parliamentary debates (hansard) · 2002-09-03 · parliament of victoria parliamentary debates...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 7

28, 29 and 30 May 2002

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor

JOHN LANDY, AC, MBE

The Lieutenant-Governor

Lady SOUTHEY, AM

The Ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislative Council Committees

Economic Development Committee — The Honourables R. A. Best, Andrea Coote, G. R. Craige, Kaye Darveniza,N. B. Lucas, J. M. McQuilten and T. C. Theophanous.

Privileges Committee — The Honourables W. R. Baxter, D. McL. Davis, C. A. Furletti, M. M. Gould andGavin Jennings.

Standing Orders Committee — The Honourables the President, G. B. Ashman, B. W. Bishop, R. M. Hallam,Gavin Jennings, Jenny Mikakos, G. D. Romanes and K. M. Smith.

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 E. J. Powell, G. D. Romanes andJ. W. G. Ross. (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 COUNCIL

FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. B. A. CHAMBERLAIN

Deputy President and Chairman of Committees: The Hon. B. W. BISHOP

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: The Honourables G. B. Ashman, R. A. Best, R. H. Bowden, Kaye Darveniza, D. G. Hadden,Jenny Mikakos, R. F. Smith, E. G. Stoney and C. A. Strong

Leader of the Government:The Hon. M. M. GOULD

Deputy Leader of the Government:The Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. BILL FORWOOD from 13 September 2001

The Hon. M. A. BIRRELL to 13 September 2001

Deputy Leader of the Opposition:The Hon. C. A. FURLETTI from 13 September 2001The Hon. BILL FORWOOD to 13 September 2001

Leader of the National Party: The Hon. P. R. HALL from 20 March 2001

The Hon. R. M. HALLAM to 20 March 2001

Deputy Leader of the National Party: The Hon. E. J. POWELL from 20 March 2001

The Hon. P. R. HALL to 20 March 2001

Member Province Party Member Province Party

Ashman, Hon. Gerald Barry Koonung LP Hall, Hon. Peter Ronald Gippsland NPAtkinson, Hon. Bruce Norman Koonung LP Hallam, Hon. Roger Murray Western NPBaxter, Hon. William Robert North Eastern NP Jennings, Hon. Gavin Wayne Melbourne ALPBest, Hon. Ronald Alexander North Western NP Katsambanis, Hon. Peter Argyris Monash LPBirrell, Hon. Mark Alexander East Yarra LP Lucas, Hon. Neil Bedford, PSM Eumemmerring LPBishop, Hon. Barry Wilfred North Western NP Luckins, Hon. Maree Therese Waverley LPBoardman, Hon. Blair Cameron Chelsea LP McQuilten, Hon. John Martin Ballarat ALPBowden, Hon. Ronald Henry South Eastern LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Doutta Galla ALPBrideson, Hon. Andrew Ronald Waverley LP Mikakos, Hon. Jenny Jika Jika ALPBroad, Hon. Candy Celeste Melbourne North ALP Nguyen, Hon. Sang Minh Melbourne West ALPCarbines, Hon. Elaine Cafferty Geelong ALP Olexander, Hon. Andrew Phillip Silvan LPChamberlain, Hon. Bruce Anthony Western LP Powell, Hon. Elizabeth Jeanette North Eastern NPCoote, Hon. Andrea Monash LP Rich-Phillips, Hon. Gordon Kenneth Eumemmerring LPCover, Hon. Ian James Geelong LP Romanes, Hon. Glenyys Dorothy Melbourne ALPCraige, Hon. Geoffrey Ronald Central Highlands LP Ross, Hon. John William Gamaliel Higinbotham LPDarveniza, Hon. Kaye Melbourne West ALP Smith, Hon. Kenneth Maurice South Eastern LPDavis, Hon. David McLean East Yarra LP Smith, Hon. Robert Fredrick Chelsea ALPDavis, Hon. Philip Rivers Gippsland LP Smith, Hon. Wendy Irene Silvan LPForwood, Hon. Bill Templestowe LP Stoney, Hon. Eadley Graeme Central Highlands LPFurletti, Hon. Carlo Angelo Templestowe LP Strong, Hon. Christopher Arthur Higinbotham LPGould, Hon. Monica Mary Doutta Galla ALP Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Jika Jika ALPHadden, Hon. Dianne Gladys Ballarat ALP Thomson, Hon. Marsha Rose Melbourne North ALP

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2002

ROYAL ASSENT..............................................................1165QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tertiary education and training: studentconcessions..............................................................1165

Business: Internet presence........................................1165Youth: proof of age .....................................................1166Education Week...........................................................1166Energy and greenhouse technologies centre.............1167Sport and recreation: funding....................................1168Berwick Primary School.............................................1168Mineral sands: government initiatives ......................1169Retail tenancies: review..............................................1170Small business: Yellow Pages survey ........................1170

Supplementary questionsTertiary education and training: student

concessions..............................................................1165Youth: proof of age .....................................................1166Energy and greenhouse technologies centre.............1167Berwick Primary School.............................................1169Retail tenancies: review..............................................1170

MOTIONS TO TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERSTertiary education and training: student

concessions..............................................................1171Youth: proof of age .....................................................1173Energy and greenhouse technologies centre.............1174Berwick Primary School.............................................1175

QUESTIONS ON NOTICEAnswers........................................................................1176

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEEAlert Digest No. 5........................................................1176

PAPERS ............................................................................1176STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION (FURTHER

AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading............................................................1177

ELECTORAL BILLSecond reading............................................................1180

BUDGET PAPERS, 2002–03.............................................1183ENERGY LEGISLATION (FURTHER

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILLIntroduction and first reading....................................1230

MAGISTRATES’ COURT (KOORI COURT) BILLIntroduction and first reading....................................1230

ADJOURNMENTBerwick hospital..........................................................1230CELAS Youth Network ...............................................1231Greyhound racing: industry code of practice ...........1231Ministers: adjournment responses.............................1231Gas: heater maintenance............................................1232Rail: Charlton crossing ..............................................1232Child care: regulations...............................................1232Maribyrnong: aquatic centre .....................................1233Water: authorities financial ratios.............................1233Monash Medical Centre .............................................1233

Somerville Rise Primary School ................................1233Garfield Primary School ............................................1234Responses ....................................................................1234

WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2002

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser......1237, 1238, 1239,

1240Gas: supply security ...................................................1237Sport and recreation: funding....................................1238Information and communications technology:

government initiatives ............................................1239Belmont High School..................................................1240Rail: Mildura–Portland line ......................................1241Marine safety: funding ...............................................1241

Supplementary questionsMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser......1237, 1238, 1239,

1240Rail: Mildura–Portland line ......................................1241

MOTIONS TO TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERSMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser............................1242Rail: Mildura–Portland line ......................................1246

QUESTIONS ON NOTICEAnswers .......................................................................1247

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEECrime trends................................................................1247

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEStructural changes in Victorian economy.................1249

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEEVictorian Auditor-General’s Office...........................1251

PAPERS ............................................................................1252SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBAN AND

REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION MANAGINGDIRECTORTerms of reference ......................................................1252

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES PROTECTION BILLSecond reading............................................................1255Third reading ..............................................................1277Remaining stages........................................................1277

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS...........................................1255MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia ..............1277Amnesty International Australia................................1278John Lockett ................................................................1278Local government: funding ........................................1278Clunes: film marketing strategy.................................1278James Gemmell...........................................................1279Housing: Nunawading tenant ....................................1279Mount Moriac Recreation Reserve............................1279Stonnington: graffiti strategy .....................................1280David Reynolds...........................................................1280Gallipoli veterans........................................................1280

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF GREECE........................1280

CONTENTS

TRANSPORT (FURTHER MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1281

MAGISTRATES’ COURT (KOORI COURT) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1281

ENERGY LEGISLATION (FURTHERMISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1285

CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS AND SERIOUSINJURIES) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1288

CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT)(AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1335

STATE TAXATION ACTS (FURTHER TAX REFORM)BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1335

ADJOURNMENTBail justices: immunisation........................................ 1335Gippsland: harvesting and haulage funding............ 1336Road safety: speed cameras ...................................... 1336White Wreath Day...................................................... 1336HMVS Cerberus ......................................................... 1337Mildura: hospital site................................................. 1337Consumer affairs: email scam................................... 1338Fishing and hunting: regulation ............................... 1338Consumer affairs: airbag scam................................. 1338Western Ring Road: speed signage........................... 1339Child care: regulations.............................................. 1339Goulburn Valley Water: management...................... 1339Princes Highway–Chapel Street, Windsor:

safety ....................................................................... 1340Port of Portland: fishing wharf ................................. 1340Cycling: Melbourne–Geelong network .................... 1340Fishing: rock lobster.................................................. 1341Responses.................................................................... 1341

THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2002

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser ..... 1343, 1344, 1346,

1347Sport and recreation: funding ................................... 1343Port of Melbourne: channel deepening .................... 1344School buses: Echuca ................................................ 1345Information and communications technology:

skills program......................................................... 1345Schools: lifesaving carnival....................................... 1347Lawn bowls: funding.................................................. 1348

Supplementary questionsMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser ..... 1343, 1344, 1346,

1347School buses: Echuca ................................................ 1345

MOTIONS TO TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERSMinister for Youth Affairs: adviser ........................... 1348Schools buses: Echuca............................................... 1352

QUESTIONS ON NOTICEAnswers....................................................................... 1353

LAW REFORM COMMITTEEEntry, search, seizure and questioning powers........ 1353

PAPERS ........................................................................... 1354SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FRANKSTON

CENTRAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTReport.......................................................................... 1354

TRANSPORT (FURTHER MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1365

CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT)(AMENDMENT) BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1367

STATE TAXATION ACTS (FURTHER TAX REFORM)BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1367

BUDGET PAPERS, 2002–03........................1368, 1372, 1393MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Stonnington: sporting facilities ................................. 1370Anglicare Victoria winter appeal.............................. 1370Sunraysia Tennis Academy........................................ 1370Disability services: transport .................................... 1371George Tibbles........................................................... 1371Somerville, Tyabb and District Heritage Society..... 1371Toongabbie Primary School ..................................... 1371Knox hospital.............................................................. 1372Surf Coast: community consultation......................... 1372Reservoir: mobile phone tower ................................. 1372Arts: cultural grants................................................... 1372

ELECTORAL BILLSecond reading........................................................... 1383Third reading.............................................................. 1392Remaining stages ....................................................... 1392

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION(AMENDMENT) BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1392

TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS)BILLIntroduction and first reading ................................... 1393

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSEAdjournment............................................................... 1399

ADJOURNMENTRoad safety: car computers....................................... 1399Small business: Yellow Pages survey ....................... 1400Warrior Women exhibition........................................ 1400Insurance: public liability.......................................... 1401Angliss Hospital ......................................................... 1401Helmeted honeyeaters: recovery program............... 1401Panel beaters: insurance system............................... 1402Homelessness: park bench shelter............................ 1402Live music: promotion ............................................... 1403Motorcycles: safety .................................................... 1403Government: investment assistance.......................... 1404Southern Family Life ................................................. 1404Taxis: multipurpose ................................................... 1404Banks: community...................................................... 1405Making the Most of Life............................................. 1405Responses.................................................................... 1406

CONTENTS

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2002

2409. Transport: Scoresby freeway ..............................14072467. State and regional development: industrial

liaison officer ...................................................14072468. Premier: industrial liaison officer ......................14082469. Health: Human Services — industrial

liaison officer ...................................................14082470. Treasurer: Treasury and Finance —

industrial liaison officer ..................................14082471. Education and training: Employment,

Education and Training — industrialliaison officer ...................................................1409

2483. Industrial relations: State and RegionalDevelopment — annual report .......................1409

2502. Transport: Scoresby freeway ..............................14092512. Transport: train signalling..................................14102624. Manufacturing industry: manufacturing

industry consultative committee .....................14112693. Transport: East Burwood–Knox City tram

line extension....................................................14132719. Premier: Constitution Commission of

Victoria.............................................................14142720. Premier: Constitution Commission of





Victoria.............................................................14162734. Industrial relations: ACTU call centre code

of conduct.........................................................14162756. Health: needle and syringe exchange

program............................................................14172768. Treasurer: Kingston — land tax .........................14172771. Transport: public transport — drunkenness

and vandalism..................................................14172779. Transport: rail projects group ............................14182797. Transport: Nightrider bus — daily

validation figures.............................................14192798. Transport: Nightrider bus — average daily

revenue .............................................................14192804. Transport: motor registrations since 1985 ........14192805. Transport: motor registrations — revenue ........14202827. Ports: port of Melbourne — final land use

plan...................................................................14212828. Ports: port of Melbourne — final land use




plan...................................................................1422

2839. Ports: port of Melbourne — final land useplan...................................................................1423



2900. Community services: Kew ResidentialServices ............................................................1424

2901. Community services: Redlands, WandinNorth.................................................................1425

2904. Community services: accommodation —people with disabilities....................................1425

2905. Community services: accommodation —people with disabilities....................................1426

2906. Community services: respite services forcarers................................................................1426

2907. Community services: respite services forcarers................................................................1426

2908. Community services: flexible care packages .....14272909. Community services: flexible care packages .....14272917. Small business: supply needs of government

departments......................................................1427

WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2002

2494. Environment and conservation: coast actionprogram............................................................1429

2528. Industrial relations: statutoryauthorities staff — government creditcards.................................................................1430

2534. Consumer affairs: statutory authoritiesstaff — government credit cards.....................1430

2535. Workcover: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1430

2536. Finance: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1431

2537. Arts: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1431

2539. Treasurer: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1432

2541. Environment and conservation: statutoryauthorities staff — government creditcards.................................................................1432

2543. Transport: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1432

2545. Education and training: statutoryauthorities staff — government creditcards.................................................................1434

2547. Police and emergency services: statutoryauthorities staff — government creditcards.................................................................1434

2548. Corrections: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1434

2549. Planning: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1434

2552. Major projects, and tourism: statutoryauthorities staff — government creditcards.................................................................1435

2553. Gaming: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards..................................1435

CONTENTS

2555. Women’s affairs: statutory authoritiesstaff — government credit cards.................... 1436

2559. Aboriginal affairs: statutory authoritiesstaff — government credit cards.................... 1436

2560. Workcover: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards................................. 1436

2562. Planning: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards................................. 1436

2565. Transport: statutory authorities staff —government credit cards................................. 1436

2568. Industrial relations: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1438

2574. Consumer affairs: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1438

2575. Workcover: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1438

2576. Finance: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1439

2577. Arts: ministerial or departmental staff —government credit cards................................. 1439

2579. Treasurer: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1439

2581. Environment and conservation: ministerialor departmental staff — governmentcredit cards...................................................... 1439

2583. Transport: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1440

2585. Education and training: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1440

2586. Education and training: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1440

2587. Police and emergency services: ministerialor departmental staff — governmentcredit cards...................................................... 1441

2588. Corrections: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1441

2589. Planning: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1441

2592. Major projects, and tourism: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1441

2593. Gaming: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1442

2595. Women’s affairs: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1442

2599. Aboriginal affairs: ministerial ordepartmental staff — government creditcards ................................................................ 1442

2600. Workcover: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1443

2602. Planning: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1443

2605. Transport: ministerial or departmentalstaff — government credit cards.................... 1443

2739. Environment and conservation: catchmentmanagement authorities................................. 1443

2761. Environment and conservation: LakeBolac — serrated tussock............................... 1445

2820. Environment and conservation: Chinaman’sBridge caravan park, Nagambie ................... 1446

2821. Environment and conservation:commissioner for ecologicallysustainable development ................................ 1447



THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2002

2546. Education and training, and employment:statutory authorities staff — governmentcredit cards...................................................... 1449

2787. Transport: rail standardisation program.......... 14492788. Transport: metropolitan Melbourne — level

crossing upgrades........................................... 14492794. Transport: Melbourne bus patronage ............... 14502830. Environment and conservation: helmeted

honeyeater recovery program........................ 14512831. Environment and conservation: helmeted










honeyeater recovery program........................ 14552890. Ports: port of Melbourne — final land use

plan .................................................................. 14562891. Environment and conservation: helmeted

honeyeater recovery program........................ 14562902. Community services: accommodation —

people with disabilities................................... 14562903. Community services: Plenty Residential

Services............................................................ 14582920. Education services: schools — staff .................. 1458

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

ROYAL ASSENT

Tuesday, 28 May 2002 COUNCIL 1165

Tuesday, 28 May 2002

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 2.02 p.m. and read the prayer.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message read advising royal assent on 21 May to:

Crimes (DNA Database) ActFisheries (Further Amendment) ActNational Crime Authority (State Provisions)

(Amendment) ActRacing Acts (Amendment) ActRail Corporations (Amendment) ActTheatres (Repeal) Act

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tertiary education and training: studentconcessions

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I refer theMinister for Youth Affairs to the Bracks government’syouth pledge of 1999 which promised, among otherthings, that Victoria’s tertiary students would receive areduction in the cost of transport concession cards from$108 to $6.20 in line with school cards. After nearlythree years in government this key Labor electionpledge has still not been fulfilled. When will thegovernment honour its promise to Victorian tertiarystudents?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — The Bracks government is concerned aboutthe level of the student concession cards for TAFEstudents, and when it came into government it haddiscussions with the private operators in the transportindustry. I emphasise ‘private operators’, because theopposition when it was in government sold off ourtransport system. We had negotiations and discussionswith the private operators and were able to reduce thecost of the concession cards. However, the privateoperators are still out to make a profit. We were able tonegotiate the cost of the concession card down to thecurrent figure. As a result of the opposition’s selling offthe transport industry, these private operators are notprepared to negotiate the price down further. We arecommitted to ongoing discussions with the privateoperators. However, they have made the commercialdecision that they will not reduce the concession cardprice beyond the figure we successfully negotiatedwhen we first came to government.

Supplementary question

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — The ministershould be aware of the public call last week by studentrepresentatives from the Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology, Monash, Deakin, La Trobe and Swinburneuniversities for the government to deliver on its electioncommitment. Can the minister explain why thegovernment has not made funds available to theDepartment of Education and Training for privateoperators to fulfil its promise for that reduction inconcession cards?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — As I explained in my answer to the previousquestion, the government has had discussions with theprivate operators. We negotiated with them a reductionin the concession card, but because of the previousgovernment’s selling off of our public transport systemthe private operators took a commercial decision thatthey were not prepared to reduce the concession figurebelow the amount that we were able to negotiate afterwe took office, which was less than the price it waswhen the opposition was in government.

Business: Internet presence

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — The Internet isbecoming an essential tool for businesses. Can theMinister for Information and CommunicationTechnology inform the house how the Bracksgovernment has assisted in getting business onto theInternet?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Informationand Communication Technology) — I thank thehonourable member for her question. I have on manyoccasions in this house indicated the importance ofusing new technologies and the Internet as a way ofenhancing the capacity, particularly of small business,to do business. I was fortunate last Friday to be inChurchill, in Gippsland, where I launchedgippsland.com, a portal which provides listings of over500 businesses throughout Gippsland, probably closerto 600 if the truth be told. Half of these companies hadno Internet presence before this portal was establishedthrough the Victorian e-commerce early moversscheme, or VEEM, as it is called. VEEM was built by alocal company, Messenger, that has been working withbusinesses in relation to understanding how they canuse the Internet and this site to advance theirbusinesses. This is another example of working veryclosely with local government and the importance ofpartnerships.


1166 COUNCIL Tuesday, 28 May 2002

The VEEM project has had the involvement of theLatrobe, Baw Baw, East Gippsland and Wellingtoncouncils. It has involved a series of e-commerceworkshops and the creation of a regional informationdatabase. It is important that we look for innovativesolutions and that businesses and organisations alsolook to the Internet to advance their opportunities.

Another example is the Regional Online Festivalsnetwork, which has received $150 000 from the Bracksgovernment to produce a network that will increasee-commerce, professional development and IT skillsdevelopment opportunities for regional festivals.

Very important in the promotion of regional festivals isthe capacity to have a marketing presence online, andthis opportunity will be taken up under this networkproject. It will also help provide IT skills for thoseworking in the festivals industry and encourage them tolook at how they can use technology to advance festivalmarketing and the successful growth of festivals inregional Victoria.

It will develop a statewide virtual network to provideonline learning and industry development. It will alsoautomatically syndicate regional events information toTourism Online and the ABC Online web sites. It is agreat opportunity to further market regional festivals.

The Bracks government cares about growing the wholeof the state and about ensuring our regional festivals usenew technology to enhance their marketing capabilities.We want to ensure Victoria is innovative andcompetitive and has a connected economy.

Youth: proof of age

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I referthe Minister for Youth Affairs to the no-proof, no-entrysheet put out by the Victorian licensing law branch,which shows that the learners permit is acceptableidentification for purchasing alcohol. I refer her also tothe letter from Kerryn Riseley, the policy officer for thetobacco policy unit, dated 23 April this year, whichsays that the Minister for Health has decided thatlearners permits are not approved as evidence-of-agedocuments. Will the minister explain to the house andthe youth of Victoria the logic behind this bizarresituation?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — The Minister for Small Business has made adecision regarding liquor licences that because of newtechnology introduced for learners permits the learnerspermit is an acceptable level of identification in thepurchasing of liquor. The Minister for Health isreviewing the situation regarding the technology in

place for learners permits, but at this point in time it isnot an acceptable form of identification for the sale oftobacco. This government has done more to reduce thesale of tobacco to our youth and will continue to do soto ensure that retailers are provided with appropriateproof to enable them to be satisfied in selling tobacco toyoung people that they are of an age acceptableaccording to the law. The Minister for Health still hassome concerns about that, and we are looking at theissue at this moment, but the learners permit is not anacceptable form of identification.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Theminister has explained to the house the situation that Iposed in my question, that it is legitimate to use alearners permit as identification for the purchase ofalcohol although it is not legitimate to use it to buytobacco, even though the person is in the same shop.What I am trying to elucidate from the minister is thelogic behind the situation where it is legal to use it forthe purchase of one product and not legal to use it topurchase another product in the same premises at thesame time. I am trying to understand the rationalebehind this decision.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — As I indicated, the Minister for Health hasconcerns about the photograph identification used inlearners permits that are three years old. He hasindicated at this time that the learners permit is not anacceptable form of identification for the purchase oftobacco.

Education Week

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I refer myquestion to the Minister for Education Services and indoing so I would like to congratulate the minister on thefantastic success of last week’s Education Week.Accordingly, I ask the minister to advise — —

Honourable members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember has not even got her question out yet. I ask thehouse to settle down and allow Ms Carbines to ask herquestion.

Hon. E. C. CARBINES — I ask the minister toadvise how the Bracks government recognised duringEducation Week individuals who have contributedgreatly to the Victorian education system.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — As the honourable member stated, last



week was Education Week, and it was a fantasticsuccess for the whole education community. One of themost rewarding experiences I had during the course ofEducation Week was in recognising those who havecontributed to their school communities across Victoria.Many of these communities were decimated by theprevious government when it closed down over300 schools and sacked over 9000 teachers.

Hon. B. W. Bishop — Boring!

Hon. M. M. GOULD — I know the oppositionthinks it boring that it closed 300 schools. I know itthinks it is boring that it sacked 9000 teachers, becausewe know that it did not care then and it does not carenow!


The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister has beenasked a question and is entitled to answer it in a waythat the rest of us can hear it.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — Despite these closures ourschools survive largely as a result of the commitmentshown by parents, teachers and school councillorsthroughout the dark days of the previous government.These members of our school communities now workin partnership with the Bracks government to turnthings around and to make Victoria a great place to befor every student in the state.

The Education Week gala dinner that was held lastThursday provided a valuable opportunity to honour theachievements of many members of our schoolcommunities. Those honoured included members of theteaching profession, retiring school councillors andrecipients of community services awards. A new awardfor the outstanding parent was also announced.

These awards are yet another way the Bracksgovernment encourages excellence in our schoolswhich in turn encourages the excellent teachers to stayin the public system. I was particularly proud to presentawards to retiring school councillors — which fallswithin my portfolio responsibilities — formallyrecognising those who work to make schools betterplaces. These parents have given 15 years or moreservice to their school councils and have now chosen toretire. That means they have often been working onschool councils for years after their children have leftthe school. Giving them recognition of their support forlocal schools and communities was very good. It showsthat the Bracks government cares about our schools andschool communities and that we are turning thingsaround, especially in the education system.

Energy and greenhouse technologies centre

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I refer theMinister for Energy and Resources to the government’sbudget announcement of the creation of a centre forenergy and greenhouse technologies. Given thataccording to the government’s own comments thecentre will not undertake any research and, further, thatit will utilise existing facilities and expertise acrossVictoria, I ask the minister: how many new direct jobswill be created by establishing the administrativecomponent of this centre in the Latrobe Valley?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — For a moment there I thought thehonourable member was going to ask me about theprecise location of the centre, since that is also a matterof great interest in the Latrobe Valley.

Following the announcement in the budget and prior tothat in the government’s business statement of thecreation of the centre, the government is consultingwith stakeholders in terms of the best possible way ofcommitting these funds, and it is the intention of thegovernment to take full advantage of existing researchfacilities and resources and to endeavour to attract bothprivate sector and commonwealth funding to thisimportant initiative.

The further development of the initiative followingthose consultations will settle the answers to thequestions that the honourable member has raised interms of the final form that the initiative will beimplemented in.


Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — Budget paper 2indicates funding for this centre of $12 million over thenext three years. The Treasurer of this state wasspeaking in Morwell last week, and said:

The government will commit up to $12 million over the nextthree years —

not to the centre, but —

towards projects sponsored by the centre.

I ask the minister: how much of this $12 million willactually go towards creating the administrative centreof the centre for energy and greenhouse technologies?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I think I really did answer the question inmy previous response. As I have indicated, thegovernment wishes to take full advantage of partnershipopportunities with the private sector and the



commonwealth government in relation to research orproject work — it amounts to the same thing — beforedetermining the precise allocation of these funds overthe next three years.

It is not the government’s intention to spend this moneyin a way which consumes large amounts throughadministration and facilities; it is the government’sstated intention to ensure that these funds are deliveredto projects which will contribute to the furtherdevelopment of these technologies.

Sport and recreation: funding

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I refer myquestion to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Inlight of the minister’s commitment to delivering qualitysporting opportunities to all Victorians, what steps hashe taken to ensure that this outcome is achieved?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — I welcome the honourable member’squestion. In the last week or so I have had the greatpleasure to announce the outcomes of the CommunityFacilities Funding program and also the Better Poolsprogram. This is no doubt reinforced by the level ofinterest that has come from honourable members ofboth houses.

I want to demonstrate how significant these programsare by referring to a couple. They include theannouncement of the Yarra Junction pool project,which was a successful applicant and has been fundedto the tune of $1 million over the next two financialyears. This money will enable the Yarra centre toexpand to include a 25-metre pool, a learners pool and atoddlers pool.

I congratulate the community representatives who werein attendance on the day of the announcement: theyhave been working since 1995 to bring together thispool project. It is always heartening to give out moneyto local communities, but on this particular occasion thelocal community members from the pool projectcommittee had tears in their eyes because they were soexcited. It is quite remarkable, because this project hasbeen funded under a Labor government. When theLiberal coalition was in government they were unableto fund it. It reinforces that those local members couldnot deliver to their local communities but we as aBracks Labor government are delivering to thosecommunities.

As well as that — this is a terrific portfolio because it isone of good news all the time — yesterday I had thegood fortune to announce $2.5 million to the City ofMaribyrnong over the next two years for a regional

facility to be located at the Rob Barrett reserve inMaribyrnong. It is a $17 million project.

What the two projects reinforce is that as a governmentwe are growing the whole of the state. We areinvesting, and are proud to invest, in communities. Notonly that, but we are providing good governance for allof Victoria. We know that stands in stark contrast to theopposition when they were in government. Now thatthey are in opposition it is still the same — they aredivided and confused. You stand for nothing, and weknow and the community knows you do not care!

Berwick Primary School

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I direct myquestion to the Minister for Education Services. Thegovernment recently split builders bids forreconstruction of the relocated Berwick Primary Schoolinto two tenders. One was for the new buildings; theother was for the oval and car parking. Those works arebeing jointly funded by the government, the Casey CityCouncil and the school community.

The department assured the council’s chief executivethat the cost of the total project will be taken intoaccount in the tender evaluation. The buildingssuccessful tenderer was $20 000 below the nexttenderer for the new buildings, and $60 000 higher forthe oval and car parking. The effect of this is that$40 000 of funding from the school community and thelocal council has been wasted. If an all-up price hadbeen sought from tenderers, $40 000 of communityfunding would have been saved. Why has $40 000 ofcommunity funding been wasted, and what are yougoing to do to redress this situation?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — The City of Casey and the Department ofEducation and Training have been finalising a joint useragreement for the oval and the car park to be shared bythe new Berwick Primary School and the community.At the time of going to tender for the construction of theschool, the joint use agreement had not been finalised,and for this reason the school’s architect decided totender only the school component of the project and toobtain an indicative cost of the oval component in orderto assist the City of Casey.

As honourable members would appreciate, it would beinappropriate to put out a tender for a project when noagreement had been signed. That would not be goodpractice. The code of practice for the building andconstruction industry does not support that proposal ofputting out tenders without agreements, so on that basisthere was only an indicative cost for the car park.



In accordance with the code of practice, the departmentacted appropriately and properly to accept the best andlowest tender for the project. I am advised as recently asthis morning that an in-principle agreement has nowbeen reached to the extent that they are prepared to signoff on the project with respect to the oval. Agreementhas been reached with the council, and that project willgo ahead.

With respect to the construction of the school, it wasappropriate to get the school out to tender as soon aspossible once agreement had been signed off. Thatagreement has been reached. With respect to the carpark and the shared facilities with the council, finaldocumentation had not been signed off, but I amadvised that that has now been done. That project cannow proceed in line with the building and constructionindustry code of practice.


Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — TheMinister for Education Services has just acknowledgedthat the tender and the quote were done separately. Thatconfirms the fact that the community is $40 000 networse off. If you save $20 000 on one project andspend up to $60 000 more on the other project, then youare $40 000 net worse off!

The chief executive of the council verified with thedepartment that as long as all tenderers were able tosubmit a price for the varied project, no tenderer wouldbe disadvantaged. In other words, the department hadwithin its rights the ability to get a tender and a quoteon the total project, which could have saved $40 000 ofcommunity money. Given the government had theability under its tender procedures to obtain an all-upprice and chose not to do so, will the minister agree tothe government carrying the $40 000 difference in thecost?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — As I indicated, it was inappropriate for atender to go out where there was no agreement betweenthe city council and the department with respect to theshared joint facility of the car park. It is not in line withthe code of practice of the building and constructionindustry. I have now been advised that that has beensigned off. There can be variations to the tenderprocess.

With respect to this project, the department hasacted — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! I ask both sides of thehouse to allow the minister to answer the question.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — The department has actedappropriately and in line with the code of practice. Itwould be inappropriate to get a tender for something forwhich there was no agreement. It was indicative — —

The PRESIDENT — Time!

Mineral sands: government initiatives

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — Will theMinister for Energy and Resources inform the house ofnew Bracks government initiatives that will be of directbenefit to the mineral sands industry?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. Yesterday I had the great pleasure ofaddressing the Australian Journal of Mining’s thirdglobal mineral sands conference in Victoria in as manyyears. More than 100 delegates from 11 countriesattended the Melbourne conference to hear briefings ondevelopments in Africa and Australia as well as Canadaand on the marketing, finance and secondary processingof mineral concentrates.

The emergence of the Murray Basin mineral sandsprovince, incorporating parts of Victoria, New SouthWales and South Australia, is one of the mostsignificant developments in the industry worldwide inthe past 20 years. The interest in these conferencesreflects the fact that Victoria is at the heart ofdevelopments in the Murray Basin, with three projectsat the moment and a highly competitive businessenvironment. Of the seven major mineral sands projectsin total in the basin, five will use Victorian transportsystems and Victorian ports to export their products.

I am pleased to inform the house that I launched thenorth-west freight transport strategy at the conferenceyesterday. The strategy will be of direct benefit to themineral sands industry, among many others in thestate’s north-west, and is part of the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to growing the whole of thestate. The strategy and action plan are anothergovernment initiative which identify better ways to useexisting infrastructure by developing new and enhancedintermodal freight facilities and removing barriers to theefficient movement of freight, as well as increasing theuse of rail for long-distance freight shipments. Thenorth-west freight transport strategy is part of deliveringthe Bracks government’s objective of increasing theproportion of freight carried to ports and markets by railto 30 per cent by 2010, which is a much bigger visionthan the previous government ever had.



The strategy was developed by the Department ofInfrastructure and Vicroads in close consultation withthe cities of Mildura and Swan Hill and the North WestMunicipalities Association, and I would like to take thisopportunity to place on the record my thanks toeveryone involved for their efforts. The strategy buildson another Bracks government initiative to increaseVictoria’s competitiveness by committing $96 millionto standardising the rail freight network. The strategy isjust one example of the actions this government istaking to support the mineral sands industry.

