong links. There is also plenty ofevidence to suggest that Mr Reddacliff is a strongsupporter of Mr Soorley, and that is admirable. I haveno problem with that, but no-one else has spoken out tosay that Jim Reeves was amply qualified for thisposition. That is extraordinary and a reminder that whatwe had was a Premier trying to impose his choice onthe people of Victoria and on the URLC.

I come back to the catalogue of defences. After thePremier had moved from describing him as being thebest person for the job to describing him as wellqualified for the job, he told this house that theappointment had been welcomed by the Urban andRegional Land Corporation — an extraordinarystatement. The interesting thing is that in making thatclaim the Premier quoted from a news release from theUrban and Regional Land Corporation, but no-one hasyet seen a copy of that release.

There was no release from the Minister for Planning,there was no release from the Premier, and there was norelease from the Treasurer. The only copy that exists ofthat release is at the Urban and Regional LandCorporation stamped ‘Draft’, and the only public noticeof Mr Reeves’s appointment went out in a small brief tothe Age — four lines — in the middle of a federalelection campaign in the hope, I suspect, that no-onewould notice.

One would imagine that at some stage the Minister forPlanning, who had responsibility for the act, might haveput out a media release. The media never received therelease, but a select journalist obviously did, and theposition was quietly mentioned. But the Premier hassaid to this house that the appointment had beenwelcomed by the board. He wanted this house tobelieve that everything was hunky-dory. He wanted thishouse to believe that the board approved theappointment, that everything had gone according toHoyle, but we now know that the contrary was the case.In fact, the board was so outraged that a longstandingmember — someone well qualified in the property



industry with 20 years experience, someone with anintense legal background and someone who is highlyprofessional — resigned from the board in protest. Thatwas the welcome the board gave the appointment.

So here we have the Premier being evasive from thestart. Then the Premier moved on to another defence —that due process had been observed in the selection. Infact the Premier in this house used the words ‘proper’and ‘appropriate’, saying it was a proper andappropriate process. This was at a time when the peopleof Victoria did not even know the half truth of this. Allthey knew was what the Premier was telling them, andthe Premier thought, ‘This won’t come out. I can swanaround here and say it was proper and appropriate andhopefully get away with it’. The Premier went on to saythat it had been done absolutely according to dueprocess.

The reality is as we know. The inquiry has been explicitabout it, and even the select documents that have beenreleased indicate that due process was far fromobserved in this exercise. In fact, this was a totaldistortion of due process. It is an outrage that thePremier could claim that due process had beenobserved.

Then there was the Premier’s delightful next defence,that somehow or other this was an old story. Membersof the house will recall that when he was asked inNovember he said, ‘Gosh, this occurred in October.Gosh, you are behind the times. This is an old story’.Well, it was true — the appointment was made inOctober — and the Premier had hoped it would behidden and that no-one would pick it up. Anyway, weknow the truth, that it was picked up, and we have seenthe flow ever since.

What did the Premier do then? The next question came,and the Premier moved on to his next defence, whichwas that Jim Reeves was no special mate. When theLeader of the Opposition quizzed him on this anddescribed Jim Reeves as a best mate, the Premierretorted, ‘That’s interesting. I must have tons and tonsof best mates’. That is when the Premier started thedesertion of his friend. We know the cock crowed twicemore for the Premier, because in a doorstop pressconference which the Premier called himself, he wasasked about Jim Reeves and their relationship. He saidof Jim Reeves that he was a past friend, and then hewent on to say that he was an historic friend. The realityis, as we have seen, that Reeves and the Premier grewup in Ballarat. The Premier ran Jim Reeves’s campaignfor mayor of Ballarat. Jim Reeves was extensivelyquoted in the media profiles of the Premier before andafter the election, and he has hosted fundraising

functions in Brisbane for the Premier. They have a longhistory together. They are best mates.

Then, on the very day that the Premier described JimReeves as a past friend, the Premier was forced toconcede that, yes, they had holidayed together inJanuary of last year — 10 days in the sun, StradbrokeIsland, pandanus palms, Jim and the family upstairs andSteve and the family downstairs. And do you knowwhat was never mentioned in 10 days? According tothe Premier, he never, ever mentioned the Urban andRegional Land Corporation. Well, why would you?You are having a holiday with your best mate for10 days — a past friend, an historic friend — and youwould not mention it. You would not mention the factthat just a couple of months before, the Minister forPlanning had spent two days in Brisbane withMr Reeves and Mr Soorley.

Mr Perton — That is not news. That is old news.

Mr BAILLIEU — Old news, yes.

Mr Perton — According to Bracks.

Mr BAILLIEU — According to Bracks, yes; oldnews.

Dr Dean — It is still bad news!

Mr BAILLIEU — It is still bad news. Just twomonths before they holidayed together, the Minister forPlanning spent two days with Mr Soorley, Mr Reevesand Mr Reddacliff in Brisbane, and in that timeMr Thwaites, the Minister for Planning, had concededthe possibility that a job in the planning area in Victoriawas available. We are encouraged by the Premier tobelieve that two months later, no, he and Mr Reeves didnot discuss the possibility over a 10-day holiday. Onceagain we have seen the evasion of the Premier on thisissue and the denial of his own mate.

The extraordinary thing is that when the Premier wasfirst confronted with the notion that he might have hada holiday with Mr Reeves, you might have thought thata man confident in his friends and confident in his ownactions — —

Mr Spry — A past friend.

Mr BAILLIEU — A past friend, whatever. Youmight have thought a Premier in control of the situation,a Premier confident in his own mates and confident inthe procedures undertaken by the government, wouldhave said, ‘Yes, I holidayed with Jim Reeves. Yes, Imentioned the job. Yes, he is a good person for the job’.



But no, no mention of the holiday. He did not mentionit at all and he sat down.

Then the Premier moved on to another defence. He isreported in the Age of 24 November as saying:

I didn’t have a role. This was a process undertaken by theboard itself, by the department involved and ultimately, ofcourse under the legislation by the ministers.

It was not the ministers’ responsibility at all, it was theboard’s responsibility, but the Premier had just movedon into another defensive position.

Then the government chose to question details of thesalary involved, and it chose to be a bit slippery withthe truth about the salary, but that has since evolved aswell.

What was the next defence? The next defence was thatthe board had somehow failed to comply with changesto the act and that was why it had done the wrong thingin the process. So suddenly we have gone from thePremier saying it was due and proper process to saying,‘Oh, no, the board failed to comply with changes to theact’. How do we know that? Because the planningminister’s spokeswoman, former Age journalist SandraMcKay, told the Age. A former Age journalist tellingthe Age something; you would imagine that would be avery truthful thing in the pursuit of truth. The Agestates:

Mr Thwaites’s spokeswoman said the board had failed tocomply with recent changes to the legislation governing thecorporation requiring it to consult the government,particularly Mr Thwaites and Treasurer John Brumby, aboutthe appointment.

As I said before, the only change to that portion of theact about the appointment process was the addition ofthe letter ‘R’. That was the only change to that clause,and the consultation had been undertaken, but that wasthe defence that then went out — that somehow theletter ‘R’ had made such difference. Perhaps it ought tohave been the Urban and Reeves Land Corporationrather than the Urban and Regional Land Corporation.

The next defence was that the board had not consulted,but all the evidence that has since emerged has beenthat the board did indeed consult. It consulted to thepoint of complying with the act and to the extent thateven the head of the Department of Infrastructurehimself, as revealed in evidence and in documents ledto the inquiry, had indicated to the minister that theactions of the board had complied with the legislation.

The interesting thing about the consultation was that theformer managing director and chief executive of theorganisation, Des Glynn, was quoted in the Herald Sun

of 27 November as volunteering the following remarkswhen asked what he knew about the process:

Everyone knew it was a done deal.

And further:

The whole recruitment process was a sham.

It was an expensive, disgraceful, deceptive and coercivesham, and the Premier has been complicit, theTreasurer has been complicit, the Minister for Planninghas been complicit, the Attorney-General has beencomplicit and the heart of this government has beeninvolved in this sham. Every senior minister has beeninvolved. The Minister for Transport is the onlyminister here, apart from the Minister for LocalGovernment. All I can say is that on the evidencecurrently before the inquiry, the Minister for Transporthas not been involved. That in itself, perhaps, comes asa surprise to us, given some of his experience.

Then what was the defence? The defence was thatno-one would speak. None of the ministers wouldspeak. What did the opposition have? The governmentwent to ground, hoping this would go away. But it didnot go away. Then what was trotted out? It was trottedout that somehow or other no pressure had been appliedto the board. In fact, the government found a boardmember to say, ‘No, no pressure was applied’. Everypiece of evidence led before the inquiry suggested that,in fact, yes, there was great pressure applied, sufficientto ensure that Ms Dickschen resigned from the board inprotest and sufficient for the chairman of the board toindicate that it had no option but to make the decisionto appoint Mr Reeves because effectively the board hadbeen threatened by the government.

By this stage the government was on the run andsomehow or other Mr Glynn was targeted andsomehow or other it was suggested that Mr Glynn hadan axe to grind.

The attack got personal and somehow it was all DesGlynn’s fault. The managing director accepted the factthat he was going on the notion that the Premier wasgoing to appoint a mate. He went happily, but somehowhe is now to be pilloried. That disgraceful exercise hascontinued in the inquiry.

They were the initial defences of the government. As Isaid, three ministers are involved in this disgracefulaffair. There are a lot of questions for those ministers toanswer, and that is the basis of this inquiry.

The reason we are having this debate this evening isthat the Attorney-General thought it would be a cleverstunt to bring it straight on out of the glare of the media



and in the hope that the opposition would somehow orother be caught short, but we are more than happy tohave the debate. In bringing it on the Attorney-Generalhas moved a motion:

That this house refuses to consent to the honourable ministersappearing before the select committee of the LegislativeCouncil on the Urban and Regional Land Corporationmanaging director.

This is the motion of an Attorney-General — perhapsthe only Attorney-General in the history of theWestminster system who has instructed potentialwitnesses to ignore subpoenas and summonses from ahouse of Parliament. It is an extraordinary step. It isinteresting that in my understanding the process is notcorrect. In fact procedurally the Attorney-General hasthis process quite wrong. That would not surprisebecause the Attorney-General has got nearly everythinghe has done in this house wrong. From my recollectionhe has got wrong his dealing with the Chief Magistrate.

Dr Dean — Two constitution acts in the house at theone time.

Mr BAILLIEU — Two constitution acts in thehouse at the one time. There is very little that thisAttorney-General has got right. One of the reasons hehas sat passively on the front bench since thisgovernment came to office is that he has become aliability to the government because he got there only asthe chief bully. To have an Attorney-General who hascontempt for the law and due process and who is abully is an extraordinary proposition. The reality is thateverything he has done has been a shambles.

In saying that I want to move an amendment to themotion before the house, which I will read. I move:

That all the words after ‘house’ be omitted with a view toinserting in place thereof the words ‘consents to thehonourable ministers appearing before the select committeeof the Legislative Council on the Urban and Regional LandCorporation managing director if they think fit’.

That, I understand, is the proper form of motion thatshould have come before this house. TheAttorney-General has rushed off on his own account,and once again he has pulled up short.

Some interesting questions arise out of this affair and Iwant to go to the heart of some of them. There areinteresting questions for the Independents. They casttheir lot with this government on the basis of a charterwhich dealt with the issue of governance, honesty,openness and accountability. That charter sought for theupper house to be an activist house of review.

There is now an opportunity for the Independents tostand by their charter. When this affair broke in lateNovember last year the Independents got the shock oftheir lives because they started to see the Premier forwhat he really was — someone who was evasive,someone who was deceptive, someone who wasseeking to place due process on the backburner andsomeone who was seeking to advance his mates.

The honourable member for Gippsland East was muchquoted on the subject. I refer to an article in theAustralian on Friday, 30 November 2001, under theheading ‘Independent MP accuses Bracks of losingtouch’. I quote the lead paragraph:

Independent MP Craig Ingram has attacked the man hehelped make Victoria’s Premier, saying Steve Bracks’shandling of the ‘jobs-for-mates’ affair is evidence thegovernment has lost touch with the community.

Lost touch with the community! It goes on:

Mr Ingram said yesterday the Premier’s squeaky-clean imageand electorate popularity would suffer from the controversy.

That was not the only reference. An article in the Age of30 November headed ‘Ingram in warning to Bracks’states:

Key MP says he cannot be taken for granted.

The honourable member for Gippsland East went on toput the Premier on notice. Again, Ewin Hannan wrote acompelling summary of the events to that stage in anarticle in the Age of 1 December 2001, and I quote:

But it has been Craig Ingram, the Gippsland EastIndependent, who has been the most scathing, describingLabor’s handling of the controversy as stupid and very, verypoor.

Another article appeared in the Age of 1 December2001 headed ‘Ingram says Thwaites got off lightly’with a subtitle ‘An Independent wants morecommunication from the government’. In materialpublished by the Herald Sun it was revealed that thehonourable member for Gippsland East had put thePremier on notice and then had walked away from it.

The article by John Ferguson in the Herald Sun of1 December 2001 quotes Mr Ingram as saying:

I stand by my charter, and there are some people within thegovernment who seem to have forgotten they are in aminority government.

This is a very compelling opportunity for theIndependents to stand by their charter and ensure thatthe government is held to account. The reality is that anupper house inquiry is being conducted and witnesseshave been called. The Attorney-General has, against all



precedent, instructed potential witnesses to ignoresummonses — an extraordinary step by theAttorney-General — but the upper house inquiry iscontinuing. Parliamentary procedure, Westminstertradition and all the precedents suggest that ministerscannot be compelled to appear before an inquiry.

What this motion, which was moved and passed in theupper house today, as I understand it, seeks to do is askthe Assembly to give the ministers consent to appear.That is the procedurally correct thing to do. They maychoose to appear, but the option exists for the ministersnot to appear. So they can ignore that request. All we inthis chamber are seeking to do by moving thisamendment, and all the upper house sought to do inmaking its request, which the Attorney-General thensought to distort with his own motion, is to invite theAssembly to consider relieving the ministers of anobligation to the Assembly not to appear. As theobligation currently stands they should not appear, butthe Assembly can give the ministers the option ofappearing. That is barely an onerous proposition, and itwould be extraordinary not to give the ministers thatoption.

If the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurerchoose not to appear, then so be it — that is theirchoice — but it would be extraordinary to stand in theway of a fair and reasonable process by not giving theministers the opportunity.

I had what I suppose you would call the distinctpleasure, early in my term as a member of this house, ofdealing with a privileges matter. In dealing with thatmatter, the Speaker found a prima facie case of aminister having misled the Parliament. In accordancewith tradition that matter was referred to this house, anda debate proceeded. But nowhere in accordance withtradition — in fact nowhere in Westminsterparliamentary history — had it occurred before. Thegovernment used its numbers and the Independents tovote down a motion of privilege reference even wherethe Speaker had found a prima facie case of misleadingthe house. It had not happened before — it was aparliamentary first — and I am sure it will become atragic precedent.

The fascinating thing is that it was a tragic step for theIndependents to take too, because it was the first haulon due process and the first haul on open, honest andaccountable government. It was fascinating that itoccurred within six months of the government cominginto office. The Independents in good faith said thatthey would give the government the benefit of thedoubt, and as I said they voted with the government in

an unprecedented motion to vote down the privilegereference.

This is the second occasion on which the Independentscan take up their own charter because there are seriousquestions to be answered — and I am going to gothrough those questions.

There are questions for the Premier, the Minister forPlanning and the Treasurer. I also believe there arequestions for the Attorney-General, but that is aseparate matter.

I hope and trust that the Independents are listening atpresent in their offices, because I want to draw theattention of the house to one set of documents whichprovides a snapshot of the deception that has gone onhere. The deception is deep, and I intend to go througha range of issues where I think there are questions thatthe ministers and the Premier have to answer. Thissnapshot is sequence of letters which betrays absolutelywhat has gone on here. It betrays the fact that,somehow or other, the Treasurer has been complicit inan abuse of process, in non-compliance with the act,and in deceiving the people of Victoria and the Urbanand Regional Land Corporation. In that — I am pleasedto see the honourable member for Gippsland East ishere — the Minister for Planning has been directlyinvolved.

In the first instance I refer the house to an email fromGrant Hehir, who was acting head of the Department ofTreasury and Finance. It is in response to an email fromProfessor Lyndsay Neilson, who had emailed him withan attached briefing note. The email from LyndsayNeilson went to Grant Hehir saying:

I attach a copy of my draft briefing note to the Minister forPlanning in relation to the appointment of a managingdirector for the Urban and Regional Land Corporation. I haveprovided the minister with a copy of the report of ourinterview panel, and will draft a letter for him to send to thechairman, URLC.

There are a lot of letters that Lyndsay Neilson draftedfor the chairman. Grant Hehir responded to the emailon 18 September 2001 in the following fashion — thiswas after the second round of interviews and after thethree heads of department had discussed theappointment of Mr Reeves. The email reads:

Lyndsay —

that is, Professor Neilson —

this looks OK, however, should there be a process of bringingthe Treasurer into the loop prior to the minister writing. If so,I suggest that the minister write to the Treasurer and I willensure it gets a quick turnaround.



I am away for the next two days, if you want to progresssomething through the Treasurer Jillian Wyatt in my officewill facilitate it.

A pretty reasonable email written on 18 September.

On 20 September, just two days later, the then Ministerfor Planning, the Deputy Premier, wrote to thechairman of the Urban and Regional Land Corporation,Mr Petrovs. He said:

I refer to the correspondence from the URLC of 4 July,30 July and 17 August variously signed by the deputychairman and you relating to the appointment of a new chiefexecutive officer for the corporation.

I will quickly explain that the 4 July letter was from theboard suggesting the appointment of Mr Henesy-Smithand that there be consultation. The letter of 30 July wasa further letter from Mr Petrovs suggesting in a morefulsome way what had gone on. A further letter fromMr Petrovs on 17 August protested about the secondround of interviews.

On 18 September Grant Hehir wrote to ProfessorNeilson and indicated there should be a process ofbringing the Treasurer into the loop.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! I ask both sides of the house to quieten down. Iam having difficulty hearing.

Mr BAILLIEU — Two days later in thiscorrespondence the Minister for Planning wrote:

Together with the Treasurer, I have given carefulconsideration to this highly significant appointment.

Then there are several paragraphs. The then Ministerfor Planning further wrote:

… it is the firm view of both myself and the Treasurer that theURLC board should now consider the appointment of Mr JimReeves as managing director …

So, on 18 September the head of the Department ofTreasury and Finance indicates it is time for theTreasurer to be involved because he had to be consultedunder the act. Two days later the then Minister forPlanning says that he and the Treasurer have alreadyformed a firm view and they have both given carefulconsideration to this highly significant appointment.Well, they were moving quickly, inside two days, butthere is a bit of a flaw in the proposition. Thesedocuments were not released in the initial release by thegovernment. It hoped they would never come out.

Five days after Minister Thwaites wrote to thechairman of the board, the Treasurer wrote to thechairman of the board. He wrote to Mr Petrovs on25 September and said:

Thank you for your letter of 17 August …

This is the letter where the board is expressly protestingabout the second round of interviews.

Thank you for your letter of 17 August 2001 regarding theprocess of selection for the appointment of a new chiefexecutive officer and managing director for the Urban andRegional Land Corporation.

As previously advised by the Department of Treasury andFinance, responsibility for the Urban and Regional LandCorporation Act 1997 rests with the Minister for Planning. Ihave noted the concerns of your board, and will consult withthe Minister for Planning on this matter.

He says ‘will consult’, so the Treasurer had notconsulted with the Minister for Planning. That goes tothe core of the issue — —


Mr BAILLIEU — The core of this issue — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! I ask both sides of the house to allow thehonourable member on his feet to continue his address.

Mr BAILLIEU — The core of this issue is that thispiece of correspondence — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) —Order! It also means the honourable members on theopposition benches.

Mr BAILLIEU — It is dated 25 September and isfrom the Treasurer to Marek Petrovs, the chairman ofthe Urban and Regional Land Corporation. It is the onlydocument where the Treasurer has signed off or evenbeen involved in the process. He says that he willconsult with the Minister for Planning on these mattersand on the concerns of the board. That was five daysafter the Minister for Planning had already told theboard that they had had their consultations and hadformed a firm view. The interesting thing about that isthat all the evidence suggests that either the Treasurerchose not to be consulted because he wasuncomfortable with the appointment of Mr Reeves orthat he was not consulted, because the reality is that theDepartment of Treasury and Finance did not supportMr Reeves.



That brings me to some of the key revelations of theinquiry, but those letters set up the very clear questionsthat the former planning minister and the Treasurerhave to answer about how that consultation took placeand whether in fact the Treasurer ever approved of theappointment as he was required to do in order for theminister to write as he did.

The upper house inquiry, which the ministers have soroundly chosen to condemn, had before it evidence oftwo Treasury officials, Mr Geoff Tabe and AlanHawkes, two of the most senior bureaucrats from theDepartment of Treasury and Finance. They wrote anemail, not to the Treasurer but to the Treasurer’s chiefof staff, Craig Cook. The draft was dated 7 August. In itthey noted:

Mr Reeves lacked experience in a profit-and-lossenvironment to support his appointment.

It further states:

The memorandum raised the concerns held by the governancebranch of commercial division about the suitability of JamesReeves to be appointed as CEO of a government businessenterprise required by statute to operate on a commercialbasis.

The URLC is required to operate on a commercialbasis, that is why the Treasurer is involved. Specificallythe memorandum reads in part:

It would not be possible for CD governance to support arecommendation to appoint Mr James Reeves to the positionof chief executive officer and managing director of thisbusiness.

Senior office-holders of the Department of Treasuryand Finance briefed the Treasurer’s chief of staff thatthey could not support a recommendation thatMr Reeves be appointed. It is an extraordinary emailfrom the Department of Treasury and Finance,concealed, as is all the documentation, in the firstrelease of documents from the government inNovember–December. The government has sought tohide this.

The extraordinary thing is that that was not the onlyreservation expressed by officers of the Department ofTreasury and Finance. In fact the acting head of thedepartment, Grant Hehir, conducted the second roundof interviews and expressed grave concerns about thesuitability of Mr Reeves. He expressed those concernsto such an extent that when Professor Neilson wrote tohim with a view to making a recommendation thatMr Reeves be appointed and that the three departmentheads agree on this recommendation to go to theministers, the acting head of the department said that hecould not support that recommendation unless it

included a further appointment. That furtherappointment was to be that of Mr Bryce Moore — theother candidate, interestingly, in the final threeselected — as a director of the board and as the chiefoperating officer. It was to overcome Mr Reeves’sdeficiencies. Those were Mr Hehir’s reservations.

But it is fascinating to go through the transcripts andask yourself: was the Treasurer advised of thememorandum from the two senior bureaucrats of thisdepartment? The bureaucrats cannot answer thatquestion, or they say that he was not advised. Theadviser, Mr Cook, has been instructed by theAttorney-General not to appear. Did Grant Hehirprovide that information to the Treasurer? On his ownevidence to the inquiry he did not. Did Grant Hehirbrief the Treasurer? On his own evidence to the inquiryhe did not. Did Professor Neilson brief the Treasurer?On his own evidence to the inquiry he did not. But weknow from the evidence to the inquiry that Mr Hehirand Mr Cook discussed the memorandum from theDepartment of Treasury and Finance. We know that thememorandum from the two senior bureaucrats wasreceived by the Treasurer’s chief of staff.

There is no evidence of any briefing given to theTreasurer. There is no evidence of the Treasurer eversigning off on any correspondence to the Minister forPlanning authorising him to write the letter that hewrote saying they had formed a firm view.

Mr Rowe interjected.

Mr BAILLIEU — Isn’t it convenient, as thehonourable member for Cranbourne says. Howconvenient! There is no record of the Treasurer beinginvolved. The question the Treasurer has to answer is:is that because he did not support the appointment orbecause he was ignored in the process, was neverbriefed and has had to go along with the sham processthe whole way? The Treasurer’s embarrassment whenthe question was asked in this house was extraordinary.Those three letters give the indication of seriousquestions that both the Minister for Planning and theformer Minister for Planning have to answer and theTreasurer has to answer.

That is only one of the many revelations that have beenbrought out by this inquiry. As I said, we know that theonly briefing that went to the Treasurer was a letter thatwas passed to him by the Department of Treasury andFinance officer — the 17 August letter protesting theconduct of the interviews — and a very shortministerial brief went from the officers to the Treasurer,and that is the brief that he responded to in the letter of25 September.



Interestingly the upper house inquiry has been told ofample suggestions that it was the clear intent of thegovernment to appoint Mr Reeves all along. Inevidence led by Mr Hawkes, the senior bureaucrat, inAugust of last year he told Geoff Tabe, the other seniorDTF bureaucrat:

I had learned that the Minister for Planning was involved inthe appointment process and might be supporting JamesReeves.

Further, Mr Hawkes states:

It appeared to us that the Minister for Planning had a view.

Mr Hawkes states:

It was our understanding that the Minister for Planning wassupportive of another candidate, which was Mr Reeves.

Mr Carr of Heidrick and Struggles, the consultants,states:

They —

being the board —

at a subsequent date indicated that there was an individual onthat list that the government wished us to consider.

Board member Mr Davis states:

There had been, I think, discussion that Mr Reeves wasgovernment’s preferred candidate —

‘scuttlebutt’ I think he referred to —

that he was the preferred candidate of the government.

Mr Petrovs in the inquiry said:

There had been discussions about rumours rife throughout theindustry, throughout the corporation, throughout thegovernment about the government having a preferredcandidate.

And there is plenty of other evidence from witnesses tothe inquiry that rumours were rife. The rumours wereso rife that on 14 April last year the Courier Mail in anarticle by Matthew Franklin about Jim Soorley and hispotential resignation as mayor of Brisbane had this tosay about Mr Reeves.

With Tim Quinn and David Hinchcliffe already declaredcandidates another possible contender is Jim Reeves,Soorley’s right-hand man in city hall and a former mayor ofBallarat. Reeves is widely respected in city hall circles as anA-grade fix-it man whose skills are a significant reason forSoorley’s political and administrative success. Reeves refusedto discuss his plans with the Courier Mail or to comment onclaims that he had ruled himself out of the race by accepting anew job with the Victorian government of his close friendSteve Bracks.

Fascinating! The Courier Mail had the mail as early asmid-April of last year, long before the process began.When it comes to the process it is timely to recall anumber of meetings that were held. Evidence led to theinquiry suggests that Mr Reeves met with Mr Thwaites,the then Minister for Planning, on 11 May, and thatevidence is explicit. Indeed Mr Thwaites is on therecord as having said that he suggested to Mr Reevesthat he take the job. That leads obviously to questionsabout when Mr Thwaites decided that Mr Reeves wasthe appropriate person for the job and how he then wentabout it.

There was a further revelation at the inquiry. When itcomes to the Department of Treasury and Finance, whydid it not act? Why did it not act to brief the Treasurer?Why did it not act to brief its minister? Why did it notensure that its minister was fully apprised of theinformation which had been made available to it and tothe Department of Infrastructure?

An Honourable Member — He just did not want toknow.

Mr BAILLIEU — He did not want to know — orhe was not allowed to. As I said earlier, perhaps that iswhy the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinetwas brought in, to roll the Department of Treasury andFinance.

Interestingly Mr Tabe gave evidence to the inquiry, andI quote:

I consulted with the Department of Infrastructure, Mr RayO’Halloran, who advised me that similar letters had come tothe Minister for Planning and that the matter was being dealtwith within the DOI and that we should hold off on anyaction at that time.

And that went on until they were to get back to him.

Plenty of evidence was led to the inquiry. TheDepartment of Infrastructure told the Department ofTreasury and Finance officials to do nothing. Goodnessme — to do nothing! It rings a bell with thisgovernment. They were advised to do nothing, and theconsequence of that is that they did nothing. Nobriefing whatever went to the Treasurer on theshortcomings of Mr Reeves. There is no evidence thatthe Treasurer was consulted, and in fact the evidencesuggests that contrary to the claim by the Minister forPlanning there was no consultation between them. Thesuggestion is clear that either the Treasurer knewMr Reeves’s shortcomings of his own account and didnot want anything to do with this sham appointment orthat he was kept out of the loop.



The reality is that Mr Reeves’s deficiencies wereample. They were noted in the Heidrick and Strugglesreport. I quote:

Does not have first-hand operational experience.

… has not been responsible for profit and loss.

… this was evident from his responses to financially orientedquestions during interviews.

… had some difficulty demonstrating the relevance of hisexperience for the role compared with other candidates.

… gave responses to specific questions which tended to begeneral and hence lacked depth.

Interesting reports came back from the second round ofinterviews, where similar sorts of comments weremade.

There is the revelation at the inquiry from Mr Glynn,who suggested that Mr Bryce Moore had told him —and I concede that is contended by Mr Moore, butcontended in an interesting way, I would suggest, if thetranscript is read — when Mr Glynn departed asmanaging director:

I had one of my general managers come to me, Bryce Moore,… to tell me that Mr Bracks had offered my position toMr Reeves.

… Yes, I understand that Mr Bracks had offered theposition … two or three weeks before 17 May, some time inthe middle of April.


Mr BAILLIEU — Around the time that theCourier Mail printed the article, indeed.

Interestingly we have on the record that the thenMinister for Planning met with Mr Reeves on 15 May,and it was on 17 May according to Mr Glynn that headvised his staff that he would not be continuing. Andthe scuttlebutt that was around — and there is plenty ofevidence, including from Mr Bryce Moore, that, yes,there was scuttlebutt around and that rumours werearound — that the government wanted Mr Reeves. Butthat is just one of the many revelations. I have alreadymentioned the coincidence of the Courier Mail articleof 14 April.

I also mentioned before that the Premier had suggestedthat the appointment was welcomed by the board. It isinteresting to contemplate the evidence of Mr Glynn,who told the inquiry of Mr Reeves:

I think he was flown down from Brisbane, and having metwith Mr Reeves, Mr Petrovs rang me and said, ‘Look, Des, Iknow of your decision —

this was his decision to not continue —

I was wondering whether you might reconsider’. I said, ‘Whyis that?’ and he —

he being Mr Petrovs —

said, ‘Well, I don’t think he is up to it’.

The interesting thing is that that was not all that hasbeen revealed as to the views of the chairman of theURLC on Mr Reeves. Let me quote from the evidenceled to the inquiry, which was an email from Mr Petrovs,the chairman of the URLC, to Angie Dickschen, whowas the deputy chair of the URLC and the chairman ofthe subcommittee considering the recommendation forthe appointment of a new chief executive. It was anemail sent on 17 August from Mr Petrovs toMs Dickschen. As I said, this evidence led to theinquiry, and I shall just quote part of it:

Reeves, on reflection, would be incapable of doing the jobunless he had a 24-hour-a-day nursemaid.

This was an email from the chairman of the URLC tothe chairman of the subcommittee on 17 August. Thedate is significant because that was the day thedepartment heads conducted their interviews and alsothe day Mr Petrovs attended, under protest, as anobserver of those interviews. Those interviews were ofonly the three candidates chosen by the departmentheads, allegedly, and not the three best candidates fromthe board list. That was also the day when the actinghead of the Department of Treasury and Finance madeit clear that Mr Reeves had ample shortcomings thatcould only be overcome by the appointment ofsomeone else to a senior position to compensate for hisshortcomings. Mr Petrovs’s comments are quiteconsistent with the evidence led about the conduct ofthose interviews.

I also said earlier that the government claimed there hadbeen no pressure on the board to change its selection.Evidence given to the inquiry is quite to the contrary. Infact the chairman of the URLC, in a message to theheadhunters after the second round of the process,wrote an email, and I quote:

We won’t win.

And I further quote Mr Carr from Heidrick andStruggles:

Frank Davis called 26 September to say that the board wasnot able to make an appointment of the preferred candidate,Mark Henesy-Smith, and that we were to close him out(government pressure too great).

Another email from Petrovs to the headhunters states:



I have a sneaking feeling we will not win this one.

That was on 24 September, and then there isMs Dickschen. She told the inquiry:

I felt it was a direction, and I felt that Henesy-Smith was thebest person for the job and that I was being directed toconsider and appoint somebody else who I think was not thebest person for the job.

Mr Petrovs told the inquiry:

We had no choice, I guess.

The interesting thing is the further revelation of theinquiry which again raises questions for the ministers,and that is that the headhunters’ report was changed atthe direction of the department head, Professor Neilson,to favour Mr Reeves. Professor Neilson chose not tochange the report that went to other department headsor to the ministers on account of any other candidates,but only on Mr Reeves.

Regarding Mr Reeves’s assessment that went to theminister, according to the evidence of Mr Carr fromHeidrick and Struggles, Professor Neilson:

… requested we delete: ‘At times he seemed to talk aroundthe difficult questions rather than address them directly’ andalso delete: ‘Did not seem to recognise his lack ofengagement’. There was also a deletion in the final sentencetaking out: ‘Although his lack of operational experience’.

And then there were some additions directed byProfessor Neilson, and those directions were:

His role had been to work with government and the privatesector to formulate, develop, rather than direct projectdelivery …

Mr Carr of Heidrick and Struggles was quoted assaying:

I was surprised because it wasn’t standard procedure for anindividual on a selection committee to request changes to adocument that we prepared.

There is no doubt that the headhunters regarded thesecond process as inappropriate, and they have told theinquiry that. They have said it was absolutelyinappropriate and untoward, and clearly other membersof the board thought so as well. Mr Davis, quoted in theinquiry, said he thought it was quite wrong and said theboard supported the chairman and going back andconducting the second round of interviews was notregarded as appropriate.

As I said before, it has been made patently obvious tothe inquiry that Mr Reeves was not in the top threepreferred selection of candidates by the board, and therehave been other revelations to the inquiry. Interestingly

it has been firmly put to the inquiry that ProfessorNeilson originally agreed that Henesy-Smith was thestrongest candidate. In fact Mr Carr of Heidrick andStruggles said of Professor Neilson:

In the discussions and interviews we had where Mr Neilsonwas present, he certainly agreed that he —

Henesy-Smith —

was the strongest candidate.

Further:

The view of the group of individuals, including ProfessorNeilson, was that certainly Mr Henesy-Smith was thestrongest of all the candidates.

That happened on the first round of interviews.Mr Davis, who was on the board committee, told theinquiry:

You know, he (Neilson) went with every information factor.My belief is that he tacitly — he certainly did not specifically,but I thought he tacitly supported it — knew what the boardwas going to propose and supported it.

Mr Davis also told the inquiry:

… it was my own impression from discussions after theinterviews that he, Professor Neilson, knew what the boardwas going to recommend. He did know that and he tacitlysupported it.

It is clear from evidence led to the inquiry thatProfessor Neilson was happy with the first interviewprocess, and said so himself. But somewhere along theline there was a watershed. Somewhere along the linethe instruction was given to Professor Neilson to goback to the board and conduct a second round ofinterviews to include the Department of Premier andCabinet, when it had no role to play, and to includeGrant Hehir from the Department of Treasury andFinance. The instruction was to conduct a second roundof interviews that did not include preferred candidatesbut somebody who was clearly the government’spreferred choice, and to conduct a further sham process.

As I said earlier, Mr Reeves’s lack of commercialsuccess during his experience with the brewery wasclearly evident to all those who participated in theprocess, as the consultants Heidrick and Struggles toldthe inquiry.

A range of revelations have been made at the inquiry. Inote Mr Davis was quoted on his views of Mr Reeves:

No specific capabilities for brief, no strong feel for managingeconomic change, focus on policy not outcomes, nevermanaged anything, did not impress greatly at interview on hisown terms.



That, from a board member of the URLC, is hardly acompelling recommendation. In further commentingthat Mr Reeves lacked depth, Mr Davis hadhandwritten on a note that he also lacked conviction.Further, Mr Davis said:

He did not in my view have the sharp end of the knowledgeneeded to run the URLC business … he did not capture orengage my support at the meeting. I found him a little bitlacking in precision and airy-fairy and sort of diffident —quite different to what I thought he would be like … he didnot come across to me as the sort of candidate I wanted.

… he was rather diffident and it did not seem to come acrossthat he had great conviction in his answers.

As I said earlier, the chairman of the board is quoted inan email as having said:

Reeves, on reflection, would be incapable of doing the jobunless he had a 24-hour-a-day nursemaid.

Documentary evidence led to the inquiry reveals that anundated letter was sent from the chairman to theminister, but it seems the letter was rejected andrewritten for the chairman. I quote part of it:

I refer to my recent meeting with Lyndsay Neilson, whoinformed me that to ensure that due process was observed inselecting an appropriate candidate for the position of chiefexecutive officer and managing director you had instructedhim to undertake a further series of interviews with some ofthe candidates previously interviewed.

That letter was prepared to go from the chairman to theminister. However, the evidence suggests thatsomebody decided that that letter be amended and notsent. At that stage Professor Neilson started to take therap for changing the process. There is a dramaticcontention as to who ordered the second round ofinterviews — whether it was the Deputy Premier orProfessor Neilson acting independently or on accountof the minister. As I said earlier, it is clear from theevidence that Professor Neilson did not have a problemwith the first process, as he said in evidence.

Another fascinating revelation made to the inquiry wasthat after the first round of interviews Mr Reeves wasadvised by the search consultants that he had not beensuccessful. If you were a candidate for an executiveposition but were not successful, you would have everyright to be disappointed — and you probably wouldhave every right to utter a few profanities and wonderwhat went wrong. But Mr Reeves rang ProfessorNeilson. In evidence led to the inquiry Mr Petrovs,chairman of the board, said:

… I received a phone call from Lyndsay Neilson sometimeafter that date — I think the 25th, I can’t recall the date —advising me that he had received notice from Jim Reeves thathe had been advised that he was no longer a candidate.

From that flowed the decision in a letter, whether fromthe Deputy Premier or Professor Neilson, to conductanother round of interviews. One of the candidates rangsomebody in government to say, ‘Hang on, I didn’t getthe job. You’ve done me in. You promised me the job,but I haven’t got it. You said I’d get this job’.

How did Mr Reeves come to apply for the job in thefirst place? The former Minister for Planning, theDeputy Premier, is on the record as having been withhim in November 2000 and having talked about the job.We have evidence that Mr Reeves had a Brisbaneholiday with the Premier for 10 days in January lastyear. We have evidence that Mr Reeves met with theminister — presumably in Melbourne, because there isno record of the minister having flown to Brisbane tomeet him — on 11 May last year.

The house should be aware of the fact that this is notthe only job that the government has offeredMr Reeves. In evidence led to the inquiry the head ofthe Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Moran,when asked whether Mr Reeves had been offered a jobin the department immediately after the election, saidyes. The job was then called head of the cabinet office,which was advertised following the departure of theprevious head. Mr Moran told the inquiry:

Yes, it was the job then called ‘head of the cabinet office’,which was advertised following the departure of Mr JamieCarstairs … That position was advertised. As is usual, asignificant number of people applied, and I am told thatJames Reeves … was one of them.

At the time Mr Scales was the head of the Departmentof Premier and Cabinet and Mr Moran took over at alater date. Mr Moran further states:

Secondly, I was presented with a list of applicants for thehead of cabinet office position, which as a result ofMr Blacher’s review changed as to its scope ofresponsibilities. It certainly changed as to its responsibilitiesbecause of what I did in the department.

At that stage Jim Reeves was not on the list, because as Ifound out later he had withdrawn his application.

The fascinating thing about that is there is the Premier’sbest mate being encouraged to apply for the head of thecabinet office only some few months before the thenMinister for Planning met with Mr Reeves andMr Soorley in Brisbane and spent two wonderful daysthere.

The interesting thing is that I put in a freedom ofinformation (FOI) application to the Premier’s office onthat particular issue, and you would imagine that, giventhat the head of the department knew that Mr Reeveswas on a list, knew that Mr Reeves withdrew his



application and knew that the position was available,there would be some evidence of that. In a lovely twist,it is clear that the Premier had instructed bureaucrats toprovide me with no FOI material, because I got a blankFOI response back saying no such documents exist.How did the department head know these detailswithout there being any documents? I look forward tothe further review of those documents.

There are issues for the Premier to address aboutwhether discussion took place with Mr Reeves inQueensland as to the discussions with Mr Moran thathe has conceded he had about Mr Reeves’s applicationfor the head of cabinet office and as to his discussionswith the former Minister for Planning. There are issuesfor the minister to answer as to the Brisbane trip and thediscussions he had with Mr Reeves about: who offeredMr Reeves’s name; what was discussed withMr Reeves at the 11 May meeting; the private meetingwhich only he and Mr Petrovs attended prior toMr Reeves’s name being advanced to the board; howhe advised the Treasurer of his determinations; wherethe evidence of consultation is; and why there was nowritten record of the references being sought by thedepartment heads being assigned. These are questionsfor the Treasurer to answer in terms of his knowledgeof the DTF officials. Clearly there are — —

Mr Ingram — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I have been listening to the speech for a whileand it appears to be extremely repetitious in nature. Iwould like to — —


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!Every honourable member is entitled to present theirpoint of order. I ask the honourable member forGippsland East to repeat his point of order. With all theinterjections the Chair was not able to hear it clearly,apart from the words ‘repetitive comments’.

Mr Ingram — I have been listening to the speechfor a while, and it appears to be very repetitious innature. I believe that as the honourable member hasnothing new to offer you should call him to order.

Mr Perton — On the point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, I have actually sat through the entire speechsitting next to my colleague, and I assure you there hasbeen no repetition. I seriously doubt the honourablemember for Gippsland East has been awake or in thechamber during the course of the contribution.

Mr Kotsiras — He wasn’t here!

Mr Perton — In fact, as the honourable member forBulleen confirms, the honourable member forGippsland East was not even in the chamber. He wasprobably napping in his office or having a cup ofcoffee. So I ask you to rule against this spurious pointof order. As the Speaker often says, spurious points oforder sometimes merit a suspension from the service ofthe house, and I certainly suggest that to you, Sir.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order! Ihave heard sufficient on the point of order. There is nopoint of order. Under sessional orders it is time for meto interrupt the business of the house.

Sitting continued on motion of Mr BATCHELOR(Minister for Transport).

Mr BAILLIEU (Hawthorn) — As I was saying,there are questions for the Treasurer to answer as towhether he received advice from Craig Cook, his chiefof staff, written by his senior bureaucrats; whether hereceived a briefing from Professor Neilson; whether hereceived a briefing from the department head; andwhether he undertook his obligations under the act asTreasurer.

Where is the evidence of his support for the proposalput by the then Minister for Planning? Where is theevidence to show whether he was aware ofMr Reeves’s commercial shortcomings, whether therewas an Australian Securities and InvestmentsCommission search done on Mr Reeves — and it is nothard to do — and whether the Treasurer was aware thathis own department head had recommended that hewould only support the Reeves recommendation if asecond position was created in the knowledge that theboard had not been consulted about the creation of thatsecond position and the elevation of Mr Bryce Mooreas chief operating officer. As the honourable memberfor Bentleigh asked, did the Treasurer know that thedepartment head was filling the need observed by thechairman, that Mr Reeves would require a24-hour-a-day nursemaid? Was the Treasurer aware ofthe shortcomings of Mr Reeves, including theshortcomings noticed at the interviews?

There are a range of questions for the Treasurer toanswer, there are a range of questions for the Premier toanswer, and there are a range of questions for theformer Minister for Planning to answer. Thoseministers have the option of appearing before theinquiry, but they only have the option if this Assemblyrelieves them of the obligation they have to not appearbefore it.

The honourable member for Gippsland East was here,but he has gone yet again. The Independents have the



opportunity to stand and deliver on their charter, whichwas their undertaking to ensure that good governanceprevailed in the state and that things would be open,honest and accountable. It is their opportunity to standby their own promises and their own values — not, as Isaid before, as they did on the privileges issue with theformer Minister for Post Compulsory Education andTraining, when they set a parliamentary precedent byvoting down a reference to the privileges committee.

This is the second opportunity of a significantparliamentary nature that the Independents have had toshow their commitment to good governance. They havethe opportunity here, not to compel the ministers toattend but to relieve those ministers of the Westminsterparliamentary obligation they have of not attending.There are precedents, which my colleagues will go intoin the debate. There are ample precedents for that tooccur.

The Independents have a choice — and the governmenthas a choice, for that matter. They can accept theamendments, which reflect the true motion of the upperhouse that was passed today, and in so doing they cansimply hand the ministers a choice. The ministers thencan exercise that choice in a way they think fit. There isno obligation for them to attend, but for the governmentand the Independents to say, ‘We are sorry, we are noteven going to give them the choice’ would be to fly inthe face of good governance. It would be to fly in theface of the interests of the people of Victoria and toaccept the thuggery of an Attorney-General who has acontempt for due process. There is plenty of evidenceof that. It would be to accept the contempt of agovernment that brought this motion on at a time ofleast possible scrutiny, and it would be to accept thetotal abandonment of the government’s integrity andthe abandonment of its commitment to the charter thatit has with the Independents.

It would be a very easy thing for the government andthe Independents to simply pass this motion or supportthe amendments and for the ministers to say, ‘All right,but we won’t attend’. Where is the problem? What is it?What is it that these ministers fear? Is it that they fearthat the Premier actually set this whole scam up andthat the then Minister for Planning, the Deputy Premier,was complicit in it? Do they fear the fact that theTreasurer was either complicit or was ignored? If hewas complicit, then he is just as culpable, because heclearly ignored the opportunity to be briefed on theshortcomings of Mr Reeves; and if he was ignored, thenhe has to take issue with his colleagues.

There we have at the head of the government foursenior ministers — the Premier, the Treasurer, the

Deputy Premier and the Attorney-General. All havebeen involved in this shameful affair, and theAttorney-General has tonight brought it to a head.

The opportunity is there for the Independents to do theright thing. The people of Victoria expect, the people ofVictoria want and the people of Victoria need thisgovernment to provide more than a new style ofleadership. They expect this government to be open,honest and accountable, and unless this house givesthose ministers the opportunity to be open, honest andaccountable their integrity will be shot for good, and wewill be able to well and truly say that Slippery Steve isin control.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I cometo this debate from a different perspective, I must say,in that, as I suspect is the case with many otherVictorians, I am not fully au fait with all the facts andcircumstances of this sorry saga. It has become knownof course as the Sweet Lips affair, because Jim Reeveshad one famous hit song which concluded with theexpression, ‘He’ll have to go’. In the end he did —although of course he went before he even arrived. Inthat sense I suppose he will look back upon this wholebusiness as one of the lesser parts of an otherwiseperhaps illustrious career.

The thing that has interested me about it from a relativedistance is the government’s approach to it, and that isthe issue I want to concentrate on. As I say, I am notau fait with all the facts. They have been traced verycarefully in the debate in another place and in thishouse tonight very fulsomely and very ably by thehonourable member for Hawthorn.

Mr Perton — Fully or fulsomely?

Mr RYAN — Fully and fulsomely, but there is adifference.

I do not intend to retrace all of that, because it has beendealt with in a way that does not require repetition.Indeed, I would hate the honourable member forGippsland East to accuse me of being repetitious,because some might think that he had been sent in hereas a government ploy to try to bring this whole thing toan end, and we would hate that sort of aspersion to becast on him.

I will deal with a couple of issues, and the first is theissue upon which the honourable member for Hawthornconcluded — that is, the position of the threeIndependents. It is an important issue in the context ofthis whole debate, because this government was notelected in the ordinary sense, and it does not govern inthe usual sense. It was appointed, if you like, by the



three Independent members of the Parliament. Thatoccurred after a period of anguish on the part of allconcerned — not only those who occupy this chamber,but all Victorians.

Victorians had a period of vacuum where there wasuncertainty as to who would govern the state, anddiscussions ensued between the three Independents, thethen coalition and the current government. Thetoing-and-froing went on — I was directly involved inthat because there were discussions going on with theIndependents — and ultimately resolution wasachieved on the basis of what became known as ‘thecharter’.

This document was the pillar of the appointment of theLabor Party to the government of Victoria. At the timeit was flagged as such there was no attempt on the partof the three Independents to say other than that thearrangements as set out in the charter — this document,which was created by their own hands — wereabsolutely pivotal to the decision they ultimately made.That was so as a matter of logic, because they got to apoint where, in determining what they would do in thesense of to which side of politics they would accordtheir support, they needed to have something in writingthat in their view reflected the bases upon which peoplegenerally could make the judgment as to why they haddecided as they did. So the charter came about.

On 1 October 1999 the honourable member forGippsland West, the honourable member for GippslandEast and the honourable member for Mildura signed offon a letter that was sent to the leaders of the threeparties, who were at the time the Honourable JeffKennett and the Honourable Pat McNamara, whojointly formed what was then the coalition, and theHonourable Steve Bracks. I will refer to the charter,which was an enclosure to that letter of 1 October 1999.I do not want to go through it all, but it is pertinent torefer to it in part in the context of this debate. It says:

The aim of this charter is to provide for stable, open andaccountable government, which is able to work productivelyfor the people of Victoria.

…

We will not support any government, and will remove oursupport from a government which:

…

Is shown to be corrupt, which supports any practiceswhich are corrupt or which violates accepted standardsof public probity.

Abuses the spirit of democratic parliamentary practiceand procedure.

We are willing to support a government which publiclyundertakes to:

1. Promote open and accountable government

2. Improve the democratic operation of Parliament.

I pause to say that I am reading from sections of thecharter, and should anyone wish me to I would beprepared to table the document.

It goes on further under the heading ‘Promoting openand accountable government’ to say in relation toprovisions regarding freedom of information:

(a) Reducing the restrictions on access to documents on thegrounds of ‘cabinet confidentiality’.

It says further that it seeks the government to adhere tothe ideals of freedom of speech by:

(a) affirming the principles that debate and dissent arelegitimate aspects of a democratic political system;

(b) removing restrictions on the freedom of speech of thoseemployed under government contract or as publicservants.

It also says:

… Establish a judicial inquiry into the ambulancecontracts/Intergraph issue.

The terms of reference to be agreed to by the Independentsafter consultation with government, opposition and otherinterested groups.

I pause to say that it is interesting that there was apreparedness on the part of the three Independents tohave a judicial inquiry into the ambulance contracts andthe Intergraph affair, which is in marked contrast to thesort of position they have exhibited so far in this wholesorry saga surrounding Jim Reeves. Still, we will allknow the final view they take when the Parliament andthe public at large have the benefit of seeing the waythey vote on the motion now before the house.

The document says under the heading ‘Improving thedemocratic operation of Parliament’:

(c) Establish standing committees to review legislation andthe operation of government (similar to the operation ofthe Senate).

That, of course, is very pertinent to the process that wenow have before the house, because what we have is acommittee which has been established by theLegislative Council and which is performing the role ofa standing committee. It is not in this instancereviewing legislation, but it is certainly reviewing theoperation of government and it is certainly similar tothe operation of the Senate, so in all those senses the



aspects of the charter which were sought by the threeIndependents are established in the course of what isnow going on in the Legislative Council.

The document goes on further to conclude:

Above all, we hope that the current situation of a very finelybalanced Parliament of Victoria can be utilised to improve thedemocratic principles and practice of our state as well asproviding a framework to move us all forward in the spirit ofbalance and cooperation.

That is what was sent to the leaders of the parties by thethree Independents on 1 October 1999.

On 12 October 1999 Steve Bracks responded by a letterin his own hand directed to the honourable member forGippsland West, and it commenced by being identifiedas a formal response to the letter of 1 Octoberincorporating the amended copy of the IndependentsCharter Victoria 1999. The letter states:

I am pleased to indicate that I support the charter in itsentirety and seek to outline in detail how a Bracks Laborgovernment could implement it in full.

It states further — and this is always an interestingquote to be able to read back, of course:

I join with you in expressing a commitment to providingstable, open and accountable government which is able towork productively for the people of Victoria.

The letter goes on to say:

At the broader level I am pleased to say that the four pointslisted in the charter formed the basis of Labor’s electioncampaign —

and it specifies two of those as being to:

Promote open and accountable government;

Improve the democratic operation of Parliament …

It says further:

This formal response will detail my position on the charterand how I intend to implement both its detail and its spirit inthe event of your support.

It continues under the heading ‘1. Promoting open andaccountable government’:

I have campaigned and fought for the creation of open andaccountable government in Victoria for many years. It is mygreatest priority to ensure that the Victorian community hasits respect for our democratic institutions and system ofgovernment restored. I believe that if a Bracks Laborgovernment were in a position to implement this charter wewould see a transformation of our government and thecommunity’s relationship with it.

That is what the Premier said. There are further aspectsof the document which bear consideration in thecontext of this debate. A little further on under thesubheading ‘Removing restrictions on the freedom ofspeech of those employed under government contract’,the Premier states:

I commit a Bracks Labor government to the following:

abolition of teaching standing orders that silenceteachers on matters of education policy;

abolition of clauses in funding contracts that limit publiccomment by community organisations to enable freedebate and ensure the community is confident of theadequacy of existing services; and

introduce legislation to protect whistleblowers in thepublic service.

I make reference to all of those, and as the honourablemember for Richmond quite rightly observes, that hasall been done. With his able assistance — rhetoricallyof course, Mr Acting Speaker — I ask why it should bethat these standards, which the Premier set out as beingapplicable in the instances which the honourablemember for Richmond now agrees have beenaccommodated, do not equally apply to the threeministers, including the Premier, to whom this currentmotion refers? Why should it be that the Premier isprepared to undertake a course of action referable tothose instances with which the honourable member forRichmond so roundly and readily agrees, yet when he,the Minister for Health and the Treasurer are asked toparticipate he abandons those standards upon which hehas so relied?

The document goes on to talk about the establishmentof a judicial inquiry and further improving thedemocratic operation of Parliament. Under the variouscommitments of his government, the Premier says thathe is prepared to:

Establish standing committees to review legislation and theoperation of government similar to the operation of theSenate.

In so saying, what the Premier did was repeat word forword the position which had been put to him by thethree Independents in their letter of 1 October 1999,when they enclosed the draft of the charter with whichthey wanted him to agree. The Premier unequivocallycommitted to establishing standing committees toreview legislation and the operation of government,‘similar to the operation of the Senate’. He went on tosay:

I commit a Bracks Labor government to the establishment ofproperly resourced standing committees to review legislation



and the operation of government on behalf of the VictorianParliament.

That is what the Premier told the world on 12 October1999. Under the paragraphs that relate to what heexpects of the three Independents, he said:

I acknowledge and respect your right to vote on all legislationin accordance with the needs of your electorates.

By extension I presume that to mean that he alsorespects the right of the Independents to vote inaccordance with what they think are appropriateprinciples, as set out in their charter, and to makedeterminations on behalf of their electorates inaccordance with the charter, having regard to thegeneral conduct of government. The Premier continues:

I have a personal view that, if Labor were to formgovernment with the support of Independent members, powerin Victoria would be firmly placed back into the hands of ourcommunity. I have an absolute commitment to restore prideback in Victoria and provide stable, open and honestgovernment.

That is what the Premier said in his document. In thecourse of this whole sorry affair I believe the charterassumes enormous proportions. Despite the things thathave happened before and the things that havehappened after, apart from those instances where itcould truly be claimed by the three Independentmembers of this place that there were areas of greyabout what they should or should not do in accordancewith their charter, there is surely no uncertainty aboutwhat is contemplated by this. I am sure the Victoriancommunity will be interested to see how the threeIndependents vote in terms of dealing with the mattersnow before the house.

Moving on from the charter, there is a key questionwhich is pertinent to all this. What is the problem thatconcerns the government? Why is it that thegovernment is worried about three of its membersgiving evidence before the committee which has beenestablished in the Legislative Council if they choose to?It is not compulsory, it is only if they choose to. I wantto work through a number of issues pertinent to thatmatter.

I see in some of the material which has come from theLegislative Council that Mr Theophanous, who is amember of the committee, refers to it as a StarChamber. I went to the Concise Oxford Dictionary tofind the definition of ‘Star Chamber’, which it says is:

A court of civil and criminal jurisdiction primarily concernedwith offences affecting Crown interests, noted for summaryand arbitrary procedure; abolished in 1640.

Figuratively speaking, the dictionary definition refers toan arbitrary or oppressive tribunal. In each instance thecommittee established in the Legislative Councilsimply does not fit the definition. It is not to do with acivil or criminal jurisdiction. It is not primarilyconcerned with offences affecting Crown interests. It isnot noted for summary and arbitrary procedures, and itwas not abolished in 1640. It certainly is not anarbitrary or oppressive tribunal, and I do not thinkanybody would assert that. On any definition, it is not aStar Chamber.

Its actual conduct also gives the lie to that assertion,because a Star Chamber carries with it, apart from thedictionary definition, the notion that there are thingshappening in its general conduct which are out of sight,out of mind and done by sleight of hand and not in anopen, honest and accountable manner.

To deal with that aspect one needs to have properregard to the way in which the committee functions.The fact is that it is open to the public. When thewitnesses are called anybody who wants to be there canbe. The television cameras are there unless, as has beentheir wont in recent times, the government has arrangedstunts in other parts of the city or out of the city toattract the general media’s attention.


Mr RYAN — There has been an attempt by thegovernment to keep the cameras out of it, butnevertheless there has been general media coverage.The reporters come along, take notes and report as theysee fit; they do radio broadcasts; if they are there fortelevision they film it and we see the clips on televisionat night; so there is very broad media coverage. There isalso a transcript, I understand. Every word so far, as onewould expect, has been faithfully recorded by theever-able services of Hansard. There are now 310 pagesof evidence. That evidence is on the Internet andanybody who wants to read it is able to do so. It is therefor everybody to see.

A number of witnesses have been called at this stage ofthe committee’s work. I am not sure how many —about a dozen or something of that order. They havebeen called from all sectors of the community; theyhave been subpoenaed on the basis of their being ableto assist the committee in relation to its work. Questionsare asked by members of the committee and witnessesare able to answer in their own good time. They are noteven in a court environment and are not pressed in away that would happen in the judicial system. They arenot subject to badgering or any other such thing, as issometimes the case in the courts. None of that goes on.



The government is of course represented on thecommittee. Mr Theophanous and Mr Jennings,honourable members for Jika Jika and Melbourneprovinces respectively in the upper house, are on thecommittee. It seems to me that makes all the moreremarkable the assertion that the committee, on whichthe government has two members, is in some way notconducting itself appropriately. These are two seniormembers of the government who are, they would say,competent and who the government would say arecompetent, who I am sure would be registering loudand long complaint in the course of the committee’sfunctioning if it were felt that the functioning of thecommittee was not in accord with standing orders.

Mr Wynne interjected.

Mr RYAN — The honourable member forRichmond says he will come to that. I will be interestedto hear what he has to say, because the two members ofthe committee are there for the government, there aretwo members of the Liberal Party, and the HonourableRoger Hallam is on the committee from the NationalParty. It is an all-party parliamentary committee, ofwhich there are many in this Parliament comprisingmembers of both houses. It is said that this is some sortof a beat-up. That assertion interests me because theimplication is that if the government had control of it, itwould somehow be a ‘beat-down’, that the work of thecommittee would be tackled in a different way from theway in which it is being conducted.

The committee is properly constituted. I understand thatthe standing orders in the Legislative Council providefor the establishment of committees, and that pursuantto the standing orders the committee has been dulyestablished. It is not a royal commission or anything ofthat sort, as I have already said, and so the persons whoappear before it and who are involved in its work areable to pursue their respective roles in a way that doesnot have about that function the sorts of weightyaspects of practice that go with activities such as thoseinvolved in a royal commission.

You have to ask at the end of it what is the risk to thePremier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer if theygive evidence. When you look at the logic of this, whatis the problem?


Mr RYAN — The comment comes from across thechamber that it is a Star Chamber. I might need to gothrough the definition of Star Chamber again; it wasobviously not heard.

An Honourable Member — Certainly no stars onthat side.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!Interjections are disorderly. The Leader of the NationalParty shall ignore them and address his remarksthrough the Chair.

Mr RYAN — What is the risk? Why would theynot go? What are the options going through their mindsas to why they would not go?


Mr RYAN — I will deal with the interjection first,which was, ‘Why would they go?’. The answer isbecause they are the three people best in possession ofall the material facts pertinent to this sequence ofevents. I see the nod of agreement from the other sideof the chamber. Let us establish that as an accepted facton the part of the government, if I may be so bold as toelevate the honourable member for Werribeeaccordingly. It is accepted therefore, and thehonourable member agrees, that the Premier — —

Ms Gillett interjected.

Mr RYAN — The honourable member just agreedwith me that the Premier, the Deputy Premier and theTreasurer are the three people who are in possession ofthe facts as they are best known. These are the threepeople who can say most about what eventuated. Sowhat is the risk? One of the issues that does arise incourt cases is that as a matter of general evidentiaryprinciples if there are people who are available to becalled to give evidence, and if those people are inpossession of the facts in a manner which others arenot, and if there is a power on the part of one of theparties to enable those witnesses to give evidence, ifthey do not come along and give that evidence then thelaw says that an implication can reasonably be drawnagainst their interests. In this instance I think it is a fairimplication.

The three people who know most about this can goacross to the chamber and give evidence; by the termsof the motion they are being offered that opportunity.What is being offered to them is the same as what wasoffered in years gone by when in 1976 or 1977 theHonourable Haddon Storey and the Honourable VanceDickie were given permission by the LegislativeCouncil to come across to this chamber, to theLegislative Assembly, to give evidence. What is beingoffered to the three of them is the prospect to go acrossto tell their stories — these three people being the threewho know most about all of this. Why would they notgo over and do that? What implication could reasonably



be drawn from the fact that they are not prepared to goover and do that?

Is it an issue of the famed right to silence? Do they feelthat by going across there and appearing they would insome way, shape or form be in breach of the right tosilence? I emphasise that right has no application in thematters under consideration now — this is not thecriminal jurisdiction. However, the general principlemight be troubling them. There are two answers to that.

Mr Delahunty interjected.

Mr RYAN — I take up the interjection from thehonourable member for Wimmera — an open, honestand accountable government surely would not betroubled by this. These are the three people who knowmost about it. Why would the three people who knowmost about it — three of the senior members of thecurrent government — not go across under the bannerof open, honest and accountable government, asreflected in the charter, and tell the world what theyknow about all this? That is one answer to the question.

The other answer is they do not have to say anything.They do not have to say a word. They can go across tothe chamber if they so choose and not say a thing. Ifthey want to go across there and not answer that isentirely a matter for them. Why they would not want togo across — —

Ms Kosky interjected.

Mr RYAN — The Minister for Education andTraining says, ‘I am above this’. The minister has beena minister in the house for the past two and a half yearsas we have all sat here. I remember the early days,going back a couple of years, when questions werebeing asked in question time about the levels and thestandards of the government and its honesty, opennessand accountability. Time and again we were assured byall members sitting opposite that the words set out inthe charter, which was the biblical reason forattendance, would be adhered to. Day after day theyhave talked about being honest, open and accountable,and here they are in a circumstance where they can goacross and be open, honest and accountable, or if theyso choose for whatever reason they do not have to say athing. That is entirely within the ambit of the capacitythat lies in the motion — there is a clear understandingthey do not have to say anything.

The fact of the matter is that there is a committeeestablished by the Legislative Council. All this hashappened in an environment where there is a constantdrive from the current government that the LegislativeCouncil should perform a role more extensive than has

been the case historically. We have heard about thatad nauseam. We have got to the position now wherethis properly established committee is in the throes ofits work and is calling upon these three witnesses tocome across and give the committee the benefit of thefactual material which they have and no others have —which they alone have before them.

The committee structure is entirely in accord with thatwhich applies in the Senate, where, as the members ofthe government know, the Senate committees are notcontrolled by the government. So it is that thisgovernment might say, whether it be the childrenoverboard affair, as it has come to be known, orwhatever else might be spoken of, those events haveunfolded because a committee which is not under thecontrol of the government but nevertheless comprisesmembership of the government of the day is able to goabout its work. Those Senate committees do that.

On the three Independents’ part the charter calls for theestablishment of committees that perform exactly thissort of function and are structured in exactly the sameway as this committee. The Victorian governmentagreed under the hand of the Premier that it wouldaccept the work of those committees and adhere to thepractice for the purpose of honouring its undertaking toVictorians to provide open, honest and accountablegovernment.

The chooks have come home to roost, because thecommittee — which is performing precisely thefunction which this government surely must havecontemplated when the Premier put his hand to thedocument — is calling for the Premier to attend. Thereis a lovely irony in it, I grant you, but exactly the sort ofstructure that is happening in the Senate is happeninghere in Victoria. What is the difference? Threeministers are being offered the opportunity to go acrossand contribute to this committee’s work. I have littledoubt that what has happened here is doing thisgovernment enormous damage, because the issueitself — the comings and goings of Jim Reeves, justlike the Watergate affair or its equivalents over theyears — has ceased to be the issue.

The issue has now become the fact that the governmenthas been hoist on its own petard. Just as all thesepromises were made by the government in response tothe assurances which were sought by the Independents,and just as that process resulted in the Labor Partybecoming the government with the coalescence of thethree Independents, so it is that this chamber, theLegislative Assembly, now offers the government andby definition the three Independents the prospect of



living up to the undertakings upon which thisgovernment now rules in Victoria!

I have no doubt that people will watch this sorrychapter of events very closely over the next days andweeks. I am speaking in this debate at 10.45 p.m. incircumstances where the government has moved thecontinuance of business. It has done so because it wantsto get this issue out of the way so it is not running in theVictorian Parliament tomorrow when the dawn rises,the media returns and the cameras are back. It wantsthis whole sorry saga out of the way before tomorrowcomes.

I see a winsome smile on the Attorney-General’s face.The shake of the head is not nearly as good as thewinsome smile, even from a man who is about to getmarried! I can tell by his look that he knows I amabsolutely right. Two weeks to go!

Mr Brumby interjected.

Mr RYAN — I am delighted to see that theTreasurer has joined in, too. I am pleased to see himhere at least. More’s the pity that he is not going to thatinquiry to tell the world what it wants to know inanswer to reasonable questions about his activitiessurrounding this whole sorry affair.

Mr Brumby — How many inquiries did you havein seven years? What about all the dirt — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!Interjections are disorderly! The Leader of the NationalParty will address his remarks through the Chair andwill ignore interjections.

Mr RYAN — Lions 10; Christians 0!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order! Ihave called on the Leader of the Opposition to addresshis remarks through the Chair and to ignoreinterjections.

Mr RYAN — I will, Mr Acting Speaker. Thehonourable member for Gippsland East is back in, too,making another cameo appearance.

Mr Perton — Yes, but sitting on the right side ofthe house!

Mr RYAN — Sitting where he would say heprobably best belongs, smack in the middle of the frontbench of the government! So I think it is incumbentupon the Premier — —

Ms Kosky — That is insulting!

Mr RYAN — Oh, ‘insulting’! The honourablemember for Gippsland West and the Treasurer are inearnest conversation at the moment. What a lovely duo!I might say this about those three ministers, togetherwith the honourable members for Gippsland East andGippsland West: it will very interesting to see whatunfolds in the course of the next little while and to see ifthose three are prepared to contribute their knowledgeto the important work of this committee so that wemight at long last get as close as we can to the bottomof what has become known as the Sweet Lips affair.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond) — I rise to support themotion moved by the Attorney-General. Havinglistened to near enough to 3 hours of debate from thehonourable member for Hawthorn and the Leader ofthe Opposition, I can only say that this has been apathetic attempt to breathe some life into the so-calledupper house inquiry. What we have is a report that hasbeen tabled in the — —

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr ActingSpeaker, this was a matter of such great import to thegovernment that it needed to be brought on today andwe have had to have an extended sitting, so I draw yourattention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Mr WYNNE — This is a pathetic attempt by theopposition to breathe life into this inquiry. Frankly, ifyou go through the interim report that was tabled in theother place you see that it essentially runs to about eightpages and that virtually the rest of the report iscorrespondence which was generated by theAttorney-General! The crux of the issue is whetherthere are any precedents for summoning members fromone house to appear before the committee of anotherhouse.

I draw upon Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice(eighth edition), which clearly elucidates on this matter.I will quote from it because it is important. Odgersstates in part at page 417:

The committee sought advice from the Clerk of the Senate onwhether the Senate could compel members of the House ofRepresentative and members of state Parliament to appear.

The Clerk’s advice was that the Senate did not possess thispower. Two bases for this advice were given. The first is thatit is a parliamentary rule that a house of Parliament does notseek to compel the attendance of members of the other house,as a matter of comity between the houses and out of respectfor the equality of their powers.

It goes on to deal with the standing orders:



Secondly, it was advised that, should the matter ever beadjudicated by the courts, the courts could find that as amatter of law the Senate does not possess this power. Thecourts could arrive at such a finding by reading theparliamentary rule as a rule of law, as courts have done withother parliamentary rules in the past, or, more probably, couldfind in the constitution an implied limitation on the powers ofthe federal houses in respect of each other and the statehouses, on the basis of the doctrine of integrity of stateinstitutions which has been expounded in other judgments.

There is no finer judgment one could find on this matterthan Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, but the moreimportant question is why this government would agreeto go before the kangaroo court in the other place wheneven prior to this inquiry being established the Leaderof the Opposition in a radio interview pre-empted itsfindings? In his interview with Neil Mitchell on29 November the Leader of the Opposition tried —rather pathetically in my view — to indicate that aselect committee would be established in a bipartisanmanner. The inquiry commenced on 5 December.

In this radio interview the Leader of the Opposition,Dr Napthine, said that Mr Reeves was clearly notqualified for the job, so he had basically ruled on thematter prior to this inquiry even commencing. NeilMitchell went on to ask, ‘Would you have the power torequire Jim Reeves to give evidence?’. The Leader ofthe Opposition replied, ‘We would have the powerunder this inquiry to call subpoena witnesses’. NeilMitchell asked again, ‘Would you be able to subpoenathe Premier?’. The Leader of the Opposition replied,‘Well, we would be able to subpoena the Premier’.

Before the inquiry even commenced the Leader of theOpposition had gone out on the radio, basically asjudge and jury of this inquiry. He suggested in thisinterview that it would be a bipartisan committee. All Iask of honourable members is to look at the voting inrelation to this inquiry. Honourable members will wellremember that there are two members of the LiberalParty, two members of the Labor Party and a memberof the National Party on this inquiry, and in everysingle instance where members of the Labor Party havesought to amend any aspect of this inquiry, what havewe got? A vote on party lines. So much forbipartisanship, so much for there being a fair andreasonable inquiry. Is that bipartisan? All this is is akangaroo court and a political exercise by theopposition. That includes this flaccid attempt by theopposition tonight, particularly by the honourablemember for Hawthorn, who bored us senseless fornearly 3 hours trying to regurgitate old claims. He hasobviously used a media clipping service as the basis ofhis evidence in relation to this inquiry. Frankly this isan absolute beat-up, and clearly the Attorney-General’s

motion should be supported. We will not be goingbefore this kangaroo court.

House divided on omission (members in favour vote no):

Ayes, 46Allan, 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 Savage, MrHardman, Mr Seitz, MrHelper, Mr Stensholt, MrHolding, Mr (Teller) Thwaites, MrHoward, Mr Trezise, MrHulls, Mr Viney, MrIngram, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 40Asher, Ms Maclellan, MrBaillieu, Mr Maughan, Mr (Teller)Burke, Ms Mulder, MrClark, Mr Napthine, DrCooper, Mr Paterson, MrDean, Dr Perton, MrDelahunty, Mr Peulich, MrsDixon, Mr Phillips, MrDoyle, Mr Plowman, MrElliott, Mrs Richardson, MrFyffe, Mrs Rowe, MrHoneywood, Mr Ryan, MrJasper, Mr Shardey, MrsKilgour, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Kotsiras, Mr Spry, MrLeigh, Mr Steggall, MrLupton, Mr Thompson, MrMcArthur, Mr Vogels, MrMcCall, Ms Wells, MrMcIntosh, Mr Wilson, Mr

Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 46Allan, 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, Mr

ADJOURNMENT


Campbell, 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 Savage, MrHardman, Mr Seitz, MrHelper, Mr Stensholt, MrHolding, Mr (Teller) Thwaites, MrHoward, Mr Trezise, MrHulls, Mr Viney, MrIngram, Mr Wynne, Mr

Noes, 41Asher, 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 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.


Remaining business postponed on motion ofMr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport).

ADJOURNMENT

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Imove:

That the house do now adjourn.

Police: communications systems

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — I ask the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to take immediateaction to fix the appalling computer andcommunications systems in rural and remote policestations, especially one-man stations. I have had anumber of phone calls into my office in the last coupleof weeks from police who are clearly frustrated about

the computer system that they have to rely upon inremote parts of Victoria. The current situation in someof these police stations is that it is taking up to30 minutes for police to log in. Last week one of thepolice officers went to download a special circular fromthe police, and it took 61⁄4 hours to download one pieceof a circular. It was about a shopping trolley theft at aSafeway store in Mount Waverley, and this was beingsent to all police stations across the state. The policehave decided that rather than use their own antiquated,out-of-date equipment, it is better for them to drive50 to 100 kilometres to one of the main police stationsto download the information and their emails. Thatsaves time.

This is not what we pay police to do: we pay our policein rural and remote Victoria to get out there, startpolicing and looking after the general community, notto be stuck behind desks waiting for antiquatedcomputer software to be updated under thisgovernment. I call on the minister to use some of thatmassive surplus this government has to start updatingthe computers and software of those rural and remotepolice stations to ensure they are getting efficient andfast communications systems so that our police canstart policing rather than being stuck behind desks.

Housing: at-risk tenants

Mr MILDENHALL (Footscray) — I raise a matterfor action by the Minister for Housing that concernshomelessness and at-risk tenancies. No, I am nottalking about the shadow Attorney-General and thehonourable member for Pakenham, the former Ministerfor Planning! I want to talk about homelessness andat-risk tenancies in public housing as well, particularlyas they affect people in my electorate.

One of the continual sources of complaint in myelectorate office comes from people whose publichousing tenancies are failing for various reasons. Whilethe government provides affordable accommodation foralmost 70 000 low-income householders through thepublic housing system, some 14 per cent of tenancies inthe system fail each year. That is certainly not to denythe enormous achievements and efforts made by theminister and this government in a public housing,which has seen the investment of over $90 million innew stock and the revision of various policies andpractices that were the norm under the former Kennettgovernment.

Many tenants leave voluntarily, and many do not state areason for doing so, but the ones that I am particularlyconcerned about are those where tenancies fail as aresult of rental arrears, antisocial behaviour or

ADJOURNMENT


deteriorating health, and the loss of the ability to liveindependently without support. After leaving publichousing, these householders often fall into unstablehousing situations or drift into homelessness.Long-term tenancy is an extremely difficult propositionfor these householders without some form of assistanceand support.

I ask the minister what steps she can take to helpsupport at-risk tenants in public housing and to helpprevent homelessness. I have had a number ofexamples in my office where people have had mildbrain damage, extremely difficult family situations,injuries or split households. These sorts of situationscan be unstable. I ask the minister to examine this issueand to take action to rectify it.

Schools: Edunet

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Education Services inanother place through the Minister for Housing thatconcerns the provision of Edunet services forgovernment schools.

Telstra has provided Internet services to the VictorianDepartment of Education and Training since May 1997.By providing services to all schools Telstra had aguaranteed customer base, through which it was able toattain economies of scale and spread fixed costs, suchas the cost of infrastructure, across all schools inVictoria. Most importantly, those fixed costs were thesame for all schools irrespective of size. Telstramaintained a constant price over the whole period ofthe contract, which expired in May 2001.

At that time the department called for tenders, and thosethat Telstra and other service providers submitted wereconsiderably higher than the initial one. At that stagethe department abandoned the tender process and askedall tenderers to deal directly with schools. Telstra verygenerously agreed to continue providing services at thesame price until February 2002. Since then everyschool has been on its own, which has severelydisadvantaged smaller schools, most of which are incountry Victoria.

The Nathalia Secondary College is a case in point. Ithas 170 students, and its Edunet services went up from$484 per annum to an estimated $3564 — a massiveincrease of 600 per cent. That means that the school hasto raise another $3000 annually to provide that service.The problem is that the department previously averagedsubscription costs amongst all schools so that they allpaid the same price per student, irrespective of the sizeof the school.

Now because of the actions of this government smallerschools — and the vast majority of them are in countryVictoria — are disadvantaged. In Nathalia’s case theyare paying $20 per student per annum. Larger schoolswould pay $3 per student per annum.

Education is a universal right irrespective of wherestudents live. I ask the Minister for Education Servicesto re-examine the provision of Edunet services toVictorian schools with a view to removing the presentunacceptable disparity in cost between large schoolsand smaller schools, the vast majority of which are incountry Victoria and the vast majority of which arebeing disadvantaged by the actions of this government.

Sherbourne Primary School

Mr PHILLIPS (Eltham) — I raise with the Ministerfor Education and Training as the representative in thishouse of the Minister for Education Services an issueinvolving one of my local schools. I ask the minister toreassess the letter I wrote to her recently regardingsome funding for the Sherbourne Primary School toseal its car park. The reply that I received suggested thatthe school could allocate some funding for the sealingof the car park from some other means or from anothersource of funding it received in the 2001 school year.

I ask the minister to have another look at the letter andthe project. It is a very worthy project. It is a car parkthat is very dusty and dirty. It is at the main entrance tothe school and is certainly something that warrants ahigh priority. The school, like all schools, is seekingadditional funding to do many of these projects thathave not been completed, so I ask the minister to lookagain at the project for me, for the school and for thelocal community to see if she can find about $8000 forSherbourne Primary School.

Housing: innovations program

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — I raise a matter for theattention of the Minister for Housing. We have manyexcellent community agencies and volunteers workingin the Gisborne area to address the issue of affordablehousing. I am pleased to say these endeavours have hadexcellent results since the Bracks government came tooffice.

Previously it had been the view that because we were inthe southern part of our region we were often left out ofthings. I am pleased to say that situation is changing.Last year the Minister for Housing announced twoinitiatives in my electorate as part of the first round ofthe social housing innovations program. These projectstotalled almost $1.2 million and will deliver 16 one and

ADJOURNMENT


two-bedroom properties for people with disabilities inKyneton and for older people in Romsey.

The announcement in Kyneton was for $886 000 forsocial housing projects at Windarring, which is an adulttraining facility for people with disabilities. The projectwas for six two-bedroom properties, with enormoussupport from the community, from John Fredricksonand his team at the Windarring Central HighlandsAssociation for People with Disabilities, and also fromthe Macedon Ranges Shire Council. The project atRomsey was for 10 one-bedroom units for olderpersons, again with enormous support from thecommunity, particularly the Lions Club of Lancefieldand Romsey, and again the Macedon Ranges ShireCouncil.

Part of the Bracks government’s innovative socialhousing program has seen for the first time in a decadea state government investing in social housing. Theseare wonderful examples of the state governmentworking with local government and the community tosecure accommodation for low-income people. Icongratulate our local health services, the Lions Club,the shire and all of the magnificent volunteers whowork with us and assist our communities. It isrecognised that our need is great. I was delighted thatthe minister acknowledged the needs of this region andmy community, which had been so long neglected bythe previous government. But affordable housingprovision is still an issue in my electorate. There arealways people in need, so while these have been terrificprojects, the need continues to grow.

Can the minister advise what action she will takethrough the social housing innovations program tocontinue to address the housing needs of low-incomeand disadvantaged people in central Victoria?

Vicroads: Mildura office

Mr SAVAGE (Mildura) — I raise with the Ministerfor Transport the staffing levels of the Vicroads officein Mildura. I have no complaint about the currentcompetency of the officers at Mildura’s Vicroadsoffice, but they are significantly understaffed and arehaving difficulty providing a decent service to thecommunity that I represent.

Apparently Vicroads has a new computer system thattakes twice as long to do data entries on driverslicences, and I think there are some difficulties withregistrations. For example, on Friday the 15th therewere 29 people waiting at the counter and the averagewait was 38 minutes, which is excessive. There are notsufficient staff to deal with the number of counter

inquiries. Staff go from this office down to Ouyen to dolicence testing, and they do licence testing locally plusregistrations.

I have had complaints from customers from theMildura community that relate to this issue, and it hasbeen going on for some time. Vicroads has assessed thestaffing levels of the office as being oversupplied.There is a person out the back on redeployment, whichis a ridiculous situation when people are waiting onaverage for 38 minutes. If he helps at the counter itaffects the statistical numbers of the people workingthere and could impact on their job futures, so they cutback another staff member.

It is clear that the staffing levels are too low. It is notgood economics to have a person on redeployment whocannot be put out on the front counter. I ask the ministerto review the staffing level at Vicroads and curtail thisridiculous concept of people getting paid but not doingany work because they are on redeployment. I ask theminister to ensure that taxpayers who pay registrationsget a good service for the money they pay. I realisethese are problems across the state in Vicroads, butMildura may be unique in some aspects.

Ragwort

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — I refer the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation to representations Ihave received from a large number of constituents rethe prevalence and poor management of ragwort in theYarra Ranges National Park and on private land in theUpper Yarra. Ragwort is a noxious week thatreproduces from crowns, roots and seeds. Ragwort ispoison to grazing animals and competes strongly withmore desirable native plants by the sheer volume ofseed it produces. An average ragwort plant produces60 000 to 70 000 seeds. A large plant can produce asmany as 250 000 seeds. Seeds remain viable for up toeight years and are spread by wind, water, animals,farm implements and agricultural produce, includinghay, and on clothing and other equipment.

Seeds that become airborne travel long distances, andthey are also carried by water such as the fast-flowingCement Creek. I was therefore stunned to see the acreon acre of ragwort on Crown land at the top of MountDonna Buang as far down as Cement Creek. I amfurther disappointed to find that Landcare groups, suchas the group in Don Valley, are now told to move onfrom ragwort and other weed control and justconcentrate on revegetation. They have been told thegovernment does not now fund for weed removal, onlyrevegetation.

ADJOURNMENT


This noxious weed has taken over a beautiful touristarea and has taken over grazing land. I urge the ministerto restore funding to Landcare groups for weed control.I also urge the minister to immediately provide theleadership and resources to eradicate ragwort on Crownland in the Yarra Ranges National Park.

Gippsland: community jobs program

Mr MAXFIELD (Narracan) — I ask the Ministerfor Employment to take action to ensure furthercommunity job programs for the Latrobe Valley andWest Gippsland. The community job programs haveprovided great impetus and community growth in myelectorate. More than $1.8 million has been provided todate, and the programs have delivered real jobs, in thatmany of the participants have gone on to permanentwork. Of course, accredited training is provided forpeople who participate in the programs.

This delivery of what can only be described as afantastic project is an outstanding achievement of theBracks government. Many of the participants I havespoken to at the start and the end of the programs haveexpressed their great pleasure that those opportunitieshave been given to them. The community jobs programstands as a stark contrast to the work-for-the-doleprogram, which is a pathetic and grubby program beingused by the federal government to rip off those in thecommunity who are unfortunate enough to be out ofwork.

Some of the programs in my electorate have achievedreal benefits not only for the participants but for thecommunity. They have included a cultural heritagedevelopment project involving conservation and landcare related to preserving and extending indigenouscultural heritage. We have also seen a variety ofcommunity works through the Baw Baw shire as wellas the rebuilding of houses in Moe, which have thenbeen sold off to fund further projects.

We have seen the rebuilding of the Narracan hall,which had burnt down. As the honourable member forNarracan it gave me great pleasure to see thecommunity jobs program delivering the new Narracanhall and to see that building literally rise from the ashes.That was another great Bracks government initiative.

We have also seen the building of a replica of theoriginal Walhalla railway station, which the Premierhad the pleasure of seeing when he was present at theopening of the railway line into Walhalla last week.The community jobs program has certainly been wellutilised in the railway rebuilding project, which hasseen the railway line go into Walhalla.

We have also seen the rebuilding of some of ourcommunity assets. For example, at Noojee we aretrying to develop a great tourist site, and the communityjobs program, in combination with other governmentprograms, has delivered fantastic streetscaping work inNoojee, which is something that I am very proud tohave as the local member. I congratulate thegovernment on a wonderful community jobs programthroughout my electorate.

Belle Vue Primary School

Mr McINTOSH (Kew) — The matter I raise for theattention of the Minister for Education and Trainingrelates to the physical condition of the buildings at theBelle Vue Primary School, which happens to be in myelectorate. I confess that I also happen to be a formerstudent of that school, having attended it many yearsago in the early 1960s.

The condition of the buildings and the surroundingareas of that school is pretty appalling. The staff and thestudents have a great affection for the school and itsheritage. The members of the staff are wonderful, andthey recently won a government science prize, whichprovided some funding for a special science programconducted at that school. The school has a wonderfulmusic program as well as a wonderful sports andacademic record.

I pay tribute to the staff and to the principal, Sue Baker.I have been there on a couple of occasions in the pasttwo weeks, and I note that the honourable member forBurwood has also been to that school on one occasionrecently. I have spoken to the honourable member forBurwood and we both agree that the physical conditionof the school is appalling. The pavement is beginning tolift in areas; the asphalt is beginning to rise; not only isthe paint coming off the walls but the roofs are leaking;and the school also has pretty Dickensian toiletfacilities. On top of all that it has two very old boilerswhich are in complete disuse, and we are veryconcerned about the possibility of the presence ofasbestos and those sorts of things in that area.

I ask the minister to review the funding arrangementsfor this school and deal with the appalling conditionsthere by providing a much-needed capital upgrade.

Harness Racing Victoria: former CEO

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I raise a veryserious issue this evening for the attention of theMinister for Racing concerning the conduct of officersof Harness Racing Victoria. I raise this matter in mycapacity as the former parliamentary secretary for

ADJOURNMENT


racing. Although I have been transferred from thatposition, I retain a soft spot for the racing industry and,at the same time, a very soft wallet because of thatinterest. Nevertheless it is a serious issue and I seek theminister’s assurance that inappropriate representationsthat have been attributed to an officer within HarnessRacing Victoria will not be repeated in future.

The circumstances of the case I want to raise for theminister’s attention relate to the Mildura HarnessRacing Club, which in the past 18 months hassuccessfully gone through a process of enlarging itstrotting track. That would have been fine, but theenlargement required the acquisition of neighbouringland which was being used by the Mildura ImperialsFootball Club. People in the chamber with a betterknowledge of country Victorian football than I havemight correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was theclub that former Richmond captain Dale Weightmancame from, so it is a very well known football club.

The acquisition of land for that trotting trackenlargement required a planning process and there werevarious public meetings. I understand that at one ofthose the representative of Harness Racing Victoria,who I further understand has since departed, made anextraordinary claim — that is, that anyone whoobjected to the enlargement of that trotting track couldpotentially be joined to any action subsequently takenin the tort of negligence by a trotting driver who mightbe injured as a consequence of the cramped conditionson the trotting track. This is an extraordinary claim, andI understand it is an alleged claim — the Ombudsmanhas since investigated it — but it does give a whole newmeaning to the expression ‘one out, one back’, that’sfor sure! It is an extraordinary claim that would appearto have been designed to discourage people fromexercising their democratic right under the statutoryplanning procedures and to lodge objections on themerits of the case presented.

The action I am seeking from the minister is, firstly, toconsider this matter and, secondly, to take it up withHarness Racing Victoria to ensure that at all times infuture officers representing that organisation indiscussions with people who have a right to lodge anobjection under a statutory planning process arepreserved and not effectively dismembered by spuriousand fanciful legal claims. I seek that action from theminister as a matter of some priority.

Mount Waverley Secondary College

Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — I raise a matterfor the attention of the Minister for Transport. Theaction I am seeking is that the minister immediately

instruct Vicroads to provide funding under the blackspot program for the construction of indented bus baysoutside Mount Waverley Secondary College onStephensons Road.

It is very unfortunate that I have had to raise this issue,because on two previous occasions I have raised it withthe Minister for Transport during the adjournmentdebate and to date no action has taken place. There hasbeen an agreement by Mount Waverley SecondaryCollege, the City of Monash and the department ofeducation for the construction of these indented busbays along Stephensons Road. The only stumblingblock in this whole process is Vicroads, whichcontinues to refuse to provide the necessary funding forthe construction of the indented bays.

Every single day hundreds of Mount WaverleySecondary College students board buses alongStephensons Road in a very dangerous setting. TheMinister for Transport has been placed on notice on twoseparate occasions by me and the local community thatthis is an unacceptable situation for students in myconstituency. I implore the minister to immediatelyinstruct Vicroads to provide the necessary funding forthe construction of those bays without delay.


Mr HARDMAN (Seymour) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Finance the issue of publicliability insurance, which is a matter of great concern tocountry Victorians. I ask the minister to take swiftaction to address the issue.

There are many festivals, shows and events heldthroughout my electorate and across all of countryVictoria and the rest of the state that need to continueinto the future, and I ask the minister to take action toensure that that can happen. The Seymour electoratehas many small communities whose strengths lie intheir ability to have festivals, shows and events thatbring people out, bring them together and let themcommunicate with each other. People then develop asense of community and promote the products andwares that they produce within those communities, andthey often raise needed funds for the volunteerorganisations such as the very important Country FireAuthority. Our small communities gather many otheradvantages from these events.

Public liability insurance premium hikes have so farcaused the cancellation of the Broadford AmateurCountry Show, because its premium went up from$900 to $4000. It is a relatively small event and couldnot cope with that kind of rise. Other events at risk

ADJOURNMENT


include the Seymour Rafting Festival, which took placeon the March long weekend this year, when I had theprivilege of starting the race. It was reported in theSunday Age that the competitors in that race had to signindemnity forms because public indemnity insurancecover was not a viable option.

Recently we had the Wandong Music Festival, and Ihad the pleasure this year of awarding the inaugural utecompetition award. That festival had a rise from $1100to $3700 in its premium, and the organisers are nowvery concerned that if this continues into the future theywill eventually have to close the festival down.

I can cite many other examples of important festivalsand community events that are being placed at riskthroughout my electorate. The Healesville GatewayFestival, the Yea Autumn Fest, the Kilmore CelticFestival, the Mia Mia Kite Flying Festival and manyothers are dependent upon this issue being addressed asquickly as possible. Again I ask that the minister takeaction and provide a long-term solution to this issue,which has the ability to profoundly affect our way oflife, especially in Victoria’s country towns.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) —Order! The honourable member for Sandringham has1 minute and 40 seconds.

Beaches: Sandringham

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I wish to raisea matter for the attention of the Minister forConservation and Environment. Twelve months ago theattention of the people of Victoria was drawn to the factthat the sands off Sandringham Beach were recedingfaster than the final days in the sands of time hourglassof the current government.

During the years of the former coalition government,over $15 million was spent on extensive beachrenourishment works around Port Phillip Bay. At thepresent time the beach opposite the Red Bluff Hotel isreceding significantly. Since this matter was first drawnto the attention of the minister the sands have furthereroded, resulting in very extensive engineering worksbeing required. I ask the minister to advise the house atthe earliest opportunity what action can be taken torectify this situation so that further costs will not beincurred. It is a simple problem that can be solved byappropriate engineering works and an appropriatecommitment of government funding.

During the former coalition government’s time in officeover $15 million was spent on the important objectiveof beach renourishment to improve Victoria’s coastlinewhich stands as one of the great coastlines of the world.

I ask the minister to take strong action to ensure thatthis matter is rectified so that people such as Mr ChrisCarroll from the Bayside Ratepayers Association cansee effective progress.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!The honourable member for Bulleen has 3 seconds.

Bulleen: park-and-ride facility

Mr KOTSIRAS (Bulleen) — I raise a matter withthe Minister for Transport to do with the park-and-ridefacility in my electorate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order!The time for raising matters on the adjournment hasexpired.

Responses

Mr HULLS (Minister for Racing) — I thank thehonourable member for Mitcham for raising this matter.I understand that a complaint was made by theImperials Football Club about the former chiefexecutive officer (CEO) of the Harness Racing Board.That person, Bernard Saundry, is a good bloke. He hasleft the Harness Racing Board now and moved on to beCEO of the Footscray Football Club, so he certainly hasa difficult job on his hands.

I understand that nonetheless a complaint was madeand the Ombudsman has investigated that complaintand reported on it. On the evidence available to him theOmbudsman concluded that the statement made byMr Saundry could be interpreted as meaning that anyobjectors could be subject to legal liability, so he hasfound that the complaint has been established. Can Isay that the response from Neil Busse, who ischairperson of the Harness Racing Board, is that whilstBernard Saundry has confirmed that he cannot recallthe precise words used at the meeting, he is sure hewould not have used any potential legal issues againstthird parties as a bargaining tool.

I am sure the Harness Racing Board is well aware,under the great leadership of Neil Busse, that it isobviously not its role to be putting pressure on groupsin relation to any planning issues and the like. BernardSaundry, on the advice of Neil Busse to theOmbudsman, has indicated that that was never theintention of his words. If they have been interpreted inthat way it is certainly unfortunate. I have no doubt thatin future, under the leadership of Neil Busse, any suchmisinterpretation will not occur again.

In relation to the Harness Racing Board, there has beena total change in the structure of the board. The board is

ADJOURNMENT


now, as I said, headed up by Neil Busse. We also havea number of women on the board for the first time. Wehave an innovative board, and harness racing is movingahead in leaps and bounds. The board has madeexcellent progress in implementing the new five-yearstrategic plan for the harness racing industry. That planis aimed at securing the prosperity and long-termviability of this great industry.

People forget that harness racing is a $578-millionindustry in this state, and more than 75 per cent of thatoccurs in regional and rural Victoria. In addition,harness racing employs 11 000 people, with two-thirdsof those jobs in rural Victoria. It is a huge industrywhich is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. The newboard is to be congratulated on the strategic plan. I amsure it will take on board the comments made by theOmbudsman, and I am sure that matter will be relayedto the Imperials Football Club.

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — The honourable member forWantirna raised what he believes is a concern aboutdelays in email facilities at rural police stations. I haveto say that under the previous government there wereno email facilities in rural police stations — there wereno computers in rural police stations. If there were ruralpolice stations, there were no police in them. We havecome a long way. We have rural police stations, wehave police in them, we have computers in them andwe have email facilities in them. However, in triallingthe email facilities at these rural police stations wediscovered that there was a bit of congestion on theTelstra lines.

As I have advised members opposite previously, Telstrais in fact a federal instrument. At the end of the daythere is an issue with the size of the pipeline thisinformation has to be pumped through. The Victoriangovernment will not put itself in the hands of thefederal government, because the federal government istrying to fatten up Telstra’s profits and maximise theshare price it will get when it tries to fully privatiseTelstra. Therefore the government will not rely on that.Victoria Police has budgeted $850 000 to address thisissue by setting up a satellite dial-up facility, which willensure not only that there is a rapid download capacityfor email but also that for the first time we will begiving our police direct Internet access.

As I say, the police are getting Internet, they are gettingemail and they will be getting enhanced transmissionspeeds. Many of them will be in nice new policestations, and there will be police there. I think that is anenormous improvement on the situation under theprevious government. I thank the honourable member

for Wantirna for allowing me to make thisannouncement.

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — Thehonourable member for Seymour raised with me theissue of public liability insurance as it affects a numberof community groups in his electorate. He specificallymentioned the Seymour rafting event, where there wasan issue about indemnity forms. He asked what reliefthe state government could provide. He also mentionedthe Wandong Country Music Festival, the KilmoreCeltic Festival, the Broadford amateur show, the YeaAutumn Festival and a number of other groups.

Regarding the indemnity forms for the Seymour rafting,that is a federal issue under the Trade Practices Act andunfortunately I cannot offer the member any news atthis stage. However, the federal government isconvening a summit next week, and I will raise that asan issue with the federal minister when we get to thatsummit.

Regarding some of the other events which fall into thecategory of not-for-profit organisations, I know thehonourable member for Seymour is a tireless workerfor the community organisations in his electorate. He isforever working hard on ministers in this place, askingus to deal with issues in his electorate and never ceasingto advocate for the electorate he is very proud of andworks hard for.

On these particular issues I can let the honourablemember for Seymour know that the Bracks Laborgovernment in conjunction with the Our Communityorganisation, the Municipal Association of Victoria andJardines insurance company is working on a groupinsurance scheme for not-for-profit organisations thatwill provide relief for some of those organisations in hiselectorate in two forms: firstly, in making it easier fororganisations like the ones he has mentioned to achievepublic liability insurance, and secondly — and this willbe tested as time goes on — to get it at a lower rate.They are the two objectives the government is workingtowards.

I commend the honourable member for his advocacy onbehalf of the groups which are under duress in hiselectorate, and that is the government action I hope willassist his groups.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forEmployment) — I thank the honourable member forNarracan for his great interest in the community jobsprogram (CJP). He rolled out a whole list of projects inhis electorate, and I know he has been active inencouraging local government and local partners in

ADJOURNMENT


those projects. There is no doubt they are extremelyworthy projects that will provide real jobs, training andopportunities for people who will get paid awardwages, which is not what happens with the federalgovernment work-for-the-dole program.

The community jobs program is very popular. Ourlatest funding round closed on 15 March, and we havehad a record number of applications from across thestate. I thank the honourable member for those manyprojects. I have noticed many press clippings from hislocal area about updates. I saw one about the CJP withthe Shire of Baw Baw and Rokeby the other day, and Iknow the honourable member is known locally as theMinister for the Community Jobs Program. Socongratulations to him.

He has asked that there be ongoing support for hisregion and for Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. Allapplications are assessed by a panel and arerecommended to me, and if they are as good as theothers that have been so successful they will see morefunding.

I would like to comment on one of the biggest in thecommunity jobs program, and that is in the LatrobeValley. It is a partnership to rejuvenate public housingbetween the Latrobe City Council, the Office ofHousing and TRY Youth and Community Serviceswhich is about delivering 267 CJP jobs at a cost of$2.18 million over two years to August 2003.

I am pleased to advise the honourable member thatmore than $650 000 has already been spent. The projectis about enhancing the appearance of former publichousing neighbourhoods, using surplus public housingstock and demonstrating what can be achieved bylow-cost renovations. I have seen photos of the projectsand I aware of some of the houses that have beenon-sold. It is a great way to convert former publichousing stock involving young unemployed peoplegetting real jobs and training and on-selling thosehomes and moving on to renovating new homes. Thatis predominantly what the project is about. The projecthas identified about 20 homes that are suitable forrenovation. On completion they are sold and money ispoured back into the project.

What are the outcomes? That is the interesting thingabout this program. There have been assessments aboutthe outcomes of the federal government’s employmentprograms compared to ours. Ours are more targeted,more intensive and more successful. To date, 39 of thefirst 67 participants to be employed on the programhave already been successful in gaining employment orhave moved into further study. That is a very high

success rate, particularly compared to thework-for-the-dole program.

It is a very important project in the Latrobe Valley.Two houses, one in Morwell and another in Moe, havebeen completely renovated, and I am pleased to advisethe honourable member that in terms of the next housesthey are working on, the next phase of the project willsee 40 people beginning work in Moe for 16 weeks.They will be working on restoring a house in BarborCourt, Traralgon, and one in Amaroo Drive, Churchill.I thank everyone involved in the project. It is thebiggest CJP project. It just shows you the type ofinnovation that can be done locally. It is localcommunities thinking of applications with a betterunderstanding of their communities. Thanks heaps tothe honourable member for the many great projects inhis area.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — The honourablemember for Footscray correctly identified that there area handful of public housing tenants in his communitywho need specialist assistance in ensuring that theirtenancies are stable. The tenants may have issues ofmental illness, disability or other problems. If they donot have special one-to-one support at sometimesdifficult and challenging times of their lives then theirtenancy may become unstable and they face thepossible risk of eviction and may enter into the spiral ofhomelessness.

The government has identified this as one of the keyfactors in its Victorian homelessness strategy, which Irecently released. Among one of the $3 million ofstrategic initiatives is an initial $130 000 pilot project,which is tailored at meeting the needs of these at-risktenancies in public housing. I am pleased to advise thehonourable member for Footscray that this particularproject will begin in July 2002, where workers willassist those tenants with case management support andreferral so that they can have stable tenancies and avoidthe risk of homelessness.

The honourable member for Gisborne has beenconsistent in her advocacy for additional affordablehousing in her community. She has identified that hercommunity will deliver $2.4 million of new housingprojects in the central Victoria area, greatly assisted byher ongoing advocacy and hard work in facilitatingthese applications in her local community.

We think that the social housing innovations project is afantastic partnership opportunity. It has provided theimpetus for many community groups to either get veryinnovative housing programs up and going or to add toexisting housing programs. It also is a program that

ADJOURNMENT


creates real jobs and real opportunities, and helps thetaxpayer’s dollar go further. There are lots of positiveoutcomes from the program, and that is great news forthose communities, for the building industry and for thestate as a whole. The government is committed tocontinuing the whole notion of partnership and will beable to offer more resources in the future in this regard.

The honourable member for Rodney raised a matter forthe Minister for Education Services in another place,and he has already provided papers to her regardingincreased prices for Internet services in governmentschools, particularly in the smaller schools in hiscommunity. I will ensure that that matter is followedup.

The honourable member for Eltham raised a matterregarding the car park at the Sherbourne PrimarySchool with the Minister for Education Services, andthat will be responded to.

The honourable member for Mildura raised a matterregarding the adequacy of staffing in the Vicroadsoffice in his community. The concerns were about theprocessing of drivers licences and registration. That willbe passed on.

The honourable member for Bennettswood requestedfunding from the Minister for Transport through theblack spot program regarding Mount WaverleySecondary College.

The honourable member for Evelyn was concernedabout the control of ragwort weed in her community,and has requested that the Minister for Environmentand Conservation follow this matter up.

The honourable member for Sandringham is concernedabout the receding and eroding sands at Sandringham.The Minister for Environment and Conservation willhave the responsibility of following up that matter.

The honourable member for Kew raised a matterregarding the condition of the buildings at Belle VuePrimary School. That matter will be responded to bythe Minister for Education Services.

The honourable member for Bulleen raised a matterthat I did not hear!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Seitz) — Order! Itwas for the Minister for Transport.

Motion agreed to.


NOTICE OF MOTION

Thursday, 21 March 2002 ASSEMBLY 415

Thursday, 21 March 2002

The SPEAKER (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos) took thechair at 9.36 a.m. and read the prayer.

The SPEAKER — Order! I call the honourablemember for Mitcham on a point of order.

Mr Robinson — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Iseek your advice on an important matter. DuringTuesday night’s adjournment debate the honourablemember for Mordialloc made a number of claimsconcerning the former mayor of the City of Kingston.In his speech he referred to an earlier occasion inNovember 2000, when he made the same claims inParliament.

I have examined the comments of the honourablemember and believe that his contribution on theadjournment debate on Tuesday comprised a repetitionof claims made on the earlier occasion. Or, to put itanother way, the honourable member’s contribution onTuesday did not include any fresh allegations ofimpropriety, but rather a more detailed restatement ofhis earlier claims.


The SPEAKER — Order! I have called thehonourable member for Mitcham on a point of order, asI do from time to time — and have done on severaloccasions for the honourable member for Monbulk —where a member believes a procedure which occurredsome days earlier during the sitting of this place hascontravened sessional or standing orders. I will hear thehonourable member and respond to his point of order. Icaution the honourable member for Mitcham that hemust stick to his point of order.

Mr Robinson — What is significant about theperiod between the two statements by the honourablemember for Mordialloc is that in 2001 the formermayor of Kingston — —


The SPEAKER — Order! It is inappropriate for thehonourable member for Mitcham to canvass the detailof the two statements.

Mr Robinson — I do not wish to do that,Mr Speaker, I wish to indicate that the former mayoravailed himself of the protection afforded by the rightof reply provision under sessional order 7.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Mitcham to cease debating the merits ofthe case and to come to his point of order.

Mr Robinson — Mr Speaker, the point I seek youradvice on is the degree to which, if at all, the protectionenjoyed by members of this place might be diminishedin circumstances where they repeat claims against anindividual — —


The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition!

Mr Robinson — I seek your advice as to the degreeto which, if at all, the protection enjoyed by members ofthis place might be diminished in circumstances wherethey repeat claims against an individual after thatindividual has successfully applied for the right of replyafforded by sessional order 7 and that reply has beentabled in the house.

Mr Leigh — On the point of order, Mr Speaker,firstly, I support people being able to make those sortsof statements to Parliament, but I make the point thatwhat I did was simply to get the statement that wasmade to check the other facts that were supplied to meoutside of the house as to what was correct andotherwise about that statement and simply read it backto Parliament. It was new information, so with thegreatest respect, he is wrong.

The SPEAKER — Order! As I indicated earlier, Iallowed the honourable member for Mitcham to takehis point of order because he is of the belief thatsomething in our standing orders or sessional ordersmight have been contravened. I am prepared to rule onthis point of order.

I am of the belief and opinion that privilege is absoluteand applies to any words that are uttered by honourablemembers in this chamber. However, his point of ordergoes further and asks me to examine what happens onoccasions when such words have been subject to aPrivileges Committee report. I will take that on notice,study it and report back to the house at an appropriatetime.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr RYAN having given notice of motion:


JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

416 ASSEMBLY Thursday, 21 March 2002

Mr RYAN — It might not matter much to thegovernment, but by Jove, it matters to Gippslanders. Itis all right for government members to sit over thereand cast aspersions. Why don’t they come down toGippsland and see where this is all happening?

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable memberis giving notice, not debating the notice.

JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation

The SPEAKER — Order! I have received thefollowing letter from the Minister for Health:

The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation is establishedunder section 16 of the Tobacco Act 1987 (‘the act’) topromote good health and disease prevention in thecommunity.

Under section 21(1)(f) of that act, three members of thefoundation are members of either the Legislative Assembly orLegislative Council and elected by both houses jointly. Theterm of the Hon. Gerald Ashman, MLC, member forKoonung, is due to expire on 22 May 2002.

I would be grateful if you could place this matter on theagenda for a joint sitting of both houses in the autumn sittingof Parliament 2002. In order to maintain the membership ofthe foundation at the optimum I would appreciate if thismatter could be resolved before Mr Ashman’s term expires.

I have forwarded a similar request to the President of theLegislative Council.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Mr BATCHELOR (Minister for Transport) — Byleave, I move:

That this house meets the Legislative Council for the purposeof sitting and voting together to elect one member of theParliament to the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation andproposes that the time and place of such meeting be theLegislative Assembly chamber on Wednesday, 27 March2002, at 6.15 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered that message be sent to Council acquaintingthem with resolution.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Regional Infrastructure Development Fund

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — I refer to a newspaperarticle in the Colac Herald on 5 February in which aphotograph of the Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment appears with the footnote ‘Wrong: John

Brumby says Terry Mulder wrong on funding’. Thearticle goes on to say that one of the minister’s faceless,overpaid advisers said that in relation to the RegionalInfrastructure Development Fund Terry Mulder hadcalculated amounts using incorrect figures.

The article states that the Minister for State andRegional Development’s overpaid adviser went on tosay:

He can’t do his maths and he can’t get the name of the fundright — that’s the sort of local member you have there. Hisarithmetic is wrong; he is just completely wrong.

Furthermore, I guess he —

meaning Terry Mulder —

is strongly opposed to the $446 000 given to the Surf CoastShire.

The funding referred to and confirmed by the SurfCoast Shire is $280 000 for the Lorne industrial estateand $103 000 for the Winchelsea industrial estate. Itgets better from there. The following article appeared inthe Geelong Advertiser on 1 April 1999:

Surf Coast Shire’s two new industrial estates in Lorne andWinchelsea were officially launched by sport and ruraldevelopment minister Tom Reynolds yesterday with the helpof more than $380 000 in grants.

We now know how the Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment comes up with his 40 per cent of fundingthat is going into rural and regional Victoria. He takesthe Kennett government’s programs and adds them tohis meagre amount — —


Victorian Concert Orchestra

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley) — I express my greatconcern for the continued operation of the VictorianConcert Orchestra, which was formed in 1926 andsupported by successive governments. A key role of theorchestra has been to provide concerts in countryVictoria. It has had great success in providing culturalentertainment and been acclaimed over the years for itsoutstanding performances. However, in recent years thefuture of the orchestra has been in doubt because ofreduced funding.

Together with many country members of Parliament, Ihave been battling to ensure that the appropriate level offunding is provided so concerts can continue to beprovided in country Victoria. It is ironic that duringsenior citizens celebrations the Victorian ConcertOrchestra performed twice at the Melbourne Town Hall

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


with free concerts to packed houses, apparently fundedby the Department of Human Services. YarrawongaArts Council applied for the orchestra to perform atYarrawonga and was allocated a date in November, butat a cost of $4500. Additionally, the council mustprovide the venue, lunch and the evening meal. This isoutrageous discrimination against country people.Corrective action must be taken immediately by theVictorian government to appropriately fund this greatorchestra so performances can continue to be providedfor those of us living in country Victoria.

Neighbourhood Watch: conference

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — Last Saturday Ihad the honour of attending the Neighbourhood Watchstate conference which was held at the CamberwellCentre and was opened by the Minister for Police andEmergency Services. Some 800 Neighbourhood Watchvolunteers and police attended the conference, and weheard a wide range of speakers on community safetyissues.

I congratulate the members of the 2002 board ofmanagement, Bill Horman, Jan Allitt, Joy Steward, RodPage, Inspector Wayne Rotherham, DetectiveSuperintendent Dannye Moloney and SuperintendentTrevor Parks. I also congratulate the state award ofhonour winners at the 2002 conference, GrahamLawrence, Kevin Inglim, Judith McKenzie, SergeantPhil Hay and Keith Lithgow.

The David Lentin award was shared by the Eyes on theStreet program at Dandenong and the Geoff McKenzieMemorial essay competition at Darebin. Specialmention for arranging such a fantastic conference goesto the state coordination staff, Senior Sergeant GregDavies, Sergeant Karen Rendell and Senior ConstablesRob James and Marilyn Dimech.

I saw a number of volunteers from my electorate there.I have attended many Neighbourhood Watch meetingsin Burwood and am a strong admirer of the work doneby so many volunteers who help ensure thatcommunities remain safe, working together andworking strongly to ensure that Victoria is a safe state.

Minister for Senior Victorians: festivalbrochure

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) —Victorians would be aware that from 9 March to22 March we are participating in the Victorian SeniorsFestival under the title ‘Live it up’. This festival hasbipartisan support and the support of all Victorians; andwhen we were in government it was an active festival.

The issue I raise is on behalf of a senior Victorian ladyfrom Glenthompson in western Victoria, who travelled250 kilometres to Melbourne yesterday to participate inevents advertised in a government brochure. Thebrochure stated that Parliament House would be openfrom Monday to Friday during the time of the festivalfrom 9 March to 22 March and there would be — Iquote from the brochure — ‘Free entry. No bookings’.

When she arrived here yesterday, having travelled250 kilometres as a senior Victorian to participate, shewas told that the tours were not going ahead and thatthere were no organised tours during the time whenParliament is sitting.

There is a clear lack of information in the brochure.This lady travelled a long way from country Victoria toparticipate according to information in a brochureissued by the Minister for Senior Victorians, theMinister for Doing Nothing. Clearly the brochure ismisleading, and this lady was very much misled by it. Ithank my staff who looked after the lady, provided herwith a cup of coffee and apologised to her on behalf ofthe Parliament and on behalf of Victorians. I hope thisnever happens again.

Peter Elphick

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — Wednesday,13 February was the 60th anniversary of the fall ofSingapore, a seminal moment in Australian history.This year events around that commemoration alsounfortunately provided the opportunity for Britishhistorian Peter Elphick to parade his defamatory viewson the battle of Singapore.

According to Peter Elphick the surrender of Singaporeby the British in World War II was caused by lowmorale brought about by massive Australian desertions.Mr Elphick said 25 000 to 30 000 desertionsrepresented the ‘greatest act of desertion in militaryhistory’ and was led by the Australians. He stated:

There is nothing more contagious in a battle than the bug ofdesertion. It’s just that the Australians contracted the bugquicker than anyone else.

My late father-in-law was at the fall of Singapore. Liketens of thousands of other young Australians he foughthonourably — although I might say they were less thansuperbly led in that battle — and like many others hisreward was years of incarceration in Changi prison anda lifetime of health problems.

Elphick’s history was poorly researched, defamatoryand derogatory, and given the age of the survivors nowit was an act of cowardice in itself.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


South Gippsland Highway: Bena realignment

Ms DAVIES (Gippsland West) — I wish to expressmy great sorrow at the loss of two more precious liveson a dangerous section of the South GippslandHighway near Bena last weekend, and to say that mythoughts are with those affected, including the families,the community around the accidents and those whoattended to assist the victims.

The accidents caused great distress in the communityaround Bena, partly because such accidents keep onhappening. I have been contacted by many residents. Iwill read from one of the letters. It comes from awoman who has been in the neighbourhood for24 years and details how many accidents there havebeen. It states:

Over this time three people have lost their lives due to roadaccidents within metres of my front door and five others havealso died within 3 kilometres of here.

The accidents have included semitrailers loaded withhay jackknifing, tipping on their sides and skipping upthe road; and a couple of B-double trucks jackknifingand running off the road into paddocks.

The accidents happen just after light rain. I ask theminister to speed up the planned realignment of thehighway at Bena. We ask that immediate work happento improve the surface of the road, perhaps reduce thespeed limits and increase the signage. There is no moredistressing sight for people than having to attendaccidents time after time.

Geelong hospital

Mr PATERSON (South Barwon) — The latestHospital Services Report paints a very bleak picture forthe Geelong hospital under the Bracks Laborgovernment. It is now quite clear that the Geelonghospital delivers better services under a Liberalgovernment. Since Labor took over, the hospital hasgone backwards.

The December quarter 2001 figures show that waitinglists are up by 20 per cent compared with the previousDecember quarter, and have since soared 32 per centfor the quarter — and are still 32 per cent higher —since the Liberal Party left office.

Admissions from the waiting list have slumped 16 percent, and the situation is 22 per cent worse than underthe Liberals. Semi-urgent elective patient waiting timeshave leapt 110 per cent and a massive 160 per centsince the previous Liberal government.

The number of patients waiting on trolleys inemergency wards for more than 12 hours hasskyrocketed 180 per cent and, compared with thehospital’s performance under the Liberals, this figurehas swollen by a scandalous 2500 per cent.

All the hospital’s Labor Party chairwoman, LisaNeville, can say is that it is not its fault. In typical form,lazy Labor wants to blame anyone but itself. For theGeelong hospital to get back on track, the return of aLiberal government is critical — and the sooner thebetter.

Clunies Ross National Science and TechnologyAward

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — A fortnight ago Ihad the pleasure of attending the Clunies Ross NationalScience and Technology Award night in Melbourne. Itwas an outstanding night, which recognised excellencein the application of science and technology across thecountry. Six awards were presented, four of which wentto Victorians. I was especially pleased to learn that oneof the six awardees of the night was Mr Sandy Gray ofBallarat company Gekko Systems.

Sandy’s story is quite remarkable. He left school atage 15, but through his work in the mining industry heput his mind to improving the process of gravityseparation of alluvial gold and developed new ways torecover gold from low-grade deposits without the useof chemicals. Now his company, Gekko, has installedover 100 of its systems at mines in 18 countries aroundthe world. Therefore his gold recovery units are helpingto improve the environmental and economicperformance of many significant mining operations.

I congratulate Sandy on gaining such distinguishedrecognition. He is the youngest ever person to receivethe Clunies Ross medal. I commend him and his wife,Elizabeth, for their significant contribution tomanufacturing in Ballarat and to the broadercommunity across this country.

HM Prison Won Wron

Mr WELLS (Wantirna) — This statementcondemns the do-nothing Bracks Labor governmentand the Minister for Corrections for abandoning thecommunities of Yarram and South Gippsland bycontinuing with the planned closure of HM Prison WonWron. I call on the Minister for Corrections to give atleast a minimum commitment that until the Victorianprison system achieves the world-best-practice capacityutilisation rate of 85 to 95 per cent, Won Wron willremain open.

ELECTORAL BILL


The government’s so-called prisons master plan issimply insufficient to cope with the existingovercrowding crisis in Victoria’s prison system andpolice cells, let alone being able to cope with theprojected increase in the prisoner population over thenext decade. The government is using smoke andmirrors by misrepresenting that there will be anadditional 1100 beds in Victorian prisons. It has notaccounted for the massive loss of 450 beds that will beshut down in four prisons, including Won Wron, overthe next few years.

With the planned closure of Won Wron,127 minimum-security beds will simply be lost to thesystem. This is something the Liberal Party simply willnot support. The Victorian corrections system, and inparticular the Yarram and South Gippslandcommunities, cannot afford to lose such a valuablefacility.

Blackburn Lake Primary School

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — State schools aregreat schools, and today I want to draw the attention ofhonourable members to the work being done by theschool community at the Blackburn Lake PrimarySchool.


Mr ROBINSON — That is coming; just hold on.The school has recently completed a million-dollar plusreinstatement of buildings that were damaged by firesome time back. For its considerable efforts the schoolhas been awarded a building design prize by the City ofWhitehorse, which is a great credit to the school. I alsounderstand the school has recently been accredited inthe Land for Wildlife program through the Departmentof Natural Resources and Environment. These are bothfirsts for primary schools in the Mitcham electorate,and I want to congratulate principal David Jewell andthe school council.

Relighting Jeparit festivalMr ROBINSON (Mitcham) —

I also wish to draw members’ attention to aforthcoming event in the town of Jeparit in theelectorate of the honourable member for Wimmera.The Jeparit town committee has recently benefited froma grant of $7100 from the Bracks government throughthe Rural Leadership and Community Events program,and will stage a four-day festival over Easter. Thetheme for this year is Relighting Jeparit — a back-to.

Significantly, the four-day event is only able to bestaged due to some 10 separate clubs and organisationscombining for the first time for the benefit of the whole

community. This is an outstanding achievement.Wayne Manton, chairman of the organising committee,sent me a letter advising of progress. He ends his letterby saying, ‘This is a small community fighting back’.

Well done to the people of Jeparit and we hope it is awonderful event for them.

Bentleigh: victims of crime

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — Recently I wasmade aware of a grant of $63 000 made to threemunicipalities — Bayside, Kingston and Glen Eira —by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services inorder to improve law and order outcomes for membersof the community, in particular those who have beenvictims of crime. Given the increase in the crime rate inthe Bentleigh electorate of some 23 per cent and 15 percent in others, and given the number of people — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired, as has the time formembers statements.

ELECTORAL BILL

Second reading


That this bill be now read a second time.

Victoria’s principal electoral legislation, TheConstitution Act Amendment Act (the act), wasenacted in 1958. The 1958 act succeeded other acts ofthe same name, the first of which was enacted in 1890.In turn, the 1890 act incorporated electoral provisionsdating back to the 1850s.

The fact that Victoria’s electoral legislation is includedin The Constitution Act Amendment Act is confusing,as the name of the act does not indicate its relationshipto electoral matters.

The act has never been thoroughly revised, yet has beenamended on numerous occasions. The result is thatVictoria’s electoral legislation has a number ofdeficiencies:

it is extremely prescriptive in some areas and lackingin detail in other areas;

it is written in difficult language and is poorlyorganised;

it does not provide for modern election managementpractices; and

ELECTORAL BILL


in some cases, it is out of step with current electoralpractice and community expectations.

An example is section 251 of the act, which providesthat carrying a gun, pistol, sword or bludgeon at anelection is punishable by a fine of not less than $4 normore than $40. Accounts of elections in the 1850ssuggest there was a real need for this provision at thattime, when a fine of up to ₤20 would have been adeterrent. However, the provision serves little purposetoday.

It is time for a new electoral act for Victoria. I note thatthe Electoral Commissioner made this recommendationin his report on the administration and conduct of theSeptember 1999 state election. I am pleased to say thatthis bill includes the recommendations made by theElectoral Commissioner and clearly sets out the rightsand obligations of all participants in the electoralprocess, from voters to candidates to political parties.

The key aims of the bill

Reforms in the bill are the result of a comprehensivereview by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC).The reforms will:

improve administrative procedures for the conductof elections;

make it easier for candidates and other electionstakeholders to understand electoral procedures; and

enable the application of new technology to theconduct of elections.

The bill will also make provision for election fundingand disclosure of political donations.

The bill will retain all essential electoral principles,while leaving more detailed administrative proceduresto regulations. The bill provides for the VEC to issue anelection manual and directions regarding electionprocedures. The manual including any directions willbe published and available to members of Parliament,registered political parties and prospective candidates.This will provide more flexibility and allow the VEC toimprove the efficiency of election management, and atthe same time ensure transparency and accountability inthe election process.

The impact of the bill on electors

Many of the reforms in the bill are aimed atencouraging more Victorians to vote by making iteasier for electors to enrol and to cast their vote atelection time.

The bill makes it easier for electors to update theirenrolment. Electors who have changed their addresswill receive an invitation to update their enrolment andthe necessary form from the VEC. In some cases,where the VEC has received authoritative advice fromelectors themselves or from government sources of achange of address, electors’ enrolment will be updatedby the VEC without the electors having to complete anenrolment form. This will particularly benefit elderlyand infirm Victorians who have taken up residence inan assisted-care facility, whose enrolment details willbe updated by the VEC based on information providedby the commonwealth Department of Health and AgedCare.

To protect electors’ privacy, electoral rolls will nolonger be available for sale, and enrolment informationprovided by the VEC will be prohibited from beingused for a commercial purpose. Electors will be able toinspect electoral rolls at the VEC and contact the VECto check their own enrolment details, as they can now.

The bill provides that electors will be able to cast anearly or postal vote as of right, instead of having tosatisfy certain criteria to be entitled to vote beforeelection day, as required under the current act. Thisrecognises that due to changing work patterns andlifestyles, some electors may find it more convenient tovote before election day. In deciding on the location ofearly voting centres, the VEC will be required to haveregard to service to voters and accessibility.

The bill provides for the VEC to use technology toassist electors. For example, in the future the VEC willbe able to use computers at interstate and overseas earlyvoting centres. This will make it easier to identifyelectors’ enrolment details and issue ballot papers fortheir electorates. This will make voting moreconvenient and efficient for electors.

The bill makes it clear that electors must be enrolled fortheir principal place of residence, and can vote only forthat address. Electors who have not lived at theirenrolment address for more than three months beforeelection day will not be entitled to vote for that election.

The impact of the bill on political parties

The bill clearly sets out the duties and obligations ofpolitical parties in the electoral process.

The bill provides that political parties will be entitled toreceive enrolment information and information aboutordinary, postal and absent voters from the VEC. Thiswill be balanced by a requirement that informationprovided by the VEC be used by the parties only forpurposes connected to an election and for monitoring

ELECTORAL BILL


the accuracy of the enrolment register. Any misuse ofthe information will attract penalties.

Requirements relating to the registration of politicalparties will be tightened, so that only parties withsubstantial community support are registered.

The bill provides that the VEC is empowered to reviewregistered political parties to determine whether theyremain eligible to be registered. Where a party fails toobtain an average of 4 per cent of first preference votesfor all electorates contested by that party at a stateelection, or 4 per cent of first preference votes at aby-election, this will trigger an automatic review by theVEC of the party’s eligibility to continue to beregistered.

Where a registered political party’s electoraladvertisements clearly identify the party, authorisationdetails will no longer need to be included in theadvertisement. The party’s registered officer will bedeemed to be the authoriser.

Registered political parties will be required to nominatetheir candidates with the VEC, instead of having thechoice of the Electoral Commissioner and individualreturning officers as at present.

The impact of the bill on Independent members ofParliament

The bill provides that Independent members ofParliament will not be able to register a political partymerely on the basis of their parliamentary statuswithout meeting membership requirements that willapply for the registration of a political party. Thisreform is consistent with the rationale of only allowingpolitical parties with substantial community support tobe registered.

Independent members will be entitled to receive fromthe VEC enrolment and vote information relating totheir own electorates, and will be able to use thisinformation only for purposes connected to an election,monitoring the accuracy of the enrolment register andperforming their functions as a member.

The impact of the bill on candidates

The bill clearly sets out the position of candidatesstanding for election.

The bill provides that to be qualified to stand forelection, a candidate will have to be enrolled as anelector instead of simply being entitled to enrol as atpresent. Candidates will be required to declare on thenomination form that they are qualified to be elected,

with a false declaration attracting a penalty. The criteriafor rejection of a candidate’s nomination will beclarified.

Independent candidates will no longer need to benominated by six electors.

To increase the privacy afforded to candidates, the billprovides that only the candidate’s name and nominatedcontact details will be made public by the VEC.

The bill provides that candidates will be entitled toreceive the electoral roll for their electorate from theVEC, but can use this information only for purposesconnected to an election and for monitoring theaccuracy of the electoral roll.

The impact of the bill on the Victorian ElectoralCommission

The bill facilitates the use of modern electionmanagement practices by the VEC. It will also providemore flexibility to the VEC in managing electoralprocesses.

The bill establishes the Victorian Electoral Commissionas a body corporate with all the associated rights andobligations. The VEC will consist of the ElectoralCommissioner whose current functions, powers andduties will be transferred to the VEC.

The bill modernises electoral terminology. Forexample, returning officers will now be known aselection managers (a more accurate description of theirposition than returning officer). Polling day will beknown as election day, and polling places will beknown as voting centres. Pre-poll voting, hospitalvoting and interstate and overseas voting will be knownas early voting, and the locations for such services willbe early voting centres.