Another example is in the recent state budget, whichallocates $77 million for the Wimmera–Malleepipeline — obviously of benefit to the water-intensivemineral sands operations. This is in addition to thecommitment of funds for a mineral sands action plan inthe Building Tomorrow’s Businesses Today statementand the Bracks government’s ongoing commitment tothe Victorian initiative for minerals and petroleum.

These actions by the Bracks government demonstratethat we are delivering on our promises and planning forthe future. We will continue to invest for the future, asthe 2002 budget demonstrates, and maximise thebenefits to Victoria from the mineral sands industry.

Retail tenancies: review

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — In a press release of24 October 2000 the Minister for Small Businessannounced a retail tenancies review. Given that thatwas one year and seven months ago, will thegovernment be introducing retail tenancy legislation inthe Parliament this session?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. The retail tenancy review that was undertakenby the government will result in a piece of legislationthat is important to small retailers in particular. When Ihave spoken about this issue in the house before I haveindicated that it is important for us to get this piece oflegislation right.


Hon. M. R. THOMSON — I was going to answerthis straight, but given that members of the oppositionhave thrown it, let us have a look at the debacle of thelegislation that was brought in by the previousgovernment, which has caused more problems for smallretailers. It has created more confusion and has nothelped.

There has been intensive consultation about this pieceof legislation, to the point where it has been determined

that there should be a total rewrite of the act. As part ofthat process the government intends putting out anexposure draft of the legislation, which will enable it toensure that it has covered all the issues on which it hascommitted and is not making any of the mistakes thatwere made by the previous government, which rushedlegislation into this house to deal with a problemwithout taking into account the ramifications of theamendments.


The PRESIDENT — Order! I cannot hear theminister’s response because of the noise on my left. Iask honourable members to settle down and allow theminister to finish her answer.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — That piece oflegislation has led to a debacle. Everyone in the retailsector — whether they be from the property council,the shopping centre council or the Australian RetailersAssociation through to retailers — knows that thecurrent legislation is confusing, is causing problems andis the reason why we are having so many disputes aboutretail tenancy.

I look forward to bringing the new legislation into theParliament when we are confident that it is legislationthat will be effective, will work and will stop theconfusion that currently exists.


Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I raise this questionbecause the industry expectation was that the legislationwould be introduced in this session. Nineteen monthsago the government started this review. One of theareas the industry is really looking for — and theminister put it out in her press release — is theprovision of reasonable security of tenure to retail andcommercial tenants. Nineteen months later thegovernment still has not resolved the issue it went to thecommunity with. I ask the minister: when will sheresolve it and when will she bring back legislation togive the retail area some certainty?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — As I have already indicated, because ofthe debacle of the previous government’s amendmentsthe legislation requires a total rewrite. As I said, theexposure draft will be released and we will have thelegislation in the Parliament in spring.

Small business: Yellow Pages survey

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — Canthe Minister for Small Business inform the house of

MOTIONS TO TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS


any recent measure of small business confidence inVictoria?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I thank the honourable member for hisquestion. I am pleased to say that the recent YellowPages survey indicates that the confidence levels ofVictoria’s small and medium-size enterprises haveincreased and that they are feeling extremely confident.As a matter of fact, when it comes to having a sense ofconfidence, Victoria is the first among the major states.

Since the last survey was conducted we have seen a14 per cent rise in confidence levels — the highestconfidence level in the two surveys of any state orterritory. This is on the back of the government’sBuilding Tomorrow’s Businesses Today package, inwhich it announced a number of measures, both in newmanufacturing and the new manufacturing agenda, toencourage innovation in businesses and to ensure thatthey are preparing for the future. During the term of thisgovernment a number of taxing initiatives have resultedin over $1 billion in business tax cuts.

Not only is this business confidence being seen inmetropolitan Melbourne, it is also being seen inregional Victoria with this government’s meeting itscommitment to grow the whole of the state. As a matterof fact, the level of confidence among businesses inregional Victoria is the greatest of all states other thanTasmania — the only place where there is a difference.

Indications are that both on sales performance achievedand future sales expectations Victoria is ahead of thenational average. Its capital expenditure, an indicationof the true confidence of small and medium-sizeenterprises, has increased against the national trend. Infact, together with the Australian Capital Territory,Victoria has the strongest trend.

All this indicates that Victorian small and medium-sizebusinesses are feeling confident about their future andthe economy. The government looks forward tocontinuing to work with small businesses to deliver fortheir future and to grow the whole of the state.


Tertiary education and training: studentconcessions

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I move:

That the Council take note of the answer given by theMinister for Youth Affairs to a question without notice askedby the Honourable A. P. Olexander relating to travelconcession for tertiary students.

It is a sad fact that the Minister for Youth Affairs hasdecided not to stay and debate her answer to myquestion regarding a key promise by the Labor Party toyoung Victorians at the last state election. Why shouldwe be surprised? The Labor Party has not beenprepared to debate any of its key pledges to youngVictorians here or elsewhere. This is wearing thin withthe youth community in this state.

My question went to a very simple issue, which is:should political parties, when they make promises tosections of the community, deliver on those promiseswhen they achieve power?

In its youth pledge of 1999 the Labor Party made a keypledge to young Victorian students. It said to them thatit would provide tertiary students with a concession, inline with school concession cards, of about $7. Today,after three years of this government, that commitmenthas still not been delivered. There was a promise, andthere has been absolutely no performance on thatpromise. As recently as last week campuses aroundVictoria called on the government to honour itscommitment.

In the last campaign the Labor Party made only tencommitments to young Victorians in its youth pledge,and this was a key one. On the basis of its promise atthe last election many young Victorian students decidedthat they would support and vote for the Labor Party.Many young Victorians supported and worked for theLabor Party at the last election because they believedthe Labor Party would come through and deliver. But ithas not — despite the fact that it inherited a recordbudget surplus of $1.2 billion and that most recently ithad a windfall of at least $800 million as a result ofstamp duty takings which have occurred as a result ofan unforeseen, unpredicted housing boom.

You would have thought all this money would havemade it possible for the Labor Party to have delivered abetter deal for tertiary students in this state. But it hasnot. Instead it has made excuses, and those excuses arewearing thin. Every time the opposition or studentgroups ask the government to honour its owncommitments, it blames the previous Kennettgovernment. This time the minister had the audacity toget up in this chamber and say that the real reason thegovernment has not delivered on this promise is that wehave a privatised public transport system.

News flash: we had a privatised public transport systemwhen this promise was made by the Labor Party. Sowhy does the minister continue to run this line thatthere is no promised delivery because of the Kennettgovernment’s privatisation?



In an article in the Herald Sun last week the minister’scolleague in the other place, the Minister for Educationand Training, repeated the allegation that the promise isimpossible to deliver on because we have a privatisedsystem and the government has gone as far as it canpossibly go. That is patently false. If the governmentwas committed to delivering on its promise it wouldmake the funds available to the Department ofEducation and Training to pay private operators toprovide concession cards to tertiary students at thepromised reduced rate, which is around $7.

It is beyond the opposition and the Victorian studentcommunity why the Bracks government has decidednot to do so. It simply cannot be because of a shortageof funds, because we all know that the government isflush with funds. It has a lot of money and isannouncing projects all over the place, but it is nothonouring real commitments it has made. This puts thelie to the government’s commitment to youngVictorians.

Young Victorians, particularly tertiary students, aredrawing the inevitable conclusion: that the promise thegovernment made in the youth pledge was made forcynical political reasons designed to win votes at theelection — which it did — and it has no intention ofever honouring this promise.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — As theHonourable Andrew Olexander has said, the BracksLabor government has inherited the legacy of aprivatised public transport system from the previousgovernment. Perhaps that is not the key cause of theproblems the government has inherited from theprevious government, but the way the previousgovernment privatised the public transport system hasmade it difficult for this government to achieve many ofthe improvements it wants to see happen in the publictransport system to make it more attractive andaccessible and more often frequented by the Victorianpublic.

The system that was put in place by the previousKennett government is fragmented by the way thepassenger franchises were broken up between the tramsand the trains and by the way other parts of the systemwere broken up under private ownership with a centralrevenue-collecting body. In lots of ways that makes itdifficult to deliver a coordinated and smoothly runningsystem in this state. One of the legacies of the previousgovernment is the way the contracts were drawn upand, as we know, if ever there is to be a variation to acontract, negotiations to do so are expensive.

The improvements the government has endeavoured toput in place in the last 2½ years have been the subjectof tortuous negotiations with the private operators. Asthe minister has said previously, the private operatorswill not negotiate down further. The current system isin place and we are in a position where it is difficult todeliver the improvements that we envisage.

I contrast the system, with its disastrous Onelinkticketing system — which is costing this state hundredsof millions of dollars and is not delivering a seamless,coordinated system to facilitate use of the transportsystem — with what I saw when I visited three cities inCanada and the United States last year. There I sawgood public transport networks which are coordinated,planned with seamless transfers between differentmodes of transport and providing regular, frequentservices. Those networks, which operate effectively, areunderpinned by a ticketing system which is easy to useand facilitates those seamless transfers between themodes as well as accessibility.

Hon. A. P. Olexander — On a point of order,Mr President, the motion was very simple, just like myquestion was. It was about tertiary concession cards inthe state of Victoria. However interesting it may be tolisten to a travelogue of the honourable member’s tripsoverseas and how she encountered ticketing systems inOttawa and other places, it is certainly not speaking tothe motion. I submit that she be brought back to themotion at hand.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES — On the point of order,Mr President, the very point I was about to make relatesto the way students and others use the Ottawa systembecause of the discounts involved.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The question wasspecific in its relation to the state of Victoria. Thehonourable member can clearly look at what ishappening in other jurisdictions as an example of whatmight happen here but she should really address theissue raised by the Honourable Andrew Olexander.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES — In Ottawa, publictransport use is growing and it is currently at twice therate of public transport use in Melbourne. One of thekey elements to the success of that transport system isits use by students, pensioners and others who getconcessions and assistance because they are regularusers. They are the core customers of that service and inthat city 70 per cent of transport users pay inadvance — they are the discount holders who getincentives to use that system. That demonstrates to ushow important public transport is to groups likestudents and pensioners and those who regularly use



and depend upon it and how important they are to aviable and growing public transport system. Thereforestudent concessions are vital to the future of the system.It is a way for young people to learn to get around andunderstand the value of the public transport system andhow it can serve their needs in the future.

Motion agreed to.

Youth: proof of age

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Imove:

That the Council take note of the answer given by theMinister for Youth Affairs to a question without notice askedby the Honourable Bill. Forwood relating to the use of learnerpermits for proof of purchase of liquor and tobacco products.

My question, like my colleague’s, was simple and tothe point. I asked for an explanation of the logic behindthe bizarre circumstance where a young person agedover 18 can walk into a liquor store and produce alearner-driver’s permit and be permitted to buy alcohol,but at the same time cannot use the same piece ofidentification to buy a packet of cigarettes.

This is no great rocket science; this is an issue of simplelogic. If a learner-driver’s permit is permitted asidentification for someone over the age of 18 to buyliquor, there seems to be no reason why — nor situationwhere — logically it should not be used for exactly thesame purpose to buy tobacco.

I make the point that logic does not seem to be thestrong point of the government today because we justheard the most extraordinary justification from theGovernment Whip, the Honourable Glenyys Romanes,for a very simple proposition — why the governmenthas not fulfilled an election commitment, which, as mycolleague has pointed out, was specific and hasdemonstrably not been kept by the government.

The Honourable Glenyys Romanes suggested it wasbecause of privatisation or another reason, whatever itmay be. The issue is simple: if the government wishesto keep its election promise, all it need do is make thefunds available through a Treasurer’s advance or a lineitem in the budget. This is not an issue of privatisation;it is about credibility. Does the government want tokeep its promise? If it does there are community serviceobligations — —

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — On a point of order,Mr President, in line with your ruling just a fewminutes ago, I direct your attention to the fact that theLeader of the Opposition is speaking on the previous

take note motion, and I ask you to direct him to comeback to the present motion.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember will also recall that I gave very wide latitude tothe Honourable Glenyys Romanes, but she kept ongoing regardless of my advice. The motions are clearlyinterwoven. This motion is about the eligibility criteriato get the student discount, and the contrast betweenliquor and tobacco was referred to. This is anotheridentification card issue, so the honourable member isable to weave the two in together, as the HonourableGlenyys Romanes did so very skilfully.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — One wonders at thesensitivity of the government over these issues such thatthe Honourable Jenny Mikakos decides she needs toprotect the Government Whip. We know there was nologic in the whip’s response, but I make the point that ifthe government wants to keep its promise to the peopleof Victoria, all it needs to do is make a communityservice obligation available.

I now turn to another important issue — the issue Istarted with — that is, the logic behind thegovernment’s extraordinarily bizarre position inrelation to whether a learners permit is suitable foridentification. In response, the minister suggested thatthe Minister for Health did not believe the learnerspermit was secure enough to be used for thispurpose — that is, for the purpose of buying tobacco. Ifthat is the case, it must equally apply to the purchase ofliquor. If it does not apply to the purchase of tobacco itshould not be used for alcohol either.

The government has now got itself into thisextraordinary position where one piece of identificationis suitable for one product but the identicalidentification is not suitable for the purchase of anotherproduct. My question was specific and simple regardingthe logic of it, and I did not get an answer to it. Noamount of wordsmithing by honourable membersopposite will explain away this circumstance. I lookforward to the attempts that may come, because blindFreddy can see that a learners permit used for onepurpose must, by definition, be equally useable for thesecond purpose.

The Liquor Stores Association of Victoria is seeking areview and has written to the Minister for Health, butthe minister locked into his previous position inreplying to the association by saying that he is notprepared to alter his position but that he might review itat a later date. This government has now701 reviews — —




Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I think theopposition understands this government’s commitmentand concerns about under-age drinking and dangerousdriving by young people and the fact that it has taken anumber of initiatives with respect to this area. Oneinitiative was the banning from retail sale alcohol-basedfood essences that were in domestic-size containers.That is evidence of the government’s determination toact decisively and effectively in this area.

Hon. Bill Forwood — What does that have to dowith it?

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — It has a lot to do withit because it demonstrates the government’scommitment to tackling under-age drinking anddriving. It is appropriate that as part of thegovernment’s commitment to decrease under-agedrinking it regularly assesses the merits of existing andemerging forms of identification which are acceptableevidence of age for the purpose of the licenseedefending a prosecution in respect of allowing a personunder 18 years of age on licensed premises or supplyingthem with liquor. Honourable members will be awarethat the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 specificallyprovides for this flexibility in prescribing acceptableevidence of age.

The application of hard-card technology for theproduction of learners permits issued by Vicroads haseliminated the concerns that previously existed for theacceptability of the permit for evidence of age. It isprobably some time since honourable membersobtained their learners permit, but I recall when I gotmy learners permit many years ago it was not in theform of a plastic card, as is commonly used now andwhich is similar to a drivers licence; it was a piece ofpaper that could easily be forged. For this reason therewere a number of concerns relating to using that type ofdocumentation for evidence of age. We have now beenmoving towards hard-card technology for learnerspermits, which means those concerns have decreased.

We should remember that in talking about using alearners permit as evidence of age we areacknowledging the fact that people as young as16 years can obtain a learners permit, but in presentingthat type of identification obviously a holder wouldneed to demonstrate to the licensee that they are18 years of age or over. Unfortunately young peoplehave been ingenious in their ability to forgeidentification in the past, and by moving to hard-cardtechnology it is hoped it will be more difficult foryoung people to forge that type of identification.

Evidence does indicate that most instances of youngpeople obtaining liquor illegally is a result of retailersinadequately checking the identification of minorsrather than the presentation of false identification.

The learners permit issued by other states and territoriescontinue to be unacceptable in Victoria for liquorlicensing purposes due to the variability in control overtheir manufacturing and issue. I understand that themerit of including the learners permit issued byVicroads as acceptable evidence of age for the TobaccoAct is under review by the Minister for Health. I havenot seen the correspondence that the Leader of theOpposition has referred to in his contribution, but Iunderstand it is now being looked at because theTobacco Act has provisions regarding the acceptableevidence for young people purchasing cigarettes. As weare moving to hard-card technology, the Department ofHuman Services is looking at whether there should be asimilar approach under the Tobacco Act as there is forliquor purchases.

In summary, the learners permit issued byVicroads — —


Motion agreed to.

Energy and greenhouse technologies centre

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I move:

The Council take note of the answer by the Minister forEnergy and Resources to a question without notice asked bythe Honourable P. R. Hall relating to the centre for energy andgreenhouse technologies.

The establishment of the centre for energy andgreenhouse technologies came as a surprise. It was anunannounced initiative that suddenly appeared in thestate budget papers tabled in Parliament a few weeksago.

It was totally unlike a lot of the other budget initiativeswhich had been previously mentioned. Most of theelements in the budget were well known to the peopleof Victoria by the time the budget papers werepresented because the government had leaked whatinitiatives were going to be in the budget to gainmaximum publicity.

However, it did not leak information about the centrefor energy and greenhouse technologies, and for sometime I wondered why this information was not leakedbefore the budget was announced. It is only now afterthe minister’s answer in the house today that it isapparent why information about this initiative was not



leaked. It was not leaked because the government didnot have any idea of how it would work or how itwould be set up. Even today, the answer given by theMinister for Energy and Resources confirms that thegovernment is consulting about how it might work andwhat it might look like. It seems that she has no idea ofwhat form it will take, nor do other members of thegovernment.

It is a bit like the regional fast rail project and theSnowy River water project where the government tellsus what it will do but has no idea how it will do it. It isthe same with this centre for energy and greenhousetechnologies. The government said it would allocate$12 million, but it has no idea how that money will bespent; what form the centre will take; what it will looklike or what benefits will come to Gippsland with theproject.

It is another example of a misleading budget headline.The budget papers had a map of Victoria and an arrowpointing to the Gippsland region which said $12 millionwould be spent on the centre for energy and greenhousetechnologies. That is a misleading diagram in thebudget papers because $12 million will not be spent inGippsland on the centre for energy and greenhousetechnologies.

In my search for information on this I referred topage 64 in budget paper 2. In reference to the$12 million to be spent on the centre for energy andgreenhouse technologies it said:

The centre will facilitate research, development,demonstration and commercialisation of technologies …

While the centre will not undertake research itself, it willcoordinate, facilitate and fund relevant energy projects …

It does not say that the government will spend$12 million in Gippsland. It says that the centre willfund research projects all over Victoria — not just inGippsland.

On 15 May the Minister for Energy and Resourcesanswered a question without notice in this house. Shedid not add a great deal to the limited informationprovided by the budget papers but she did tell us thatthe centre will employ ‘existing facilities and expertisefrom across Victoria’. Once again we do not know ifthere will be any new jobs at all for the people ofGippsland. All we are told is that the administrativecentre will be located somewhere in Gippsland. We donot know what form it will take.

My search for further information took me tocomments made by the Treasurer last week when headdressed the annual meeting of Advance Morwell. He

described as one of the state budget initiatives forGippsland the:

… establishment of the centre for energy and greenhousetechnologies in the Latrobe Valley (with other nodes acrossthe state). The government will commit up to $12 millionover the next three years towards projects sponsored by thecentre. The centre will support development of technologiesto reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting theefficient and sustainable supply and use of energy.

Once again this gives no clear indication that the$12 million will be spent in Gippsland.

My grave fear is that this is another misleading budgetheadline by the government. The people of Gippslandhave been led to believe that this is a $12 millioninitiative for our area. It is not. I anticipate that we willhave a couple of public servants, providing thesecretarial component for the centre, sitting in theDepartment of Infrastructure office in Traralgon andthat is all we will get.

If we are going to get something better let thegovernment come clean and tell us. It had thatopportunity today; it did not. I call on the governmentto do so.

Motion agreed to.

Berwick Primary School

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I move:

That the Council take note of the answer given by theMinister for Education Services to a question without noticeasked by the Honourable N. B. Lucas relating to the tenderfor the Berwick Primary School capital works.

I raised this matter to do with Berwick Primary Schoolbecause I was concerned that $40 000 has been wasted.Four of my children went to Berwick Primary School. Iwas on the school council and was involved withfundraising at that school. Now I find that funds held bythat school and by the City of Casey will be wastedbecause this government chose not to seek a total tenderfor two works for the relocation of the primary school.

The facts are that the successful tender for the buildingswas $20 000 lower than the next bid. The fact also isthat this government, through the Department ofEducation and Training, obtained quotes for otherworks, being the school oval and the car park. The bidof the lowest tenderer for the buildings was $60 000higher than the lowest bid for the same works byanother tenderer. Had the government added the$60 000 and the $20 000 it would have quickly realisedthat it was going to dud the local community $40 000.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


What was the minister’s reason for this? She said thatbecause the joint-use agreement had not been signedwith the school and the council a tender could not beobtained for the extra works for the oval and the carpark. However, the minister admitted that thegovernment had obtained quotes for these works. If thegovernment could obtain a quote and tender on twodifferent works why could it not put them together? Orindeed, and this is the really important point, why did itnot ask each of the tenderers to come up with a totalprice on the works?

The minister did not answer that question. Thegovernment answered it through a governmentdepartment and the answer appeared in a press releaseby the City of Casey in which the mayor, Cr Smith,said that the Department of Infrastructure:

… had confirmed that, as long as all tenderers were able tosubmit a price for the varied project,

The varied project being the two sets of works: thebuildings, the car park and oval — —

no tenderer would have been disadvantaged.

That is a fact. The quote goes on:

Accordingly, the savings could easily have been made.

They were not easily made because the governmentchose not to proceed in this way, which the departmenthas admitted to the council could have been done.

This minister is in charge of a department which is notlooking after the real interests of the community. It iswilling to waste $40 000 of funds raised within thecommunity by the city ratepayers and the BerwickPrimary School council. The record will show that theminister, the Honourable Monica Gould, is not in thehouse. I assume she is hiding in her office so she willnot have to answer the questions asked; she is not gameto be in the house to take up this issue. She is out theresomewhere, hiding from members who are accusingher of being in charge of a department that will waste$40 000 of community money. That is why the ministerwas removed from her previous position as Minister forIndustrial Relations; that is why the minister should beremoved from her new position as Minister forEducation Services.

I call on the government to sack this minister forincompetence. It is an outrage that a government canstand by this disgraced minister and waste $40 000 ofcommunity funds. The people of Berwick condemn thegovernment for its poor practice. The Berwick PrimarySchool council believes it has witnessed the total

wastage of $40 000. This is a disgrace and the ministershould resign.

Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I have answers to questions on notice2409, 2467–71, 2483, 2502, 2512, 2624, 2693,2719–24, 2734, 2756, 2768, 2771, 2779, 2797, 2798,2804, 2805, 2827–9, 2837–9, 2888, 2889, 2900, 2901,2904–9, 2917.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONSCOMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 5

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) presented Alert DigestNo. 5 of 2002, together with appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Casino (Management Agreement) Act 1993 — Authorisedchanges to Drawings relating to Crown Limited’s SecondHotel Tower.

Environment Protection Authority — NeighbourhoodEnvironment Improvement Plan Proposal Guideline, May2002.

International Fibre Centre Ltd — Minister’s report of 13 May2002 of receipt of the 2001 report.

Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria — Report, yearending 30 September 2001.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission — Report, 2000–2001.

Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 —

Minister’s response to recommendations in the Familyand Community Development Committee’s report uponthe Inquiry into Marketplace Discrimination AgainstWomen Consumers.

Minister’s response to recommendations in the PublicAccounts and Estimates Committee’s 43rd Report on the2001–2002 Budget Estimates.

Minister’s response to recommendations in the Scrutinyof Acts and Regulations Committee’s report upon the

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


Inquiry into the Summary Offences Act 1966, FinalReport.

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

Ballarat Planning Scheme — Amendment C44.

Bayside Planning Scheme — Amendment C21.

Bendigo — Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme —Amendment C9.

Cardinia Planning Scheme — Amendment C29.

Casey Planning Scheme — Amendment C42.

Geelong — Greater Geelong Planning Scheme —Amendment C34.

Kingston Planning Scheme — Amendment C28.

Melbourne Planning Scheme — Amendment C63.

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme — Amendment C30.

Southern Grampians Planning Scheme —Amendment C4.

Wyndham Planning Scheme — Amendment C16.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament:

Business Names Act 1962 — No. 31.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 — Nos 33 to 35.

Zoological Parks and Gardens Act 1995 — No. 32.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Minister’s exception certificate under section 8(4) inrespect of Statutory Rule No. 32.

Minister’s exemption certificate under section 9(6) inrespect of Statutory Rule. No. 31.

STATE TAXATION LEGISLATION(FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill introduces a number of measures designed toensure that the state’s taxation system operates fairlyand equitably and that business compliance costs arereduced. The bill includes major changes to the motorcar duty provisions in the Duties Act 2000 (Duties Act)and a significant improvement to the means by whichthe unimproved value of land is calculated for land taxassessment purposes. The bill also makes minoramendments to the documents duty provisions of the

Duties Act, following further consultation withindustry. Minor but important amendments are alsomade to the Land Tax Act 1958 and to the Pay-roll TaxAct 1971.

The bill includes proposals to replace the current motorvehicle duty collection regime with a more robustarrangement.

Following industry consultation with Vicroads, theVictorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce andConsumer and Business Affairs Victoria, agreementhas been reached to replace the current collectionsystem. The objective of the new model is to simplifythe payment system for acquirers of motor vehicles.

The new collection system includes the provision of asingle payment point at Vicroads, thereby eliminatingthe need for the dealers to deal with two separateagencies.

It also requires that all applications for transfer beaccompanied by the payment of duty, with a penalty forany failure to pay the duty within 14 days of the sale.

Under the new collection system, the licensed motor cartrader (LMCT) will collect the duty from the acquirer.This will include both new and used car dealers.

There is also the provision of a separate penalty on bothdisposer and acquirer for understatement of value of thevehicle, thereby addressing the risk of collusion tominimise duty.

The new system also streamlines the recovery of unpaidamounts by deeming the application for transfer to bean assessment.

The proposed changes will provide more certaintywithin the marketplace with a more simplified andefficient collection regime. The impact on revenue willbe negligible.

The new collection arrangements will commence on1 July 2002. The State Revenue Office is undertakingextensive communications with taxpayers and licensedmotor car traders to ensure that the changes causeminimal disruption and are clearly understood by allstakeholders.

The bill also makes important amendments to the LandTax Act.

The bill abolishes the existing equalisation provisionsfrom 2003 and replaces them with an indexation factor.

Equalisation factors for each municipality were used forland tax between 1984 and 2001 to determine the



unimproved value of land for land tax assessmentpurposes. They reflected the Valuer-General’s estimateof the average movement in site value within amunicipality from the time of the last general valuationto a common date set by the Treasurer. The factorderived was applied to the site value of the municipalvaluation used for land tax purposes, to provide anotional unimproved value.

Equalisation factors were necessary as until 2000 not allcouncils conducted their general valuations at the sametime and the returned general valuations were appliedfor land tax for some years after their initial use forcouncil rating purposes.

Each year the Valuer-General set an equalisation factorfor each municipality. The factors were made byregulation and were not subject to objection or appealby taxpayers.

From the 2000 general valuation, all Victorianmunicipalities now undertake general valuations on acommon two-year cycle.

The 2000 general valuation is being used for the firsttime for land tax assessing in 2002. It is proposed,however, that where a general valuation is used for asecond time for land tax, such as when the 2000 generalvaluation is used for the 2003 land tax year, it should beadjusted to reflect the movement in property valuationssince the valuation was made.

The bill provides that the Valuer-General willdetermine the indexation factor. The factor will beprescribed by regulation. This is consistent with theequalisation factor arrangements.

A consequential amendment is made to the SubordinateLegislation Act 1994 to ensure that the regulationsprescribing the indexation factor are not subject to aregulatory impact statement (again, the same as for theregulations prescribing the equalisation factors).

The proposed new formula, to be called an indexationfactor, will remove some of the anomalies andinequities created by the existing equalisation factor.The factor will reflect an amount which, in the opinionof the Valuer-General, would as nearly as possiblerepresent half the percentage movement of theaggregate value of taxable land for the municipalitybetween the general valuation in use for land tax andthe next general valuation returned by council. Thereare numerous benefits of this model.

One obvious benefit is that the unimproved value usedfor land tax assessing would approximate the averageof two actual municipal valuations.

This will smooth out extreme fluctuations in taxliability and reduce distortions between the existinggeneral valuation in use for land tax and the nextgeneral valuation.

Also, valuations derived from the formula would not bedistorted by variations in the valuations of non-taxableproperties. In calculating the indexation factor, theValuer-General would exclude valuations of residentialproperties which are exempt and rural land. The newindexation factor will be simple to apply, and easier forland taxpayers to understand, because it is based onactual valuations.

In determining the value of taxable land theValuer-General would exclude from the calculation thevalue of properties classified as rural land and thosewhich are exempt as principal places of residence. TheValuer-General would, in relation to principal residenceexempt land, rely upon information provided by thecommissioner regarding the aggregate value of exemptland for each municipality. Where this information wasnot available, the Valuer-General would be permitted toestimate the value of the land so exempted. As mostcommercial and industrial properties are both rateableand taxable, the average valuation movement of thesetypes of property between both valuations would bereflected in the indexation factor.

The bill also includes a minor amendment to exemptfrom land tax land that is owned by non-profitorganisations which have as their principal objectivesthe conduct of agricultural shows, farm machinery fielddays, and similar activities where these organisationsuse the land for those purposes.

There are few organisations running agricultural showsand related events directly affected by land tax. Mostuse municipal land, which is currently exempt, orwhere they own the land it is often valued at an amountbelow the land tax liability threshold.

While the promotion of agriculture can come within thecharitable purposes exemption these organisationsusually cannot meet the ‘exclusively for charitable use’test. Due to the need to finance their primary activitymost would hire the land to other organisations forshort-term activities.

The impact on revenue of providing the exemption isminimal and the amendment will operateretrospectively to cover the 2002 land tax assessmentyear.

The amendment to the Pay-roll Tax Act included in thebill relates to the exemption for non-government andnon-profit schools and colleges.



The provisions will extend operation of the existingexemption applying to wages paid by not-for-profitschools or colleges in existence before 27 May 1997 tootherwise eligible technical schools that provideeducation predominantly at or below the secondarylevel to students that are aged under 19 years.

The amendments also preserve the exempt status ofschools which qualified under the current provisions.There have been objections to the tax by non-profitbodies, primarily those offering ballet and dramaeducation, which believe that they should qualify forthe exemption on the same basis as othernon-government not-for-profit education providers. Theproposed amendments will resolve a contentious areaof the law.

The minor Duties Act amendments I mentioned at theoutset comprise a number of technical amendments tovarious provisions to ensure that they are whollyconsistent with the current policy intent, clarifyuncertainty and safeguard against potential avoidanceactivity. The important changes can be summarised inthe following way:

Aggregation of dutiable property

Section 24 of the Duties Act is an anti-avoidanceprovision which ensures that items of dutiable propertypurchased under one arrangement are assessed for dutyon their aggregated value. The provision imposes threecriteria — namely:

that the transactions occur within 12 months; and

the transferee is the same or the transferees areassociated persons; and

the dutiable transactions together indicate theexistence of one arrangement.

The main thrust of the Victorian provisions is to ensurethat, when broadacres were purchased and subdividedprior to settlement, the individual transfers are subjectto aggregation. The 12-month limit means thatpurchasers under terms contracts settling over a periodexceeding 12 months would pay less duty than shouldbe the case. The amendment will ensure that thesetransactions are captured by section 24.

There is also evidence that the need to satisfy all theaggregation criteria leads to duty minimisation incircumstances where separate companies owned orcontrolled by related parties purchase different elementsof dutiable property used in conjunction, such asseparate purchases of land and goods under one

arrangement. A further amendment to section 24 willeliminate this opportunity.

Unit trusts

The conveyancing provisions of the Duties Act providein section 7(1)(b)(vi) that a change of beneficialownership in dutiable property is subject to duty otherthan a change in regard to an estate in land throughissue, transfer, redemption or cancellation of units in aunit trust.

The reference to land instead of the wider term ofdutiable property means that such a change ofbeneficial interest in unlisted marketable securities in aunit trust is subject to duty.

Notwithstanding the impending abolition of marketablesecurity duty from July 2003, the bill will ensure thatVictoria has uniform provisions for the duration of thetax.

Declarations of trust for unquoted shares

Section 34 of the Duties Act exempts declarations oftrust made by an apparent purchaser in respect ofdutiable property where the real purchaser has suppliedthe purchase monies. As a result of quoted marketablesecurities being removed from the dutiable property list(prior to enactment) these declarations in respect ofquoted marketable securities are subject to duty,whereas declarations in respect of land and unquotedmarketable securities are not. Such declarations did notattract duty under the Stamps Act.

Under the Stamps Act declarations by a trustee infavour of the beneficial owner who provided thepurchase monies was not liable to duty regardless of theasset the trust was in regard to. It was intended theDuties Act would reflect this policy and the bill willrestore the Stamps Act position.

Transfer to a special trustee

The Duties Act provides an exemption in section 33(2)for transactions relating to the change of trustees fordutiable property. Special trustees, defined as includingtrustee companies under Victorian and correspondingacts and trustees of complying superannuation funds,are not required to satisfy the commissioner as to thecapacity in which they hold the dutiable property.

A recent case has demonstrated that there is opportunityfor exploitation of the exemption as trustee companiesmay be involved in a series of commercial transactionsand are not limited to exclusively holding propertymerely as trustees. To guard against duty avoidance an

ELECTORAL BILL


amendment contained in the bill will ensure that theexemption will only apply where it is established thatthe transfer of property to the trust was executed onlybecause of a change of trustee.

Transfers resulting from declaration of trust

Section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Duties Act charges duty on adeclaration of trust in respect of property already vestedin the person declaring the trust and also any identifiedproperty ‘to be vested’. The wording of the trustprovisions has the potential for imposing double dutyon the declaration and also the transaction by which theproperty is acquired by the declarant. A provision in thebill will ensure that double duty is not payable.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned for Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra)on motion of Hon. I. J. Cover.

Debate adjourned until next day.

ELECTORAL BILL

Second reading

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — I move:


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

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 expenditure.

The bill will retain all essential electoral principleswhile 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.

ELECTORAL BILL


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.

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 lists of electors at the VEC and contact the VECto check their own enrolment details, as they can now.

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 and will make voting more convenientand 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 monitoringthe 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.

Registered political parties will be required to nominatetheir candidates with the VEC, instead of having thechoice of nominating candidates with the Electoral

Commissioner or with individual returning officers asat 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.

To increase candidates’ privacy, the bill provides thatonly the candidate’s name and nominated contactdetails 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 Electoral

ELECTORAL BILL


Commissioner, 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.

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 a

decision 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 forum 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 expenditure

Under Victorian law there is no public funding ofpolitical parties and candidates. In contrast, thecommonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland and theAustralian Capital Territory have systems of publicfunding.

It is government policy to make election contests fairerthrough limited public funding of election campaigns.The aim of public funding is to reduce parties’dependence on corporate money and to put parties on amore even footing.

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 where a candidate obtains at least 4 percent of the first preference votes, and it will be indexedaccording to the CPI.

Parties and candidates will receive funding only if theyprovide the VEC with an audited statement that theirelectoral spending has been no less than theirentitlement under the $1.20 per vote formula. Partiesand candidates that have spent less than theirentitlement will receive only what they have spent.There will be penalties for false statements, and theVEC will be entitled to request further information if itis reasonably satisfied that information in a statement ismaterially incorrect. These provisions will prevent the

BUDGET PAPERS, 2002–03


‘profiteering’ on elections that has occurredoccasionally under the commonwealth system.

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 of casinooperator’s and gaming operator’s licences. Persons whohold such licences will be prohibited from makingdonations to any one registered political party totallingmore than $50 000 in a financial year. If the holder of aprescribed licence contravenes this provision, theamount above the $50 000 cap will be forfeited to thestate.

The question of whether additional licences should becovered by the cap will be referred to the Scrutiny ofActs and Regulations Committee, which will berequested to report by 30 June 2003.

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.

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.


Debate adjourned for Hon. BILL FORWOOD(Templestowe) on motion of Hon. I. J. Cover.



Debate resumed from 16 May; motion ofHon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources):

That the Council take note of the budget papers, 2002–03.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I amdelighted to speak in support of the budget for2002–03. The reason I strongly endorse the budget isbecause of the many good things in it — things thatVictorians deserve to get from the Bracks Laborgovernment.

The budget is not only looking after the people ofVictoria but at the same time it is looking after thebusiness of Victoria and the growth of the Victorianeconomy. The government wants to ensure that everyopportunity is there to help Victoria to become betterand stronger every day.

This budget is pro-business and is a financiallyresponsible budget. That statement was delivered byTreasurer John Brumby on 7 May 2002 in the lowerhouse in front of members of Parliament, the media andthe Victorian community.

The budget is committed in many ways to the way wewant to see Victoria — as one of the best stateeconomies in Australia. It is true. Our state economyhas won a lot of support from the private sector,including the business community, and at the same timefrom many welfare agencies in Victoria. It is a budgetthat the Bracks government is proud of presenting tothe people of Victoria. We have committed so thebusiness community will get the benefit of $1 billionfrom this budget. At the same time, we will spendmoney on improving the health sector and alsoimproving education for our younger generation. Wewill also invest in a lot of projects in infrastructure —building Victoria and building confidence for thefuture.

Business people know they will get benefits because wehave lower and fewer taxes. We want to bringconfidence to the investors in Victoria who want toinvest in Victoria. They will get a lot of benefit andthey support opportunity. The result is very clear — theeconomy in Victoria has grown.

In question time today I asked the Minister for SmallBusiness a question about small business confidence.The Yellow Pages quarterly survey for May 2002released today shows that Victoria’s businessconfidence net balance has increased by 14 per cent.That shows the confidence that small and medium-sizebusinesses have in the Bracks government. It is noteasy to say that when the world economy has gonedown. Victoria’s economy has improved because thisgovernment knows how to manage the economy. It hasa policy for business and for spending money onbuilding infrastructure to create jobs and give theVictorian community more confidence in the future.



That is why it has a good record with small andmedium-size businesses.

Today there are a lot of positives in the constructionand housing industries. People out there still believe theVictorian economy has helped the industry. It wassupposed to have collapsed six months ago after theevents of 11 September — which strongly affectedevery country — when everyone believed the economywould go down very fast. But now we are almost inJune, eight months later, and our state economy is stillvery positive and strong and Victorians are stillconfident in investing in the housing industry andspending more money and doing business to help oureconomy grow.

The government’s policy is strongly supported by manyother sectors, including the union sector and theVictorian Council of Social Service, which have spokenout in support of the budget.

We were elected two and a half years ago on a policy ofimproving health and education, and providing a safercommunity for Victorians. We have spent more moneyin education and on upgrading many educationservices, not because we want to spend money butbecause we want to see the education system inVictoria as one of the best in the world. The budgethighlights many things relating to education.

Last week was Education Week. The Minister forEducation and Training and the Minister for EducationServices presented the government’s policy andcommitment to schoolteachers, principals, students,parents, and the community about the future and itscommitment to seeing younger students getting bettereducation and skills and receiving the best services inthe world.

The government has spoken to the people in Victoria.As a result it has spent about $34.5 million onimproving numeracy programs so that youngerstudents — 96.5 per cent of Victorian year 3 studentsand 94.3 per cent of year 5 students — have reached thenational numeracy benchmark. That shows thegovernment is committed to improving the numeracyand literacy skills of younger students.

It has also spent money on supporting 15 Koorieducators and six home-school liaison officials. It hasallocated $3.6 million over the next four years forimprovements so that the Koori community can enjoythe education services provided by the Bracksgovernment.

It has also spent money on improving school sports andhas invested $8 million to support Melbourne hosting

the 2005 Pacific School Games to see young peoplecommitted to sport. Australia has a good reputation inplaying and organising sports, and we want to continuethat.

The Bracks government has also placed a strong focuson and spent money in rural and regional Victoria. Itwill be spending $105.3 million directly on rural andregional education. Regional schools have benefitedfrom a $334 million investment in the statewideinnovative program. The program is targeted at 15 to19-year-olds.

The budget also contains an allocation of $70.6 millionto fund extensive capital works programs in ruralVictoria, including the specialist preschool program inGippsland, and major improvements and upgrading ofschools in Drouin, Pakenham, Baranduda, Chilwell,Derinya, Rosebud, Benalla and so on, and the stage 1development of the Maryborough education precinct, anew Koori education centre, the replacement ofrelocatables with stable and permanent buildings atBellarine Secondary College, and major buildingimprovements at Edenhope P12 College.

We are rebuilding fire-affected schools at Mooroopnaand Corio. So this is one of the examples of the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to rural and regionalVictoria. It is one of the examples of a program thegovernment wants to highlight to show that theVictorian education sector and parents can be confidentand encourage students to do better and gain a betterfuture. That is what Victoria needs.

In education, in metropolitan Melbourne welfareworkers are employed to help our students to stay atschool longer. Why do we have to do that? Not to wastemoney or create more jobs for the welfare sector, but tosolve a problem. In our education system 10 years ago alot of young people who left school early becameinvolved in unhealthy activities. They left school at 13,14 and 15 years of age and got involved in drugs. Notlong ago in Parliament we debated legislation aboutspray cans. Many young people who do not go toschool end up on the street somewhere without thesupport of their parents and family and they end updoing something silly. These welfare workers inschools can keep an eye on the students and make surethey attend school regularly. If students drop out, thewelfare workers will contact their teachers and parentsand find out what is wrong with the students. They willfind a way to help them solve their personal problemsrather than punishing them.

The present program is one which the Bracksgovernment has tried to implement in the past believing



that young people learn more and are less likely to getinvolved in crime. These are just some of the programsworking with community groups, schools, parents, andgovernment departments, finding a way to helpyounger people. We can see that there will be fewerproblems than before because when children do not goto school the school will contact their parents rightaway and try to encourage them to stay at school. Wehope there will be no young people under 16, especiallyaged 13, selling drugs on the streets, because we will bekeeping them at school. Four or five years ago therewere a lot of older people using kids, approaching themoutside school and asking them to sell drugs for them.We have tried to stop that because we know it will begood for everyone if kids are kept in a safe place. Theprogram’s many welfare officers will be workingclosely with school councils, parents and teachers toensure that.

I turn now to another issue. We are committed toappoint more police to look after the safety of thecommunity. On the weekend we saw the media releasefrom the Minister for Police and Emergency Services,André Haermeyer, which said that crime statistics for2001–02 showed a record decrease of about 25 per centin robbery, home invasion, drug cultivation andpossession of illegal drugs, car theft and many otherproblems. So the investment of 800 extra police hasworked and is helping the community.

To deal with the police figures in more detail, from4 July 2001 to 25 April this year, manufacturing andtrafficking of drugs had dropped by a massive 21.3 percent. Drug possession fell by 9.5 per cent; burglarydecreased by 7.1 per cent; home invasion was down by6.6 per cent; car theft was down by 5.6 per cent, andrape by 1.1 per cent. So that shows how the communitysafety program has worked and is helping to makeVictoria a safer place to live.

I want to go into some detail about budget initiatives asthey affect Footscray, which is part of my electorate.The appropriation for the building of the Footscraypolice station and the provision of more police officers,costing about $12 million, demonstrates thegovernment’s commitment to improving the safety ofthe people of Footscray. About $875 000 is being spenton the Footscray North Primary School; the WesternHospital will receive $380 000 for medical equipment;the North Maidstone preschool and play centre willreceive $185 000 for building and safety work; theKingsville kindergarten will receive about $65 000 forbuilding and ground safety work; the Maribyrnongkindergarten will receive $120 000 for building andground safety work; the South Kingsville preschoolwill receive about $20 000 for building and ground

safety work; the Maribyrnong city library will receive$15 000 and the Brimbank city library will receive$15 000. That is good for many families, especially thechildren, who will benefit from the work in thepreschools and the libraries. It is a commitment to theyounger generation of Victoria.

I turn now to the government’s commitment toimproving the transport infrastructure of Victoria. Thefour-year Linking the Suburbs project for new publictransport and the upgrading of roads has been allocated$704 million — a significant infrastructure initiative.The government is spending $445 million for theconstruction of the Scoresby freeway. The railway linefrom Broadmeadows to Craigieburn will be electrifiedto cater for the extension of the metropolitan trainservice. The no. 75 tram route will be extended toVermont South, and stage 1 of the Knox tram extensionis costing about $30 million, with $12 million beingallocated over the next four years for operating costs.So there is an extension of the tramway system in thatarea with those upgrading works.

The budget has allocated $62 million to upgrade thearterial suburban roads, including the NarreWarren–Cranbourne Road in Narre Warren, costing$22 million; the Cranbourne–Frankston Road inLangwarrin, costing $11.7 million; Fitzgerald Road inLaverton, costing $17.3 million; the Macedon Streetbridge in Sunbury, costing $4.1 million, and EdgarsRoad in Epping, costing $10.3 million.

The government is committed to building residentialcrossings for the rail network and upgrading workscosting approximately $12.5 million. The road safetyinitiatives for motorists and motorcyclists have received$21.2 million. Upgrading the bus service, includingupgrading the bus route around Melbourne, is acommitment over four years. The list goes on. A$10 million package will guarantee rail access toLascelles wharf at Geelong; the Royal MelbourneShowgrounds will receive $101 million and theAustralian synchrotron will receive $100 milliontowards a $157 million project; the Melbourne Sportsand Aquatic Centre will receive about $50 million;about $10 million is being allocated over four years tobuild on the innovative Transit Cities program, and$4 million also over four years is allocated for theDandenong Development Board.

To assist the environment, the government is buildingthe Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, which is a $300 millionproject. It is allocating $77 million to that project.

Hon. R. A. Best — Do you know anything about it?



Hon. S. M. NGUYEN — Yes, I do know about it. Iknow that the federal government is contributing verylittle to it. The government is very disappointed that thefederal government is not prepared to match thefunding of the state government.

I know some honourable members representing countryelectorates are concerned about foxes, and thegovernment is spending about $3 million on thatproject. Rural and regional Victoria will benefit by theallocation of $102.3 million for upgrades to the CalderHighway, the Warrnambool–Melbourne railway line,the Henty Highway, the Corio Quay Road and theMaroondah Highway. About $70 million is beinginvested to upgrade 40 regional schools and one TAFEcollege, including $4 million for the Maryborougheducation precinct. The government is spending$77 million for the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.

We will invest $12 million to set up a centre for energyand greenhouse technologies — —

Hon. R. A. Best — You said $77 million before.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN — I said $77 million and$12 million for the centre for energy and greenhousetechnologies in the Latrobe Valley.

We will spend $26 million on agricultural programsincluding Farmbis, Landcare and fox control. We willspend $5 million for 12 new rural police stations, and$44 million to boost rural health and aged care services,including upgrades to eight country hospitals and fournew ambulance stations. They are the things we want toinvest in for rural and regional Victoria. There is moreto come.

In innovation and information and communicationstechnology, $27 million over four years has beeninvested. This includes a biotechnology strategicdevelopment plan. Over two years $9.2 million hasbeen allocated to ensure Victoria is recognised as acentre of design excellence; $100 million in capital anda further $2.9 million a year has been invested toestablish the Australian synchrotron as a nationalplatform for groundbreaking research. So that is moremoney involving telecommunications for our futuretechnology.

The government is also committed to supportingculture. We have allocated a further $84 million to helpVictorian sports with a focus on developingstate-of-the-art facilities for the 2006 CommonwealthGames. An additional $100 million will be invested inthe arts and in infrastructure projects including a$54 million investment over five years to the$61 million Yarra precinct arts integration project to

build the Dame Elisabeth Murdoch recital hall and ahome for the Melbourne Theatre Company inSouthbank.

They are the things the government is committed to. Iam sure we will not try to create a black hole or spendmoney which we do not have. This government isaccountable and very responsible. We are helping tocreate jobs and business opportunities in Victoria.

Last month, a media release from the Minister forEmployment stated that Victoria’s unemployment hasgone down to 5.7 per cent — the lowest in Australia.The community strongly believes the government canrun the Victorian economy, and the unemployment ratehas dropped. Five per cent is a good record. Anygovernment that provides under 7 per centunemployment is running a good economic program.Victoria has only 5.7 per cent unemployment. In Aprilour employment rate increased by 1.2 per cent, whichmeans that a further 28 300 people were employed. It isahead of the national growth rate in jobs for the sameperiod. So the people know what we can provide for thebusinesses of Victoria.

The government is also committed to resolving manysocial issues through the Department of HumanServices. We have language services, and we havespent $425 000 for language services of a total$7.8 million in the health area. A lot of people need thisservice before they can have treatment.

In aged care the allocation has increased by $530 000for multicultural home and community care. Thisservice is provided to 61 ethno-specific andmulticultural agencies.

In housing and community funding the government hasincreased funding by $600 000 in multiculturalprograms. In mental health the government hasincreased funding by $300 000 for ethno-specificprograms.

In community care we have increased funding by over$200 000 in projected multicultural funding. In publichealth there has been an increase of $124 000 forthalassaemia services.

Not long ago the government introduced the Racial andReligious Tolerance Act. The legislation passedthrough Parliament over a year ago.

Consumer and Business Affairs Victoria has throughthe Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoriacommitted nearly $350 000 to provide information tolandlords and property managers and recently arrivedmigrants and refugees about their rights and



responsibilities in the private rental market. There isinformation in multilingual services in the consumeraffairs department so that people will better understandand know their rights before they sign their leases.

Also, we support the Women’s Policy and CulturalDiversity Inventory project, thus helping theunderstanding of many women of legal and socialissues in Victoria. There are also multicultural jobseeker’s programs — we spent $300 000 to developmultilingual information so people can understand howto get employment and how to help themselves in anew country.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environmenthas a pilot program run by the Environment ProtectionAuthority; it is called the Cultural Diversity programand is a program to train its work force in enhancingcommunication within the wider multiculturalcommunity.

There are many things in the budget which I cannot gointo because of the time limit. I raised a question inParliament two weeks ago when the federal Treasurer,Peter Costello, announced his budget and the bigfunding cut for foreign languages. I raised this inParliament to ask the state minister to talk to the federaleducation minister about the concerns as a result offunding for some foreign languages being cut. Thegovernment has been talking about doing business inforeign countries. There are courses in university whichare designed to help people who are interested in doingbusiness in other countries to help them to learn thelanguage and also to learn the culture and how to dobusiness. The cut in funding will not help manybusiness people to develop their skills or the skills oftheir staff in order to send them overseas to work with aforeign country to develop a business link betweenAustralia and that other country.

The funding cost is about $30 million over four years.That is a small grant, but the federal government doesnot see the benefit for the future. So many universitiesin Australia will suffer under the cuts to this program.Many courses rely on government funding, and theywill not be able to afford to continue helping companiesto train their staff. So this is a big miss for Australiantraining and education.

When I read about the federal budget in the newspapersI asked myself, ‘What is the budget for MelbourneWest?’. I found that it allocated only $12 million innew measures for education, science and training forthe whole of Australia, the same amount that thisgovernment has provided for a new police station inFootscray. The whole policy of the federal government

will cost only $12 million, compared with thisgovernment’s allocation of $12 million for theFootscray police station.

The federal government has nothing for educationbecause it gives education a low priority.

What has the Victorian government done forMelbourne West in the state budget? It is improvingschools in Sunshine, Williamstown, Altona andYarraville and will be making improvements tokindergartens in North Sunshine, Williamstown,Newport, Kingsville and Maribyrnong. It also provides$390 000 for extra equipment in the Western Hospital,$394 000 for equipment for the Sunshine hospital and$200 000 for extra equipment in the Williamstownhospital.

That is more than the federal budget for MelbourneWest. On the future role of the western suburbs, theVictorian budget has provided extra funding for publiclibraries run by the councils of Brimbank, Maribyrnongand Hobsons Bay. The Bracks government hasprovided more than the federal government forMelbourne West.

In conclusion, the Victorian budget is not big spendinglike the opposition says it is, it is spending money in aresponsible way to fix the problems of Victoria and isproviding funding for building Victoria’s future. That isin stark contrast with what the federal government hasdone for Victoria, which is very little. I am sure anhonourable member for Geelong Province will saymore about it in her contribution. I support the budgetpapers.

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — It is apleasure to rise to make a contribution to the debate onthe budget papers for 2002–03. So far as I amconcerned, there are four main issues that are veryclear: firstly, by any standards this is a high-taxinggovernment. What I wish to demonstrate in mycontribution is the areas of increases in tax and thepercentage increase they represent since thegovernment came to office in 1999.

Secondly, there has been a strategic shift in theallocation of budget funds towards the suburbs ofMelbourne, in many cases at the expense of projectsthat have been identified throughout country Victoria.

Thirdly, there has been a dramatic increase in thenumber of public servants on the state governmentpayroll who will need to be funded through recurrentfunding; and finally, this unquestionably is a budget forthe next election. My prediction is that we will have an



election in Victoria in November or early Decemberthis year.

Hon. A. P. Olexander — What date?

Hon. R. A. BEST — I think there are two weeks ofwindow of opportunity, Mr Olexander, and I do notthink you have to be too clever to work out what theyare — it will be either the last week in November or thefirst week in December.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!Mr Olexander is out of his place.

Hon. R. A. BEST — On the first issue, whichrelates to the taxes imposed by the government, I pointout that the government now collects about $1500 perperson per year more in tax than it did when it came topower in 1999, which means that this year it will collectan increase of $2.7 billion in revenue from Victoriantaxpayers.

Stamp duty is up by 84 per cent, and the governmentnow collects around $1.8 billion a year from that tax.When you compare Victoria’s stamp duty with that ofother states you can see how far above the nationalaverage it is. Currently the national average is about3.24 per cent. In Queensland the rate is 2.43 per cent,and in New South Wales it is 3.09 per cent, but inVictoria the rate is 4.05 per cent. Most people would beaware of the activity that has been going on in thehousing sector over the past four to five years.Unquestionably prices are continuing to rise, yet thegovernment has had a windfall gain at the expense ofmany young couples who have been trying to enter thehousing market to realise that great Australian dream ofowning their own home.

Even in places like Bendigo, where the median houseprice of $111 000 is well below that of the metropolitanarea, most couples who are purchasing a home wouldbe paying stamp duty in excess of $2500. Clearly this ismoney that is going into the government’s coffers andis a windfall for the state government.

By next year land tax will have increased by 66 percent. The national average is around 1.96 per cent. InQueensland it is 1.64 per cent and in New South Wales,1.68 per cent, but in Victoria — surprise, surprise! —the land tax rate is 2.32 per cent, which is above thenational average on the eastern seaboard, where wecompete most.

The government is unashamedly ripping off businessesand Victorian investors. It is obvious that not only is itcheaper to do business in New South Wales, it ischeaper anywhere other than Victoria. The government

is sending a clear message, a very arrogant message Ibelieve, to the investment community, which is, ‘If youwant to do business in Victoria you will have to payand pay dearly in stamp duty and land tax’.

It does not stop there. While the government hasannounced reductions in payroll tax, in reality the taxtake will be up 27 per cent.

To understand the facts I only have to refer to my localnewspaper. The problems created by the governmentbecause of its lack of sensitivity to business are clearlyunderstood by the editor and the journalists who workfor that newspaper. In an editorial on 24 April under theheading ‘Tax and the big picture’ the editor says:

From 1 July this year Victorian businesses will have theirpayroll tax dropped from 5.45 per cent to 5.35 per cent.

A year later it will drop to 5.25 per cent.

Does it surprise you that our state’s main business groupshave not been loud in the public arena praising the reduction?

It goes on to say:

Take that payroll tax drop: in conjunction with othersweeteners for business, it is meant to convey that thisgovernment is aware of the pressures of doing business and istrying to encourage business and therefore job creation.

It continues:

Just to give you an example: on the same day that the newbusiness ‘incentives’, including the payroll tax change, wereannounced, it was also announced that the state governmentwas pillaging the property market.

That refers to media coverage of the windfall gains instamp duty tax. The editorial continues:

The stamp duty on property sales rose 54.1 per cent.

It concludes:

In the two years, it raked in $1.8 billion. About $750 millionmore than the government expected.

And yet we’re supposed to be delighted about a 0.1 per centdrop in payroll tax, surely the most anti-employment tax everdevised by greedy governments.

We’ll hold off the cheering for now.

It identifies and highlights the failure of the governmentto return some of the windfall gains to businesses andordinary Victorians. It exposes the government as acallous and non-caring government that is unwilling toshare the spoils of the good times. As I will showshortly, the government is clearly trapped into bloatingthe public service, and while it is fine to say that thereare more teachers, more police and more nurses goinginto our system, it comes at a cost. The Victorian



business community is unashamedly concerned that thegovernment is removing the incentive to do business inVictoria.

Not only are householders and the business communitybeing taxed more, look at what is happening tomotorists. Motoring taxes are going up 17.4 per cent,while police fines have increased by a massive 240 percent since 1999. A motorcyclist will now cop a $50 feeto supposedly assist with road safety measures. I do notagree with the government’s obsession with finingmotorists to try to curb our road toll. I was a member ofthe Road Safety Committee in this place for sevenyears, and I am particularly concerned that theimplementation of the reduction in tolerance forspeedometers in cars and people with highblood-alcohol levels are not going to work on their ownto reduce the road toll.

When I travel down the Calder Highway I amconcerned that the people who pass me are mainlyP-platers. We need early intervention and educationprograms which change the attitude of young drivers inthe way they behave once they get behind the wheel ofa motor car. I am concerned that we do not startsending out road safety messages until people areequipped with licences. It is an underlying mistake instrategy and strategic direction that the government ismaking by simply relying on inflicting more fines onmotorists, heavier penalties on speeding motorists and areduction in the tolerance in speedometer limits. It hasthe potential to create more accidents than it actuallyresolves because people are going to become soconscious of the speed at which they are driving thatthey will look at their speedometers more than theylook at the road.

The government is also dipping its fingers into theinsurance industry. While it has been loath to give anyassistance with public liability insurance to the manyorganisations and community groups affected by it, itdoes not stop it from inflicting further tax increases oninsurances. Taxes on insurances are predicted to growfrom $696 million to $790 million, a 12 per centincrease in revenue. That reinforces what a high-taxinggovernment this is. In 1999–2000 the budget figure wasjust $380 million. So within two and a half years, thebudget figure has gone up from $380 million to apredicted income next year of $790 million. Again,ordinary Victorians are paying, businesses are sufferingand a whole range of people are affected not only byincreased premiums but increases in the cost of doingbusiness.

We only have to look at the love affair that thegovernment has with gambling to see what I believe is

an unhealthy reliance on gambling revenue. This yeargambling taxes are expected to increase by 31 per cent.At the last election the government made acommitment to return gambling losses back to thecommunity through funding infrastructure projects. Iwas particularly interested to read some research doneby the Bendigo campus of La Trobe University whichstated that the Bendigo community is losing$32 million per year to gambling. But what has thegovernment returned to Bendigo? Not very much. Theresearch done by La Trobe University, which thegovernment loves to rely on, exposes it for the lack ofmoney that it is providing back into the Bendigocommunity to assist with many infrastructure projects.

With all the increases in taxes, one would think that thegovernment would look after the average Victorianfamily — no way, unfortunately. The Premier and theTreasurer are both clearly on the record as saying thatthere will be no stamp duty relief. There are to be morefines for motorists and a fee applied to motorcyclists,and ordinary Victorians will miss out.

The previous government exempted the first home fromland tax. This government is doing very little to assistordinary home owners and ordinary taxpayers who arecontributing substantially to the tax revenue and the taxtake of this government. If you think that ordinaryVictorians have missed out, the logical question to askis, ‘There must be an emphasis somewhere. How didbusiness go?’. The fact is that for every $30 in extra taxrevenue that the government will receive, there is onlygoing to be $1 going back to business next year. Thegovernment is increasing its tax take on business whileat the same time trying to suggest that the introductionof payroll tax relief is going to assist business. The truthis it is just not going to happen.

It is no wonder that the Victorian economy is losingmomentum in comparison to the rest of Australia.Unfortunately — and I do not want in any way to talkdown the Victorian economy — there are disturbingsigns, particularly within our manufacturing area, thatmanufacturers are losing patience with this governmentand are leaving the state. To see that you only have tolook in the metropolitan area at companies such asArnott’s, Hugo Boss, Orica and Holeproof that haveclosed their Victorian operations down. But it does notonly occur in the metropolitan area. Unfortunately it isalso occurring in Bendigo and other areas across thestate.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Wangaratta.



Hon. R. A. BEST — Wangaratta — Mr Baxterassists me with his interjection on an example from hisown electorate.

When challenged, local members often have said in thepast, ‘But we have the Pauls dairy upgrade,$70 million. We have encouraged Pauls to increasetheir operation at the Bendigo factory, and it is going tocreate 70 jobs’. They held this great example as one ofthe ways in which their government was attractinginvestment to Victorians. It is extremely disappointingto have to report that on 30 March Pauls confirmed thatits proposed expansion, which was to create 70 jobs,would not go ahead. That is an enormous blow, notonly to Bendigo, but to the Bendigo economy.

That is bad enough. But we have also lost the StaffordEllinson clothing manufacturing plant at Eaglehawk,with the loss of 50 or 60 jobs. So unfortunately whilethis government makes much play of what it is doing toattract business to Victoria, on a statewide basis,unfortunately — and again I say ‘unfortunately’because I do not want to talk the Victorian economydown — business leaders and business investments arewithdrawing from Victoria.

The second issue I wish to address relates to thestrategic shift in the Labor government’s fundingpriorities. In the Treasurer’s speech he unashamedlyoutlines the government’s intentions and shift of focus.In budget paper 1, which is the Treasurer’s speech, onpage 4 it says under the heading ‘Stronger suburbs’:

… a major focus of this budget is the expanding suburbs andgrowth corridors of Melbourne.

These are the places where Victorian families are increasinglychoosing to live — and where much of Victoria’s futurepopulation growth will be concentrated.

In this budget, the government has committed $704 million toa major Linking the Suburbs transport strategy.

That is fantastic, and I congratulate my manycolleagues in the metropolitan area who are going to bethe beneficiaries of this windfall because what we aregoing to see is a range of projects that will assist thesuburbs.

At the same time, what is happening in my patch inregional Victoria? I specifically refer to Bendigo,because I put out a wish list before the last budgetidentifying a number of projects that I thought thegovernment should fund and that would assist in theinfrastructure for Bendigo and district. This wish listincluded upgrading of the funding of the QueenElizabeth Oval. I am delighted to say that as part of thiswish list only last week the minister came to Bendigo

and finally announced the upgrade of the QueenElizabeth Oval and the Bendigo Aquatic Centre. Iwelcome that because it is money being spent incountry Victoria and it is a project that has attractedmuch of my attention, particularly the upgrade of theQEO over the last three years, because I haveconsistently asked the minister about it — and I haveletters here dating back to 10 November 1999 that I canrefer to relating to the upgrade of the QEO, butconsistent with the way this government works, it hasonly taken it two and a half years to finally get to thestage of announcing funding for the project.

I do not mind consultation and I do not mind discussingissues that are important within the community.However, this upgrade of the QEO was identified by allsportspeople in Bendigo as being the majordisappointment as far as quality of sporting facilities inthe whole of the Bendigo area is concerned. We hadpeople from basketball clubs and from other footballclubs supporting the upgrade of the QEO because itwas clearly embarrassing: the changing rooms wereinadequate, and it limited Bendigo’s ability to hostmajor events.

The Bendigo Livestock Exchange has also been one ofthe most outstanding facilities that was built under theprevious government. It has enabled Bendigo to take itsplace as a livestock trading centre at the elite end. I donot have the exact figures, but I believe we have thelargest throughput of sheep of any selling centre acrossthe state. By any standard the investment that theprevious government has made in the livestockexchange has been a commitment that has returnedsubstantial benefits, not only to farmers and graziers,but also to buyers and to the City of Greater Bendigo.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Including the road upgrade.

Hon. R. A. BEST — I must mention again myappreciation and thanks that in Mr Baxter’s time asMinister for Roads he was able to ensure that the roadlinkages from the highway at Epsom to the livestockexchange were improved to such an extent that theyhave contributed significantly to the success of theBendigo Livestock Exchange, so again I thank him onbehalf of my colleague the Honourable Barry Bishopfor the work that the former minister did in Bendigo.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — And the road safety initiativeat the intersection, too.

Hon. R. A. BEST — Absolutely.

What we need now is to look at the future provision ofthe selling facilities available at the Bendigo LivestockExchange. It is unfortunate that on two occasions there



have been applications to fund shelters to ensure thecattle at the yards would be under cover. I call on thegovernment to again consider the application and lookat the infrastructure that is provided at that sellingcentre, the livestock exchange, and ensure that itcontinues to provide the best quality facilities that willencourage farmers and graziers to sell their cattlethrough that exchange.

Another issue that I would like to refer to relates to thePrince of Wales Showground, where I have continuallycalled for the upgrade of the pavilions to host the wooland sheep breeders show. Clearly, this is a signatureevent for Bendigo now. Back in July 2000 when it wasfirst moved to Bendigo from the Royal Melbourneshowgrounds there were over 1000 exhibitors, andsomething like 10 000 people attended the event. Weare at a stage in the development of this facility wherewe need to move from being a tent city, becausecurrently when the show is held, which is in July — inthe wet months of year, the winter period — every tentin northern Victoria gets hired out because there are nopermanent facilities to house the many exhibitors thatattend the show.

The exhibitors have made an application to thegovernment, but the government has been silent ontheir application. They desperately need $3.5 millionfrom the infrastructure fund to provide a much-neededupgrade so the wool and sheep breeders show can bestaged at Bendigo on a permanent basis. It would be anabsolute shame if for some reason the organisingcommittee of the event were to look at other locationsaround Victoria. The pavilion would provide not only apermanent home on the site of the Prince of WalesShowgrounds for the wool and sheep breeders’ showbut would also provide Bendigo with an opportunity tohost other events. That would address any speculationabout whether this is a good investment that would beutilised to its fullest extent. Clearly there is anopportunity here, and it would be very disappointing ifthe government let it slip through its hands.