The bill clearly sets out the powers and obligations ofthe VEC. The bill provides that the VEC will haveauthority to gather information from governmentagencies and power companies for enrolment purposes.The VEC will use this information to assist electors toupdate their enrolment when they change address. Theinformation provided will also help the VEC to identifyany cases of enrolment fraud.

While the bill requires the VEC to provide enrolmentinformation to candidates, members of Parliament,registered political parties and others, it will prohibit thesale of electoral rolls, to prevent abuse of enrolmentinformation.

ELECTORAL BILL


The VEC will be required to appoint, resource andadvertise voting centres as needed for the conduct of anelection. It will also be empowered to appoint earlyvoting centres and determine operating times andservice recipients and whether centres will bemobile — to provide for hospitals and nursinghomes — or fixed. In deciding on the location of earlyvoting centres, the VEC will be required to have regardto accessibility issues for voters.

The bill will facilitate the application of technology tothe conduct of elections. Besides enabling electronicvoting at interstate and overseas voting centres, the billwill permit computer counting of votes where this willspeed up the result, allow for electronic transmission ofelectoral documents and provide for the use ofelectronic rolls to take absent votes on election day.

Current detailed provisions on such matters as thepackaging and storage of ballot material by the VECare simplified in the bill, giving more flexibility to theVEC to determine the necessary arrangements whichwill be prescribed in regulations or determined by theVEC’s directions, as appropriate.

Section 85 statement

It is the intention of clause 129 to limit the jurisdictionof the Supreme Court. Clause 129 provides that adecision of the Court of Disputed Returns is final andcannot be appealed.

The Court of Disputed Returns is comprised of a singlejudge of the Supreme Court. However, the practice andprocedure followed by the Court of Disputed Returnsdoes not follow the practice and procedure that isfollowed by the Supreme Court in accordance with theSupreme Court Rules. Rather, the practice andprocedure followed by the Court of Disputed Returns isprovided for in this bill. Consequently, this clause is alimitation on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Clause 129 is consistent with the normal practice ofelectoral legislation to provide that a Court of DisputedReturns is the venue to deal with disputed electionsquickly and conclusively in the interests of certainty inthe electoral and parliamentary process.

Clause 129 is the same as section 292 of TheConstitution Act Amendment Act 1958 and does notalter current arrangements.

Electoral funding and disclosure

Under Victorian law there is no public funding ofpolitical parties and candidates, and there is no effectivedisclosure of election finances. In contrast, the

commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland and theAustralian Capital Territory have systems of fundingand disclosure, while Western Australia has a system ofdisclosure alone.

It is government policy to:

make election contests fairer through limited publicfunding of election campaigns; and

require full disclosure of all donations to politicalparties, by closing loopholes and increasingpenalties.

The basic purpose of public funding and disclosurelegislation is to reduce the ability of private money toinfluence election outcomes and political decisions. Theaim of public funding is to reduce parties’ dependenceon corporate money and to put parties on a more evenfooting. The aim of financial disclosure is to achieve atransparent political process; if the public is aware ofthe sources of a party’s finances, the party should beless likely to alter its policies in the interests of largedonors.

Funding of election campaigns

Public funding of registered political parties andIndependent candidates will be on the basis of anamount per vote for both houses of Parliament. Theinitial amount will be $1.20 for each first preferencevote received, and it will be indexed according to theCPI. Funding will be an entitlement rather than areimbursement of election expenses.

Disclosure requirements

This bill contains the best features of the disclosurerequirements in the commonwealth model but alsocontains a number of additional requirements with theaim of creating the most stringent system of disclosurein Australia.

The system will be administered by the VEC, whichwill have wide powers of investigation. Unlike thecommonwealth system, there will be no provision forroutine compliance audits, but returns lodged byregistered political parties and associated entities willhave to be independently audited.

Disclosure will be based on a mixture of annual returnsand election returns. The requirements will vary for thedifferent participants.

Registered political parties will submit annual returns ofreceipts, payments and debts, showing totals and alsodetails for amounts above a threshold. Unlike the

HEALTH PRACTITIONER ACTS (FURTHER AMENDMENTS) BILL


commonwealth system, the receipt and payment returnswill be broken into categories. Payments at fundraisingevents and payments of guarantees will be deemed tobe donations. In addition, after each election, registeredpolitical parties will have to submit a return of electoralexpenditure, broken into totals for various categoriesbut not including the details of individual expenses.

Associated entities, which operate to provide funds toparties, will have virtually the same disclosureobligations as parties, with an additional obligation todisclose persons contributing to their capital. The VECwill be able to declare an organisation to be anassociated entity. Unlike the commonwealth system,parties will be obliged to name their associated entities,and anonymous donations to associated entities will beillegal.

Independent MPs will also have to lodge annualreturns.

Candidates will have to submit election returns ofdonations and election spending. Most candidatesendorsed by registered political parties will lodge nilreturns, since their details will be in their parties’returns. The current provisions requiring candidates tolodge returns of their election expenses and imposing acap of $5000 will be repealed.

Third parties (other participants in elections) will haveto lodge annual returns of donations they have made toparties and donations they have received which havebeen used to make party donations, if those amounts areabove a threshold. Third parties which meet a lowerthreshold will have to lodge election returns ofdonations to them and election expenditure they haveincurred.

Penalties for offences will be tougher in some casesthan in the commonwealth system, following a numberof recommendations by the Australian ElectoralCommission.

Capping of donations by licence-holders

The government’s commitment to cap politicaldonations from gaming operators will be implementedthrough a cap on donations from the holders ofVictorian government licences the primary purpose ofwhich is to enable the licensee to generate income. Asthese licence-holders derive a direct benefit from thelicence, special arrangements are necessary to ensurethat they do not have undue influence on any partywhen in government.

The types of licences to which this provision will applywill be prescribed in regulations. Persons who hold

such licences will be prohibited from making donationsto any one registered political party totalling more than$50 000 in a financial year. If the holder of a prescribedlicence contravenes this provision, the amount abovethe $50 000 cap will be forfeited to the state.

Conclusion

The bill is clear, simple and rationally organised andmore accessible to voters and other stakeholders in theelectoral process. It sets out essential principles ofelectoral law, while providing the flexibility to improveservices and the conduct of elections.

Victoria will have modern electoral legislation in timefor the next state election, which can be held fromNovember 2002.

The bill is also designed to ensure confidence in theintegrity of the electoral system. Public funding reducesparties’ reliance on private funding which may comewith strings attached. Furthermore, by requiringdisclosure the bill aims to increase confidence in thepolitical process as electors can examine the sources ofparties’ funds for their electoral expenditure.

Victoria’s first electoral legislation came at a time whenVictoria led the world in democratic electoral reform,introducing the secret ballot and giving the vote tonearly all men over 21. This bill will place Victoriaagain at the forefront of electoral legislation.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms ASHER (Brighton).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 4 April.

HEALTH PRACTITIONER ACTS(FURTHER AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — I move:


Victoria’s health system relies on the high-qualityexpertise and care provided by members of the healthprofessions. The health system is changing rapidly,with growing corporate involvement in the provision ofhealth services and increasing expectations of patients.

In this context it is essential that the statutoryframework for regulating the health professions isflexible and responsive to contemporary issues. In orderto adequately protect the public, there must be sufficient



powers to ensure the maintenance of professionalstandards. This bill addresses both these importantissues.

This bill amends five health practitioner registrationacts as well as the Health Records Act 2001. The mostsignificant amendments are to the Medical Practice Act1994 and the Nurses Act 1993.

The amendments to the Medical Practice Act aredesigned to:

empower the Medical Practitioners Board ofVictoria to regulate unsatisfactory professionalperformance of registered practitioners;

establish powers to deal with corporate owners whodirect or incite their registered medical practitioneremployees to act unprofessionally; and

provide the board with greater flexibility in carryingout its functions.

Ensuring the continuing competence of the medicalprofession is a complex challenge and a sharedresponsibility. The community expects practitionerswho are registered to practise with due skill and care.The Medical Practitioners Board has an important roleto play.

Both interstate and internationally, greater attention isbeing given to linking renewal of registration todemonstration of professional competence. A range ofoptions for addressing this challenge was canvassed inthe discussion paper, ‘Regulation of medicalpractitioners and nurses in Victoria’ released by theDepartment of Human Services in August 2001.

This bill establishes powers for the MedicalPractitioners Board to assess or review the performanceof medical practitioners whose overall level ofknowledge, skill, judgment or care in the practice ofmedicine is below the standard that their peers wouldexpect. These powers are in addition to the board’sexisting powers to regulate unprofessional conduct andare aimed at preventing harm and promoting highstandards of practice.

The board will be empowered to receive notificationsof unsatisfactory professional performance of registeredmedical practitioners, in addition to notifications aboutunprofessional conduct and ill health. The board willthen have the power to appoint a preliminaryinvestigator, who will organise, if necessary, one or twosuitably qualified medical practitioners to conduct aperformance assessment of the practitioner.

The performance assessment is a relatively informalprocess from which the board may seek thepractitioner’s agreement to undertake further educationor alter the way he or she practises medicine. If thereare more serious concerns about the performance of apractitioner the board may appoint a performancereview panel or refer the matter for a formal hearing.

A performance review is a more formal process thatexamines the practitioner’s performance in greaterdepth. It is undertaken by a panel of two or morepersons, at least one of whom must be a registeredmedical practitioner with expertise in the relevant areaof practice, and one must be a lay person who is notmedically qualified.

This panel provides a report to the board withrecommendations for action. The board may imposeconditions, restrictions or limitations on a practitioner’sregistration if it believes this is necessary to adequatelyprotect the public.

It is intended that these processes be cooperative andeducational rather than adversarial. To achieve thisimportant objective, it is expected that the MedicalPractitioners Board will consult with a range of medicalbodies including the AMA and the specialist medicalcolleges as it establishes its performance assessmentand review processes.

Many other strategies have been examined to addressmaintenance of professional competence. Options suchas mandatory participation in continuing medicaleducation as a condition of registration renewal,requiring demonstration of recent practice, and randomperformance audits have been considered but have notbeen included in this bill.

However, the bill does empower the MedicalPractitioners Board to collect information on renewal ofregistration regarding a practitioner’s professionalactivities and participation in education. Over timethese powers will enable the board to identifypractitioners who it believes may be at higher risk ofpoor performance and, if necessary, initiate aperformance assessment. This is designed to be a moreflexible approach that recognises the diversity ofmedical practice. If, however, the data collected by theboard and other bodies indicates the need for furtherregulation, I will re-examine the options.

This bill also establishes a scheme for the regulation ofcorporate owners of medical practices. It is a form ofnegative licensing that targets only those employerswho direct or incite registered medical practitioners toengage in unprofessional conduct.



Many stakeholders have highlighted the potential forcorporate owners of medical practices to adverselyinfluence the professional behaviour of medicalpractitioners. The existing definition of unprofessionalconduct already allows the Medical Practitioners Boardto take action against any medical practitioner whogives or receives an inducement that influences referraldecisions. However, the government is concerned thatincreasingly, commercial interests may be placed abovethose of patients.

There is the potential for corporatised medical practicesto unduly influence a medical practitioner’s referralpatterns, set unacceptable consultation targets oradversely influence clinical decision making in relationto ordering of diagnostic tests or prescribing of drugs.Potential for over-servicing is not the only concern.There is potential for under-servicing to have damagingeffects on patient health.

The bill establishes an offence under the MedicalPractice Act for an employer who directs or incites aregistered medical practitioner to engage inunprofessional conduct. For the purposes of thisoffence, an employer includes any person who owns,manages, controls or operates the business that employsthe registered medical practitioner, including thedirector, secretary or executive officer of the bodycorporate. The offence is also extended to cover anyperson who provides services to the business of amedical practitioner and in return receives a share orinterest in the profits or income of that business ofproviding the medical services.

Those persons found guilty of this offence may beprohibited by the Secretary of the Department ofHuman Services from operating a business thatprovides medical services. There are also offencesestablished for any person who breaches such aprohibition. The significant penalties reflect the gravityof these offences.

Health services establishments, as defined in the HealthServices Act 1988, are exempted from these offenceprovisions as they are already subject to regulationunder that act.

Public health care agencies such as public hospitals andalso community health centres are also exempted asthey operate as not-for-profit organisations providingpublicly funded services. These agencies are governedby separate statutory controls and accountabilitymechanisms under the Health Services Act.

This scheme is designed to ensure that patients’interests remain paramount, regardless of the business

structure in which medical services are provided. If inthe future this form of negative licensing is insufficientto achieve this objective, the government willre-examine the options for more stringent regulation.

Implementing powers for performance assessment andreview has required restructuring of the MedicalPractice Act to clearly delineate the board’s powers toaddress unprofessional conduct, unsatisfactoryprofessional performance and ill health. Additionalamendments empower the Medical Practitioners Boardto:

vary conditions imposed on the registration ofpractitioners with the agreement of the practitioner;

immediately suspend, impose conditions onregistration or enter into an agreement with animpaired practitioner if she/he poses a serious risk tothe public;

employ a number of methods to allow flexibleconduct of preliminary investigations;

enter into an agreement with a practitioner or imposeconditions on her/his registration as an alternative toimmediate suspension; and

where a practitioner’s registration has beencancelled, fix a period within which an applicationfor re-registration cannot be accepted by the board.

Other amendments in this bill are intended to improvethe administrative efficiency of the MedicalPractitioners Board and address concerns raised by theboard about exercise of its powers. These:

amend the definition of unprofessional conduct toinclude breach of an agreement made with the boardby a registered practitioner;

clarify the board’s power to conduct a preliminaryinvestigation, formal or informal hearing on its ownmotion as well as in response to a complaint ornotification;

require practitioners to provide a public mailingaddress on renewal of registration as well as oninitial registration; and

grant the board the statutory power to callpre-hearing conferences.

Significant reforms are also proposed to the Nurses Act1993. Provisions similar to the negative licensingscheme for corporate medical practices are alsoproposed to regulate the activities of nurses agents.Nurses agents provide a valuable service to our health

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT BILL


system. There are, however, concerns about nursesagents who may direct or incite nurses they supply tohealth services to act unprofessionally. This regulatoryscheme is designed to target only those nurses agentswho are found to inappropriately influence orundermine the professional practice of nurses.

This bill makes minor amendments to the powers offive registration boards to regulate false and misleadingadvertising by registrants. The effect of theseamendments is to require ministerial approval ofadvertising guidelines prepared by the registrationboards prior to publication of such guidelines in theGovernment Gazette. An additional amendment to theChinese Medicine Registration Act 2000 seeks to alterthe period of registration to conclude on 30 June ofeach year (rather than the current 31 December).

The bill also amends the Health Records Act. That actwill regulate the handling of health information inVictoria. However, the standards contained in itregarding the collection, use and disclosure of healthinformation do not apply to a news medium inconnection with its news activities. The publication ofhealth information in a news article by a news mediumwithin Victoria is therefore not regulated by thelegislation.

This exemption was included in the original act inrecognition of the need to ensure the freedom of themedia to enable public discourse on matters of publicinterest. The exemption was seen as integral to ademocratic society. To balance this public interest withan individual’s right to privacy of their healthinformation, the exemption is confined to activities inconnection with the dissemination of news and currentaffairs.

Health privacy principle 9 of the act — which is knownas HPP 9 — regulates the transfer of health informationoutside Victoria. It would apply to the publicationrelated activities of a news medium. The bill rectifiesthis unintended anomaly by also exempting a newsmedium from HPP 9, in connection with its newsactivities. This means that the act will not distinguishbetween publications made within or outside the state.For example, the act would not regulate the distributionof a Victorian newspaper interstate or the making of anational broadcast from Victoria. The amendment isconsistent with the overall purpose of the exemptionsalready conferred under the act.

The development of this bill has involved an extensiveprocess of consultation and discussion. The boards, theprofessional associations and a range of other

stakeholders have provided valuable input into thedevelopment of these amendments.

I commend this bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr DOYLE (Malvern).


BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIONINDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT BILL

Second reading

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — Imove:


I have great pleasure in introducing this bill.

The bill gives effect to the government’s commitmentto securing payment for contractors, subcontractors,consultants and others in the building and constructionindustry, which has been a major concern in theindustry for some time. Accounts of small businessesand companies failing due to larger companies goingbroke or refusing to pay, and issues relating to cashflow problems, are prevalent within the industry. Upuntil now, Victoria has been one of the few statesacross Australia without legislation protectingsubcontractors and others involved in the industry thathave legitimate claims against defaulting companies.

The Bracks government’s election commitment tocreate a task force and bring owners, builders,subcontractors and unions together to produce adetailed package for legislation has been delivered. Thetask force was created by the previous minister, thehonourable member for Albert Park, and chaired by themember for Mitcham. The recommendations of the taskforce had the broad support of key stakeholders in thebuilding and construction industry: developers, industrypeak bodies, and unions.

The Kennett government had a range of opportunitiesto act on the issue, but it failed the building andconstruction industry every time, while other statesinitiated legislation. The Kennett government’s onlyresponse was a weak voluntary code that applied togovernment projects only.

This government has been able to tackle the issue headon. Through consultation with all key stakeholders inthe building and construction industry across theVictorian building and construction industry we havedeveloped legislation which I believe will ensure that

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT BILL


all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, consultantsand allied workers in the building and constructionindustry receive fair and timely payments.

The main purpose of this bill is to provide for anentitlement to progress payments for persons who carryout building and construction work or who supplyrelated goods and services under construction contracts.This bill represents a major initiative by the governmentto remove the inequitable practices in the building andconstruction industry whereby small contractors are notpaid on time, or at all, for their work. This can be due topoor payment practices of contractors or financialfailure of a head contractor when a dispute or litigationis in progress.

The bill substantially adopts the recommendations ofthe industry task force which was appointed by thegovernment to review the remedial action that may betaken to address poor payment practices under buildingand construction contracts. The main thrust of the taskforce recommendations was for the introduction oflegislation reflecting the New South Wales Buildingand Construction Industry Security of Payment Act1999 which has proved successful in that jurisdiction.The bill is modelled on the provisions and processes ofthe New South Wales act and this has the benefit ofallowing building and construction firms with nationaloperations to be subject to common paymentrequirements in both jurisdictions.

The bill will alleviate the hardship whichsubcontractors suffer by reason of poor paymentpractices in the industry. The bill creates standards, anda balanced and equitable process, for payment and willreform payment behaviour in the industry.

The essential elements of the bill are that if the contractdoes not provide for progress payments, a progresspayment process is implied into the contract; quickadjudication of disputes is provided for with anobligation to pay or provide security of payment.

The bill substantially adopts the recommendations ofthe industry task force which was appointed by thegovernment to review the remedial action that may betaken to address poor payment practices under buildingand construction contracts.

The bill is divided into four parts.

Part 1 provides for the commencement of the bill, setsout the object of the bill, defines certain terms usedthroughout the bill, and deals with the application of thebill to construction contracts. The object of the bill is toensure that any person who carries out constructionwork or who supplies related goods and services under

a construction contract is entitled to receive, and is ableto recover, specified progress payments in relation tothe carrying out of that work and the supplying of thosegoods and services. ‘Construction contract’ is verybroadly defined, and includes the construction,alteration or repair (including demolition) of any worksforming part of land including roadworks, buildings,railways and drainage construction. Related goods andservices which are supplied under constructioncontracts are also included, as are engineering,landscaping and technical and advisory servicesrelating to construction work.

The act does not apply to a construction contractentered into before the commencement of the operationof the act.

Some types of contracts are excluded from theoperation of the legislation. The main exclusions are —

contracts of insurance or loans or guarantees withrecognised financial institutions;

domestic building contracts for construction work onthe residence of the building owner;

contracts where consideration is not to be calculatedby reference to the value of the work or goods orservices;

employment contracts;

contracts for construction work carried out outsideVictoria; and

contracts entered into before the commencement ofthe act.

Part 2 of the act provides a statutory entitlement toreceive progress payments for construction work, andprovides, in clause 9, that a payment claim may bemade every 20 business days. These provisions do notoverride any relevant provisions in the contract.Provision is made for valuation of work performed orgoods and services provided, if the constructioncontract does not specify how a payment is to bevalued. The bill explicitly provides that arrangementsknown in the industry as ‘pay when paid’ provisions areof no effect.

Part 3 of the bill deals with the procedures forrecovering progress payments. It sets out theprocedures for making a payment claim, adjudication ofdisputes, appointment of adjudicators, the claimant’sright to suspend work in certain circumstances and thecircumstances in which claimants may seek recoveryfrom the principal.



Part 4 of the bill sets out a number of miscellaneousprovisions, including provisions dealing withcontracting out, confidentiality of information providedto the Building Commission, service of notices,regulation-making powers and consequentialamendments to other legislation.

Statement under section 85(5) of the ConstitutionAct 1975

I wish to make a statement pursuant to section 85(5) ofthe Constitution Act 1975 of the reason for altering orvarying section 85 of that act by the bill.

Clause 51 of the bill states that it is the intention ofsection 46 to alter or vary section 85 of the ConstitutionAct 1975.

Clause 46 provides that an adjudicator is not personallyliable for anything done or omitted to be done in goodfaith in the exercise of his or her powers or thedischarge of his or her duties under the act or theregulations or in the reasonable belief that the act oromission was in the exercise of those powers or thedischarge of those duties. The reason for limiting thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to thisprovision is to permit adjudicators to exercise theirpowers and discharge their duties without fear oflitigation.

In the absence of a statutory exclusion from liability itis unlikely that individuals would accept appointmentas adjudicators as they are required to provide rapiddetermination of amounts due with limited ability toconsider all of the detailed arguments that may beraised in subsequent proceedings.

The exclusion from liability is intended to facilitate theadjudication process and does not affect the rights ofany party to have the overall dispute between theparties resolved in accordance with law.


Debate adjourned on motion of Mr BAILLIEU(Hawthorn).



Second reading

Debate resumed from 29 November 2001; motion ofMr THWAITES (Minister for Health).

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

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr DOYLE (Malvern).


WATER (IRRIGATION FARM DAMS)(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading



The Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill (the farm damsbill) proposes amendments to the Water Act 1989 tocomplete Victoria’s water allocation framework. Thefarm dams bill will amend the current right to storewater off waterways and use it for any purpose. In thefuture, a licence will be required for all irrigation andcommercial use in a catchment.

The farm dams bill was debated by the LegislativeAssembly and the Legislative Council in the spring2001 parliamentary sittings but was not passed by bothhouses.

The farm dams bill provides for the commencement ofa number of key sections on 1 February 2002. There arealso several references throughout the bill to 1 February2002, 31 January 2003 and 1 February 2003.

The Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) (Amendment) Billprovides for the amendment of those dates to enable thefarm dams bill to be implemented in an orderly mannerand to avoid the retrospective application of provisions.


Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — The Liberal Partysupports the passage of the bill, and will deal with itforthwith. I will explain the reasons for that shortly. Asthe minister has said in her second-reading speech, thisis a small set of technical amendments to the Water(Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill. The need for it is simple.The farm dams bill has some commencement dates inrelation to the registration of existing farm dams. Thebill itself proposes a period of grace of 12 months forpeople to register existing dams used for irrigation orcommercial purposes, and the 12 months was to start on1 February 2002.

In drafting the bill the government made theassumption that the original legislation would pass



through both houses in a short period — a dangerousassumption to make. It presumes that Parliament willalways agree with everything the government proposes,which is not the case. There is a lesson there for thegovernment in terms of the drafting of commencementdates and hopefully we can avoid this in the future. TheLiberal Party recognises the need to change thecommencement date. If the commencement dateremained at 1 February 2002 it would mean that whenthe bill was proclaimed the commencement date wouldbe effective retrospectively and farmers would miss outon some of that proposed 12-month period of grace. Itis sensible of the government to change the date to1 July to provide the full 12-month period of grace forfarmers.

The reason for debating it forthwith is on the advice ofthe Clerk that if we approved the Water (IrrigationFarm Dams) Bill and then subsequently approved thisone they would go for royal assent at different timesand there would be a logical absurdity in that theoriginal bill would be approved and the commencementdate of 1 February 2002 would take effect and then thesecond bill would be approved which would stop thatcommencement date and reinstate 1 July 2002. Toavoid that logical absurdity the Clerk has advised thatthe two bills be dealt with on the same day and go forroyal assent on the same day so that the operativecommencement date for the provisions will then be1 July 2002. On the basis of that advice we are preparedto support the bill and deal with it forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.



Message from Council insisting on following amendmentsfurther considered:

1. Clause 4, page 3, line 11, after “51(1A)” insert “or51(1B)”.

2. Clause 6, lines 4 to 11 omit all words and expressions onthese lines and insert —

‘(2) In section 8(6) of the Principal Act, afterparagraph (c) insert —

“(ca) a restriction or prohibition on the use,other than domestic and stock use, ofwater from a spring or soak or water from

a private dam (to the extent that it is notrainwater supplied to the dam from theroof of a building) contained in anapproved management plan drawn upunder Division 3 of Part 3 for a watersupply protection are; or”.’.


“(3) In section 8(6)(d) of the Principal Act for “theprescriptions” substitute “any otherprescriptions”.


“(k) restrictions or prohibitions on the use, other thandomestic and stock use, of water from a spring orsoak or water from a private dam (to the extentthat it is not rainwater supplied to the dam fromthe roof of a building);”.

5. Clause 10, page 15, line 15, omit “(k)” and insert “(l)”.

6. Clause 10, page 15, line 17, omit “(l)” and insert “(m)”.

7. Clause 10, page 15, line 22, omit “(m)” and insert “(n)”.

8. Clause 10, page 15, line 30, omit “(n)” and insert “(o)”.

9. Clause 10, page 16, line 4, omit “(o)” and insert “(p)”.


“(14) Sub-section (13) does not apply to acontravention of a kind referred to in section63(1A).”.

11. Clause 19, lines 26 to 33 and page 29, lines 1 to 26, omitall words and expressions on these lines and insert —

“(1A) During the period commencing on 1 February2002 and ending on 31 January 2003, a personmay apply, without payment of an applicationfee, to the Minister for the issue of a registrationlicence to take and use water from a dam on awaterway other than a river, creek, stream orwatercourse for a use other than domestic andstock use.

(1B) If an approved management plan for a watersupply protection area prohibits or restricts theuse of water from a spring or soak or water froma private dam, a person may, during the period of12 months after the approval of that managementplan, apply, without payment of an applicationfee, to the Minister for the issue of a registrationlicence to take and use water from the spring orsoak or water from the dam (to the extent that it isnot rainwater supplied to the dam from the roofof a building or water supplied to the dam from awaterway or bore), for a use other than domesticand stock use.

(1C) Sub-section (1A) only applies, in relation to adam, to a person who at any time during theperiod of 10 years immediately before thecommencement of section 32 of the Water(Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2001 was taking



and using water from the dam for a use (otherthan domestic and stock use) for which a licenceunder sub-section (1)(a) is not in force.

(1D) Sub-section (1B) only applies, in relation to aspring, soak or dam, to a person who at any timeduring the period of 10 years immediately beforethe approval of the relevant management planwas taking and using water from the spring orsoak or water from the dam (other than watersupplied to the dam from a waterway or bore) fora use other than domestic and stock use.”.

12. Clause 19, page 29, line 29 omit “(1C)” and insert“(1E)”.


“(ba) in the case of an application under sub-section(1A) in relation to a dam by a person who at anytime during the period of 10 years immediatelybefore the commencement of section 32 of theWater (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2001 wastaking and using water from the dam for a use(other than domestic and stock use), set out themaximum volume of water to be used by theapplicant in each year during the period of thelicence, determined in accordance with thecriteria specified by Order under sections 52A;and

(bb) in the case of an application under sub-section(1)(ba) or 1(B) in relation to a spring or soak ordam by a person who, at any time during theperiod of 10 years immediately before theapproval of a management plan for the watersupply protection area for which the applicationis made that prohibits or restricts the use of waterfrom the spring or soak or dam, was taking andusing water from the spring or soak or water fromthe dam (other than water supplied to the damfrom a waterway or bore) for a use other thandomestic and stock use, set out the maximumvolume of water to be used by the applicant ineach year during the period of the licence,determined in accordance with the criteriaspecified by Order under section 52A; and”.

14. Clause 22, lines 18 to 20, omit “the commencement ofsection 32 of the Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Act2001” and insert “the approval of a management planunder Division 3 of Part 3 that prohibits or restricts theuse of water from the spring or soak or dam”.

15. Clause 26, lines 23 and 24, omit “licence issued undersection 51(1A)” and insert “registration licence”.

16. Clause 26, lines 31 to 33 and page 38, lines 1 and 2,omit all words and expressions on these lines andinsert —

“51(1A) remains in force for an unlimited period.”.


‘(1) In section 58(1) of the Principal Act, for “51”substitute “51(1)”.’.


‘( ) In section 58(3) of the Principal Act, for “51”substitute “51(1)”.’.

19. Clause 28, lines 21 to 28, omit sub-clause (3).

20. Clause 32, line 24, after “must not” insert “incontravention of an approved management plan for awater supply protection area”.


“(4) If, an approved management plan for a watersupply protection area prohibits or restricts theuse of water from a spring or soak or water froma dam not on a waterway and at any time duringthe period of 10 years immediately before theapproval of the management plan, a person wastaking and using water from the spring or soak orwater from the dam, sub-section (1A) does notapply in respect of that person in respect of thatspring or soak or dam until the end of the periodof 12 months after the approval of themanagement plan.”.


“(8) If an approved management plan for a watersupply protection area prohibits or restricts theuse of water from a spring or soak or water froma dam (other than water supplied to the dam froma waterway or a bore) for a use other thandomestic and stock use, a person who —

(a) at any time during the period of 10 yearsimmediately before the approval of themanagement plan was taking and usingwater from that spring or soak or water fromthat dam (other than water supplied to thedam from a waterway or a bore, for a useother than domestic or stock use; and

(b) before the end of the period of 12 monthsafter the approval of the management planapplies for a licence under section 51(1)(ba)in relation to the spring or soak or dam —

is not liable to pay an application fee in respect of theapplication.”.

Debate resumed from 20 March; motion ofMs GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation):


Mr McARTHUR (Monbulk) — As the ministerpointed out yesterday when the debate on theseamendments from Council started, there has beenconsiderable negotiation in recent times between thegovernment, the Liberal Party and the National Party inrelation to the legislation. There was significant debateon this issue in the lead-up to Christmas. It is an



important matter. It affects water management acrossthe state. It diminishes the statutory rights held bylandowners, and we have argued from the beginningthat if the government intends to reduce farmers’statutory rights it must replace them with something offair value.

In the initial debate in spring last year I said we did notoppose the bill in principle, that we saw the benefits insome of the water management framework that wasbeing proposed in the legislation, but that we wantedthe government to provide a sensible and reasonablepackage for those landowners whose statutory rightswere being abolished. We have been arguing over thequantum of that package for some time.

If it had not been for the Liberal Party’s determinationon this issue to support farmers and their rights, and tosee that if the legislation was passed it was amended sothat it would work in a proper and effective manner, thebill would have passed this place as originally proposedand that would have seen farmers in a far worseposition than they are today. I will go through some ofthe details of that shortly.

The recent negotiations have been around four issues,which come on top of a whole range of otherconcessions the Liberal Party has managed to convincethe government to accept. We have had the support ofthe National Party on some of them and we havesupported the National Party on some of their proposalsfor change. Overall these changes will improve theoperation of the legislation and make it better andfairer.

Let’s deal with the four things that were underdiscussion in recent days. The amendments which cameback from the Council are, in effect, in two groups —that is, one group relates to the registration of existingdams where the water is used for irrigation orcommercial purposes, and the other group relates to theLiberal Party’s proposal to phase in the licensingregime across the state.

We received a letter from the Victorian FarmersFederation dated 19 February urging the parties to gettogether to try to resolve the issue so that the bill couldbe passed through the Parliament. The VFF proposed apackage of three possible agreements which couldoperate as a circuit-breaker. The first point the VFFsuggested was a one-off, free registration for existingdams. That is in line with the amendments that weoriginally moved back in the spring sitting last year, aposition we have supported constantly all the waythrough the program.

The second point raised by the VFF was that thetransition package which was on offer from thegovernment should be increased and that the totalvolume of water eligible for subsidy for people in thecapped catchments should be increased from10 000 megalitres to 12 500 megalitres.

The third point was the need to develop a processwhich sets up an objective and independently testedmethod for determining exchange rates for watertransfer within the Murray–Darling Basin catchment,where trading regimes are already established. All ofthose points were in line with the issues that the LiberalParty has fought for for some months.

We raised a fourth issue with the government duringthe debate about a set of interim waterwaydetermination guidelines, dated December 2001, whichwas signed off by the minister just prior to Christmas.This was an administrative order which the ministerissued under her powers under the Water Act to allwater authorities. In essence it was bureaucrat-speakfor, ‘Do not approve any more farm dams’. Themessage received by the water authorities would be,‘Don’t ever approve one unless you determine the siteto be a waterway’. In that instance farmers would havehad to pay full licence fees, and in areas to the north ofthe Divide they would have had to purchaseentitlements for the volume of that water.

We debated these four issues with the government, andI am happy to advise honourable members that thegovernment has agreed to the provision of the one-offregistration of existing dams where the water is used forirrigation or commercial purposes. That provides asubstantial benefit to farmers with irrigation enterprisesright across the state.

It also provides a benefit to dairy farmers who havetechnically been in breach of the act for some timewhere they have used water from a farm dam for dairywash-down. Under the definitions in the principal act‘dairy wash-down’ is defined as a commercial use ofwater. If you use water from a dam for dairywash-down and that dam is on a waterway, technicallyyou are in breach of the act unless you have a licencefor that water. This amendment will provide comfort tothose farmers across Victoria who, to their minds, havebeen legitimately using water from a dam for dairywash-down for decades but who, for some years now,have been technically in breach of the act because theirdam is on a waterway. I welcome the government’sconcession on this. It is an amendment that weproposed initially back in October and one that weregarded as essential for the passage of the bill. I think



the minister has made a sensible decision in agreeing toit.

In relation to exchange rates, the minister has agreed toestablish an open and independently audited system forsetting rates for water transfer within the capcatchments. This means that no longer will the waterauthority, which is responsible for managing that waterand gets the licence payments for it, be the sole bodyfor determining the exchange rate.

There has been some understandable suspicion in someareas that the water authorities have a conflict ofinterest in setting exchange rates and that sometimes therates have not been as objective as perhaps landownersmight wish. This system will give comfort to thelandowners. There is a process for an independentlyaudited assessment of the exchange rate, which will beset up by a body under the aegis of the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission, and there is no doubt that they areindependent in this issue.

The third issue — and I am dealing with that oneslightly out of order — is the interim waterwaydetermination guidelines. Given that the guidelineswere unannounced — I do not recall seeing a pressrelease about them — the Liberal Party regarded theirissue as provocative. In essence they said to farmers,‘You will never get approval to have a farm dam unlessit is fully licensed under the existing act’. We objectedto these guidelines and requested that the minister agreeto revoke them.

I am pleased to advise the house that she has agreed tothat. I have a letter from the minister dated 19 March,the last paragraph of which reads, and I quote:

If the Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill is passed, there willbe no need for guidelines in respect of licensing the take anduse of water, and I will therefore revoke the interim waterwaydetermination guidelines.

I am pleased that the minister has agreed to do that,because if the guidelines had not been revoked and thebill had not been passed farmers would not have hadany chance of having a farm dam approved asoff-waterway in the future. With the passage of this bill,the on-or-off-waterway issue is no longer relevant forthe purposes of an irrigation dam, so the issuedisappears. I am pleased to see that the minister willrevoke those guidelines.

The fourth issue relates to the transition package. Thegovernment initially proposed to provide a subsidy forthe purchase of up to 10 000 megalitres of water incapped catchments at a subsidy rate of up to 50 per centof the cost of purchase of that water for an individual

purchase of a maximum of 50 megalitres per farm. Weargued from the start that that was inadequate. Thegovernment thought it was a fair deal. The NationalParty was happy with it at that stage. The VictorianFarmers Federation did not at that stage object to thateither. It was arguing for the passage of the bill withthose arrangements.

The opposition has always argued this was aninsufficient package and that, in moving to abolish thestatutory right to dam and use water for any purpose solong as the dam was on or off a waterway thegovernment had a duty to and should in fairnessprovide a reasonable package to those landowners whowere losing that statutory right. The government hasargued very strongly on this. The circuit-breakerproposed by the VFF was an increase of2500 megalitres, from 10 000 to 12 500. We haveargued for something far higher, and we have achievedagreement on the basis that the package will contain asubsidy for the purchase of up to 14 500 megalitres.

I note in the daily Hansard from yesterday that thefigure has an extra zero on it. I would be happy toaccept that, but I doubt that that is actually what theminister meant. Perhaps the minister can clarify lateron — so there is no doubt about it — that she stillmeans 14 500 megalitres.

Those are the four things that have been negotiated inrecent days. They are in addition to a range ofsubstantial improvements the Liberal Party has beenable to achieve in negotiation with the government orby way of amendment to the bill. I refer honourablemembers to some of those.

The opposition, along with the National Party,supported an amendment to require the tabling of anorder to declare a water supply protection area in bothhouses. That will provide notification to people rightacross Victoria that this issue is under way when thatarea is under stress. Also, again with the support of theNational Party, we moved to amend the bill to clarifythis issue about what is wholly or predominantly afarming area so that in future there will be no doubt thatwhen a local committee is established to develop awater supply protection plan that committee will haveat least 50 per cent local landowners on it. The originaldrafting was certainly clouded on that issue. I do notthink it was intentional on the part of the government tonot allow that, but I think its drafting was shoddy and itwas not absolutely clear.

The opposition has succeeded in convincing thegovernment to accept an amendment to preventregional water authorities from demolishing a farm dam



if there is a water supply protection plan in that area.We have also managed to convince the government toextend the grace period for the registration of existingfarm dams from the five years it originally proposed to10 years so that those people who use water from afarm dam to irrigate in the case of the occasionaldrought are much better protected.

The range of issues that were negotiated on the waythrough include the issue of red tape. Farmers do notlike red tape. I can remember in my days on the landthat I hated going through approval processes anddealing with government departments and councils toget approvals and licences for things. Basically it takesyou away from the work you should be doing. Underthe existing system a farmer may face a dual licensingor registration system. He may have to get localgovernment planning approval to build his dam becauseof the planning scheme; he may then also have to get alicence to construct it because it is on a waterway; andthen a licence for the water.

In the lead-up to this bill we have convinced thegovernment that this dual approval process wasridiculous, time consuming and unnecessary and that ifthe bill was passed and a farmer got a licence for theconstruction of the dam and a licence for the water heshould not need to separately get planning approval forthat same dam and be held up in the planning processfor six months, a year or two years. I am thankful thegovernment has agreed to that, and that will be ofsignificant benefit to farmers. It might upset the oddcouncillor, but frankly I do not mind that. I think if afarmer gains a licence through the water authoritylicensing process he should not need to gain a separateplanning approval to build that dam.

Sensible arrangements have also been negotiated forreuse dams and for farmers in intensive horticultureareas who face other restrictions on run-off from theirproperties. There are areas, especially irrigation areas,where there is a reuse dam designed to prevent salineand highly nutrient-laden water from entering riversand streams. It would seem ridiculous to me that afarmer who was doing this in order to provide anenvironmental benefit or to prevent environmentaldamage had to pay for the privilege of doing so; whowas required to do so because of the salinity programand then was possibly hit to leg for a licence fee. Wesaid to the government, ‘If you have to do this toprevent salinity and to prevent nutrient loading goinginto the creek, you should not have to license it’. Thegovernment has agreed with that.

We also raised the issue where in some high-intensityhorticultural areas there are local water authority, local

council or perhaps EPA rules which say that because ofthe extensive hard stand areas or plastic house areasfarmers are not allowed to let water from those areasrun off into a nearby stream, again for environmentalreasons. In the event of those requirements we arguedthat the farmer who had to comply with those and catchthat water in a dam should not be forced to pay alicence fee for complying with other requirements. Thegovernment has also agreed with that, and that is asignificant benefit to people right across the state whoare often in less high-profile agricultural industries thanthe key irrigation areas but for whom it is still animportant issue.

Many of these benefits would never have beenachieved unless the opposition took the position it hastaken. If it had simply agreed to this in September andOctober last year there would be no extra transitionalpackage. There would not have been a letter from theVictorian Farmers Federation urging a circuit-breaker ifwe had agreed to 10 000 megalitres back in the springsitting last year. If we had not fought so hard forone-off registration the dairy farmers would not havegot these extra benefits and protection, and existingfarmers with irrigation dams would have been forced topay a regular renewal fee. These are substantial benefitsto agriculture and to farmers across the state.

I am surprised that some of the Labor members whorepresent rural areas, like the honourable member forRipon — or perhaps the honourable member forGisborne, who probably has some people with farmdams in her electorate — were not there, side by sidewith us, arguing in the interests of their constituents.But without our action on this — —

Mr Helper interjected.

Mr McARTHUR — The No Helper member forRipon! If you go to Maryborough and have a look atthe Workers Pride leaflets, you will see he has a newname — the honourable member for Ripon is called NoHelper now.

Mr Helper — On the bill!

Mr McARTHUR — You interject at your peril!But one would have expected, given that they representregional areas where agriculture is important, that thosemembers would have been there side by side with usfighting for the interests of their rural landowners, theirfarmers.

They were not. They just folded because of caucuspressure, and they were prepared to let it roll through. Ifit had not been for the action that the Liberal Partyalone has taken, this would have rolled through in the



spring session last year and farmers would have missedout on free registration, on the transition packageincrease of almost 50 per cent and on an independentlyassessed exchange rate determination — and farmerswould have still been saddled with a set of guidelineswhich they were not told about. So it was only theLiberal Party that stood up on this issue. If we had not,farmers the length and breadth of Victoria would havebeen worse off.

We have achieved agreement, and I am grateful forthat. I acknowledge that the minister is prepared tonegotiate. I imagine that she had some problems inconvincing her cabinet colleagues to increase thepackage, so I congratulate her on being able to get thatagreement through her own cabinet mechanisms andher own party room. She has shown some sense in that.

I also acknowledge that the National Party has beenwith us on a range of the amendments which wereagreed in the spring, and I thank its members for that.There have certainly been discussions in recent daysabout it. While they have not said it publicly, quietlythey have been quite happy to see us get the package upas high as possible so that is of benefit as well — as hasthe Victorian Farmers Federation. The VFF proposedthe circuit-breaker, which I think was probably thecatalyst for a resolution, so that needs to beacknowledged. We have certainly had a number ofdiscussions with the VFF leadership over this, andwhile initially they were keen to see the bill go throughquickly, they have recently been very helpful inencouraging us over negotiations on this agreement.They have supported us in getting benefits for farmers,who after all are VFF constituents as well.

All in all, despite the fact that there has been a bit ofdelay with this, the overall outcome is better for farmersacross Victoria. It provides the resource managementarrangement that the government is after, it provides forthe environmental protection of rivers and streams, andit delivers a fair deal. On that basis it is worth whilesupporting, and the Liberal Party is happy to see thismotion agreed to.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill) — After that I willhave to draw breath a little! That was a speech aboutthe Liberal Party pulling back and giving ground on allits amendments. However, that is fine. I appreciate theposition it has reached, because the Liberal Party hastaken four different severe positions on this legislation.I have to acknowledge that the debate on this bill hasachieved a lot of improvements. Some have beenmentioned by my colleague the honourable member forMonbulk, and I can mention a couple of more. So it is a

very lively piece of legislation that I believe has beenimproved on the way through.

Improving the transition package from 10 000megalitres of subsidised water to 14 500 megalitres ofsubsidised water has resulted in what I regard as one ofthe best pieces of legislation in Australia on the verydifficult issue of upper catchment management. It hastaken close to six years to achieve, and it has not beenachieved by just this government. The National Partyconducted three studies into trying to resolve it, and theLabor Party had one, so there have been four studiesaltogether over the years. I am delighted to have got tothis point.

Much will be made of and said about the extra4500 megalitres the Liberal Party have succeeded with.We have all agreed it is worth it and the price forachieving this legislation — —


Mr STEGGALL — It is very good, and Icongratulate the government on accepting it. I knowthere were some nervous Nellies within the governmentregarding the political outcome of that acceptance.

To put it into perspective so people understand, we areagreeing today to a set of transitions that will hook inimmediately. The 10 000 megalitres was arrived atbecause it would have taken around 20 years for theupper catchments of this state to get the benefit of10 000 megalitres of water at the current rate they areoperating at. We believe that, based on 10 000megalitres of subsidised water, that time will comedown, because those other catchments will start pickingthat up and making those communities better, which isthe aim of this legislation.

We also believe that the south-west of Victoria andGippsland will start developing their areas with thewater they have in order to introduce stream flowmanagement plans and fully benefit from that 10 000megalitres. Remember that the 10 000 megalitres is notjust for the north-east; it is for the state of Victoria. Asstream flow management plans come into place,catchments will be capped and be part of this transitionpackage, so Gippsland and the south-west communitiesand farmers will benefit from that as well.

To put the extra 4500 megalitres in is a very goodtrading point, and I am happy. I said to the governmenton several times through this debate, ‘Do not lose thisfor the sake of a few dollars, because it is too good apiece of legislation for the future of our areas’. For theextra 4500 megalitres we will probably see that benefitkick in about 14 to 16 years from now. It will not be an



immediate one. Let’s hope we can get our 10 000 takenup in the upper catchments in the next 10 years, withthe next 4500 coming in after that. I believe, all in all,that it is good.

Under proper investment and development the 10 000megalitres will be worth $300 million a year of newproduction in those upper catchment areas, so we aretalking very big money and very big developments. Ithas been sad for all of us that the lack of this legislationover the last 10 or 15 years has slowed down thedevelopment in those areas, hence our efforts ingovernment. This present government’s efforts to cometo a resolution have been most important, and I believethat once those areas start developing this new attitudewe will not recognise them.

When I use the term ‘14 to 16 years’ I do so with a littleexperience, because when we started arguing andtalking about value-adding water in the Murray Valleyit took us 12 years to get our communities andindustries to pick that up and develop as they are now.So this is not something that happens quickly; you haveto change a few attitudes. We have a few negatives inthe upper catchments because of the very vigorousdebate we have had. It will take time to change thoseattitudes, as it did in my own area, without any outsideinterference — and that includes changing the attitudesof investors, people, banks and communities in gettingtheir infrastructure and their training and education upand running.

To start pulling in that $300 million a year of extramoney from the subsidised water that is in the bill is abig effort, and from today, or from when this goesthrough the upper house, those communities will beable to start on that journey. In Swan Hill it took usabout 12 years from the time we started to get people tounderstand the assets and the abilities we had. Todaywe have achieved just the beginning of it, and fromhere it will grow. To see the upper catchments come inwill be fantastic, because they play a vital role inVictoria.

They play a vital part because they produce differentproducts at different times of the year, and as webecome known throughout the world as a securesupplier of food and food products of quality we needthat range. It is in the upper catchment and cold climateareas of the state that we have not had this growth anddevelopment. The Liberal Party can crow all it likesabout its 4500 megalitres of water; the value of thislegislation for Victoria, particularly for those uppercatchment areas in the north-east, the south-west andGippsland, is potentially enormous and very exciting.We look forward to that development, and in my

opinion the agreements we have reached are worthevery cent. But I reiterate that the big value for Victoriaand our farmers and rural communities will be in thefirst 10 000 megalitres, and in about 15 years, as the lastof them are taking up the next bit, they will gain thebenefit. It is good, and I am pleased.

I know there have been enormous political battleswithin the Liberal Party and in different parts ofVictoria, and I am a little sad about the venom that hasbeen generated in these areas, but being a person whohas been involved in water debates for a long time inthis place I understand just how much venom can begenerated out of water debates.

Mr Nardella interjected.

Mr STEGGALL — But please understand thatalthough our upper catchment areas of Victoria willtake time to pick these things up and do them, as thelegislators of the state we have had to make sure it is inplace.

I will just comment on a couple of other things thehonourable member for Monbulk mentioned. Theexchange rates have been in place since we started thisdebate. It was agreed then by all of us that the exchangerates for that area would have to be agreed to, and wegot some ideas and different volumes, which I think Imentioned in my speech during the debate on theexchange rate last year. The exchange rates were a verybig issue. We have to make sure that we get those right.The process that the government has agreed to is anatural progression, and I congratulate it on that. TheLiberal Party can claim it did it if it likes, but that is theonly way that any government could go to get averifiable operation.

I have to say to the government in passing that the sametype of verification and monitoring is required forground water in this state. I appreciate the manner inwhich the government has picked up the exchange rateissue, and has looked at the monitoring and measuringof it, but the ground water will be a different issue —another issue on similar lines.

Briefly the package is that a 50 per cent cost of water,up to a value of $400 a megalitre, will apply for the first50 megalitres for each property after a licence has beensecured and a dam has been built. That will continuenow until 14 500 megalitres have been applied for andgranted, and that is throughout Victoria. That is for thecapped catchments. In the capped and non-cappedcatchments — and the capped catchments will grow alot in the next 5 to 10 years as the stream flowmanagement plans are completed — we will have a



50 per cent cost of the farm plan, 100 per cent of theenvironmental assessment cost and 50 per cent of theapproved engineering designs for the dams to be met bygovernment. It is a pretty good package, and this is thefirst time since 1886, when the first water law cameinto place right in this room, that a change to the rightto water has included a compensation package. I justmake that point. We have had a lot of changes to theright to water in that last 116 or 117 years, so it is good.

The Parliament has handled this bill pretty well. Wehave had some interesting and vigorous debates, and Iam sure that within Labor they will not be over until thelady is in later on. We also agreed in this place toamend the provisions relating to house and curtilagefire protection in upper catchment areas, and that hasbeen successfully introduced


Mr STEGGALL — I did not mention anythingabout singing.

This house also rejected the 3 per cent rainfallamendment that was so strongly put forward by theLiberal Party. That 3 per cent amendment was going toredistribute 450 000 megalitres of water from northernVictoria alone into the upper catchment areas and wasthe subject of very severe and strong debate throughoutthis place and country communities. I am delighted thatthat has been withdrawn by the Liberal Party and that itis now not following that course of action, because wehad no chance of agreement while that was there.

The disallowance clause has been changed so that theParliament will have a role in the managementprotection area plans as they come through. It givesevery member of Parliament a future opportunity tointervene if they believe any grievance should be raisedby the introduction of those plans. It is a right andproper way to go. In the original bill anyone who hadan occasional use of water from a dam in the previousfive years was able to register. Now the bill has beenamended to take that back to 10 years, and that is finebecause the object of the exercise was to pick up thosepeople who had participated in irrigational use over thattime.

The amendment which I believe will be passed thismorning concerns the unlimited registration fee forirrigation dams. There is a rider in there which did notget much of a mention from the honourable member forMonbulk — that is, that use will then be subject to anystream flow management plans that are put in place,and if those plans call for a regular review of anythinglike that then it will be included. They do not have to be

included but they could be, which is quite a workableand proper way to go, and there should not be anyworries.

One of the major changes that was introduced by us butwas agreed to by the Parliament was the one that gavean amnesty to irrigation dams that are today in dispute,because we believe that to have this legislation workand to stop those pressures on water that existthroughout Victoria you need to have a clean start. Theamnesty amendment in the bill now gives us the abilityto have that clean start, so hopefully we can bury thosenasty challenges and arguments that have been around.And of course this legislation is all about the fact thatthose disputes were very much part of the scene in thewater area.

It has to be acknowledged that this bill takes away astatutory right — there is no argument with and nohiding from that — but it also takes away obstacles thathave plagued users in the upper catchments concerningtheir water rights and their understanding of them. Wehave now a piece of legislation that will give moresecurity to our upper catchment users but also toeveryone else in the area. We only now have two areasto clean up in water law: one is the ground waterdebate, and the problems we are experiencing therewith the permissible annual volumes and themonitoring of that, and the other is the regulation of theretail entitlement changes being talked about innorthern Victoria.

It has been a long and challenging journey, and todaywill also be long and challenging by the time we getthrough it. Collectively we have come out of this with avery good piece of legislation, and as areas startutilising their water resources with a more permanentform of irrigation management it will give them somesecurity and certainty as to how to proceed. Previouslythere were always doubts and problems. I think thedebate has been a healthy and vigorous one in thatregard.

The National Party supports the positions that havebeen agreed to today. While we are only here speakingto amendments 1 to 15, it will be agreed thatamendments 20 to 22 will not go ahead and thatamendments 16 to 19, which give us unlimitedregistration of irrigation dams, will be agreed to — thatis, the issue we supported the Liberal Party on in thefirst stage of the debate in this house.

I wish this legislation well. The challenges and battlesthat I guess will happen now out in country Victoria asa consequence of this, and the politics of it, willprobably be regretted, but it will be nice when they are



all over and our communities, particularly in thenorth-east, the south-west and Gippsland, are able tofully take advantage of what I believe is a very goodpiece of legislation.

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I am pleased to beable to speak on these amendments. I am sorry that wehave not had this bill out of the way long before now asthere are so many people across rural Victoria whohave been anxious to see it carried forward to providethem with security with regard to water usage. That isclearly what the aim of this bill has been all about.

It has been interesting to have the honourable memberfor Monbulk stand up and make his very contritespeech — a save-face speech as it were — in regard tothe amendments. Yes, the government has beenprepared to work with other parties to ensure we canget this bill through, but certainly the history leading upto it is a very shabby history for the Liberal Party.

As we know, they threw up some totally unacceptableamendments that would have totally compromised theintegrity of the bill. We know that this bill is aboutproviding security of water use so that people knowwhere they stand in regard to gaining waterentitlements when putting in a dam, so they can planaccordingly. It is also about people who already havedams in place and are using water for irrigation beingsecure in that.

The amendments we have accepted certainly do notcompromise the integrity of the bill at all. They areamendments that seem to have been pushed onto theLiberal Party by the Victorian Farmers Federation(VFF) and other people who have been lobbying verystrongly to get this bill through — including peoplefrom all areas of rural Victoria, who have said, ‘No, wewant this bill through’. It represents a significant moveforward, as the honourable member for Swan Hill hasclearly outlined.

This bill is long awaited. While it followed throughwith some reports on the issue, the former Kennettgovernment was not prepared to put forward thissignificant legislation, which will see water recognisedas an important resource in the community and resolveso many of those issues that have been argued about forso long — such as whether or not a dam is on awatercourse. Issues about dam registration and damlicensing will relate to the availability of water and willrecognise that in most places dams will have an effecton downstream water users. We need to recognise thatand build it into a safe, secure system of providinglicences.

Certainly the former amendments put forward by theLiberal Party were hastily put together, and we haveheard they were decried by all sections of the ruralcommunity. I am pleased that commonsense has ruled,that they have not pushed those amendments anyfurther and that they have instead taken the contrite stepof finding some ground that does not affect the integrityof the bill.

Clearly the bill is now going to be a very sound one,and I am happy with the amendments. I support theamendments allowing for ongoing registration asopposed to re-registering every five years. This willmake the system easier for farmers and will at leastensure that the perhaps irrational concerns and doubtsthey may have had about what was going to happenafter five years and whether the rules would change,and so on, have been taken out. The other changesregarding the transition package are very sound andagain do not affect the integrity of the bill.

I am pleased that commonsense has prevailed and thatthe pressure that has been brought to bear on ourLiberal Party colleagues has ensured that we can seethis bill through. This week it has been sad to see somany bills being sent back to this house by the upperhouse — something that never seemed to happen underthe former Kennett government. We knew the upperhouse was the house of the rubber stamp and thereforeanything that went through this house was notchallenged; bills passed by this house simply went onand became legislation.

There is clearly a place for challenging and improvinglegislation, but not for using the upper house as a houseof frustration and as a means of throwing in silly,spurious amendments that, in this case, were going tocompletely destroy the integrity of this significant bill.So I am pleased that pressure has been brought to bear,pleased that the VFF has been a significant player inthis, pleased that the National Party has always beensupportive of this legislation and pleased that at last theLiberals have, although kicking and screaming,recognised that this is important.

I am happy to commend the amendments before thehouse. I will be very pleased to see this bill move outbeyond this Parliament and be enacted so that peoplewill have security in their water usage in the comingyears.

Mr VOGELS (Warrnambool) — This is the thirdtime we have debated the Water (Irrigation FarmDams) Bill in the Assembly. Each time the LiberalParty has been able to drag another amendment or twoout of the government. If we had received the support



of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), there is nodoubt that much more could have been achieved.However, it went to water from day one. Thank Godthe Liberal Party stood up for rural Victorians.

What have we achieved? People are saying we have notachieved much, but some of the things we haveachieved include requiring stream flow managementplans to be tabled in each house of Parliament, wherethey can be disallowed. We also have one-offregistration, which I believe is an excellent outcome.The honourable member for Ballarat East said that fiveyears is not really a problem. Of course it is a problem!We need certainty. If you are a farmer, you needcertainty. You do not want to be thinking that everyfive years maybe all this could be taken away from youor that licence fees could be doubled, tripled orwhatever. Of course you need certainty. Providing thatthere be no demolition of existing dams once a watersupply protection area has been declared is, I believe,an excellent outcome. Having a grace period of from5 years to 10 years for previous use is also veryimportant for dairy farmers who have been washingdown their dairies, et cetera, or who might haveirrigated a summer crop at some stage out of a dam.

Increasing the transition package from 10 000megalitres to 14 500 megalitres and having anindependently assessed exchange rate for capped areasare very good amendments.

I must admit I had a reality check when I discoveredlast week that the minister had put out interimguidelines. When I read through them I realised theybasically meant that by stealth the department wouldhave taken over every drop of rainwater in Victoria,anyway. If you go to Bourke Street and get atopographical map drawn to a scale of 1 to 25 000, youwill find that every little blue line on that map is now awaterway — or would have been a waterway. I doubt ifthere is a dam in Victoria that would not have been on awaterway.

The other guideline that concerned me was that if yourcatchment area for a stock and domestic dam is largerthan 60 hectares, it would also be deemed to be on awaterway, which basically would have taken new farmdams out of existence. So we had to come to acompromise, which we have.

I believe this is a good outcome for most Victorians. Iunderstand the upper catchment farmers in theMurray–Darling Basin are probably disappointed withsome of the outcomes. However, speaking on behalf ofthe Western District of Victoria, I do not think we hadany option. I believe that overall this is a good outcome

for the farmers of the Western District — the ones that Irepresent.

In conclusion, let me say that in an ideal world, maybemore could have been achieved, but it was time to putthe farm dams issue to bed. As I said before, I thankGod for the Liberal Party. At least we stood out in ruralVictoria. We worked with rural farmers in our areasand came up with amendments which I think haveimproved the bill immensely.

I congratulate the minister on accepting ouramendments, and I am thankful for all the support wehave had, especially from the Liberal Party, throughoutthis ordeal.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne).



Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr THWAITES (Minister for Health).

Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — It is with some pleasurethat I rise to debate the Forensic Health Legislation(Amendment) Bill before us today. It is a bill that wasgiven rise to initially by an act of this Parliament passedin 1997, to which I contributed, and then by recentevents which have resulted in two reviews, which inturn have led to the legislation before us today.

The Liberal Party will be supporting this legislation, butit is important that we make a contribution to the debateon it because although we believe it is an area that doesneed bipartisan support — and it will certainly get it inthis case — we have some what I might callreservations about this bill, the direction it takes and theimpulses from which it has sprung.

We need to look carefully at the interface between themental health and correctional systems. Each of coursehas its own paradigms, and one is not necessarily betterthan the other, and the debate in October of 1997certainly focused on that interface. It is interesting thatthe new honourable member for Warrnambool, myfriend John Vogels, was just making a contribution onthe farm dams bill, because I well remember theprevious member for Warrnambool, John McGrath, amember of the National Party, whose contributions inthis place on mental illness along with those of formermember Neil Cole on the other side changed the way



this Parliament looks at mental illness and made this amuch more enlightened place. I had the privilege oflistening to both of them on a number of occasions, andI always felt very proud to be a member of this placewhen they were up and speaking.

This is a very interesting bill. If you named mosthospitals around Victoria most Victorians wouldrecognise those hospitals immediately, because they areinstitutions that are well known and iconic in ourcommunities. However, if you named the ThomasEmbling Hospital I doubt that very many people wouldknow what it is or where it is. In fact it was named forThomas Embling — not surprisingly — who was amedical practitioner and the first medical director of theold Yarra Bend Asylum. He was a reformer. He wasperhaps the first person in Australia to advocate a moraldimension to the treatment of insanity, and thereforethat this hospital should be named for him isparticularly apt.

Those on the other side of the house may be interestedto know that Thomas Embling was the man creditedwith coining the phrase ‘8 hours labour, 8 hoursrecreation, 8 hours rest’. He was a member forCollingwood — and I am delighted to say thatparticular seat has been abolished, and long may that bethe case — but nevertheless — —

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Kilgour) — Order!The honourable member for Malvern, on the bill!

Mr DOYLE — Certainly, Mr Acting Speaker.Although I take this serious matter seriously, I couldnot resist that small incursion. However, as I wassaying, it was a very worthy naming of what is aninstitute of forensic mental health, better known asForensicare in the profession, which is a statutorycorporation providing statewide services to mentally illoffenders on both outpatient and inpatient bases. It is avery secure 100-bed facility, of which 80 beds arepresently commissioned, down in Yarra Bend Road,Fairfield. Patients are received from the prison systemor from the courts for various purposes of assessmentand treatment of their psychiatric illnesses. They arethen either returned to prison or rehabilitated andreleased into the community in a very carefully phasedmanner.

I will say at the outset that a number of my commentsare based on a paper written by Jim Poulter, a personwhose expertise in this area I have come to respectvery, very highly. I share many of his views and wish toreflect them in our support of the bill and in ourexpression of some of the reservations we have about it.

The first thing I will say is that it has to be understoodthat this hospital is divided into two streams of care: theacute units, which contain predominantly sentencedprisoners; and the continuing care units, which areresponsible for intensive rehabilitation and communityreintegration programs. Around 75 per cent of thepatients in these rehabilitation units are forensicpatients — that is, those patients previously known asGovernor’s pleasure patients before the introduction ofthe Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to beTried) Act 1997.

I pay great tribute to the members of this place who in1995 brought in a report of a committee inquiry intopersons detained at the Governor’s pleasure, which notonly gave rise to that particular piece of legislation butsaid once and for all in Victoria that at that interfacebetween the correctional and the mental health systemsit is the mental health system which has primacy, andthat it is the rehabilitative functions of the mental healthsystem to which we should be looking when we aredealing with some of the most unfortunate and some ofthe most difficult clients in our state.

In effect the reason we made that change was that theold Governor’s pleasure patients were — not to put toofine a point on it — warehoused in psychiatricwarehouses, often for periods greatly in excess of whatthey could ever have been sentenced to even for themost horrific of crimes. This state looked in a bipartisanway at whether or not that was an appropriate way tomove forward, decided it was not and came up withthat Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to beTried) Bill.