One of the other issues that is of special significance tome is the upgrade of the Long Gully housingredevelopment. In 1999 the then Minister for Housing,Ann Henderson, announced that the coalitiongovernment would provide $6 million to ensure anupgrade of the public housing stock within that estate. Itis absolutely disappointing to me that on two occasionsnow the Labor government has reannounced thefunding for this project without any substantial workbeing undertaken. The audacity of the minister inreannouncing the $6 million project in March 2000 wasbad enough, but a fortnight ago in another place thehonourable member for Bendigo East reannounced the

funding! That is symptomatic of what this governmentis about: it puts more spin on issues than the best ShaneWarne leg break. It is a government based on publicrelations and one interested in announcing projects withsubstantial time frames before implementation.

Another good example is the announcement of the airambulance helicopter for Bendigo. That was a fantasticinitiative, but it was something like 18 months beforewe actually saw the helicopter on the ground.Announcements build expectations and people are ledto believe that things are really happening. That is oneof the reasons this state is losing momentum; thisgovernment is all spin and no substance.

I have been a huge supporter, as I think are mycolleagues in the National Party, of the Country FireAuthority. Unquestionably there is a need at the GoldenSquare fire station in High Street, Golden Square, foran upgrade to be undertaken. The station wasconstructed in 1909 and is now woefully inadequate forthe demands of a modern firefighting force. It was builtto house a horse and horse-drawn fire cart but now hasseveral modern fire vehicles crammed inside. That isclearly unacceptable and requires some immediateattention by the Country Fire Authority throughfunding out of its capital works program, which isprovided to it by the state government.

A range of other issues relate to Bendigo, but I amconscious of ensuring that other people have anopportunity to speak to the budget papers, so I willmove on.

The third issue I would like to address relates to thedramatic rise in the public service and the cost inrecurrent funding of employing these extra people. Weneed to establish whether that will lead to betterservices, better care, and better outcomes. I amconcerned that again the government has fallen for thethree-card trick, and I am not convinced that muchdifference can be seen in what the government claims ithas done for our hospitals, our schools and our housing.I will give some examples based on Bendigo figures,because that is where I live and obviously where myinterest lies.

When I came to this place in 1988 as a successor to thethen Leader of the National Party, Bernie Dunn, hereminded me in no uncertain terms of what his firstissue would be if we were to ever win government. In1988 the Liberal and National parties failed to wingovernment and a Labor government was re-electedwith a majority of one seat. Mr Dunn told me the firstthing he would do would be to get a stack of buseslined up outside the government offices and ship the



bureaucrats out of the metropolitan area because wehad a bloated public service that we could not afford.

I am fearful of that happening again, Mr DeputyPresident, and I will give some examples of what ishappening in our electorate at the Bendigo end. Oneonly has to look at the Bendigo Health Care Group andthe impact on waiting lists to know what I mean. As wehave heard through announcements by governmentmembers, there has been an increase in nursing and inbudget allocations to the health care group, although Iquestion that at this time because I have not seen thefinal figures. But the waiting lists, particularly thesemi-urgent ones, show that people are waiting longerthan the ideal time.

Recently when the government announced it wouldprovide $6 million to address the non-urgent waitinglists, guess who missed out? The Bendigo Health CareGroup. No money was allocated to it to address theincreases which had been identified and which had seenthe waiting lists increase so dramatically. I shouldremind the house that the previous government spent$40 million on the Bendigo Health Care Group andprovided a physical structure that was the envy of manyother regional centres. But unfortunately thisgovernment has not provided sufficient funding toaddress the blow-out that is occurring in waiting lists.

I wish to quote statistics from the government’sHospital Services Report of this government. AlthoughI get the figures on a quarterly basis, I normally applythem annually to ensure a level of appropriatemethodology in comparing like with like.

In March 1999 the semi-urgent waiting list was at 139.In March 2000, under Bracks, it had gone to 273, andby March 2001 it was up to 328. I hasten to add thatwhile the figures are here, they continue to increaseeven further. So the waiting list for semi-urgent patientshas increased by about threefold. In March 1999 therewere seven people on the waiting list for longer than theideal time for semi-urgent operations. By March 2000,under the Bracks government, that had increased to 84,and by March 2001, that had crept out to 155.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — It is hardly creeping; that is abig jump!

Hon. R. A. BEST — Mr Baxter, I am concernedthat the figure will be even larger, because bySeptember of 2001 it had reached 240. So in March1999, 7 people were waiting for longer than the idealtime for semi-urgent operations, in March 2000 therewere 68, by March 2001 there were 155, and inSeptember 2001 that figure had blown out to 240!

For all the words of this government and this minister,their figures speak for themselves. They are not myfigures which I am using to manipulate the system inany way — it is in their figures that they produce on aquarterly basis. I have extrapolated from theirdocuments to show how the extra nurses in thegovernment system are not reducing waiting times orwaiting lists — or helping the numbers of patientswaiting for non-urgent surgery to get off the waitinglists. But that is only one sector, to answer Mr Baxter.

The other sector I will refer to is one where there ismuch affinity between the government and theteachers’ union — class sizes from prep to year 2. Ihave figures that show that in the Bendigo region,where there are 33 schools, there are five small schools:Axedale, which has 44 students; Eppalock, which has49; Goornong, which has 61; Lockwood South with 64;and Marong with 77. They show that there are anumber of smaller schools that assist in bringing downthe average class size. It can be misleading unless youtake the opportunity of extrapolating the figures andapplying a methodology to get the right informationfrom them. As we know, the government’s benchmarkfrom prep to year 2 is 21 students per class. Yet 20 outof the 33 schools in the Bendigo region are over thegovernment’s benchmark of 21. That includes all thoselittle schools.

Hon. W. R. Baxter interjected.

Hon. R. A. BEST — Mr Baxter, I should have youholding up my prompt cards, because it gets evenbetter.

Right in the Bendigo area, where there are 21schools — obviously they would be of a reasonablesize because they serve the suburbs of Bendigo andthere are no small townships associated withprovisional school education — surprise, surprise, onlyfour of the schools are under the government’sbenchmark of 21 for prep to year 2. Of the 21 schoolsin Bendigo, 17 are above the government’s benchmarkof 21 students in prep to year 2. What has happened toall the extra teachers and funding that have been putinto the system? By the government’s own standards itis failing to address the prep-to-year-2 benchmark it hasset for itself. Again, these are not my figures; they arethe government’s figures. It is failing its own tests. Ontwo issues, health and education, the government isfailing to meet its own benchmarks.

The other benchmark we should look at is housingwaiting lists. If we look at the waiting lists for theLoddon–Mallee area we see that they have increased byover 10 per cent in under two years, while in Bendigo



alone there has been an increase of over 20 per cent.From 1127 people on the waiting lists in 1999 it hasnow blown out to 1487 — something like 360 familiesare waiting longer for accommodation in the Bendigoregion.

As I said, these are not my figures; these aregovernment figures. The government puts more spin onits issues than the best Shane Warne leg break. Iguarantee that the majority of people in Bendigo wouldbelieve that the government has addressed all theproblems it has identified in the lead-up to the lastelection in housing, health and education. But by itsown figures it is exposed as in fact presiding over aperiod when there have been increases in every sector.It stands condemned for its actions.

Finally, the fourth issue I will address is that this is anelection year budget. It has all the hallmarks associatedwith Labor Party big spending — the pitch for the votein the suburbs and the projects for the south-east — andit is clear that the love affair the government had withregional Victoria has turned out to be nothing but aone-night stand. Unquestionably the Labor governmenthas dumped many of the projects that the NationalParty identified as being required to assist with theprovision of infrastructure and capital works — infavour of redirecting the money to the outer easternsuburbs in an attempt to weaken the Liberal Party’shold on the seats in that area.

There is no more graphic illustration of that than in thegovernment’s own budget paper 3. Page 164 looks atmajor outputs and deliverables as performancemeasures. Under the table headed ‘Investmentfacilitation and attraction’ are shown investmentsattracted to rural Victoria in millions of dollars. Theactual amount for 2000–01 was $645.6 million. Thetarget for 2000–01 was $300 million. The expectedoutcome for 2001–02 is $400 million. The target for2002–03 is a drop to $300 million.

The government is signalling through the budget papersthat it is giving up on regional Victoria; it is giving upattracting investment to rural and regional Victoria.Clearly, the government has ended its love affair withrural and regional Victoria and is shifting its attention tothe suburbs of Melbourne. That may be fine for mymetropolitan colleagues, but the people of rural andregional Victoria will not be fooled.

As I said earlier, this is a big-spending government. Inthe last two and a half years Victorian taxpayers havepaid an extra $1500 in taxes. Stamp duty has increased,gambling revenue is up and insurance taxes are up.Motorcycle taxes have increased by $50 and, of course,

there is significant revenue from increased road fines.At a time when state debt has reduced from $32 billionin 1992 to $6 billion in 1999, and reduced even furthernow, there is no benefit from the windfall to Victoriantaxpayers and businesses.

As I have highlighted in my contribution, Bendigo hasnumerous projects, such as the Long Gully HousingEstate, the Prince of Wales Showgrounds, the livestockexchange and other projects that require funding, butwhile we are searching for assistance with thoseprojects class sizes have increased, hospital waiting listsare going up and we have not yet seen the fast-slowtrain! It was much vaunted as a partnership between thegovernment and the private sector. I have saidcontinually that I welcome anyone coming to countryVictoria, but this project, announced two and a halfyears ago, still has not got off the ground. There is stillno private sector interest and it does not address themajor concern — that is, the frequency of service andnot the speed of the trains. We need more services withgreater interaction between towns along the Bendigocorridor rather than having a fast train running expressfrom Bendigo to the metropolitan area. It will not solveour transport problems let alone address the issue ofinterconnection from outlying areas.

We have a major problem in Bendigo with the holdingof prisoners in police cells. The Bendigo police cellswere never meant to hold prisoners, yet for the past twoand a half years we have seen a consistentovercrowding of prisoners in those cells. Thegovernment has already announced that it is removingthe Bendigo jail and that another jail will not be built inBendigo. We face the potential removal of jobs in theprison system and a reduction of a very importantinfrastructure program for the building sector.

Of course, there are still problems associated with theCalder Highway. Recently I raised my concerns in thisplace about the problems associated with the Harcourtbypass and the FR 4 option that has been identified bythe planning panel which met to consider that issue. Wehave ended up with the worst of all worlds becausemany of the community groups, including Vicroads,were not aware of the criteria to be applied by the panelto choose the options. The community wanted to createa village-type atmosphere in the township of Harcourt,which meant the FR 4 option was chosen by default.That brings with it a raft of problems that will causeenormous difficulties. I am not happy that it willpotentially take 18 months to 2 years before we canresolve the Harcourt bypass section. It is extremelydisappointing that while the government is trying toplay politics on funding for the Calder Highway itcannot get its house in order and resolve the issues



surrounding the Harcourt bypass, let alone not sendingletters of request to the federal government formatching funding for sections of the Calder Highway.

This is a disappointing budget for rural and regionalVictorians because although announcements have beenmade, announcements such as the development of theWimmera–Mallee pipeline have such a spin on themthat even Shane Warne would be proud of them! I amparticularly concerned that this is a do-nothinggovernment. While it makes many announcements, itmakes the same ones over and again. The funding forthe Long Gully housing estate is a classic example. In1999 the previous government indicated that $6 millionwould be provided for that estate, yet that money is stillnot forthcoming. The minister made a similarannouncement in 2000, and the honourable member forBendigo East in the other place announced just a fewweeks ago that money would be provided. However,the housing estate is still in the same state it was in twoand a half to three years ago.

This government has failed on four principal issues:firstly, by any standards it is a high-taxing government;secondly, there has been a major shift in fundingallocations from regional and rural Victoria to thesuburbs of Melbourne; thirdly, there has been adramatic increase in the number of public servants onthe state government payroll which has not led to betteroutcomes in my area in education, housing or hospitalwaiting lists, and fourthly, by being a budget for thenext election, it clearly signifies that it will do anything,spend anything or say anything to get re-elected.

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I am pleasedto speak in support of the Bracks government’s thirdbudget and, indeed, to celebrate the Bracksgovernment’s third budget. I congratulate the Treasurer,the Honourable John Brumby, for his work indelivering the budget and building on the solidfoundations the government has established in the stateover the past two years. It demonstrates a clear visionfor the future of the state. This budget is about investingin our future, providing excellence in education,building an innovative economy and furthering ourcommitment to growing the whole of the state. It givesall Victorians the opportunity to share in the prosperityof the state by delivering initiatives in services andprograms which make a real and positive difference tothe lives of people, no matter where they live. Ofcourse, it is great to see the Treasurer deliver a budgetthat has an operating surplus of $522 million, whichcontrasts with the recent federal government budget.

Nothing is more fundamental to investing in the futureof Victorians than investing in education. This budget

commits more than $550 million to education invarious initiatives. These initiatives will consolidate theBracks government’s commitment to life-long learningthrough access to education from preschools topost-compulsory education. Victorians have made itclear to the government that they care deeply about thepublic health system, and the budget continues thegovernment’s commitment to rebuild Victoria’s publichealth system with a $960 million increase in thebudget over four years. This very welcome initiativewill allow more patients to be treated and 700 morenurses to be employed and will reduce hospital waitinglists even further. It provides $69 million for olderVictorians; $65 million for child protection and$55.4 million to improve disability services.

The community safety initiatives have seen anadditional 800 police in Victoria since the election ofthe Bracks government, and they are boosted further bya $360 million investment in a high-tech upgrade of thecommunications system. This will provide for a majoroverhaul of the police and emergency services radiocommunication network.

I am pleased to see that the budget also announces over$200 million in environmental initiatives, again,investing in the future for all Victorians for generationsto come.

As a member in this place who represents a regionalseat, I am pleased to again see in the budget thedemonstrated commitment of the Bracks government topeople who live in regional and rural Victoria. Thisprovides a stark contrast to the Kennett governmentwhich was only interested in the top end of town, andthat town was Melbourne. This, our third budget,continues our deep commitment to rural and regionalVictorians.

Initiatives that invest in the state’s future by growingrural and regional Victoria include $102.3 million toimprove regional transport links, including the biggestboost to country bus services in more than 30 years. Myelectorate has shared in that boost and we are verythankful for it.

Some $70 million has been allocated to upgrade40 regional and rural schools; $4 million has beeninvested to establish the Maryborough educationprecinct; $101 million has been allocated to upgrade theRoyal Melbourne Showgrounds; and $44 million hasbeen allocated for major initiatives in rural health andaged care. These are just some of the announcementsfor rural and regional Victoria included in the thirdBracks Labor government budget.



The government continues to look after the sportingand cultural interests of all Victorians by investing anadditional $84 million into sport, and that includesmoney allocated for the Commonwealth Games to beheld in 2006, which we all greatly look forward to.

An additional $100 million is being invested into artsand infrastructure projects, including a major boost forour indigenous communities which is very welcomeindeed.

Looking after the future investment of our state, thisbudget injects $298 million into innovation, andinformation and communications technology initiatives,including $100 million to establish a synchrotron as acentre for national research. Today I spoke about thesynchrotron to a constituent who told me how fantasticit was for our state to establish this research centre inVictoria and he congratulated the government on thatachievement.

Given my background as a state secondary schoolteacher for close to 20 years, my major area of interestis education. I am very proud of the fact that the Bracksgovernment’s first priority is education in recognitionof the fact that education is the key to the rest of one’slife.

History will show that the meanest, most miserableindictment of the Kennett government was its absolutedisregard for public education and for the interests ofthe children who attend public schools in our state.History will surely condemn the Kennett government’sclosure of 300 schools and the removal of9000 teachers from the system. These acts devastatedschools and their communities and displaced studentsand longstanding members of the teaching profession.The Kennett government raised class sizes todisgraceful levels where students were forced into hugeclasses with scant regard for an individual’s capacity tolearn. Schools became businesses required to fundraisefor basic items. Having taught in the state schoolsystem during the Kennett years, I can fully attest to theimpact of its policies.

Over the past two years the Bracks government hasworked very hard to turn around public education inVictoria. We have already invested more than$2.2 billion in education, employing more than3000 additional teachers and staff. We are working tobring class sizes down and are well on the way toreducing to 21 prep to grade 2 class sizes.

I can remember my own son in 1999 in grade 3 in aclass of 35 students in a Geelong primary school. As weknow that was the final year of the Kennett

government. My son being in a class of 35 studentscaused me and my husband great concern because asteachers we knew that the size of his class wasimpeding his learning. Indeed the chance of any childgetting any individual attention in a class of 35 studentsis greatly limited. The following year, 2000, my sonwas in grade 4 and a class of 25 students. What adifference a year made: 35 in 1999; 25 in 2000. Thereal story in that little story is what a difference a newgovernment made: a government that cared aboutpublic education so much that it is its no. 1 priority.Let’s contrast that with the federal government’sapproach to public education as demonstrated by itsbudget released just over a week ago which saw itsgreatest increase in education spending going to privateschools at the expense of state schools.

This, the third Bracks government budget, builds ontwo years of investment in education: two years ininvesting in the future of our state. The educationbudget invests more than $550 million in educationinitiatives over the next four years to build aworld-class education system from preschool topost-compulsory education. This brings the total Bracksgovernment investment in education to $2.75 billion.

Over the next four years an additional 925 teachers willbe employed in classrooms across the state, and themost needy schools will receive additional assistance.We have already employed about 3000 additionalteachers and staff in our schools, so this brings to about4000 the number of additional teachers in the systemcompared to the Kennett government. That is having ahuge impact on the ability of schools to delivercurriculum and to reduce class sizes.

The education budget also allocated $216 million toconstruct new schools and modernise existing schoolsand TAFE facilities. I understand that that now bringsthe ratio to one in three schools currently beingupgraded in the state. I can attest that in my electorateof Geelong Province lots of schools are being upgradedas announced in previous budgets, and 11 schools wereannounced in this budget, so Geelong schools arecertainly faring well in having their much-neededfacilities upgraded.

As part of the education budget $43.3 million will bespent over four years to further reduce class sizes inyears prep to grade 2 to improve early years literacyand numeracy, with an additional 285 teachers. Thoseyears are so important to building the foundation forfuture learning. Over three years $34.6 million will bespent on an additional 150 early years numeracyteachers to lift the mathematics skills of children in the



first five years of schooling. This is an area of muchneed and I know schools have welcomed this initiative.

An exciting new program will see an injection of$81.6 million spent over four years on an Access toExcellence program, which includes more than300 additional secondary school teachers allocated toschools which are showing higher-than-averageabsentee rates and lower-than-average rates of year 12or equivalent completion. I know this will be targeted atthe most needy of our schools — schools that needextra help to deliver their curriculum to get theirstudents through. I have already discussed this with acouple of principals in Geelong who welcome theinitiative.

Over four years $84.3 million will be spent for newmiddle years innovation grants for primary andsecondary schools to employ 70 teachers and developlocal solutions to keep students engaged in education inthose important years between years 5 and 9. Evidenceshows that it is in those years that students start tobecome disengaged from education. The problem startsfor some in year 5 and unfortunately by the time theyget to secondary school they are already sufficientlyalienated from learning and the school system that theirearly years of secondary school are jeopardised. Thefocus on the middle years 5 to 9 is very welcome andbacks up the research and evidence that shows that iswhen students are at risk of becoming disengaged fromtheir education.

Over four years $47.7 million will be spent to employ120 extra teachers to assist in the statewideimplementation of the new Victorian certificate ofapplied learning, or VCAL. I am pleased that one of thegreat state schools in Geelong is trialling the newVCAL program — that is, Corio Bay Senior College.Earlier this year I was at the launch of the new VCALprogram at Corio Bay and met the dozen or so studentswho are undertaking that trial through the school andengaging with the automotive industry as well. It hasbeen an interesting year for those students and the staffinvolved. I discussed it with the principal on Fridaynight when I attended the Corio Bay deb ball. He toldme it has been an exciting year for those students andthe staff, and they welcome the rollout of the VCALcertificate across the state.

Of course I was very pleased with the announcement inthe budget of $28.3 million for Victoria’s preschools.This is welcome news indeed and goes a long way toredressing the cruel 20 per cent funding cut imposed onVictoria’s preschools by the Kennett government,which saw fees quadruple and voluntary parentcommittees struggle to come to terms with the

unprecedented need to fundraise to supplementteachers’ incomes. The most devastating consequenceof that 20 per cent funding cut by the Kennettgovernment to Victoria’s preschools was the Victorianchildren who were unable to access preschool becausetheir parents could not afford to pay the increasedKennett government-imposed fees. I know from myown work as secretary of St Luke’s HightonKindergarten that children were unable to attendbecause their parents could no longer afford theincreased fee, which went from $40 a term to $120 aterm.

The Bracks government recognises the vital role thatpreschools play in a child’s education, and is pleased inthis budget to act on the recommendations of the Kirbyreview by injecting a much-needed $28.3 million intoVictoria’s preschools.

Of course all school communities across the state willbenefit enormously from the budget initiatives. As amember for Geelong Province I am delighted that, as Isaid, 11 schools in my electorate are to receivesubstantial funding for upgrades. In fact, two newschools will be built. This budget allocates $3 million tothe new Lara secondary college which builds on aninvestment in last year’s budget to commence theconstruction of the secondary college. For many yearsthe township of Lara has sought access to secondaryeducation within its township. Those cries from theLara people went unheard by the previous government.Daily, children are bussed out of Lara to go tosecondary school in Geelong. The Bracks governmentmade an election commitment that if elected it wouldbuild a secondary college in Lara. It is great to knowthat that school will open its doors next year for thevery first time.

As a parent of a grade 6 student I was pleased to notewhen I received my information pack about secondarycolleges that I could send my son to next year that oneof the schools listed was Lara secondary college, with adate for its information evening. It is good to know thatit was having its information evening as was everysecondary college in Geelong. I understand there was agood turn-up on the night and everyone is lookingforward to Lara secondary college commencingoperation next year.

Corio Bay Senior College received $2.3 million in thebudget. This is much-needed money. Honourablemembers will have heard me speak before about CorioBay Senior College, a school at which I used to teach.Unfortunately over a couple of years two devastatingfires burnt down wings of the school and also the halland gymnasium. The government acted very swiftly



last year to make sure that fire reinstatement funds wereavailable so that work on the much-needed upgrade ofthe school would take place. This budgetannouncement of $2.3 million for Corio Bay SeniorCollege is welcome. The principal has told me howdelighted he is that it ends years of uncertainty aboutthe future of the school and that the whole communityis looking forward to the fabulous facility being built.

The education budget announced $670 000 for CeresPrimary School to upgrade its facilities; Barwon HeadsPrimary School received $1.15 million to upgrade itsbuildings; and Chilwell Primary School has beenallocated $1.3 million. A friend of mine is on the schoolcouncil at Chilwell and she said they were absolutelydelighted with the announcement in the budget and thatthey can now move forward to progressing theirupgrade.

Geelong East Primary School — another needyGeelong school — will receive $1.7 million; SouthGeelong Primary School will receive $1.5 million, andthe budget announced $1.2 million for Tate StreetPrimary School — another very needy school — toupgrade its facilities.

A very pleasing announcement in this budget fulfils anelection commitment of the Bracks government toreplace the Ocean Grove campus of BellarineSecondary College, which consists merely of portablebuildings, with a permanent facility. This is somethingmembers of the Ocean Grove community have soughtfor a very long time, and indeed they were concernedunder the Kennett government that, because it wouldnot commit to building a permanent facility at theOcean Grove campus, it was intending to close it in thefuture. That caused much uncertainty and concern inOcean Grove and, recognising that concern, wecommitted to building a new facility, replacing theportables with a permanent facility if we were elected. Iam very pleased that this budget provides the money forthe construction of a permanent facility at that school.

Leopold Primary School has undergone verychallenging times over the last couple of years since thefacilities at the school were declared unsafe and had tobe demolished. The children from the school had to berelocated into portable buildings while the demolitiontook place and a new building is being constructed.This budget announced $2.4 million for LeopoldPrimary School, which builds upon an announcementin last year’s budget for an upgrade. Now we have tobuild a whole new school, and the money is there inthis budget to provide for it.

I was pleased to visit Wallington Primary School lastyear with the Premier. It is a tiny, very historic schoolon the Bellarine Peninsula, and the people there arevery excited to receive $1.35 million in this budget tobuild a new facility. So investing in education inGeelong is surely a very positive investment forGeelong’s future, and therefore the state’s future.

Kindergartens across Geelong are to receivemuch-needed funds to upgrade their facilities. TheGeelong Kindergarten Association has received moneyfor fencing at 12 kindergartens on the BellarinePeninsula. Grovedale Kindergarten has been allocated$10 000; Grovedale East Kindergarten, $17 000;Rosewall Kindergarten, $11 500; Corio Kindergarten,$5700; Grovedale West kindergarten, $4300;Queenscliff Borough kindergarten, $8000; and mychildren’s old kindergarten, St Luke’s preschool inHighton, $12 000. This will, for the first time in manyyears, provide money to upgrade the buildings, providefencing and provide a safer environment for thechildren who attend preschool.

These are just some of the examples of funding forupgrades at preschools in Geelong. Of course, allGeelong kindergartens will benefit from the$28.3 million of funding committed in the budget —$23.3 million of which is ongoing funding.

The City of Greater Geelong will receive $1.1 millionto support vulnerable families, and this is welcomeindeed. The Geelong Regional Library Corporation willreceive $64 000 — again, investing in educationthrough lifelong learning, making sure all members ofthe community have access to library services.

Agencies which provide vital services to Geelongpeople will also receive much-needed funding,including Lifeline Geelong, which will receive $5000,and Scope Victoria specialist services, which willreceive $7600. The Noah’s Ark Family ResourceCentre and Toy Library will receive $7600, andGateways Support Services a similar amount of $7600.

One of the great initiatives in Geelong, as across thestate, has been the boost to funding for public transport.The electorate of Geelong Province will receive a majorboost for public transport in the budget which will seeincreased bus services over four years in Bellarine,South Barwon, North Geelong and Geelong. This ismuch needed and much welcomed by my constituents,and was funding overlooked by the previousgovernment.

The Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute locatedat Queenscliff will receive an additional $3 million in



the budget. MAFRI is internationally renowned for itswork to protect our marine environment. Honourablemembers will have heard me speak about the plan torelocate MAFRI from its current location on theharbour to The Narrows at Queenscliff. We are lookingforward to that work commencing soon.

I was pleased a few weeks ago to attend Kardinia Park,now called Skilled Stadium, the home of the Cats, withthe Minister for Sport and Recreation and thehonourable members for Geelong North and Geelongin the other place to hear the announcement of a$150 000 feasibility study to upgrade Kardinia Park,not only the football stadium but also the wholeprecinct. This is important to the Geelong communitybecause it is an icon precinct in the heart of Geelongand a great deal of community sport takes place inthere, such as netball, cricket and, obviously, football.

The Geelong Football Club is important to Geelong,and we are keen to ensure that it has every opportunityto continue to exist in Geelong and that as many homegames as possible are played in Geelong as they are animportant boost for our economy. Every time a game isplayed in Geelong it is important to our city, even whenwe do not win. We are pleased that the Bracksgovernment has assisted the Geelong community byproviding $150 000 for the Kardinia Park upgrade.

A very important local issue which has been raised withme a number of times by various constituents is theneed to construct a bypass road at North Shore to divertheavy traffic away from residential streets. I amextremely pleased that the budget has provided$4.2 million to fund the reconstruction of the bypassroad.

A further major initiative for Geelong in the budget isthe announcement of the allocation of $5.1 million tolink Lascelles wharf to the standard gauge rail. Thisbuilds on previously announced funding — an electioncommitment — to link the key wharfs at the port ofGeelong to the standard gauge rail. This has beenenthusiastically received by those associated with theport. I refer to an article in the Geelong Advertiser of8 May headed ‘Victoria’s future’, which is a summaryof the budget initiatives that Geelong received from theBracks government. A small article entitled, ‘Funds tolink port to national gauge’ states:

Geelong’s port will be linked to the national standard gaugerail network following the allocation of $5.1 million in thebudget.

The $5.1 million will be used to convert the Lascelles wharfspur line to dual gauge, thus linking it to the national network.

Toll GeelongPort general manager, Keith Gordon, wasyesterday ecstatic about the announcement.

He said the port had been pushing for years to be linked to thenational rail grid and the dual-gauge conversion would be asignificant boost to the port.

‘I think this gives GeelongPort some much-neededinfrastructure into our bulk terminal which will facilitate somesignificant future developments on the back of it’, Mr Gordonsaid.

‘We would anticipate this as a platform to attract morevolume.

‘We will have an ability to compete in markets that wecurrently haven’t.

‘There’s the possibility of mineral sands … other products —it opens up a host of opportunities that aren’t currently there’.

The very next week, building on that announcement,there was an announcement by Toll GeelongPort on15 May in the Geelong Advertiser entitled ‘Hugeupgrade for waterfront’ and states:

Toll GeelongPort is planning a multimillion-dollar expansionat Lascelles wharf.

Toll’s Victorian ports manager, Keith Gordon, said yesterdayToll’s plans for Geelong were buoyed by last week’s$5 million state government pledge to build a dual-gauge raillink to the wharf.

Further, he says:

We’re certainly looking at building a multimodal facility toallow road, rail and sea access on one site.

There’s potential for further development around the rail linkthat could be worth $60 million.

Mr Gordon said the new rail link would spur Toll’s plan topromote rail freight for containers and bulk goods.

This is an example of fantastic investment in Geelong’sfuture by the Bracks government of $5.1 millionannounced in this budget, and the very next week TollGeelongPort announced a major infrastructureinvestment to build on the state government’sinvestment.

Some $600 000 has been allocated in the budget for theGeelong higher court for court custodial services. In lastyear’s budget there was the announcement of a$19 million to upgrade the Grace McKellar Centre,Geelong’s premier aged care facility. That news was awelcome funding injection indeed, as under theprevious government Grace McKellar was to beprivatised. The Geelong community stood up to becounted on that issue, which played its part in the defeatof the Kennett government and saw the election of thehonourable member for Geelong in the other place andme. The people of Geelong said no to the privatisation



of Grace McKellar, and the Bracks government ispleased to announce another $3 million in the budgettowards the upgrade of our premier aged care facility.

The Bracks government has gone to great lengths in itsfirst two years to repair the damage done to the state’spublic health system by the Kennett government. Thisbudget provides an additional $960 million boost tohealth, of which the Barwon south-western region willreceive a fair share.

Some $700 000 has been allocated to replace cardiaccatheter laboratory equipment at Geelong hospital;$26 000 to upgrade aged care beds; $50 000 to replacethe duress system; $24 000 to upgrade patient hoists toprevent back injuries to nurses; and $4500 has beengiven to Vision Australia for shower and wheelchairaccess for aged patients. I congratulate the Minister forHealth for all that he has done to turn around the healthsystem since the election of the Bracks government.Recently I attended a function at the Geelong hospitalwith the Minister for Health to acknowledge the160 new nurses who have been employed at thehospital since the election of the Bracks government.

The budget has certainly been good news for Geelong.It has been well received locally, as evidenced by manyarticles in the local press, especially the GeelongAdvertiser. The banner headline the morning after thebudget, which screamed out across Geelong, carried theheadline, ‘Cashed up — $38 million for schools,transport, education’. The article went on to celebratethe announcements in the budget for Geelong. Therehave been positive editorials and fantasticendorsements from Streettalk where people havecelebrated the injection of $20 million into schoolsthroughout Geelong. Local business leaders havecelebrated the budget, and many attended a luncheonsome weeks ago with the Treasurer who took themthrough the initiatives in the budget. Those initiativeswere well received. There have been endorsementsfrom the City of Greater Geelong where the mayor hascelebrated the Bracks government’s third budget in aheadline saying, ‘Whitbread Abley applaudmeasures’ — very good news indeed!

Another article says, ‘Regions give praise to Brumby’,while another says that there is solid endorsement of theBracks government’s investment in regional Victoria.

Other articles have talked about the repairs undertakento health and education, and a further articleacknowledges a much-needed investment ininfrastructure to upgrade the railway line betweenGeelong and Warrnambool — which is fantastic news,and welcomed by West Coast Rail.

The Bracks government has delivered welcomeservices and program initiatives in Geelong and acrossthe state. They are about investing in our future andmaking sure that all Victorians have a fair share of thestate’s prosperity, no matter where they live.

The total budget is an investment in the state’s future.There is a massive injection of funds into education,health, community safety, innovation, transport andcommunity services. I congratulate the Treasurer for hiswork in turning Victoria around. I am pleased tocelebrate the budget and speak in its favour tonight.

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —It perplexes me that we are here celebrating theproposition that the Honourable John Brumby isturning the state around — or something.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — Upside down!

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — Upside down asMr Davis says; that is probably more appropriate. Fromthe time she started to the time she finished,Mrs Carbines’s speech was filled with the rhetoric thatwe have got used to hearing from this government inpress releases and the like, but there is very littlesubstance and little that could realistically beconsidered as an objective assessment of this budget.

I will start by putting the budget into some sort ofcontext. The best way to do that is to return to thesound budgetary position the Bracks governmentinherited when it came to power in October 1999. TheKennett government inherited a desperate andunfortunate budget position from the previous Cain andKirner governments, and it is important to make thatdistinction from the start. The circumstances in whichthis government came to power and the circumstancesin which the previous government came to power werevery different. It is a matter of record now that the Cainand Kirner governments left a budget running a$2000 million recurrent deficit every financial year. Italso left general government net debt of around$32 billion. So there was $32 billion of debt and arecurrent budget deficit of $2000 million per annum. Itwas a very different position to that which the Bracksgovernment inherited.

When the Bracks government came to power, net debthad been reduced to around $6 billion and the budgetwas in a healthy surplus. Indeed in the first year inwhich the Bracks government came to power, theoperating outcome for the state was a surplus of around$1.7 billion. It is fine for Mrs Carbines and hercolleagues to get up and trumpet what the governmentis doing in this budget, but they need to keep in context



exactly what the budget position was when they cameto power and how it contrasted with the budgetaryposition inherited by the previous government.

This government has not been tested on its budgetaryperformance because of the sound situation it inheritedand the sound economic situation which currently existsin Australia. The only real test would come incircumstances where the government found itselfmanaging a budget in a contracting economy withrising unemployment and a reduction in investment.Neither the Bracks government nor any other stategovernment can legitimately claim credit for the soundeconomic environment which currently exists. I notethat comments from the Treasurer both in the budgetspeech and in his appearance before the PublicAccounts and Estimates Committee last weeksuggested to an extent that credit is due to the stategovernment for the sound economic position whichcurrently exists. That is a long bow for the Treasurer totry to draw when it is accepted that state governmentshave very little impact on the general economiccircumstances that exist in Australia.

Mrs Carbines, the Treasurer and other members of thegovernment have been quick to pat themselves on theback with respect to the latest budget, but it isworthwhile taking some time to strip away some of therhetoric surrounding the budget to look at what the realnumbers are telling us.

I start by going back to some rudimentary fundamentalswhich compare the current budget with the last budgetproduced by the Kennett government back in 1998–99.In doing that we need to compare the way the state wasleft with the way the state is now, and to do that I willquote some of the figures produced in the 1999–2000budget with respect to growth and population andcompare those to where the state is currently.

From 1998–99 to the current budget period of 2002–03,the state has seen population growth of 4.8 per cent. Inthe same period there has been a growth in gross stateproduct of 15 per cent. It is those figures that need to bekept in mind when looking at what has happened withthe budget over the same period.

The first thing I would like to talk about with thebudget is taxation. We have heard a lot about taxation.We have heard a lot about claims from the Treasurerwith respect to so-called reductions in taxation. It isworth placing on the record some of the taxation figureswhich existed in the budget of the last Kennettgovernment and the current budget which has just beenbrought down by the Treasurer.

The first taxation measure I would like to touch on ispayroll tax. Payroll tax has attracted some attention inthe government’s latest business statement with talk ofpayroll tax cuts, but it is worth reflecting that for thefinal actual outcome of the last year of the Kennettgovernment, payroll tax receipts were $2192.5 million.For the current year they are budgeted to have increasedto $2710 million. This is an increase of 23.6 per cent,despite the fact that in the same period the economy hasonly grown by 15 per cent.

The story is very similar with land tax. In the last yearof the Kennett government land tax receipts were$380 million. The current budget records land taxexpected revenue as $611 million. This is an increase ofover 60 per cent. In a period when the economy hasgrown 15 per cent, land tax receipts have grown 60 percent. So for the government to trumpet its package onso-called tax cuts, it needs to be kept in the context ofwhat has been happening with tax receipts over theperiod in which it has been in office.

The same story exists for stamp duty on land transfers.In the last year of the Kennett government stamp dutyreceipts on land transfers was $970 million. For thecurrent year it is budgeted at $1590 million — anincrease of 64 per cent — again well ahead of the15 per cent growth which has been experienced in theeconomy.

For gaming taxes the story is similar — an increase inthe order of $60 million. Insurance taxes — and I willcome back to this later — have increased from$350 million in the last year of the Kennett governmentto a whopping $789 million in the current budgetperiod. This is an increase of 124 per cent. Theeconomy has grown 15 per cent, but insurance taxreceipts have grown 124 per cent. It is outrageous forthe Treasurer to now talk about tax cuts when he hasreceived all this windfall revenue in taxation.

Those taxation measures combined have increased by33 per cent from $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion in thefour-year period since the last full year of the previousgovernment and the estimates period we areconsidering now.

It is worth noting that notwithstanding the fact that anumber of state taxes have been abolished as part of theintergovernmental agreement on taxation which arosethrough the introduction of the new federal tax package,total tax revenue is still going to be $200 million morethis year than it was in the final year of the Kennettgovernment — notwithstanding the abolition of allthose taxes under the commonwealth–state financialrelations agreement.



It is worth pointing out that other jurisdictions haveacted to reduce the taxation burden on their citizens. Ipoint to New South Wales, which last year abolisheddebits tax — something which is not going to happen inVictoria for a number of years, despite the fact we havethe revenue to do it.

I would now like to turn back to that issue of insurancetaxes. No doubt one of the biggest issues facing thecommunity at the moment is public liability insurance.We have seen the Leader of the Opposition in thisplace, the Honourable Bill Forwood, introduce a billwhich will be debated in due course, with somemeasures to address the issue of public liabilityinsurance for tourism operators, because it has been abig issue in the tourism industry and in the communitysector. Yet we have seen no action whatsoever on thisfrom the government to reduce the impact of publicliability insurance premium increases. The Minister forSmall Business in this chamber has a role in fosteringsmall business in this state, yet repeatedly when she isasked what she is doing about public liability insurancefor small business she says it is a matter for the financeminister and she has no role in it.

The Minister for Finance at the recent estimateshearings last week was unable to point out exactly whathe is doing and what he has achieved with respect topublic liability premium relief for business and thevolunteer community sector in this state. It is very easyto question just what this government’s position is withrespect to public liability insurance and how genuine itis in any attempts to reduce the impact of increases inpublic liability insurance premiums. The reason forthat, and something we must not forget, is that thisgovernment through its stamp duty mechanisms puts10 per cent on the top of every insurance premium thatis written for public liability in this state. So thisgovernment has a vested interest in high insurancepremiums, and there is very little incentive for thisgovernment to work to reduce insurance premiumswhen it is creaming 10 per cent off the top of everypremium that is written. Hence we see the increase ininsurance taxes from $350 million under the formerKennett government to $790 million in the forwardestimates under this government. There is no doubt thisissue is impacting upon the community and thevolunteer sector.

Recently I, along with my colleague Mr Lucas,attended a function for the scout association where itwas pointed out that this year public liability premiumsfor Scouts Australia in Victoria would increase from$336 000 to over $500 000 — a massive increase of$160 000 in the premium for that organisation. Thatmeans a $16 000 increase in the tax take of this state

government. Every time insurance premiums go up, thetax take of the state government goes up. You reallycan question the government’s commitment to solvingthe public liability issue and premium increase issuewhen the government has a direct stake and a directbenefit from increases in insurance premiums.

During her contribution Mrs Carbines waxed lyricalabout what she saw the government as doing in herelectorate and some of the initiatives she consideredwere important and that the government hadundertaken. I noted very carefully that invariably whenshe was speaking, she was talking about inputs ratherthan outputs. She was talking about extra money beingspent on the hospital rather than extra patients beingserviced and treated at that hospital and extra moneybeing spent on the school rather than better results ormore students being educated at the school.

It is interesting to reflect and again compare those twobudget years that I spoke of earlier — the previous1998–99 budget year and the forecast forward estimatesbudget year — and compare growth and expenditure,both on a departmental basis and also on the basis ofthe employment of public servants in each of thedepartments. It is fine for the government to talk aboutincreased expenditure, but the thing that is of value tothe people of Victoria is improvements in outcomes —better health, better education — and that does notequate to more spending on health and education. Youcan pour more money in but that does not mean you aregoing to get a better outcome. That is the situation weare seeing here in Victoria. I will talk about that in duecourse.

I want to run through some of the comparisons betweenwhat the previous government was spending in its lastyear and what the current government is spending in theforward year. The first one is the Department ofEducation: for the previous government expenditurewas $5200 million; for the current government it is$6000 million — an increase of 17 per cent againsteconomic growth of 15 per cent. There was similargrowth in the cost of salaries and wages for thatdepartment.

If we look at the Department of Human Services, in theprevious budget under the Kennett government,$6797 million was allocated; in the budget under thecurrent government, $8900 million has beenallocated — an increase of 31 per cent against growthof 15 per cent. Likewise with the salaries and expensesfor public servants in that department there has been anincrease of 28 per cent against population growth of4 per cent and economic growth of 15 per cent.



There is a similar story with the Department ofInfrastructure. Expenditure is up by 26 per cent andsalaries are up by 18 per cent. At the Department ofJustice spending is up by 25 per cent and salaries are upby 17 per cent. At the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment spending is up by 51 per cent andsalaries are up by 22 per cent — again against abackdrop of an economy that has grown by only 15 percent. Perhaps the most outstanding example of this, butperhaps not the most surprising, is the Department ofPremier and Cabinet — a department whose budgetsince the change of government to the present day hasgrown by 82 per cent.

An Honourable Member — By 82 per cent?

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — By 82 per cent!The economy has grown by 15 per cent, yet the budgetof the Department of Premier and Cabinet has grownby 82 per cent and the staff costs have grown by 70 percent. We can see that this government is spending wellahead of growth in the economy.

The questions have to be asked: what is the governmentdelivering and what are we seeing from all this extraexpenditure? There is no doubt that the governmentsector is now becoming a much more significant part ofthe Victorian economy. On these figures it is clear thatsome government departments are growing at five andsix times the rate of growth of the general economy. Sowe have to ask the question: what are we getting?Looking at the example of my own electorate, theanswer is very little.

I turn to the Dandenong Hospital. We have seen a30 per cent increase in expenditure on the Departmentof Human Services. But what services have we seendelivered at the local hospital? The reality is that wehave seen a decline. Since the change of governmentwe have seen a blow-out in waiting lists at theDandenong Hospital, a blow-out in ambulancebypasses and a blow-out in the number of people leftwaiting on trolleys, yet the government is patting itselfon the back for spending 30 per cent more on the healthbudget and delivering less. My constituents get less, yetthe government is spending 30 per cent more. That justdoes not add up.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — What about the Berwickhospital?

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — What Berwickhospital, Mr Lucas? We don’t have a Berwick hospital!We are spending 30 per cent more on health and gettingsubstantially less for it. How the government can claimthis is an achievement is absolutely beyond me. For

some reason the government has yet to make theconnection that spending money does not equate tooutcomes for the community. There are decliningstandards in public hospitals, yet the government ispatting itself on the back because it is increasingexpenditure.

Since the change of government, spending on publicservice salaries has increased from $8 billion to$9.8 billion — an increase of nearly $1800 million onpublic sector salaries in the past three years. This wouldbe okay if we were getting the service delivery, but weare not. We are seeing blow-outs in the public sectorpayroll and no commensurate increase in servicesdelivered to the community.

I turn to the budget position. The first thing I would liketo speak about is the windfall gain this government hasachieved. By windfall gain I mean what thegovernment has gained in revenue ahead of what it hadbudgeted for. This is laid out quite clearly in budgetpaper 3 under the revenue section.

I will compare some of the revenue figures contained inthe budget in terms of actual outcomes for 2001–02 towhat was budgeted for. I refer to the budget papers for2001–02. Taxation was budgeted at $7.9 billion,whereas the actual outcome was $8.7 billion, which is awindfall gain of $780 million or an increase of 10 percent over budget. Similarly, with regulatory fees therewas a budget of $370 million and an actual outcome of$390 million, a windfall gain of 3 per cent. Investmentincome was budgeted at $940 million and had an actualoutcome of $1050 million — roughly a $110 millionwindfall gain. Other revenue was budgeted at$750 million and had an actual outcome of$1020 million, a windfall gain of $266 million. Evengrants revenue was budgeted at $11.3 billion and hadan actual outcome of almost $11.8 billion, a windfall of$443 million.

So overall, last year the government budgeted toreceive $23.465 billion in revenue and actually receivedover $25 billion in revenue. That is a windfall gain of$1.5 billion in revenue. That is very important, becauseit goes to the underlying position of the budget. Thisyear the government has been able to report a surplus.However, the reality is, given the expenditure side ofthe budget, if not for the windfall gain of $1.5 billion,the budget outcome would have been a deficit.

I would like to run through the estimated expenditureitems incurred versus those budgeted for last year. Lastyear the government budgeted for superannuationexpenses of $1.5 billion, whereas the actual outcomewas over $2 billion. Depreciation was at $870 million



and the actual outcome was almost $900 million;borrowing costs were at $477 million and the actualoutcome was almost $500 million; employeeentitlements were at $8.4 billion and the actual outcomewas over $8.5 billion; and supplies and services were at$7.6 billion and the actual outcome was over$7.8 billion. Other undefined expenses were budgetedat $4 billion and had an actual outcome of $4.4 billion.So there was actual above-budget spending of over$1.2 billion.

If the government had not gained the windfall revenue,the actual outcome would have been in deficit becausethe government overspent last year’s budget by$1.2 billion. It is only by virtue of the windfall gain thattwo weeks ago the Treasurer was able to come to thisParliament and report a surplus budget.

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

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — The point I wasmaking prior to the dinner break was —

Hon. E. G. Stoney — What was it?

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — You should havebeen here listening, Mr Stoney. For the 2001–02 yearthe government had forecast an operating surplus of$508 million. However, were it not for the windfallrevenue the government gained over the course of thelast financial year the actual operating result wouldhave been a deficit of $776 million. It was only the factthat the government obtained a $1500 million windfallgain in revenue that it was able to record a budgetsurplus rather than the budget deficit it would have hadhad revenue remained as projected, with expensesblowing out in the way they did.

I now turn briefly to the issue of accountability. This isa government which likes to promote itself as beingopen, accountable and transparent in its dealings withthe people of Victoria, yet in the presentation of thisbudget the government is exhibiting a worrying trend inreducing the amount of information being madeavailable to the Victorian public. I should go back to1999 when the Labor Party formed government withthe support of the three Independents through signing adocument — the Independents charter. As a participantin the charter, Mr Bracks, as the then opposition leader,signed up to a commitment that he would provideparallel budget reporting in instances where the budgetformat had changed from year to year — that is, if thebudget layout or the output groups or performancemeasures changed from year to year Mr Bracks hadcommitted the Labor government to providing parallelreporting.

We come now to the third budget produced by theBracks government and in not one of these years havewe seen the parallel reporting which Mr Brackscommitted his government to. Indeed, not once havewe seen an Independent attempt to hold the governmentto its commitment, which is a matter for regret.

The further point I raise about accountability in thisyear’s budget is the way it has been stripped of detail.In previous years, particularly in budget paper 2, thegovernment had provided details of its output and assetinitiatives by department. For example, last year, Icould have taken you to the section where the budgetoutlined on a school-by-school basis what thegovernment intended to do in terms of capital fundingfor schools. This year the government has removed thatdetail and all we have in the budget relating to capitalexpenditure on schools is a single-line item noting thatthe government will spend X dollars on capitalimprovements and development for schools — onesingle-line item to cover what is roughly $20 millionworth of expenditure. Last year that would have beenrecorded on a school-by-school basis. So thegovernment has reduced the amount of information inthis budget and in doing so has reduced the scrutiny andaccountability that it will be subject to.

I now address my comments to one of the two keyareas of the budget, and that relates to debtmanagement. The point I make here is that thegovernment’s approach to debt management is one ofsmoke and mirrors. The government accountingtreatment of debt management under this budget, andindeed last year’s budget, is one of hiding the trueposition with respect to debt in Victoria. You canunderstand why that is, given the previousgovernment’s record on debt management in this state.I have already stated prior to the dinner break that theprevious Labor government managed to record net debtin this state to the order of $32 billion.

Debt management is a sensitive issue for thegovernment. That is why the government has resortedto what can only be described as fraudulent accountingtreatment of debt management through its use of theGrowing Victoria fund. It is of considerable concernthat the government is disguising debt management inthe way it is through the use of the Growing Victoriafund. What the government is doing in its presentationof debt in the budget is taking out the Growing Victoriafund which, on the surface, seems a more conservativeaccounting treatment of debt management, but in realitybecause the government is reducing the GrowingVictoria fund balance from around $1.3 billion this yearto zero in 2005–06 in effect it is masking what ishappening with debt management in this state.



According to the government, general government netdebt, which is unfunded superannuation liabilities plusgeneral government debt, will decline from$2.68 billion in 2000–02 to $2.3 billion in 2005–06.Indeed, the Treasurer in his budget speech reflects onthis. He said that general government net debt wasfalling. If debt management is treated according to theuniversally accepted accounting practices, that is, thatthe Growing Victoria fund is included in debtcalculations rather than excluded, general governmentnet debt under this government is increasing. For the2002 year, using the universal accounting standards,general government net debt will be $1.3 billionincreasing to $2.3 billion in the 2006 financial year, anincrease of 60 per cent to 70 per cent over the forwardestimate period. Yet the Treasurer, by creativeaccounting, is suggesting that general government netdebt is declining when it is increasing.

I make no comment on the merits of whether debtshould be declining or increasing. In fact, there aresome sound reasons for the government to maintain aprudent level of debt. I do, however, comment on theway the Treasurer has attempted to mask what ishappening with the levels of debt in this state throughhis use of the Growing Victoria fund. Last week in theestimates process the Treasurer attempted to assert thatnet debt was falling when his own budget papers in thepresentation of universal financial statements show netdebt increasing. It was impossible to get the Treasurerto concede, despite the fact that the budget papers saidthat net debt was increasing from $1.3 billion to$2.3 billion, that general government net debt isincreasing. I reiterate that I do not comment on whetherthat is a good or bad thing, but using the acceptedaccounting standards, general government net debt isincreasing, despite the Treasurer’s attempt to mask thatusing the Growing Victoria fund and his assertions tothe contrary.

I now address some local issues that affect theconstituents of Eumemmerring Province who I ampleased to represent, along with my colleague theHonourable Neil Lucas. This budget does not deliverfor the people of Eumemmerring Province. The budgetlacks vision and commitment to the people of myprovince. The first project the budget does not deliver isthe Endeavour Hills police station. This was an electioncommitment that the then Labor opposition made priorto the September 1999 election, yet in April 2002 thereis no sign that Endeavour Hills will receive its promisedpolice station. The government has not even committedto a site for the police station, and police sourcessuggest that Christmas next year will be the earliestopportunity that we will have to see a police station inEndeavour Hills, despite the comments made

pre-election by the honourable member for Dandenongin the other place and the then Leader of theOpposition, the Honourable Steve Bracks. The peopleof Endeavour Hills still have not got a police stationtwo and a half years later.

A second project that is not being delivered in thisbudget is the Berwick hospital. Prior to the last electionthe Kennett government was ready to sign a contract forthe Berwick hospital. Had the contract proceeded theBerwick hospital would have by now been open for12 months. Instead we have a lack of action on thisissue by the government and by the Minister for Health.We do not even have a contractor appointed or a site forthe hospital. We are now almost three years into theterm of this government and we do not have a Berwickhospital. It is another failure of a promise to deliver forthe people of Eumemmerring Province.

Another project the government has not delivered is thePakenham bypass. It is interesting to read the Hansardreport from the other place which records the Ministerfor Transport having a wager with the Leader of theOpposition regarding federal funding for the Pakenhambypass. The minister is reported as asserting that thereis no funding for the Pakenham bypass in the federalbudget. I take this opportunity to suggest that theMinister for Transport in the other place should look atfederal budget paper 2, page 156, and the budgetoverview, which indicates funding is provided in thefederal budget for the Pakenham bypass. What he willnot find is funding in this year’s state budget for thePakenham bypass. This is a $200 million project, and$100 million has been committed by the federalgovernment, but not a cent has been committed by theBracks government. Again this budget fails the peopleof Eumemmerring Province, and not delivering on thatproject fails the people of Gippsland.

In relation to the Pakenham bypass I refer to somecomments made by the honourable member forGippsland West in the other place, Susan Davies,reported in a brochure that she has circulatedthroughout the new seat of Bass. In the brochure sheclaims she is committed to the Pakenham bypass as oneof her projects. At all the rallies and public meetingsthat the Honourable Neil Lucas, the Honourable KenSmith, the Honourable Cameron Boardman and thehonourable member for Pakenham in the other place,Rob Maclellan, and I have attended not once have weseen the honourable member for Gippsland West. Iplace on the record that not once has she raised thePakenham bypass as an issue in Parliament; not onceon her web site has there been a press release about thePakenham bypass, and she has never expressed anyinterest in the issue at any of the meetings that have



taken place between the council and local members. Ifind extraordinary that the honourable member canclaim that the Pakenham bypass is one of her priorities.The local members who represent that area have beenworking on this project. Federal funding has beensecured, yet not a dollar has been committed by thestate government. For the honourable member forGippsland West to claim she is working on this projectis ridiculous.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — How much hasMr Batchelor put in?

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — The Minister forTransport has put in zero dollars. Not a single dollar hascome from the state budget.

Another project that the government will not deliver isthe north to east connection of the new Hallam bypass.

This is a project that will require a $13 millioninvestment to allow traffic travelling north on theMonash Freeway from Gippsland to travel east on thenew Hallam bypass. It is a $13 million connection andis required as a matter of priority, but the governmenthas not delivered it under this budget and has notdelivered it as part of the Hallam bypass project.

The Hallam bypass will be severely limited by the factthat a vital connector has been left out of the project. Itis fine for the Minister for Transport to run around andsay the project has been completed 12 months ahead ofschedule. However, the fact is it will only be partlycompleted because a vital link, the northbound toeastbound link, will not be included. It is easy to finisha project a year ahead of schedule if you only build halfof it, which is what this government seems to be doingwith the Hallam bypass.

Another project we will not get under the budget is theDingley bypass, which in recent days has beencanvassed extensively in the media. The government isnot committed to provide the Dingley freeway, whichwill bypass part of Dandenong. It is a crucial piece ofinfrastructure to develop in order to assist the centralbusiness district of Dandenong, yet the governmentseems to have no interest in providing it.

Other projects that Mr Lucas and I have raised includethe intersection of the South Gippsland Highway andPound Road, where traffic lights are required as amatter of urgency. Not a single dollar is allocated in thisyear’s budget to provide those traffic lights. Again, thegovernment is failing to deliver for the people ofEumemmerring Province in this year’s budget.

Other projects are the Belgrave–Hallam and HallamNorth roads duplication and straightening; the soundbarriers on the Berwick bypass and Soldiers Road atBeaconsfield; an extra lane on the Monash Freeway;and public transport for the hills area of EumemmerringProvince.

Another matter I have raised with the Minister forEducation Services is full funding for a proper oval forBerwick South Secondary College, which would be ofgreat benefit to the community. It is a much-neededfacility, but the school has not been given the funds andcan only build a half-size oval because this governmenthas failed to provide the funding in this year’s budget.The list goes on.

Mr Lucas has canvassed extensively the projects thisgovernment has failed to fund in this budget andprevious budgets for the people of EumemmerringProvince. They are missing out in this year’s budget.

Hon. D. G. Hadden — What did they do for sevenyears under your government?

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — I will pick up theinterjection from the Honourable Dianne Hadden ofwhat the previous government did for the people ofEumemmerring Province. I am very proud to stand onthe record of the previous government of delivering forEumemmerring Province. Under the previousgovernment Eumemmerring Province received untoldinjection of infrastructure in terms of education, roadsand schools. The credit for that can go to my colleagueswho were in the previous Parliament in EumemmerringProvince: the Honourable Neil Lucas and Dr RonWells, and the honourable members for Berwick andPakenham in the other place, Dr Robert Dean and theHonourable Rob Maclellan — people who worked veryhard for their electorates in the previous parliament. Wesaw the results because the previous governmentdelivered in a way that this government has not done.

The government is deep in self-praise with respect tothis budget. However, worrying trends are emergingwith respect to the operating result. The Treasurer’scomments with respect to debt management and theway he is attempting to confuse the situation are also amatter of concern.

The budget fails to deliver many of the much-neededprojects for the people of Eumemmerring Province. It isa budget that has failed to capture the imagination ofVictorians.

In conclusion, I would like to leave the final commenton the budget to the people of Victoria. I refer to theresults of a poll which appeared in the Herald Sun the



day after the budget was tabled. It was a phone poll, asthe Herald Sun conducts on a daily basis. The questionwas: are you satisfied with yesterday’s state budget? Itis a very telling statistic that when Victorians werepolled — and the Honourable Dianne Hadden shouldlisten to this — a resounding 77 per cent said no.

The budget does not deliver for the people; the peoplerealise this and it is about time this government starteddoing the hard yards and delivering for the people ofVictoria.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN (Ballarat) — I ampleased to congratulate the Treasurer and the Premieron what I believe is one of the best budgets that hasbeen delivered in the state for many years.

Hon. K. M. Smith — You are deluded!

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — It is good to be able torepeat the interjection from Mr Ken Smith that I amdeluded, because it seems to me that the editorials inVictorian regional newspapers agree with me. I am notsure who is deluded, but it would appear that most ifnot all country newspapers have been very supportiveof this budget. The editorial has been very supportive ofwhat the Premier and the Treasurer are attempting todo. If I was going to follow the usual practices of thisplace I would read into Hansard every editorial I haveseen. I am not going to do that because it is a waste ofeveryone’s time; the editorials are out there.

Hon. K. M. Smith — Where are they?

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — In the Weekly Times.What do they say in the Weekly Times, Ken? They sayit is about time that Howard showed the leadership ofJohn Brumby and Steve Bracks! The Herald Sun — —


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Mr Atkinson is out ofhis place. There has been a barrage from the ministerand a number of other honourable members, and I askthem to cease.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — I have never read aneditorial in the Weekly Times showing such strongsupport for any government, let alone a Laborgovernment. I do not have anything in front of me torefer to. It is burnt into my memory that a veryconservative establishment newspaper has said thatJohn Howard should follow the leadership of SteveBracks and John Brumby. What more can I say injustification of this budget?

I could refer to the Ballarat Courier, the MaryboroughDistrict Advertiser, the Ararat newspaper; they go onand on. What do honourable members want asjustification for how good this budget is? How good isthis budget? Do not ask me; read the papers!


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Interjections aretotally disorderly, and in the last few moments theyhave become out of order to the point where there hasbeen a continuous barrage not only from the oppositionbenches but also the government benches.Mr McQuilten should continue without too many moreinterjections.

Hon. K. M. Smith — What about the WeeklyTimes?

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — The Honourable KenSmith is asking where it is. Just look at the editorialpage, Ken; that’s where it is!

Hon. K. M. Smith interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Mr Smith is out oforder. He knows the rules of the house, and I wouldappreciate it if he would abide by them. I wouldappreciate it also if all other honourable membersabided by the practices that have been adopted by thishouse over many years and allow Mr McQuilten tocontinue without the barrage that is under way at themoment.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — On a point of order, Mr ActingPresident, the Honourable John McQuilten on a numberof occasions in the last few minutes has continuallyreferred to statements in a range of newspapers. In theabsence of him quoting from them, this house is not ina position to know whether he is making it up orwhether what he is saying is true. The veracity of hisstatements cannot be judged by this house. He ismaking reckless statements to this house regardingwhat is said in the papers, yet he is not quoting them tous. He could be making this up, Mr Acting President.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — On the point of order,Mr Acting President, I am talking about what I haveread in the newspapers, and it is clearly checkable byanybody and everybody.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — Give us a quote!

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — Mr Lucas, you havehad your turn.



Hon. B. C. Boardman — On the point of order,Mr Acting President — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! There is no point oforder.


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Without the cheersquad! Mr McQuilten has been making some generalcomments; he has not specifically referred to particulareditorials. His comments have been very generalised. Ifhe was making a specific comment he would berequired to quote the paper and cite the date of thatpaper. There is no point of order.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — Thank you,Mr Acting President. It is probably appropriate now tomove off editorials because the opposition is clearlyunhappy when I mention them. It is obvious thatopposition members are concerned about the number ofeditorials that are in support of the Bracks–Brumbybudget. They do not want me to talk about them. Theydo not want to know, as is their habit. They do not wantto know what is going on in regional Victoria!

Hon. K. M. Smith — On a point of order,Mr Acting President, I have a copy of the Weekly Timesand Mr McQuilten is quite right; there is a lot in thepaper about the budget. One headline reads ‘Mysteryfungus kills cows’. I think the cows are finding outabout the budget as well!

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! There is no point oforder.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — I am not sure whatMr Smith was referring to, but I will move off editorialsbecause they are clearly strongly in favour — —

Hon. N. B. Lucas — You have no evidence!

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — Read them,Mr Lucas. All I am saying is: read the editorials. Theyare on the public record and you do not like what is onthe public record, Mr Lucas. Read them; they are allover country Victoria. You are irrelevant now; youwere irrelevant three years ago; that is why we are onthis side of the house!


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Mr McQuilten willmake his remarks through the Chair.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — I am sorry, Mr ActingPresident.

I would now like to talk about a number of federalissues relating to this state budget. I have a note here —I normally do not use notes but I have a made a note ofthree — —


Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — I do not quote; I donot need to. I have three notes: one is about the CalderFreeway. What has that lot in opposition done? Theopposition parties are in government federally; whathave they done for the Calder? Absolutely nothing! Theopposition is a sham. Where is their intellectualmuscle? What about equity? What about the otherelectorates beyond Bendigo? What have we heard? Nota whisper about the Calder. The federal governmentwill not fund it. It does not want to fund it because itbelieves it has lost Bendigo. A bit of a hint is comingthrough here about the federal budget; they cannot winthe Bendigo seats so they are not going to fund thefreeway — it is dead; they have wiped it.

Then we go to the Melbourne Cricket Ground(MCG) — this is a good one! A $90 million promise —what has the federal government done about that? It isnot going to fund that either! Why is it not going tofund it? Well, it says there are all sorts of reasons. TonyAbbott — —

Hon. I. J. Cover — On a point of order, Mr ActingPresident, I know that the budget offers honourablemembers the opportunity to range across a number ofissues, and there is plenty of scope to range far andwide in this debate, but clearly we are talking about thestate budget here, and the honourable member has nowstrayed onto issues involving the federal budget. Thehonourable member is quite right in suggesting that thefederal government has actually committed $90 millionto the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground,and that is in stark contrast to the state government,which has not provided one cent for the MCGredevelopment. We would be interested to see, intalking about the state budget, if the honourablemember could actually illustrate where the stategovernment has provided funding for the MCGredevelopment.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — On the point of order,Mr Acting President, I am talking about $90 million,which was an agreement between the federal and state



governments — it was an acknowledged agreement.Now, because of that agreement our state budget hasbeen formulated assuming that $90 million is going tobe forthcoming. Because of the withdrawal, or apparentwithdrawal, of that $90 million, it is now relevant to ourstate budget.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! There is no point oforder. The budget debate does allow for a verywide-ranging debate; it allows the canvassing of jointfederal–state funding arrangements and projects. It isquite reasonable for the debate to be canvassing theseissues.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — To me, the MCGissue is quite tragic because it is the second time thatthe federal government has told the rest of Australiathat the Victorian opposition cannot win government.That is what it is saying! It will not fund the Calderbecause it cannot win government; it will not fund theMCG because it cannot win government; and now — Iam going to number three — the Wimmera–Malleepipeline, one of the most important issuesenvironmentally for regional Victoria and, I have tosay, for regional Australia, will not be funded. What hasit done there? The Victorian government committed$77 million — —

Hon. K. M. Smith interjected.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — You committednothing, Mr Smith — you’ve got no commitment!

The Wimmera–Mallee pipeline is the third issue onwhich the federal government has acknowledged thatthis mob on the other side cannot win government — itis just not going to fund it. If anyone was really seriousabout trying to win government in Victoria they wouldfund the Calder Freeway, they would fund the MCGand they would fund the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline.

I am now going to talk about some local issues. In thelast 12 days, I think, the Leader of the Opposition,Dr Denis Napthine, has been to Maryborough. I am notgoing to talk about Ballarat or the Macedon Ranges orother places in my area, but I have a particular interestin Maryborough. I am wondering whether a point oforder is going to be taken; I am not sure — —

Hon. I. J. Cover — You could take one on yourself!

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — Well, I’ve had a lot ofpoints of order tonight — I’m a little sensitive on pointsof order!

I should like to talk about the Bracks–Brumby budget.About a week and a half ago the Leader of theOpposition in the other place came to Maryborough. Icould not believe what he was saying that I and thelower house member, the honourable member forRipon, had been trying to do and had achieved in termsof budgetary outcomes.

I shall go through some of them. The government hasbeen elected for some two years and has put$2.5 million into the Avoca hospital and $1.7 millioninto the Dunolly hospital, and has just announced$8 million for the Maryborough hospital, and a new$4.5 million police station. We announced $4 millionfor an education precinct about which I will talk in amoment — a $20 million project. That is the minorstuff. There are many other grants in the seat of Riponand to the Central Goldfields Shire Council.

We are talking more money in the last two years thanhas landed in Ripon in the past 40 years. The Leader ofthe Opposition in the other place said, ‘I’mdisappointed it is not happening fast enough’. He was atthe table with Jeff Kennett. What did you do? Buggerall!

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! Mr McQuilten, yourcomments are unparliamentary and I ask you towithdraw some of those words.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — I withdraw. He didabsolutely nothing when he was at the cabinet table.We are delivering in our electorate and all he cancomplain about is that we are not doing it fast enough!