The reason the government came up with that bill wasbecause it wanted to say from the outset that thereshould be a clear presumption that the intention was toachieve rehabilitation back into the community, andthat did not mean just by pharmacological control of aparticular client’s or patient’s condition. Therehabilitation had to rest on much broader principles ofhumanistic health care and psychosocial therapy of botha group and an individual nature.

As I say, the inquiry resulted in a landmark report, alandmark piece of legislation, and a culture shift andintellectual shift in the way this Parliament and thisstate decided it would deal with some of the mostdifficult clients our state has to deal with. The thengovernment set up the Thomas Embling Hospital, and Imust say that in a very, very short space of time it hasbecome a world-renowned centre for excellence inwhat it does. I well remember when John McGrathstood over there during the debate in 1997 when theinstitute was set up one of the things he said was that he



had travelled the world and looked at the ways in whichthe world deals with those who are sometimes veryseriously mentally ill. He said of his own son at thattime — I re-read his speech before making mycontribution today — that he was proud and indeedpleased that his son was being treated in Victoria andnot elsewhere in the world. With that particular piece oflegislation we moved even further forward.

While I understand what has given rise to thelegislation today, I wish to sound a couple of cautionarynotes on the way through. One of the first things I willsay is that if this Parliament did show its mind to be thatrehabilitation and reintegration into the communitywhere possible was its first goal, then what it should belooking to do is to make sure that the weaponry, if youlike, or the tools that it gives our professionals, areadequate to the task. Principal among those, I must say,are the provisions of leave that we give to these clientsand these patients. I have come to believe it may wellbe that we need more of those tools rather than fewer ofthem. While the security of the community must beparamount — and I will speak about that later — at thesame time we have to recognise that we are dealingwith people who can be successfully rehabilitated andreintegrated into the community with great support andsometimes over very great periods of time.Nevertheless they are capable of being reintegratedback into society.

There are a number of different types of leave,including evening leave for family or communityreintegration; overnight leave to test out issues of thatfamily re-entry for patients returning home; supervisedresidential leave, which is leave on a trial basis thatprovides 24-hour care but in a community setting andnot in an institutional setting; supportedaccommodation leave, which is step-down leave intothe community on a seven-day-a-week basis;community housing transition leave to facilitate a finalprocess of community transition; and there are manymore.

I am sure that if you spoke to the professionals whowork in this field at the Thomas Embling Hospital theywould say, ‘By all means we will put community safetyand the safety of the individual as our no. 1 goal, butplease give us the tools by which we can work withthese clients to make sure that that rehabilitativefunction is always foremost in our minds and that wedo not return, however inadvertently, to a system thatnods more to the correctional paradigm than to themental health paradigm’. The leave question is aparticularly important one in that regard.

As I say, I understand what has given rise to thislegislation, and I shall come to that in a moment, but weshould not lose sight of the fact that if we are told bythe professionals in the area that these are things wehave to address and if we have not given them the fullrange of possibilities to deal with these clients, then wehave effectively hamstrung our own professionalsworking in this difficult area. I am sure that is not theintention of the legislation, and that nor is it theintention of the government or of the Parliament. Imention it, as I say, in passing.

I well recall when we implemented these legislativereforms in 1997. I note the member for Preston is in thehouse, and I recall not only his previous experience as aprofessional in the area but his contribution to thatdebate. We all came to an agreement that it was the sortof legislation that meant we were taking a large stepand that we would need to review its operation withinthe two or three-year time frame that was in front of us.The government did not conduct a full review of theoperation of the act. As I understand it there were twocomplementary reviews, but it is understandable thatalthough they were conducted in response to securitybreaches at the new hospital, that rather limited theirscope. My purpose in raising this issue was to makesure the professionals have all the requisite tools,particularly those of leave.

The focus of the security review that gave rise to theseamendments was on sentenced prisoners and theconditions under which they would be granted leave.Unfortunately that was overtaken by a necessity toconsider reciprocal arrangements with other states inthe case of someone absconding from another state andcoming to Victoria, as well as the recognition that wedid not have the power to deal with that — to detainsomebody, to treat them and to return them to their stateof origin — should we need to.

I must say, and I do not wish to cavil on this point, thatI still do not understand why our Mental Health Actdoes not provide us with the capability of at least takingthese people for assessment and making theminvoluntary patients if we need to. I recognise that maynot include the possibility of sending them back to theirstate of origin — both the amendments and theamendments to the amendments which we willconsider at the same time do have that effect — but Iam a little concerned that in the case that gave rise tothis second tranche of amendments we not only did notreact very quickly but also did not use the provisionsthat were before us in a way which was appropriate.

I will not go on about that, because I do not wish toparticularise individual patients who absconded and the



media coverage which surrounded that. Suffice it to saythat when one of these patients absconded, which gaverise to what is called the Vincent review of leavearrangements for patients at the Victorian Institute ofForensic Mental Health, or Forensicare, whichdelivered its report in May 2001, as I recall wesupported the government’s reaction. Although ofcourse declining to make it a political issue, wesuggested that while community safety needed to beserved we did not resile from the excellent and worldground-breaking work that was being done at ThomasEmbling Hospital.

It is interesting that one of the things that has beengiven expression in this legislation is the success ofThomas Embling Hospital. The great work that it hasdone in rehabilitation is actually — —


Mr DOYLE — I will come back to it. Just give mesome time.

The SPEAKER — Order! The honourable membershould ignore interjections.

Mr DOYLE — I certainly should ignoreinterjections and their disorderly origins, and I will dothat.

One of the great rehabilitation successes of the hospitalis recognised in sections 54A and 54B. They require anapplicant profile and a leave plan to be considered bythe forensic leave panel. Previously that leave panelonly had a legal responsibility to consider issues ofpublic endangerment in granting leave. They were seenas saying, ‘If you are not going to be a danger, then it isprobably good for you to go on leave’. This amendmentmakes it clear that they should serve rehabilitativeobjectives directly and that they have to bedocumented.

I do not mean this as a criticism. There is a differenceof philosophy between the two sides in framinglegislation, because as the house knows I did some ofthis legislation when we were in government, but itpuzzles me to see that level of detail actually enshrinedin black letter law.

It seems to me to be a really odd way to do it. I do notmean that as a criticism but I do say that it may reducethe flexibility of the government. If that changes fromtime to time, it is much easier to go back and changeeither regulations or codes of practice that have beenapproved by the relevant authorities than it is to comeback and change black-letter law. So while I applaudthe intent of the amendment and I agree with what it

says, I would not have put it in the legislation.Everyone would have agreed on it, it would have had tohave been done, but if we need to change it from timeto time, as we often do, then the cumbersome nature oflegislation means that will be so much more difficult.

That is also why I mention the leave provisions. Thosechanges in focus and mandate of the forensic leavepanel are welcome, but I suggest that what wouldnormally have gone with that as you are detailing thosethings is a greater range of leave entitlements,particularly for those who have virtually completedtheir rehabilitation process. I am a little concerned thatthat has not necessarily gone together. As I say, perhapsthat is because this was not a full review but one thatwas conducted in the light of a particular abscondingthat caused a great deal of community concern.

One thing I will say however, which I hope ties all ofthose comments together, is I think it is something to bewelcomed. I remember talking to a couple of people inthe field about just what sort of mindset you shouldhave when approaching leave for patients of this kind.It was clearly suggested that perhaps in the past, evenwith the best of intentions, unless you could show areally good reason why leave should not be granted, itwas granted. Community safety was an importantconsideration but that did not seem to go far enough.These leave plans and the thinking behind it say, ‘No,there is not a prima facie case that leave will begranted’. Rather, what should happen is that if you candemonstrate a rehabilitative purpose for it, then andonly then will leave be granted, and it is tied to thetreatment regime of the patient.

I welcome the reversal which says that almost the no. 1thing for consideration is the safety of the communityand the individual. That is particularly important and ismade clear in the second-reading speech and byextension in the amendments and the amendments tothe amendments which have been brought in today.This side of the house welcomes that.

I am sure honourable members know I could go on forhours and hours. I am conscious of the fact that we aretruncating debate today for a number of reasons so Ispare the house the rare pleasure of hearing me go onfor hours and hours!

I will turn briefly to the review chaired by Justice FrankVincent, which had Penny Armytage, Noel Perry andNorman James, the Chief Psychiatrist of the time, onthe panel. The terms of reference given to the panel andthe rationale which is clearly spelt out in theintroduction bear out my remarks.



I am pleased that the key principles are enunciated thereand that the panel had in mind exactly what they weredoing in terms of making sure that treatment isprovided in the least possible restrictive environmentand in the least possible intrusive manner almost as afirst principle that they deal with. There are a number ofother key principles which it used to govern theinterface between the mental health and correctionalsystems. I want to mention two in particular which alsogo to the heart of some of my comments. They are:

That any leave must be in the context of an overallrehabilitation and treatment program.

I have covered that.

That any leave must also be considered in terms of thepotential impact on public safety, security of the individualand impact on any individual involved in the offence, ie anyvictim.

Those two things I have considered so far and I havetouched also on the final key principle, that is:

That any leave is part of a process of reintegration of theperson into the community in a manner that minimises thatperson’s likelihood of reoffending in the future.

These are sensitive issues, but I think we should alsonote the very large number of leaves that proceedwithout incident. In the 12-month period that the panellooked at there were three adverse events, and that wasin a large number of leaves that had been granted andhad proceeded satisfactorily. I recognise that even threeis too many and that because of the nature of thepatients that is some cause for alarm in the community,and I regret media sensationalism that unnecessarilyexcites that alarm. I recognise all of those things and thework the panel had to do. But I make those commentsabout leave and keeping in mind a rehabilitativefunction by way of underpinning my support for thelegislation.

The panel made 19 different recommendations, acouple of which will be picked up in the SentencingAct later. It has effectively accepted therecommendations of the Vincent review and also onethat was made previously by the Department of Justicein framing this legislation.

I turn to one area where I have some concerns, and Iwish to make one or two suggestions to the governmentthat we are keen to support. The first is that there havebeen some practitioners and key stakeholders — andthe Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee wasone of them — who have pointed out that clause 506,which introduces changes to section 51 of the MentalHealth Act, gives cause for some concern. I refer todocumentation which I have been forwarded from the

Law Institute of Victoria, the Health ServicesCommissioner, and the Mental Health Legal Centre.

People who work at Thomas Embling Hospital haveechoed these concerns to me, as has the Mental IllnessFellowship. The concern is that this particular clauseremoves a right of appeal. To quote from the HealthService Commissioner’s letter to the Department ofJustice:

The commissioner opposes the loss of the appeal jurisdictionfrom the Mental Health Review Board on section 51. Underour international human rights agreement it is clear thatpeople with mental illness are entitled to the same range ofhuman rights as any other person. The proposal reduces thehuman rights of mentally ill prisoners by denying them theadvantage of an external review of original decision making. Iacknowledge there are always tensions between securityconsiderations and the right of people to receive treatment forserious mental illness. Unfortunately the current climateseems to be favouring the correctional aspects rather than thehuman rights and treatment issues.

The law institute similarly echoes those concerns. Ishould point out that the concerns echoed by the lawinstitute are not those of the institute as a whole.

The submission was prepared by the disabilitycommittee of the administrative law and human rightssection of the Law Institute of Victoria. As I said,although the views of that section were not adopted bythe institute as a whole, the institute is concerned aboutthe removal of the right of appeal to the Mental HealthReview Board for people who are refused leave, and Iquote:

Whoever makes the primary decision, that right should beretained. It is most troubling, again, that the governmentproposes to remove a substantive right of an entire group ofpeople based on the conduct of one, or at the most a few. Weurge the government to reinstate that right.

Similar sentiments were expressed to me through themental health legal centre and a number of otherpeople.

This matter was raised by the Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee (SARC) and the governmentwas kind enough to provide to me, for which I thank it,answers to my questions at the briefing and a copy ofthe amendments and the response of the minister to theScrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. Iacknowledge and thank the government for itscooperation. However, I am a little unsure of itsresponse, and I refer to the letter from the Minister forHealth addressed to the chair of SARC after thecommittee raised the same concern as did the HealthServices Commissioner and the disability committee ofthe administrative law and human rights section of thelaw institute.



The response notes that Justice Vincent delivered thepanel’s report on 1 June 2001. The panel noted thatsecurity patients have been either convicted andsentenced by the courts or are on remand and awaitingtrial, and on that basis reached its conclusion. Of thethree points in its conclusion, the most important one is:

… the process for considering leave of absence for securitypatients should be essentially the same as that used forprisoners, with some necessary amendments to ensure thatclinical considerations are fully taken into account.

The argument from the Minister for Health is:

Accordingly, the panel recommended that the power to grantleave of absence to security patients be removed from theChief Psychiatrist and vested in the Secretary of theDepartment of Justice to ensure that these securityconsiderations are appropriately addressed. The panel furtherrecommended that, to ensure consistency with therecommendation that decisions to grant leave be made by theDepartment of Justice, and having regard to the importance ofconsiderations of security, the right of appeal to the MentalHealth Review Board should also be removed.

The final paragraph goes on to say:

Significantly, when prisoners make an application for leavethere is no right to appeal a decision to refuse leave. Theremoval of the right of security patients to appeal to theMental Health Review Board thus ensures that prisoners andsecurity patients are treated as consistently as possible inrelation to leave arrangements.

I do not find that persuasive. I recognise thegovernment’s right to make that decision, and it doesfollow the fine work done by Justice Vincent; however,essentially the argument boils down to the fact that inthe first instance the decision is to ensureconsistency — in other words, it is administrative and isnot to do with why that is important, it is just to ensureadministrative consistency. I do not think that of itself isa reason for removing a right of appeal.

Secondly, the reason that is given, if I may say so, is nomore than a truism — that is, that security is important.Yes, the Liberal Party agrees with that, but that to me isnot a reason for removing this right of appeal. It is notclear to me how an appeal mechanism can diminish theimportance of security. Even though I recognise thegovernment’s right to make that decision, and recognisethat it is following the Vincent recommendations, I amnot persuaded by the argument. We in the Liberal Partywill certainly not oppose any part of the bill, nor willwe propose an amendment to it, but in a spirit ofcooperation I suggest that I would appreciate thegovernment’s considering reinstating that appealmechanism — looking at the arguments.

If the government were to consider that the restorationof the appeal mechanism would be a worthwhile

addition to the legislation, and if it cared to bring it in asan amendment while the bill is between houses, wewould consider that favourably and with approval in theupper house and with great expedition would pass thoseamendments when they were returned to this place forconsideration. All the people I have spoken to haveasked that I make that point on behalf of these patients,and I am pleased to do so.

Should that not be the case and should the governmentnot wish to go down that track I would ask it toconsider carefully reviewing the effect of that, tocontinue to consult with the excellent staff atForensicare, with the Health Services Commissioner,with the people at the law institute who are concernedwith this legislation, and with the Mental Health LegalCentre, as well as with groups like the Mental IllnessFellowship, just to monitor what effect it does have. Ifin future it was decided that it was a useful addition,then support would be forthcoming from this side.

I will conclude my remarks, as I do not wish to go onand on. I cannot help though but finish with a singleand important plea for the government to consider.Given the impetus of the Vincent review and the effectof the unfortunate case of the young man whoabsconded from Queensland and subsequently fromVictoria and the way that that incident drove theamendments in this legislation, and given what I havesaid previously about making sure that we do notrestrict our professionals from proceeding with thatrehabilitation with any tools that are at their disposal, Ihesitate to ask the government to set up another inquiry.I certainly would not do that.

Mr Hamilton interjected.

Mr DOYLE — I promise, I would not kickanything out of you if you did. In fact, I was about tooffer you that proposal.

Given that there are concerns in the field that this mayunduly restrict the capacity to deal with and treat someof the most difficult clients in the state it would beimportant that the government did make — even if itsmembers did it privately and to themselves — acommitment that it would go back after a period ofoperation of this legislation and talk to the people at thepointy end of the stick — talk to the Jim Poulters of theworld about how the legislation is actually working. Ifit is not helping in the rehabilitation of patients and if itis therefore acting against the spirit of what we cametogether to do in 1997 — indeed what we are comingtogether to do today — then again the Liberal Partywould look favourably upon any amendment or any



addition to the leave provisions and to the powers of thepeople who work in this area.

As I say, I do not advocate necessarily setting up acompletely different review, but I suggest that we aremaking a change here. The Parliament is making achange in response to a very serious breach of the leaveprovisions. It would be a pity if we were now to take abackward step. That would be unfortunate given thehistory of Thomas Embling, who I understand when hearrived at the Yarra Bend lunatic asylum found peoplein manacles — they were chained like animals.

He found that their food and clothing and other thingswere being sold off. When he tried to make that publiche was opposed, because of course you should notmake noise — it is much easier to forget about thesepeople! They actually tried to fit him up — frame him.In the subsequent inquiry it was proved that the onlything he had done was have an excess ofconscientiousness — and undoubtedly that is why hebecame a member of Parliament! — but they actuallydid try to stitch him up.

It would be a pity, given the very worthy impulses ofthat original director, if we were, howeverinadvertently, to start to move backwards and moretowards the correctional area. By all means keepcommunity safety and the safety of the individual asour first and primary concern — we have alreadyproven at the Thomas Embling Hospital that we can dothat — but at the same time work to help people and torehabilitate them into our community. That is why wedid all that work on that committee. That is why we nolonger have prisoners at the Governor’s pleasure, whichwas an outdated and I might say slightly shamefulpractice. We have made all those moves. For the best ofreasons now let us not take half steps backwards.

There are two things I ask the government to do: firstly,to please reconsider section 51 and whether it willreinstate that right of appeal to the Mental HealthReview Board of Victoria; and, secondly, to pleasemonitor the effect of these amendments on leave forthese patients, particularly as it affects theirrehabilitation. I ask the government to talk to theprofessionals who are involved with patient care, and ifwe need to make further changes to make sure thatwhile we protect public safety the community andindividuals at the same time we can assure ourselvesthat we are doing everything we can to try torehabilitate some of the most tragic individuals that thisParliament or our society deals with. I wish the bill aspeedy passage.

Mr DELAHUNTY (Wimmera) — Firstly, Icompliment the honourable member for Malvern ongiving a good background to this issue, and I will notgo through that during my contribution to the debate.

The National Party comes from a premise of, firstly,protecting the community, and secondly, and veryimportantly, getting the balance right between the needfor treatment and the concerns for security. I know thehonourable member for Malvern has covered theexcellent contributions in this house of the formermember for Warrnambool, John McGrath — I was notinvolved in those debates — and he also mentionedNeil Cole, and I know of Neil. Sometimes you feel veryinadequate when you are speaking on this very delicatetopic. As I said, it is important to get the balance rightbetween the need for treatment and the concerns forsecurity.

On a reading of the bill and the proposed amendments,copies of which we were given late yesterday, theNational Party believes the bill is really tightening upthe original act. It also addresses the concerns regardingcooperation between the states and better defines thefour types of leave that are available in the process.

Honourable members are well aware that the purposeof the bill is to amend the Crimes (Mental Impairmentand Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the Control ofWeapons Act 1990, the Intellectually Disabled Persons’Services Act 1986 and the Mental Health Act 1986with respect to the security of patients and persons whoare subject to supervision.

At this point I thank the ministerial staff for theircooperation in giving the National Party a briefing. Mycolleagues the Honourable Ron Best and theHonourable Jeanette Powell, members respectively forNorth Western and North Eastern provinces in the otherplace, were briefed on Tuesday this week, I believe bythe ministerial adviser Tass, and by Lorna Payne andIsobel Anton from the Department of Human Services.I congratulate Isobel on her very precise explanations tothe questions we asked. It was very beneficial to us. Ialso thank the other member of the briefing panel,Alison Will, from the Department of Justice.

The National Party in consulting on this bill spreadcopies of the bill and the second-reading speech widelyaround Victoria to get as much input as it could intothis important bit of legislation. We sent it to theVictorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, theMental Health Legal Centre, the North East Child andAdolescent Mental Health Service at Wodonga, theMental Illness Fellowship of Victoria based atWarragul and Wonthaggi, Mental Health Australia



based at Bendigo, the Mental Illness AwarenessCouncil, the Mental Health Service for Kids and Youth,the Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria, theMental Health Foundation of Australia (Victoria), andalso the National Institute of Forensic Science.

I have received many letters in return and have haddiscussions with many of these organisations indeveloping the position the National Party will take onthis legislation. For the information of the Minister forAgriculture, who is at the table, the National Party willnot oppose the bill, but it will raise similar concerns tothose that have been picked up by the honourablemember for Malvern.

As honourable members know, the bill was based ontwo reviews. The first was a review of the operation ofthe Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to beTried) Act by the Department of Justice. However, aftermore than three years of hearings under the act thisgovernment believes it has identified ways to improveits operation, and we look forward to seeing how thatgoes.

Honourable members also know that the second reviewwas of the leave arrangements for patients at theThomas Embling Hospital. I am informed that there are80 beds at this excellent facility in Melbourne. Oneaspect of the review was the result of the absconding byNeville Garden, a security patient on day leave; and theother was the case of Claude Gabriel, who abscondedfrom a Queensland institution to Melbourne and wasunable to be apprehended.

Honourable members would well remember the articlesin the newspapers. I know these matters created someconcern in the community. With the support of thelibrary’s services I have examined a couple of thenewspaper articles. One article in the Herald Sun of10 January this year by Fay Burstin states under theheading ‘States act on loophole’:

Legal loopholes that allowed mentally ill killer ClaudeGabriel to flee interstate and overseas will be closed afterofficials from around Australia hold urgent talks inMelbourne today.

Another article that appeared in the Age on the sameday, 10 January this year, by Richard Baker states:

Senior officers from all state government health departmentswill meet in Melbourne today to discuss new measures toallow for the apprehension of escaped dangerous psychiatricpatients anywhere in Australia.

As I said, we need to make sure we get the balanceright, and particularly to protect the security not only of

the patients but importantly the community at large.The article continues:

The meeting was triggered by last year’s escape of mentallyill killer Claude Gabriel from a Queensland institution toMelbourne.

The Victorian government tried to quell public fears bysaying it was in regular contact with Mr Gabriel’s family andthat he was taking his medication.

But it later emerged Mr Gabriel had escaped to Rome withhis mother during the period the government claimed to be inregular contact with his family.

Even if Mr Gabriel was found, the government, under currentlaws, had no power to detain him or send him back toQueensland.

So importantly this bill will cover some of thoseconcerns raised by the community and those articles.

I have read the information with interest. I have a fairbit of information here with me, and I shall go throughsome of that as time permits.

We are dealing with the Crimes Act 1987, whichprovides for a system of custodial and non-custodialsupervision orders. Supervision orders are designed toallow people who commit crimes while mentallyimpaired to receive treatment and rehabilitation — Ithink we would all support that — while protecting thecommunity. Understandably the victims and theirfamilies are also involved in this. In certaincircumstances the act allows for victims to provideinformation, but we know now that this bill will allowbasic information about the level of supervision to beprovided to be supplied to the victim or a familymember. At present agencies that supervise people onsupervision orders are not free to provide confidentialinformation about them. I shall come back later to someof the letters that have raised some concerns about that.

The act will also be amended so that notices to victimsand their family members under 18 years of age will goto the parent or guardian.

As I said, the National Party has consulted widely. Wealso support the procedures in the act that are now moreflexible, provide relevant information and allow familymembers and victims to present their views to the courtif they so wish. The community at large has a greatinterest in the progress of persons under supervision.That is why the National Party supports the positionthat the community is entitled to be represented whenthe court is considering whether to reduce a person’slevel of supervision. We know that the level ofsupervision to which a person is subject can be adjustedif the court is not convinced that the safety of the person



or the public will not be seriously endangered. Again,we would support that.

The legislation contains various leave positions. Peoplesubject to custodial supervision orders may apply forfour types of leave: special leave, on-ground leave,limited off-ground leave and extended leave. Specialleave from the place of custody is currently onlyavailable for 24 hours, and I will come back to thatlater. On-ground leave and limited off-ground leave aregranted by the forensic leave panel, but the Vincentreview panel suggested that leave should be grantedonly when it would contribute to the applicant’srehabilitation and when it was reasonable to do so. Wein the National Party support that provision.

The bill provides that the forensic leave panel maygrant leave only when it will contribute to therehabilitation of the applicant and where the panel issatisfied that neither the public nor the applicant will beseriously endangered. We in the National Party supportthat.

The National Party believes the changes will encouragea long-term view of the way the leave must contributeto rehabilitation.

I jump now to interstate apprehension and transfer. Iknow these matters are addressed in the amendmentswe received this week. After reading through them, andafter consultation with various people, we arecomfortable with those amendments. It is important thatthere is cooperation between the states to address thisimportant matter that I highlighted in the newspaperarticles earlier in the day.

Another act amended by this legislation is the MentalHealth Act of 1986. As we know, the bill amends theprovisions of the Mental Health Act that relate to thedischarge and leave entitlements of security patients —people who are in custody, including prisoners andyoung people detained under the Children and YoungPersons Act. The severity of their mental illness meansthey need to be detained in hospital for treatment.

The Vincent review panel argued that treatment ofthese patients in hospitals should focus on the acutephase of their illness and continue only so long as it isnecessary or justified, and we support that. After that,security patients should be returned to their place ofdetention where treatment can be continued. Wesupport those amendments and we support therecommendations of the Vincent review panel. TheNational Party believes strongly that it is important tohave a balance between the needs of treatment and the

concerns of security, and that is why we aredisappointed with the next point.

Under this legislation the Secretary of the Departmentof Justice will be responsible for granting this type ofleave. The Chief Psychiatrist will be consulted on eachapplication and will provide clinical input. If thesecurity patient is a young person transferred from ajuvenile facility, consultation with the Secretary to theDepartment of Human Services will be necessary. If thesecurity patient is transferred directly from policecustody, consultation with the Chief Commissioner ofPolice will be necessary. Under this legislation theSecretary to the Department of Justice will grant leaveto security patients and there will be no appeal againstrefusal of an application for leave. I will refer to thatlater when I quote from some of the letters we havereceived.

The National Party supports the amendments that relateto the Control of Weapons Act 1990.

I will touch quickly on some of the letters we receivedin relation to the consultation we had with many peopleacross Victoria. I refer firstly to a three-page letter fromthe Mental Illness Fellowship of Victoria signed by thechief executive, Elizabeth Crowther. I will quote someextracts from the letter, which raises some concerns, butI want to highlight to the government that thefellowship is supportive of most of the legislation. Theletter states:

Should the person be granted non-custodial supervision into astate where they do not reside, without their social supportsystem, there is a greater risk of them not remaining well.This is because experience and studies have shown thatisolation may lead them back to the circumstances whichcaused their initial sentence (for example: homelessness,unemployment, resorting to substance abuse as a form ofrelief).

So some concerns are raised there. The letter continues:

This bill clarifies that the forensic leave panel may only grantup to three nights leave per week. The current practice hasbeen to grant up to five nights per week. This reduction ofrights seems to be at odds with testing the patient’s capacityto act independently within the legal and health constraints. Iam concerned that this restriction of current rights diminishesthe opportunity for the patient to demonstrate capacity. Thusit has the potential for unravelling some of the rehabilitationprocesses.

I wholly support the extension of hours for day leave.

It appears to me that the alteration of responsibilityfrom the Chief Psychiatrist to the Secretary to theDepartment of Justice changes the emphasis from atreatment process in the context of custodial care tocustodial care in which treatment occurs.



I refer to a letter from the Mental Health ResearchInstitute which compliments the government on itslegislation but expresses some concerns. The letterstates:

It is pleasing to see that the Forensic Health Legislation(Amendment) Bill takes a more considered approach. Ifappropriately implemented, the measures in the bill shouldmaintain a solid balance between the needs of mentallyimpaired offenders, the safety of the community and thewellbeing of victims.

Correspondence from Mental Health Australia statesthat it is an exhausting document requiring a great dealof thought. Mental Health Australia supports clause 10because that would alleviate the problem relating to theQueensland patient, but it has concerns aboutclauses 17, 21 and 22. The concerns are twofold: itbelieves, firstly, that the provisions may be a breach ofconfidentiality, and secondly, that there could be thepotential for revictimisation of the victim.

I will now quote from a letter from the Law Institute ofVictoria, signed by John Corcoran. I am sure thegovernment would have received this. The letter isextensive and deals with several clauses but I will readjust one sentence from it:

Of even greater concern is the removal of the right of appealto the Mental Health Review Board for people refused leave.Whoever makes the primary decision, that right should beretained. It is most troubling, again, that the governmentproposes to remove a substantive right of an entire group ofpeople based on the conduct of one, or at the most a few. Weurge the government to reinstate that right.

I will now turn to some other information I collected inrelation to this concern, and that is a submission fromPublic Advocate Mr Julian Gardner about the right ofappeal to the Mental Health Review Board undersubstituted section 51, inserted by clause 40. So againthe government has had plenty of this information.

I refer now to a letter, signed by the Minister for Health,to the Honourable Mary Gillett, chair of the Scrutiny ofActs and Regulations Committee, which covered thisissue of appeal. Honourable members will be aware ofthe independent review panel chaired by Justice FrankVincent. The other members of that panel wereMs Penny Armytage, Mr Noel Perry and ProfessorNorman James.

Justice Vincent delivered the panel’s report on 1 June2001, and although I have a copy of that I will not readit, given the constraints of time. The government’sresponse to the appeal process was:

The panel noted that security patients have been eitherconvicted and sentenced by the courts or are on remandawaiting trial.

On this basis the panel concluded that, firstly, a transferfrom the prison system to the Victorian Institute ofForensic Mental Health should not, of itself, lead to theelimination of security; secondly, the criminal justicesystem has a legitimate interest in the extent to whichsecurity patients are free to leave the securityenvironment and re-enter the community.

Thirdly, it concluded that a process of considering leaveof absence for security patients should be the same asthat used for prisoners, with some necessaryamendments to ensure that their clinical considerationswould be fully taken into account.

Accordingly, the panel recommended that the power togrant leave of absence to security patients should beremoved from the Chief Psychiatrist and invested withthe Secretary of the Department of Justice to ensure thatthe security considerations would be appropriatelyaddressed. I take that on board. Again, like thehonourable member for Malvern, who raised this issuealso, we in the National Party have some concerns withthat explanation, because we should always have anappeal process that is open and transparent so thatpeople feel they are getting a fair shake in relation tothat matter.

In summary, the National Party strongly believes weneed to get the balance right between the victim’srights, the community’s rights and the court processes.We know that the Crimes (Mental Impairment andUnfitness to be Tried) Act establishes a system ofsupervision orders. One of those is the custodialsupervision order, where the offender is admitted to theThomas Embling Hospital — in other words, as asecurity patient. There is also the non-custodialsupervision order, where an offender is integrated backinto the community. Both of these are designed to treatand rehabilitate an offender while protecting thecommunity.

This is a summary of our position. The victims and thefamilies are able to make a report to the court when anapplication is made to reduce a person’s level ofsupervision. We support that the bill broadens the focusof this report to include the impact of feelings and theemotional effects on the victims. Also, currentlyagencies that supervise those on supervision orders areunable to reveal confidential information about theperson. This bill will allow the provision of basicinformation about the level of supervision to the victimor the family. We must be aware of confidentialityconcerns that were raised in some of the letters, and Iam sure that will be taken on board by the governmentand the various agencies.



We also know that at present it is mandatory to notifythe victim and their family when an offender has madean application to reduce their level of supervision. Insome cases victims and their families do not want tohear anything about the offender — and we supportthat — and this bill makes it clear that such a personcan choose not to be notified. Offenders subject to acustodial supervision order — in other words, a securitypatient — still can apply for only four types of leave:special leave, on-ground leave, limited off-ground leaveand extended leave. These are covered under section 54of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to beTried) Act, and I will not go through them in detail. Wealso know that special leave is currently 24 hours, butthe bill extends this to seven days when the leave is formedical purposes, and the National Party supports that.

On-ground leave and off-ground leave are granted bythe forensic leave panel. Currently legislation assumesthat leave will be granted unless a person can show thatit should not be. These amendments provide that leavemay only be granted when it can contribute to therehabilitation of the offender and when the panel issatisfied that the community or the offender are not atserious risk. The hours of day leave — now 7.30 a.m. to7.30 p.m. — will be extended to 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m.to allow more flexibility, and we strongly support that.

To finish with the interstate transfer issue that I touchedon earlier in some of the newspaper articles, I believethe amendments will tighten up this situation, because itis important that we have a process where the states andthe ministers involved can deal with this very sensitivematter for the security of people at large. I know theVincent panel touched on this, and I will not go into itany further because I know there are honourablemembers who want to speak on another bill.

I finish by saying that we in the National Party come atthis from the premise that we want to make sure weprotect the community, but it is important to get thebalance right for the treatment of the patient, andimportantly also for their security. We believe fromreading the bill and from consulting widely acrossVictoria that it tightens up the legislation. I have raisedsome of the concerns that have been made known to mein relation to this matter, but overall the National Partywill not be opposing this legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr VINEY (FrankstonEast).




Message from Council insisting on amendments furtherconsidered.

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMs GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation):


Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — I open my briefcontribution by picking up on some comments made bythe honourable member for Ballarat East which areindicative of the Labor Party’s position in relation to theWater (Irrigation Farm Dams) (Amendment) Bill. Thehonourable member for Ballarat East bagged theLiberal Party for pursuing further amendments in thehouse, but in his conclusion praised the one-offregistration, one of the amendments that the LiberalParty had pursued. This is indicative of the LaborParty’s approach right throughout this debate,particularly its rural members, who were prepared tostick with the party line and turn their backs on theirrural constituents by not supporting the amendmentsthat have been put forward by the Liberal Party.

In relative terms what has happened in relation to theamendments is that the Liberal Party has not only justmet but has exceeded the expectations of rural Victoria,in particular its farmers and their peak body, theVictorian Farmers Federation, because I do not knowhow many times I have had representatives of the VFFknocking on my door saying ‘Back off, back off!, don’tdrown the legislation. You have gone far enough’. Hadwe followed the position of the VFF and pulled awaywe would not be in the position we are in today with anumber of further amendments that the Laborgovernment had decided to accept.

Once again, when the final bell rang the only party onits feet fighting for rural Victoria was the Liberal Party.Given that the amendments have been a great outcomefor rural Victoria, it is interesting to see the positionadopted by other parties and individuals involved.Through his stance on the amendments, which can onlybe described as all over the place, the honourablemember for Ballarat East confirmed that the Laborgovernment is really anti-rural Victoria. Also, theIndependents — the honourable members forGippsland West, Gippsland East and Mildura — didnot get to their feet during the debate. They did noteven climb into the ring, and they were not prepared tosupport any of the amendments which all parties,including peak organisations and farmers from around



the state, now agree the Liberal Party stood up anddelivered for them.

What about my friends in the National Party? Mostwould agree that the small sniping had finished, but asmall ankle tap was delivered by the honourablemember for Swan Hill during his contribution. TheNational Party should learn to play for four quarters. Afew egos have been dented because the last teamstanding on the issue of getting the amendments to thefarm dams bill passed was the Liberal Party. I believethat in rural Victoria the Liberal Party has stamped itspresence on its representation of Victorian farmers.

In conclusion, I congratulate the honourable membersfor Monbulk, Evelyn, Warrnambool, Benambra andKew, and all the others involved in what has been avery lengthy process of getting the farm damslegislation passed. I particularly acknowledge thecontribution of my parliamentary mentor, thehonourable member for Benambra. I would hate tothink I would ever suffer a divorce settlement, but ifever I wanted somebody in my corner clawing back theground and getting a further resolution, the first personI would be calling on to act on my behalf would be thehonourable member for Benambra. I wish the bill aspeedy passage.

Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) — There has beenconsiderable discussion and debate on the bill and theamendments. I have no doubt that within about anotherdecade the house will again be debating watermanagement. The issue of water has caused muchdivision and debate around the world. Victoria andAustralia cannot escape the need for debate, fordecisions and for the leadership needed to manage thisscarce resource.

As is expected over such an important issue, at timesthe debate has been heated. The Victorian FarmersFederation, environmental groups, catchmentauthorities, grower organisations and individuals haveall argued their case strongly, not because they want tobe difficult, political or narrow minded but because of agenuine desire to find a way to ensure the fair andequitable management of water for all Victorians.

I place on the record my appreciation of the efforts ofmy colleagues the honourable members forWarrnambool, Polwarth and Benambra, who have beentenacious in their efforts for a good outcome for theirelectorates. I also note the professionalism of theshadow minister, the honourable member for Monbulk,who has negotiated with the minister and guided theopposition to the position its members are comfortablewith today.

I also mention the minister’s staff and advisers. Theiraccessibility and willingness to listen and explain havebeen very much appreciated. Some people may thinkthis has taken too long, but they are people who do notunderstand, or perhaps do not want to understand, theimportance of water management being fair andequitable for the whole of Victoria.

The shadow minister has spoken in detail about thechanges the Liberal Party has been successful inachieving to improve the bill. Some members of thecommunity may feel we have let them down by notpushing further. I understand and respect their opinions.However, throughout the debate all members of thishouse have supported the main thrust of the bill — thatis, to manage and conserve water. I commend the bill tothe house.

Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) — I am pleased thatthe Liberal Party has achieved further gains for countryVictorians and farmers around the state. I am concernedthat those changes have not gone far enough, and Iroundly condemn the minister for her intransigence innot listening to reasonable debate on the issue. Thegovernment and the minister have been hell-bent overthe last six months — certainly the government hasbeen so over the last two years — to make sure thatthere is an absolute limit on the number of dams built incatchment areas in the state.

Goulburn Murray Water has made a deliberate andconcerted effort on behalf of the government to try toensure that happens. The pain and cost to catchmentfarmers in country Victoria has been extraordinary. Ispeak with such passion because I represent theconcerns of those people, particularly in that patch ofVictoria into which 40 per cent of the water of thewhole of the Murray–Darling Basin comes, includingfrom my electorate and areas adjoining it.

You would also have to ask why the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission has been so strong in puttingpressure on the government to achieve this. Quiteclearly, it has been meant to try to achieve an end insouthern Queensland and northern New South Wales,where extraordinarily large storages have been used tocapture overland flows. I appreciate the difficulty theyare having, but to bring it to this state and to subjectcatchment farmers to what they have been subjected tothrough the introduction of the bill is absolutely andtotally unacceptable.

The strategy deteriorated to the extent where peoplewithin the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment, whose behaviour I find inexcusable intaking this approach, have suggested that building farm



dams is deleterious to the environment. I heard oneperson say it is environmental vandalism to continue tobuild dams. For the past 50 years governments of allpersuasions have encouraged people to build farms forthe right reasons — that is, soil conservation and waterconservation — and an extraordinary increase inbiodiversity and environmental benefits has resultedfrom those farm dams being built.

As I said, over the past 50 years governments of allpersuasions have introduced and supported policies toencourage the building of dams. Now we have agovernment that is completely opposed to a policy thathas been bipartisan until now.

The government puts a lot of trust in the fact that therewas a consultative process. But that process wasdesigned to be totally divisive, and after I attended twoconsultative meetings in one day — one in Wangaratta,the other in Tatura — I could be excused for notknowing I was in the same country let alone the samestate. That process had catchment farmers fighting withirrigators and not trusting each other. I find it totallydeplorable that the process was deliberately introducedby the government, and I will never forgive the ministerfor her part in achieving that end.

There is no reason why in the current situationcatchment farmers and irrigators cannot live togetherunder the policy and achieve what they want to withinthe amount of water that is available. But as I said, onthat occasion the debate was deliberately aimed todivide and therefore to seek opposition within thosetwo parties. A high-catchment committee was formedabout four or five years ago after a meeting of600 angry farmers in Tallangatta. That catchmentcommittee, after looking at the rights of farmers andseeing that the government was hell-bent on takingaway a right that had been with farmers for 150 years,actually put up four basic recommendations.

The first was that a percentage of rainfall be retainedfor farmers to use on their own farms, similar to the10 per cent formula that has been effective and hassuccessfully operated in New South Wales for the pasttwo to three years. The second was that an exchangerate for those farmers who have to buy water from thewater storage authorities would be established at aminimum rate of two for one.

The third was that waterways be mapped and gazettedafter public consultation with local farmers; and thefourth was for the grandfathering of all existing damsused for commercial processes.

As I said before, I am pleased with the amendments thathave been successfully negotiated, the main one beingthe further grandfathering clause which allows for thecontinuous rather than five-yearly registration of dams.

More recently the high-catchment committee andothers who are vitally concerned have put up furtherrecommendations. Those recommendations are,fundamentally and firstly, that there be a bulkentitlement or allocation of water to the catchment areasof the Murray–Darling Basin in order to give some realcontra to the loss of those private rights; secondly, thata flexible exchange rate be determined at a minimumrate of two for one; thirdly, that water trading reformallows water trading to go up in a catchment as well asdown — and currently that is not the case; fourthly, thatstream flow management plans be used outside thecapped areas of the state to determine whether theprivate right to water should be minimised orextinguished; and fifthly, that the guidelines for allstream flow management plans should be legislated.Frankly, I think that is one of the most importantsuggestions in recent times.

Those recommendations have gone to the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation, and the minister’soffice has considered them. I find it disappointing thatthe minister has not accepted what I think arefundamental recommendations that would allow theintent of this legislation to go through with nodeleterious effect on the catchment farms of the state.

The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) hasvociferously argued that it received a guarantee fromthis government that stock and domestic water wouldnot be affected. But what did this minister do? InDecember 2001 she introduced waterwaydetermination guidelines. In them was a ministerialorder that said that there would be an exemption forstock and domestic dams where the catchment wasmore than 60 hectares. For the VFF, for the LiberalParty and all conservative parties, and for all thefarmers in the state to be hoodwinked by this minister’sassurance that there would be absolutely no change tostock and domestic water is completely unacceptable.

I will quote from a letter that I received from thechairman of a stream flow management committee thatis maybe the longest standing such committee inVictoria. It states:

Having chaired a stream flow management plan I realise howa committee is screwed down by scientific opinion … byreports which I believe are underpinned to satisfypredetermined environmental flow regimes.



It would appear that … most, if not all, of the coming streamflow management plans will be curtailed to a different proforma …

1. Environmental and hydrological assessment byconsultants …

2. A review by a review committee …

3. Presentation of the document for public scrutiny.

… the review phase is where the 50 per cent farmerrepresentation may be employed.

It also went on to say that the sustainable diversionlimits are the main area of concern for stream flowmanagement plans.

These sustainable diversion limits will be used toinhibit or even prevent any harvesting of water forirrigation in a catchment area. We must strive to retainin the high rainfall areas the maximum reasonablesurface run-off catchment. We must tie the permissiblecatchment volumes down to a calculated percentage inareas where rainfall exceeds a set limit of, say, 25 or30 inches of rain.

I conclude by saying that I am extraordinarilydisappointed in the final outcome of this legislation inthe lower house, which we have had three times beforethe house. I accept the fact that the amendments will beof assistance to catchment farmers. I might add that alegal challenge will probably be mounted, and I wouldadvise the minister and the government to accept therequests of those people rather than to take up that legalchallenge and waste taxpayers’ money in defending it.

Motion agreed to.


That amendments 16 to 19 be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.



Motion agreed to.





Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — I askwhether the Minister for Health can give an absoluteand unequivocal guarantee that neither the minister norhis private office received any written or oral briefingsas early as November last year from the Department ofHuman Services or the Royal Melbourne Hospitalregarding the suspicious deaths of patients at the RoyalMelbourne Hospital?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — Ianswered this question yesterday.


Mr THWAITES — As I indicated, I answered thisquestion yesterday.


Mr THWAITES — I answered the question. I saidthat I and my office received advice of thisinvestigation on Friday last week.

Schools: discretionary fund

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — Myquestion is to the Minister for Education and Training. Irefer to the government’s professed support foreducational initiatives, and for rural Victoria inparticular, and I ask: can the minister explain why thegovernment has abolished the discretionary fund of$250 per year per principal which has been used togreat effect by principals of small rural schools?

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — I thank the honourable member for hisquestion. I am glad at least the National Party has aninterest in education and training! The previousgovernment, as we know, closed schools and sackedteachers, and now one of the people who was behindthat incredible reduction in schools asks a questionabout a discretionary fund of $250.

We have made a major investment in our schools —$2.2 billion additional on top of what the previousgovernment put into schools. We have put educationback into schools and we have put teachers back in toassist students. In relation to the discretionary fund, Iam not aware of it at the moment. I will seek advicefrom the department and I am happy to get back to thehonourable member with the details.



Water: allocation framework

Mr HOWARD (Ballarat East) — I ask the Premierto advise the house what improvements the governmenthas delivered to the Victorian water allocationframework and what impediments were overcome toachieve this outcome.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Ballarat East, who is also the ParliamentarySecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, forhis interest in this issue and also in the passage of thefarm dams legislation which I am pleased to say wentthrough the house today. I congratulate him on his role,the minister on her role and other members ofParliament on their contribution to that. The passage ofthat bill marks an important milestone in Victoria’shistory in leading the nation in water management andwater reform.

In particular, this government has now resolved thelongstanding problems associated with the currentmanagement of farm dams, and this will enableincreased water security for all water users. We willhave a climate far more conducive to investment in ourregions as a result of this new reform which wasadopted today. It will also mean improvements forenvironmental outcomes downstream. It is good forindustry, good for our rural communities and good forthe environment as well. I congratulate all those whowere involved in delivering that. I thank the variousindividuals and groups who were focused on getting aworkable solution to this issue.

I was also asked by the honourable member whatimpediments there were to getting this outcome inplace. I can say to the honourable member that theimpediments are sitting opposite in the form of theLiberal Party of Victoria. They were the impediments!Just look at the history of how they mishandled thisissue. It shows they are divided, they are weak and theystand for nothing. That was no more evident in theirdealings with this issue — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the bill has passed with the support of both sides of thehouse. I thought the Premier would be aware of that.But the Premier is now debating the issue, and I askyou to bring him back to order.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of theOpposition has once again used a point of order tomake a point in debate. The Chair is growingincreasingly weary of that occurring.

On the latter part of his point of order about the Premierdebating the question, I ask the Premier to desist as it ishis responsibility to answer questions.

Mr BRACKS — If I can go to the impediments,they were clearly the opposition’s stance on this mattersince last August. Since last August they have had nofewer than four different positions on this matter. Theopposition has had to walk away from each of thosepositions as they have been discredited.

Dr Napthine — On a further point of order,Mr Speaker, you have already warned the Premierabout debating the issue and he is proceeding downexactly that track. I ask you to bring him back to order.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Premier tocome back to answering the question.

Mr BRACKS — On the matter of impediments, asI mentioned before, everyone else — —


Mr BRACKS — No, the question was in two parts,and on the matter of impediments we also sawsignificant support for this bill from right across thecommunity here in Victoria. I want to congratulatesome of those contributors, some of those groups, someof those organisations and some of those individualswho were involved in that cooperative spirit, includingthe Australian Conservation Foundation, the VictorianFarmers Federation, the Independent members ofParliament and the National Party here in Victoria.They all contributed to and supported the bill. Theyshowed the courage of their convictions. They stood upfor what they believed in — they stood forsomething — and I am very pleased therefore to see thebill’s passage through the house.

There is only one group that stands for nothing and thatwould not stand up for this bill, and that is the LiberalParty of Victoria. It showed it is divided; it showed it isweak; and it showed absolutely that it stands fornothing.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Premier todesist debating the question.

Questions interrupted.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER

The SPEAKER — Order! I have now been advisedthat the Treasurer will not be present during question



time today. It is my understanding that the Premier willbe answering for the Treasurer.

Questions resumed.QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — I refer the Minister forHealth to his answers in Parliament yesterdayconcerning patient deaths at the Royal MelbourneHospital and ask: was he aware by question timeyesterday that the Royal Melbourne Hospital would, bylate afternoon yesterday, refer a further 80 patientdeaths to the coroner, and if so, why did he not revealthis to the house?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — Thehonourable member for Malvern is getting into verydangerous territory. There are currently a coronialinquiry and a police investigation into this matter. It isvery dangerous for the opposition to try to politicise anissue that is before the police and the coroner, whichpoliticisation threatens the conduct of this investigation.In fact, the allegation that the honourable member justmade is not correct, and he ought to be very careful thathe does not interfere with a police investigation. That isthe track he is going down.

The hospital has done the right thing in referring to thepolice the two deaths about which there was anallegation of evidence of wrongdoing. It has done that.In order to take the utmost precaution, the hospital hasindicated that it is prepared to set aside the files for allother cases that were dealt with — —

Mr Cooper — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theMinister for Health was asked a question in regard tohis knowledge of this event and when he found outabout it. He has not answered the question. I ask you torequest him to answer the question. It was a very directquestion and very specific, and he is dodging andweaving.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order. The Chair has ruled on numerous occasionsthat it is not in a position to direct a minister to answer aquestion in a particular way. As long as the ministerremains relevant, I will continue to hear him.

Mr THWAITES — It is very important to knowthat allegations have not been made in relation to any ofthose cases that the honourable member talked about.The hospital has done the right thing in ensuring that ifthere were any deaths in that area of the hospital, therelevant files are available for review at a future time bythe police or the coroner.

I also point out that there are two people who aresubject to an investigation. The implication of thehonourable member’s question is that those people aresomehow involved in other incidents. If he goes downthat track — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,under standing order 108 it is inappropriate for anymember to make imputations against another member,and the Minister for Health is making imputationsabout certain inappropriate allegations being made bythe honourable member for Malvern. There wasnothing in the question other than a simple question tothe Minister for Health, which he seems to bedetermined to avoid answering.

The SPEAKER — Order! The latter part of thatpoint of order is out of order. In regard to the point thatunder standing order 108 the minister was impugningthe honourable member for Malvern, I am certainly notof that opinion.

Mr THWAITES — The honourable member mayhave noticed that the lawyers for some of those peopleare reported in the paper today pointing out the dangerof wild allegations being made. The honourablemember is going down that track and if he is not carefulhe will interfere with a police investigation.

Timber industry: sustainability

Ms DUNCAN (Gisborne) — My question is to theMinister for Environment and Conservation.


The SPEAKER — Order! The interjections by theLeader of the Opposition and the honourable memberfor Monbulk prevent the Chair from hearing thequestion.


The SPEAKER — Order! I ask oppositionmembers to cooperate and allow the honourablemember to ask her question.

Ms DUNCAN — Will the Minister for Environmentand Conservation inform the house how thegovernment has secured the long-term viability ofVictoria’s forests and timber industry and outline theimpediments to this outcome?

Ms GARBUTT (Minister for Environment andConservation) — I thank the honourable member forGisborne for her question. This is an issue on which shehas worked very hard for a long time and she is



undoubtedly committed to a sustainable timberindustry. Today is World Forestry Day, so it is anappropriate time to remind the house of the Bracksgovernment’s efforts and reforms to ensure that thetimber harvesting in Victoria is sustainable.

This government has exposed the problems that hadbeen covered up by the previous government regardingthe sustainable yield figures. The previous governmenthad swept under the carpet all the concerns and refusedto examine them when asked by anybody about them.Nobody had any confidence in the sustainable yieldfigures.

We have exposed those figures and taken action to fixthe problem. We have had to fix up the mess left by theprevious government. But there are impediments toreform — and they sit opposite! The Liberal deceptionon forest management is continuing. The Leader of theOpposition is simply denying the sins of the past.However, the shadow minister has been trotting aroundthe countryside promising the world. Here he is, theshadow minister for telling porkies!

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,relating to debating an answer to a question, the samesort of question was asked of the Premier using theexact same words — ‘what were the impediments’. Itseems to be the new government formula for launchingan attack on the opposition instead of being responsiblefor government administration. I ask you to rule that theminister is debating the question and order her toanswer it.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister tocome back to answering the question.

Ms GARBUTT — This government has put up an$80 million package to ensure that workers, industryand the community will be looked after, but it was amess left by the government that we had to fix up. It isinteresting that the shadow minister chose to make apoint at this time, because since I made theannouncement about the forest industry package he hassaid absolutely nothing. He has been missing in action,which is not his usual style at all. For a shadow ministerto have absolutely nothing to say about a major — —


Mr Perton — My point of order, Mr Speaker,relates to debating the question. The minister isdeliberately flouting your previous ruling, and shouldshe stray that way again, Mr Speaker, I ask you toeither sit her down or suspend her from this house.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the minister tocome back to answering the question.

Ms GARBUTT — Undoubtedly, however, one ofthe major impediments to reform in this state is theopposition, which is absolutely weak and divided —and that of course is the reason for the silence of theshadow minister. However on this, World ForestryDay, I am happy to announce a new development thatsupports this government’s commitment to the forests.

Today I announce the establishment of the Dahl Trust,a fund dedicated to the establishment and regenerationof Victorian eucalypt forests. It is a fund of $4 million,and it is a legacy the state is proud to accept from aformer Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (DNRE) forest employee, Mr BjarneDahl, who was absolutely dedicated to the forests inthis state — unlike the opposition, whosemismanagement has clearly put the entire industry atrisk.

On every issue, whether it is farm dams or forests ormarine national parks, we see that the Liberals aredivided, weak and stand for nothing.


Mr Perton — I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker,on the issue of debating the question. I know theminister is not very bright and can only stick to herscript, but she has violated your ruling for the thirdtime, and I ask you on this occasion to sit her down.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the honourablemember for Doncaster to stick to taking a point of orderand not pass the sort of judgment he just did. I upholdthe point of order and ask the minister to come back toanswering the question. I remind her that undersessional orders she needs to be succinct.

The minister has completed her answer.

Timber industry: sustainability

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) — Because of thedisastrous impact of the reduction of the timberresource on the timber industry as a result of a series ofunsustainable government decisions over a number ofyears, will the Premier guarantee that all future naturalresource-based decisions, including the establishmentof new reserves, across all natural resource industriesare independently audited to guarantee that allindustries are sustainable?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the honourablemember for Gippsland East for his question, and for his



continued concern and support for the forest industry inVictoria and for a balance between a sustainable forestindustry and proper and appropriate environmentalcontrols.

I can guarantee to the honourable member that we willnot continue the cover-up which occurred under theprevious government. We had a cover-up for sevenyears under the previous government, when manypeople, including the Victorian Association of ForestIndustries, the union and the environmentalists, went tothe minister of the previous government and saidrepeatedly that there was a problem with the figures. Atthat time the government chose to do nothing.

This government did not do that. When in receipt ofinformation which showed there was a problem weimmediately launched an examination of the figureswith the best possible international expert we couldfind. That was done in consultation with the VictorianAssociation of Forest Industries, the Construction,Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) branchand the environmentalists, who adhered to the detailand worked to collect information to determine whatthe sustainable yield would be.

That resulted in the decision of the government toreduce the sustainable yield and the amount of timbertaken out of forests by some 31 per cent to ensure wehad a sustainable long-term forest industry and toensure we did not denude the forest.

The particular recommendation in the question from thehonourable member for Gippsland East is valid,sensible and appropriate, and the government wouldwant any new arrangements not only independentlyaudited but also verified and checked with the industryplayers and other groups involved. It is a goodquestion — a telling one, and one that shows acommitment to a sustainable forest industry but abalance which includes a better environment.


Mr DOYLE (Malvern) — Given that yesterday,and again today, the Minister for Health stated that hewas not advised until last Friday of the five months ofinvestigation into the suspicious deaths of two patientsat the Royal Melbourne Hospital, why has the ministernot sacked the chief executive officer of the RoyalMelbourne Hospital for a total dereliction of duty andresponsibility in not informing his minister on mattersof such seriousness?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Health) — Thehonourable member is clearly desperate. He will sayanything; he will impugn anybody’s reputation. He is

so desperate for publicity that he is prepared topre-empt the inquiry into these issues. This is the verymatter that the inquiry, headed by Beth Wilson, islooking at. She will examine all of these issues andmake recommendations. I would have thought it wasappropriate to give people a fair go, a fair hearing, andnot to pre-empt outcomes; but we know the honourablemember is so sure he is right that he is prepared to doanything to get his way, and that is why he is describedwithin his own ranks as a traitor — —

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,only a few minutes ago you took the honourablemember for Doncaster to task for using a word which isvery mild mannered in comparison to the word ‘traitor’.I ask you to apply the same rules to both sides.

The SPEAKER — Order! I ask the Minister forHealth to desist from passing judgment on members inthat way and to answer the question.

The minister has concluded his answer.

Schools: funding

Mr STENSHOLT (Burwood) — Will the Ministerfor Education and Training advise the house how thegovernment is delivering on its commitment toeducation and training for all students in Victoriawhether in government, Catholic or independentschools?

The SPEAKER — Order! That appears to be a verybroad question. I remind the minister that it is questiontime, and that under sessional orders there is a need tobe succinct.

Ms KOSKY (Minister for Education andTraining) — As has been mentioned the governmenthas made a major commitment to education andtraining across the state. As I mentioned earlier, thegovernment has committed an additional $2.2 billion toeducation and training across the state since it came tooffice. As has been identified, we do not only make thatcommitment in public schools, we also make thecommitment to Catholic and independent schools.

The previous minister announced funding of anadditional $57.5 million over four years to the neediestnon-government schools for operating expenses. Wehave already delivered $24 million of that funding on aper capita basis to the neediest non-governmentschools. A further $16 million will be distributed thisyear. The government is targeting thosenon-government schools that are classified as resourcepoor. The funding is intended to target priority areas ofliteracy and numeracy and addresses class sizes and



support for students with special learning needs, so itfits in with the government’s priorities.

Today I am pleased to announce to the house that thegovernment is increasing funding to thenon-government sector, this time in relation to capital.We are investing in, again, non-government schools incapital assistance programs. I am pleased that duringCatholic Education Week I am able to announce that68 needy non-government schools — 34 Catholic and34 independent — that are in urgent need of capitalworks assistance will share $7.5 million under phase 1of the government’s needs-based capital assistanceprogram.

This is the first time that a Victorian government hasprovided capital assistance to independent and Catholicschools, and it is another first for the Bracksgovernment. It has taken this government to recognisethe needs in education and training across the state.

The previous lot did not care about education andtraining. It cut resources away from our schools, and wesaw retention rates plummet and literacy standards fallto very low levels. The Bracks government wants tomake a difference to literacy and numeracy standards,to retention rates and to the quality of education acrossthe state — in government and non-government,independent and Catholic schools.

I particularly congratulate the successful68 non-government schools that have received fundingunder the first round of the program. That comes on topof the commitment that has been already made withinthe public system. I am pleased to say that schoolsaround the state, including those in oppositionelectorates that languished under the previousgovernment, are now getting funding, as well asschools in National Party seats and obviously in Laborelectorates.

It is a very good program that will assist students inindependent and Catholic schools to get qualityeducation, with the help of the Bracks government.

Employment: rural and regional Victoria

Ms ASHER (Brighton) — I refer the Minister forEmployment to the Treasurer’s comments yesterday,when he gloated about country Victoria’sunemployment rate, and I further refer to the fact thattoday’s country employment figures show a dramaticrise in unemployment in country Victoria from 6.2 percent to 7 per cent — meaning another 10 000 countryVictorians are now out of work already this year. Is thisanother example of how country Victoria is losingunder Labor?

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forEmployment) — I thank the Deputy Leader of theOpposition for her disingenuous question. We all knowthat monthly figures are volatile. Where was she lastmonth when we had a record low unemployment ratefor regional Victoria? Where was she when in sevenand a half years her government created fewer jobs thanwe have in just over two years?

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister is already debating the question. I ask youto bring him back to answering the question abouttoday’s unemployment figures.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am not prepared touphold the point of order, because the minister has justcommenced his answer. However, he must not debatethe question but must answer it.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — I remind the otherside that for 75 of its 82 months in government theunemployment rate was above the national averagecompared to us, in 26 of 28 months — —

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,on debating the question rather than answering it, thequestion was not about the months of the Kennettgovernment, it was about what is happening at thepresent time.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order; however, I ask the minister to come back toanswering the question.

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS — While oppositionmembers want to know about today’s figures, whatthey do understand — and it is what their excuseswere — is that you need to know the trend rates. Thetrend rates under this government are much better thanthey were under the previous government. As we know,the local labour market area figures are volatile, butthey show that there were actually more peopleemployed in country Victoria during the month ofFebruary than there were in the month of January. Thatis what those figures show.

Manufacturing Hall of Fame

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — Will the Ministerfor Manufacturing Industry inform the house ofdevelopments with the Manufacturing Hall of Fame,including how a person qualifies and the currentprospective award recipients?

Mr HULLS (Minister for ManufacturingIndustry) — The Manufacturing Hall of Fame has beenvery well received. Anybody who takes any interest in



manufacturing would know that we have to get rid ofthe image of manufacturing as being a dirty oldsmokestack industry without a future. The reality isquite different.

We put our sporting heroes up on a pedestal. We havethe Brownlow Medal for the best Australian FootballLeague footballer, although unfortunately not enoughGeelong players have won that award, and we have theAlan Border Medal for the best cricketer. But we do notput our manufacturers up on a pedestal, and we should.That is why the Victorian government has embarkedupon creating the Manufacturing Hall of Fame.

I am pleased to advise the house that early in May wewill be holding an event to induct the first of theManufacturing Hall of Fame legends. These will beindividuals or companies who have contributed over asustained period of time to manufacturing in this state.

How does one qualify? Those who qualify mustgenerally have won a recognised industry award — —

Mr McArthur — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,the minister is about to institute a new medal for anaward for manufacturing. Can I suggest the HullsMedal for Manufacturing the Truth?

The SPEAKER — Order! That is clearly not apoint of order, and I ask the honourable member forMonbulk to desist from taking such points of order.

Mr HULLS — Let me recover from laughingmyself sick!

Recipients of the award must generally have won arecognised industry award, which could include anaward in their own area. I have been made aware of arecent potential inductee into the Manufacturing Hall ofFame. A Tom Wilcox of Kew recently received anaward, I understand, for his substantial contribution tomanufacturing in Victoria. Apparently he hasmanufactured some 250 letters — —

Dr Napthine — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,you warned the honourable member for Monbulk formaking a frivolous point of order. I ask you now towarn the Minister for Manufacturing Industry for tryingto turn question time, which should be a serious issue,into a frivolous matter.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I amnot of the opinion that the Minister for ManufacturingIndustry is doing what the Leader of the Opposition hassuggested in his point of order. I shall intervene if itbecomes necessary.

Mr HULLS — Some 250 letters have beenmanufactured, and indeed they include attacks on theBracks government, on Independent members ofParliament, on Aborigines and on the ABC, and alsodefend John Howard, Philip Ruddock and TonyAbbott.

Mr Perton — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, theminister is now clearly debating the question. Thequestion from the honourable member for FrankstonEast asked about an award for the Manufacturing Hallof Fame. The line that the minister is going on now hasabsolutely nothing to do with that question.

The SPEAKER — Order! I do not uphold the pointof order, but I ask the Minister for ManufacturingIndustry to confine his answer to the question posed.

Mr HULLS — So the question was how youqualify, and I think it is important that those whosenames have been put forward understand what theguidelines are and, indeed, whether manufacturing250 letters qualifies for the Manufacturing Hall ofFame. Some would say it may, depending on thecontent of that manufactured product. But one has tomake a formal application and would have to presentsome of the material that one has manufactured. Iexpect that if an application was indeed made byMr Wilcox — it would be his 251st letter — he wouldsend some of the manufactured product in. Forinstance — —

Dr Napthine — Mr Speaker, it is withdisappointment that I raise a point of order with respectto the Minister for Manufacturing Industry trying toturn this question time into a frivolous situation. I askyou to bring him back to order. It would be better todeal with the 25 000 people who have lost jobs inmanufacturing in this state under his administration!

The SPEAKER — Order! That is clearly not apoint of order. I ask the minister to conclude hisanswer.

Mr HULLS — As I said, to qualify you have tohave already won an award. Can I say that Mr Wilcoxwas recently presented with an award by the Leader ofthe Opposition.

Mr Thompson — On a point of order, Mr Speaker.If the minister was going to confine his comments toACTU Bourke’s, ACTU Travel and ACTU Solo hemay have some relevance to the debate, but he isclearly at this stage flouting your ruling on the point oforder. Manufacturing in this state is very brittle. Oneneeds only to look at Arnott’s, Heinz and the

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT


companies that are closing down and leaving theiroperations. This is an abuse of question time!

The SPEAKER — Order! That is clearly not apoint of order; the honourable member is making apoint in debate. I remind the Minister forManufacturing Industry that sessional orders requiresuccinctness. I ask him to conclude his answer.

Mr HULLS — So does the award that has beenreceived qualify for the Manufacturing Hall of Fame?No, it does not, because it was the Bolte award forgetting your Liberal message out there — 250 times —in the paper! It does not qualify, because all it was wasan award for peddling deceit and lies.

The SPEAKER — Order! The time set down forquestions without notice has expired, and the minimumnumber of questions have been dealt with.

I ask the Premier to pause while copies of theministerial statement are circulated.

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, Mr Speaker,although I do not wish to delay the distribution of thematerial, at the end of question time the Minister forManufacturing Industry used the words ‘deceit’ and‘lies’. You heard it, Mr Speaker, and I wonderedwhether you were going to do anything about that orwhether it was now parliamentary custom thatmembers, and ministers in particular, are able to allegethat other members have used deceit and lies withoutyour correcting them.

The SPEAKER — Order! I am prepared to rule onthe point of order. I do not uphold the point of orderraised by the honourable member for Pakenham. Theway I heard the comment made by the Minister forManufacturing Industry it was not directed at anyparticular individual member of the chamber. It issimilar to the comment from the honourable memberfor Monbulk on which I made a ruling earlier in theweek.


Longford gas plant

The SPEAKER — Order! I wish to advise thehouse that due to an inadvertent error copies of thestatement are not available but will be made availableshortly. I have sought the concurrence of the Leader ofthe Opposition for us to proceed with the statement, andcopies will be circulated as soon as the parliamentaryattendants are able to do so.

Mr BRACKS (Premier) — I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition for his leave to have that occur.

I rise to make a ministerial statement on the Longfordgas plant.

Three and a half years ago at 12.26 on the afternoon of25 September 1998 there was a massive explosion andfire at the Esso Gas Processing and Crude OilStabilisation Plant at Longford, causing two deaths,eight injuries and prolonged inconvenience toindividual Victorians and businesses for more than twoweeks.

My government was elected shortly after the royalcommission into this explosion which was reported inJune 1999. The report described a litany of problemsthat had led to the disaster and made a number ofrecommendations on how to ensure the future safety ofthe site. I am pleased to report that thanks to some hardwork by the responsible ministers, public servants, theemployees, the unions and of course the industry, agreat deal has been accomplished to improve thesecurity of future gas supply and to improve workplacesafety. But more needs to be done.

Last week I had the honour of opening the rebuilt plantat Longford. It is therefore timely and important that Iinform the house of what the government has done toguard against such an event recurring and to implementthe recommendations of the Longford royalcommission.

The impact of the Longford disaster

Few Victorians will ever forget the tragedy of theLongford disaster and the severe social and economicimpact in the nine days following the disaster whenVictoria was without gas supplies and the further weeksit took before full gas supply was restored and crude oilproduction resumed.

I would like to start by paying tribute to the twoworkers who tragically lost their lives — Peter Wilsonand John Lowery — and to all those who were injuredby the explosion and fighting the fire.

Let me say to them and their families that the lessons ofLongford will not be forgotten.

I would also like to pay tribute to all those who workedat Longford in fighting the fire in the two days it took toextinguish and those who worked to clean up theaftermath — the employees of Esso, the emergencyservices personnel called in from across Gippsland andthe members of the community. They are the heroes ofLongford, who stepped up to the challenge and worked



tirelessly to put out the fire and do what could be doneto restore supplies as quickly as possible.

It is also appropriate to recognise the positive andconstructive role played by the AWU and the otherunions representing the Longford work force, and Iparticularly want to congratulate the secretary of theAustralian Workers Union, Bill Shorten, for hiscontribution. They have been effective advocates fortheir members and families during tragic and traumatictimes whilst also serving the public interest in ensuringsupply was secure.

Let me remind the house of some of the consequencesthat flowed from the disaster, apart from the immediatedeaths and injuries from the fire:

1.4 million domestic consumers lost complete accessto gas supply under restrictions that had to beimposed. Victorians were forced to endure coldshowers and improvise their cooking arrangements.

Small business was hard hit, in particularrestaurateurs, manufacturers and those in personalservices, general entertainment, recreation andhospitality sectors. Many were forced to lay off staffand sustained losses in sales and exports.

Despite these hardships, I think we were all proud ofthe resilience and forbearance that the Victorian peopledisplayed in abundance and almost without exceptionduring the gas restrictions.

I would like particularly to acknowledge the volunteersfrom the SES and the CFA who turned out during thedisaster to ensure the gas system was safely shut downand those, including the construction work force, whoworked long hours to restore supplies.

The damage to the Victorian economy was significantand the inconvenience suffered by ordinary people wasvery widespread.

I am not going to attribute blame for the disaster and thesubsequent impact on the community. The causes of theLongford disaster were investigated by the Longfordroyal commission headed by Sir Daryl Dawson, a veryeminent former High Court judge and former VictorianSolicitor-General who delivered his report on 28 June1999.

My government has worked diligently to implement therecommendations from the royal commission,particularly in the area of regulation of major hazardoussites and improving occupational health and safetystandards.

I am also not going to comment today on whetherliability lies with Esso, the privatised gas suppliers orthe state government for compensation to businessesand individuals who were affected by the interruptionof gas supply.

There is a class action over those matters that is stillbefore the courts. Under the standing orders I cannotreport progress as those matters are sub judice and willbe resolved in due course through the appropriateprocesses.

I can say that there are many people in the communitywho still feel aggrieved by how the Longford disasteraffected them and who feel they were neveracknowledged appropriately. In particular, I would liketo acknowledge Mr Jim Ward, who was plant operatoron that day and a close workmate of the two peoplewho died. Mr Ward and his work mates — there aremany — such as Ron Rawson, Robert Miller, HeathBrew, Grant Cumming, Marty Jackson, Steve Bennet,Marty Fahey, Jason Watson, Andy Noble, SteveYoung, Martin Gallagher, Bill Visser and GeorgeParker, amongst others, went through a difficult periodduring the royal commission, and for them thememories of the disaster and its aftermath are no doubtstill vivid.

In healing those wounds it was appropriate that whenthe recommissioned plant was launched last week Essochairman Robert Olsen publicly expressed the sorrowhis company feels, and the deep regret it felt, about theaccident.

The reconstruction

I would also like to acknowledge the massive amountof work that has now been undertaken to rebuild theLongford plant, and I congratulate Esso, its contractorsand all those workers who have been involved in thisrebuilding project.

The Bass Strait operations are one of Victoria’s biggestongoing investment projects with capital expenditureaveraging around $400 million per annum over the lastfive years.

Operating costs average another $400 million perannum, and of course a large proportion of this is spentin Victoria on wages, goods and services. Since thetragic events of September 1998, the Longford gasplant has been one of the state’s largest constructionprojects.

Over 6000 people have worked for Esso and itscontractors, putting in more than 300 million hours onmore than 100 individual engineering projects



including the complete rebuild of the lean oilprocessing section, which was part of the plant totallydestroyed in the fire.

It has been a massive task. In total more than$500 million has been spent by Esso in restoring andupgrading the Longford facilities.

Last week I inspected the plant and it appeared that therestoration at Longford has been undertaken with arenewed sense of commitment to high standards ofsafety and best practice in design.

I am advised that Esso has implemented the majorrecommendations of the Longford royal commissionand has put in place improvements in plant design, riskmanagement practices, employee training and increasedstaffing to prevent any recurrence of the events of 1998.

Workplace safety

My government is serious about workplace safety. Thecommunity expects and deserves nothing less! In thelast two years we have appointed over 80 newoccupational health and safety inspectors — a 40 percent increase — and doubled the number ofprosecutions for health and safety breaches. TheMinister for Workcover, Bob Cameron, has continuedto implement improvements to worker safety.

The recommendations of the Longford royalcommission concerning improved management ofmajor hazards have been implemented through a seriesof reforms:

Worksafe has been separated from the rest ofWorkcover to remove a potential conflict of interestand to put a greater focus on occupational health andsafety.

Worksafe now has an independent major hazardsdivision with skilled safety analysts and field staff torigorously administer the new safety regime.

Fifty sites have been registered as major hazardfacilities under new major hazards facilitiesregulations which came into effect on 1 July 2000.

All these major hazard facilities will have safetyplans developed by July 2002 and these plans will berigorously enforced with an increased frequency ofinspections.

Importantly workers, the community and emergencyservices will be involved in preparing these safetycases so that there will be greater transparency andcommunity confidence.

I would like to assure the house that Victoria is stronglycommitted to improving workplace safety and is nowthe most advanced of all the Australian states inimplementing the new approach to major risks, knownas a safety case regime.

However, there is much work to be done and it is vitalthat we continue to do whatever can be done to reducethe risks at major hazard facilities.

The need for greater vigilance was underlined to mewhen I learnt that there was another death last week atanother major hazards facility when an electricalcontractor was crushed to death whilst servicing a largepiece of machinery at the Australian Paper plant atMorwell. This tragic event is currently beinginvestigated by Worksafe Australia, and I would like topass my condolences to his family and those affectedby the accident.

Every time a person dies at work is a reminder of theobligation on employers to provide a safe workplaceand that we have to tackle the causes and do more toensure that every time someone leaves for work, theirparents, spouse and children can have confidence thatthey will return safely at the end of the day.

Gas supply

A number of short-term measures were commencedafter the disaster to improve future gas supply security.These have now been completed and my government isimplementing longer term strategies to boost gassecurity and establish new gas fields to diversify thesources of supply.

Since the disaster, the risks associated with futurefailures in the gas system have been addressed by:

Immediately expanding the capacity of the pipelineinterconnect between NSW and Victoria by up tofive times the original pipeline capacity byaugmenting compression.

The eastern gas pipeline commissioned in 2000provides an additional connection to NSW withcapacity to supply 50 per cent of that market, and thepotential to give Victoria greater security of supplyin emergencies.

Work commenced under the previous government,and being expanded by our government, hasconnected the Port Campbell area onshore gas fieldsand the western underground gas storage insouth-western Victoria to the rest of the gastransmission grid.



This facility can be used to meet peak or emergencydemand and its capacity is being expanded.

The industry is currently enjoying a major upswing inexploration with the last two years seeing the greatestlevel of investment in Victoria in over a decade, at anestimated value of $240 million.

A wide range of companies are exploring in each ofVictoria’s major basins with new discoveries andproposed developments being put forward.

These discoveries are providing opportunities forsignificant changes in the south-eastern Australian gasmarket structure. New potential markets and customersare developing in both Victoria and interstate, whichare in turn leading to increased exploration activity andnew developmental projects. Up to $2 billion of gasdevelopment and pipeline projects are planned for thenext five to six years.

The government will continue to encourage explorationand the establishment of new sources of supply, toenhance the security of gas supply to Victoria and togrow our economy.

Efficient gas usage

Victoria is blessed with substantial reserves of gas andhas many prospective areas for future exploration.

We need to manage this resource carefully because it isa key factor in the strength of the Victorian economy,and the ready availability of affordable natural gas isimportant to regional growth.

Long-term security demands sustainable use andenergy efficiency maximisation. To achieve this, overthe last two years my government has:

created the Essential Services Commission;

promoted energy efficiency through energyappliance and housing efficiency rating schemes;

promoted renewable energy by establishing theSustainable Energy Authority, providing incentivesfor wind farms and other measures that will reduceour long-term dependence on fossil fuels.

The lessons of the Longford disaster have been learnedand will not be forgotten by this government. We mustplan carefully for the future to ensure we have a safeand reliable gas supply to meet our economic and socialneeds.

We must also be vigilant on worker safety throughclose external scrutiny of facilities where there are

major hazards and ensure that all Victorians can go towork confident about the safety of their workplace.

The royal commission has taught Victorians someimportant lessons, but tragically they were learnt at thecost of two lives, eight injured workers, and left manyothers counting the cost. With the opening of the rebuiltplant we turn a page and can look forward to deliveringa safe and secure gas supply in partnership with Essoand other gas producers, distributors and retailers.

In closing, I can assure Victorians that they can nowlook forward with confidence that careful,unprecedented attention is being paid to improving thesecurity of gas supply and efforts to make ourworkplaces safer have been stepped up. Mygovernment is turning things around and the issues ofthe past are being tackled. But we should never forgetwhat happened at Longford and the price that was paid.

I move:

That the house takes note of the ministerial statement.

Dr NAPTHINE (Leader of the Opposition) — Theimpact of the Longford gas explosion was felt rightthroughout Victoria, but clearly the most significant anddevastating effect was that two workers lost their lives.I wish to pass on my sympathy to their families, whoeven three years later are obviously still suffering thedevastating effects of the loss of their loved ones, PeterWilson and John Lowery. I would also like to pass onmy sympathy to those workers who were injured in theaccident, and to those injured in responding to theaccident. I particularly recognise Jim Ward and hiswork colleagues, who were involved in the incident.They have suffered through that and also had thedifficulty of dealing with the subsequent royalcommission and having the focus of attention on them.Our understanding, empathy and sympathy are withJim and his colleagues.

I place on record a special note of thanks to the CountryFire Authority, the State Emergency Service and all thevolunteers and workers who were involved in theresponse to the Longford gas explosion. Those peoplewho are volunteers and professionals place their liveson the line and at real risk to assist in reducing danger,protecting lives and preventing further injury anddamage. I also pay a particular tribute to the workerswho worked so diligently around the clock to sorelatively quickly rebuild the Longford plant so that gassupplies were able to be restored to the people ofVictoria as quickly as possible.

The Longford explosion initiated a crisis in Victoria’sgas supply. Victoria is fortunate to have such large and



easily accessible reserves of natural gas, but in thatprocess it has become very dependent on that naturalgas supply.

In responding to the aftermath of this explosion it ispertinent to note that the previous government oversawa comprehensive campaign of informing the public,involving the public and assessing exactly what actionneeded to be taken to ensure that critical gas supplieswere maintained for important emergency services suchas hospitals and for those people who are very elderlyand frail who are dependent on gas supplies. Gasrestrictions were introduced and the communityunderstood the need to strictly enforce those restrictionsso that supplies could be maintained to essentialservices.

The public were fully informed of all aspects of thecrisis and the impact it could potentially have on thecommunity. Can I add to the Premier’s praise of thecommunity for the way in which it responded to thatcrisis. People endured difficulties and showedingenuity, but at all times they put the interests offellow Victorians and those in most need at theforefront of their considerations.

I also acknowledge those volunteers who assisted byturning gas meters off, checking that people wereobeying the restrictions, making sure people wereinformed about the restrictions and generally makingsure that difficult period was managed well.

Most importantly we had a government that tookcontrol in a difficult situation. I would like to recognisethe leadership provided by the former Premier, JeffKennett, the former Minister for Health, Rob Knowles,and the former Treasurer, Alan Stockdale, who workedtirelessly through this difficult period.

It is interesting to contrast that managed situation in acrisis with the disaster we had in Victoria in February2000, when we had another crisis in this state withelectricity supply problems. In that case the public wascaught unaware, restrictions were haphazardly enforcedand no-one knew what was required of them. We hadtraffic lights going out; there was chaos on the streets.Farmers found their electricity supplies were cut off inthe middle of their milking their cows. Victorianssimply were not given the information or theopportunity to assist the government in managing thatcrisis. The contrast could not have been starker betweenthe ability of one government and the lack of ability ofanother, the current government, to deal with a crisis

In the longer term the previous government tackled thebroad challenges that this tragedy presented. It called

for an absolutely independent and well-resourced royalcommission to inquire into the causes of the accidentand propose courses of action to avoid its recurrence. Itidentified major safety hazards within our community,and how we could best improve safety and themanagement of those hazards. It created a special majorhazards unit within Workcover.

I am personally aware of the fact that there was veryconfidential information sought on where the majorrisks were in our Victorian society. I was pleased, asLeader of the Opposition, to be able to provideinformation to the Premier upon his coming to office —to be able to exempt that information from the cabinetconfidentiality that normally applies so that the currentPremier and government could continue to act in thebest interests of the safety and security of Victorians.

The previous government also initiated a number ofmajor projects to reduce the state’s reliance on thesingle Longford gas plant. It trebled the capacity of theinterconnect with New South Wales through theaddition of new compressors. It developed thesouth-west pipeline from Port Campbell to Lara, whichconnects into the Melbourne natural gas grid. It builtthe western underground gas storage facility andcommenced the ongoing project to develop gas pipelinelinks into South Australia. Those pipelines willsubsequently link into the Moomba-to-Adelaide gassystem, so that in a few years you will have aconnection that will see gas from the Moomba fields inQueensland go to Adelaide, across through SouthAustralia into Victoria and Melbourne, which willimprove the reliability of supply.

Like the Premier, I will also not comment on thecurrent actions before the courts, but I note that he hascontinued Labor’s habit of trying to make snidereferences to privatisation in an attempt to imply thiswas somehow partially responsible for this accident.

This accident was a tragedy. It was simply not the timefor political point scoring. The reality is that theproduction of natural gas from Bass Strait has alwaysbeen in private hands. Ever since natural gas wasdiscovered in Bass Strait, the production of natural gashas always been in private hands. It has been under thecontrol of Esso/BHP, now Esso. Despite the tragedy ofthis accident and the effect it had on the people inVictoria, private operators have over 40 years providedsafe and reliable gas supplies to Victoria from Longfordand from Bass Strait. It commenced under thegovernment of Sir Henry Bolte and continued throughthe periods of premiers Hamer, Cain, Kirner andKennett.



I recognise that Esso has undertaken a massiveinvestment project in reconstructing the Longford plant.The Liberal Party joins with the government incongratulating Esso, the contractors and the workerswho have been involved in this massive project. Over6000 contractors and workers have worked more than5 million hours to restore and upgrade the plantdamaged three and a half years ago, at a cost of$500 million. The Longford plant and Bass Straitprojects are some of Victoria’s largest ongoinginvestments, valued at about $16 billion and bringinghundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to theeconomy of the state every year.

I recognise that there are increasing opportunities inVictoria for further exploration in Bass Strait andprobably increasingly in the Otway Basin fields thatprovide natural gas supplies to this state and giveVictoria a significant competitive advantage over otherstates and other territories. They also supply Victoriawith a more environmentally clean source of energy,and I encourage and support further exploration, bothonshore and offshore, in Victoria to discover newpotential natural gas sources. Longford produces over90 per cent of Victoria’s natural gas needs as well as50 per cent of our crude oil requirements. It is a majorfacility of advantage to Victoria. The Liberal Party isunashamedly encouraging of these new investmentsand building on these opportunities for Victorianworkers, businesses and families.

I think it is appropriate that I put on the record mysupport of the fact that the Premier was involved in theopening of this rebuilt facility. It is absolutelyappropriate that the Premier of this state was involvedin the opening of a major investment in this state, and amajor facility that will stand the state of Victoria ingood stead for many years to come.

Importantly, we must note that following the tragicevents of three and a half years ago and following acommitment to investment in safety by Esso atLongford, Longford is now a safer place in whichpeople can work. There is greatly enhanced employeetraining, particularly in the area of cold temperatures, adoubling of plant supervision and an increasedengineering presence. There is a new state-of-the-artcontrol room overseeing all plant operations. There arebetter management practices, including HAZOPs, beingundertaken on a five-year cycle, and comprehensivewritten procedures for all aspects of the operations ofthe plant.

This investment and the plant’s performance has seenEsso awarded the Australian Petroleum Producers andExporters Association industry safety award each year

since 1998. It is important to note that this investmentin safety has achieved results. During the period ofrestoration work at Longford, not a single day of workhas been lost through a workplace injury sustained byan employee or a contractor. I think that is a verycommendable record.

As I said at the outset, the tragedy of this event affectedall Victorians, but the most significant effect was onthose two individuals who lost their lives, their families,and the people who were injured in that gas explosionand subsequent events and their families. Oursympathies and our hearts go out to all of those people.

It is important to note that while improvements havebeen made, we will never ever forget the tragedy, theloss of life and the injuries that occurred through thatexplosion and subsequent events. It is important for usnot only to recognise that history but also to learn fromit. It is of significance to note that workplace deaths inVictoria over the past seven years have almost halvedfrom 57 in 1993–94 to 31 last year.

While 31 is still 31 too many, it is a significantimprovement. Longford gives us the example thatshows the constructive, cooperative approach is theway to go. We need to build our safer workplaces oneducation and training, using the best safety equipmentand the best available technology. We need to shareinformation. We need to better listen to workers on thefloor in terms of how they can improve their workplaceand make it safer. We need workers and managementto work in a cooperative way. By working together wecan continue the past successes of reducing workplacedeaths and improving workplace safety.

That is the most important lesson we can learn and thebest tribute we can pay to those workers who lost theirlives. The best tribute we can pay to Mr Peter Wilson,Mr John Lowery and their families and to Mr Jim Wardand his colleagues is to make a firm commitment toensure that we as parliamentarians and Victorians willcontinue to work in a cooperative way to encourageworkers and management to achieve, as we have doneover the past seven years, a cooperative, constructiveworkplace which is safer, reduces workplace deaths andreally does provide a better environment in which everyVictorian can work and be proud of.

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I riseto support the motion moved by the Premier, supportedby the Leader of the Opposition.

I live in Sale. It has been my home for almost 30 years.The Longford gas plant is located about 15 kilometresto the south of the city. I represent the electorate within



which the gas plant is located. To know the impact ofthis awful sequence of events on 25 September 1998you really need to have lived in Sale or still live in thearea to have a proper measure on the extraordinarytrauma that was caused to so many people, and whichto this day still causes great disquiet in various elementsof our community.

First and foremost, of course, I have regard to the lossof Peter Wilson and John Lowery, who were two finefellows, and all of us pass on commendation to theirfamilies. Their loss is still felt very keenly today, andthis will always be the case.

I remember very well the days after the tragedyoccurred when the people who lived not only in Salebut within the region did what they could to gatheraround the families of the two gentlemen who had died,but I remember also those many other members of thework force at Longford who were physically injured,together with those many more who suffered thetraumatic experience of having been on the site that dayand either witnessed the tragedies that occurred or werecaught up in them in some way, shape or form. Theyare the silent victims in many senses in this situation, inthat they did not have a physical injury to portray, butnevertheless were impacted upon terribly — a situationwhich again prevails even until today.

Many of us in the community gathered around thesepeople as local residents to do what we could, to helpwhere we could, to make a contribution in differentways and to share in the grief of those who had beenmost affected. My wife, Trish, together with her soulmate, Joan Guyatt, prepared the flowers for the altar thenight before Peter Wilson was buried, and I vacuumedthe carpet of the Sale cathedral that night. To this daythey are traumatic events upon which we all reflect witha measure of difficulty.

Of course there are many others who are not listedamong those who were injured and who, as I havealready remarked, contributed much to that day andwho reflect upon it even now. I was present the otherday when the Premier came to Longford for therecommissioning of the plant, and I think it was a goodthing that he came. There are scars that will be thereforever in different ways, shapes and forms for differentpeople, but it was necessary that the Premier did come.I know there are different points of view about that, andI respect those points of view, but as the Premier of thestate in an apolitical sense he should have been there,and it is a good thing that he was.

I pay enormous tribute to the many volunteers andothers who participated in that fateful day. I was in my

office when the explosion happened, and I went out tothe intersection near the gas plant straight after Ireceived the call about it. It was something akin to whatyou would see in a Bruce Willis movie, in that youwere not able to get access to the area —understandably and sensibly — because of the dangersthat prevailed and the fires that were still raging. Thecontribution made by people in the Country FireAuthority, the police force, the State EmergencyService and the various other state authorities, as wellas the health professionals who performed miraculouslyunder difficult conditions, the counsellors who workedso hard with those who had suffered trauma and themany other people from many areas of the communitywho gathered around, was extraordinary and will livelong in my memory.

I pay particular tribute to Jim Ward. He was alsopersonally affected by this tragedy and by the wholeprocess associated with the investigation into whathappened, who was responsible and matters of that ilk,which was a very raw exercise. It is something that inmany senses can be said to have brutalised this man in away that he will understandably find difficult to everrecover from. I readily empathise with that point ofview.

By the same token, Jim Ward worked with Esso for19 years. I know he has great regard for his formerworkmates and retains to this day strong friendshipswith those who continue to work at the plant. He wouldbe the first to say that the work that was done in gettingthat plant running again in the immediacy of theaftermath of the tragedy, let alone the rebuilding thathas happened since that day in 1998, has been nothingless than remarkable. But for all of that, one can wellunderstand how the process that has been undertaken,particularly so far as the court proceedings areconcerned, has been a heavy burden on Jim Ward. Heis a fine fellow, and he is to be commended for theenormous dignity with which he has conducted himself,not only on that day but beyond it.

Longford continues to make an extraordinarycontribution not only to the fortunes of Victoria butmore immediately to the electorate that I have thehonour to represent. To give context to the issue, it wasnot until the 1960s that oil was discovered in the region.Sale was completely transformed by what followed asthe fields were developed, and over the succeeding40-odd years we have seen the ups and downs thatcome with the industry.

Initially there was enormous development. In 1990, ofcourse, we woke up one morning to find that Esso haddecided, in its wisdom, to shift its administrative



headquarters from Sale to Melbourne. Ironicallyenough — some would say for good and others wouldsay for bad, including some in this chamber — that wasthe catalyst that sent me into politics. There comes atime when we all feel the need to pitch in and give ahand, and ironically enough that event was the start ofmy becoming interested in those things pertinent to ourregion and in doing something about them.

At Longford we have seen a transition in the way Essoand BHP have conducted their affairs over the course ofthe years. We have seen a move away from theemphasis on oil production to what is heading towardsbeing a gas field. One of the quite extraordinarystatistics that Robert Olsen, the chairman of Esso,produced in the course of the recommissioning just afew days ago was that the amount of identified gasreserves available to the operators in Bass Strait isgreater than the amount of gas that has been used upuntil now. That is an amazing statistic. It ensures, ofcourse, that in times to come Victoria will bequarantined from any problems that might arise withgas supply. But more than that, it means that this greatregion will be able to contribute to the fortunes of otherstates.

The east coast pipeline has now been constructed.Sydney is receiving gas along that pipeline — a supplythat now equates to about 20 per cent of the gasconsumption of Victoria. Looking south, plans are nowwell advanced to enable gas from the fields in BassStrait to be supplied from the Longford plant toTasmania. That will be happening within the next 8 to12 months or thereabouts. These sorts of events willensure that the Longford gas plant continues to play anenormous part in Victoria’s fortunes. To this day theEsso-BHP organisation represents an amazingcomponent of our regional development base in centralGippsland. Something of the order of 1000-plus peopleare directly employed by the organisation. It is one ofthe great companies that have worked and continue towork in the region, and I am sure it will continue to doso with the passage of the years.

The rebuilding that has been done is nothing less thanextraordinary. Something of the order of $500 millionhas been expended on it, and I understand it is one ofthe greatest capital infrastructure projects undertaken bya private company in Australian history, certainly ofrecent times. People such as Bob Williams, for one,whom I happen to know very well and who is one ofthe construction managers out at the plant, spoke atlength the other day on talkback radio about theworkers who have been involved in this amazing pieceof work and their pride in their achievement. Iemphasise that they have been doing it in circumstances

where, firstly, there was the need to get gas back onsupply again, and secondly, where there was the furtherneed to make the improvements in the plant which wereregarded as being not only appropriate but absolutelynecessary. It has been an outstanding achievement byany measure.

In the end life goes on, and there are those who are leftwith the aftermath of that dreadful day of 25 September1998. There were impacts upon many aspects of thecommunity in ways that have been highlighted by boththe Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. Ithappened through a wide scope of events across thecommunity in so many ways. Those issues have beenhighlighted in the respective addresses that havealready been made, so I do not intend to go over themagain. But I do believe that in the end the pivotalfeatures of all this, which are captured by the motionthat has been moved by the Premier, are that two mendid lose their lives; that to this day their familiesremember them lovingly; that many people werephysically injured; and that many others still bear thepsychological scars of what eventuated when thistragedy occurred.

Married with that is the fact that the community of Salein particular and the region in general will alwaysremember that day in a way that they will recall noother. It is something that is now part of the way of lifeof the city of Sale and the people who live within it.

It is particularly appropriate that this matter has beenraised by the Premier in the form of this ministerialstatement. As I conclude my remarks I can but repeatthat whatever might be spoken of in terms of thecommercial aspects and realities of this tragedy, theimperative is always to remember that the people whowere caught up in this are those whom we should recallthe most.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr CAMERON(Minister for Local Government).



Second reading

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr THWAITES (Minister for Health).

Mr VINEY (Frankston East) — The Minister forHealth introduced this legislation into the house lastyear in order to address serious deficiencies in the



legislative regime governing leave arrangements forpatients at the Victorian Institute of Forensic MentalHealth. The bill also makes improvements to theCrimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried)Act 1997, identified in a review of the act conducted bythe Department of Justice. The house amendmentsintroduced today further strengthen the legislativepowers and arrangements in respect of forensic andsecurity patients.

Last year the Victorian community rightly expressedconcern about how mental health patients who hadcommitted criminal offences were accessing leave. TheMinister for Health established a panel chaired byJustice Frank Vincent to give him advice about how toimprove existing arrangements. Justice Vincent, asmembers noted in debate earlier, delivered the report ofthe review panel on 1 June 2001. The governmentaccepted the recommendations of the panel, and thisbill implements those recommendations requiringlegislative amendments to the acts that I previouslymentioned.

The bill will assist in making the Victorian communityfeel safer. It corrects the balance between communitysafety and patient care and rehabilitation. Theamendments will improve the processes required beforeforensic patients and residents can be granted leave bythe forensic leave panel. These are patients who havebeen found unfit to plead or not guilty because ofmental impairment. Currently the forensic leave panelcan only grant leave if it is satisfied that the safety ofthe applicant or members of the public will not beseriously endangered as a result of the applicant beingallowed leave.

The amendments will require the forensic leave panelalso to consider how the proposed leave will contributeto the person’s rehabilitation. The panel will be requiredto consider detailed information about the person,including a detailed leave plan, before leave can begranted.

The amendments will also change the process forgranting leave to security patients — that is, to patientswho have been convicted and sentenced for an offenceand who are transferred to the Thomas EmblingHospital for treatment for a mental illness. The powerto grant leave of absence to security patients will beremoved from the Chief Psychiatrist and given to theSecretary to the Department of Justice. Leave will onlybe able to be granted for a maximum period of sixmonths. Further, security patients will no longer have aright of appeal to the Mental Health Review Board inrelation to decisions about leave of absence.

I take the opportunity of noting the comments on thisissue raised by the honourable member for Malvern andthe honourable member for Wimmera in their earliercontributions and a little later I will address some of theissues that they raised.

The minister recently received a letter from the Scrutinyof Acts and Regulations Committee expressing concernabout the removal of the right of security patients toappeal against a decision to refuse leave of absence tothe Mental Health Review Board. As I mentionedearlier, I will address some of the issues raised on thismatter a little later.

Significantly, when prisoners make an application forleave, there is no right of appeal under theseamendments and the removal of the right of securitypatients to appeal thus ensures that prisoners andsecurity patients are treated as consistently as possiblein relation to leave arrangements.

We are all aware that serious legislative gaps alsobecame evident in late 2001 when a restricted patientdetained under the Queensland Mental Health Act 1974arrived in Victoria in breach of the conditions of hisleave.

At that time there was no power to apprehend, detainand treat the patient. The incident highlighted the lackof a legislative framework for the apprehension andreturn of interstate forensic and security patients whoenter Victoria after leaving their place of custody inanother state or territory without permission orauthorisation. The bill will now close these loopholes toensure that patients who abscond to or from Victoriacan be apprehended; and the house amendments willensure that Victoria can issue a warrant to apprehend aVictorian forensic patient or resident or a securitypatient who absconds to another jurisdiction. Thewarrant will be able to be executed in the otherjurisdiction under the commonwealth Service andExecution of Process Act 1992.

Victoria has also entered into agreements with theministers for health in Queensland and New SouthWales pursuant to part 5A of the Mental Health Act.These arrangements will enable the apprehension andreturn of forensic and security patients who abscondinterstate. Negotiations are continuing to enter intoagreements in other jurisdictions, and I am advised thatthose negotiations are well under way.

The house amendments create a fall-back regime toensure that if a patient cannot otherwise beapprehended and returned to the jurisdiction fromwhich the patient absconded, a warrant will be able to



be issued in Victoria to apprehend the patient. If apatient cannot subsequently be returned, their status inVictoria will be determined according to Victorian law.

The bill responds promptly to a number of thesecommunity concerns about safety by reducing the riskof forensic and security patients absconding or beinginappropriately granted leave. It also ensures that in thefuture there will be power in Victoria to apprehend anyinterstate patient who absconds to Victoria.

The honourable members for Malvern and Wimmeraboth raised matters which have also been raised by theScrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, and Iwould like to take a minute to clarify some of therelated issues. As noted by the honourable membersproposed section 51 will remove the power to grantleave of absence to security patients from the ChiefPsychiatrist and give it to the Secretary of theDepartment of Justice. Substituted proposed section 51provides for appeal from a decision of the secretary ofthe Mental Health Board, whereas current proposedsection 51(4) allows an appeal to the board from adecision of the Chief Psychiatrist.

As I mentioned earlier, this was in line with therecommendations of the Vincent review. It is worthnoting that while the opportunity to appeal a decision torefuse leave has been removed — and I think it quitecorrect of members of this house to raise the issue as amatter of some concern — it is important to put intocontext the reasons behind the decision based on theVincent review recommendations. They are not basedon some process where the Secretary of the Departmentof Justice is able to make some kind of cavalierdecision. It is important and worth putting on the recordthat recommendation 5 in the Vincent report states:

That the terms of reference of the ministerial communityadvisory committee be amended to:

require it to consider all applications for leave …

I should have made the comment that the Secretary ofthe Department of Justice is intended to delegate thedecision to the Correctional Services Commissionerand that the ministerial advisory committee be givenextended terms of reference to require it to considersuch leave applications. So in relation to a prisonerdetained under these processes applying for leave, thereis a process involved in that leave being considered bythe Secretary of the Department of Justice.

That the terms of reference of the ministerial communityadvisory committee be amended to:

require it to consider all applications for leave ofabsence from security patients;

make the Chief Psychiatrist a member of the committeewhen considering applications for leave of absence fromsecurity patients; and

require the committee to consider the treatment andrehabilitative needs of the applicant in deciding whetheror not to approve leave of absence for a security patient.

Recommendation 5 in the Vincent report goes on tostate that:

The committee should fix criteria by which it will assessrequests from security patients. Relevant criteria include:

psychiatric history and current mental state;

nature and circumstances of the offence;

other criminal history;

risk profile and exposure to ‘destabilisers’;

public interest;

benefit of leave in context of leave plan; and

personal and community support.

The committee may impose conditions of leave it considersappropriate. These may include stipulations as to:

escort arrangements;

time/frequency of leave;

destination;

geographical restrictions;

activities or limitations of activities; and

any other relevant matter.

The rationale behind the recommendation is covered onpages 17 and 18 of the Vincent report. I will quotebriefly from page 17:

Transfer from prison to Thomas Embling for the purpose oftreatment should not, of itself, lead to reduced security. Sucha reduction would be inconsistent with the legal status of theperson, with any decision of the courts and of the wider socialand community expectations.

A little further on page 18 of the report of the reviewpanel notes that:

The review panel believes that leave of absence for securitypatients should not be considered by the Chief Psychiatristalone. The fact that security patients are under sentence orawaiting trial means that the criminal justice system has alegitimate interest in the extent to which they are free to leavethe secure environment and re-enter the community. Thepanel believes that input into leave decisions by theDepartment of Justice alone, however, is not sufficient.

The review panel believes that the process for consideringleave of absence for security patients should be essentially thesame as that used for prisoners, with some necessary



amendments to ensure that clinical considerations are fullytaken into account.

Accordingly, it is proposed that applications for leave ofabsence by security patients should go to the Secretary of theDepartment of Justice … Advice on these requests should beprovided by the MCAC —

that is, by the ministerial committee, as I outlinedbefore.

In acknowledging the important issues raised by thehonourable members for Malvern and Wimmera it isworth putting into context the means by which theSecretary of the Department of Justice will make thedecision in the first place. I add in response to thismatter for the honourable member for Malvern that thegovernment is willing to keep an open mind about howthis will work in practice, and if any issues arise out ofthis change in arrangements and the removal of theright of appeal that we think will need to be improvedor streamlined the government will be happy toreconsider these arrangements. However, at this stagewe wish to proceed with the recommendations of theVincent review panel.

It is with those notes — I know we do not have muchtime left for this debate and that other honourablemembers wish to speak on this matter — that Icommend the bill to the house.

Ms McCALL (Frankston) — The oppositionsupports the Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment)Bill. I raise two aspects of the bill before the house: oneis in relation to the individuals who are mostaffected — in other words, those who are patients orinmates of Thomas Embling Hospital; and the other isin relation to those members of the community orvictims of crime who are most affected by theincarceration of the perpetrators of the crimes.

Firstly, I congratulate the previous government for theapproval, building and running of the Thomas EmblingHospital on the site of the old Fairlea Women’s Prison.Anybody who had ever been to the old prison was gladwhen it finally disappeared. I also acknowledge thedifficulty that when the first legislation was introducedin 1997 no legislation would be perfect first timearound, and there was an understanding there would besome issues we may well have to revisit. The tragedy ofhaving to revisit the legislation relates to the incidentthat led to the Vincent review and this amendmentbefore the Parliament.

The people who are tragically inmates or patients ofThomas Embling Hospital are those members of thecommunity who are, by the grace of God, none of us;although some of us might be queried on that

sometimes — you never know. The tragedy is thatsociety has always had a great deal of difficulty dealingwith people who have mental illness, whether from agenetic base, addiction or some other reason, andparticularly those who as a result of their mentalaffliction have turned to crime or been responsible forcrime and as a result of that do not fall within thenormal prison system because they are unfit to be tried.

The tragedy for them is that historically they wereincarcerated, particularly in England, in strange prisonslike Broadmoor, and were never to see the light of dayagain. We have moved a long way since then. We haverecognised that there are forms of treatment andmedication that can help, and that as much as possiblethese people should be able to learn to adapt, be givenskills or perhaps be given a chance. However, thecommunity also says that whatever that chance is,sufficient mechanisms must be in place to ensure thatthe community is safe.

One of the problems that would inevitably arise is thatthese people would have a right to a day release toattend a course or a hospital for treatment, and thevictims of the crimes for which they are now membersof the Thomas Embling Hospital, or those peoplewithin the general community who like most of us havelittle or no direct experience or expertise in dealing withpeople with mental illness, must be reassured that whenthose people are released, taken out or given day’sleave the community is as protected as it possibly canbe. The mistakes of last year that resulted in the Vincentreview should as far as possible never be allowed tooccur again.

I am particularly attracted to the parts in the bill —which were mentioned in the second-reading speech —that give the victims of crime and the families of peopleunder supervision the right to refuse certain things or tobe notified of certain actions that may be taken by theThomas Embling Hospital in relation to some of thesepeople. It is right and proper that we recognise that thevictims of those crimes — and they are probably fairlytraumatic crimes; and the impact on the families wouldbe equally traumatic — be informed where necessarythat they have the right of refusal and the right to atleast be aware of what has happened to the perpetratorof the crime at all stages.

I am conscious that many of my colleagues wish tospeak and that we are running rapidly out of time. Icommend the government for taking another stepforward and for acting quickly — unusually perhaps —as a result of the Vincent review. This is a veryimportant issue for the community in that while weneed to be sure inmates are properly looked after and



cared for as is appropriate, at the same time we need tobe sure that safeguards will ensure that the members ofthe community have faith in the system and that theywill not be placed at additional risk.

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston) — I suspect I am one ofthe few people in this place who has workedprofessionally and clinically in mental health. Duringthat time I took a great interest in forensic mental healthservices, so I welcome the opportunity to speak on theForensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill.

In my day forensic mental health was G division atPentridge and J ward at Ararat, for the information ofanybody who has had experience there. We havecertainly come a long way since that time. Indeed,when I attended a conference in and made a number ofvisits to New Zealand in the early 1990s on forensicpsychiatry I came to the conclusion that althoughgenerally New Zealand was behind our mental healthservices, in the area of prison mental health andforensic psychiatry it was doing more innovativethings. I suspect that is not actually saying a great deal,but we have come a long way.

Just as mental health has been the poor cousin of health,in turn you can say the same about forensic mentalhealth: it has not been an area that has attracted fundingor where specialist staff have been encouraged to gointo it. The only time it hits the news is for the wrongreasons. That is why I have appreciated the debatetoday. I congratulate honourable members on both sidesfor their contributions, which have been somewhat farmore measured than what we have seen in the media. Inparticular I thought in his contribution to the debate thehonourable member for Malvern was quite sensitive tothe issues. I wish to follow on from his discussion ofthe need to find a balance.

Obviously somehow we have to balance the rights ofthe individual against protection of the community. Iwas one of the few in 1991–92 in the debate around theCommunity Protection Act and Garry David who wasquite clearly prepared to say that there comes a point intime where the community is entitled to redistribute therisk away from itself and towards the individual.Having said that, we need to be careful that we do notsimply incarcerate people and throw away the keyforever. That was our problem with Garry David.

We have to put in a range of services and providerehabilitation, and at times that will involve takingrisks. Mental health and psychiatry are not exactsciences and there will be times when we get it wrong,so we need to be careful.

I would like to see more options available in forensicmental health, particularly halfway houses which couldbe a crossover between psychiatric services and thejustice system, with trained specialist staff. We shouldbear in mind that we have a much larger percentage ofthe prison population that has a mental illness than thegeneral population. Some people would say, forinstance, that 40 per cent of our prison population hasantisocial personality disorder. So there are a range ofissues that we still have to do more work on, such as therole of alcohol and drugs, intellectual disability andantisocial personality disorder.

The final comment I want to make — because I knowhonourable members on the opposition side wish tomake contributions — is that in giving greater powersto the Secretary of the Department of Justice we need tobe careful that we do not lose sight of the healthresponsibilities. I would argue, for instance, that it isinappropriate for a jailer to also have directresponsibility for health services, so where there hasbeen a transfer of responsibilities to corrections I wouldargue nevertheless that health professionals ought to beaccountable back through health.

I would like to have said a bit more, but I am aware thathonourable members opposite who also wish to speakare becoming anxious, so I will give them a chance. Isupport the bill.

Mr WILSON (Bennettswood) — In the short timeavailable to me in this debate I shall take up some of thepoints made by the honourable member for Preston inhis contribution to the debate, particularly hisacknowledgment that until recent times mental healthand forensic mental health truly have been the poorcousins of mainstream health. It was not until the late1980s and into the 1990s that those areas were treatedby governments and ministers in the way they deservedto be treated.

I place on record my congratulations to the twoprevious ministers for health in the Kennettgovernment, who made outstanding contributions. Ireflect mainly on the contribution of Marie Tehan, whoas Victorian health minister between 1992 and 1996had a strong commitment to furthering mental health inVictoria. It was Marie Tehan who introduced many ofthe reforms in the health department which took mentalhealth into the mainstream of that organisation.

Her excellent work was then carried on by my friendRob Knowles, the Minister for Health between 1996and 1999, who also had a very strong commitment tomental health. It was because of those two formerministers that we saw the building of the Thomas



Embling Hospital and the whole concept ofmainstreaming mental health in Victoria.

The bill before the house is a vital contribution toimprovement in this area. It is great to see that there is abipartisan approach to these issues. That bipartisanapproach was commenced in the late 1980s, itcontinued during the 1990s, and I am very pleased tonote that that bipartisanship has continued with thechange of government.

With those brief words and the knowledge that theNational Party wishes to make a very brief contribution,I commend the bill to the house.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney) — I wish to make twobrief comments on this bill. Firstly, I welcome the billand its provisions. I support the remarks of thehonourable member for Preston, because together withhim I was a member of the then CommunityDevelopment Committee that looked into the situationof people who were detained at the Governor’spleasure, and together with other members of thatcommittee we met 30-odd of those people out atBundoora. So I am very sympathetic to that issue.

The comment I really want to make relates to theprovisions of the bill concerning those cross-bordermental health issues that bedevil those of us who liveon the border. It has been the bane of my life for the13 years I have been a member of this place trying toovercome cross-border issues and the difficultiesbetween the states. This bill at long last is doingsomething to resolve those issues where people whohave a mental health problem and abscond to otherstates have been immune from being brought back forproper treatment and care to their home state.

This bill at long last deals with that issue and for thatreason alone I welcome it. It is a step in the rightdirection. We still need to do more to allow people whohave a mental health problem who live in, for example,Moama and attend a doctor and hospital in Echuca tobe able to get the treatment they deserve without havingto go, as they currently do, to Wagga Wagga or Alburyto get that treatment.

I conclude by saying that until we get an Australia-widesystem, where people with mental health issues are ableto obtain the treatment they need that is closest to themirrespective of where that is we still have work to do.My argument is that people should be able to get thattreatment for mental health at a hospital close to them,albeit in another state, in exactly the same way as theycan get acute health services.

I support the bill and the comments made by previousspeakers. I commend the bill to the house.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The timeappointed for debate on this bill has expired.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Circulated amendments

Circulated government amendments as follows agreed to:

1. Clause 3, line 4, after “section 3” insert “(1)”.


“( ) in the definition of “court”, after “County Court”insert “and in section 47 includes Magistrates’Court”;”.

3. Clause 3, line 10, omit “or”;” and insert “or”.


“(ac) a person deemed to be a forensic patient bysection 73E(4) or 73K(8); or”;”.

5. Clause 3, line 14, omit “or”;” and insert “or”.


“(ac) a person deemed to be a forensic resident bysection 73E(4) or 73K(8); or”;”.


‘( ) In section 4 of the Crimes (Mental Impairmentand Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, after“25(1)” insert “and Parts 7A and 7B”.’.

8. Clause 7, line 7, omit “insert” and insert “substitute”.

9. Clause 7, line 18, omit “substitute”: and insert“insert”.

10. Clause 10, lines 32 and 33, omit “court that made thesupervision order” and insert “Supreme Court, CountyCourt or Magistrates’ Court”.

11. Clause 10, page 11, line 1, after “court” insert “to whichthe application is made”.

12. Clause 10, page 11, lines 18 and 19, omit all words andexpressions on these lines and insert —

“(5) The court to which an application referred to insub-section (4) is made must hear it as soon aspossible.”.

13. Clause 10, page 11, lines 33 and 34, omit “court thatmade the supervision order” and insert “Supreme Court,County Court or Magistrates’ Court”.



14. Clause 10, page 12, line 1, after “court” insert “to whichthe application is made”.

15. Clause 30, line 1, after “Part 7A” insert “and Part 7B”.


“(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken as requiringthe Victorian Minister to agree to a transfer of aperson to Victoria.”.


“(6) If the court makes a supervision order, the courtmust set a nominal term for the order inaccordance with section 28 as modified bysection 73G.

(7) If the court makes a custodial supervision order,the court may grant extended leave to the personif the court could have granted them extendedleave on an application under section 57.”.

18. Clause 30, page 47, line 15, omit “defendant” and insert“person”.

19. Clause 30, page 48, line 15, omit “circumstances.’.” andinsert “circumstances.”.


‘PART 7B — PERSONS ABSCONDING TO VICTORIAFROM INTERSTATE

73I. Definitions

In this Part —

“interstate supervision order” means —

(a) an order under the law of another State of asimilar nature to a supervision order under theCrimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitnessto be Tried) Act 1997; or

(b) an order under the law of another State that aperson be kept in custody during theGovernor’s pleasure;

“mental health facility” means a facility for thedetention and treatment of persons who arementally ill;

“relevant offence”, in relation to a person foundunfit to stand trial or not guilty because of mentalimpairment or other mental condition in anotherState, means the offence with which the personwas charged that led to that finding;

“relevant State”, in relation to a person foundunfit to stand trial or not guilty because of mentalimpairment or other mental condition in anotherState, means the State in which they were subjectto an interstate supervision order or in which theywere on remand awaiting the making of aninterstate supervision order;

“State” includes Territory.

73J. Warrant to arrest person who absconds toVictoria

(1) The Secretary may apply to the Magistrates’ Courtfor a warrant to arrest a person if the Secretaryreasonably believes that —

(a) the person —

(i) has, in another State, been found unfit tostand trial for, or not guilty because ofmental impairment or other mentalcondition of, an offence that, ifcommitted in Victoria, would be anindictable offence; and

(ii) is subject to an interstate supervisionorder or on remand awaiting the makingof such an order; and

(b) the person is in Victoria; and

(c) the person could be apprehended in therelevant State, if the person were still in thatState, because he or she —

(i) is absent without leave or other lawfulauthority from a mental health facility inthe relevant State; or

(ii) is in breach of an interstate supervisionorder that is non-custodial in nature; and

(d) one of the following applies —

(i) the person cannot be lawfullyapprehended in Victoria because awarrant to apprehend or arrest the personhas not been or cannot be issued in therelevant State, or such a warrant cannotbe executed in Victoria; or

(ii) the person cannot be lawfullyapprehended in Victoria under section93K of the Mental Health Act 1986; or

(iii) although the person could be lawfullyapprehended in Victoria, the personwould not be able to be returned to therelevant State following theapprehension.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1)(c)(i), a personis taken to be absent without lawful authority froma mental health facility in a relevant State if theperson did not return to the facility when requiredto do so under a law of that State.

(3) If the Magistrates’ Court is satisfied by evidence onoath, whether orally or by affidavit, of the mattersspecified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of sub-section (1),the court may order that a warrant to arrest beissued against the person who is the subject of theapplication.

(4) Despite section 64(2)(a) of the Magistrates’ CourtAct 1989, a person arrested under a warrant issuedunder this section must be brought before the



Magistrates’ Court on the day of his or her arrest oron the next sitting day of the court.

73K.Interim disposition order

(1) When a person arrested under a warrant issuedunder section 73J is brought before theMagistrates’ Court, the court must make an interimdisposition order in respect of him or her inaccordance with this section, unless the court issatisfied that the matters specified in paragraphs (a)to (d) of section 73J(1) are not made out.

(2) The interim disposition orders that the court maymake in respect of a person are —

(a) that the person be granted bail; or

(b) that the person be detained in an appropriateplace determined by the court as if he or shewere subject to a custodial supervision order;or

(c) that the person be remanded in custody in aprison.

(3) The court may, from time to time, adjourn aproceeding in which it is considering making aninterim disposition order for any reasonable periodnot exceeding 7 days on each occasion and remandthe person on bail or in custody in an appropriateplace or a prison during any period of adjournment.

(4) The court must not make an order undersub-section 2(b), or an order under sub-section (3)remanding a person in custody in an appropriateplace, unless it has received a certificate undersection 47 stating that the facilities or servicesnecessary for that order are available.

(5) The court must not make an order undersub-section (2)(c), or an order under sub-section (3)remanding a person in custody in a prison, unlesssatisfied that there is no practicable alternative inthe circumstances.

(6) If the court is satisfied that any of the mattersspecified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 73J(1)is not made out, the court must discharge theperson.

(7) If the court is satisfied that the matters specified inparagraphs (a) to (c) of section 73J(1) are madeout, but that the person can be returned to therelevant State, the court must order the person to bereleased into the custody of a person who isauthorised to escort the person to the relevant State.

(8) On the making of an interim disposition orderunder sub-section (2)(b) in respect of a person or anorder under sub-section (3) remanding a person incustody in an appropriate place —

(a) if the appropriate place is an approved mentalhealth service — the person is deemed to be aforensic patient;

(b) if the appropriate place is a residentialservice — the person is deemed to be aforensic resident.

73L. Review of interim disposition order

(1) Within 7 days after an interim disposition orderhas been made in respect of a person, theSecretary to the Department of Human Servicesmust apply to the Supreme Court for a review.

(2) The purpose of the review is to determine theappropriate disposition for the person.

(3) The Supreme Court may undertake the reviewitself or refer the matter to the County Court.

(4) On a review, the court may —

(a) make a supervision order in respect of theperson as if the person had been declared tobe liable to supervision under Part 5; or

(b) order the person to be releasedunconditionally —

unless the court is satisfied that the person can bereturned to the relevant State.

(5) If the court is satisfied that the person can bereturned to the relevant State, the court mustorder the person to be released into the custody ofa person who is authorised to escort the person tothe relevant State.

(6) If the court makes a supervision order, the courtmust set a nominal term for the order inaccordance with section 28 as modified bysection 73M.

(7) If the court makes a custodial supervision order,the court may grant extended leave to the personif the court could have granted them extendedleave on an application under section 57.

73M. Nominal term of supervision order

(1) The court must set the nominal term of asupervision order made under section 73L inaccordance with section 28 as if —

(a) the relevant offence had been committed inVictoria; and

(b) the maximum penalty for that offence werethe maximum penalty attaching to thatoffence at the date the person was arrestedin Victoria; and

(c) sub-section (2) of this section appliedinstead of section 28(5).

(2) For the purpose of declaring a day under section28(4), the court may take into account —

(a) any period of time during which the personwas held in custody, or detained in a mentalhealth facility, in the relevant State in



relation to proceedings for the relevantoffence; and

(b) any period of time during which the personwas held in custody, or detained in a mentalhealth facility, in the relevant State under aninterstate supervision order; and

(c) any period of time during which the personwas held in custody, or detained in anappropriate place, since the person wasarrested under a warrant issued undersection 73J.

(3) If the nominal term of the supervision order hasexpired, the first major review must beundertaken within 12 months after the reviewunder section 73L.

73N. Appeal against unconditional release

(1) The Attorney-General may appeal to the Court ofAppeal against an order for unconditional releaseunder section 73L(4)(b) if he or she considersthat —

(a) the order should not have been made; and

(b) an appeal should be brought in the publicinterest.

(2) On an appeal under sub-section (1), the Court ofAppeal may —

(a) confirm the order; or

(b) quash the order and make a supervisionorder in respect of the person as if theperson had been declared to be liable tosupervision under Part 5; or

(c) quash the order and remit the matter, with orwithout directions, to the court that madethe order for unconditional release; or

(d) quash the order and, if satisfied that theperson can be returned to the relevant State,order the person to be released into thecustody of a person who is authorised toescort the person to the relevant State.

(3) If the Court of Appeal remits a matter to a courtunder sub-section (2)(c), that court must —

(a) make a supervision order in respect of theperson in accordance with this Act and anydirections given by the Court of Appeal; or

(b) if satisfied that the person can be returned tothe relevant State, order the person to bereleased into the custody of a person who isauthorised to escort the person to therelevant State.

(4) The Court of Appeal may make any one or moreof the following orders pending the making of asupervision order under this section —

(a) an order granting the person bail;

(b) subject to sub-section (5), an orderremanding the person in custody in anappropriate place;

(c) subject to sub-section (6), an orderremanding the person in custody in a prison;

(d) if it is of the opinion that it is in the interestsof justice to do so, an order —

(i) that the person undergo anexamination by a registered medicalpractitioner or registered psychologist;and

(ii) that the results of the examination beput before the court that is to make thesupervision order;

(e) any other order the court thinks appropriate.

(5) The Court of Appeal must not make an orderremanding a person in custody in an appropriateplace unless the Court of Appeal has received acertificate under section 47 stating that thefacilities or services necessary for that order areavailable.

(6) The Court of Appeal must not make an orderremanding a person in custody in a prison unlesssatisfied that there is no practicable alternative inthe circumstances.

(7) Any rules of court that apply to an appeal againsta conviction apply to an appeal under this section,subject to any necessary modification, as if thatappeal were an appeal against a conviction.

(8) Sub-section (7) does not apply to the extent thatthe rules of court provide otherwise and nothingin this section affects the power of the court tomake rules for or with respect to appeals underthis section.’.’.

21. Clause 34, line 15, after “section 73E(4)” insert “or73K(8)”.

22. Clause 35, line 19, after “section 73E(4)” insert “or73K(8)”.

23. Clause 43, omit this clause.


25. Clause 45, page 59, line 5, omit “40” and insert “41”.

26. Clause 45, page 59, line 9, omit “40” and insert “41”.


NEW CLAUSES

28. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 31 —

“AA. Repeal of delegation provision



Section 77 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment andUnfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 is repealed.”.

29. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 41 —

‘BB. New section 53AA inserted

After section 53 of the Mental Health Act 1986insert —

‘53AA. Warrant to arrest security patient absentwithout leave who leaves Victoria

(1) If at any time it appears to an appropriateperson that a security patient —

(a) is absent from an approved mental healthservice without leave of absence or specialleave of absence; and

(b) is no longer in Victoria —

the appropriate person may apply to theSupreme Court, the County Court or theMagistrates’ Court for a warrant to arrest thesecurity patient.

(2) If the court to which the application is made issatisfied by evidence on oath, whether orally orby affidavit, of the matters specified inparagraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), thecourt may order that a warrant to arrest beissued against the security patient.

Note: Under the Service and Execution of ProcessAct 1992 of the Commonwealth, a person whois apprehended interstate under a warrant issuedin Victoria is to be taken before a magistrate inthe place where the person is apprehended. ThatAct provides for the magistrate to specify theplace in Victoria to which the person is then tobe taken.

(3) in this section —

“appropriate person” means —

(a) the authorised psychiatrist or any personauthorised by the authorised psychiatrist;or

(b) the Secretary; or

(c) the Secretary to the Department of Justice;or

(d) the chief psychiatrist or any personauthorised by the chief psychiatrist.’.’.

30. Insert the following New Clauses to follow clause 42 —

‘CC. Interstate application of mental healthprovisions

(1) In section 93G(7) of the Mental Health Act1986, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute —

“(a) a prescribed person within the meaning ofsection 9; or

(b) an authorised psychiatrist or any personauthorised by an authorised psychiatrist;or

(c) an employee of the Department authorisedby the chief psychiatrist; or

(d) a person who, under the correspondinglaw, is authorised to take the person to theinterstate mental health facility.”.

(2) In section 93H(2) of the Mental Health Act1986, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute —

“(a) a prescribed person within the meaning ofsection 9; or

(b) an authorised psychiatrist or any personauthorised by an authorised psychiatrist;or

(c) an employee of the Department authorisedby the chief psychiatrist; or

(d) a person who, under the correspondinglaw, is authorised to take the person to theapproved mental health service.”.

(3) In section 93K(1) of the Mental Health Act1986 —

(a) after “leave” (where first occurring) insert“or other lawful authority”;

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute —

“(b) a prescribed person within the meaning ofsection 9; or

(c) an authorised psychiatrist or any personauthorised by an authorised psychiatrist;or

(d) an employee of the Department authorisedby the chief psychiatrist.”.

(4) In section 93K(3) of the Mental Health Act1986, omit “, unless they are admitted to anapproved mental health service under this Act”.

(5) In section 93K of the Mental Health Act 1986,after sub-section (4) insert —

“(5) Despite sub-section (3), a person who isapprehended under sub-section (1) may beadmitted to and detained in an approvedmental health service under Division 2 ofPart 3 pending his or her return to theparticipating State.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a personis taken to be absent without lawfulauthority from an interstate mental healthfacility if the person did not return to thefacility when required to do so under acorresponding law.”.



(6) In section 93L of the Mental Health Act 1986,for paragraph (b) substitute —

“(b) a prescribed person within the meaning ofsection 9; or

(c) the authorised psychiatrist or any personauthorised by the authorised psychiatrist;or

(d) an employee of the Department authorisedby the chief psychiatrist.”.

DD. New Part 5B inserted

After Part 5A of the Mental Health Act 1986 insert —

“PART 5B — INTERSTATE SECURITY PATIENTSABSCONDING TO VICTORIA

93M. Definitions

In this Part —

“interstate security patient” means a personwho —

(a) has been convicted of an offence inanother State that would be an offence ifcommitted in Victoria; and

(b) is serving a sentence of imprisonment inany State (other than Victoria) for thatoffence (whether in a prison or otherwise);and

(c) is required to take involuntary treatmentfor mental illness in the State in whichthey are serving their sentence;

“mental health facility” means a facility for thedetention and treatment of persons who arementally ill;

“relevant State”, in relation to an interstatesecurity patient, means the State in which they areserving their sentence of imprisonment;

“State” includes Territory.

93N. Warrant to arrest interstate security patientwho absconds to Victoria

(1) The Secretary may apply to the Magistrates’Court for a warrant to arrest a person if theSecretary reasonably believes that —

(a) the person is an interstate security patient;and

(b) the person is in Victoria; and

(c) the person could be apprehended in therelevant State, if the person were still inthat State, because he or she is absentwithout leave or other lawful authorityfrom a mental health facility in therelevant State; and

(d) one of the following applies —

(i) the person cannot be lawfullyapprehended in Victoria because awarrant to apprehend or arrest theperson has not been or cannot beissued in the relevant State, or such awarrant cannot be executed inVictoria; or

(ii) the person cannot be lawfullyapprehended in Victoria undersection 93K of the Mental HealthAct 1986; or

(iii) although the person could belawfully apprehended in Victoria, theperson would not be able to bereturned to the relevant Statefollowing the apprehension.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1)(c), a personis taken to be absent without lawful authorityfrom a mental health facility in a relevant Stateif the person did not return to the facility whenrequired to do so under a law of that State.