I want to move on to the education precinct which Ihave been working on since 1984. In 1984 I brought upan idea, which did not gain much credence, because allthe schools in my home town of Maryborough were inincredible need of repair. I was only a candidate and didnot get the support that I needed at that time. I decidedthat maybe I needed to hone my views about what itshould be and could be.

In 1993 I went to Canberra and was able to get thesupport of the federal government of the day for a pilotproject in a regional town — to do something that hadnever been done before. It was a potpourri of funding. Igained tacit, not official, support but it was support thatwe might be able to get $10 million for the concept.What happened with the Kennett government? Theysaid, ‘No’, and, ‘We will give you a $900 000gymnasium’. It was a buy-out — ‘here is a $900 000gymnasium’ — and the concept died. It came up againwhen I was re-elected.



Hon. I. J. Cover interjected.

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN — Mr Cover, you do noteven understand what I am talking about — you do notunderstand education and what we are talking about.This is about an enormous range of issues which werebrought up on both sides of the house. The educationprecinct that I, the government, all the people ofMaryborough, including those in businesses, are talkingabout is something that has not been done before. Thatis why it is so incredibly hard to achieve: it issomething that has never been achieved before. It is amix of industry, lifelong learning, childcare, primaryschools, secondary schools, TAFE colleges anduniversities all on one site. No-one has ever done it.

It will happen in Maryborough through this budget. Themedia has not even run with it. This is probably themost important regional infrastructure in Victoria for along time. Educationally it is incredibly important foryoung people. I must say that the Leader of theOpposition in the other place in his statements wassupportive of the concept, so I congratulate him forsupporting it. I do not know that he understands what itis all about, but at least he is supportive.

All of this effort has been generated by local peoplebecause they want these things to happen in Ripon, andthe Leader of the Opposition comes to Maryboroughand says that it is not happening fast enough. That is themost limp response, when he was around the tablewhen we needed the police station, the hospital inAvoca and the hospital in Dunolly, which they tried toclose — but we saved it. It is beyond belief, the viewsof the opposition tonight!

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I ampleased on behalf of the National Party to make somecomments in relation to the budget. I listened with greatinterest to the great passion displayed by theHonourable John McQuilten, and there are certainly anumber of issues that I will pick up in my contribution,particularly issues of governments not doing anything. Ihope Mr McQuilten might listen to those particularcomments.

I shall briefly go through the economic status of theNorth Western Province, the electorate I represent withthe Honourable Ron Best. Small business is rollingalong and generally doing well in that particularprovince. However, they are under some pressure andthere is no doubt had the government bitten the bulletand made a solid reduction in taxes it would havecreated a much-needed confidence boost to smallbusiness across North Western Province.

I move quickly to agriculture, which has a hugediversity throughout the province, and will touch on anumber of issues in agriculture as I go through. There isno doubt the dairy industry is going along well at thistime, and I would expect it to do so for many years tocome. The pastoral industries in the province are goingwell, the cattle industry is strong, sheep products arecoming back, lambs are good, and certainly wool is onthe way back.


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. G. B. Ashman) — Order! There is far too muchbackground noise in the chamber and it is making itextremely difficult to hear Mr Bishop. I wouldappreciate it if honourable members would keep thelevel of conversation down a few decibels.

Hon. B. W. BISHOP — The horticultural area hashad excellent production this season, and I shall touchon a few of them. In the dried fruits area it is interestingthat this year in the Sunraysia area we have more thandoubled last year’s crop, which is due to a good cropand certainly due to a lot of production going into driedfruits where previously it may have gone into the wineindustry.

Stone fruits are going quite well with some goodinnovative marketing throughout the area. There hasbeen a particularly good crop of table grapes in theSunraysia area although there has been somewhat of anoversupply in the domestic market. It is a good case fora single desk to manage the supply as it overloads thedomestic market because it can then be moved onto theexport market. That has not quite occurred as well as itcould have done. Certainly a lot of product is stored incool stores around the area.

I would also like to comment on wine grapesthroughout the wine grape growing area. I commendMike Stone, the chief executive of the Victorian andMurray Valley Wine Grape Growers Council. He andhis council have done an excellent job in a particularlydifficult year in the wine grape industry. There havebeen extremely good crops and supply over and abovethe contracts that were written with the wineries and thegrowers. There has been real hardship for somegrowers in the wine grape industries. There is no doubtthat wine grapes were put on the ground when thegrapes did not have a home to go to. It is a very toughsorting-out period which I suspect will take two or threeyears to settle. I urge the industry to work cooperativelyas it moves down that path.



It is excellent that the Sunraysia Rural CounsellingService operates in the area — and people involvedwith it have done an excellent job. Now they arewriting and talking to all of the industries in the area,asking them to come forward with their views of whatthey would need to support their growers throughparticular downturns. Obviously all the industries aredifferent and have different requirements. It is avisionary and forward-thinking move by thecounselling service and I am sure they will get someexcellent results from their surveys.

The grain industry has had a couple of good seasonsover most of Victoria, which has been most welcome.They had a tough time in the 1990s but growers havenow been able to pay off some debt and replace someof the tired machinery that was not able to be replacedduring the 1990s. There have not been really good rainsacross the grain-growing area but certainly enough for agood deal of crop to go into the ground.

The building industry is going along well in NorthWestern Province. Obviously it very competitive, butthat typifies the building industries.

A couple of big industries are relatively new in NorthWestern Province. One is mineral sands. It is getting alot of media and the minister spoke about the mineralsands industry today. It is a big industry that has beencarefully nurtured in the area. The people in it haveworked their way slowly into the area. One mine is nowoperating fully and a number are about to start up. Thestandardisation of the rail from Mildura through toPortland is essential to gain access for mineral sands.The people in the industry wish to go into the port ofPortland to utilise the deep water that is available there,and to pick up other mineral sands activity on the waydown the railway line. I have made the point again andagain in this house that it is absolutely essential that thatline be upgraded so we can get the savings out of theupgrades on the lines, which could amount to $3 to$5 per tonne.

The other big opportunity that has emerged over thepast six months or so in the Sunraysia area is throughEnviromission Ltd which is looking to build a solarpower unit in the area which has been costed at almost$700 million and will have the capacity to power200 000 homes. The company is finally about to settleon a site where it would like it to be built. It needsstrong support from the state government. It may wellbe built in New South Wales at Tapio Station adjacentto Mildura, but if it is Victoria will share in theemployment opportunities that will flow from such ahuge construction and that will continue to flow when itis built. I urge the government to take positive steps in

relation to the solar power unit proposed to be built nearMildura.

There has been some criticism of the government inrelation to its views on alternative electricity generation.It seems to have a total fix on wind power. It should belooking at all areas of electricity generation includingwind and solar power and what we utilise today inmany aspects of that power generation.

I thought about what the state budget has done forNorth Western Province. Most people in my electoratesee it as a high-taxing budget with minimal relief formost businesses in the area. Most see it as an electionbudget aimed at the suburban metropolitan area. That iswhere the votes are. It certainly has not been aimed atthe regional and rural areas.

On the other hand I congratulate the government on itsfunding of the second stage of the Wimmera–Malleepipeline. It has put up $77 million and I welcome thatcommitment. But let me set the record straight aboutMr McQuilten’s comments. The northern Malleepipeline is almost complete — seven stages have beenfinished. It is a great joint effort between thecommonwealth, the state government and thecommunities in that area. It is ridiculous to suggest thatthe federal government is stepping away from the issue.

Again I congratulate the government on itscommitment which follows the practices of previousgovernments. However, the government played politicswith the commonwealth government at every turn onthis issue and that is not fair in relation to this greatproject that we in the Wimmera–Mallee area have anopportunity to share in. The government has played thegame right out and the National Party and I object tothe way the government played politics in thisimportant process. Everyone was advised about the$3.5 million that was to be put up by the state andfederal governments, and the federal governmentadvised that the money was there. It was okay. It wasthere for the detailed planning of this particularpipeline.

I am sure that the staged funding over 10 years will beavailable from the federal government provided that allof the design techniques are met and adhered to. Isuspect that is what the state government will do eventhough they have played politics quite hard on this. Thecommonwealth government is quite entitled after it hasput up $3.5 million to say, ‘We will see what is reallyneeded out of this particular project’. It is quite sensible.What will the state government say if it comes out atmore than $77 million? Will they kick the tin then? Iwould like to get the answers out of the ministers then



and see how the politics get played in that particularsituation. It could be more. Let us see what theVictorian government does if it costs more at the end ofthe planning process that we are looking forward tostarting quite soon.

This is an extremely good project. I congratulate thesteering committee for getting together. They had atough task, but they did a wonderful job in convincingeveryone that this was a good project. They put anenormous amount of professional effort into that and Icongratulate the steering committee, particularly thechairman, Cr Stewart Petering. He did a marvellousjob — never flinched and never took his eye off theball.

It is also good that other groups, such as the Pipe RightGroup, raised some very valid concerns about theprocess running up to getting the $7 million to gothrough this final planning process. This particulargroup was concerned as to how environmental andrecreation water would be treated as the pipelineprocess proceeded. They were very concerned aboutthe future of the lakes and waterways in their area andalso the cost of reticulating the stock and domesticwater throughout the farms that it is proposed to pipewith this new process. All of those issues will be able togo into the final planning stage. They are good issuesand they are issues that certainly need to be workedthrough.

When we talk about politics, I must chide the VictorianFarmers Federation a bit for its criticism of thecommonwealth government. I suppose it is fair to saythat members of that organisation were doing their job,but it would have been a little bit easier to wait for aday or two to see the real figures or the commitmentsthat came from the federal government rather thanjumping to conclusions and thinking that the moneywas not available.

In relation to that, I would like to congratulate verymuch the honourable member for Wimmera who hasdone a marvellous job with his federal colleague, thehonourable member for Mallee, John Forrest, who hasdone a great job of convincing the commonwealthgovernment of the worth of this project. They have leftno stone unturned. They have led a deputation toCanberra to ensure everything was well known aboutthis great project. They were instrumental in gettingJohn Anderson and Mark Vaile down to Hamiltonwhere members of the National Party had a meetingwith them to ensure that they were fully briefed veryearly in the day in relation to that particular project. Soeveryone, including particularly those two gentlemen,has worked closely with both governments, and

particularly the steering committee, to ensure theresources were available for each stage of this excellentproject.

I was intrigued by the Honourable John McQuilten’sremarks when he was critical of suggestions that thegovernment had been slow to put into place some of itsviews. Let me take you to the courthouse at Mildura,announced three budgets ago — a $9 million projectthat has just started. I reckon it has just started becausewe kept the pressure on, so that is not what I would calla really quick result.

We have the old Mildura hospital site. If my memoryserves me correctly it is about 17 acres and it is in aprime position. It is our understanding that theSunraysia Community Health Centre would share someof that land. Certainly, Princes Court Homes, the agedcare organisation — a very good organisation — willget some of the land as well. What do we do with therest, we might ask the government. Will the MilduraRural City Council be offered enough money from thegovernment to be tempted to shift their offices downthere? Is it a done deal? We do not know. We do hopethat information comes forth. We would like to knowabout the heritage listings on the hospital to ensure thatthe community can partake in a consultative processand know all the details in relation to those particularareas. The reason I raise that is because it is costing anabsolute fortune for the security surveillance of the oldhospital site. So I would urge the government to makesome crisp decisions, get on with the job and tidy up thedecisions so these things can be done and done morequickly than they have been done in the past.

Let me take you to another slow start, we might say. Ihave talked about the standardisation and upgrading ofthe Mildura railway line. The government committed$96 million to the standardisation process acrossVictoria. That is fine, but the fact of the matter is it saidit would have it finished this year on the Mildura line.Now it has drifted out to the middle of 2003. That is notquite fair because a number of our businesses haveinvested in infrastructure believing that themuch-publicised finalisation of this standardisationwould have occurred in 2002. Now we find it is driftingout. Again, I make the point that they must upgrade theline at the same time. If we are to get the freight savingsby heavier axle loading and higher wagon speed, thatline must be upgraded as well as standardised. I havenoticed that the north-west municipalities have notedthere has been a hold-up there and have expressedconcern as well.

What I would like to do now is put the government onnotice about the irrigation infrastructure requirements in



upgrades throughout the Mildura area — the SunraysiaRural Water Authority and the First Mildura IrrigationTrust. Those of us who represent that area weredelighted when we heard there was a study going onwhich encompasses all of the relevant bodies whichwill look at the future needs for that area in relation tothe infrastructure for irrigation. We wanted theseanswers some time ago. A good example is theRobinvale system which we believe is under riskbecause of its fragile state. Obviously there is somefrustration in the area. I quote from the Sunraysia Dailyof 24 May where the Robinvale irrigators are reportedas being frustrated. An article states that they have:

… expressed frustration with Sunraysia Rural WaterAuthority which they claim has gagged grower input andwithdrawn access to grower consultation on major decisionsin regard to their irrigation district.

Robinvale spokesman Nick Muraca said in Mildura yesterdayfrustration had now led to the resignation of the RobinvaleWater Users Committee chairman Darren Wilson.

…

Mr Muraca said the committee had expressed its concernsabout lack of consultation to SRWA about a year ago.

…

Mr Muraca said the committee’s biggest disappointment wasthat it was being excluded from talks about the badly neededupgrade of the Robinvale irrigation infrastructure.

‘We are not even allowed to lobby for any infrastructureupgrade, but the SRWA don’t seem to be doing that either’.

The Sunraysia Rural Water Authority is lobbying hardand is on the job, but that gives you some idea about thefrustration of the people. They are good operators in theirrigation area but they are extremely concerned aboutthe poor situation in relation to their irrigationinfrastructure.

The government needs to do a couple of things verypromptly. Firstly, they have a spare spot on theSunraysia Rural Water Authority Board. That spot hasbeen freed up by the resignation of Mr Ross Lake. RossLake has done a magnificent job in the community. Hehas been on I think 17 organisations throughout thatarea and has served each of them particularly well. Heruns a very large fuel distribution business. I thank himfor his community efforts over a number of years, and Ireally look forward to him coming back and continuingthe good work he has done in the past. But Mr Lake’sresignation from the Sunraysia Rural Water AuthorityBoard has created an opportunity, and I call on thegovernment to appoint a Robinvale person to thatboard. They missed their chance when they allocatedpositions on the board before. There are a number ofgood operators there, and I do not believe they would

be parochial at all. At least they would know the realissues of Robinvale which must in fact be addressed.

Might I step to the Deakin project. That is anotherbudgetary issue for the state government. The Deakinproject has the wrong title. It should never have beencalled a project. The Deakin philosophy, when itstarted, was — and I think still is — very clear: that youplan for the new and you look after the old. But it hasbeen swallowed up by fear and innuendo andmisinformation. The existing irrigators are expressingreal concern for their future. That is fair enough. Theyare concerned that they could end up with the old tiredsystem which is very much in need of an upgrade whenthe new and highly efficient developments power aheadand may well leave the tired old irrigation systembehind.

I do not think they have any reason for fear orargument. It is great to have the debate in the area and itis good to get it out and have all the views expressed,but at the end of the day it is pretty simple: you want toplan well for the new development and ensure that thesocial and environmental planning issues are allcovered. The market issues will resolve themselves.Early in Deakin’s life when the views were expressedon that, people were talking about having 85 per cent ofthe new development in wine grapes. I am quite surethat that percentage would not be considered now. Itwould be half or less than that, I suspect, in those newdevelopments. Of course, those new developments willslow down now since the heat has gone out of themarket and there will be a much more measured viewtaken in respect of the new development. People arelooking at new products — garlic, asparagus andvarious other horticultural products that can be grownin the good soil and water in that area.

The real issue is the old infrastructures there. Some sayit is okay, but I do not accept that and neither doesanyone who has thought about it much. We must getthe results of the study that is under way and follow theprecedent that South Australia and New South Waleshave used for upgrading their irrigation infrastructure.They have used some very innovative financial systemsto deliver world-class irrigation systems to the growers.South Australia used what is commonly known as the40:40:20 system, where 40 per cent of the funds camefrom the federal government, 40 per cent from the stategovernment and the other 20 per cent from the waterauthority in South Australia or the irrigatorsthemselves. New South Wales used a different systembut in the end the result was the same: the growersended up owning and operating a very good system thathad been upgraded. There is no point simply shiftingthe system over to the growers prior to it being



upgraded; they would probably never recover from thatand that is not the way to do it, but the precedent isclearly there in South Australia and New South Walesto be studied and used.

There is nowhere near the renewal financial resource inthe authorities to manage the full infrastructureupgrades that are required today. That is nobody’s faultbecause the renewals were not part of the financialscene in the water authorities years ago. I suspect it isonly in the last eight or nine years that those renewalshave been put in place and the money is slowlybuilding up, but you are probably looking at 100 yearsback when the renewals should have been in place. It isno-one’s fault; that is where governments need to stepin and utilise their horsepower to bring this irrigationinfrastructure up to standard, and then, as they did inSouth Australia and New South Wales, move it over togrower ownership, which is the best way to go.

I again put the government on notice for a number ofother issues related to the Sunraysia area, but I willconclude on one particular issue — the Nichols PointPrimary School. I have spoken before in the houseabout this and asked when the new school there wouldbe built. This process started off at least three years ago,which was when I requested a demographic study toensure that the Sunraysia education system could copewith the future growth of the area. In April 2001 I askedthe then Minister for Education when the new schoolwould be built. The minister responded to me at thattime that a preferred option had been agreed and thatthe acting regional director of the Loddon CampaspeMallee region and the department’s officers werepreparing a submission to acquire land adjacent to theschool site. This school is a really good school and hasalways had a good council, good principals and staff,and it is now severely overcrowded. While thegovernment fiddles around deciding where and whenthe new school can be built and dithers with the figures,the students and staff are suffering under this pressure.

This is not the only school; there are other schools thereon the thin line of overcrowding as well around theother areas of Mildura which, as is obviously wellknown to this house, is growing at a rapid rate. Theseschool communities need funding to upgrade, refurbishand build new facilities such as Nichols Point PrimarySchool in an effort to cope with the increased enrolmenteach year. The government has waxed lyrical aboutplummeting class sizes, increased staff and thewonderful facilities it has funded. I suggest thegovernment take a look outside metropolitanMelbourne if it is looking for comparisons in relation tothis issue. The Sunraysia community is booming. It isgoing ahead with a huge population increase and the

establishment of industry such as mineral sand. Exportsare good and the city itself and its population areembracing the new move towards a promising future.

However, it is infrastructure projects such as decentschools that are not overcrowded and are adequatelystaffed that we need at the minute. The needs ofNichols Point Primary School were raised even beforethis government took office almost three years ago. Irefer the house to a couple of paragraphs in the schoolprofile:

Enrolment patterns at Nichols Point Primary School haveshown a marked increase during the 1990s. Numbers haveincreased from 148 pupils in 1990 to 286 in 2000.

At the moment the school has 276 students, with theprincipal forced not to accept students who wish toenrol at this point in time.

I continue reading the school profile:

This has placed a great strain on facilities at the school. Theschool occupies only 0.911 of a hectare and is the smallestschool site in Sunraysia. Accident data indicates that the sizeof the site has a significant impact on student safety …

As stated before the Nichols Point Primary School occupies asite that is much too small for its student population.Negotiations are currently under way with the Department ofEducation to purchase land adjacent to the school to helpexpand the site. Future plans include the redevelopment of theschool to cater to the higher numbers of students expected atthe school in the future. It is expected that pressure will onlyincrease on enrolments as a new housing subdivision hasrecently been opened in the Kings Billabong area withprovision for 100 houses.

That is good news. I now refer to a media release issuedby the honourable member for Mildura in the otherplace. When I asked questions about what was going onwith the school, the honourable member for Mildurasaid in his media release dated 6 April 2001:

The first step has been taken to begin the process ofestablishing a new primary school at Nichols Point.

Member for Mildura Russell Savage today responded toclaims by National Party MP Barry Bishop that the schoolwas bursting at the seams, but the Victorian government wasdragging its heels on a solution.

Mr Savage said the Department of Education, Employmentand Training advised him in March it would support aproposal to acquire land adjacent to the school.

‘This was the proposal put by the Nichols Point PrimarySchool council, and this has now been endorsed by thedepartment as the preferred option’.

‘I understand the school is satisfied with the department’ssupport of the land acquisition, and that this is seen as adefinite first step in the right direction’.



Mr Savage said the government was aware of theovercrowding difficulties at the school and was responsive tothe campaign to have the school facilities expanded andupgraded.

That is all good stuff, and that was more than a yearago. Surprise, surprise, when the budget papers weretabled Nichols Point Primary School was not on the list,a party to the land adjacent to the school which weunderstood the government was moving to purchasecalled me and asked what stage the process was at. Ihad to advise them that I did not know and that I hadasked a question in Parliament but did not get ananswer. I asked it again and I still have no idea. Thepeople concerned then informed me that to the best oftheir knowledge no formal approach has been made atall to them and they want to move on in relation to theland. I am now making some inquiries on their behalf. Iwant to know where this issue and supposed quickaction is going. This good school, good school council,good principal and staff and excellent students havebeen fiddled around for years by this government. Isthis another courthouse in Mildura where three budgetslater they start? Is this another example of thestandardisation that looks as though it will drag badly?Is this another example of the passenger train? I wonderwhen that will come back. We will wait with batedbreath. It will drag on and on.

I congratulate the Honourable Elaine Carbines, whoshowed some real interest in this issue. She requestedinformation from me and I have forwarded the detailsto her. I thank her very much for her interest. Inresponse to the Honourable John McQuilten’s queryabout what the opposition and the National Party are onabout, that is an excellent example of the slowness ofthe government to respond. That sets the recordstraight. The government is fortunate it has had goodreturns in relation to its revenue streams, which Iunderstand are up 27 per cent. Gambling revenue is up,stamp duty is up and other growth revenue streams arestill going well.

As we see it, this budget is gearing up for an earlyelection, perhaps at the end of the year or next March atthe latest. I do not think there is much in it for NorthWestern Province, but I make the point thatopportunities have been lost rather than gained with thisbudget. I conclude by again putting the government onnotice that if it is still around the next time round, thebig issues of irrigation infrastructure upgrades are rightthere and they must be positively addressed in thefuture.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — It gives megreat pleasure to speak in support of the Bracksgovernment’s third budget. This budget is all about

Growing Victoria and sound financial management. Itis important to note that this budget is investing in ourfuture; it is about jobs and a stronger and caringcommunity. It delivers record investment in educationand innovation and it puts the proceeds of Victoria’sstrong economic performance over the past two yearsand the Growing Victoria Together plan to work.

I quote a line from the Premier, the Honourable SteveBracks, during a conference speech in which he states:

Let me put it in very simple terms: for every day we havebeen in government, we have employed 3 extra nurses, 3extra teachers, 1 extra police officer and invested $3 millionin schools, hospitals, community safety, transport and otheressential infrastructure.

While it is important for local members like me to talkabout particular budget initiatives for our electorates, itis also important to mention statewide investments thatthe state is making in education, innovation, transport,health and the business sector. The Treasurer noted inhis budget speech in the other place a strong list of thebudget initiatives, which included responsible andsound financial management, a growing economy,investing for our future with stronger communities, andpromoting sustainable development and protecting theenvironment for the future of all Victorians, as well asbuilding stronger and caring communities.

On a global point, this government is employing anextra 925 teachers over and above the 3000 teachersand staff the government has put back into theVictorian school system. It has allocated $216 millionfor the construction and modernisation of Victorianschools and TAFE colleges and $31 million to expandVictoria’s free school bus service.

The budget also provides for a further 700 nurses to beput back into the system, which makes a total of 3700new nurses recruited by the government in theimportant health care sector.

The budget also delivers $114 million to preserving andprotecting our rivers and waterways. The LinkingVictoria section of the budget sees the governmentinvesting in roads and public transport to a total of$806 million with the upgrading of public transport androads across the state. That includes the very importantScoresby freeway, with a state contribution of$445 million, and $55 million for public transport inthat corridor.

In relation to Ballarat Province, I shall go through thelocal initiatives that the budget has delivered:$1.789 million for capital works upgrade for the AraratPrimary School; $4 million for stage 1 of theMaryborough educational precinct; and $77 million for



the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline, which will seeapproximately 18 000 kilometres of pipelineconstructed. There is an allocation of $1.4 million forthe Ararat ambulance station, which has to be sharedwith health care; $3 million for stage 2 of the StawellDistrict Hospital; a share of $5 million for upgrades tothe Beaufort and Smythesdale police stations;$8 million allocation to the Maryborough and districthealth service aged care facility, which includes theDunolly and Maryborough campuses; $118 860 for amonitoring system and electronic beds for the Stawellregional health service; $93 500 to the MaryboroughDistrict Health Service for bed replacement andaccident and emergency equipment; $60 700 for theBeaufort and Skipton Health Service; and mostimportantly, $147 000 to an innovation project calledSupporting Vulnerable Families to be auspiced by theCentral Goldfields Shire.

Building and ground safety works funding has beenallocated to three preschool kindergartens in Ararat: theCarey Street kindergarten with $10 910; $8000 to theJack and Jill kindergarten; and $2800 to the St Andrewskindergarten. As well, $64 000 was allocated to theCorangamite regional library and $94 000 to theCentral Highlands regional library.

In the Ballarat region there has been allocated from thisthird Bracks government budget a share of $5 millionfor an upgrade of the Gordon police station;$1.426 million to the Napoleons Primary School forcapital works; and $944 000 to Buninyong PrimarySchool for capital works. There is $4.2 million for therelocation to Mount Helen of the Ballarat technologypark and the State Revenue Office; and $790 000 isallocated for the Supporting Vulnerable Familiesprogram as part of the Department of Human Servicesallocation for community services to Ballarat anddistrict communities.

There is $263 000 to the Ballarat Health Services for asuite of endoscope equipment; $190 000 for increasedbus services to Ballarat Transit; $140,000 for increasedbus services to the Ballarat and Buninyong areas;$10 400 for Buninyong preschool for building andground safety works; $6500 for building and groundsafety works to the Ballarat Fidelity Club kindergarten.$5400 to Mount Clear kindergarten for ground andbuilding safety works; $4000 for York Streetkindergarten; $94 000 for the Central Highlandsregional library; and $15 000 for the Macedon RangesShire library. PINARC Support Services is an amazingorganisation with very dedicated people who supportphysically and intellectually disabled children andyoung people in the Ballarat district, and it will receive$7600.

There is also $220 000 for the Tait and Morgan streetsintersection, Sebastopol, and $5000 for counsellingservices provided by Ballarat Lifeline, for which I havea great admiration and respect having served for10 years as a volunteer counsellor for telephone crisiscalls up until the mid-1990s. Lifeline Ballarat is anamazing organisation that is exactly that — it providesa lifeline for that region. As well, the budget willprovide $29 000 for amenities for the Mount Helenpreschool; $5300 to the Sebastopol kindergarten forbuilding and ground safety works; $17 700 forMidlands kindergarten amenities; and $1400 forWendouree preschool for its building and ground safetyworks.

The Kyneton to Faraday section of the Calder Highwaywill see $70 million allocated by this budget. The househas heard, and no doubt will continue to hear, howimportant the Calder Highway is. It is a road of nationalimportance and a vital transport and tourist linkbetween Melbourne and Bendigo. That allocation of$70 million will go towards the duplication of theCalder Highway by 2006. The government has alsoincluded in its budget initiatives $25 million tocomplete the Carlsruhe section of the Calder Highway,which equates to Victoria’s 50 per cent contribution tothis important project.

As well, this budget will see $676 000 allocated forcapital works to the Coburn Primary School in theMelton area; $4.5 million for a new building at theGourlay Road Primary School in Melton East; $19 000for the Melton central preschool building and groundsafety works; $15 400 for the Melton Unitingkindergarten building and ground safety works;$16 000 for the Wallace and District kindergarten forbuilding and ground safety works; and $280 000 forincreased bus services in the Bacchus Marsh,Sydenham and Melton areas.

As well there has been a very generous allocation of alittle over $0.5 million to the Moorabool shire for theupgrade of local pools at Bacchus Marsh and Ballanunder the government’s Better Pools program. Thisgovernment has changed the funding ratio of theprogram to allow regional and rural areas and shires abetter opportunity to access government funding.Indeed, in this instance they have, and I commend thegovernment and the Moorabool shire for itscommitment and efforts in obtaining that funding forcountry people. I know only too well the importance ofa local pool to a small township; it probably equates tothe local football club. It is the pivotal area wherepeople meet, and they are very possessive and parochialtowards their local pools, and rightly so too.



Last week I had the opportunity of spending a verybusy day with the Minister for Sport and Recreation inmy electorate. That day started at 10 o’clock in themorning at Creswick to announce a $40 000 fundingallocation for four outdoor netball courts at the DougLindsay park recreation reserve at Creswick. Thatcompletes stage 2 of that project. As well, $6270 wasallocated for the resurfacing of the netball and tenniscourt at Newlyn community recreation reserve so thatthose courts will have an all-weather surface. Also,$42 000 was allocated to and contributed by the stategovernment for stages 1 and 2 of the Daylesford skatepark project. Late in the afternoon we were back inBallarat for the announcement of $17 000 towards a12-metre extension of the existing boat shed on LakeWendouree for the Ballarat canoe club.

Those state government contributions were matched bycommunity contributions. Probably more important isthe physical input and exuberance of those localcommunities to the particular sporting facilities in theirregion, and how possessive they are of their sportingachievements in their districts. I commend each ofthose communities — Creswick, Newlyn, Daylesfordand Ballarat — for their ongoing commitment toplaying an active role in their communities in theimportant area of sport.

Another boost in the state budget was an extra$28.3 million to preschools across the state. Thatincluded upgrades to more than 530 preschoolsthroughout the state and new initiatives to help childrenwith disabilities and special learning needs.

Recently I had the opportunity of supporting to asuccessful conclusion an integration aide for a youngboy, the son of a family in my electorate. Three yearsago he had a terrible accident when he was kicked inthe head by a horse which was owned by his parentsand which left him terribly disabled. This young boy isachieving within his limitations with the assistance ofan integration aide at his school in a small communitysouth of Ballarat. When I was faced with thoseheart-rending facts it was brought home to me loudlyand clearly that children with disabilities and specialneeds need attention, and they are getting it under thisbudget and the Bracks government.

The Kirby preschool review undertaken by thisgovernment revealed that the previous Kennettgovernment had cut funding to preschools by around20 per cent, increased fees to parents by 120 per cent,and imposed an enormous organisational and financialburden on parents. This government’s grants, rangingfrom $1000 to $180 000 at a total cost of $5 million,will fund upgrades to 534 kindergartens across the

state. The budget will also deliver intensive support to5000 children — which equates to approximately 8 percent of preschool children — with a disability or speciallearning needs.

Another area of great interest to me is education. LastThursday, during Education Week, I had theopportunity of attending a special dinner hosted byBallarat High School to celebrate and showcasepost-compulsory pathways in education and training inthe Ballarat district. The aim of the dinner was to makethe broader community aware of the importance ofproviding a range of post-compulsory pathways foryoung people in the age group 15 years to 19 years. Ilearnt all about the Victorian certificate of appliedlearning and was told how it began in term 1 of thisyear under this government and how the pilot projectshave progressed in Ballarat at Damascus College andSebastopol Secondary College. Those schools are partof 22 pilots across the state. The government hasallocated $48 million over the next four years to roll outthe VCAL program across secondary and TAFEcolleges around the state to ensure there will be around220 sites in 2003.

That dinner event was held at the Bell Tower Inn inBallarat and was developed and organised by secondaryschool students who are undertaking certificate III invocational education and training (VET) hospitality andcertificate II in VET office administration at BallaratHigh School. The skills and knowledge developedthrough the running of the dinner contributed to theiroverall graded assessment in the Victorian certificate ofeducation VET. In fact, the students were beingassessed as they served us with our meals and attendedus during the evening. The meal for 200-odd guests wascooked in the kitchen at the Bell Tower Inn. It was atremendous effort by those young people and showedthe strong partnership between the schools and industryin the Ballarat area, especially the huge support given tothis project by the Bell Tower Inn in Ballarat. I thankthem personally.

The third Bracks budget was received in the Ballaratarea with acclaim. The Ballarat Courier of 9 May hadnothing but praise for the initiatives for increased busservices in Ballarat, the gains for preschoolers, and thefunding aid of $790 000 for the vulnerable familiesprogram — and Child and Family Services Ballaratwas very pleased with that budget announcement.

There was acclaim also in the Ballarat Courier of8 May under the heading ‘Widespread applause’:

Teachers and welfare workers joined with unions andemployers in applauding the Victorian government’s latestbudget …



…

Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry(VECCI) chief executive officer Neil Coulson said fiscalresponsibility was what employers were looking for in thebudget and it was what they got.

Treasurer John Brumby said his budget, with its $522 millionsurplus, as financially responsible, foreshadowed continuingsurpluses in coming years. VECCI was particularly pleasedwith the payroll tax cuts and Mr Coulson said he hopedfurther cuts were on the way.

The editorial in the Courier of 8 May also praised thethird Bracks government budget. Under the heading‘Budget weds spending with fiscal caution’ it noted thenew police stations in the area and it also noted that bybalancing spending with prudence the government hadachieved its goal.