(3) If the Magistrates’ Court is satisfied byevidence on oath, whether orally or by affidavit,of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (d)of sub-section (1), the court may order that awarrant to arrest be issued against the personwho is the subject of the application.

(4) Despite section 64(2)(a) of the Magistrates’Court Act 1989, a person arrested under awarrant issued under this section must bebrought before the Magistrates’ Court on theday of his or her arrest or on the next sitting dayof the court.

93O. Orders Magistrates’ Court may make inrespect of interstate security patients

(1) When a person arrested under a warrant issuedunder section 93N is brought before theMagistrates’ Court, the court must make —

(a) an order granting the person bail; or

(b) an order remanding the person in custodyin a prison —

unless the court is satisfied that the matters specified inparagraphs (a) to (d) of section 93N(1) are not made out.

(2) If the court is satisfied that any of the mattersspecified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section93N(1) is not made out, the court mustdischarge the person.

(3) If the court is satisfied that the matters specifiedin paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 93N(1) aremade out, but that the person can be returned tothe relevant State, the court must order theperson to be released into the custody of aperson who is authorised to escort the person tothe relevant state.



93P. Translated sentence for interstate securitypatient

(1) Within 7 days after an interstate security patientis granted bail or remanded in custody in aprison under section 93O(1), the Secretary mustapply to the Supreme Court for a translatedsentence to be imposed on the interstatesecurity patient.

(2) The Supreme Court may deal with theapplication itself or refer it to the County Court.

(3) On an application under sub-section (1), thecourt must, by order, impose a translatedsentence on the interstate security patient anddetermine the period of that sentence alreadyserved, unless the court is satisfied that theinterstate security patient can be returned to therelevant State.

(4) If the court is satisfied that the interstatesecurity patient can be returned to the relevantState, the court must order them to be releasedinto the custody of a person who is authorisedto escort them to the relevant State.

(5) The translated sentence must be a sentence ofthe same duration as that imposed on theinterstate security patient in the relevant State inrespect of the offence that resulted in thembecoming an interstate security patient.

(6) In determining the period of the translatedsentence already served, the court must takeinto account —

(a) the period of the sentence already servedin the relevant State; and

(b) the period since the interstate securitypatient was first arrested in Victoria undera warrant issued under section 93N.

93Q. Provisions relating to translated sentences

(1) Subject to this section, a translated sentenceimposed on an interstate security patient undersection 93P has the same effect as if it had beenimposed on the interstate security patient underthe Sentencing Act 1991 on conviction for anoffence in Victoria.

(2) If, under the law of the relevant State, a courthas fixed a non-parole period in respect of asentence imposed on the interstate securitypatient, that non-parole period is taken to havebeen fixed by the court in Victoria in respect ofthe translated sentence.

(3) If the sentence imposed on an interstate securitypatient, or any non-parole period in respect ofthat sentence —

(a) is varied or quashed on a review by orappeal to a court in the relevant State, thetranslated sentence or non-parole period istaken to have been varied to the same

extent, or to have been quashed, by acorresponding court in Victoria; or

(b) otherwise is varied or ceases to have effectas a result of action taken by any person orauthority in the relevant State, thetranslated sentence is taken to have beenvaried to the same extent, or to haveceased to have effect, as a result of actiontaken by an appropriate person orauthority in Victoria.’.’.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.



Message from Council relating to following amendmentsfurther considered:









NEW CLAUSE














Debate resumed from 20 March; motion of Ms PIKE(Minister for Housing):


House divided on motion:

Ayes, 45Allan, Ms Langdon, Mr (Teller)Allen, Ms Languiller, MrBarker, Ms Leighton, MrBatchelor, Mr Lenders, MrBeattie, Ms Lim, MrBracks, Mr Lindell, Ms (Teller)Cameron, 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 Savage, MrHardman, Mr Seitz, MrHelper, Mr Stensholt, MrHolding, Mr Thwaites, MrHoward, Mr Trezise, MrHulls, Mr Viney, MrIngram, Mr Wynne, MrKosky, Ms

Noes, 40Asher, 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 Shardey, MrsJasper, Mr Smith, Mr (Teller)Kilgour, Mr Spry, MrKotsiras, Mr Steggall, MrLeigh, Mr Thompson, MrLupton, Mr Vogels, MrMcCall, Ms Wells, MrMcIntosh, Mr Wilson, Mr

Motion agreed to.



Longford gas plant

Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofMr BRACKS (Premier):

That this house takes note of the ministerial statement.

Motion agreed to.

Remaining business postponed on motion ofMr CAMERON (Minister for Local Government).

ADJOURNMENT

Mr CAMERON (Minister for LocalGovernment) — I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Duncan MacKinnon Reserve, Murrumbeena

Mrs PEULICH (Bentleigh) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices some fairly difficult issues at the DuncanMacKinnon Reserve on North Road, which technicallyis in the electorate of the honourable member forOakleigh, although it is very much on the border.

I happen to be at that facility a lot; my son trains there anumber of times a week. Over a long time I havespoken to a number of parents who have come to me

ADJOURNMENT


with concerns; I have also spoken to the local counciland to the local police. The matter concerns maleprostitution that has been taking place, usually afterwork and often on public holidays.

The problem has existed for quite some time. The GlenEira council from time to time will send its bylawsofficers to lock the gates at the reserve; that seems tostop that sort of activity for some time. Once the reservereopens, the activity resumes. In the past the policehave been responsive but they have virtually given up.

It is a big problem. There is high visibility: at thereserve we have Little Athletics as well as senior andjunior athletics; netball girls train and play thereregularly; and adults also use the reserve. Many havebeen exposed to clearly unpleasant experiences in themale toilet. There are also walking tracks, so there is alot of activity centred around the reserve at that time.

I am almost at my wit’s end, and have even entertainedthe possibility of bulldozing the darned facility, butclearly it is needed. We need the minister to take up thematter with the Chief Commissioner of Police to seewhat special efforts can be put in place to address thisvery difficult, uncomfortable and unpleasant problemfor many of the children and young people as well asadults in that area.

Grace McKellar Centre, Geelong

Mr TREZISE (Geelong) — I raise an issue foraction by the Minister for Health concerning the GraceMcKellar Centre in my electorate of Geelong.

For the information of the house, the Grace McKellarCentre provides early accommodation andrehabilitation within the community of Geelong. TheBracks government in its last budget allocatedsomething like $19 million as a commitment to the firststage of an upgrade at the Grace McKellar Centre. Thissignificant contribution signals a new era for the GraceMcKellar complex.

The action I seek from the minister is to investigate andadvise when the redevelopment construction willcommence. The recent history of the Grace McKellarCentre typifies and highlights the difference betweenthe Bracks Labor government and the previous Kennettregime. Under Kennett the once-proud Grace McKellarCentre was allowed to fall into gradual disrepair. TheKennett government at the time admitted that the centrewas earmarked for privatisation to the detriment of theelderly and the care of the elderly in Geelong; and tothis day the local Kennett government members standcondemned for the sorry saga that was the GraceMcKellar Centre story.

But with the election of the Bracks Labor governmentthe centre was saved from sale and privatisation, and inthe 2001–02 budget $19 million has been allocatedtowards its reconstruction. No longer will it be hawkedto the highest bidder, which was going to be the caseunder the Kennett government. The centre will remainin public hands and is to be totally refurbished. This isgreat news for the community of Geelong, especiallyfor the elderly. As I said, it really is the dawning of anew age for the Grace McKellar complex in Geelong,and the people of Geelong look forward to thecommencement of the reconstruction in the very nearfuture.

South Gippsland: wind farms

Mr RYAN (Leader of the National Party) — I raisean issue for the Minister for Planning with regard towind farm developments in the municipality of SouthGippsland. I also raise it in the broader context of thedevelopment of some appropriate planning mechanismsto enable wind farm development to occur on anordered basis as opposed to what I suspect is rather anad hoc basis across Victoria.

I raise the issue on behalf of a group of 300 people inSouth Gippsland known as Prom Coast Guardians.They have recently made representations to me aboutthe prospect of further wind farm developments inSouth Gippsland. There has already been approved thedevelopment of a wind farm at Toora that will see 9 or10 nacelles constructed which will generate about sevenor eight megawatts of power, and it will be the first ofthose projects South Gippsland will have seen.

I am also very conscious that other developments havebeen initiated in other parts of Victoria, most notablythe one at Codrington. The people who have come tosee me are concerned about the prospect of further windfarm development in the South Gippsland region.Specifically their worry is that those developments willoccur across the hills adjoining the magnificence of theCorner Inlet region and the South Gippsland coastgenerally, and that there is an aesthetic aspect to thiswhich has not been properly taken into account for thepurpose of general planning issues.

They are looking to the government to develop somesort of guidelines appropriate to the needs of theseforms of development. I emphasise that this group iscertainly not opposed to the development of wind farmsper se. On the contrary, they are strong supporters ofproposals that provide mechanisms for what I mightterm green power, and indeed in the material whichthey submitted to me they have indicated a number ofother projects that might properly be investigated in the

ADJOURNMENT


South Gippsland region that would serve the purpose ofinitiating projects for the development of power whichare more appropriate to the aesthetic magnificence ofthe general region.

What they seek is, firstly, the opportunity to meet withthe minister and put their point of view; and secondly,they want to put that point of view on the basis of theunderstanding that they accept that the Shire of SouthGippsland is in an invidious position in this of nothaving appropriate guidelines that have a statewideapplication. They want some help with this, and so it isthat I raise this matter for the attention of the minister.

Housing: Ballarat

Ms OVERINGTON (Ballarat West) — I raise forthe attention of the Minister for Housing the need toprovide more housing for low-income earners in myelectorate of Ballarat West, and in Ballarat in general.We are serviced there by a number of agencies thatprovide housing for low-income earners and also incases of emergency such as family violence — and Ican tell honourable members they do an excellent job.

The Uniting Care Outreach Centre in Ballarat operatesthe Ballarat and district transitional housing program,under which people can over a period of three monthshave the opportunity of looking for alternative housing.The staff and the many volunteers working at thatagency are dedicated, as are the committee members, tohelping provide families with housing. Unfortunately,despite the work of this and other agencies, there is aneed for further affordable housing in Ballarat. I ask theminister to advise what action will be taken through thesocial housing innovations program to address theneeds of low-income and disadvantaged people in theBallarat area?

As a former worker in the community sector Iunderstand the concerns facing people who need asecure and affordable roof over their heads. The Bracksgovernment is committed to turning the state aroundand cleaning up the mess left in public and socialhousing by the previous government. This is in starkcontrast to the actions of previous government, whichmade no contribution to public and social housing overand above its obligations under the state housingagreement. Last year in announcing the second roundof funding under the social housing innovationsprogram the minister called on local government andcommunity organisations to develop affordable housingprojects for consideration.

Unfortunately the need for lower income housing inBallarat was of concern when Uniting Care established

that people on low incomes were paying up to 50 percent of their incomes on rent. Uniting Care found thatthe cost of renting a two-bedroom flat in Ballarat hadrisen 27 per cent in the last six months and of renting afour-bedroom house had risen 17 per cent.

I thank and congratulate those agencies that currentlyprovide housing to low-income people in Ballarat. Theyhave a hard and stressful job, because unfortunatelythey sometimes cannot meet the needs of all who seekwhat should be their basic right — that is, housing, notfacing possible homelessness.


Ms ASHER (Brighton) — The action I seek of theMinister for Tourism is to have him convince hiscolleague the Minister for Finance to protect tourismoperators in the face of the public liability insurancecrisis — and specifically, for the Minister for Financeto take a draft bill to the meeting between thecommonwealth and the states next week.

On 14 March last I was at a rally in Mansfield in thecompany of the Honourable Graeme Stoney, a memberfor Central Highlands in the other place. At that rallywe heard how public liability premiums for tourismoperators have increased by between 400 and 500 percent. For adventure tourism, on which Mansfield basesits economy, the average premiums cost is now$11 000. The tragedy is that those premiums willincrease next year. Those at the rally made the pointthat if those businesses close, as some have already, thetown may well close, because so many of thebusinesses and jobs in Mansfield are completely andutterly dependent on a prosperous adventure tourismindustry.

After the rally I met with Sandy Tod, the chair of agroup that had put together what it calls the Mansfieldproposal, a copy of which has been sent to thegovernment. It would remove about 94 per cent of theclaims that now go before insurance companies,representing a removal of 77.5 per cent of the dollarvalue claims.

I urge the Minister for Tourism to in turn urge theMinister for Finance to prepare draft or templatelegislation to take to the meeting next week. In otherwords, the minister should not go to the meeting emptyhanded or just to listen but should take a lead. Victoriashould be taking a lead on the issue. There is not muchtime left for those businesses.

In short, the Mansfield proposal, which I urge bothministers to consider, is to set up a legislativeframework between the commonwealth and the states

ADJOURNMENT


to allow for suits if there is negligence on the part of anoperator. It would also define ‘serious injury’ along thelines of the Transport Accident Commission definition;and most importantly, it would have people who areembarking on adventure tourism activities accept minorinjury as part of their own personal risk versus puttingthe risk onto somebody else.

The legislation proposed by the Mansfield group wouldalso require operators to offer personal accidentinsurance to individual participants. The proposal isvery reasonable, and I ask the Minister for Tourism toput pressure on the Minister for Finance to take theproposal to the meeting next week. I am aware of theminister’s announcements and repeat announcementson risk management plans, but I call on him to takeaction; otherwise, these businesses will unfortunatelygo out of business.

Greater Geelong: mayor

Mr LONEY (Geelong North) — I direct a matter tothe attention of the Minister for Local Government.This house is keenly aware of the minister’s interest inthe affairs of the City of Greater Geelong, in particulara number of matters including the Auditor-General’sreport on the failed Geelong embassy, theAuditor-General’s report on Harding Park, and theOmbudsman’s report on Harding Park. Arising out ofthat concern the minister has previously advised thehouse that he would be seeking detailed informationfrom the mayor on each of those issues.

Recently I was somewhat alarmed to note in furtherpress reports that the minister has had to writefollow-up letters to the mayor, reminding him of hisobligation to supply the information and hisundertakings to provide full details in relation to thosematters and to provide evidence of what actions councilhas taken in response to those damning reports.

Since the raising of those issues there has been amultitude of other issues afflicting the City of GreaterGeelong, including the aftermath of the Geelong Cupday car crash, where internal inquiries into the matterare still proceeding in the city; attempts to sack thechief executive officer; constant infighting betweencouncillors and the chief executive officer; and the useof the code of conduct provisions by the chief executiveofficer against one of the councillors. All of thesethings have occurred recently.

Mr Maclellan — On a point of order, MadamDeputy Speaker, one matter, not a litany of matters, canbe raised during the adjournment debate. It is for you torule that a single matter may be raised in respect of

asking the minister to do something, not a parade orlitany of critiques about the local council.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. The honourable member for Geelonghas asked the minister to investigate a number ofmatters in relation to the Geelong council.

Mr LONEY — All that indicates a breakdown ofthe governance function and a serious failure ofmanagerial control in the City of Greater Geelong. Inthe next few days the mayor ceases his mayoral term,and according to press reports, he will not be re-electedas mayor — or to any other role. These issues shouldnot be handed on to the next mayor. I ask the ministerto publicly report on these matters, to publicly providethe information from — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired.

Knox: disabled parking permits

Mr ASHLEY (Bayswater) — The issue I raiseabout disabled persons parking permits is for theMinister for Transport, although it is partly a healthproblem. The action I seek is an investigation intoassessing the criteria that apply with a view to eitherwidening them a little or allowing for a certaindiscretion in the issuing of disabled persons parkingpermits.

The issue comes about as a result of Mr GregHammond, who lives in Bayswater, having previouslybeen granted a permit but failing to gain one when hemoved to Bayswater and applied to the City of Knoxfor a renewal. The City of Knox refused him because ofthe specificity of the criteria that apply. In his caseMr Hammond has a seriously injured, permanentlydisabled left shoulder, and the problems he has have todo with the mobility of his arms and restrictions withmoving around a shopping centre, carrying bags andnot being able to use a shopping trolley. Therefore it isnot an ambulatory problem, but it is still a mobilityproblem.

The kinds of criteria that apply at the moment are verystrict, as they need to be, in relation to such things asneeding a wheelchair, an inability to walk withoutassistance of various sorts — brace, cane and so on —and the use of various assistant devices that prevent avehicle getting into a standard-size parking bay.Although his vehicle has been altered for steeringpurposes and through the installation of assist wiperknobs and so on, it has not been widened.

ADJOURNMENT


He has the capacity to walk more than 60 metres, andhe does not need to use an oxygen unit, but in goingshopping as you or I go shopping, he is restricted.

The additional issue involved these days is that ofpublic liability. If he is unable to control, as he cannot, ashopping trolley for any kind of distance, and if aweakening in the strength of his only able arm causeshim to bang or crash into somebody or into a windowso that he breaks it, who will be liable? We need totease out this issue, because we are getting to the stagewhere people who have suffered from polio and whoare now in their latter years may be able to walk butmay not be able to hold things well with either botharms or one arm. I seek assistance on that in the hopethat we can get a little more movement and flexibilityinto the grant.

Police: Endeavour Hills station

Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — I ask the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services to take action tocontinue to ensure that 24-hour police stations arelocated in the areas in which they are needed. I am veryfortunate in the electorate of Oakleigh in that I haveexcellent facilities both in Oakleigh and Caulfield,which service the Monash and Glen Eira councils. Theyare wonderful 24-hour police station facilities. Theconcept, buildings and design were all put together withthe cooperation of all local authorities. Not only do theyundoubtedly present a good visible example ofcommunity safety, but also they provide excellentworking conditions for the police officers in theMonash and Glen Eira areas. As I said, I would like theminister to take action to continue to ensure that thesesorts of excellent facilities are provided.

Because of those excellent facilities I have beencontacted by a number of residents — I attended afunction about asylum seekers in Glen Waverley theother night — from around the Glen Waverley and inparticular Endeavour Hills areas, who want to try toensure that their 24-police station, which I understandwas promised, is going to happen. They are expressingconcern that there is no active movement on theestablishment of the 24-hour police station inEndeavour Hills. I have indicated to them that I amquite happy to ask the minister to take action to try toensure that the Endeavour Hills station is back on theagenda and is built.

State emblem

Mr SMITH (Glen Waverley) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Premier that concerns a letter I havereceived from a Mr Bill Wall of Glenburn. He is

outraged at the government’s removal of one of ourcherished symbols of state. Since it came to office thisgovernment, while recognised as being lazy and tardyin most areas of importance, is at the top of the class inthe area of iconoclasm.

One of its negative acts, according to Bill Wall, was toremove the symbol of the crown from many of theareas where people have come to expect to see it — forexample, removing it from numberplates, leaving onlythe Southern Cross as the state symbol. He points outthat removing the crown from road signs — —


Mr SMITH — You should listen to the other sideas well! Removing the crown from the state insignia,removing it from where it says ‘Victoria — The placeto be’ — —


Mr SMITH — Bill Wall says it’s ‘Victoria — Theplacebo’, that it is about trickery or taking people intoits confidence and providing something that is illusoryand not for real. Perhaps this might symbolise theBracks government, which has earned the tag of ado-nothing government.

Bill Wall asks the Premier whether he wishes to defacethe 125-year-old symbol of our state heritage. Has heapplied — I gather it is part of the procedure if you aregoing to do this — to the chief of protocol to pursuethese actions, or has he done this of his own volition?Does he realise that we voted to remain acommonwealth country?

Mr Wall says that the Premier is offending manypeople by his iconoclastic actions, and he wants him toexplain his actions in this respect and say what he is upto.

Employment: Loddon–Mallee

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East) — I raise a matter forthe Minister for Employment and ask what action thegovernment is taking to continue the strong job growthwe are experiencing, particularly in the Loddon–Malleeregion, which includes Bendigo. The latest regionallabour force figures illustrate the strong job growthunder the Bracks government. We have seen theunemployment rate in the Loddon–Mallee region dropby 0.9 per cent in the 12 months from February 2001 toFebruary 2002 to 7 per cent. The Loddon–Malleeregion also has the strongest jobs growth of all regionsacross country Victoria, with a growth of 4 per centover that same 12-month period.

ADJOURNMENT


This is also matched by the number of buildingapprovals in the City of Greater Bendigo, which for themonth of February was the largest on record. DuringFebruary 114 council permits worth $7.8 million and121 private permits worth $8 million were issued.

This is no doubt largely due to the marvellousinitiatives we have seen the Bracks governmentintroduce into Bendigo. The Bracks governmentattracted AAPT’s Australian call centres headquartersto Bendigo, bringing with it over 400 full-time jobs. Weare seeing the expansion of Pauls dairy in Bendigo. Wehave seen 50 new nurses enter our hospital system, andhave heard the announcement only yesterday of theRural Finance Corporation moving to Bendigo,bringing with it 40 new jobs, which will mean$6 million per year worth of growth to Bendigo’seconomy.

This is strong growth, and will also be matched by theimprovements. We will see more jobs come with thecompletion of the fast train service and the duplicationof the Calder Highway to Bendigo by 2006.

Contrast this with the growth and commitment tocountry Victoria under the Liberal–National Partygovernments. We had privatisation. Their privatisationpolicies led to the closure of Goninans. Theprivatisation of Telstra has led to more job losses inBendigo, and the privatisation of Australian DefenceIndustries has led to the latest sorry tale where we areseeing over 70 jobs being lost in Bendigo. Theirslashing of the public sector saw hundreds of jobs beinglost in Bendigo and Bendigo being labelled theprivatisation capital of Australia.

Now we are seeing the opposition trying to derail thefast rail project and to con its Canberra mates not tomatch the Bracks government’s contribution to fund theCalder Highway duplication to be completed by 2006.This government is committed to jobs growth inBendigo, central Victoria, and indeed across countryVictoria, and I am very pleased that the latest jobfigures match this growth in our area.

Vicroads: registration payments

Mr THOMPSON (Sandringham) — I wish to raisea matter for the attention of the Minister for Police andEmergency Services on behalf of Jon Payne ofBeaumaris in relation to a bureaucratic anomaly wherehis son paid the registration on his motor vehicle via alegally acceptable means on 28 February this year, yethe received an infringement notice from the police on2 March the same year.

He argues that the bureaucratic anomaly should befixed, saying:

It’s a waste of time for everyone involved — the police,Vicroads, Civic Compliance —

and also on the part of Mr Payne’s son. He says $500 isa massive penalty that represents well over a month’srent for his son, and in this particular case he did not doanything wrong. He suggests as a solution that perhapsthe police be instructed not to issue infringementnotices within 48 hours if the Vicroads system cannotgive accurate information within 48 hours of the duedate. He also notes that there is nothing written on therenewal notice saying, ‘Keep your receipt with you’.

The circumstance is outlined: what if you mailed yourregistration renewal and it was held up in the mail orthrough other delays at Vicroads? Mr Payne querieswhether this is another fundraiser for the governmentand says that, if so, it is a very unfair one. For too manypeople, especially the young, registration represents avery large expenditure, and Mr Payne asks ifcommonsense could be utilised.

So I ask the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices to review this circumstance so that thesebureaucratic anomalies do not arise, which in Yes,Minister terms are unacceptable.

Liquor: low-alcohol beer

Mr ROBINSON (Mitcham) — I raise a matter forthe attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairsconcerning the very serious issue confronting patrons ofnightclubs in the lack of availability to them asconsumers of low-alcohol beer.

The investigation I seek by the minister, possibly inconjunction with other ministers who haveresponsibilities in this area, is of the potential shortfallsin relevant legislation and regulations.


Mr ROBINSON — As honourable members haveinterjected, the burdens of government get you downoccasionally. I was representing the government at afunction late last year, and in the course of waiting formy role that evening I partook of an alcoholic beveragebut was surprised that I could not purchase anylow-alcohol beer. That venue was at the Crown Casino,and it may well be that there were exceptionalcircumstances of which I am not aware that preventedthe casino from supplying that, but it does seem to methat with low-alcohol beer now making up 22 per centof the market, and alcohol being a known factor in

ADJOURNMENT


causes of trauma on the roads, it should be possible forpeople attending nightclubs as consumers to have theoption of either full-strength or low-alcohol beer, and Iseek an investigation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired. The time forraising matters during the adjournment debate hasexpired.

Responses

Mr PANDAZOPOULOS (Minister forEmployment) — I will also be replying as Minister forTourism to the honourable member for Brighton.

I thank the honourable member for Bendigo East forher great support for employment in Bendigo and herunderstanding that certainly the message from regionalVictorians is that they are doing much better under theBracks government than they did in the seven and ahalf years of the Liberal Government. This governmenthas certainly not sacked teachers, nurses and policeacross the state, including country Victoria. In fact, theyare being employed.

What has been happening in places like Bendigo,though, is decisions like those of the federalgovernment that are affecting employment. We havebeen hearing what is happening at Australian DefenceIndustries. We have heard about the former defenceminister and his role that might disadvantage Bendigo.We have workers at Telstra in Bendigo protesting aboutpossible job cuts as well. So thank you, John Howard!

But the reality is, as the honourable member has said,that under this government the trend on employment isobviously going in the right direction. She highlightedsome figures. When we look at the number of jobs inthe Loddon–Mallee area from February last year toFebruary this year, we see the number of peopleemployed has increased by 4 per cent from 114 000 to118 600. It has increased in one year, and it hasincreased from the month of January as well.

When we look at the unemployment rate, as thehonourable member said, we see that one year ago theunemployment rate in Bendigo was 7.9 per cent. Now itis 7 per cent — the same as in the month of January.

One year ago the participation rate was 62.7 per cent.Now it has gone up to 64.9 per cent — the same, again,as last month. The opposition knows that these regionallabour market figures are volatile, but it produces themin those months where it thinks it can make a song anddance about it and mislead rural and regionalVictorians. Only last week the shadow Minister for

Tourism was quoted in regional papers, again deceivingregional Victorians by saying that money for marketingis all going to Melbourne, yet we have seen the biggestboost in marketing of tourism for regions that we haveever seen by the Bracks Labor government. So we haddeceit and lies from the opposition only last week ontourism, and again on labour market figures. The fact isthat, of the five labour market regions in regionalVictoria, four have an unemployment rate equal to orless than the state average.

When you look at some of the things happening inBendigo — and we had the Treasurer yesterdayreleasing his report about the Rural FinanceCorporation and saw what happened in relation to theState Revenue Office going out to Ballarat — you seewe are prepared to look at those sorts of things. We alsowork with companies like ADA, which is a specialistgarment manufacturer which recently received atraining grant from the state government that will leadto employment of new staff who were retrenched byRocklea spinning mills. They are the facts about theregion.

The opposition never cared about regional Victoria.That is why it lost so many seats. That is why Labor hasmore regional seats than the Liberal Party does. I thankthe honourable member for Bendigo East for her greatwork and look forward to going up there for theBendigo Easter Fair.

The honourable member for Brighton has suddenlydiscovered concerns and issues about public liabilityinsurance and the importance of the adventure tourismindustry. I note that in her years as Minister forTourism there was no adventure tourism developmentplan, which there is now, developed by thisgovernment, identified by this government inopposition as a market weakness for Victoria.

Since the events that happened recently, obviously thecost of public liability insurance has gone through theroof, and who has been dealing with it? Thisgovernment has. We were the first government to givemoney to the Victorian Tourism Operators Association.When we approached it and said, ‘What is the mostimmediate thing we can do?’, the association said thatthe key issue at the moment is that a whole lot ofbusinesses cannot even get insurance. We need riskmanagement plans. It is identified in our adventuretourism plan, which will assist adventure tourismbrokers to get insurance, and better priced insurance,but it is not the only answer on its own.

I met with Sandy Tod a few weeks ago when Ilaunched the adventure tourism plan in Mansfield, and

ADJOURNMENT


we have said we are prepared to entertain those things.When Joe Hockey, the federal minister for tourism,raised nationally the suggestion that all states shouldconsider reforming talks, we said we were prepared totalk about it. But the next day the federal AssistantTreasurer said, ‘Oh no, we haven’t agreed on that as afederal government. What we will do is have a nationalsummit’ — something we have been calling for sinceSeptember last year! Then she said, ‘Maybe we’re notready to have a national summit’ — but we are verypleased that there is to be one next week. That justshows the complexity of this issue and thedisorganisation of the federal government.

We have been prepared to put our money where ourmouth is. The Victorian Tourism Operators Associationtold us that it needed immediate support of $100 000,and we provided that, and yesterday we heard theMinister for Finance announce extra support forcommunity events. We will be leading with a packagefor the meeting in Canberra next week, and the Ministerfor Finance will deal with that.

Ms PIKE (Minister for Housing) — I thank thehonourable member for Ballarat West for her ongoingconcern about the shortage of affordable housing in hercommunity and for continually raising these issues withme. The Bracks government has an excellent plan toassist people in rural and regional Victoria. We are nowrolling out the funding of our $94.5 million socialhousing innovations project, which has alreadydelivered $48 million of affordable — —


The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! I ask thehonourable members for Mordialloc and Bentleigh tocease interjecting.

Ms PIKE — As I said, the social housinginnovations project is $94.5 million of new money —money over and above the commonwealth–statehousing agreement — which is helping localcommunities right across Victoria get projects up thatwill really assist people with affordable housing issues.

We have already rolled out $48 million of this program,and now we are spending an additional $26 million. Iam happy to advise the honourable member that$3.1 million will be provided for 30 units within theBallarat region. In fact this $3.1 million is partneredwith additional resources from that community, so weare able to now deliver $4.24 million of housing in thatregion. There will be new, high-standard, low-costaccommodation in the Ballarat area, including sites inTrentham.

We are very pleased that we have had the opportunityto work in partnership with excellent organisations suchas Uniting Care Ballarat Parish Mission to make surethat we can develop safe and secure housing that ispurpose built to meet local needs.

Of course, the other spin-off of creating this housing inrural and regional Victoria is that we are providingmore jobs for that community. That is terrific news forthe building industry and terrific news for thatcommunity. We are certainly turning the state aroundand providing some very positive and good news inpublic and social housing right across Victoria.

Ms DELAHUNTY (Minister for Planning) — TheLeader of the National Party raised an issue that hadbeen raised with him by constituents from the SouthGippsland region, in particular an organisation namedthe Prom Coast Guardians. The issue it raised wasplanning guidelines for wind farms. This is animportant issue, because the Bracks governmentinherited a situation where there were no statewideguidelines in place for the development of wind energyfacilities in Victoria. There are no guidelineswhatsoever, so there is no chance of a consistent andtransparent approach to this.

The Bracks government is very determined to manage asecure, affordable and sustainable power industry —and that is a priority of the Victorian government.When it comes to wind farms we must also be sensitiveto the protection of the environment and the visualamenity, which is really the issue that the Prom CoastGuardians raised with the Leader of the National Party.

In January the former Minister for Planning, mypredecessor, initiated a review of the need for windfarm guidelines. In fact, the review decided that weneeded to set up a panel to provide advice to thegovernment on what would be the most effectiveguidelines not just for South Gippsland but for rightacross the state. A number of wind farm proposals haveemerged, predominantly along the coast, but the localcommunities have been rather anxious about thepotential for these wind farms to disturb theirenvironment. A steering committee at the executivelevel is overseeing the consideration of a range ofinitiatives which will be included in these guidelines.

Without pre-empting the advice that will come togovernment from this committee, I know it will belooking at the need for any applicant for a permit for awind farm to supply information about the landscapingof the work — in other words, how it will look. Thelandscaping work has to be competent, it has to becognisant of the local fauna, and of course it needs to

ADJOURNMENT


give clear advice on risk assessment. So the visualamenity is important, as is the protection ofbiodiversity.

The appropriate location and design of wind turbineshave the potential to dramatically assist Victoria’selectricity supply, but the guidelines must give clearadvice to potential applicants about what is required bygovernment before any permit will be entertained. Irepeat that these guidelines will apply right across thestate. I thank the Leader of the National Party forraising this issue on behalf of his constituents.

Mr HAERMEYER (Minister for Police andEmergency Services) — The honourable member forGeelong raised a matter for the attention of the Ministerfor Health relating to the Grace McKellar complex, andI will ensure that that is passed on.

The honourable member for Geelong North raised theongoing traumas down at the City of Greater Geelongfor the attention of the Minister for Local Government.There are certainly some very concerning thingsoccurring there, and the Minister for Local Governmentwill inquire into the matters raised by the honourablemember.

The honourable member for Bayswater raised for theattention of the Minister for Transport a matter relatingto parking permits for the disabled, and I will ensurethat that is drawn to the attention of the minister.

The honourable member for Glen Waverley raised forthe attention of the Premier a very pressing matter thatis on everybody’s lips, that being the removal of thesymbol of the crown. I am glad to see the honourablemember for Glen Waverley knows what is important. Iwill make sure that that is drawn to the attention of thePremier.

The honourable member for Bentleigh raised for myattention the issue of male prostitution taking placearound public toilets in the Duncan MacKinnonReserve. This matter has also been drawn to myattention by the honourable member for Oakleigh. It iscertainly an unpleasant state of affairs, and I know thepolice are aware of it, but I will draw it to their attentionand see what additional steps can be taken to try to clearthe problem up. Public toilets and parks should not beallowed to be spoilt by this sort of activity taking placearound them. It certainly does not inspire publicconfidence in terms of encouraging people to allowtheir children to frequent those parks, so I will certainlyraise that with the chief commissioner and find outwhat additional steps might be able to be taken.

The honourable member for Sandringham raised formy attention an issue in relation to a Mr Payne, whoseson had registered his car through the legally acceptablemeans of a credit card payment on 28 February andwho received an infringement notice only two or threedays later. Certainly, there needs to be some sort ofinvestigation into what took place. The $500 penalty isa fairly heavy one, especially when he appears to havedone the right thing. I will draw this matter to theattention of the Victoria Police. There might have to besome sort of negotiation with Vicroads about this,because I think it affects both agencies. I will get backto the honourable member for Sandringham in duecourse.

The honourable member for Oakleigh raised an issue inrelation to the provision of 24-hour police stations, andshe is quite right in pointing out that both the Oakleighand Caulfield police stations were built with the supportof all local members across all parties. They were builtwith the support of the local councils and they were, infact, delivered. However, on behalf of some residents ofEndeavour Hills who have approached her she hasexpressed concern that the building of their policestation might not proceed because of the actions of thehonourable member for Berwick and his cronies on theCasey City Council.

I was extremely angry about the way the Casey CityCouncil dealt with this situation and indicated thatperhaps this police station project would have to take aback seat. I think it is perhaps inappropriate that theresidents of Endeavour Hills should have to suffersimply because of the actions of their local member andsome of their councillors.

I am very happy, under the circumstances, to ensurethat that police station project is again afforded thepriority it deserves. However, I note that in an article inthe Dandenong Journal the honourable member forBerwick claims that he has been pursuing this policestation all along, when I know that he has at all stagesbeen doomsaying on it. At various times he has claimedit was not necessary, but here he says — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the minister is having a shot at anothermember who is not here to defend himself. He is nottelling the truth. He is telling fibs, as he usually does,and it is basically an outrage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — There is no point oforder, as well the honourable member for Mordiallocknows, and I ask him to control himself in anappropriate manner in the house.

ADJOURNMENT


Mr HAERMEYER — The honourable member forBerwick says in the Dandenong Journal article:

I have been pressuring the government since they took powerto get on with the job and build the 24-hour Endeavour Hillspolice station they promised …

I have gone through Hansard: in 10 years in this placethe honourable member for Berwick has mentionedEndeavour Hills twice — it was nothing to do with thepolice station, but he mentioned the suburb ofEndeavour Hills. He has mentioned Endeavour Hills inpassing on two occasions in this house in 10 years!

Mr Baillieu — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the honourable member for Berwick has beenvery active in this campaign, and for the minister tospeak about the honourable member in this way is notappropriate.

Mr Leigh interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Mordialloc! The honourablemember for Hawthorn is making a point in debate; it isnot a point of order.

Mr HAERMEYER — A very large suburb in hiselectorate that contains thousands of his constituentsgets two mentions from the honourable member forBerwick in 10 years, and certainly not one mention ofthe police station. I thought perhaps he has not raised itin Parliament; maybe he has written to the VictoriaPolice or the Department of Justice, so we checked ourrecords. Not a single letter from the honourablemember for Berwick! In reality what he is claiming inhis favour is a mountain of press releases.

Ms Asher — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, the standing orders on this issue are clear. Ifthe Minister for Police and Emergency Services wishesto raise matters in relation to the honourable memberfor Berwick, he can do so by substantive motion andshould not be doing so via this mechanism.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The ministeris responding to an adjournment topic raised by thehonourable member for Oakleigh. He has not, as far asI interpret it, gone outside the standing orders or thesessional orders. There is no point of order.

Mr HAERMEYER — He claims a mountain ofpress releases, so he has been doing it through themedia rather than talking to people who can doanything about it. His press releases have all beentalking down the police station — —

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, this is the same person who when he wasshadow minister did not want the police to do things,and now he is interfering personally. They wrecked thesystem and continue to do that. It is basically anoutrage. He is misusing his position to blacken thename of a very good member who works hard in thisarea.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. The honourable member for Mordiallocknows full well that that was a point of debate. I askhim not to persist in this manner, and I ask the ministerto conclude.

Mr HAERMEYER — I can assure the honourablemember for Oakleigh and the residents of EndeavourHills that, despite the fact that the honourable memberfor Berwick does not want it to happen, I will proceedwith the Endeavour Hills police station and we willmake sure the station is built. I understand the people ofEndeavour Hills wish the honourable member forBerwick well in his attempts to get preselected for theseat — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Responsesduring the adjournment debate are not an appropriateopportunity to attack honourable members.

Mr Smith — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, this is going into utter farce with the Ministerfor Police and Emergency Services. We know his sortof straying ways, but to keep the debate going alongthese lines — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! What is thepoint of order?

Mr Smith — It is under standing order 108. Theminister’s comments are completely irrelevant to whatwe are talking about. What happens with thehonourable member for Berwick is no business of theMinister for Police and Emergency Services.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order, and the minister has concluded.However, the minister has not mentioned the matterraised by the honourable member for Mitcham for theMinister for Consumer Affairs.

Mr Baillieu — On a point of order, Madam DeputySpeaker, where is the honourable member forMitcham?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. The honourable member for Hawthornwill resume his seat.

ADJOURNMENT


Mr HAERMEYER — The honourable member forMitcham is having his crown repaired! I apologise tothe honourable member for Mitcham, who raised — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! Thehonourable member for Mordialloc on a point of order,within the guidelines.

Mr Leigh — On a point of order, is the DeputySpeaker able to inform the house what the ruling is inanswering a concern to a member when the memberdoes not bother to stay in the — —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! There is nopoint of order. In fact, it is a frivolous point of order,and I ask the honourable member for Mordialloc to bemore sensible.

Mr HAERMEYER — I apologise to thehonourable member for Mitcham. He raised a matterfor the Minister for Consumer Affairs about patrons ofnightclubs having the option of either full-strength orlow-alcohol beer. It certainly seems a reasonableproposition to me, and I will draw it to the attention ofthe Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Motion agreed to.


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, 19 March 2002

Health: Bennettswood — Royal Dental Hospital waiting list

365. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Health — how many Victorians fromeach of the postcodes 3125, 3128, 3130, 3149 and 3151 were on the Royal Dental Hospital waitinglist for treatment at the end of each month from August 2000 to April 2001 inclusive.

ANSWER:

The previous answer to Question 365 provided incorrect figures supplied by the Royal Dental Hospital.

The correct figures have now been supplied and the number of Victorians from postcode areas 3125, 3128, 3130,3149 and 3151 who were on the waiting list for treatment at the Royal Dental Hospital at the end of each monthfrom August 2000 to April 2001 inclusive is as follows:

Number of Victorians on RDHM Waiting List for Postcodes 3125, 3128, 3130, 3149 and 3151 as at:

31/8/00 31/9/00 30/10/00 30/11/00 31/12/00 31/01/01 28/02/01 31/03/01 30/04/01

603 624 643 676 675 686 660 653 656

Education: ministerial officers’ pecuniary interests

433(i). MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Minister for Education whether all ministerial officers currently orpreviously employed by the Minister have signed a pecuniary interest form; if so, on what date — (a) wasthe declaration signed; and (b) did the employee commence employment.

ANSWER:

All staff working in the Minister for Education’s office are employed by the Premier. Therefore there are noministerial officers employed by her.

Police and emergency services: boating accidents

452. MR THOMPSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — howmany boating collisions and groundings in Victoria, by region, have been investigated by the Water Policefor — (a) 1997; (b) 1998; (c) 1999; (d) 2000; and (e) 2001 to date.

ANSWER:

I am informed that statistical data on the above issues is readily available in electronic format from 1999 to 2001inclusive. Details of boating collisions and groundings for both commercial and recreational vessels is provided inthe table below.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Date Type Number of Incidents1999–2000 Collisions 20

Groundings 362000–2001 Collisions 14

Groundings 552001–2002 Collisions 1

Groundings 7

Statistical data from 1997 to 1999 is not readily available and would have to be located from individual records.This would be extremely labour intensive for Victoria Police.

Regional breakdowns are not readily available for any year as the data base does not record by region and againwould require tracking individual records.

There are approximately 800 records per year and each record would need to be checked individually to ascertain ifit was relevant to the above request. This would require considerable redeployment of Victoria Police resources,which would not seem to be warranted.

Transport: City Link infringements

464. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to infringements on CityLink since the introduction of tolling — what is the — (a) number of infringements; (b) total revenuecollected by month for the following infringement types — (i) speeding fines; (ii) absence of e-tag; and(iii) other infringements; and (c) number and cost of outstanding infringements by month.

ANSWER:

The City Link enforcement system is administered through the Department of Justice and accordingly the questionyou have asked should be directed to the Victorian Attorney-General, the Hon. Rob Hulls, MP.

Transport: W-class trams

466. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to W Class Tram brakeworks —

1. What is the breakdown of costs to date of — (a) government payments; and (b) private operatorpayments.

2. Has an agreement been reached as to when the entire fleet will return.

3. Who will pay for remaining brake works.

ANSWER:

The Government has paid $621,732 as at 30 October 2001 primarily for the purchase of track brakes and newpneumatic brake systems.

This information has been requested from Yarra Trams and will be provided when it becomes available.

No — the focus has been on trialing two trams (one for each company) with the new pneumatic brake. The returnto service will depend on the supply of the new brake equipment and satisfactory completion of trials. It isanticipated that agreement will be reached with the franchisees before the end of December 2001.

The basic principle is that the Government will fund the cost of the new brake equipment and expects thefranchisees to meet the cost of the overhaul of retained equipment.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



473. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to W Class Trams —

1. How many trams are back in service.

2. What are the dates when each tram returned to service.

3. What is the cost of repairs incurred by the Government for each tram returned to service.

ANSWER:

As of 30 October 2001, 6 trams are completed and available for service.

The following list shows dates trams were completed and made available for service.

Tram No Date modification completed

909 10/5/2001842 15/5/2001925 13/8/2001957 24/9/2001728 8/10/20011000 26/10/2001

The Government has not paid costs for individual trams but has paid a total of $621,732 as at 30 October 2001.

Transport: tram insulation

474. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of all occurrencesof the insulation of trams since 1996.

ANSWER:

Swanston Trams have reported 19 incidents between April and May 2000. There have been no incidents since.

Police and emergency services: Barwon South ambulance facility

487(b). MR PATERSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — whetherthe co-location of the Torquay Country Fire Authority fire station and the proposed ambulance facility forBarwon South has been considered and, if so what is the status of such consideration.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Plans are in preparation for the building of a collocated Country Fire Authority/Rural Ambulance Service Victoriafacility at Torquay. The facility will be established on the new CFA land in Grossmans Road, Torquay.

Construction works for the collocated facility are planned to commence early in 2002, with a scheduled completiondate of mid-2002.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Finance: e-procurement program

507. MR PERTON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Finance with reference to KPMG Consulting’s‘Review of government purchasing arrangements’ last year which recommended the Government establishthe online tendering program ‘EC4P e-procurement program’ —

1. Why did it take the Government so long to announce the project.

2. Why will it be two years between the recommendation and the implementation.

3. How will small businesses register to participate.

4. Will there be any cost of registration; if so, what will the cost be.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

There has been no delay in announcing the project. The Review of Purchasing Arrangements includes somerecommendations relating to the EC4P project, but the project was not announced by the Review. Allrecommendations of the Review in relation to EC4P have been implemented.

The EC4P project has not changed the tendering requirements for selection of suppliers to Government. There is norequirement for small businesses to register to participate in EC4P.

A key objective of EC4P is that Departments engage an appropriate mix of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)and regional suppliers. The recently completed DNRE pilot included some seventy SMEs and regional suppliers,out of a total of one hundred suppliers selected for the pilot. Each Department is responsible for determining whichsuppliers, including SMEs and regional suppliers, are engaged and may offer financial assistance to current orfuture suppliers to bring these businesses online.

Police and emergency services: emergency medical response service

508. MR WELLS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services with reference tothe ‘First responder’ emergency medical response service provided by the Metropolitan Fire and EmergencyServices Board — (a) what types of medical emergencies are Metropolitan Fire and Emergency ServicesBoard personnel actually responding to; (b) how much longer will the emergency medical response pilotscheme continue before the program becomes a regular service of the Metropolitan Fire and EmergencyServices Board; and (c) what level of medical training have the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency ServicesBoard personnel attained to date.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The Emergency Medical Response (EMR) Firefighter First Responder program is designed to provide earlyaccess to basic life support skills, particularly defibrillation, in cases of suspected cardiac arrest. Fire Brigadevehicles with First Responder trained crews, are dispatched simultaneously with MAS ambulances totime-critical life threatening medical emergencies focusing on patients who are unconscious and non-breathing(which implies a high probability of cardiac arrest).

The types of calls attended have included — cardiac arrest, severe breathing difficulties, drowning, suicide anddrug overdoses. The services provided by firefighter First Responders’ have included defibrillation, airwaymanagement, CPR and, assisting The Metropolitan Ambulance Service (MAS) with patients on-scene and,when required, en-route to hospital.

(b) In early October 2001, the Minister for Health, The Hon. John Thwaites MP, agreed that the EMR pilot beconfirmed as a continuing program. This followed the release of the assessment of the first twelve month’s

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(February 2000 to February 2001) operation of the pilot program and a recommendation from the SteeringCommittee overseeing the pilot program.

Each of the emergency services involved was advised of the Minister’s approval and asked to inform staffaccordingly.

(c) The medical training and skills set determined appropriate for MFESB First Responders concentrates on thoseprocedures with major value in the first few minutes only. These include performance of an emergency patientprimary survey and vital signs survey, airway management including suction, oropharyngeal airway insertion,oxygen administration and fitting of cervical collars. Defibrillation using a computerised externalsemiautomated defibrillator is also an integral part of the First Responder protocols within the EMR program.

Medical and clinical oversight for the program is provided by an MFESB medical officer and ambulanceparamedics. The MFESB medical officer reports to the Metropolitan Ambulance Service Medical StandardsCommittee.

First Responder training program for firefighters was developed in conjunction with the MAS and delivered bythe Centre for Ambulance and Paramedic Studies at Monash University. The training program comprises of8 days training and is delivered by ambulance paramedic instructors.

Ongoing skill maintenance training and continuing education is incorporated into the operations of the FirstResponder program with support from MAS ambulance paramedics. As appropriate, paramedics undertakeclinical review of cases attended, support and debrief attending firefighters about the operational and clinicalaspects of cases attended.

Currently there are 59 MFB Fire Brigade EMR-capable vehicles, with over 1350 First Responders trainedfirefighters.

Transport: Yarra Trams Collins Street superstops

510. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — (a) what level of communityconsultation has been in place in regard to the Yarra Trams Collins Street superstops; and (b) what are thecommunity consultation arrangements for the remainder of the Route 109 project.

ANSWER:

Yarra Trams have conducted six public and stakeholder forums and four meetings with traders and associatedstakeholders. There have also been presentations to Council candidates for the City of Melbourne and to theOpposition Spokesperson for Transport and Liberal MPs, as well as various meetings with officers and Councillorsof the City of Melbourne.

Details of community consultation arrangements for the Route 109 project are currently being developed. This willinclude the establishment of Community Advisory Groups that will provide advice on local and transport userissues, and to provide a forum for information sharing.

Transport: City Link tolls

511. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport were the following issues raised innegotiations with Transurban Limited regarding the changes as announced on 19 September 2001 whichallowed for the expansion of tolling technology outside the single-purpose agency — (a) the issue of Stateaccess to the tolling system; (b) off-peak concession tolls; (c) lower City Link fines; (d) a royalty payment tothe State instead of a one-off fee; and (e) the Wurundjeri Way compensation; if so — (i) what are the detailsand (ii) why were they not incorporated into the negotiations for the expansion of tolling.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

There was a range of matters discussed with Transurban in the recent negotiations and the announcement by theState and Transurban on 19 September sets out the agreed position between the parties.

There remain matters that are of interest to the State and these will be pursued in different forums. In order tomaximise the benefit to the community in the outcome of any future negotiations, it is not appropriate to revealinformation that may prejudice the State’s negotiating position.

Transport: fare evasion

513. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — with reference to tackling fare evasionon Melbourne’s public transport system — (a) what are the details and outcomes of the Governmentinitiatives; and (b) what are the costs involved.

ANSWER:

The Government takes fares evasion very seriously. In order to tackle the high level of fare evasion, theGovernment is working in conjunction with Franchise Operators who are deploying Customer Service Employeesand Revenue Protection Officers at City Loop Stations, on-board Trams and at outer Metropolitan Stations.

Consistent with its earlier election commitment, the Government has funded 100 Roving Safety Officers onafter-dark rail services and 100 Roving Conductors. The full compliment of staff are now deployed on themetropolitan train and tram network.

The additional staff are fully accredited in the same manner as Revenue Protection Officers and are able to conductticket checks when required to do so.

Franchisees are taking an active part in reducing the level of fare evasion across the metropolitan train and tramnetwork and have increased the level of revenue protection exercises conducted by their staff at city and outermetropolitan stations and on-board trams.

In addition, the Government in conjunction with the Franchise Operators is in the process of developing a strategyto investigate common issues across all franchisees such as:

– fare evasion policies and strategies– staff training and deployment– a consistent approach among operators in dealing with fare evaders– public education about the penalties if commuters avoid purchasing Met tickets.

The strategy will also include conducting surveys to measure levels of fare evasion and to understand the influenceof various factors.

The current cost of the additional 100 Roving Safety Officers and 100 Roving Conductors is $11.7 million for2001/2002. It is important to note, that fare evasion is only part of the overall functions carried out by these staff.

The costs associated with the employment of Customer Service Employees / Revenue Protection Officers is theresponsibility of the franchisees and does not involve any additional funding from Government over and above theexisting subsidy levels.

Transport: Melbourne Airport rail link

516. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — when is the construction of theMelbourne Airport Rail Link expected to — (a) commence; and (b) be completed.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

A decision on when to proceed with a rail link to the Airport has not yet been made. However, this Government hasrecently announced that it will not be proceeding with the Broadmeadow rail corridor as the potential route for anyAirport Rail Link.

The Panels Victoria report favours development of a heavy rail link along the Albion corridor and we are currentlyreviewing the various technical recommendations by that Panel and reviewing cost estimates.

Construction along the Albion corridor and procurement of rolling stock would take approximately three yearsfrom commencement.

Transport: regional fast rail project

523. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Regional Fast RailProject — (a) what environmental issues have been identified which may interfere with the delivery of theproject; (b) are the habitats of the striped legless lizard and warty swamp frog potential problems for theproject; and (c) what has the Government done to provide adequate environmental protection for sensitiveareas.

ANSWER:

No environmental issues have been identified which may ‘interfere with the delivery of the project’. Tenderershave been provided with existing planning, cultural, heritage, archaeological and environmental information thatrelates to the corridors and are required to comply with relevant laws and policies pertaining to these issues.

Further information is required on the habitat of the striped legless lizard and warty swamp frog as it relates to anyof the rail corridors. If these fauna are extant on the corridor(s), the contractor(s) will need to ensure thatappropriate environmental management regimes are put in place.

The Government has approved in principle the requirement for contractors to prepare a Site and EnvironmentalManagement Plan (SEMP) prior to works occurring. The SEMP must take into account all relevant environmentalissues along the corridor during construction and provide details of appropriate management and mitigationmeasures. The SEMP must be prepared in consultation with local government and any other relevant Governmentagency or other normal referral agency, and undergo a peer review from an appropriately qualified person.The SEMP must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Transport: City Link tunnels

534. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the City Link tunnels —what is the monthly summary of the number of hours for which the — (a) Burnley; and (b) Domain tunnelshave been closed for either — (i) maintenance; or (ii) other closures.

ANSWER:

The table attached indicates the periods when the Burnley and Domain tunnels were closed for maintenance orother purposes, as recorded by Transurban’s operator, Translink Operations (TLO).

TLO has advised that the Sydney tunnels under the Harbour are closed for maintenance every six weeks for fiveconsecutive nights. It is an aspect of tunnel operation that the many safety and operational systems require regularmaintenance and performance checks. To ensure the safety of maintenance staff, such work is sometimes carriedout under tunnel closure conditions. Wherever possible, such works are aggregated to make the most efficient useof the period of closure. As a general rule, programmed maintenance is undertaken in the early hours of themorning when the impact of diverting traffic along the old surface routes is least inconvenient.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Burnley Tunnel

January 2001 0.0 Hours

February 2001 161.0 Hours19-Feb-01 to 26-Feb-01 Arch Wall Failure near Fire Box B27

March 2001 14.0 Hours7-Mar-01 21:00 5:00 Preparatory works for repairs to arch wall failure28-Mar-01 0:00 5:00 Establishment of work site at Fire Box B30 for wall rectification

works30-Mar-01 18:30 19:30 Critical Mass protest

April 2001 7.0 Hours11-Apr-01 22:00 5:00 Asphalt Pavement replacement near Fire Box B10, joint sealing and

reinstatement of NJB near Fire Box B33

May 2001 5.0 Hours16-May-01 0:00 5:00 Maintenance (inc. jet fans, toll gantry repairs, joint sealing and tunnel

inspections)

June 2001 12.0 Hours16-Jun-01 22:00 10:00 Removal of work site near Fire Box B30, test of extensometer, various

maintenance (inc drainage flushing, inspection of smoke duct)

Domain Tunnel

May 2000 0.0 Hours

June 2000 5.5 Hours25-Jun-00 22:30 4:00 Maintenance — Inc. Jet Fans and system testing (CCCS)

July 2000–October 2000 0.0 Hours

November 2000 14.0 Hours12-Nov-00 21:00 5:00 Maintenance (inc. jet fans and signage) and systems testing (inc. smoke

dampers, traffic plans, deluge, METS phones, signage) & EmergencyServices tours

26-Nov-00 22:00 4:00 Burnley Tunnel ventilation system test (required Domain system to beshut down), maintenance and AID & RRB system test.

December 2000 and January 2001 0.0 Hours

February 2001 7.0 Hours4-Feb-01 22:00 5:00 Maintenance — Inc. Jet Fans, AM antenna, tunnel lighting, air

monitoring equipment, signage and Tunnel Inspections

March 2001 and April 2001 0.0 Hours

May 2001 7.0 Hours20-May-01 22:00 5:00 Maintenance-Inc. Jet Fans, joint sealing and system testing (CCCS)

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


June 2001–September 2001 0.0 Hours

October 2001 10.5 Hours6-Oct-01 21:00 7:30 Maintenance — Inc. Jet Fans & joint sealing

Transport: Vicroads appointment

535. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the employment of theHon. Mal Sandon at Vicroads —

1. What are the details of the nature of his employment for two periods totalling 28 days.

2. What was he employed to do.

3. What responsibilities did he have.

4. Whether an assessment was made at the conclusion of employment that the task had been completed.

5. What was the selection process for his position.

6. Who was his direct supervisor.

7. Who was responsible for his selection.

ANSWER:

VicRoads employed Mr Sandon as a contractor within the Road Safety Department, at $320 a day, to carry outspecified tasks.

Mr Sandon was employed to:

– assist with the development of a communications strategy and material for the launch of the Victorian RoadSafety Strategy;

– liaise with key stakeholders including Government agencies to facilitate the launch;– assist with identification of major initiatives to be recommended for announcement at the launch;– facilitate a process of public consultation on the proposal to introduce alcohol ignition interlocks.

It is standard practice during provision of services of this nature to hold regular discussions with the contractor toreview progress. This process was applied in this instance.

Mr Sandon was approached by VicRoads who discussed the proposed assignment with him and sought his serviceson the basis of his extensive experience in the area.

His direct supervisor was VicRoads’ General Manager–Road Safety.

VicRoads’ General Manager Road Safety in consultation with the then Chief Executive, VicRoads was responsiblefor his selection.

Transport: Metcard fare evasion

540. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to Metcard ticketing andfare evasion —

1. What was the level of fare evasion in mid 2001 for — (a) Connex Melbourne; (b) M Train; (c) M Tram;(d) Yarra Trams; and (e) metropolitan bus operators.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


2. What ‘differences in survey methodology’ caused the wide variation in levels of fare evasion noted byYarra Trams as opposed to other rail and tram franchisees, as stated in the Minister’s answer to questionon notice 266.

3. What financial resources has the Government committed to pursuing a more uniform approach toconducting fare evasion surveys.

4. How many passengers on — (a) Connex Melbourne; (b) M Train; (c) M Tram; and (d) Yarra Tramsreceived infringement notices from the Department of Infrastructure in — (i) 1999–2000; and(ii) 2000–2001.

5. What was the total value of fines levied by infringement notices issued by the Department ofInfrastructure for — (a) Connex Melbourne; (b) M Train; (c) M Tram; and (d) Yarra Trams in —(i) 1999–2000; and (ii) 2000–2001.

6. What amounts of fines remain outstanding for — (a) Connex Melbourne; (b) M Train; (c) M Tram; and(d) Yarra Trams.

ANSWER:

1. The estimated fare evasion levels in mid 2001 (as reported by the operators) were as follows:

Connex 6.0%M Train 14.2%M Tram 27.7%Yarra Trams 21.6%Buses 1 5.0%

2. The change in methodology by Yarra Trams in measuring the level of fare evasion on it services has been as aresult of the refinement of the method in collecting data. Fare evasion, by its very nature, is difficult to measureaccurately, and estimates can vary significantly, particularly depending on how tightly the system is cordonedoff to prevent non-paying passengers from escaping. The comparative openness of the tram system makesrevenue protection more difficult for that mode. The approaches used by the rail and tram franchisees are beingmade more uniform, to the extent that this is possible, to ensure that information collected is more consistentacross all modes.

3. Under the Franchise Agreement, each operator is required to conduct surveys to determine the level of fareevasion on their network. The Franchisee is required to provide reports to the Director of the levels of fareevasion and any action taken by it to reduce the levels of fare evasion.

In order to tackle the high level of fare evasion, the Government is working in conjunction with FranchiseOperators who are deploying Customer Service Employees and Revenue Protection Officers at City LoopStations, on-board Trams and at outer Metropolitan Stations.

Consistent with its earlier election commitment, the Government has agreed to fund 100 additional StationStaff and 100 additional Conductors over a period of three years. The full complement of staff have bedeployed on the metropolitan train and tram network. The primary role of these staff is to provide a safer and ahuman face to public transport and not specifically to deal with the issue of fare evasion. The additional staffare fully accredited in the same manner as Revenue Protection Officers and are able to conduct ticket checkswhen required to do so.

Franchisees are taking an active part in reducing the level of fare evasion across the metropolitan train and tramnetwork and have increased the level of revenue protection exercises conducted by their staff.

1 An audit of Government subsidised buses is in the process of being conducted. This figure represents the bestavailable estimate at the time.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Although in the past the methodology adopted by transport operators vary from company to company, theDirector of Public Transport has sought common protocols and procedures from Melbourne’s private transportoperators such as:

– fare evasion policies and strategies– staff training and deployment– a consistent approach among operators in dealing with fare evaders– public education about the penalties if commuters avoid purchasing Met tickets

The strategy will also include conducting surveys to measure levels of fare evasion and to understand theinfluence of various factors.

The current cost of the additional 100 station staff and 100 Conductors is $11.7 million for 2001/2002. It isimportant to note that fare evasion is a small part of the overall functions carried out by these staff.

The cost associated with the employment of Customer Service Employees/ Revenue Protection Officers are theresponsibility of the franchisees and do not involve any additional funding from Government over and abovethe existing subsidy levels.

4. The Penalty Enforcement by Registration of Infringement Notice (PERIN) system recordsoffences/infringements, and some offenders have multiple offences. The numbers of Infringement noticesissued are as follows:

1999/00 2000/01Connex 10,380 18,592M Train 24,917 25,690M Tram 19,104 5,983Yarra Trams 10,578 8,704Total 64,979 58,969

5. The amounts provided below are the total face value estimate only. The usual fine is $100, but not allinfringement notices are for this amount. The figures below do not take into account infringement noticeswithdrawn on appeal, juvenile warnings and court elections.

Estimated total value of fines:

1999/00$’m

2000/01$’m

Connex 1.038 1.859M Train 2.492 2.569M Tram 1.910 0.598Yarra Trams 1.058 0.870Total 6.498 5.896

6. The following figures indicate the amounts currently outstanding (including administrative costs) with theDepartment of Justice for 2000/2001.

2000/01$’m

Connex 0.792M Train 0.972M Tram 0.378Yarra Trams 0.387Total 2.529

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Education: Torquay secondary school

543. MR PATERSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Education — what processes has theGovernment instigated to examine the possibility of establishing government secondary schooling inTorquay.

ANSWER:

I am informed as follows:

In 1996, the then Minister for Education, the Honourable Phillip Gude, endorsed a statement that ‘the projectedlong term enrolment of the study area (Torquay, Jan Juc, Bellbrae) is not sufficient to meet current benchmarksand/or criteria to establish a secondary component of a P–10 school, or a 7–10 or 7–12 campus, in Torquay. If thecatchment were to include Anglesea and surrounding areas to the west the student base remains insufficient tomeet the necessary benchmarks and criteria’.

In 1997, an independent consultancy firm, Hames Sharley Holdings Pty Ltd, was commissioned by the Departmentof Education to undertake a school planning provision study for the area of Torquay including Jan Juc andsurrounding areas. The report concluded that ‘based on population estimates and projected student yield there is nodemand in the foreseeable future for the opening of a Government Secondary School within the area’.

With the knowledge of the area gained in the earlier study Hames Sharley Holdings Pty Ltd were againcommissioned by the Department of Education in 1999 to review the 1997 recommendations in the light ofchanges that may have occurred in the study area.

The report, completed in March 1999, states in part: ‘based on these projections there is insufficient demand tosustain a government secondary school within the study area until some time after 2016’.