Another mention in the Courier was in an article in the‘Farmers weekly’ section, which was written by youngLuke Mullane. He had nothing but praise and reported:

Regional and rural Victoria got its fair slice of the budget pieon Tuesday with farm industry leaders reacting positively toits contents.

Mention was made of the Wimmera–Mallee pipelineproject and the allocation of $77 million over 10 yearsto that project; the fox tail bounty; and of course the$101 million for the upgrade of the Royal AgriculturalSociety’s showgrounds. That is a tremendous effort onbehalf of the government because the Royal MelbourneShow brings the country to the city — it is an enduringlink between the city and the country for the 10 days ofeach year in September. I commend the budget for2002–03 to the house.

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Koonung) — There wassome confusion as to whether Mr Atkinson was goingto take the call or whether I was; maybe we could do aduet. I do not know that it has been done before, but itmight be original. We both have something similar tosay in relation to Koonung Province.

The budget could have provided a great deal of vision;it could have boosted confidence; it could havesupported infrastructure programs; it could havesupported a number of maintenance programs; and itcould have supported a number of new initiatives. Itreally has missed the target on all counts. Instead it hasgone off on a misguided spending splurge that is notparticularly well targeted.

The government had a total operating expense lastfinancial year of $24.2 billion. In that amount it had ablow-out of $1285 million, which was all unplannedand unbudgeted expenses. No business could operate

with that level of blow-out; no organisation can sustainthat level of error within its budgeting process.

But what kept this government alive was the windfalltaxation of $1541 million: a windfall that has comefrom stamp duty, land tax and gaming revenue.Without these additional revenues, which are allwindfall — and many of them are cyclical windfalls —the government would have been in substantial deficit.It has paid out additional sums in wages for police,health and the public service — all significantly abovethe originally budgeted estimates. In terms of wages,we believe it is about $131 million above the budgetedamount for wages this year. Superannuation is up some$542 million, and the special power payments are up$118 million.

The government has had major blow-outs in otherprojects. We acknowledge the government inherited theDocklands project and the Federation Square projectfrom the coalition government. Both of those projectswere tightly budgeted, and within budget at the time ofthe change of government. We have now seensignificant blow-outs in the cost of the Docklandsproject, and certainly in relation to the FederationSquare project there have been very significantblow-outs, not only in the cost but in the delivery timefor that project.

This government appears to have an inability to controlcosts. No business can function without effective costcontrol. One of the key challenges for this governmentover the next 12 months is to develop some level ofcost control: it cannot rely forever on windfall profitscoming from state tax revenues. If the economy slowsin any way, shape or form, this government is introuble, and the Victorian community will be facedwith even higher taxation.

We know that Victorians are now paying some $1500 ayear each more than they were under the coalitiongovernment. The $890 million blow-out in the budgetis unexplained in these papers. There is some referenceto wages and to a number of minor blow-outs insuperannuation, but it is substantially unexplained.

No public sector company would be permitted topresent an annual report that did not explain an$890 million discrepancy in its numbers. The problemwe have in this state is not quite the size of an Enron oran HIH, but the ministers have clearly got their eyes offthe ball. If they were the directors of the company, theywould clearly be before the shareholders, and theshareholders would be demanding explanations fromeach and every one of them. Indeed, if it were apublicly listed company, the ministers as directors



would be very quickly removed. They would have lostthe confidence of the board. But because of the strongrevenue streams that the government is seeing at themoment they have been able to hide from the public themalaise in their financial management.

Much of what we are seeing at the moment isreminiscent of that period in the late 1980s when thegovernment spent without consideration and relied onborrowings. In this case it is relying on windfallrevenue streams to keep it out of trouble. I note fromthe Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry March quarter this year that Victorianbusinesses expect the Australian economy to growmore strongly — that is, 45 per cent of business peoplebelieve the Australian economy will grow morestrongly than last year. But when the same question isposed in relation to the Victorian economy, only 30 percent suggest that the economy will grow more stronglythis year than it did last year; the rest of the employersare saying that it will be the same or worse.

That is certainly a softening of business confidence inthe state. Victoria has performed particularly well overthe past five years, and certainly in the latter part of theKennett period it was the crown jewel in terms ofeconomic performance around this country. Thegovernment has made adjustments to some of the taxlevels in the state, but when they are analysed they aresuperficial. The government has adjusted stamp dutybut, nevertheless, stamp duty on business transactionsfor a business buying premises or relocating is still5.5 per cent on the transfer. That adds to the cost ofoperating that business and impacts on jobs.

There are also additional Workcover premiums andminor adjustments to payroll tax. We acknowledge thataltering rates and lifting the threshold is a plus, but it isnot a plus when you take into account the growth inwages. Certainly what will now follow through into thegovernment coffers is significantly more revenue as adirect result of payroll tax and land tax in this state.

Land tax is an insidious tax. The threshold on land taxhas been lifted from $125 000 to $150 000, but ifanyone conducts any type of survey of land values inthe state over the past couple of years they will quicklycome to realise that a $25 000 increase in the thresholdis more than eaten up by the increase in land values. Itmight be argued by the government that that is a profitto the property owner, but the reality is that it is not, it isa profit that cannot be realised. Much of this land tax isin property that is not traded on a regular basis. Indeed,the land tax is frequently picked up by the tenants ofproperties who have absolutely no control over thosecosts.

As I indicated, the payroll tax rate has been adjustedfrom 5.5 per cent back to 5.35 per cent and has beenbrought forward 12 months by the government from itsoriginal proposal. The threshold has gone from$515 000 to $550 000, but that alteration has done littlemore than accommodate the most recent wage rises anddoes not take into account wage increases that mightoccur over the next 12 months. Once again thegovernment will reap greater financial benefit frompayroll tax this coming year than it did the previousyear.

As I have indicated, stamp duty over the past 12 monthshas been an absolute windfall for the government. Weare all well aware of the property market, and mostanalysts would now agree that it is substantiallyoverheated, but the growth in housing prices has pushedup the stamp duty value, and that additional stamp dutytake has more than taken up the first home-ownersgrant. A rate of 6 per cent stamp duty on housing foreverything over and above $115 000 is outrageous! Iunderstand that the average stamp duty paid onproperties throughout Melbourne is now $14 650,which leaves $350 if you qualify for the $15 000 firsthome owners grant. That is now reduced to $10 000, or$7000 if it is an existing property. You are still pickingup a substantial part of that cost as a new propertyowner.

Stamp duty impacts across suburbs. There are certainlysome variations, but the greater impact appears to be inthose suburbs where people are buying their firsthomes. They are not transferring or upgrading theirproperties, and it is impacting on those people who canleast afford to carry the cost. It is impacting on thesepeople who are establishing families and setting uptheir lifestyles. They are the ones we should be trying toassist. The exemption that exists for properties below$115 000 is an absolute nonsense! I defy anybody tofind housing in Melbourne for $115 000. You would belucky to find a rabbit warren for $115 000! Indeed, inmost regional centres or modest-size country towns youwould not find a property for that sort of money.

If the government were fair dinkum about supportingyoung people and new families, it would be looking atsignificantly increasing the threshold at which stampduty is first paid. If it were increased to, say, $175 000,that would be a clear demonstration by the governmentof being fair dinkum about supporting young families.

Stamp duty on motor vehicles is projected to be upsignificantly in the coming year, and is all part of thewindfall to the government. It is spending at this higherlevel. There appears to be no anticipation that therecould be a slowing in the economy, but the government



will continue to spend at the highest possible rate. Onecan only speculate that if the economy does slow thegovernment will then go into deficit budgeting and gointo borrowing, and when the coalition or Liberalgovernment is returned we will again be faced with thedisasters of 1992.

I turn to a couple of other grassroots issues. I commendthe government for the employment of 800 new policebut put to it that that is barely replacing those who areleaving the force. Indeed, in terms of crime prevention,there appears to have been no reduction in the crimerate across the state when all crime is taken intoaccount. One might argue that these additional800 police are more involved in traffic control thanpolicing and could be revenue-raisers when we look atthe additional activity with speed cameras and thenumber of police vehicles that appear to be on the roadjust for traffic control.

Without going into the specific details, a number ofmatters have been raised with me in recent weekswhere police response times to an assault with a motorvehicle, a burglary in progress and drug dealingallegedly in progress have been totally inadequate. Inthe first case of an assault with a motor vehicle, thepolice response time was 6 hours and 15 minutes. Thatwas within the central business district (CBD), and it isnot acceptable. I was told that a traffic vehicle wasoperating within the CBD at the time but that it was tiedup with road safety issues. Surely there is no moreimportant an incident for officers to attend than anassault with a motor vehicle. It is not appropriate for thepolice to be out booking people for speeding or forminor traffic misdemeanours when an assault with amotor vehicle is taking place.

It took 2 hours and 20 minutes before a vehicle arrivedon the scene of the drugs issue, and of course theoffenders were well and truly away from the area. Inthe case of the burglary that was in progress out inKnox, it was 3 hours and 25 minutes before policearrived on the scene. Once again the felons were welland truly on their way. It strikes me that the excessivepolicing of our roads is not delivering the outcome thatis desirable to the community. The community wants areduction in the crime rate and an allocation ofresources that will adequately respond to therequirements of the police.

At this early stage with effectively a zero tolerance onspeed there is no evidence coming to the fore thatsuggests that it is producing the outcome that thegovernment suggests that it will. Indeed, it is having theopposite effect in that it is creating a public resentmentof police. I am advised by my local CIB officers that

when they attend a crime scene today they meetresistance from people there; they are not ascooperative with police as they once were.

The government continues to gain from gamingrevenue. This year it is budgeting for a little over$1.3 billion, notwithstanding the rhetoric aboutreducing dependence on gaming and bringing some ofthe gaming issues to the fore and dealing with some ofthe problems generated from gaming.

At a more local level, the budget is quite disappointingin that it does not produce a great number of localprojects. When I look at the document Growing theWhole State, relating to the Victorian budget 2001–02,only nine projects are listed across Koonung Province.They are listed as being new service initiatives, but anumber of them are not new. They are funding ongoingprojects, or funding what most of us would call cyclicalmaintenance in a number of areas, and I will give acouple of examples. The Eastern Freeway extension isnot new; it has been announced and has been on therecord for a long time, but that is listed as a newinitiative. The government talks about expansion of theAngliss Health Service and Maroondah Hospital. Onceagain that was announced some time ago; there isnothing new about the plans. Indeed, this is probablythe fifth or sixth time they have been announced.

There is to be a modernisation of the library at theMitcham Primary School. That is only a minor thing.One would have thought that that was just a routineupgrade, nothing particularly special. Certainly it is nota new initiative to paint the building and put in a newfloor or roof. I can go through a number of otherschools, including Heany Park Primary School andLysterfield Primary School. The government talksabout modernising facilities. They are not newinitiatives they are what would be classed as routinemaintenance. This is a scam.

Hon. J. M. Madden interjected.

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN — Well, Minister, wecertainly did not. Indeed, if the minister understood theovercrowding that exists at Heany Park and Lysterfieldprimary schools, he would know the government isputting an extra five or six classrooms into each ofthose schools and making some provision toaccommodate those kids in decent conditions. If thegovernment was committed it would be prepared tomake sure that each of those schools met what thegovernment says is to be the average class size, becauseboth of those schools have class sizes well above whatthe government says the average should be. This is a



new area; it is developing very rapidly. We need moreresources out there.

If I can continue on in that same theme, if theresidential development of the Waverley golf courseproceeds there will be an additional 750 homes there,and that will require a new primary school to servicethat particular site. If the government does not getmoving fairly quickly and secure a site for a newprimary school out there, there will not be a siteavailable. There is currently a site available on thecorner of Gearon Avenue and Wellington Road. But onmy latest information the government has not evenlooked at it, notwithstanding that it has been told on anumber of occasions of the potential problems that itwill have in finding a site if it does not secure this veryquickly.

I have mentioned the Eastern Freeway; $71 million isallocated for that in the budget. At the current rate ofspending that means we are five years away fromhaving that freeway completed. We know it is alreadybehind schedule. We know that tenders for the longtunnel — and I understand the government is nowcommitting itself to the long tunnel — have come inwell over budget. The government might like to explainhow it is going to fund that over-budget cost, andindeed why it is now going to take us five years to getto completion.

There is another feasibility study on the tram extensionto Knox. I remind the government that a formerhonourable member for Wantirna, Carolyn Hirsh, in1987 stood at the tram stop at the corner of BurwoodHighway and Middleborough Road and announced thatthe tram would go to Knox in the term of the nextgovernment. This government is now saying thetramline will go as far as Vermont South some time inthe next few years, after it has done another feasibilitystudy. As local members we are not convinced that thatis the best way to go with the tramline. We are notconvinced that the patronage is there and that it is acost-effective way of doing it. We would argue that anupgrade of the existing bus service might meet thedemand today rather than fiddling around with anotherinquiry.

We have no funding for the Knox hospital. What wehave is a patch-up program across the Angliss HealthServices, the Maroondah Hospital, the Peter JamesCentre and the Box Hill Hospital. The residents of theeastern suburbs — and at the moment there are some30 000 residents who travel to or near the centralbusiness district for medical services each year —deserve to get local treatment, and a tertiary hospital in

Knox would achieve that for them. It is what theydeserve.

This government is ignoring the east as it always hasdone, and we will continue to protest until funding isprovided to projects in the east. The Scoresby freewayhas been on the drawing board since the 1960s. Thegovernment was dragged kicking and screaming intosupport for that project, but only after the federalgovernment applied a great deal of pressure. Thisgovernment is still procrastinating about matching thefederal money. The purchase of the land for this projectcommenced back in the 1970s and, as I understand it, itis now almost all in government control. There isabsolutely no reason to fiddle around. The projectshould be proceeded with forthwith. There have been aseries of studies on it, and each of them is verysupportive of the project.

We have shortfalls at Knox Community Health Service.It is a new service, but it is not meeting the demands ofthe area, which requires additional services in podiatry,dentistry and a number of other health areas. Onceagain the government should be prepared to commitanother couple of million dollars to those services toprovide a reasonable outcome for the people of the east.

In terms of road upgrades, there is nothing mentionedin this budget for roads across Knox or across Monash,in that part of Koonung, or across Whitehorse. Therewould be 20 projects that I could name without evenattempting to go into any real detail.

There is no mention of the third railway line to servicethe Belgrave–Lilydale line. There is no decision inrelation to the light rail to Rowville, or indeed a heavyrail; nor is there any mention of an increased busservice or public transport service to that area.

This budget has failed the people of the east. Webelieve that the nearly 1 million people who live in thateastern corridor deserve a great deal better regardless ofwhat this government’s view is of that area. It is quiteclear to us that the government has chosen to abandonthe east, and we demand from it a commitment toprovide equal resources to the east.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — In manyways this is a bit like a Chinese takeaway food budget.It is very satisfying on the first consumption, but a littlelater you start to look at some of the elements of it orassess your level of satisfaction with the budget andyou find that it is left wanting, because this budget inmany ways has many things to commend it. It is apopulist budget. It contains a number of initiatives thatcertainly I would regard as valuable in terms of



initiatives within the community. I can say that fairlyenthusiastically because this budget in many areascontinues a number of projects that were initiated, atleast in the planning stages, sometimes further intoconceptual stages, and in some cases even to actualconstruction stages of projects that were started by theKennett government. Clearly the government in thisbudget, as in the past couple of budgets, has also beenable to build on the legacy of the Kennett government’seconomic management of this state.

The government has been able to take initiatives insome areas that I believe we would have taken had webeen in government, given that we had reined in manyof the financial extravagances of former Laborgovernments. So in many ways, as I said, this budget isperhaps a little difficult to criticise. It is a bit like amotherhood sort of budget or an apple pie budget.There are a lot of good things in this budget, but thefundamental issues of it for me are that budgets are onlya tool. At the end of the day a budget is a tool wherebyyou implement government policy. When you look atsome of the things that are in this budget, and manymembers of the opposition on this side have touched onthese sorts of issues in the debate thus far, you find thatreally the budget is very dependent on increasing taxesin a range of areas — some where the governmentought to show some embarrassment, given its wailingsabout particular areas of revenue and taxation incomewhen it was in opposition. But it now depends on thoseareas.

In fact it has benefited greatly from the windfall gainsof those areas of this budget and has used them tounderpin overspending in the short term. Moreimportantly, given that there have been some windfallprofits in a number of taxation areas, what is of concernto me is the fact that the government has not used theopportunity of those funds to look toward the future andto invest much more in the future. Certainly it hasinvested in or allocated funds for a number of capitalworks projects, some of which are valuable projects forthe community, and as my colleague the HonourableGerald Ashman touched on, the Scoresby freeway is ofparticular significance to the eastern suburbs.

It is so interesting to see that the government hasdiscovered the merits of that project when in fact all themembers of my party have been arguing for that projectfor more than five years. When this government cameto office it was vehemently opposed to that project andin fact opposed it in the election campaign that led to itselection in 1999 and it has only subsequentlydiscovered that the project has merit and economicbenefit to the state of Victoria. Now it comes along andchampions this project.

It was caught out financially, too, because it did notexpect to have to allocate funds in this budget becauseit challenged the federal government fully expectingthat the federal government would not commit to thisproject and therefore that it would not have to put itsmoney on the table. But the federal government didindeed commit to the Scoresby freeway project at theurging of Liberal members of Parliament, both state andfederal and this government has now had to put itsmoney into the project as well. Clearly the governmenthas met that commitment in the sense of making thefinancial allocation but, as my colleague theHonourable Gerald Ashman has intimated in hisaddress tonight, what we find so often with the projectsthat are put in budgets and government announcementsis that there is a very long delay in their actualimplementation.

How many times have we heard about the SpencerStreet railway station redevelopment? The EasternFreeway project is now well beyond its timetable.There is a range of other projects including thegovernment’s much-vaunted fast rail projects which arewell behind the types of schedules they had set for thestart of construction of those projects and their deliveryto the people to whom they were promised.

Our concern about the Scoresby freeway is that whilstthere is a notional allocation of money to that projectwe are not at all convinced that the government yet hasthe very clear intention of commitment to that projectthat we would expect as members of Parliament in thatarea and which its residents demand. It will not be untilwe see the bulldozers on site starting that project in agenuine and real way — not simply out there for apublicity shot for the Premier of the day or the Ministerfor Transport of the day but actually starting to get thatproject under way — that we can start to say, ‘Yes, thisline item in the budget is a genuine commitment of theLabor government to an infrastructure project’.

In the context of this budget there has been someinvestment in capital projects and infrastructure of thisstate. But there has been less than I would have liked tosee given the state of Victoria’s finances at this time.Indeed, as we on this side of the house have indicatedon a number of occasions, there has been a significantwindfall in taxation revenue in several areas,particularly in stamp duties, conveyancing duties andland tax — even payroll tax — where there weresupposed to have been concessions to the businesscommunity but the revenue take goes up. Certainly thathas been so with gambling taxes — which a couple ofother honourable members have touched on in theiraddresses and I do not wish to canvass areas that havealready been discussed — and certainly with fines and



charges, particularly in regard to traffic policing. Withthat sort of money coming in, it would have been worthwhile, as I said, recognising that the budget is a toolrather than a policy in itself. In other words, the budgetsimply helps you implement your policy.

This budget might well have shown a lot more visionand looked at some other new projects, because most ofthe projects in this budget are ‘something borrowed,something blue’ and certainly ‘something old’, in thecontext that most of these projects are in fact Kennettgovernment projects which this government is simplyfinally coming to realise the advantage and benefits ofto Victorians. It is saying, ‘Yes, okay, perhaps weshould proceed with those projects as well’.

There are many other projects necessary in this statefrom an infrastructure point of view that thisgovernment has not tackled and that I believe it should.There are also some social infrastructure issues in termsof some of the facilities that we need and Victoriansexpect to have available to them that this governmenthas not necessarily shown the same commitment tofunding.

It is interesting that the present government hascriticised the Liberal Party over its approach to healthfunding. It is also interesting to look at the work theLiberal government did in the health area because itinvested a great deal in new infrastructure in hospitalsto bring their facilities up to a standard where theycould deliver medicine with the facilities andtechnology available in that field today. Many of thehospitals in Victoria were built in the 1950s or beforeand in fact now, thanks to a lot of investment by theLiberal Kennett government, we have seen those healthfacilities substantially upgraded. Indeed, had weproceeded into office in 1999 — had we not beenderailed by the Independents — the people of Victoriawould have seen further investment in hospitalfacilities.

For instance, the Berwick hospital, in which mycolleague the Honourable Neil Lucas has a greatinterest and of which he has been a champion for someyears, is still languishing as a project under thisgovernment — a project that ought to have beendelivered to the people of the fastest growing residentialcorridor in Australia. It needs that hospital and yet thisgovernment has not achieved that piece ofinfrastructure which is so vital to the community.

As my colleague the Honourable Gerald Ashman inKoonung Province has commented tonight in thisdebate, the Knox hospital is in exactly the same boat.That is a project that would have been proceeding now

had we been returned to government in 1999 and yet itis a project that this government does not even have onits drawing board. It does not even believe it iswarranted in that part of Melbourne. It is a vital projectfor the people of the eastern suburbs. It is a project thatwill not impinge on the health services provided by theMaroondah Hospital, the William Angliss Hospital orindeed the Dandenong and Box Hill hospitals. It is aproject that is justified in its own right in terms ofdelivering tertiary hospital services to the easternsuburbs, and yet it is a project that fails to interest thisgovernment — a vital infrastructure project.

We would have hoped the government may haveturned its attention to this project in the budget. We alsohoped the government would turn its attention to theEastern Freeway extension. As a member of Parliamentrepresenting the eastern suburbs I noted that thehonourable member for Mitcham in the other placeissued a brochure extolling the virtues of the latestbudget of the state government. I am interested, as arethe residents of Mitcham, to understand where theshowgrounds will be built in Mitcham. Of all projectsoutlined in the brochure, the one that caught my eye asbeing the most interesting and exciting was the$100 million development of the showgrounds. I wouldhave thought that was not in Mitcham but, nevertheless,perhaps the people living near the Blackburn Lake canlook forward to a particularly unique project in thenot-too-distant future being announced by thegovernment.

Apart from the showgrounds project that took myattention in the brochure, the Eastern Freewayextension was mentioned as an ongoing commitment ofthe government for which I, my political colleagues andthe residents of that area are grateful. While everythingelse was costed, that one project had an extraordinaryspace next to it in the dollar column. We already knowthat the government is over budget on this project; wealready know that the government has failed toestablish what it is going to do. It has failed to let thetenders on time to have the tunnel developed. Mycolleague the Honourable Gerard Ashman has receivedan assurance from the Minister for Transport that thegovernment is committed to continuing with the tunnelon the Eastern Freeway, but the residents of my areawant to know when it will be built and how it will befunded. The budget provision is inadequate for thatproject to be built in the short term and we are thereforeconcerned about the time frame involved.

There is also concern in terms of public transportissues. At the last election the government promised athird railway line between Blackburn and Mitcham aspart of the Belgrave–Lilydale line. As yet, no progress



has been made, and as far as I can determine no fundinghas been allocated in the budget. Indeed, thegovernment has also entertained the idea of andconstantly mentioned in the press and in discussionswith the City of Whitehorse councillors the fact that itis prepared to look at a proposal to underground theBelgrave-Lilydale railway line from just west ofMiddleborough Road through to east of HeatherdaleRoad, virtually coming into Ringwood.

This proposal was put by the City of Whitehorse, and ithas had engineers examine the project as part of a roadcirculation solution and the elimination of a number ofcongested and even dangerous level crossings in theeastern suburbs. On a number of occasions thegovernment has said, ‘Yes, we have looked at that andhave been doing some studies on it’. The governmenthas yet to produce to me or to my colleagues when wehave asked for it in this place any evidence that it hasundertaken any feasibility study on that project. Indeed,there is no funding for the project in the budget.

There is funding of the project announced at the lastelection for the extension of the tramline from EastBurwood. As my colleague the Honourable GerardAshman says, the project is to proceed only toSpringvale Road and not into Knox as was promised. Iasked in this place for details in this place of thefeasibility studies, the patronage figures and costestimates the government might have obtained forextending that project further. I indicated localmembers were concerned about how much subsidythere might be for the project and whether this was thehighest priority project in the eastern suburbs corridor.Anyone living in the corridor will gladly tell thegovernment if anyone actually came to talk to them —my colleagues and I are happy to convene suchmeetings to enable ministers to listen to ourconstituents — that the real concern about publictransport is the lack of a north–south connection. Yetthe government persists with this project, which goesback to the Kirner days. We have concerns about itbecause frankly we have not been shown any evidenceto suggest it is a viable project and in the best interestsof the people in our community.

I have raised this issue with the minister in this placeand have not been given the courtesy of a reply to thequery; something I am not surprised about because I donot believe he has the evidence. Certainly, on everyoccasion when I have asked about this issue — aboutfour or five times in this place — the minister has failedto give me any evidence that any work has been done.Without the courtesy of any reply on this occasion, theminister rocketed out a press release on Tuesday,21 May, which suggested that the Liberal Party was

totally opposed to the project. The minister quoted meout of context. I am relaxed about that, and evenflattered about it, because he described me as a seniorLiberal and he is probably the only person who would!

Hon. W. I. Smith interjected.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON — That is probably true; itis age. With regard to the project the minister took meout of context, but he has not shown the project has anyviability for the local area. I say to the minister and thegovernment that what we need to be doing, rather thanpoint scoring, is looking at what is best for thecommunity in the long term. This is where I think thebudget has failed. It fails to be visionary and to look tothe future in the context of what will provide for thecitizens of that area.

I raised a number of projects that I would like to see.One such project I have raised in the past is the railwayline, or at the very least a light tramline running downthe middle of the Scoresby freeway from Ringwood toDandenong. That would provide a north–south publictransport fixed rail route that would meet a number ofactivity centres that people are trying to get to andwould provide a connection between two major heavyrailway lines that I think would function much better ifthere were some connectivity in the public transportsector.

One of the reasons I am concerned about the Knoxtramline is not whether it is a good project — I could beconvinced if the minister has the figures — but whetherit is the best use of the money to be spent in the easternsuburbs, given that all my constituents are saying theywant a north–south transport system. A better projectwould be to put the tramline down Blackburn Roadfrom the Blackburn railway station to MonashUniversity. That would link up with the Glen Waverleyrailway line and provide a linkage with the existingEast Burwood tramline that goes to Deakin Universityand ultimately into the city — if you have three days tospend — and to a range of key public facilities alongBlackburn Road in that corridor, including businessactivities, residential corridors and major civic facilitiessuch as hospitals, Monash University and arguablyDeakin University on another trunk route.

That project would make a lot of sense and issomething we should be talking about in the context ofthe eastern suburbs. If honourable membersrepresenting the eastern suburbs were to discuss thisissue they might debate whether Blackburn Road is theright place to put such a tramline, but these are theissues that we ought to be discussing and that we oughtto be investing in for the future.



My parliamentary colleague has also touched on roadfunding issues apart from the Scoresby and the Easternfreeways, and I totally agree with him, particularly onthe lack of major road works provided for the City ofKnox in this budget. That might change the way thegovernment plays with the budget and has discussionswith Vicroads and local government, but at this stagewe have real concerns about the funding for major roadprojects in the area.

We also have some concerns about black spot funding.One project which I am assured has been funded by thegovernment is a traffic signal installation at the junctionof Cook Road and Cochrane Street with WhitehorseRoad. It is a very dangerous area, and the HonourableGerald Ashman and I have lobbied for some sort oftreatment there. It is an area where there have been a lotof accidents — it is a particularly dangerous area andthe residents are very concerned to see some sort oftraffic installation there. It seems that everyone is happywith the idea and the government has accepted that itought to be a project funded by the black spot program.The government might even have approved thefunding, and yet there is no announcement of thefunding and certainly no work on the ground. Thereconstantly seems to be this gap betweenannouncements and when things happen. This is agovernment that seems to dillydally on projects that areof great importance to the community.

In regard to schools in my area, I am pleased to seefunding that is taking forward schools like MitchamPrimary School and Laburnum Primary School, bothprojects that were strongly supported by theHonourable Gerald Ashman, Liberal Party candidatesin the area and me. Laburnum Primary School is aparticularly interesting example because at the 1999election the Liberal Party promised to provide thefunding in the budget cycle immediately following theelection to complete that school. The honourablemember for Mitcham in another place jumped up anddown and said the Labor Party would do the same. Idare say on that basis he was able to secure enoughvotes to get across the line at the last election, because itwas a seat that was decided on a handful of votes. Yetwhen it came to meeting the funding commitment madebefore the election, the Labor government was foundwanting. I am pleased to see that the project has nowbeen funded, and the school community will also bepleased. It is a good school community and it will dowell with the school. It is a large school and it will dowell but, again, it is a project that has taken some timeto deliver.

On Friday I will attend the opening, following therebuilding after the fire, of Blackburn Lake Primary

School. Some honourable members who haveknowledge of the school might be surprised at that,because the Blackburn Lake Primary School was burntdown in a fire prior to the 1999 election. It is now May2002. Over an extended period the school communitywas told, ‘Oh, no. It will take time to rebuild the schoolbecause we have to go through all these programs’. Ieven got a letter from the then Minister for Educationthat said, and I paraphrase, that the reason the schoolwas taking so long to build was because the LiberalParty did not budget for it. We are pretty clever, but wedid not anticipate a fire and therefore did not include inthe budget funding to rebuild Blackburn Lake PrimarySchool. Over successive governments the practice hasbeen that if a school is damaged by fire you get in andreplace the facilities as quickly as possible. Yet it tookover two years for the school to be rebuilt under thisgovernment.

I am also pleased that Glendale Primary Schoolreceived funding after some very hard work fromparents at that school. The parents at Antonio ParkPrimary School are in despair as they continue to befrustrated by government disinterest in their need for anupgrade to their school. It is another growing school inthe electorate of Mitcham and of Koonung Provinceand one that the government does not have muchinterest in.

I do not want to cover ground that other honourablemembers have spoken about or no doubt will cover inthe debate. However, I indicate that for residentsmoving into Koonung the government’s stamp dutypolicy and the rip-off that exists as a result of stampduty levels in this state are a significant impediment tomany young people, particularly those who are movinginto and starting out their lives in Koonung Provinceafter buying new properties.

We have many people who are buying in theMitcham–Blackburn area, encouraged by its newproximity to the city as a result of the freewaydevelopment undertaken by the Kennett government.At the other end of the province of Koonung, in areassuch as Rowville and Lysterfield, many people aremoving into new homes and being hit with heavystamp duty costs. Along with the rest of the Victoriancommunity, these families are also being hit by$1500 per person per year higher costs under thisgovernment compared to the time the Kennettgovernment went out of office. The concern is thatcosts are about to go up again as local governmentlooks to strike its rates at levels well above what wewould expect would be prudent in this day and age. Iwould hope that the Minister for Local Governmentand the state government might cast an eye over some



of the local government budgets to make sure that theydo not add imposts that are too difficult for families inparticular to bear.

The historic judgment of governments in terms of theirbudgets and projects is very much about what theyprovide as an investment in the future. A lot of peoplemight criticise what the Kennett government achievedin many areas, and I have heard many of the familiarcatchcries during this debate and at different times inthe place, but there is no doubt that the Kennettgovernment made significant investment ininfrastructure and the future of this state. I wish thecurrent government would show the same interest ininfrastructure for the future.

The Eastern Freeway project is proceeding at theeastern end. I dare say if the Kennett government hadbeen re-elected we would also have been looking at thewestern end. We would have been looking atopportunities to open up the freeway and publictransport systems to give greater accessibility to peoplethroughout Victoria. It is important that the governmentcontinue to look at some of those sorts of projects aswell.

Labor governments, both at state and municipal level,do not have a great history of investing ininfrastructure. I certainly hope this government willcontinue to show interest in infrastructure because weneed it to support business investment into the futureand to support people’s style of living and so forth. Weface some real challenges in the not-too-distant future:the ageing of our population, the population explosion,and the demands of much of that population to settle inthe Melbourne area rather than to look at regionalVictoria, with all the problems that creates in terms ofthe expansion of suburbs and the demand for newfacilities. Infrastructure is already built in middle andinner suburbs. There are some significant challengesthere for the community and obviously for thegovernment in meeting those sorts of demands.

It is important that this government start to look more atthe future and at those sorts of issues, rather than simplycoming up with populist positions that enable ministerssuch as the Minister for Sport and Recreation to race offhere, there and everywhere giving out cheques andbeing happy about that, as he indicated at question timetoday. The government is not thinking about where thatinvestment ought to be for the long-term benefit ofVictorians; rather it is using the opportunity to butter upan electorate ahead of a state election. There is no doubtthis budget is well primed for an election.

The last point I wish to make in the context of thisdebate, bearing in mind the time, is that thisgovernment prides itself on its business credentials,which is rather interesting because when we talk topeople in the business community they are wary of thisgovernment. They do not believe it has learnt all itslessons. They do not believe this government’s policiesare necessarily addressing their needs.

Even where the government actually happens to get itright, the business community is aghast because alongcomes the government on the very next day and hits itover the head with something else that is absolutelystupid in trying to maintain and attract new investmentto this state. I am encouraged to see a $298 millioninvestment in an innovation package, includingresearch and development funding, but this governmentneeds to be mindful of things such as the industrialmanslaughter legislation, which will come before thishouse shortly, and its attitudes on Workcover andpayroll costs.