The Department of Infrastructure projections, published in 2001 indicate that the number of school age childrenwithin the Shire of Surf Coast will, when compared to the current population, decline by 15.24% by 2016.

Police and emergency services: 50 km/h speed limit

545. MR WELLS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services with reference tothe 50 km per hour default vehicle speed limit applied to Victorian roads in built-up areas from 22 January2001 —

1. How many drivers have received traffic infringement penalty notices for breaching the 50 km per hourspeed limit since its introduction.

2. How many vehicles tested by speed measuring devices in 50 km per hour speed zones, in actualnumbers and percentage terms, have breached the 50 km per hour limit since its introduction.

3. How much revenue has been generated from traffic infringement penalty notices for breaches of the 50km per hour speed limit since 22 January 2001.

4. What resources are being allocated to detecting breaches of the 50 km per hour default speed limit.

5. How many hours, in actual number and percentage terms, have been spent in the monitoring of 50 kmper hour speed limit zones by traffic cameras since 22 January 2001, compared with other speed limitzones.

6. What measures are in place to monitor and assess the performance of the 50 km per hour default speedlimit in terms of the actual impact on road trauma in Victoria.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

The 50 kmh speed limit in built up areas was introduced by this Government with the clear intent of reducingVictoria’s road toll. While it was introduced before the formal launch of the Government’s Road Safety Strategy,‘Arrive Alive’, it is a major component of that strategy and one that is obviously required. In the 2001 calendar year80 pedestrians were killed in Victoria, a 31% increase on the previous year.

Another way of thinking about the 50 kmh restriction is to consider the following figures relating to pedestriansbeing hit by vehicles:

Speed of collision Approx. % probability of pedestrian death50 kmh 35%60 kmh 65%70 kmh 90%

Victoria Police is awaiting the report of a research project being jointly undertaken by VicRoads and the MonashUniversity Accident Research Centre on the impact of the 50 km/h default speed limit on road trauma outcomes inVictoria. The data underpinning this research is partly provided by Victoria Police from collision reports.

For details on other components of the Governments Road Safety Strategy I would refer you to the variouspublished ‘Arrive Alive’ documents.

Education: Reading Recovery program

546. MR DIXON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Education — whether there is any franchiseagreement between the Department of Education, Employment and Training, and the ‘Reading Recovery’program; if not — (a) what other form of agreement is there; and (b) what form does either the franchise orother agreement take.

ANSWER:

I am informed as follows: (a) and (b) There is no other form of agreement. There is no franchise agreementbetween the Department of Education, Employment and Training and the ‘Reading Recovery’ program.

Treasurer: Bulleen land tax

556. MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Honourable the Treasurer with reference to properties located inpostcodes — (a) 3105; (b) 3106; (c) 3107; (d) 3108; and (e) 3109 —

1. How many properties are expected to have land tax levied on them in 2001–2002.

2. What is the total expected value of land tax in each postcode for 2001–2002.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Land Tax that will be collected in the 2001–02 year will be largely derived from the issue of the 2002 Land TaxAssessments. Land Tax is assessed on a calendar year basis, and the 2002 calculations will be based on alandowners total land holdings at midnight on 31/12/2001, excluding exempt land.

The 2002 Land Tax assessments are currently being calculated and are not yet publicly available.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Health: Geelong hospital

557. MR PATERSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Health with reference to the GeelongHospital — (a) what action is the Government taking to resolve the declining availability of anaesthetists;and (b) what is the number of surgery cancellations due to the declining availability of anaesthetists.

ANSWER:

a) Barwon Health has advertised, recruited and is in the process of finalising the appointment of 2 additionalfull-time anaesthetists and 3 Visiting Anaesthetists.

b) I refer the Honourable Member to the most recent Hospital Services Report published on the Department ofHuman Services web site.

Health: Barwon Health

558. MR PATERSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Health with reference to the ‘unexpectedgains’ for Barwon Health referred to in the Geelong Advertiser on 31 October 2001 at page 1 — what are thedetails of the $2.8 million of ‘unexpected gains’; and (b) is there an underlying deficit of $1.5 million forBarwon Health.

ANSWER:

Barwon Health does not have an underlying financial deficit of $1.5m. The financial result for 2000–01 was anoperating surplus of $1.5m.

The financial results for 2000–01 did include specific items which totalled $2.8m. These items were separatelyidentified by Barwon Health in its presentation of results to its Annual General Meeting, but cannot be termed‘unexpected gains’.

The items were:

– a downward adjustment in the depreciation provision as recommended by Barwon Health’s auditors; and– the government assuming responsibility for the increased cost of existing long service leave liabilities and

contribution to the increased annual leave liabilities that arose from the nurses and other enterprise bargainingagreements.

Police and emergency services: Mount Waverley police station

560. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services —

1. What was the full-time equivalent staffing level at the Mount Waverley Police Station at — (a) 1 July1999; (b) 1 July 2000; and (c) 1 July 2001.

2. Whether there are any plans to increase the number of police based at Mount Waverley.

3. Whether there are any plans to open Mount Waverley Police Station to the public for longer than normalbusiness hours Monday to Friday.

4. What were the ten most frequently recorded criminal offences, and how many offences were detected ineach category, for the postcodes — (a) 3125; (b) 3128; (c) 3130; (d) 3149; (e) 3150; and (f) 3151 for —(i) 1999–2000; and (ii) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:

I am informed by Victoria Police as follows:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1. The full-time equivalent staffing levels at the Mount Waverley Police Station are as follows:

Senior Sergeant Sergeants Senior Constable /Constables

(a) 1 July 1999 1 3 9(b) 1 July 2000 1 3 10(c) 1 July 2001 1 3 10

2. There are no plans to change the number of police based at Mount Waverley. The level of service provided byMount Waverley police is continually monitored by Region 4 management with a view to maintaining itseffectiveness.

3. There are no plans to change the operational hours at Mount Waverley Police Station. It is currently openfrom 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. The police station may occasionally be open outside these hours, should amember be in attendance while performing other duties.

4. I am informed that the information you seek is publicly available for purchase from the Statistical ServicesBranch of Victoria Police.

Gaming: TAFE courses

561. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Gaming with reference to the responsible gamingcourses —

1. What specific funding has been provided in 2001–2002 for the William Angliss Institute of TAFE orany other Victorian Institutes of TAFE for such courses.

2. How many courses are expected to be held by 31 December 2001 at each TAFE venue.

3. How many participants have enrolled in the course to date, at each venue.

4. What is the charge per participant at each TAFE venue offering the course.

5. Whether any TAFE venues offer discounts for multiple registrations; if so what are they.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. The William Angliss Institute received no funding from the Department of Treasury and Finance. If otherDepartments have provided funding for the initiative then the Honourable Member will need to ask theappropriate Minister.

2,3,4 and 5

For accurate information about the course I suggest you contact the William Angliss Institute directly.

Police and emergency services: Bayside policing facility

569. MR THOMPSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services withreference to the study to identify the most appropriate location of policing facilities to best serve the localcommunity of Sandringham — (a) when will a decision be made regarding policing facility requirements forthe City of Bayside; and (b) the location of such facilities.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed as follows:

The study by Victoria Police is to identify the most appropriate location of policing facilities for the City of Baysideto best serve the local communities. The study is not limited to one specific location. Of course, the scope of thestudy includes the Sandringham area.

The advice as to priorities in the City of Bayside for the development of police facilities will need to be balancedalongside other police requirements across the State.

My current advice is that the review is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

Any subsequent question of where to deploy police and how many police to deploy is an operational decision forVictoria Police.

Police and emergency services: Sandringham crime rate

570. MR THOMPSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what werethe five most frequently recorded criminal offences, and how many offences were recorded in each suchcategory, for the post codes — (a) 3188; (b) 3190; (c) 3191; (d) 3192; (e) 3193; and (f) 3194 for —(i) 1998–1999; (ii) 1999–2000; and (iii) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:

I am informed that the information sought by the Honourable Member is publicly available for purchase from theStatistical Services Branch of Victoria Police.

Police and emergency services: Dromana crime rate

574. MR DIXON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what were thefive most frequently recorded criminal offences, and how many offences were recorded in each suchcategory, for the postcodes — (a) 3936; (b) 3939; (c) 3940; (d) 3941; and (e) 3943 for — (i) 1998–1999;(ii) 1999–2000; and (iii) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:


Treasurer: Knox land tax

575. MR LUPTON — To ask the Honourable the Treasurer with reference to properties located in postcodes —(a) 3155; (b) 3156; (c) 3152; and (d) 3178 —

1. How many properties are expected to have land tax levied on them in 2001–2002.

2. What is the total expected value of land tax in each postcode for 2001–2002

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Land Tax that will be collected in the 2001–02 year will be largely derived from the issue of the 2002 Land TaxAssessments. Land Tax is assessed on a calendar year basis, and the 2002 calculations will be based on alandowners total land holdings at midnight on 31/12/2001, excluding exempt land.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The 2002 Land Tax assessments are currently being calculated and are not yet publicly available.

Police and emergency services: South Barwon crime rate

576. MR PATERSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what werethe five most frequently recorded criminal offences, and how many offences were recorded in each suchcategory, for the postcodes — (a) 3216; (b) 3221; (c) 3227; (d) 3228; and (e) 3240 for — (i) 1998–1999;(ii) 1999–2000; and (iii) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:


Premier: Community Support Fund

578. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to page 128 of the Department ofPremier and Cabinet’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. Which Community Support Fund projects failed to meet the ‘quality’ benchmark

2. Which electorate/s did the Community Support Fund projects that failed to meet the quality benchmarkoperate in.

3. Which Community Support Fund projects were in the five per cent of failing to achieve satisfactoryacquittals by 30 June 2001

4. Which Community Support Fund projects in 2000–2001 failed to have their reporting dates meetperformance agreement time lines.

5. What action has the Government taken to remedy these deficiencies since 1 July 2001.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. 31 CSF funded projects were identified as having come to completion during 2000–2001. Two of theseprojects were considered to not totally meet the quality benchmark in that the original objectives were not fullymet within the time lines and specifications contained in the terms and conditions of grant. The two projectsconcerned were for the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Birchip Cropping Group.

CSF funding was allocated to DHS for a 3 year Community Education program aimed at Problem GamblingHarm Minimisation. In January 2000 the media campaign was discontinued after consultation with theproblem gambling services sector indicated that the message was not sufficiently targeted to achieve an earlyintervention outcome and to engage gamblers in problem gambling services. In response to the perceivedfailure of the original program to achieve its objectives, additional CSF funding was allocated for a revisedproblem gambling strategy and communication program.

Commencement on a project to provide a new business operations centre for the Birchip Cropping Group wasdelayed considerably because of changes in the proposed location and scope of the project. This led toadditional funds being required. The grant recipient introduced the above amendments after the initial CSFapproval of the grant. Agreement to the proposed amendments was subsequently approved and the project hasnow been successfully completed.

2. The CSF database identifies funded projects by local government municipalities. No classification orinformation on projects is available by electorate. The DHS project was statewide and Birchip is in the Shire ofBuloke.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


3. A total of 17 projects were acquitted during 2000–2001. The reporting provided by the Department of HumanServices for a grant provided to that department for a Major Infrastructure for Homeless Youth project wasconsidered to not fully comply with the conditions of grant relating to acquittal of grant. The CSF consideredthat the financial and program reporting provided by the department did not provide adequate informationrelating the outcomes of the project.

4. On occasion during 2000–2001, the receipt of reports as required under the agreed terms and conditions ofgrant have been outside the specified reporting time lines. Follow up requests from the CSF has resulted inreports then being provided within a reasonable period. The delay in the provision of reports has not beenconsidered as significant, nor has it resulted in any material impact on the outcomes of the projects concerned.On several occasions reports from departments responsible for implementation of drug strategy initiatives weredelayed, in part, by the complexity of gathering data from funded agencies.

5. The Community Support Fund monitors the progress on all current projects. The monitoring process caninclude site visits, contact with the recipient organisation, and follow up requests on any outstanding mattersrelating to the project. The procedures relating to reporting and acquittal of CSF grants are being reviewed aspart of the Unit’s annual review process. New reporting requirements have been introduced for CSF fundedprojects being supported under the Government’s Drug Strategy Program.

Transport: Melbourne–Sydney Countrylink passenger services

579. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport —

1. When did financial support for the Melbourne–Sydney Countrylink passenger services commence.

2. How much is being provided by the Victorian Government in 2001–2002 to — (a) Countrylink directly;(b) the NSW Government; and (c) any other providers for these services.

3. Whether the day and overnight services receive an equal subsidy; if not, why.

4. How many passengers were carried on the northbound day and overnight services in — (a) 1999–2000;and (b) 2000–2001 whose journeys originated at — (i) Melbourne Spencer Street; (ii) Benalla;(iii) Wangaratta; and (iv) Albury.

5. How many passengers were carried on the southbound day and overnight services in — (a) 1999–2000;and (b) 2000–2001 whose journeys terminated at — (i) Melbourne Spencer Street; (ii) Benalla;(iii) Wangaratta; and (iv) Albury.

6. What is the lowest number of passengers recorded for the — (a) day; and (b) overnightMelbourne–Sydney services leaving from — (i) Melbourne, for northbound; and (ii) Albury, forsouthbound services within 2000–2001 and what date did this occur in each case.

7. What percentage of passengers departing from Melbourne on each Countrylink service used pensionerfree travel vouchers.

8. What is the average revenue per interstate passenger travelling, excluding pensioner free travel andsimilar vouchers or passes for which Countrylink receives no fare box revenue on the — (a) day; and(b) overnight service.

9. When will the subsidy be reviewed.

ANSWER:

Countrylink has provided all interstate operations to NSW with its XPT service since 1993. Prior to this time bothVictoria and NSW were involved in the provision of interstate services. Both before and after 1993 financialsupport has been necessary to maintain the interstate service.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Under the current arrangement, Victoria pays the State Rail Authority (SRA) of NSW, which operates theCountrylink service, one third of the operating subsidy required to maintain it.

The amount to be paid by Victoria to the SRA for 2001–2002 will not be known until the annual financial result forthe service is determined after June 2002. The subsidy payment for 2000–2001 is $5.37m.

Victoria is also obliged to pay SRA for major upgrades of the XPT train owned by Victoria (but managed andoperated by SRA) when this occurs. Engines in the two power cars were replaced last year by SRA and a paymentis due for this work.

There are no other payments to the NSW Government or to any other provider.

The subsidy paid by Victoria is based on the overall financial result for the interstate service and is not separatedinto a subsidy for the day service and a subsidy for the night service. Information is not available to determine therelative amount of subsidy these two services receive. Patronage is higher on the day service, so that it may beexpected that the subsidy per passenger is higher on the night service.

Separate data on trips made to and from Melbourne, Benalla, Wangaratta and Albury is not readily available, beingheld by Countrylink in New South Wales. In 2000 the total number of passengers either travelling interstate ortravelling within Victoria northbound was 132,800 and southbound was 128,500.

Countrylink has been approached regarding the availability of such data. I will respond directly to the Member forBennettswood when a response from Countrylink is received.

Of northbound services for passengers travelling interstate or within Victoria in 2000, 19.3% of the daytimepassengers and 13.6% of the overnight passengers were travelling under the pensioner free travel authority.

Using total fare box revenue for 2000/01 matched against total patronage for 2000, average revenue per passengertrip, excluding pensioner free travel passengers was $40.00. Data is not available on revenue for each of thedaytime and overnight services or by interstate and intrastate journeys.

Subsidy arrangements are currently under review with Countrylink.

Treasurer: employee satisfaction survey

580. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Treasurer with reference the second employee satisfactionsurvey mentioned on page 14 of the Department of Treasury and Finance’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. What were the five most frequent areas for improvement mentioned by employees in the survey.

2. How much would implementation of each area of improvement cost over a financial year.

3. What steps is the Department taking to address each area of concern.

4. What timeframe applies to the implementation for each of these measures.

5. Who conducted this survey.

6. What was the cost to the Department.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The Department is currently developing a comprehensive Human Resources Strategy for the period 2002 to 2004.The proposed Strategy draws on a range of data, including data from the staff survey. Particular matters addressedby the Strategy will include Organisational Capability, Attraction and Retention, Performance Management and

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Leadership Development. The costs of implementing the Strategy will be integral to the administration of theDepartment.

The survey was conducted by Insight SRC Pty Ltd at a cost of $65,000.

Premier: employment and conduct principles

582(a). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to pages 67 and 137 of theDepartment of Premier and Cabinet’s 2000–2001 annual report and the Commissioner for PublicEmployment’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. Which organisations — (a) failed to comply with the employment and conduct principles expressed inthe Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998; and (b) what was the main reason givenfor this failure by each organisation.

2. Why did the figure of 85 per cent compliance not meet the target of 90 per cent.

3. How many organisations were monitored in 2000–2001.

4. What target for compliance has been set for 2001–2002.

5. How many organisations are expected to be monitored for compliance in 2001–2002.

6. What were the five most common ‘causal factors’ why organisations did not assess themselves as A1or A2 in 2000–2001.

7. By what year and month will systems be put in place to monitor overall organisations’ satisfactionwith development programs.

8. How much is being spent on the monitoring of overall organisations’ satisfaction with developmentprograms in 2001–2002 and what forms does this expenditure take.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1(a) ‘Compliance’ with the Principles, as measured in terms of OPE’s budget output statements, relies onorganisations having documented processes in place. Those documented processes relate to the four areas ofMerit Selection, EEO/Managing Diversity, Avenues of Redress and Conduct Management.

Organisations reporting that they do not have documented processes in place in any one or more of the fourareas, are counted in the 15% not complying. This does not necessarily mean that the lack of documentedprocesses is across all four areas. It simply means that they do not have a full set.

The Commissioner does not publish the individual self-assessment outcomes, as he believes that the existenceof such a ‘league table’ would prove counterproductive.

1(b) The main reason for this compliance ‘failure’, is provided in the explanation to the first part of this question.That is, it is the consequence of the way in which ‘compliance’ has been defined. An organisation need onlyhave no formal processes in one of the four relevant areas, to be counted as not complying.

The one clear attribute of organisations generally associated with their ability to meet the criterion for fullcompliance (ie having formal processes in all four areas), is size. This is shown in Figure 1.13 of theCommissioner’s annual report (page 1.9).

2. The 85 per cent ‘compliance’ rate did not meet the 90 per cent target rate, because an insufficient number oforganisations met the strict criterion outlined in response to question 1(a).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


As the footnotes to this item in both the Commissioner for Public Employment’s and the Department ofPremier and Cabinet’s annual reports indicate, the causal factors associated with the target are largely outsideof the OPE’s (that is, the Commissioner’s) control.

3. For 2000–2001, there were 245 organisations that were subject to the Public Sector Management andEmployment Act 1998 (this figure is reported at page 1.5 of the Commissioner’s annual report and theorganisations are listed at Appendix D to that report).

Of those 245 organisations, 228 were required to complete the Organisation Self Assessment, which is theCommissioner’s means of ‘monitoring’ them in terms of the output measure in question. Organisations with10 or fewer employees are not required to complete the Organisation Self Assessment. Both of these facts arereported at page 1.8 of the Commissioner’s annual report.

At page 1.8 of his annual report, the Commissioner also notes that 17 of the 228 organisations did not meetthat requirement. Those 17 organisations are identified in Appendix D of the annual report. A further8 organisations did not return the required information in time for inclusion in the Commissioner’s annualreport.

4. The compliance target for 2001–2002 remains unchanged. That is, 85%.

5. The number of organisations subject to the Public Sector Management and Employment Act 1998 inevitablyfluctuates slightly from year to year. All of the organisations monitored in 2000–2001 will be monitored in2001–2002, as long as they remain subject to the Act (defined as all public service departments/agencies andall other Victorian public sector organisations that meet the definition of a ‘public authority’ under the Act).Any new organisations with more than 10 employees, meeting these definitional requirements, will also bemonitored.

6. As stated in the response to Question 1, the existence of documented processes in a particular area allows theorganisations to achieve an ‘A2’ rating in that area. The absence of relevant documented processes is the solereason that organisations did not assess themselves as ‘A2’ (‘A1’ goes beyond this, to ‘better practice’hallmarks).

7. Systems to measure organisation satisfaction with development programs will be in place by thecommencement of the next Graduate Recruitment Scheme program, in February, 2002. (The GRS is themajor development program for which the Office of Public Employment has accountability in terms ofcontent and quality).

As measurement will occur at both the early and late stages of the GRS year, data will be available to enablereporting against this budget output measure for the 2001–2002 financial cycle (at 30 June 2002).

8. It is not possible to quantify expenditure on monitoring organisations’ satisfaction with developmentprograms. The systems for measurement identified in the response to the previous question will be developedover the next three months, as part of new contracting arrangements.

Health: Bennettswood — Royal Dental Hospital waiting list

583. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Health — how many Victorians were on thewaiting list for treatment at the Royal Dental Hospital at the end of each month from May 2001 to October2001 inclusive in the postcodes — (a) 3125; (b) 3128; (c) 3130; (d) 3149; and (e) 3151.

ANSWER:

The number of Victorians from the postcode areas on the waiting list for treatment at the Royal Dental Hospital atthe end of each month from May 2001 to October 2001 inclusive in the postcodes — (a) 3125; (b) 3128; (c) 3130;(d) 3149; and (e) 3151 is as follows:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The Number of Victorians on the RDHM Waiting list for Postcodes3125,3128, 3130, 3149 and 3151 as at:

31/05/2001 30/06/2001 31/07/2001 31/08/2001 30/09/2001 31/10/2001598 547 567 569 584 580

Premier: Community Support Fund guidelines

584. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to page 35 of the Department ofPremier and Cabinet’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. When will the Community Support Fund’s published guidelines be ‘revised’ and ‘clarified’.

2. What expenditure is the Department of Premier and Cabinet devoting to this revision and clarification in2001–2002.

3. What is the target number for applications in 2001–2002.

4. What is the target for the percentage of applications approved in 2001–2002.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. It is anticipated that the Community Support Fund revised guidelines material will be released early in 2002.

2. Staff within the CSF Secretariat, as part of their normal duties, have prepared the revised guidelines.

3. A total of 210 applications are anticipated in 2001/02

4. The percentage of applications approved is expected to be 35%.

Premier: Office of Women’s Policy

588(a). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to page 53 of the Department ofPremier and Cabinet’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. Why was the Office of Women’s Policy only consulted regarding 58 per cent of board or committeeappointments in 2000–2001.

2. What percentage of board or committee appointments were the Office of Women’s Policy consultedwith between 1 July and 31 October 2001.

3. How many board or committee appointment has the Office of Women’s Policy been made awareof — (a) in 2000–2001; (b) between 1 July 2001 and 31 October 2001; and (c) or expects to be madeaware of for the remainder of 2001–2002.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The Guidelines for the Appointment and Remuneration of Part-Time Non-Executive Directors of State GovernmentBoards and Members of Statutory Bodies and Advisory Committee were revised and released in April 2001. Theseguidelines make clear the need to consult with the Office of Women’s Policy on all appointments. While the Officewas consulted on 58 per cent of appointments overall in 2000–2001, the Office was consulted on 96 per cent of allappointments in the fourth quarter of 2000–2001 following the release of the revised guidelines.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The Office of Women’s Policy was consulted on 96 percent of all appointments from July–October 2001. TheOffice was made aware of 898 appointments in 2000–2001, and 224 appointments between July–October 2001.While it is possible to predict vacancies where the appointment term is due to expire, a range of other factorsimpact on the number of vacancies in any given year. This includes resignation of board members and theestablishment of new boards and committees. It is therefore not possible to indicate the number of appointments theOffice expects to be made aware of for the remainder of 2001–2002.

State and regional development: VicOne network

590. MR PERTON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for State and Regional Development with referenceto the Minister’s press release of 22 August 2001 regarding the $52 million expansion of the high-speedbroadband network VicOne managed by AAPT —

1. Whether any expansion of the network has occurred since the press release.

2. What — (a) physical infrastructure has been constructed; (b) further services have been offered; and(c) further services have been ordered under the expansion.

3. What benefits have been obtained by the Victorian — (a) public sector; and (b) private sector as a resultof the expansion.

4. How much commercial support for AAPT has the Government pledged in exchange for the expansionof Vic One.

5. How much Government expenditure has been pledged towards the expansion of VicOne.

6. Have any State funds been spent on the expansion of VicOne.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. Since August 22 of 2001, AAPT has built new network infrastructure in Bendigo, Shepparton, Horsham,Ararat, Wangaratta and Bairnsdale as part of the VicOne network. AAPT will continue to expand its networkto other regional areas over the next year.

2.(a) Telecommunications towers and high speed broadband wireless infrastructure has been constructed at each

of these locations and connected to AAPT’s broadband core network.

(b) AAPT’s expanded network offers new services to the Government and business including high speedbroadband data services, video-conferencing services and Internet services.

(c) Each Government agency will make its own decision in respect to additional services to be ordered.

3 (a) & (b). As AAPT rolls out the network, both government and the private sector will have access to highspeed broadband services at reduced prices due to improved competition. A number of private businesses inMelbourne, Geelong, Bendigo, Shepparton, Horsham, Ararat, Wangaratta and Bairnsdale have connected tothe upgraded network and are benefiting from reduced prices for broadband services.

4. In September 1997 the Victorian Government awarded AAPT, by public tender, the VicOne contract to deliverInternet Protocol (IP) network services to Victorian Government agencies for five years. Use of the VicOnenetwork was mandated for all budget sector agencies, which includes government offices, schools, hospitals,police stations and the courts.

5. All Departments and agencies enter into individual contracts with AAPT for the services they use over theentire VicOne network infrastructure.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


6. No — VicOne is owned and operated by AAPT and all capital invested in the network is funded by them.

Premier: synchrotron project

591. MR PERTON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to the Government’s Synchrotronproject —

1. Why is this project being two-thirds underwritten by the State of Victoria instead of by Federalgovernment funding.

2. Whether the project is $57 million short of funding.

3. What agreements are in place with the private sector and academic institutions to provide funding.

4. What budget is in place for recurring costs, future plant upgrades and maintenance.

5. Whether there is a business plan for the project; if so, what are the details.

6. Was there financial support in place at the time of announcement of the project.

7. Whether future financial support is dependent on the project’s building being ready to use.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The synchrotron project is currently on course. On 21 June 2001 it was stated that Victoria would finance up to$100 million of the $157 million project capital cost with the balance derived from a range of other sources.

The Commonwealth Major National Research Facilities program offered a maximum $45 million towards theproject. Even with matching Victorian funding further finance would need to have been found from other sources.

The Victorian Government decision ensures that there will be an Australian synchrotron, which the Major NationalResearch Facilities program could not guarantee, and that the synchrotron will be in the best location at Clayton.This large and extremely complex project requires engineering precision of the highest order and will take fiveyears to complete.

The initial focus has necessarily been on settling the technical design parameters. Other matters, particularlyfinance and construction issues, will then be addressed as was always proposed. Therefore future financialinvolvement in the project by other parties, including the Commonwealth Government, will be addressed soon.

The Victorian Government has gone to the market with a Request for Registration of Interest for projectmanagement services to gauge the capability, willingness and ideas of Australian industry in delivering the project.The Victorian Government will go to the market by early 2002 for advice on how the synchrotron project may befinancially structured consistent with the highly technical nature of the project.

State and regional development: tri-state alliance

592. MR PERTON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for State and Regional Development with referenceto the Tri-State Alliance and the involvement of New South Wales and Queensland —

1. What announcements have New South Wales and Queensland made regarding the Alliance.

2. What resources has Multimedia Victoria applied to the Alliance.

3. Whether the New South Wales and Queensland governments hold any documentation about theagreement to form the Alliance.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. The multi-state alliance concept has proven successful in lobbying for change in Commonwealth policy andprograms. For example, the Television Black Spots program run by the Department of Communications,Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) was heavily modified after a coordinated approach from theStates led by Victoria. Other examples include coordinated approaches to regional telecommunications andICT research and development.

2. Multimedia Victoria maintains a good working relationship with other State Governments and is ever vigilantfor opportunities to work with the NSW and Queensland Governments in situations where State boundaries areirrelevant. Multimedia Victoria services the Alliance from within existing resources.

3. The Victorian Government is unaware of the record-keeping arrangements of other State Governments.

State and regional development: tri-state alliance

593. MR PERTON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for State and Regional Development with referenceto the Connecting Victoria statement, which states that one of the key intentions of this policy statement is toestablish a Tri-State Alliance on regional communications with Queensland and New South Wales —

1. What agreements have been put in place under the Alliance on regional communications.

2. What work has been undertaken under the Alliance.

3. Have there been any meetings of the Alliance.

4. Whether there is a working party or committee responsible for the Alliance; if so — (a) who are themembers; and (b) when has it met.

5. How does the Alliance fit in with, detract or differentiate itself from Federal government efforts.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1. The Tri-state alliance on Regional Communications is now a multi-state alliance. The arrangements are notformalised as various States are involved in different cross-border and national initiatives to varying degrees.

2. The multi-state alliance concept has proven successful in lobbying for change in Commonwealth programs.For example, the Television Black Spots program run by the Australian Department of Communications,Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) was heavily modified after a coordinated approach from theStates, led by Victoria. Other examples include coordinated approaches to regional telecommunications andICT research and development.

3. State government officials have met when and where necessary to address the various cross-border issues asoutlined at point 2.

4. There are no resources committed to a formal working party or committee.

5. The Alliance compliments Federal Government efforts.

Planning: water sources

596(b). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Planning with reference to page 3 of thePlumbing Industry Commission’s 2000–2001 annual report which states that ‘our water resources are

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


limited’ and further ‘it has been estimated that, with our present resources, this demand is not sustainablefar into the next decade’ — how does this statement accord with Melbourne Water’s The Sourcemagazine, edition 16, page 2, which states that new water sources are not required for Melbourne until2040.

ANSWER:

The Source magazine quoted in the question refers specifically to water supply for Melbourne. The comments fromthe Plumbing Industry Commissioner in the Annual Report are not referring specifically to the Melbourne situationbut to the broader issue of a limited resource and the need to conserve this vital resource.

The Plumbing Industry Commission should be commended for its effort in promoting energy efficiency measuresand for increasing the awareness among the plumbing practitioners and the consumers of the benefits of usingwater saving products and installations.

Community services: community visitor appointments

597. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Community Services with reference to pages 38and 39 of the Office of the Public Advocate’s 2000–2001 annual report —

1. How many of the 79 prospective Community Visitors who were undergoing training at 30 June 2001have been appointed as Community Visitors.

2. How many appointed Community Visitors have left the program between 1 July and 31 October 2001.

3. How many appointed Community Visitors were there at 31 October 2001.

4. Has any specific additional funding been provided to the Office of the Public Advocate for furtherrecruitment campaigns in 2001–2002; and — (a) if so, how much; and (b) if not, what expenditure doesthe Office of the Public Advocate expect to commit from existing funding in this area in 2001–2002.

ANSWER:

I am unable to answer this question as it does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities and should be moreappropriately referred to the Attorney-General.

Premier: volunteers festival

598(a). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier —

1. How many volunteer organisations have registered with the Melbourne Museum for free entry fortheir members in conjunction with the International Year of Volunteers Festival on 2 December 2001.

2. What details are volunteer organisations registering for free entry to the Melbourne Museum requiredto supply.

3. Whether the names of volunteer organisation coordinators, their telephone numbers, or other detailssupplied to the Melbourne Museum will be used by the Government or departments and agencies forfuture telephone canvassing, mail-outs, or similar party political promotions.

4. Whether the Melbourne Museum is supplying the Department of Human Services, the InternationalYear of the Volunteers secretariat or Ministers access to the list of volunteer organisations registeredfor free entry to the Museum.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


I refer the Honourable Member to the response in the Legislative Assembly question number 598B provided by theMinister for Community Services.

Community services: volunteers festival

598(b). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Community Services —

1. How many volunteer organisations have registered with the Melbourne Museum for free entry fortheir members in conjunction with the International Year of Volunteers Festival on 2 December 2001.

2. What details are volunteer organisations registering for free entry to the Melbourne Museum requiredto supply.

3. Whether the names of volunteer organisation coordinators, their telephone numbers, or other detailssupplied to the Melbourne Museum will be used by the Government or departments and agencies forfuture telephone canvassing, mail-outs, or similar party political promotions.

4. Whether the Melbourne Museum is supplying the Department of Human Services, the InternationalYear of the Volunteers secretariat or Ministers access to the list of volunteer organisations registeredfor free entry to the Museum.

ANSWER:

1. More than 350 organisations registered with the Melbourne Museum by Friday, 30 November, for free entry tothe Museum for their members in conjunction with the International Year of Volunteers Festival on2 December 2001. Each organisation was asked to nominate the number of volunteers who would attend fromtheir organisation. Melbourne Museum advised that approximately 1000–1500 volunteers were registered totake advantage of the free Museum access.

2. Volunteer organisations registering for free entry to the Melbourne Museum supplied the followinginformation:

– Organisation name– Name of contact person at organisation– Organisation phone number– Estimated number of volunteers requiring free entry to the Museum

3. Melbourne Museum took full responsibility for the process of registering volunteers for the offer of free entryto the Museum on 2 December. Melbourne Museum did not supply registered volunteer contact details to anyother body.

4. Melbourne Museum has supplied a list to the Department of Human Services of the organisations thatregistered volunteers to receive free entry to the Museum. This list provides only the names of the registeredorganisations. The list does not include volunteer contact names, addresses or phone numbers.

Premier: volunteers festival

599(a). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Premier with reference to the — (a) double-sided purplebrochure; (b) invitation; and (c) poster printed for the International Year of Volunteers Festival on 2December 2001 —

1. How many copies of each were produced.

2. What was the cost of the printing of each.

3. Were public tenders let for each; if not, why.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


4. Who printed each document.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

I refer the Honourable Member to the response in the Legislative Assembly question number 599B provided by theMinister for Community Services.

Community services: volunteers festival

599(b). MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Community Services with reference to the —(a) double-sided purple brochure; (b) invitation; and (c) poster printed for the International Year ofVolunteers Festival on 2 December 2001 —

1. How many copies of each were produced.

2. What was the cost of the printing of each.

3. Were public tenders let for each; if not, why.

4. Who printed each document.

ANSWER:

1. There were no official invitations produced for the IYV Festival. The promotional material that was producedincludes an A4 double-sided flyer, an A2 poster and a bookmark. The quantities of each produced was:

– A4 double-sided purple brochure: 92,000– A2 poster: 5,000– Bookmark: 12,000

2. The total cost of printing the above Festival promotional material was $11,110.

– A4 double-sided purple brochure: $6706– A2 poster: $2021– Bookmark: $2383

3. As per Victorian Government Purchasing Board (VGPB) rules the Department obtained three written quotes todetermine the most cost effective and best value price. Public tenders were not required.

4. Each of the above-mentioned documents was printed by Print Bound Pty Ltd.

Transport: Victrack infrastructure works

606. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to page 11 of Victrack’s2000–2001 annual report and the railway stations and associated infrastructure at — (a) Kangaroo Flat;(b) Malmsbury; (c) Creswick; (d) Manangatang; (e) Pirron Yallock; (f) Irymple; (g) Chiltern; (h) Rosedale;and (i) Bridgewater —

1. What is the cost of ‘upcoming maintenance and restoration works’ planned in 2001–2002 for each area.

2. Whether any works have been carried out at each area since 1 July 2001; if so, what is the nature of suchworks.

3. What is the nature of any further works scheduled to be carried out at each area during 2001–2002.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


4. Whether tenders have been called for the leasing of any of the railway stations; if not, why.

5. Whether all the stations are currently unattended.

6. Whether it is possible for some of the stations to be occupied as residences, either through long termlease or sale.

7. Whether any restoration work undertaken will be monitored to minimise vandalism; if so, how will suchmonitoring be undertaken.

8. Whether vandalism at Creswick station has been a problem.

ANSWER:

1. Cost of ‘upcoming maintenance and restoration works’ planned in 2001–2002

Kangaroo Flat $ 180,000Malmsbury $ 60,000Creswick $120,000Irymple $ 40,000Chiltern $ 60,000Rosedale $ 20,000Bridgewater $ 60,000

2. Works carried out since 1 July 2001:

Kangaroo Flat — double-storey section of station building:

Removal of rubbish and fire damaged material, New slate roof (Oregon pitched rafters, New Welsh slate ILOsecond hand slate tiles), roof finishes including fascia and barges, decorative eave corbel brackets and liningboards to eaves, gutters, brickwork repair, two chimney tops rebuilt, 3 new timber framed windows, painting.

Malmsbury

Assessment of structural damage to goods shed roof carried out.

3. Works scheduled to be carried out during 2001–2002

Kangaroo Flat

Completion of restoration of exterior and interior works including — electrical/services installation, ceilingsand render of walls, floors, doors and surrounds, windows, staircase, painting and generally redecorate.

Malmsbury

Works to be determined following assessment of report on goods shed roof.

Creswick

Station building — reslate roof, new verandah sheeting and fascia, rebuild chimney, replace flashings,guttering/downpipes, reglaze windows, brickwork repair, clean brickwork, asphalt resurfacing.

Signal box — new weatherboards, reglaze windows, replace upper level doors, roof repairs, painting andbalcony repair.

Van shed — roof repairs, new weatherboards, painting.

Lamp room — brickwork repair, new door, roof repairs, painting.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Irymple

Discussions presently taking place re: possible relocation of buildings to Redcliffs.

Chiltern

Roof repairs, new galvanised iron roof, new gutters/downpipes, polycarbonate roof sheeting over central ridge,brickwork repairs, repair steps and secure building — in negotiation with Heritage Victoria regarding scope.

Rosedale

Roofing works, internal and external painting and connection to sewer.

Bridgewater

Services, roof repair/clean, gutters/downpipes, fascias, windows, lining boards, replaster walls, painting, latticework, wall repairs, secure outbuildings, re-asphalt platform and general tidy-up.

4. Tenders called for leasing of railway stations:

Kangaroo Flat — station to be advertised along with goods shed after current external works are completed onstation building. Station to be fitted out according to proposed tenants requirements in conjunction withHeritage Victoria.

Malmsbury — station building and goods shed leased.

Creswick — Creswick goods shed is leased. Lease arrangements for the remaining buildings on the siteincluding station are being negotiated.

Irymple — presently vacant but has been advertised.

Chiltern — goods shed to be advertised once the building has been made weather proof. Station building ispresently under offer.

Rosedale — station building and goods shed are leased.

Bridgewater — presently under offer.

5. Stations currently unattended:

None of the stations are currently used for rail operations.

6. Stations leased (or sold) as residences:

All of the stations could potentially become residences.

7. Monitoring following restoration work to minimise vandalism:

Regular site visits are undertaken to check on the condition of stations. It is the intention that once restorationworks have been completed at a particular site the building/s can be leased and hence having a presence on sitewill deter vandals. Between the time that restoration works are completed and the time that a suitable tenant isfound the building will be secured ie. shutters installed on windows and doors.

8. Vandalism at Creswick Station:

The Creswick Station buildings were damaged by vandals earlier this year. At least two separate incidents werereported. In response to the vandalism the buildings were secured to a higher level and are regularly inspected.No further vandalism has been observed since securing of the buildings.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Victrack rail services

607. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to page 4 of Victrack’s2000–2001 annual report —

1. Was the railway line between Mildura and Yelta omitted from the map of the Victorian railwaynetwork.

2. Whether the railway line between Strathmerton and Cobram is currently in use.

3. When did the last train run between Strathmerton and Cobram.

4. Whether the Strathmerton to Cobram section of track is being maintained; if so what — (a) is the cost in2001–2002; and (b) speed are freight trains authorised to run at over this section.

5. Whether there are any plans to dismantle the track between Strathmerton and Cobram.

6. What efforts are being made to encourage rail traffic between Strathmerton and Cobram.

7. When did the last train run between Cranbourne and Nyora.

8. Whether the Cranbourne to Nyora section of track is being maintained; if so what — (a) is the cost in2001–2002; and (b) speed are freight trains authorised to run at over this section.

9. Whether the railway line between Warrnambool and Dennington is still open.

ANSWER:

1. The line from Mildura to Yelta was omitted from the map of the Victorian railway network, as it wasdiagrammatic only and showed only the major centres. Victrack is primarily a land manager. The diagramdepicts major areas of land management as much as it purports to show live operating rail lines.

2. The railway line between Strathmerton and Cobram is under the Freight Australia primary lease and iscurrently closed for operations.

3. The last train ran between Strathmerton and Cobram in February 1996.

4. The Strathmerton to Cobram section of track is on minimum maintenance only, with reserve management andlevel crossings being inspected and maintained. The costs for maintenance are contained within FreightAustralia’s annual maintenance budget, and have not been separated out. When closed, freight trains wereoperating at 80 kph.

5. At this stage, there are no plans for dismantling the track between Strathmerton and Cobram.

6. Currently, Victrack is not aware of any rail freight customers interested in operating on the Strathmerton toCobram line. Rail facilities at Tocumwal adequately handle current rail requirements.

7. The last scheduled service to run between Cranbourne and Nyora was in January 1998.

8. The Cranbourne to Nyora section of track is on minimum maintenance only, with reserve management andlevel crossings being inspected and maintained. The costs for maintenance are contained within FreightAustralia’s annual maintenance budget, and have not been separated out. When closed, freight trains wereoperating at 20 kph. It should be noted that the Government intends to reintroduce the rail passenger service toLeongatha by the end of 2004, as part of the Linking Victoria Project.

9. The railway line between Warrnambool and Dennington is still open.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Police and emergency services: Victoria Police Workcover premiums

612. MR WELLS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services —

1. What were Victoria Police’s Workcover premiums, in actual dollar terms, for the financial yearsended — (a) 30 June 2000; and (b) 30 June 2001.

2. What was the percentage change, compared to budget, in Victoria Police’s Workcover premiums for thefinancial years ended — (a) 30 June 2000; and (b) 30 June 2001.

ANSWER:

I am informed that the difference between the initial premiums of 1999/00 and 2000/01 are attributable to a rangeof factors including, the introduction of the GST, increases in industry rates and wage increases as well asdifferences in claims experience. With the exclusion of claims experience all other increases have been fullysupplemented by government.

The Government, together with Victoria Police, the Police Association and the CPSU/SPSF are working on astrategy to reduce claims. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that stress related claims increased following thedeliberate reduction of police numbers by 800 during the last 3 years of the previous Government. The BracksGovernment has taken steps to address this and I am pleased to report that we have achieved over 10,300 effectivefull-time sworn police (including recruits in training) in Victoria Police as at 17 December 2001. This is upfrom 9,500 on 30 June 1999.


617. MR WILSON — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to page 25 of Vicroads’2000–2001 annual report — what changes to the road system will be made to support the regional fast railprojects between Melbourne and — (a) Geelong; (b) Ballarat; (c) Bendigo; and (d) Traralgon in —(i) 2000–2001; and (ii) 2002–2003.

ANSWER:

(i) No changes will be made in 2001–2002 as the rail projects are in the planning phase.

(ii) Any necessary changes to the road system will be identified in the planning phase for the rail projects.

Transport: tram route 109 project

623. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the response to question470 — (a) how much of the $100 million investment in new ‘low floor’ trams for Yarra Trams is beingprovided by government; and (b) will other private operators be provided with similar support.

ANSWER:

(a) The financing arrangements for all of the rolling stock purchases currently under way were put in place by theprevious Government under contracts signed by the Kennett Government and public transport operators inAugust 1999.

These arrangements involve:

– Purchase of the rolling stock directly by a third party lessor (usually a financier);– Leasing of the rolling stock by the lessor to the relevant franchisee;– The lease entered into will run for 15 years with provision to novate the lease to a succeeding franchisee and

for the Government to buy back the vehicles at the end of 15 years; and

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


– Payment by the Government of a franchise subsidy adjustment on account of the additional lease paymentsincurred by the franchisee.

The franchise subsidy adjustments to be paid by Government were bid by franchisees at the time of the lettingof franchises as was the buy-back price at the end of the lease should the Government wish to pursue thisoption. Assuming that the Government of the day does exercise the option to purchase the rolling stock (orenter into a second long-term lease) the Government contribution will effectively cover the whole of thepurchase price and financing costs.

(b) The funding framework described above applies to all of the private operators purchasing new trams and trains.

Transport: traffic management

625. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the response toquestion 471 —

1. What are the details of the traffic management proposal for — (a) Collins Street in the Melbournecentral business district; (b) Victoria Street, Richmond; (c) Kew Junction; and (d) High Street andCotham Road, Kew, being part of the Route 109 development.

2. What impact will these traffic management proposals have on — (a) parking, (b) traffic speeds at tramstops; and (c) traffic movements at intersections.

ANSWER:

1. The City of Melbourne has responsibility for Collins Street through the Melbourne central business district,including any traffic management proposals associated with construction of superstops by Yarra Trams as partof the Route 109 development.

Details of traffic management proposals associated with the Route 109 development through Victoria Street,Richmond; Kew Junction and High Street and Cotham Road, Kew have not yet been developed. Trafficmanagement measures in these areas will be dependent on the final form of the Route 109 treatments followingthe associated community consultation process.

2. Yarra Trams’ construction of superstops in Collins Street at Swanston Street and of the westbound superstop inat Spring Street has resulted in the removal of 18 on-street parking/loading bays in Collins Street. The proposedeastbound superstop in Collins Street at Spring Street will involve banning the right turn movement fromCollins Street into Spring Street, but is not expected to lead to the removal of any on-street parking/loadingbays in Collins Street. There is no information available on the impacts on traffic speeds at these tram stops.

As final designs and proposals are not yet available, impacts on parking are not yet known. However, parkingand traffic management issues will be key issues discussed with Councils, community and traders groups alongthe route.

Traffic speeds at tram stops will be dependent on the form of stop adopted at particular locations alongroute 109. Tram stops along route 109 will be made compliant with the Commonwealth DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1992, however, the stops may take a number of forms. Where tram commuters are storedin the footpath area (as is currently the case at most tram stops) traffic would by law, still be required to stopwhen a tram is stationary. Where tram commuters are able to be stored within the roadway area (as is the casewith existing ‘safety stops’ and with the new superstops in the Melbourne Central Business District) traffic asis currently the case, would not be required to stop by virtue of there being a stationary tram at the tram stop.

Transport: Metroplan strategy

626. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Metroplanstrategy — (a) what are the costs involved in the development of the strategy; and (b) what is the breakdown

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


which shows the total costs involved in — (i) community forums; (ii) distribution; (iii) printing; and(iv) administration.

ANSWER:

The Government has made significant progress in the development of the Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy. This isthe first major update of the Metropolitan Strategy for 15 years and will provide guidance for the development ofMelbourne and its region for the coming 20–30 years.

The 2000–2001 State Budget included funding of $1.0m in 2000–2001 and $0.5m in 2001–2002 for thedevelopment of the Metropolitan Strategy Initiative. Existing Departmental resources have also been assigned tothe project with the total cost for the project as at October 2001 being $2.7m.

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 TotalsERC Funding N/A $1.0m $0.5m $1.5mDepartmental Budget $0.16m $1.13m $0.15m $1.4mTotal Expenditure $0.16m $2.13m $0.4m

(as at Oct 01)$2.7m(as at Oct 01)

During the periods of October to December 2000 and April and May 2001 over 2,200 people attended the forumsto participate in the development of the strategy. In total there were 33 community forums held in metropolitan andregional Victoria. The total cost to date to provide these valuable forums has been $0.82m. This figure includes thehire of equipment, facilities and facilitators.

The Metropolitan Strategy has generated a number of publications, which have enabled all Victorians to understandthe challenges facing Melbourne’s development, and to contribute to the strategy. The total cost to date for theprinting and distribution of these items has been $0.27m.

The administrative expenses that relate directly to this project to date are $0.23m, this figure includes expense itemssuch as data purchases, telecommunications, travel related and office expenditure.

Transport: rural and regional bus subsidies

627. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the annualfinancial subsidy for Victoria’s rural and regional bus services broken down into payments to each privateoperator for — (a) 1995–1996; (b) 1996–1997; (c) 1997–1998; (d) 1998–1999; (e) 1999–2000; and(f) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:

The information requested is confidential to the individual contract arrangements between Rural and Regional Busoperators and the Department of Infrastructure and therefore cannot be provided in this instance.

The outturn payments in aggregate are available for Rural and Regional Bus Services see below

Year Cost in today’s $$M

1995/96 21.301996/97 23.27

1997/98 21.421998/99 21.331999/00 24.92

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Year Cost in today’s $$M

2000/01 24.40

Note that ERC funding for airconditioning and student revenueissues was included in the base contract from 1999

Transport: metropolitan bus subsidies

628. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the annualfinancial subsidy for Melbourne metropolitan bus services broken down into payments to each privateoperator for — (a) 1995–1996; (b) 1996–1997; (c) 1997–1998; (d) 1998–1999; (e) 1999–2000; and(f) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:

The information requested is confidential to the individual contract arrangements between Metropolitan Busoperators and the Department of Infrastructure and therefore cannot be provided in this instance.

The outturn payments in aggregate are available for Metropolitan Bus Services (see below).

Years Cost in today’s $

1995/96 204.611996/97 196.801997/98* 198.911998/99 203.731999/00 205.612000/01** 208.30

Note : Bus contracted services were managed by PTC and DOT in the years prior to June 1996

1997/98* MBL won the tender for Government bus contract and started operating in April 1998.

1998/99 The full year impact of MBL took effect in 1998/99.

2000/01** The volatility of world fuel prices and unexpected increases in Wage oncosts contributed to anincrease in budget outturn.

Note: ERC funding for new services and airconditioning was included in the base contract from 1999.


630. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to costs for the regionalfast rail project —

1. What are the details of the additional costs which have been identified by the Rail Projects Group of theDepartment of Infrastructure which exceed the Government’s allocation of$340–$380 million towards the regional fast rail project.

2. What are the details of the commitment by the Government to funding these additional identified costs.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

1. As set out in the Request For Tender (RFT) documentation, the Nett Present Value (NPV) of theGovernment’s $550M commitment is $430M as at 1 July 2000 at a discount rate of 8.65% (nominal). Thiscommitment is intended to fund infrastructure upgrades; infrastructure related costs such as land acquisition (ifrequired) and track occupations; and non-infrastructure elements such as the incremental cost of the new higherperformance rolling stock and service subsidies for new regional fast rail services.

2. Further disclosure of the budget breakdown at this stage would prejudice negotiations to be held with theoperating franchisee, the lessee of the track and the preferred bidders, and hence is considered ascommercial-in-confidence.


631. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the maximumGovernment commitment to the regional fast rail project.

ANSWER:

The Government’s commitment to the Regional Fast Rail Project is $550 million.

Transport: City Link concession fees

634. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the write downof $63 million in concession fees receivable by the Melbourne City Link Authority in 2000–2001, asdescribed in the 2001–2002 Financial Report for the State of Victoria.

ANSWER:

This change was fully described in the Authority’s 2000/2001 Annual Report, at page 9 and in Note 12 to theFinancial Statements, page 59.

In 1999/2000, the Authority in preparing its statements, assumed that Transurban would be successful in its disputewith the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about the deductibility of Concession Fees.

However, during 2000/2001, the ATO rejected Transurban’s formal objection and little progress was made on thematter through the courts. It is very likely that the dispute will be drawn out. Given the uncertainty of the outcomealong with now certain delay involved, the Authority has now adopted a more conservative approach to thevaluation of the Concession Fees and has assumed that Transurban will not be successful in its court action.

The change in policy adopted by the Authority manifests itself as a write down of the present value of the notes atthe 30 June 2000 from $103.3 million to $40.6 million.

Under the arrangement negotiated by the former Kennett Government, the State carries a risk that the value of theConcession Fees will be impacted by Transurban’s financial performance.

Transport: City Link outstanding issues

635. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the City Link project —

1. What outstanding issues remain.

2. What are the details of the compensation which may be payable as described in the 2001–2001 FinancialReport for the State of Victoria.

3. What action is being taken by the Government in the resolution of the outstanding issues.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


4. Why have these not been resolved at various stages of the negotiation process, such as the $10 millionrelease from a single purpose entity.

5. What mechanisms are in place to prevent significant losses to the State.

ANSWER:

In a project of the size and complexity such as the City Link, there are always a range of matters under discussionfor resolution. In construction terms, the major issues to be resolved include:

– the resolution of remaining minor defects and omissions identified by the Office of the Independent Reviewer(OIR) at Completion. The OIR was of the opinion that these works did not impact on the full and safe operationof the Link. Most of these matters have now been resolved under the defects correction provision of theConcession Deed;

– additional enhancements to the Burnley Tunnel that have been identified by Transurban’s contractor followingthe failure in a panel of an arch in the tunnel in February 2001. These works are being undertaken fromDecember 2001 at the cost to the contractor; and

– finalisation of a ground water strategy to manage the impact on surface assets due to accelerated settlement. Thestrategy can only be determined when the ground water recharge has reached equilibrium.

These matters are outlined in the 2000/2001 Annual Report of the Melbourne City Link Authority (pages 6–17). Inaddition, the Authority lists a number of work fronts that will need to be addressed over the coming year (ChiefExecutive’s Report, page 7).

Compensation matters referred to in the 2000/2001 Financial Report for the State of Victoria concern land and aMaterial Adverse Effect (MAE) claim by Transurban of $35.8 million received by the State in February 2001. Thisclaim relates to the decision of the Kennett Government to construct the North–South Road and make otherchanges to the road network in the Docklands area. The Bracks Government is now endeavouring to minimise anyexposure to taxpayers this has created.

Land compensation details are outlined in the Authority’s Annual Report (page 27) and relate to the acquisition ofland for the project. As stated in the Report, during the year, 11 claims for compensation were settled bynegotiation, 14 claims remain outstanding and two cases were suspended due to expiry of time. The outstandingclaims with private landowners will be dealt with through negotiation and some may be resolved through theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) or through the courts. These matters are unrelated to theState’s recent agreement with Transurban concerning Transurban’s release from single purpose entity.

As you would be aware, the agreement between the Bracks Government and Transurban concerning Transurban’srelease from single purpose entity was the outcome of discussions between the two parties. The agreement enablesthe company to take part in other projects and at the same time benefits the Victorian community through thedevelopment of new export industries and the promotion of Melbourne as an international centre of tolling andIntelligent Transport Systems (ITS) technology.

As you would be aware, amendments to Transurban’s Concession Deed to release it from single purpose entitywere tabled last October in both Houses of the Victorian Parliament and were passed in both Houses of Parliamentwithout opposition.

State management of the Concession Deed has been carefully considered by the Bracks Government in the periodbefore the wind-up of the Melbourne City Link Authority. The Board of the Authority finished its appointment on31 December 2001.

In recognition of the importance of the management of the Concession Deed, the Government has established theDirector, Melbourne City Link as an appropriate long-term administrative structure to oversee the project.

As you would be aware, legislation was introduced in November into Parliament to establish the statutory positionof Director, Melbourne City Link, to be employed under part 3 of the Public Sector Management and EmploymentAct 1998, within the Department of Infrastructure. This legislation took effect from 1 January 2002.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The Director, Melbourne City Link, is responsible for the State management of the Concession and to ensure thatpublic safety, operational and commercial issues are addressed.

By establishing a statutory function to the Director, Melbourne City Link, the Government has ensured a clearaccountability for the State’s interests in the project.

Transport: city loop capacity

636. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport —

1. What is the capacity of the City Loop system.

2. What is the current volume on the City Loop system.

3. What measures have been undertaken to endure future capacity can be met.

4. What alternatives are being investigated for the City Loop service.

ANSWER:

1. The City Loop has 4 separate tracks and has a signal headway at 130 seconds at line speed of 60 kph.

Based on a 180 second headway (which includes 130 signal headway plus 50 seconds for dwell times to loadand unload passengers) the capacity of each of the four tracks is approximately 20 services per hour.

2. Currently each of the tracks through the City Loop carries about 16–18 services per hour during the AM peakperiod. The total number of services operating through the City Loop is 4,608 per week.

3. There are no current measures being undertaken other than planning exercises to address future capacity.Achievement of long term objectives to increase the use of public transport in Melbourne will inevitably placeincreasing pressures on the inner part of the rail network. The Northern/Western access needs to provide forservices to major suburban growth areas (such as Werribee and Sydenham) as well as to Geelong, Ballarat andBendigo and will be a major pressure point in the years ahead.

4. In the long term, consideration will need to be given to providing additional rail capacity in and around centralMelbourne. Options may include major resignalling programs and construction of new tracks.

Transport: Infrastructure operating expenses

640. MR LEIGH — to ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport —

1. Why has the Department of Infrastructures operating expenses risen from $838 million in 1998 to$2.377 billion in 2001.

2 What is the itemised breakdown of this increased expenditure and where was the money allocated ineach year since 1998.

ANSWER:

The basis for the significant increase in expenditures relates to ‘changes to accounting policies’ effective from the1998/1999 year and were summarised in the audited financial statements under Note 1(c) and Note 7 of the1998/1999 Annual Report.

The changes were as a result of the implementation of Accrual Output Based Management (AOM) which wasintroduced by the former Government under changes to the Financial Management Act 1994 during the1998/1999 year. Three information booklets with regard to the AOM changes were released by the Department ofTreasury and Finance to coincide with the new reporting requirements (see attached copies).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


In 1997/1998 and prior years, funding and budgeting were based on cash costs only. In 1998/99 and onwardsoutput costs were higher due to the inclusion — for the first time — of non-cash items. Depreciation expensewhich is a significant non-cash item, therefore impacts on both the revenue (funding) and expenditure (purchase ofoutputs) sides of the Statement of Financial Performance.

Activities which were previously classified as ‘administered’ in 1997/1998 are now treated as ‘controlled’ activitiesin the provision of outputs and other activities which were previously classified as ‘controlled’ in 1997/1998 arenow treated as ‘administered’. These changes are reflected for the first time in 1998/1999 and onwards in theStatement of Financial Performance. As such there was also a transfer of expenditures between ‘administered’ and‘controlled’ disclosure within the audited financial statements.

Note 1(c) of the audited financial statements for the 1998/1999 year clearly itemises the major impacts of theexpenditure changes on the audited financial statements in the first year following the introduction of AccrualOutput Based Management. This reflects the basis for the significant increase to the 2001 year. These changesbecame effective from the 1998/1999 year for State Budgets and annual financial reporting of departmentaloperations under the Financial Management Act.

The major impacts as a result of the changes (as itemised in Note 1(c) of the 1998/1999 Annual Report financialstatements) are:

– Expenditure for the purchase of road, rail, bus and marine services (reflecting the impact of the inclusion ofnon-cash items, eg. depreciation and items previously treated as ‘administered’, now ‘controlled’) —$1.6 billion — as follows:

Extract from Note 7 — 1998/99 financial statements‘7. Expenditure on Road, Rail, Bus and Marine Services

1999 1998 Difference($’000) ($’000) ($’000)

Government rail services 828,160 6,480Government road services 739,345 –Private bus and rail services 222,071 205,540School bus contracts 101,402 96,070Multipurpose taxi 32,668 29,341Non-electrified track services 40,220 29,764Other 3,789 785

1,967,655 367,980 1.6 billion(approx)

Activities which were previously classified as ‘administered’ in 1998 are now treated as ‘controlled’ activities inthe provision of outputs (see also Note 1(c) and 1(d).’

Commonwealth funding on-passed to Local Councils (previously treated as ‘controlled’, now ‘administered’) —$289 million.

[Attachment referred to in answer has been supplied to honourable member and a copy tabled in the parliamentarylibrary.]

Transport: Infrastructure salaries

641. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the $2.409million increase in salaries as described in the 2001–2002 Financial Report for the State of Victoria itemisedby — (a) each sector within the Department of Infrastructure; and (b) each salary classification level.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

The 2001–2002 Financial Report for the State of Victoria has not yet been produced therefore, the Department ofInfrastructure is unable to provide an answer.

Transport: Infrastructure liabilities


1. What are the details as to why the Department of Infrastructure’s total liabilities has risen from$31.7 million in 1999 to $139.4 million in 2001.

2. What are the itemised details of the breakdown of creditors and the details of what is owing.

ANSWER:

The audited financial statements of the Department of Infrastructure show total liabilities in 1998/1999 of$61.7 million (not $31.7 million as stated in the Question) which has increased to $139.4 million in 2000/2001.

This increase reflects the activities of the ‘Director of Public Transport’ established under the Transport Act by theformer Government, and which was effective for the first time in the 1999/2000 financial year. The Director’spowers and functions include responsibility for the general administration of the tram and train service contractswhich transferred to private operators from the State owned rail corporations in August 1999. This is summarisedin the audited financial statements under Note 1(b)(ii) of the 1999/2000 Annual Report.

Essentially, the increase in liabilities relates to the creditors and accruals relating to the activities of the Director ofPublic Transport which did not exist in the 1998/1999 year. Prior to the franchising of the public transport services,the creditors and accruals relating to these services were essentially reflected in the four Met (train and tram)entities and the Public Transport Corporation. However, under the revised public transport arrangements thesecreditors and accruals now appear in the accounts of the Department of Infrastructure.

The nature of the goods and services provided but not yet paid reflects mainly payments due to the tram, train andbus operators for metropolitan and country public transport rail and bus services (including school bus) and also theimpact of GST payable for the first time at year end. Goods and services also include payments for railinfrastructure capital works, concession payments, special events, and the operational performance regime systemcosts.


Transport: Infrastructure revenue

643. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the minister for Transport —

1. Why has the revenue of the Department of Infrastructure risen from $513 million in 1998 to $2.306billion in 2001.

2. What is the itemised breakdown of this increased revenue in each year since 1998.

ANSWER:

The total operating ‘revenue’ of the Department was $841 million in the 1997/1998 year and $2.452 billion in the2000/2001 year.

The basis for the significant increase in revenues relates to changes to accounting policies effective from the1998/99 financial year and which were summarised in the audited financial statements under Note 1(c) of the1998/1999 Annual Report.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The changes were as a result of the implementation of ‘Accrual Output Based Management’ (AOM) which wasintroduced by the former Government under changes to the Financial Management Act 1994 during the 1998/1999year. Three information booklets with regard to the AOM changes were released by the Department of Treasuryand Finance to coincide with the new reporting requirements (see attached copies).

In 1997/1998 and prior years, funding and budgeting were based on cash costs only. In 1998/1999 an onwards,output costs were higher due to the inclusion — for the first time — of non-cash items. Depreciation expensewhich is a significant non-cash item, therefore impacts on both the revenue (funding) and expenditure (purchase ofoutputs) sides of the Statement of Financial Performance.

Activities which were previously classified as ‘administered’ in 1997/1998 are now treated as ‘controlled’ activitiesin the provision of outputs and other activities which were previously classified as ‘controlled’ in 1997/1998 arenow treated as ‘administered’. These changes are reflected in the Statement of Financial Performance from1998/1999. As such there was also a transfer of revenues between ‘administered’ and ‘controlled’ disclosure withinthe audited financial statements.

Note 1(c) of the audited financial statements for the 1998/1999 year clearly itemises the major impacts of therevenue changes on the audited financial statements in the first year following the introduction of Accrual OutputBased Management, i.e. this reflects the basis for the significant increase to the 2000/2001 year. These changesbecame effective from the 1998/1999 year for State Budgets and annual financial reporting of departmentaloperations.

The major impacts as a result of the changes (as itemised in Note 1(c) of the financial statements in the 1998/1999Annual Report) are:

‘Appropriation’ funding for purchase of outputs (reflecting the impact of the inclusion of non-cash items, e.g.depreciation and items previously treated as ‘administered’, now ‘controlled’) — $1.6 billion — as follows:

Extract from Note 7 — 1998/99 financial statementsFunding required for expenditure on road, rail, bus and marine services

1999 1998 Difference($’000) ($’000) ($’000)

Government rail services 828,160 6,480Government road services 739,345 –Private bus and railservices

222,071 205,540

School bus contracts 101,402 96,070Multipurpose taxi 32,668 29,341Non-electrified trackservices

40,220 29,764

Other 3,789 7851,967,655 367,980 1.6 billion

(approx)Activities which were previously classified as ‘administered’ in 1998 are now treated as ‘controlled’ activities inthe provision of outputs (see also Note 1(c) and 1(d).

Commonwealth funding for on-passing to Local Councils (previously treated as ‘controlled’, now‘administered’) — $289 million.


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Infrastructure/Vicroads road services

644. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable Minister for Transport —

1. What road services was the Department of Infrastructure responsible for in 2001 which was not theresponsibility of Vicroads.

2. What is the itemised breakdown of where $808 million was spent on road services, as shown in theDepartment of Infrastructure’s 2000–2001 annual report.

ANSWER:

The road services for which the Department of Infrastructure was responsible in 2001 which were not theresponsibility of VicRoads are:

– Docklink Road Extension– Docklands North South Road

The itemised breakdown of expenditure on road services as shown in the 2000/2001 DOI Annual Report is asfollows:

Output Group Output $M

Support for Local Government Grants Funding for Public & other LocalGovernment Services

6.6

Balanced Planning & Environment System Environment Strategies & Initiatives 1.8

Regional & Rural Transport Infrastructure Major Regional Road Projects 83.6Regional Arterial Road Links 67.5Regional Road Network Maintenance 134.5

285.6

Metropolitan Transport Infrastructure Major Metropolitan Road Projects 89.1Metropolitan Arterial Road Links 110.8Metropolitan Road Network Maintenance 136.5

336.4

Transport Safety and Accessibility Accessible Transport Initiatives 2.8Accident Blackspots 32.6Traffic & Road Use ManagementImprovements

25.2

Vehicle and Driver Regulation 77.7Road Safety Initiatives and Regulation 40.3

178.6

TOTAL 809.0*

* Difference to $808,962 as shown in Annual Report, Page 101 is due to rounding.

Transport: Infrastructure outcomes

645. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Department ofInfrastructure —

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1. What processes have been established at the Department to shift the focus from systems to outcomes, asdescribed in the Department’s 2000–2001 annual report.

2. What restructuring has been undertaken to facilitate these changes.

3. What measures have been developed to assess the outcomes.

4. What arrangements are in place to reward the desired outcomes.

ANSWER:

1. The DOI outcomes framework provides the basis for delivery of DOI’s outputs and services to meet theGovernment’s policy objectives.

DOI’s outcomes are:

– Public safety– Regional development– Seamless freight and logistic system– Travel, mobility and access– Liveable communities– Local governance– Infrastructure delivery and management

These outcomes enable the Department and its agencies to maintain and communicate a shared focus within achanging environment. They provide an integrating framework for the activities of different parts of theDepartment and between the Department and portfolio agencies. Management by outcomes also helps theDepartment to aim for innovative solutions, rather than improving output delivery through incremental change.

The Department has developed a Corporate Governance approach. This provides a matrix structure forefficient decision making, appropriate resource allocation and strategic planning for desired governmentoutcomes.

The eight Executive Directors are each responsible for a) a division, b) region c) outcome and d) corporateaccountabilities.

Outcome teams have been established for each of the outcomes groups.

2. There has been no formal restructuring of Divisions within the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) in responseto these changes, but the Department has undertaken significant reorganisation of administrative and procuralpractices to effectively implement its outcomes focus. As mentioned above, DOI’s eight Executive Directorseach have a range of matrix responsibilities (ie. Divisional, regional, outcome and corporate accountabilities),and an Outcome Secretary has been appointed to each of the seven outcome groups to monitor and report onprogress against targets.

DOI’s business planning processes are structured around the outcome groups, and the Department’sperformance planning and management processes are closely linked to its business and corporate planning.

3. Performance indicators and targets have been published in the Corporate Plan (copy attached). The CorporatePlan which was released in April 2001 sets out the vision, mission, values, corporate planning framework,outcomes approach, corporate objectives, indicators and strategies under each outcome, the strategies toenhance organisational capability and the corporate governance framework.

4. The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) has developed a Performance Management system which aims torecognise the contributions of staff to the Department’s performance and to enhance individual performanceand career potential. It also provides a framework for the planning and monitoring of work and for thecommunication needed for ongoing individual and team performance improvement. The Performance

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


management system links individual performance with the Department’s Corporate and Business Plans andtherefore links to the Departments Outcomes and Objectives. It also:

– Facilitates the planning of work by individuals and teams.– Facilitates improved performance through better communication between managers and staff.– Enables staff to develop the competencies to meet current and future work requirements.– Recognises staff achievements and reward these appropriately.

Transport: integrated transport measures


1. What is the Government doing to introduce ‘integrated transport’ measures to Victorian and Melbournetransport systems, as described in the Infrastructure Planning Council Interim Report.

2. What are ‘integrated transport’ measures.

3. How will the Government implement the ‘integrated transport’ measures to Victorian and Melbournetransport systems.

ANSWER:

The Bracks Government established the Infrastructure Planning Council as an independent body, in May 2000, toadvise the Government on Victoria’s future infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. The Council bringstogether a diverse range of experiences and expertise covering engineering, business and finance, and rural,regional and urban issues.

The work of the Council is focused on four areas of infrastructure: transport, water, energy, andtelecommunications. Its Interim Report, released in October 2001, gives Victorians an opportunity to take part in apublic discussion about the State’s long term infrastructure needs.

The Interim Report builds on the Government’s $3.5 billion of infrastructure projects already under way or in thepipeline. It highlights some common themes in each of the four areas of infrastructure and presents the Council’spreliminary findings and proposals for public feedback.

The Council will provide its final report for consideration by the Government during 2002. The Government willthen provide its response taking into account the views expressed as part of the community consultation process.

Integrated measures the Government is pursuing include:

– Integration of transport facilities with adjacent land use to improve accessibility to jobs, services and otheropportunities.

– Development of intelligent transport systems, which integrate transport tasks and information systems toincrease service levels and efficiencies through real time information for public transport and travel routes.

– Development of integrated transport strategies comprising an optimum mix of passenger and freight transportmodes.

– Intermodal interchange facilities, for example bus interchanges at rail stations.

The Government is taking an integrated planning approach to improving the State’s transport infrastructure. Its‘Linking Victoria’ strategy provides a forward program to upgrade and enhance the State’s rail, road and portssystem in partnership with the private sector. The Government has continued its commitment to improving theefficiency, accessibility and safety of Victoria’s transport network with more than $1 billion allocated over fiveyears for transport initiatives in the 2001–2002 Budget. A key focus of this Budget is to:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


– Upgrade public transport to deliver environmentally sustainable outcomes and reduce car dependency. TheGovernment’s Transit Cities Program will design and develop urban precincts around key transport nodes toimprove the interaction between land use and transport.

– Upgrade Victoria’s economic infrastructure — to provide efficient freight links for industry to Victoria’s ports,the interstate road and rail system, and the national and global economies. Improving rail freight access toVictorian ports and container terminals through rail gauge standardisation will significantly improve the freightand logistics system between modes of transport and the production chain.

Other initiatives being undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure that pursue integrated transport outcomesinclude:

– An integrated public transport strategy (train, tram and buses).

– A Freight and Logistics Strategy: improving intermodal rail/road facilities and increased rail freight access toports.

– The Victorian TravelSMART Program which aims to reduce the negative impacts of car travel through areduction in vehicle trips and kilometres travelled, achieved through voluntary changes by individuals,households and organisations towards more sustainable travel choices. More sustainable travel can be achievedthrough: smarter use of the car; lessening the need for travel by encouraging use of local activities, shops, andservices, and doing more things in the one location; and encouraging walk, cycle, use of public transport andride-sharing.

Complementary programs include, Travel Smart — Better Ways to Work, Travel-On, Every Trip Counts,Walking Bus. All these initiatives are aimed at promoting better ways to travel through promotion, educationand experience.

– Implementing the new residential development code (Rescode) which includes changing the subdivisiondevelopment component to make it more public transport, walking and cycling focused in line with theneighbourhood character.

Transport: Nicholson Street, Essendon

650. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the closure of NicholsonStreet, Essendon —

1. What works are being undertaken or considered for Nicholson Street.

2. What consultative process has been established for this street closure to occur.

3. What process has been developed to allow local residents’ views to be heard and incorporated in thefinal assessment.

4. Whether a final decision has been made on the street closure.

ANSWER:

The matters raised in the question do not fall within the Minister for Transport’s portfolio responsibilities asNicholson Street, Essendon is a local road and the responsibility of the Moonee Valley City Council.

Transport: train and tram maintenance

652. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what were the levels of maintenanceeach month since the introduction of franchising in 1998 for — (a) V/Line; (b) M Tram; (c) M Train;(d) Connex; and (e) Yarra Trams.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

The Franchise Leases commenced on 29 August 1999.

Under the terms of the franchisees’ Infrastructure Leases with the Government, the franchisees are obliged toprovide an annual Asset Management Report. This report must include Actual annual expenditure on maintenanceworks. However, this information is not required on a monthly basis. Therefore, the Department on Infrastructuredoes not record the franchisees’ maintenance expenditure by month.

The following summarises the franchisees’ annual expenditure on maintenance of core infrastructure by asset class.National Express Group Australia (M Train and M Tram) reports on a calender year and therefore information isonly available to 31 December 2000.

(a) V/Line Passenger planned maintenance expenditure on station buildings in year 2000 was $170,000.Information for reactive maintenance is being sought.

(b) M Tram Maintenance Expenditure from Aug 99 to 31 December 00

Track $3.5mBuildings and Structures $1.1mPower $2.6mSignalling $0.2mCommunications $0.5mTotal $7.9m

(c) M Train Maintenance Expenditure from Aug 99 to 31 December 00

Track $12.4mBuildings and Structures $11.4mPower $3.8mSignalling $10.5mCommunications $2.0mTotal $40.2m

(d) Connex Maintenance Expenditure from Aug 99 to 30 June 01.

Track $7.4mBuildings and Structures $5.5mPower $12.8mSignalling and Communications $15.5mTotal $41.2m

(e) Yarra Trams Maintenance Expenditure from Aug 99 to 30 June 01

Track $4.7mBuildings and Structures $0.8mPower $5.6mTotal $11.1m

Transport: public transport ombudsman

653. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Public TransportOmbudsman — (a) what progress has been made towards the establishment of the Public Transport

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Ombudsman, since revealed in August 2001; and (b) what processes and avenues to appeal will be availableto commuters and how will this fit into the current system.

ANSWER:

(a) The options for proceeding to establish a Public Transport Ombudsman are being considered at this stage.

(b) The processes and avenues of appeal that should be made available to commuters and how this will fit into thecurrent system, will be considered as part of the consideration of the appropriate options for proceeding.


657. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what is the Government’s —(a) financial; (b) bureaucratic; and (c) technical contribution towards the Yarra Trams’ Route 109 Projectand — (i) what is the breakdown of the funding and other assistance provided; and (ii) what are the areaswhere these resources are being allocated.

ANSWER:

Tram 109 is a major project with many elements. The project is being coordinated by the Department ofInfrastructure with project management by VicRoads and delivery of some elements by Yarra Trams under itsfranchise agreement with the Government. The full program of works, which is currently being developed, includesYarra Trams franchise commitments for the Box Hill tram extension and elements of its Superstop and tram stopenhancement program.

The Box Hill tram extension project, as one component of Tram 109, is a Yarra Trams franchise commitment.Yarra Trams is managing the delivery of this project and under the Franchise Agreement the Government willmake a contribution of $14M towards the cost of the project. In addition the Government is required to deliver andfund the acquisition of land required for the project. The Government has also agreed to contribute $1M towardsthe $1.76M cost of the following enhancements proposed by Yarra Trams:

– Rubber boot resilient track– Grassed track– Weight tensioned overhead– New left turn slip lane at Elgar Road

The Government has also agreed to contribute $300,000 towards the cost of a significantly enhanced terminus atBox Hill including enhanced connection between the tram terminus and the train and bus stations. The detaileddesign for the terminus is being developed by Yarra Trams.

Yarra Trams is implementing its $4.8M franchise commitment for the construction of Superstops and tram stopenhancements. The Collins Street Superstops at Swanston Street have been completed as part of this commitmentand the Spring Street stops have commenced.

Transport: intersection treatments

660. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to intersections treatedwith skid resistant materials — what intersections were treated in 2000–2001, and what intersections will betreated in 2001–2002 in the cities of — (a) Kingston; (b) Ballarat; (c) Bendigo; and (d) Geelong.

ANSWER:

(a) Kingston City Council — Nil.

(b) Ballarat City Council — Nil

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(c) Greater Bendigo City Council — Nil

(d) Geelong City Council:

– Princes Highway — Sparks Road (treated in 2000/2001).– Princes Highway — North Shore Road (treated in 2000/2001).– Princes Highway — Cuthbertson Road to Bellbird Avenue (treated in 2000/2001).– Bacchus Marsh Road — Plantation Road (to be treated in 2001/2002).

Transport: Lilydale–Belgrave rail grade separation

662. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the rail grade separationon the Lilydale/Belgrave train line and the Springvale Road intersection — (a) what action is theGovernment taking with regard to the intersection; (b) what funds have been allocated to this project in the2001–2002 budget; (c) what funds have been allocated for future works on the project; and (d) when are theworks expected to commence and when will they be finished.

ANSWER:

Initial discussions on the Springvale Road rail crossing, involving the City of Whitehorse, Department ofInfrastructure and VicRoads, took place in early December 2001. It was agreed that Council would develop termsof reference for a proposed feasibility study.

There is no current allocation of funds for this project.

As part of the Government’s commitment to improve public transport, the Outer Eastern Public Transport Plan(OEPTP) is being developed to provide a strategic framework for transport infrastructure projects in this area. Theconsideration of upgrades to rail lines and rail crossings will form part of the plan.

The future allocation of funds will depend on priorities determined by the Outer Eastern Public Transport Plan,which is expected to be completed in mid-2002.

Transport: Spencer Street station upgrade

663. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Spencer StreetStation subway upgrade — (a) what are the details of the cost of the upgrade; (b) what are the details on howthis project was assessed and decided upon, based on the various other competing areas for money to bespent on the Spencer Street Station project.

ANSWER:

(a) The cost of the upgrade is $838,248.85.

(b) The Authority therefore made a decision to upgrade the subway, to achieve three things:

(i) to eliminate health problems by removal of asbestos and termite infestation;

(ii) to open up the passageways by removing three shops from the centre aisle; and

(iii) to provide better retail facilities for the public, bearing in mind that those on the two upper levels may haveto be closed at certain stages during the redevelopment.

The improvements currently being carried out are fully funded by the Authority using revenue it generatesfrom its retail activities and property leases, including public car parking and rentals paid by the train and busoperations.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Infrastructure/Vicroads staffing

664. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to staffing at theDepartment of Infrastructure and Vicroads — (a) what are the staff numbers at the Department and Vicroadsfor the last five years; and (b) what is the breakdown in each division where these staff are employed.

ANSWER:

VICROADS

At 30 June in each of the last five years, the staff numbers by division were as follows.

1997

Chief Executive 9Deputy Chief Executive 48Business Operations 511Commercial Services 475Major Projects 149Regional Services 1273Total 2465

1998


1999


2000


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


2001


DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

At 30 June in each of the last five years, the staff numbers by division were as follows.

1997

Minister Offices 16Office of the Secretary 9Organisational Development 96Corporate Finance 28Strategic Planning 45Planning, Heritage & Building 266Director of Public Transport 101Building Services Agencies 132Marine Board of Victoria 21Office of Major Projects 17Total 731

1998

Minister Offices 18Office of the Secretary 10Organisational Development 105Corporate Finance 28Strategic Planning 54Planning, Heritage & Building 265Director of Public Transport 108Building Services Agencies 110Marine Board of Victoria 22Office of Major Projects 18Total 738

1999

Minister Offices 16Office of the Secretary 8Organisational Development 101Corporate Finance 40Strategic Planning 101Planning, Heritage & Building 204Director of Public Transport 115Building Services Agencies 0

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Marine Board of Victoria 21Office of Major Projects 16Total 622

2000

Office of the Secretary 3Organisational Development 99Corporate Finance 36Strategic Planning 74Planning, Heritage & Building 188Director of Public Transport 177Ports & Marine 21Local Government 32Marine Board of Victoria 22Total 652

2001

Office of the Secretary 3Organisational Development 105Corporate Finance 41Strategic Planning 73Planning, Heritage & Building 197Director of Public Transport 188Ports & Marine 35Local Government 38Rail Projects Group 35Marine Board of Victoria 27Total 742

Transport: Tullamarine Freeway advertising signs

669. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to Tullamarine Freewayadvertising signs —

1. What is the current situation for advertising billboards on the Tullamarine Freeway.

2. When did the current contract for advertising signs on the Tullamarine Freeway expire and —(a) whether a new contract has been signed; if not, why; (b) who are the parties who have an interest inthis contract; and (c) what has been done since the current contract expired.

3. What financial benefit has Tullamarine Freeway outdoor advertising for the State.

ANSWER:

1. The contract for advertising billboards on the Tullamarine Freeway includes the leasing of 13 signs. Two ofthese signs are reserved for use by Government for community or road safety messages.

2. The previous contract expired on 14 August 2000.

(a) A new contract was signed on 19 November 2001. The lease agreement is for 5 years with an option for afurther 5 years.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) The new contract has been awarded to Cody Outdoor Advertising by VicRoads, acting as an agent for theGovernment.

(c) The previous contract was extended on a month-by-month basis until the award of the new contract.

3. The new contract will generate revenue of $10.315m over 5 years for the State.

Transport: West Gate Bridge

672. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the works being undertakento ensure the future capacity of the West Gate Bridge and any additional demands which will be placed onthe bridge infrastructure.

ANSWER:

Vicroads has commenced a process to conduct a total review of the West Gate Bridge. The West Gate BridgeReview Study will investigate the structural integrity and performance of the bridge, review the maintenancestrategy and determine the ultimate capacity requirements of the bridge. Structural capacity improvement optionswill be developed to address the traffic demand in the corridor.

Transport: Collins–Spring street intersection

673. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to Yarra Trams andCollins Street — what is the Government doing in reference to the proposals by Yarra Trams for —

1. The Collins Street and Spring Street ‘superstop’.

2. The removal of the right-hand turn from Collins Street into Spring Street.

3. The removal of two stops on the length of Collins Street.

4. The fundamental adjustment to the traditional pattern of a tram stop at every intersection.

ANSWER:

The Government is working with Yarra Trams to implement improvements to the Tram network. The constructionof Superstops in Collins Street forms part of Yarra Trams’ franchise commitment to construct ‘Superstops’ andenhance tram stops across the tram network. In relation to the specific issues raised:

1. The Government has supported Yarra Trams in the construction of the Superstops in Collins Street at SpringStreet. The westbound stop has been completed and plans have been developed for the eastbound stop.

2. The Government through the Department of Infrastructure, has supported Yarra Trams in its discussions withthe City of Melbourne to ban right turns from Collins Street into Spring Street. At its meeting on 6 December2001 the City of Melbourne approved the banning of the right turn which will allow Yarra Trams to commenceplans for construction of the eastbound Superstop.

3. The Government is working with Yarra Trams, the City of Melbourne and other stakeholders to review thenumber of tram stops in Collins Street.

4. The Government is also working with Yarra Trams, the City of Melbourne and other stakeholders to reviewthe location of tram stops in Collins Street.


674. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to Yarra Trams’ Route 109Project —

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1. What is the program of community consultation.

2. What measures have been taken to ensure concerned stakeholders have a say and their views areincorporated into the proposals.

3. What is the Government doing in reference to their commitment to community consultation.

ANSWER:

The Government is fully committed to community consultation on all projects. In respect of the Tram 109 project:

1. The Government has appointed VicRoads as project manager for the Tram 109 project. VicRoads has met withrepresentatives of the affected municipalities to establish a coordinated approach to community consultation forthe project and is currently developing a program for community consultation, which will include theestablishment of Community Advisory Groups.

Yarra Trams is also required to conduct community consultation for projects it is constructing under itsfranchise commitments. Yarra Trams, in conjunction with the City of Whitehorse (and particularly the ElgarWard) has to date held four community consultation meetings for the Box Hill tram extension project. Thesemeetings have been well attended with up to 120 residents, traders, and community representatives attending.

2. The Community Advisory Groups and the community consultation program will ensure that concernedstakeholders will have an opportunity for input into the project and that their views are incorporated whereverpossible.

3. The Government has established a Tram 109 Reference Group to provide input into the development of theTram 109 project. The Reference Group, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure,comprises:

– the Mayors and Chief Executives of the five municipalities along the route,– VicRoads Chief Executive,– Yarra Trams CEO,– representatives from RACV, Victorian Retailers Association, Public Transport Accessibility and Customer

Charter Committees, Property Council, Rail, Tram & Bus Union and the Department of Infrastructure.

The Reference Group will also assist in guiding consultation mechanisms in the development andimplementation of the Tram 109 project.

Transport: railway reserve maintenance

676. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the Government’sfinancial support of railway reserve maintenance — what are the itemised expense figures by month for eachindividual train line for — (a) vandalism; (b) rubbish removal; and (c) weed removal for — (i) 1996–1997;(ii) 1997–1998; (iii) 1998–1999; (iv) 1999–2000; and (e) 2001 to date.

ANSWER:

The Question cannot be responded to due to a number of reasons which include:

– information being sought is not available/itemised in the format sought– information sought is not held by the Department of Infrastructure– responsibility for the various tasks in question has changed between a number of organisations over the

timeframe stipulated (see table below).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Prior to July 1997 The Public Transport Corporation (PTC) was theresponsible body

July 1997 to July 1998 The Victorian Rail Track Corporation (Victrack)responsible for the interstate network.

July 1997 to May 1999 Victrack responsible for the country intrastatenetwork

July 1998 to August 1999 (Corporatisation toPrivatisation)

Bayside & Hillside responsible for the metropolitannetwork

May 1999 to present Freight Australia responsible for country intrastatenetwork

July 1998 to present Australian Rail Track Corporation responsible forthe interstate network

August 1999 to present National Express Group Australia and MelbourneTransport Enterprises responsible for themetropolitan network.


677. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the details of the farestructure for the regional fast rail projects.

ANSWER:

– Rail fares are currently determined by the Office of the Director of Public Transport under the existing franchiseagreements. Pricing can only be increased by CPI.

– There is currently no proposal to increase fares as part of the Regional Fast Rail Project.

Transport: Collins–Spring street intersection

679. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to construction of theCollins and Spring Streets intersection —

1. When was Yarra Trams issued an approval to start construction on the intersection.

2. What process was put in place for — (a) community input; and (b) Melbourne City Council input andwhat was the result.

3. Who gave approval for the tram ‘superstop’.

4. What objections were raised.

5. What is the cost of the project.

6. Who will fund the project.

ANSWER:

Collins Street through the Melbourne Central Business District is an unclassified road under the care andmanagement of Melbourne City Council.

The Government is working with Yarra Trams and Melbourne City Council on the implementation of theSuperstop at the Collins Street/Spring Street intersection as part of Yarra Trams’ franchise commitment for tram‘Superstops’ and tram stop enhancements.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1. The Director of Public Transport approved Yarra Trams’ Tram Stop Enhancement and Superstop strategy on9 August 2000 which included the Collins Street/Spring Street Superstops. Melbourne City Council gaveconditional approval to construction of the Superstops on 26 June 2001. Following further discussion withYarra Trams and VicRoads, Council at its meeting on 6 December 2001 approved banning right turns intoSpring Street and gave approval to Yarra Trams to construct the eastbound Superstop.

2. Yarra Trams is required under its franchise agreement to undertake consultation and obtain all necessaryapprovals for the construction of the Superstops. Yarra Trams and Melbourne City Council held a formalconsultation meeting on 6 August 2001. In addition, Yarra Trams has undertaken extensive consultation withtraders, heritage and interest groups to resolve issues. There has been positive support for the tram Superstops.

3. Melbourne City Council as planning authority for the City of Melbourne gave approval for the tramSuperstops.

4. Melbourne City Council raised issues concerning changes to car parking in Collins Street and the impact on theright turn from Collins Street into Spring Street. These issues are within Melbourne City Council jurisdictionand were considered by Council prior to approval being given.

5. The Superstops are part of Yarra Trams $4.8M franchise commitment to construct 15 Superstops and enhance200 tram stops across the network. The actual cost to construct the individual Superstops is a commercialmatter for Yarra Trams.

6. The Collins Street / Spring Street Superstop is in part funded by the Government’s contribution to Yarra Tramstotalling $4.8M for its franchise commitment to construct 15 Superstops and enhance 200 tram stops across thenetwork. Any additional costs to Yarra Trams in excess of the $4.8M to construct the Superstops and enhancetram stops, is a commercial issue for Yarra Trams.

Transport: new rolling stock

680. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the new rolling stock forYarra Trams —

1. What is the Government’s position on the introduction of the new rolling stock.

2. Will the Government pay the estimated $100 million for this new rolling stock; and if so, why.

3. Will similar concessions be afforded to — (a) M Tram; (b) V/Line; (c) Connex; and (d) M Train.

ANSWER:

1. The Government is pleased to have achieved a greatly improved level of Australian content in the new rollingstock than was provided for when the former Kennett Government entered into the contracts.

2. The financing arrangements for all of the rolling stock purchases currently under way were put in place by theprevious Government under contracts signed by the Kennett Government and public transport operators inAugust 1999.

These arrangements involve:

– Purchase of the rolling stock directly by a third party lessor (usually a financier).– Leasing of the rolling stock by the lessor to the relevant franchisee.– The lease entered into will run for 15 years with provision to novate the lease to a succeeding franchisee and

for the Government to buy back the vehicles at the end of 15 years.– Payment by the Government of a franchise subsidy adjustment on account of the additional lease payments

incurred by the franchisee.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The franchise subsidy adjustments to be paid by Government were bid by franchisees at the time of the lettingof franchises as was the buy-back price at the end of the lease should the Government wish to pursue thisoption. Assuming that the Government of the day does exercise the option to purchase the rolling stock (orenter into a second long-term lease) the Government’s contribution will effectively cover the whole of thepurchase price and financing costs.

2. The funding framework described above applied to all of the private operators purchasing new trams andtrains.

Transport: Dingley freeway

681. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — (a) what is the progress of the DingleyFreeway; (b) what funds have been allocated to this project; and (c) when will construction of the DingleyFreeway commence.

ANSWER:

A planning assessment report for the Warrigal Road to Springvale Bypass section of the Dingley Route is beingfinalised.

The Government has committed $30 million to the development of the Dingley Route.

A construction timetable would be determined following completion of the project planning and developmentphase.

Transport: patronage figures

682. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what is the monthly patronage figuresfor public transport since January 1999.

ANSWER:

Patronage data from Franchise Operators is only received at the end of each financial year and therefore monthlydata is not available. Detailed below are the annual patronage boardings from 1998/99 to 2000/01 on allGovernment subsidised public transport services.

1998/99Millions

1999/00Millions

2000/01Millions

Metro 329.9 343.1 351.9Country 48.4 48.5 48.9Total 378.3 391.6 400.8

Transport: Blackburn–Mitcham third train line

683. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the third rail trackbetween Blackburn and Mitcham — (a) what is the progress of the project; (b) how much has been allocatedto the project; and (c) when will the project be completed.

ANSWER:

(a) A study into the operational and engineering aspects of upgrading the Ringwood line including the proposal toprovide a third track between Blackburn and Mitcham for flier trains is nearing completion. The study reportedon various options for upgrading the line to enable the operation of ‘flier’ trains to Belgrave and Lilydale.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) The State budget of 2000/01 allocated $70 million dollars as a contribution towards seven rail projectsincluding the provision of flier trains on the Ringwood line. The operational and engineering study has foundthat the scope of works required on the Ringwood line needs to be broader than simply triplicating betweenBlackburn and Mitcham and costs will be correspondingly higher.

(c) Implementation of works on the line are expected to proceed progressively in stages as soon as scope andfunding issues are finalised.

Transport: flyer trains

684. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to proposed flyer trains —(a) what is the current progress on the proposed flyer trains; (b) have any flyer trains been introduced sinceSeptember 1999; and (c) when will the flyer trains be in operation.

ANSWER:

(a) Flier trains proposed for the Frankston, Dandenong and Ringwood rail lines are being scoped and costed.

(b) No.

(c) Implementation decisions will be made after scoping and costing work is completed.

Transport: East Burwood–Knox City tram line extension

685. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the proposed EastBurwood to Knox City tram line — (a) what is the status of this proposed tram line extension; (b) how muchmoney has been allocated to this project; and (c) whether any arrangements have been put in place tofacilitate adequate public transport integration with the surrounding areas.

ANSWER:

(a) A comprehensive feasibility study is under way.

This study is investigating a range of options being developed in conjunction with local government and publictransport operators. These options included improvements to existing bus services, as well as various tramscenarios.

Each option is being costed and assessed in both financial and economic terms.

The Knox Light Rail extension is one of a number of projects being developed as part of the ScoresbyIntegrated Transport Corridor Project.

(b) The Government has committed $70 million towards several metropolitan public transport projects, of whichthe extension of the tram to Knox City is one.

(c) When opened, any new tram service will be integrated into the public transport network serving the Knoxregion.

Public transport operators in the area are being involved in the development of project options and will be fullyaware of the potential to integrate their existing services with the new tram service.

Transport: Coolaroo–Craigieburn train line extension

686. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the proposed Coolarooto Craigieburn train line extension — (a) what is the status of the project; (b) how much money has beenallocated to this project; (c) when will construction commence; (d) where will the train line stop; and

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(e) whether arrangements have been put in place to facilitate adequate public transport integration with thesurrounding areas.

ANSWER:

(a) The projects are being scoped and costed and staging identified.

(b) The State Budget of 2000/01 allocated $66.4 million dollars as a contribution towards seven rail projects,including these three. The funding is to be distributed over four years. Operator and development contributionsare being explored.

(c) Construction is expected to commence progressively in stages after scope and funding issues are finalised.

(d) Planning is proceeding on the basis that electrified services will initially extend to the existing Craigieburn railstation where the intermodal bus station is currently under construction. The project is now described asBroadmeadows to Craigieburn.

(e) The scoping of each project is being conducted in conjunction with the Council concerned. The CraigieburnTransport Interchange was designed in conjunction with the City of Hume to ensure a high level of integrationwith the rail project. In addition, the Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre has been constructed with the RoxburghPark rail station in mind.

Transport: Epping–South Morang train line extension

687. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the proposed Epping toSouth Morang train line extension — (a) what is the status of the project; (b) how much money has beenallocated to this project; (c) when will construction commence; (d) where will the train line stop; and(e) whether arrangements have been put in place to facilitate adequate public transport integration with thesurrounding areas.

ANSWER:




(d) Planning is proceeding on the basis that electrified services will initially extend to Civic Drive South Morangso that the Plenty Valley Town Centre and Whittlesea Municipal Offices are well served.

(e) The scoping of each project is being conducted in conjunction with the Council concerned. The Council andthe Department of Infrastructure are finalising a Whittlesea Transport Strategy that provides a context for theSouth Morang rail extension.

Transport: Cranbourne–East Cranbourne train line extension

688. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport with reference to the proposedCranbourne to East Cranbourne train line extension — (a) what is the status of the project; (b) how muchmoney has been allocated to this project; (c) when will construction commence; (d) where will the train linestop; and (e) whether arrangements have been put in place to facilitate adequate public transport integrationwith the surrounding areas.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:




(d) Planning is proceeding on the basis that electrified services will extend to the complex for Cranbourne East.This means the train station will readily serve the Chisholm Institute of TAFE.

(e) The scoping of each project is being conducted in conjunction with the councils and roading issues atCranbourne East are being addressed.

Housing: waiting list

689. MRS SHARDEY — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Housing — what was the number ofapplicants waiting on the list for access to public housing for the September 2001 quarter for — (a) eachregion; (b) the whole of Victoria; and (c) each segment within the waiting list.

ANSWER:

It should be noted that waiting list information is compiled annually and is readily available in the Office ofHousing’s annual publication Summary of Housing Assistance Program. The Honourable Member is referred tothis document for information regarding Office of Housing waiting lists.

Housing: housing estates

690. MRS SHARDEY — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Housing with reference to redevelopment ofpublic housing estates —

1. What is the itemised list of estates earmarked for redevelopment, including a progress report on eachpublic housing site.

2. Whether the redevelopment of these estates involve contributions in kind from the not-for-profit sectoror private developers, including details of the type of contribution made towards each suchredevelopment.

3. What are the details of public estates where the Government has already undertaken or proposes toundertake the subdivision and sell the land for private sector development.

4. What are the details of the type of contractual arrangement the Government proposes to negotiate with‘private developers’ to encourage a mix of private and public housing developments onGovernment-owned sites.

5. What are the details of private investors who have submitted a joint venture proposal for theredevelopment of public housing estates.

ANSWER:

1. Eleven public housing estates are currently earmarked for redevelopment: Victory Boulevard, Ashburton;Long Gully, Bendigo; Rathdowne Street, Carlton; Peace Court, Doveton; Thomson Estate, Geelong East;Kensington Estate, Kensington; Maidstone/Braybrook Estate; Raglan/Ingles Sts, Port Melbourne; ElizabethStreet, Richmond; Parkside Estate, Shepparton and Mark/Rundle Estate, Wodonga

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Each of these redevelopment projects is subject to a variety of factors, including but not limited to, planningprocesses, tender processes, tenant relocation processes, construction processes and community consultationmechanisms.

In addition to these redevelopments, public housing estates in Wendouree West and the Latrobe Valley (EastMorwell, Churchill, Moe and Traralgon) have been designated as neighbourhood renewal projects.

2. None of the redevelopments to date involve contributions in kind from private developers.

3. The Government has not undertaken sub-division on any of the presently planned redevelopments of publichousing estates, but the following sub-divisions are proposed: Ashburton, Kensington, Port Melbourne andWodonga.

4. Any types of contractual arrangements proposed to be used by the Government to encourage a mix of publicand private housing on Government-owned sites will accord with the Government’s existing guidelines andpolicies, such as those for the purchase and sale of land, the Code of practice for the Building and ConstructionIndustry, the Partnerships Victoria policy and the relevant rules governing such contracts, such as theDirections under the Project Development and Construction Management Act.

5. No joint venture proposals have been submitted by private sector investors for the redevelopment of publichousing estates.

Housing: Ashburton housing estate

691. MRS SHARDEY — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Housing to provide an update on the currentstatus of work in progress for the Ashburton public housing estate.

ANSWER:

1. Demolition works for the concrete walk-up flats at Victory Boulevard were completed by early October 2001.

2. The Office of Housing has developed a design for 37 Older Persons Units and lodged a town planningapplication on 2 January 2002.

Transport: project funding

692. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what percentage of the total funds forthe following projects have been, or will be, funded by the Government for the — (a) Box Hill tramextension; (b) construction of the Spencer Street/Collins Street ‘Superstop’; (c) construction of the SpringStreet/Collins Street ‘Superstop’; and (d) introduction of ‘low floor’ trams for Yarra Trams.

ANSWER:

The projects in question are all part of Yarra Trams franchise commitment for the operation of the Yarra Tramnetwork. The Government is committed to make payments to Yarra Trams as set out in the Franchise Agreement.Yarra Trams is committed to deliver the work irrespective of whether the Government contribution covers the fullcost. Yarra Trams’ total cost for these projects is not known, however the Government contributions are:

(a) Box Hill tram extension is funded through a $14M franchise payment. In addition the Government is requiredto acquire the land required for the project. As the land acquisition process has not yet been finalised, the finalcost of the land acquisition is not known at this stage. The Government has agreed to make a $1m contributionto additional enhancements (valued at $1.76M) to the Box Hill project including rubber boot resilient track,grassed track, weight tensioned overhead and a left turn slip lane at Elgar Road.

The Government has also agreed to contribute $300,000 towards the cost of a significantly enhanced terminusat Box Hill including enhanced connection between the tram terminus and the train and bus stations.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) The construction of a Superstop at the Spencer Street / Collins Street intersection is being considered by YarraTrams. If approved it would be funded as part of the Government contribution to Yarra Trams’ $4.8Mfranchise commitment to construct 15 Superstops and enhance 200 tram stops across the network.

(c) The Spring Street/Collins Street Superstop is funded as part of the Government contribution to Yarra Trams’$4.8M franchise commitment to construct 15 Superstops and enhance 200 tram stops across the network.

(d) Yarra Trams is introducing 36 low floor trams as a $100M franchise commitment. The new trams are fullyfunded through the franchise payment.

Transport: Box Hill tram line extension

693. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — why won’t the Box Hill tramextension be going all the way to Box Hill Station and given this fact, what is the purpose of an integratedsystem.

ANSWER:

The Box Hill tram extension will extend the tram services from the current terminus at Union Road, Mont Albertalong Whitehorse Road to a brand new terminus in the median of Whitehorse Road near Market Street, Box Hill.The terminus will provide a convenient link to the Box Hill train and bus stations and the shopping centre as well asproviding flexibility for any future extension of the tram network. Bus, train and tram services will be furtherintegrated with real time passenger information for all services.

Consideration was given to terminating the tram in the railway station but this would reduce the capacity foradditional rail services in the future.

Transport: City Circle penalties

694. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what is the total penalty which YarraTrams have been penalised for the limited City Circle tram service.

ANSWER:

Services on the City Circle were reduced by agreement with the Department of Infrastructure. This was due toshortages of rolling stock arising from the withdrawal for safety reasons of the W Class trams under the instructionsof the Director of Public Transport.

The City Circle tram service does not fall within the Operational Performance Regime which applies to other routeservices under the Franchise Agreement with Yarra Trams. Consequently, no penalty has been applied for thereduction in service on the City Circle tram.

Transport: Middle Footscray station

695. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — (a) what is the status of MiddleFootscray Station; (b) how will the regional fast rail project affect the Middle Footscray Station; and (c) howwill the Albion route for the proposed airport rail service affect Middle Footscray Station.

ANSWER:

(a) Middle Footscray Station is approximately 600 metres away from West Footscray and Footscray Stations withbus services operating to both these stations. National Express provides metropolitan passengers train services.

(b) Works required in the metropolitan area as part of the Regional Fast Rail Project (RFRP) (including the areaaround Middle Footscray Station) have yet to be specified. These will be tendered under the AllianceAgreement in 2002 after the country works have been awarded.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(c) The Government recently announced that the proposal for an Airport Rail Link through the Albion corridorwould be postponed for at least a period of ten years.

Transport: Eastern Freeway–Greensborough bypass link

696. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — whether the Government supports afreeway link between the Eastern Freeway and the Greensborough Bypass.

ANSWER:

No.

Transport: northern central corridor study group

698. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — (a) why was the Public TransportUsers Association banned from the Northern Central Corridor Study reference group; and (b) what advicewas given to the Minister by the Department of Infrastructure in relation to banning the Public TransportUsers Association from the Northern Central Corridor Study reference group.

ANSWER:

(a) At no stage did I say there was a ban on the PTUA. In fact, the PTUA has been invited to sit on a number ofGovernment committees including the Public Transport Consultative Committee and the Metropolitan StrategyReference Group.

In the case of the Northern Central City Corridor Study, more than 20 community groups were invited toparticipate, including many with strong views on public transport, such as Environment Victoria.

(b) The Department of Infrastructure provided a list of recommended groups for invitation onto the NorthernCentral City Corridor Study’s Community Reference Group. The list was prepared with the aim of keeping theGroup to a manageable size whilst also providing reasonable representation, particularly of local communityrepresentatives. Whilst the PTUA was not included in the list of recommended Community Reference Groupmembers submitted by the Department they are among a range of organisations being consulted for this study.

Transport: signalling works

700. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — how much money has been spenton — (a) train signalling maintenance in — (i) the Melbourne metropolitan area; and (ii) rural Victoria;(b) new train signalling infrastructure in — (i) the Melbourne metropolitan area; and (ii) rural Victoria; and(c) all train signalling in — (i) the Melbourne metropolitan area; and (ii) rural Victoria — for —(A) 1995–1996; (B) 1996–1997; (C) 1997–1998; (D) 1998–1999; (E) 1999–2000; (F) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:

(i) The Melbourne Metropolitan Area

Financial Year (a) MaintenanceExpenditure ($m)

(b) RenewalExpenditure ($m)

(c) TotalExpenditure ($m)

Notes

(A) 1995 / 1996 1(B) 1996 / 1997 1(C) 1997 / 1998 1(D) 1998 / 1999 1(E) 1999 / 2000 10.6 15.6 26.2 2(F) 2000 / 2001 10.5 20.1 30.6 2, 3

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Notes:1 Pre-privatisation data (ie before 29 August 1999) not available within DOI. The data is being sought from other

parties but may not be available to the breakdown level requested.2. Includes total expenditure on some multi-year projects.3. Excludes six months of data from one franchisee that reports on a calendar year basis.

(ii) Victorian Interstate Standard Gauge Network




Notes

(A) 1995 / 1996 1(B) 1996 / 1997 1(C) 1997 / 1998 1(D) 1998 / 1999 1(E) 1999 / 2000 1(F) 2000 / 2001 0.8 2

Notes:1. Pre-privatisation data (ie before 1 July 2000) not available within DOI. The data is being sought from other

parties but may not be available to the breakdown level requested.2. Data is only available for Major Planned Maintenance. Information for reactive maintenance and renewals is

being sought.

Victorian Intrastate Network




Notes

(A) 1995 / 1996 1(B) 1996 / 1997 1(C) 1997 / 1998 1(D) 1998 / 1999 1(E) 1999 / 2000 2(F) 2000 / 2001 2

Notes:1. Pre-privatisation data (ie before 1 May 1999) not available within DOI. The data is being sought from other

parties but may not be available to the breakdown required.2. Post privatisation data for signalling expenditure is not available. The data is being sought from other parties

but may not be available to the breakdown required.


702. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what has the Government done tobring back the W-class tram fleet.

ANSWER:

The Government, through the Department of Infrastructure has worked with the public transport operators to returnthe City Circle trams to service as a priority. This has now been completed. The City Circle trams have beenmodified with track brakes; interim improvements have been made to the tread brake system, and a speed-limitingdevice has been installed on all trams.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The Government is working with the original manufacturer of the tread brake equipment to replace the interimimprovements to the tread brake systems on the W class trams. This requires the development, installation andtesting of modern brake equipment that is compatible with these older trams. Yarra Trams has just successfullycompleted initial testing of a first set of this equipment. National Express also is in the process of installing thesame equipment on one of their trams.

The Government recognises the community commitment to these trams and their return remains a Governmentpriority.

Transport: industrial action

703. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the monthly figures forpublic transport industrial action between January 1995 and November 2001 for — (a) days lost; and(b) hours lost.

ANSWER:

(a) Actual days lost have not been recorded on the PTC payroll system, nor recorded by the franchisees.

(b) The following table presents the number of labour hours lost due to industrial action, according to payroll dataheld by the PTC since 1995 on a financial year basis.

Year (ending June 30) Hours1995 697611996 121321997 517981998 541701999 3622000 755

Since the commencement of privatisation, ie August 1999 to 30 November 2001, 1539 labour hours have beenlost due to industrial action.

Transport: fare increases

704. MR LEIGH — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Transport — what are the — (a) percentageincrease; and (b) nominal price increase in public transport fare increases for all metropolitan zones, since1985 for — (i) full fare and concession 2-hour; (ii) full fare and concession daily; (iii) full fare andconcession weekly; (iv) full fare and concession monthly; and (v) full fare and concession yearly tickets.

ANSWER:

1. Details of the price of individual tickets since 1985 is not available. However, it is the understanding of officerswithin the Department of Infrastructure that all ticket types have increased by the same proportion when farerises have occurred over this period.

2. General fare rises since 1985 have been as follows:

Year Month Average increase1985 November 7.1%1986 July 5.7%1987 July 6.1%

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Year Month Average increase1988 – –1989 August 4.1%1990 September 15.0%1991 March 10.0%

October 9.2%1992 – –1993 January 10.0%1994 January 3.2%1995 – –1996 – –1997 January 3.4%1998 – –1999 January 3.0%2000 July 5.0%2001 January 8.3%

Note: the price rise in July 2000 was GST-related, and the price rise in January 2001 was based on the CPIrise in the previous two years and included some GST effects.

3. Changes in the prices of the identified fares since 1999 are as follows:

Ticket type Zone 1999 July 2000 January 2001Full fareTwo hour 1 $2.30 $2.40 $2.60

2 $1.70 $1.70 $1.903 $1.70 $1.70 $1.90

1+2 $3.90 $4.00 $4.402+3 $3.20 $3.30 $3.60

1+2+3 $5.30 $5.50 $6.00Daily 1 $4.40 $4.60 $5.00

2 $3.00 $3.10 $3.503 $3.00 $3.10 $3.50

1+2 $7.10 $7.40 $8.002+3 $5.90 $6.10 $6.70

1+2+3 $9.50 $9.90 $10.80Weekly 1 $19.10 $20.00 $21.70

2 $13.10 $13.70 $14.803 $13.10 $13.70 $14.80

1+2 $32.30 $33.90 $36.702+3 $26.30 $27.60 $29.90

1+2+3 $39.50 $41.40 $44.90Monthly 1 $71.50 $75.00 $81.30

2 $48.00 $50.40 $54.50

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Ticket type Zone 1999 July 2000 January 2001Full fare

3 $48.00 $50.40 $54.501+2 $110.00 $115.50 $125.002+3 $96.50 $101.30 $109.70

1+2+3 $134.50 $141.20 $152.90Yearly 1 $770.00 $808.50 $875.00

2 $525.00 $551.20 $597.003 $525.00 $551.20 $597.00

1+2 $1,230.00 $1,291.50 $1,398.002+3 $1,030.00 $1,081.50 $1,171.00

1+2+3 $1,525.00 $1,601.20 $1,734.00

Ticket type Zone 1999 July 2000 January 2001ConcessionTwo hour 1 $1.30 $1.35 $1.45

2 $0.90 $0.90 $1.003 $0.90 $0.90 $1.00

1+2 $2.00 $2.10 $2.252+3 $1.70 $1.75 $1.90

1+2+3 $2.70 $2.80 $3.05Daily 1 $2.30 $2.40 $2.60

2 $1.60 $1.65 $1.803 $1.60 $1.65 $1.80

1+2 $3.60 $3.75 $4.052+3 $3.00 $3.15 $3.40

1+2+3 $4.10 $4.30 $4.65Weekly 1 $9.50 $9.95 $10.80

2 $6.50 $6.80 $7.353 $6.50 $6.80 $7.35

1+2 $16.10 $16.90 $18.302+3 $13.10 $13.75 $14.85

1+2+3 $18.30 $19.20 $20.80Monthly 1 $36.00 $37.80 $40.90

2 $24.00 $25.20 $27.253 $24.00 $25.20 $27.25

1+2 $55.00 $57.70 $62.502+3 $48.00 $50.40 $54.55

1+2+3 $63.50 $66.65 $72.20YearlyNo concessionavailable

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Police and emergency services: Bulleen crime rate

706. MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what is thetotal number of offences of crime against the person including — (a) homicide; (b) rape; (c) sex (non-rape);(d) robbery; (e) assault; and (f) abduction and kidnap — recorded in the postcodes — (i) 3105, (ii) 3106;(iii) 3107; (iv) 3108; and (v) 3109 during — (A) 1999–2000; and (B) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:



707. MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what is thetotal number of offences of crime against property including — (a) arson; (b) property damage;(c) aggravated burglary; (d) residential burglary; (e) other burglary; (f) deception; (g) handling stolen goods;(h) theft from motor vehicle; (i) theft (shop steal); (j) theft of motor vehicle; and (k) theft of bike — recordedin the postcodes — (i) 3105, (ii) 3106; (iii) 3107; (iv) 3108; and (v) 3109 during — (A) 1999–2000; and(B) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:



708. MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what is thetotal number of drug offences including — (a) cultivation; (b) manufacturing; (c) trafficking; (d) possession;and (e) use — recorded in the postcodes — (i) 3105, (ii) 3106; (iii) 3107; (iv) 3108; and (v) 3109 during —(A) 1999–2000; and (B) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:



709. MR KOTSIRAS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services — what is thetotal number of crimes in the categories — (a) going equipped to steal; (b) justice procedures; (c) regulatedpublic order; (d) weapons and explosives; (e) harassment; and (f) behaviour in public — recorded in thepostcodes — (i) 3105, (ii) 3106; (iii) 3107; (iv) 3108; and (v) 3109 during — (A) 1999–2000; and(B) 2000–2001.

ANSWER:


556 ASSEMBLY

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 March 2002 ASSEMBLY i

MEMBERS INDEX

ALLAN, Ms (Bendigo East)

Adjournment

Employment: Loddon–Mallee, 481Insurance: public liability, 300

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 347

Members statements

Commonwealth Youth Games, 329

Points of order, 347

Questions without notice

Rural and regional Victoria: investment, 339

ASHER, Ms (Brighton)

Adjournment

Insurance: public liability, 479

Business of the house

Program, 248

Members statements

Hazardous waste: dump site, 331



Employment: rural and regional Victoria, 456Royal Melbourne Show, 344

ASHLEY, Mr (Bayswater)

Adjournment

Knox: disabled parking permits, 480

BAILLIEU, Mr (Hawthorn)

Members statements

River banks: cleaning, 331


Select Committee on the Urban and Regional Land CorporationManaging Director

Assembly ministers, 378, 396

BARKER, Ms (Oakleigh)

Adjournment

Housing: seniors, 299Police: Endeavour Hills station, 481


Police and prisons: government initiatives, 238

BATCHELOR, Mr (Thomastown) (Minister for Transport andMinister for Major Projects)

Joint sitting of Parliament

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 416



Roads: black spot program, 342

BEATTIE, Ms (Tullamarine)

Bills

House Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill, 273


Roads: black spot program, 342

BRACKS, Mr (Williamstown) (Premier and Minister forMulticultural Affairs)

Ministerial statement

Longford gas plant, 458

National population summit, 245, 314


Electricity: Basslink, 340Minister for Finance: chief of staff, 237Police and prisons: government initiatives, 238Royal Melbourne Show, 344Timber industry: sustainability, 454Water: allocation framework, 452Workcover: conciliation appointments, 238, 240

BRUMBY, Mr (Broadmeadows) (Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment, Treasurer and Minister for Innovation)


Rural and regional Victoria: investment, 339

MEMBERS INDEX

ii ASSEMBLY 19, 20 and 21 March 2002

CAMERON, Mr (Bendigo West) (Minister for Local Governmentand Minister for Workcover)


Workcover: conciliation appointments, 242

CAMPBELL, Ms (Pascoe Vale) (Minister for Senior Victoriansand Minister for Consumer Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 304

National population summit, 323

CARLI, Mr (Coburg)

Bills


Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Members privacy code, 244

CLARK, Mr (Box Hill)

Bills


COOPER, Mr (Mornington)

Adjournment

Hastings: boat pens, 300

Bills



DAVIES, Ms (Gippsland West)

Members statements

South Gippsland Highway: Bena realignment, 418


Petitions

Bena–Kongwak Road, Bena: safety, 243


Wonthaggi and District Hospital, 239

DEAN, Dr (Berwick)

Bills

Electoral Bill, 332Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 334

Members statements

Justice Michael Kirby, 253

Points of order, 239, 336, 339, 375

DELAHUNTY, Mr (Wimmera)

Adjournment

Tertiary education and training: rural student offers, 297

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 357Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 444

DELAHUNTY, Ms (Northcote) (Minister for Planning, Ministerfor the Arts and Minister for Women’s Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 484

Bills

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill, 426


DEPUTY SPEAKER and CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES,The (Mrs Maddigan)

Rulings, 298, 301, 302, 330, 335, 336, 480, 484, 485, 486, 487

DOYLE, Mr (Malvern)

Bills

Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 438Health Practitioner Acts (Further Amendments) Bill, 332


Program, 250



Royal Melbourne Hospital, 341, 343, 453, 455

DUNCAN, Ms (Gisborne)

Adjournment

Housing: innovations program, 406

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 March 2002 ASSEMBLY iii

Bills




Timber industry: sustainability, 453

ELLIOTT, Mrs (Mooroolbark)

Members statements

Courts: sentencing, 330

FYFFE, Mrs (Evelyn)

Adjournment

Ragwort, 407

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 350Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill, 449

GARBUTT, Ms (Bundoora) (Minister for Environment andConservation)

Bills

Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) (Amendment) Bill, 428Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill, 360, 451


Timber industry: sustainability, 453Water: use strategy, 345

GILLETT, Ms (Werribee)

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 368House Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill, 275

Members statements

Michael Meakin, 331

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Alert Digest No. 2, 244Annual review, 244Statute Law (Further Revision) Bill, 244

HAERMEYER, Mr (Yan Yean) (Minister for Police andEmergency Services and Minister for Corrections)

Adjournment

Responses, 302, 411, 485

Bills


Points of order, 279, 301, 302


Police: numbers and building program, 240Prisons: beds, 242

HARDMAN, Mr (Seymour)

Adjournment



Program, 250

Members statements

Emergency services: volunteers, 253

HELPER, Mr (Ripon)

Bills


HONEYWOOD, Mr (Warrandyte)



HOWARD, Mr (Ballarat East)

Bills


Members statements

Clunies Ross National Science and Technology Award, 418State Revenue Office: Ballarat, 254


Water: allocation framework, 452

HULLS, Mr (Niddrie) (Attorney-General, Minister forManufacturing Industry and Minister for Racing)

Adjournment

Responses, 410

Bills

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill, 332Electoral Bill, 332, 419

MEMBERS INDEX

iv ASSEMBLY 19, 20 and 21 March 2002

Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 332Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 333, 335, 346Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) (Amendment) Bill, 333

Council of Magistrates

Annual report, 244

Points of order, 290, 374


Courts: sentencing, 239Manufacturing Hall of Fame, 456


Assembly ministers, 373

INGRAM, Mr (Gippsland East)


Program, 249

Members statements

Timber industry: East Gippsland, 330



Timber industry: sustainability, 454

JASPER, Mr (Murray Valley)

Members statements

Victorian Concert Orchestra, 416

Rulings, 279, 285, 286

KILGOUR, Mr (Shepparton)

Bills


Rulings, 278, 286, 290, 293, 294, 295, 367, 439

KOSKY, Ms (Altona) (Minister for Education and Training)

Adjournment

Responses, 304


Schoolsdiscretionary fund, 451funding, 455

KOTSIRAS, Mr (Bulleen)

Adjournment

Bulleen: park-and-ride facility, 410

Members statements

Darebin: election material, 329

LANGDON, Mr (Ivanhoe)


Program, 249

Road Safety Committee

Rural road safety and infrastructure, 244

LANGUILLER, Mr (Sunshine)

Members statements

Safiya Yakubu Hussaini, 252



LEIGH, Mr (Mordialloc)

Adjournment

Kingston: former mayor, 301

Points of order, 302, 415, 485, 486, 487

LEIGHTON, Mr (Preston)

Bills

Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 469

LENDERS, Mr (Dandenong North) (Minister for Finance andMinister for Industrial Relations)

Adjournment

Responses, 303, 411

Bills



Insurance: public liability, 237, 341

LIM, Mr (Clayton)

Members statements

Building Business Bridges to Asia dinner, 330

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 March 2002 ASSEMBLY v

LINDELL, Ms (Carrum)

Bills


Members statements

Mentone Track and Field Centre, 253


Police: numbers and building program, 240

LONEY, Mr (Geelong North)

Adjournment

Greater Geelong: mayor, 480

Members statements

Peter Elphick, 417


Housing: innovation program, 344

LUPTON, Mr (Knox)

Bills


McARTHUR, Mr (Monbulk)

Bills

Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) (Amendment) Bill, 428Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill, 430


Program, 246

Members statements

Minister for Finance: leaflet, 251

Points of order, 243, 341, 375, 455, 457

McCALL, Ms (Frankston)

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 348Forensic Health Legislation (Amendment) Bill, 468

Members statements

Frankston Hospital, 252

McINTOSH, Mr (Kew)

Adjournment

Belle Vue Primary School, 408

Bills


MACLELLAN, Mr (Pakenham)

Bills


Points of order, 373, 378, 456, 458, 480

MADDIGAN, Mrs (Essendon)

Members statements

Threepence a Book and Other Stories from Moonee Valley, 251


MAUGHAN, Mr (Rodney)

Adjournment

Schools: Edunet, 406

Bills



Program, 247

Members statements

Minister for Transport: performance, 329

MAXFIELD, Mr (Narracan)

Adjournment

Gippsland: community jobs program, 408Timber industry: Warragul, 298

Bills


MILDENHALL, Mr (Footscray)

Adjournment

Housing: at-risk tenants, 405


Water: use strategy, 345

MEMBERS INDEX

vi ASSEMBLY 19, 20 and 21 March 2002

MULDER, Mr (Polwarth)

Bills


Members statements

Regional Infrastructure Development Fund, 416

NAPTHINE, Dr (Portland) (Leader of the Opposition)

Members statements

Minister for Senior Victorians: festival brochure, 417



National population summit, 314, 316

Points of order, 237, 240, 241, 339, 343, 452, 453, 456, 457


Minister for Finance: chief of staff, 237Royal Melbourne Hospital, 338, 451Workcover: conciliation appointments, 238, 240, 242

NARDELLA, Mr (Melton)

Bills


Rulings, 390

OVERINGTON, Ms (Ballarat West)

Adjournment

Housing: Ballarat, 479

PANDAZOPOULOS, Mr (Dandenong) (Minister for Gaming,Minister for Tourism, Minister for Employment and Ministerassisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs)

Adjournment

Responses, 411, 483


Program, 245




Employment: rural and regional Victoria, 456

PATERSON, Mr (South Barwon)

Bills


Members statements

Geelong hospital, 418

PERTON, Mr (Doncaster)

Adjournment

West Wimmera: waste management, 298


Points of order, 241, 302, 340, 342, 343, 373, 374, 396, 454, 457

PEULICH, Mrs (Bentleigh)

Adjournment

Duncan MacKinnon Reserve, Murrumbeena, 477

Members statements

Bentleigh: victims of crime, 419

PHILLIPS, Mr (Eltham)

Adjournment

Sherbourne Primary School, 406

PIKE, Ms (Melbourne) (Minister for Housing, Minister forCommunity Services and Minister assisting the Premier onCommunity Building)

Adjournment

Responses, 412, 484

Bills



Housing: innovation program, 344

PLOWMAN, Mr (Benambra)

Bills


Petitions

Albury-Wodonga: council merger, 243


Rulings, 347, 348, 354

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 March 2002 ASSEMBLY vii

RICHARDSON, Mr (Forest Hill)

Bills


ROBINSON, Mr (Mitcham)

Adjournment

Harness Racing Victoria: former CEO, 408Liquor: low-alcohol beer, 482

Bills


Members statements

Blackburn Lake Primary School, 419Relighting Jeparit festival, 419



Prisons: beds, 242

ROWE, Mr (Cranbourne)

Members statements

St Vincent’s Hospital, 253


RYAN, Mr (Gippsland South) (Leader of the National Party)

Adjournment

South Gippsland: wind farms, 478

Bills

House Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill, 261Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 337

Members statements

Police: Leongatha station, 252




Petitions

Police: Leongatha station, 243


Electricity: Basslink, 340Insurance: public liability, 237Schools: discretionary fund, 451



SAVAGE, Mr (Mildura)

Adjournment

Vicroads: Mildura office, 407

Bills


SEITZ, Mr (Keilor)

Adjournment

Members: government facility visits, 296

Bills


Members statements

David Anderson, 331

Rulings, 396, 401, 403

SHARDEY, Mrs (Caulfield)


SMITH, Mr (Glen Waverley)

Adjournment

State emblem, 481

Bills



SPEAKER, The (Hon. Alex Andrianopoulos)

Absence of minister, 452

BLF Custodian

54th report, 244

Joint sitting of Parliament

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 416


Rulings, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 339, 340,341, 342, 343, 344, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 415,441, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

MEMBERS INDEX

viii ASSEMBLY 19, 20 and 21 March 2002

SPRY, Mr (Bellarine)

Adjournment

Gas: North Bellarine supply, 296

STEGGALL, Mr (Swan Hill)

Bills

Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill, 434


STENSHOLT, Mr (Burwood)

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 363House Contracts Guarantee (HIH Further Amendment) Bill, 267Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 338, 345

Members statements

Neighbourhood Watch: conference, 417


Schools: funding, 455

THOMPSON, Mr (Sandringham)

Adjournment

Beaches: Sandringham, 410Police: Sandringham, 299Vicroads: registration payments, 482


THWAITES, Mr (Albert Park) (Deputy Premier, Minister forHealth

Bills

Health Practitioner Acts (Further Amendments) Bill, 332, 333, 423


Royal Melbourne Hospital, 338, 341, 343, 451, 453, 455Wonthaggi and District Hospital, 240

TREZISE, Mr (Geelong)

Adjournment

Grace McKellar Centre, Geelong, 478

Bills


VINEY, Mr (Frankston East)

Adjournment

Frankston Senior Citizens Club, 297

Bills



Manufacturing Hall of Fame, 456

VOGELS, Mr (Warrnambool)

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 296,347

Water (Irrigation Farm Dams) Bill, 437

WELLS, Mr (Wantirna)

Adjournment

Police: communications systems, 405

Bills


Members statements

HM Prison Won Wron, 418

Points of order, 279, 286, 347

WILSON, Mr (Bennettswood)

Adjournment

Mount Waverley Secondary College, 409

Bills


WYNNE, Mr (Richmond)

Bills

Country Fire Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 287Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, 337


Courts: sentencing, 239



PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 2002... · Clark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP Mulder, Mr Terence...

Documents

Transcript of PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) 2002... · Clark, Mr Robert William Box Hill LP Mulder, Mr Terence...