The government made a lot of play about its businessstatement, but when you look at it you see theconcessions are negligible. It was great public relationsbut contained no substance in terms of providing anymaterial benefit to businesses to encourage them to geton and do their work, apart from areas such as exportopportunities. I concede there were some programs thatwere continued — I say ‘continued’ because a lot ofthat business statement was not new stuff but acontinuation of programs from the Kennett governmentyears, and indeed some years before the Kennettgovernment — such as export programs and so forth,and yes, they are of some benefit to business. Therewere a number of other things, such as payroll taxconcessions, which really, if you did the sums,amounted to all smoke and mirrors with no materialbenefit to the business community at all.

In that context the government has to realise that thebusiness community expects the government to deliver.It expects the government to honour its commitments. Itis not interested in the smoke and mirrors stuff.Certainly in the context of continuing to attractinvestment to Australia and to the Victorian economy,we need to ensure that we continue to provide a totalbasket of policies that are beneficial to businesses, andnot simply play around at the edges with incentiveschemes and then come along with other policies thatprovide penalties to that same business community.

As I said, the budget has a lot to commend it. Itcontains some worthwhile initiatives. The governmentis extraordinarily fortunate that its increased spendinghas been covered by substantial increases in revenue,



particularly stamp duty and gambling taxes. As some ofmy colleagues on this side of the house have indicated,the government cannot expect to continue to receive thesorts of benefit or bounty of stamp duty revenue inparticular. I notice the budget in fact projects areduction in that area. A number of chickens will comehome to roost, particularly in funding recurrentspending, which is growing rapidly under thisgovernment, if there is any reduction in any of thosefunds that at this point have simply been a bonus to thegovernment.

The government needs to do better. In the context ofmy seat of Koonung there are a number of projects thegovernment ought to have been addressing and ought toaddress in a time frame which is far more realistic thanit has been prepared to do this time.

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I ampleased to speak on the 2002–03 budget. I start mycontribution by quoting the Treasurer from page 3 ofthe booklet titled Investing For Our Future, whichaccompanied the budget papers:

The 2002–03 budget invests for our future. It invests in morejobs and stronger communities — with record investment ineducation and innovation driving new opportunities for allVictorians.

I dispute that comment. This is not so much a budgetfor all Victorians as a budget for an election. I willprove that. The budget papers deal with rural andregional areas and the outer eastern suburbs and ignoreany funding for my seat of Monash Province, which isan inner suburban seat. Most of the allocations are torural and regional Victoria: not that I have any problemwith that, but it is a pity that it is at a cost to MonashProvince.

They are all areas that are pitched towards the nextelection. During his contribution today Mr Bestmentioned that we would have an election later thisyear. We are not the only ones who think this. EwinHannan reports in the Age of 8 May:

Labor’s third budget represents an undisguised pitch at thesuburban voters who stuck with Jeff Kennett at the lastelection. It is the biggest acknowledgment yet that thegovernment knows it can’t rely on the regions to secure asecond term.

While rural and regional areas are tackled in the budget,Labor’s focus has noticeably turned to winning overMelbourne’s eastern and outer suburbs.

This is a blatant push at political pork barrelling, and itis intrinsic throughout the budget papers.

Since he brought it down a couple of weeks ago theTreasurer, Mr Brumby, has been spruiking this budgetand talking about Victoria’s growth right throughoutthe state. There are several flaws in this budget, and thepapers are in fact there to disguise the reality. It is aclear indication that this government has begun tobelieve in the smoke and mirrors it is using; indeed, it isbeginning to believe its own spin — a very dangerouspastime. I think that we will see what comes home toroost in this budget as it unfolds.

Last week the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, broughtdown his seventh budget — an excellent document. Inthat budget he announced that the Australian averagegrowth rate will be 3.75 per cent — which I must sayhe is to be commended for. In fact, Australia is seen tobe one of the strongest sustainable growth economies inthe whole of the Western World. The VictorianTreasurer is talking right throughout Victoria abouthow well Victoria is doing. He is speaking about a3.5 per cent growth rate — but that is two percentagepoints below what the federal Treasurer is talking aboutfor the national growth rate. This is nothing to beboasting about. Our growth rate is below that of thenational average yet the Treasurer is talking it up as if itis something to be proud of. The ramifications andlong-term implications of this are actually very seriousand will impact on various sectors into the future on thevery issues the government talks about — health,education, community services and, indeed, transport.

The most concerning aspect of this Bracks–Brumbybudget is its lack of vision. It is boring and introverted.I would like to quote from an excellent article by thehonourable member for Box Hill, the shadow Treasurerin the other place. He says in the Age on 8 May:

Nothing is being done to stop the erosion of our prosperityand competitiveness.

I think that encapsulates what is wrong with thisbudget. He goes on to say:

As in the 1980s, Labor paints a picture of a vibrant economyand a financially responsible Labor government. As in the1980s, the reality is Labor living off tax windfalls as the goodtimes roll, while the state’s economic fundamentals run down.

This is what is underlying this budget. It has beenoutlined by many of the previous speakers on theLiberal side of this chamber, and it is encapsulated inthe summary in the Age by the honourable member forBox Hill.

I would like to comment on how difficult these budgetpapers are to decipher. I refer to a comment made bythe Honourable Bill Baxter last week when he said howdifficult they were to read and wade through. Indeed,



earlier this evening the Honourable GordonRich-Phillips spoke about the promise the Bracksgovernment made about parallel reporting. There is noparallel reporting in this; it is extremely difficult to readand very difficult to wade through, and we are not theonly ones who think this. Tim Colebatch in the Age,again on 8 May, says:

One final criticism: despite some improvements this year, thebudget papers still exclude basic information such as historicdata on revenues from specific taxes, and spending in broadareas such as hospitals or primary schools. It is time they weremore daring and less prudent.

Lack of vision, boring and, indeed, something not to berepeated.

I will get back to the problem with Monash Province.What has this budget done for Monash? Very little. CanI remind the chamber that Monash Province takes in thelower house seats of Albert Park, Caulfield, Prahranand Malvern. I will just run through some of the issuesthat influence the people who live in Monash.According to the 1996 statistics, there were a lowernumber of home owners and a lower number ofunemployed in Monash Province than the Victorianaverage. In terms of population movement, MonashProvince was 54 per cent above the average. By incomeit is no. 7 in the state, which is in fact very good. Butthe age group is about no. 3 on the list of provinces, andthe average age is 35. There is not much in this budgetfor the 35-year-olds, I can assure you.

As I mentioned before, we are unlikely to see areduction in unemployment. Given that it is adiversified electorate, many aspects of the electoratehave been left out of the budget.

I have a newspaper article that talks about the thrust ofthe schools, and I believe my colleague the HonourablePeter Katsambanis will talk about schools and go intogreater detail, but only one school in Monash Provinceseems to get any sort of funding in a capital sense, andthat is the primary school in Middle Park. I am thrilledthat the Middle Park Primary School has receivedfunding, and I shall talk about that school. It wasestablished in 1887 and by 1903 the brick infantsschool building adjacent to the wooden main buildingwas opened. In 1915 the double-storey main buildingwas completed after removal of the original structure.The school’s central school function ceased in 1968.Structurally, little change has occurred on site, apartfrom the placement of portable and relocatablebuildings in recent years to augment accommodationcapacity.

I am pleased to see that it has been given about$1 million, but I must say that the Middle Park PrimarySchool is just one of many primary schools that couldfit exactly the same criteria. We have a lot of older styleschools. They look very handsome buildings, and Icommend the architects who built them in the firstplace because they have served many Victorianstudents well, but they are old and need significantwork. It is a pity that the only one that was singled outwas in Albert Park, and Albert Park is the only part ofmy electorate represented by a lower house Labormember, the Minister for Health, who obtained thefunding. It is a pity that he did not work a little harder toget funds for other schools, because we did not see verymuch at all.

The schools issue was also commented on in variouscommentaries on the budget, and Genevieve Lally inthe Herald Sun of 8 May reports:

South-eastern suburbs have won the lion’s share of funding ina massive budget boost for transport, hospitals and schools.

She also goes on to say that targeting schools is greatfor votes in the outer eastern area. An article in the Ageby Ewin Hannan says that the school’s infrastructurefunding into education and health in the outer areas isonce again a ploy for votes for later in the year, andreports:

The budget commits an extra $216 million to educationinfrastructure, with the funds to be spent on improvement to110 schools and TAFE institutes, including eight newschools.

As I have just pointed out, Monash Province only getsfunding for one of those 110 schools. There has been anincrease in the outer suburbs. What has the budget donefor families in Monash Province? Absolutely nothing.Families in the province are the big losers out of thisbudget. They are now paying at least $1500 more intaxes per family per year, not only in stamp duty butalso in motor vehicle taxes and insurance taxes.

Land tax, for example, has increased by 66 per cent,insurance tax by 49 per cent, and motor vehicle taxesby 17.4 per cent. I must comment on this insidiousmotorcycle tax which will affect so many people. Wesaw an effective rally outside Parliament, and I amcertain we have not seen the end of suchdemonstrations. Police fines are up 240 per cent, anenormous increase. I shall speak later about policingwithin Monash Province. That 240 per cent is not beinghypothecated towards Monash Province. Gamblingtaxes for families and for people who enjoy casualgambling in Monash Province are up by 31 per cent,which is a huge increase.



I want to talk about stamp duty in specific detail. InMonash Province we have a diversified area. Budgetpaper 3, page 393, table 3.4 refers to stamp duty on landtransfers. For properties valued at between $115 001and $870 000, stamp duty payable is $2560 plus 6 percent of the value in excess of $115 000.

I did some calculations with some help and came upwith real examples of what is happening in MonashProvince. I shall read them into the record because itshows how much families and the people in myprovince are contributing to the huge blow-out in stampduty, which is a windfall for the Treasurer.

An Age advertisement for a house for sale in OrangeGrove, Caulfield North–St Kilda East refers to a nicespacious and fabulous future house which will bring inthe vicinity of $700 000 to $750 000 at auction, andstamp duty on that property will be $37 660. InCaulfield North on the same weekend a house inWootton Grove was advertised for sale, and theadvertisement reads:

The home or the land, it’s your choice.

The price guide is about $600 000. Stamp duty on thatamount is $31 660.

I refer to another advertisement for a house for sale inStirling Avenue, Malvern East, another part of theelectorate, at between $340 000 and $380 000: that willbring in stamp duty of $16 060. In Malvern East again ahouse costing in the vicinity of $270 000 to $310 000will bring $11 860 in stamp duty. Again in MalvernEast, another house will bring in stamp duty of$18 460. An apartment in South Yarra will bring instamp duty of $14 857, and another small apartment inPrahran, worth in the vicinity of $219 000, will bring$8800 in stamp duty.

In those six examples in the weekend after the budget,the Treasurer would have picked up $139 457 in stampduty from the families of Monash Province. That isunacceptable, especially when Monash Province is notgetting anything back for it. This is backed up byvarious commentaries at the time in the newspapers,and one by Bruce Brammall in the Herald Sun on8 May, which states:

Sky-high stamp duty has delivered Premier Steve Bracks a$1.1 billion spending bonus at home buyers’ expense.

I have just given an example of some of the familiesfrom Monash Province who will have to pay stampduty to the government. The article continues:

State government budget papers confirmed rising houseprices provided a $750 million windfall this year in propertystamp duty.

That is a significant amount of money.

I turn to crime. The problem of crime is disappointingonce again for Monash Province when one looks at thebudget papers. The government has made a great dealof noise about increasing police numbers. We have thepropaganda, the spin, the photographs of policegraduating at the Waverley academy and everyonesaluting and marching. We hear that there will be anincrease of 800 police, but what we do not hear aboutand do not see clearly enough in statistics is the numberof police who are leaving the police force. The youngpolice who are wooed into the force as a career are notgiven sufficient training. For example, when they go toan area such as St Kilda they have to deal withdrug-addicted people, or, as in a true case I head ofrecently, they have to break into an apartment in ahigh-rise building where the person who owned theapartment had been dead for three days.

These are the examples the young constables in theirfirst experience of hands-on policing are finding verydifficult. I believe we should be broadening the courseto incorporate training on the ground at grassroots levelbecause many of these young people are leaving theforce. It is not only that the young officers are findingthat policing is not what they expected; it is that policenow have to be jailers, man cells that are overcrowdedbecause the prisons cannot cope and collect fines. As Imentioned earlier, there is a 240 per cent increase infines collected by the police, who are starting tobecome resentful of the fact that their role has changedsignificantly and they are not being given any back-up,and many are leaving the force.

I would like to see those details discussed more readily.In a press release the shadow Minister for Police andEmergency Services says:

Police are increasingly becoming an important resource forthe government as de facto tax collectors.

He continues:

Even more disturbingly, valuable police resources are stillbeing tied up with police being forced to act as prison warderslooking after prisoners in prison cells.

He goes on to say that on 30 November 2001 theMinister for Police and Emergency Services:

… stated that the crisis in police cells was ‘under control’with only 90 prisoners in police cells.



As at 10 May there were 350 prisoners being held inpolice cells designed to hold only 120 prisoners. Surelythis is not acceptable. I praise the police in MonashProvince, particularly Chris Duthie from the St Kildapolice who I know does a wonderful job under difficultcircumstances.

The types of crimes increasingly being seen in the Cityof Monash are quite disturbing. The StonningtonLeader talks about some of the issues. It has aNeighbourhood Watch page every week and on29 April some of the examples of crime were given:

Break-in, Prahran.

Prahran detectives have appealed to the public for assistanceafter the theft of between 40 or 50 bottles of wine worth about$10 000 from a house in Commercial Road, Prahran.

It also noted a burglary in Prahran where more than$10 000 worth of musical equipment was stolen. Theseare the types of burglaries that are happening.

An article by Glenn Morley in the Stonnington Leaderentitled ‘Lock up at home or pay the price’ states:

Malvern police are embarking on a campaign to cut the rateof house burglaries in the eastern half of Stonnington.

The move follows concerns about the consistently high rate ofhouses being robbed in the region, ranging from two to12 properties a day.

In the week from Monday, 15 April, Malvern detectivesinvestigated 27 house burglaries.

I was most interested to read in the paper the other dayabout youth crime soaring. In an article in the HeraldSun of 26 May, the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices is quoted as saying that the figures in arecently released report are the best in a decade. I amvery disappointed that the Minister for Police andEmergency Services thinks that the figures areacceptable. The article states that:

Drug offences, burglaries, robberies, rapes and car thefts havefallen …

That is all very well. But if we look at how thattranslates in Monash Province we once again see in thebudget papers a dearth of additional policing and moreresources for police. We need a far greater number ofpolice. The report outlines that robbery in Port Phillipwas up by 19 per cent and in Stonnington by 17 percent. Car thefts in Glen Eira were up by 37 per centand in Stonnington by 16 per cent. Drug trafficking inPort Phillip was up by 66 per cent.

It is all very well to hear about additional police andpolice stations in the outer eastern suburbs. Honourable

members heard a very passionate speech aboutMaryborough from Mr McQuilten but that is notMonash Province. I have given an indication tonightabout how difficult it is in Monash Province and itshould be looked at.

Very quickly because I am concerned about the time,transport has been much talked about tonight,particularly the $22 million being spent on the NarreWarren–Cranbourne road and the $70 million on theCalder Highway. But none of that money is going intoMonash Province. Roads are collapsing and there is awhole range of other problems. The City of Port Philliphas been very vocal about traffic, but nothing is beingdone to address its issues. I would like to know wherethe funding is in the budget for Williamstown Road toalleviate the problems associated with the trucks goingthrough to Webb Dock. The roads and traffic are adisgrace and Monash Province has been given nomoney to deal with it.

The Public Transport Users Group are hardly greatfriends of the Liberal Party but an article in the Age of8 May states:

Public Transport Users Association secretary VaughanWilliams described budget priorities as ‘unbalanced’ andpublic transport measures as ‘piecemeal’.

Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn saidthe public transport initiatives were disproportionately smallcompared to road funding.

As I outlined before, both young and old people usepublic transport in Monash Province and they will bedisappointed to learn that it has not been enhanced.

I have spoken about the stamp duty issues in MonashProvince. There is certainly a windfall from the sale ofa property in Monash Province but it also has anenormous number of homeless people and the budgetdoes absolutely nothing for them. The governmentcontinues to make a great deal about how it will addressthe issue of homelessness. The City of Port Phillip hasthe infrastructure of the Sacred Heart Mission and theSalvation Army drop-in centres and Prahran has thePrahran Mission and homeless people congregate to usetheir facilities. Argyle Street Housing, Hanover Street,the Salvation Army and the Sacred Heart Mission areall within Monash Province and deal with homelesspeople.

In its 2002–03 budget the Bracks government has cutby 3000 the number of people receiving the householdestablishment fund. This is extremely serious becauseonce families cannot afford to live together, they driftinto homelessness and end up in Monash Provincelooking for the excellent support given by those

ENERGY LEGISLATION (FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


agencies. The real homeless are the losers in the budget.It gives $2.2 million a year to support the homeless. It ishard to calculate how many homeless people there arebecause a lot of people do not like to acknowledge theirsituation and there are a lot of undetected homelesspeople throughout Victoria, but as far as can be countedthere are 17 800 homeless people.

Therefore, given that the budget is $2.2 million peryear, each one of those 17 800 homeless people willreceive only $123.60. This is less than one week’s rentin a caravan park — hardly a budget that is going todeal with the homeless. I expect that as a result of thisbudget there will be an increase in the number ofhomeless people in Monash Province.

The environment is another great concern. I will not gointo great detail of the budget, but indeed people arevery concerned about the environment.

In summary, I would like to say that the people ofVictoria deserve more.


Hon. ANDREA COOTE — Thank you very muchindeed, Mr Baxter. I will go on about the environment!I will talk about marine parks. I do have to say aboutmarine parks that I was extremely disappointed to seethe lack of funding for marine parks. How on earth thisgovernment believes it is going to manage these parks,I cannot imagine. There is not sufficient funding for theterrestrial parks; we have noxious weeds and feralanimals. There is certainly not enough funding, andindeed it is very disappointing to see a lack of fundingfor marine parks.

A survey done recently by the Victorian National ParksAssociation looked at people who had environmentalconcerns, and found that Monash Province has anenormous number of people who are very concernedabout the environment and environmental issues —second only to the people of East Yarra.

However, in summary, the people of Victoria deservemore. This budget is based on additional fines,additional taxes and really and truly is a greatdisappointment. There is no excitement, there is novision for the future, and there is nothing to attractpeople to Victoria. Indeed, there is nothing for thepeople of Monash Province.

Debate adjourned for Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra)on motion of Hon. Bill Forwood.


ENERGY LEGISLATION (FURTHERMISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time on motion of Hon. C. C. BROAD(Minister for Energy and Resources).

MAGISTRATES’ COURT (KOORI COURT)BILL



Read first time for Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister forSport and Recreation) on motion of Hon. M. M. Gould.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Berwick hospital

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I wish toraise the matter of the new Berwick hospital with theLeader of the Government for the Minister for Health inthe other place. The new Berwick hospital still has notbeen built, not a brick laid — to the chagrin of the localcommunity, nothing has happened, except we have hada lot of promises: it was to be opened in 2002, now it ispromised in 2004. But the news that has come out nowis that the hospital itself is going to be downgraded interms of what it will provide. Instead of having a fullemergency department, it is going to have anemergency department only up to a certain level ofemergency; serious emergencies will have to gosomewhere else. So what is going to happen ifsomebody is seriously injured or has a very serioushealth problem and they roll up at the emergencydepartment of the new Berwick hospital? They aregoing to be told, ‘Sorry, you can’t come in here’. Whatthat means is a trip to a hospital with a full emergencydepartment, the closest of which is at Dandenong. So itseems to me that we need a heliport at the new Berwickhospital!

I wish to raise with the minister the fact that people whoare critically injured or have some other critical healthproblem really need to get quickly to the emergencydepartment that is appropriate for their health problem.

ADJOURNMENT


If the emergency service at Berwick is going to be adowngraded, lower level service we will have to getthese people quickly to the nearest hospital inDandenong, or indeed to the city hospital emergencyservice departments — and that will obviously bethrough a helicopter service, with a heliport at the newhospital.

I have attended community meetings talking about thenew hospital in Berwick and I have looked at theliterature. I have not observed or heard of a heliportbeing provided, so I simply ask the minister to advisewhether a heliport has been planned for the newBerwick hospital and, if not, would he please takeaction to ensure the provision of such a facility?

CELAS Youth Network

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —My question is to the Minister for Education Services.In my electorate of Melbourne West the CELAS YouthNetwork has developed two projects that I believe meetthe criteria for and deserve funding under theintergenerational mentoring project for the arts, orimpart, which is a joint initiative that has beendeveloped through the Department of Human Services,the positive ageing unit and the Office of Youth Affairs,and also has some assistance from Arts Victoria.

Impart has been developed to encourage older andmore established artists in the community to work withyounger emerging artists on art projects that focus on amentoring relationship. The first of the CELAS projectswill link an artist and teacher, Ms Vicki Clarke, with ayoung Spanish-speaking student to explore paintingtechniques.

The second project would link a singer and teacher,Renzo Bonicelli, with four young Spanish-speakingsingers to learn vocal techniques and also to exploreLatin music as well as Latin music culture, which theycould then perform to the wider community.

I ask the minister to give these projects funding underImpart as I believe that they will be of benefit not onlyto the Spanish-speaking community but to the widercommunity generally.

Greyhound racing: industry code of practice

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — The issue Iwish to raise with the Leader of the Government tonightis for the attention of the Minister for Racing. It relatesto an industry code of practice being written andpotentially implemented by the Bureau of AnimalWelfare.

The purpose of the code is to specify minimumstandards for the accommodation, management andcare that is appropriate for the physical and behaviouralneeds of greyhounds. The reason I raise this issue withthe Minister for Racing is because of the commercialconsiderations and positive investment activity for thegreyhound racing industry. Participants in thegreyhound industry obtained the impression that certainareas of concern they had would be addressed prior tothe release of the draft document for public comment.On 9 May this draft was released, much to the surpriseof the industry.

There are major areas of concern. One is the size ofracing kennels that are being proposed and others arethe conditions of the sale of pups and issues such as thenumber of attendants required to assist in largerestablishments, the materials used in the construction ofkennels, the minimum standards for greyhound pensizes at various stages of their life cycle, as well asissues relating to greyhound establishments.

Also there are issues relating to not distinguishingbetween the recognised life-cycle stages of thegreyhounds. While we accept that there needs to beappropriate care and welfare for greyhounds, I amparticularly concerned that there is a lack ofunderstanding of the industry. One size does not fit all.In many cases greyhounds are better fed than the familymembers to which the greyhounds belong. These arenot only pets but in some cases are considered to be themeal ticket.

On behalf of Diedre Lomas, who approached me alongwith representatives from the Bendigo greyhoundracing industry, I call on the minister to apply a realdollop of commonsense to the suggestions of theBureau of Animal Welfare, and I ask the Minister forRacing to hold urgent discussions with the Minister forAgriculture so that he can explain the differencebetween the sale of dogs as pets and those for racingand ensure that realistic measures are put in place toreflect the special circumstances of the greyhoundracing industry.

Ministers: adjournment responses

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — Myquestion tonight is about lack of answers to myadjournment questions. Since the ministers are nolonger here — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Your question is towhich minister?

Hon. ANDREA COOTE — It is to severalministers. I am going to read them all out because it is

ADJOURNMENT


about questions that have been asked to which I stillhave had no answers. I have written to these ministersand have not had anything back. I think it shows thatwe really have no ministers in this house. They cannottake the questions back to their colleagues and we donot get any answers either. It is highly unsatisfactory.

On 20 March I asked a question of the Minister forSport and Recreation for the Minister for Police andEmergency Services about police in Monash Province;on 26 March I asked a question of the Minister forEducation Services for the Minister for Tourism on thePolly Woodside; on 27 March I asked a question of theMinister for Sport and Recreation for the Minister forTourism about Heritage Victoria permit fees; on19 April I asked of the Minister for Small Business forthe Minister for Health about solarium and skin cancerrisk; on 23 April I asked of the Minister for SmallBusiness for the Minister for Planning about VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal appeals; and on24 April I asked of the Minister for Education Servicesfor the Premier about the Coode Island chemicalstorage. I have had no answers to any of these questionsand I want to know when honourable members will getquestions answered from this process.

Gas: heater maintenance

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I raise amatter for the Minister for Energy and Resources aboutan issue arising from an article on page 11 of today’sGeelong Advertiser entitled ‘Gas heater threat to cityhomes’ which states:

Poorly maintained gas heaters pose a health risk in thousandsof Geelong homes.

Natural gas and LPG heaters have contributed to 9 of the 15deaths in Victoria over the past four years and as winterapproaches experts are urging locals to have their heatersserviced.

The article then reports a local Geelong gas technicianas saying that:

… broken fans and cracks in the unit housing the pilot flamewere two of the most common problems and could result infumes or even fires.

He further said:

… most heaters had a shelf life of 20 to 24 years and it wasvital to keep them well looked after.

He is further quoted as saying:

… anyone with a heater built in the 1970s should have itlooked at this winter to prevent any problems.

Accordingly I ask the minister what steps thegovernment has taken to ensure that gas consumers areaware of health and safety risks associated with old andpoorly maintained gas heaters.

Rail: Charlton crossing

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — Myquestion is directed to the Minister for EducationServices for the attention of the Minister for Transportin the other place. I raise this issue on behalf of theBuloke Shire Council which has expressed concernabout the operation of the railway crossing on theCalder Highway in Charlton. This crossing is on thenorthern side of Charlton and obviously carries asubstantial amount of traffic. The council is aware ofthe safety and noise issue of this crossing andacknowledges the prolonged sounding of the crossingsignal bells during the early hours of the morning.

However, the council is most concerned, given theneglected status of the operations at this crossing, that itwill be only a matter of time before a second fatalityoccurs at this site. Members of the Buloke ShireCouncil believe this crossing warrants the urgentprovision of a pedestrian crossing particularly as thereare many homes on the northern side of the line withinwalking distance of the town centre. Can the ministergive his assurance that funds will be made available toprovide a much-needed, safe pedestrian crossingwithout delay?

Child care: regulations

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I raise amatter with the Minister for Education Services for theMinister for Community Services in another place. Myconcern is to do with the children’s services regulationsof 1998. I have had considerable representation fromparents, community houses and other organisationswithin my electorate about problems with the children’sservices regulations that prescribe the number of staffand staff ratios associated with children in child care.Honourable members will be aware that this issue hasbeen discussed before and indeed provisions were madein the past, giving community houses some exemptionsfrom these regulations in regard to child care. Theregulations are now being reviewed and are likely to betoughened up.

The neighbourhood houses believe that is unfairbecause of the unique circumstances of their setting forchild care. They are significant providers of child care,but they are providing it in settings that are obviouslyintegrated rather than stand-alone centres. I wouldargue, and certainly they would argue, that their staff

ADJOURNMENT


ratios are therefore appropriate to the needs of thecommunity houses. They are concerned that if theyhave to meet the requirements of the regulations andput on extra staff either they will have to close theirchild-care centres and have fewer people attending theneighbourhood houses or they will need to increasestaff markedly at a substantial and unfair cost toparents.

Obviously a percentage of mothers at the communityhouses are doing courses at those houses. If there is aproblem with too many children on a particular daythere is always somebody else to lend a hand. Given thesetting and that it is only occasional child care, it isappropriate that they have some continuing exemption.On behalf of the people who have made representationsto me — and I am happy to make available some of theletters from the community houses, if required — I askthe minister to look at the provisions and try to continuesome sort of exemption for neighbourhood houses.

Maribyrnong: aquatic centre

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — Thematter I raise is for the attention of the Minister forSport and Recreation. I congratulate the minister andthe Bracks government on its announcement that it willfund the Maribyrnong regional aquatic facility. Will theminister inform me as to his expectation on theconditions required by the City of Maribyrnong toensure the community is consulted by the local counciland that an equitable access policy is a majorconsideration of the future management of the newfacility?

Water: authorities financial ratios

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I ask theMinister for Education Services to direct a matter to theattention of the Minister for Environment andConservation in the other place. I refer to a circularissued last February by the director of water sectorservices as the delegate for the minister, which outlinesthe specific information to be included by waterauthorities in their business plans and their financialstatements. This includes a number of financial ratios.These ratios appear to be quite reasonable andpertinent, but with one interesting exception. Under theline item ‘long-term financial viability’ it states that thebenchmark is ‘30 per cent to not more than 60 percent’. My question relates to the 30 per cent gearingspecified.

I want to know why a minimum is included in thedirections, unless the government is expecting theauthorities to go back into debt to that level or, what is

worse in my view, that it directs them to do so. I have awhole range of associated questions that I would wantto raise in that context. I begin by seeking clarificationas to why the bottom line benchmark is stipulated in thecircular and why a 30 per cent minimum debt level isnominated.

Monash Medical Centre

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —I ask the Minister for Education Services to draw amatter to the attention of the Minister for Health in theother place. It follows the comments made by theHonourable Neil Lucas about the need for the provisionof health services for the people of EumemmerringProvince.

Recently I had cause to deal with a constituent matterthat related to the provision of radiotherapy services inmy electorate. My particular constituent was seeking toget radiotherapy for his father, who was suffering fromcancer. Unfortunately he experienced significant delaysin gaining access to radiotherapy and it took some timeto sort out the situation. While investigating thesituation further it became apparent to me that MonashMedical Centre, which services my electorate, was illequipped at that stage to provide the level of servicerequired. I understand at the time it was treating about1500 patients annually with radiotherapy whereas it hadequipment to treat about 1000. It was working beyondits capacity and was stretched to the limit.

That situation was further exacerbated by the failure ofthe government to provide funding in last year’s budgetfor two radiotherapy machines expected to be installedat the centre. As at the end of last year the twomachines had still not been provided. From a reading ofthis year’s budget there is still no funding for theadditional two radiotherapy machines to go into thecentre.

The Minister for Health has announced the opening oftwo radiotherapy centres in rural and regional Victoriain the last six to nine months. However, that does notserve the needs of my constituents. It is clear that thefacilities that exist are inadequate for the demands onthe services. I seek the minister’s assistance to ensurefunding is provided so that Monash Medical Centre canget the additional two radiotherapy machines it needs toservice the needs of the people in south-eastMelbourne.

Somerville Rise Primary School

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I seekthe assistance of the Minister for Education and training

ADJOURNMENT


in the other place, through the Minister for EducationServices, on an issue that I have raised in this placeregarding the safety of many hundreds of youngstudents who during the course of the school yearattend the Somerville Rise Primary School. This is alongstanding problem.

The school has more than 500 young students. Eachschool day the parents have to drop the children off andpick them up. Blacks Camp Road is the main road inSomerville on which the school is based. The lack ofadequate parking space and the lack of safe drop-offand pick-up zones is a true health and safety issue.There is a significant amount of land immediately nextto the school, which is the subject of and the possibleplace for the siting of a future m secondary college. It isunquestionably a difficult situation.

Many parents have received parking tickets issued bythe council, resulting in fines and other penalties. Atthis time of the year in particular, with a darkenvironment and rain, there is a real and obvious safetyproblem. The matter has not been addressed by eitherthe council or the government. Sadly it is inevitable thatwe will have a tragedy there. I ask the government totake this issue seriously before we have a tragedy. TheSomerville Rise Primary School parking and pick-upproblem is a major issue in the community and will notgo away. I seek the government’s assistance for youngpeople who deserve better.

Garfield Primary School

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for EducationServices. Recently I had the great pleasure of visitingGarfield Primary School. In discussions with the peopleat the school, and as I wandered around the school, Isaw the rather large satellite dish that had been installedby the department a number of years ago. I think theformer education minister, Don Hayward, wasoriginally the minister responsible for the updatedsystem of information distribution to our schools.

When I asked them how much value they were gettingfrom the system I was informed that the satellite dishwas not working and that nobody in the town hadexpertise to fix it. The school did not have the money tofix it as it had other priorities; they had more importantissues than the satellite dish. I take it that a number ofprograms are still being sent out on the satellite to thestudents. I understand personal development programsare able to be taken by teachers to save them having totravel many kilometres during school hours. I believethose programs are also transmitted by satellite.

I ask the minister to dip into her bottomless pit ofmoney in education services to see if she can dosomething to assist this small school that is set in abeautiful location with great people — parents, kids andteachers — who contribute a great deal to theircommunity. I ask the minister to do something aboutgetting one of the experts she probably has somewherein the department who does that type of work to go toGarfield, look at the satellite dish and see if it be can berepaired so they can take advantage of what was a goodsystem when it was put in place.

Responses

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — The Honourable Neil Lucas raised amatter for the Minister for Health with respect to theBerwick hospital and a helipad. I will pass that on to theminister and ask him to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Kaye Darveniza raised a matter withme about funding for the CELAS youth network. I amhappy to advise her of two projects she has referred to.One concerns Ms Clarke, who has over 30 yearsexperience as a painter and a teacher at Victoriancertificate of education level. A grant will be forwardedto her for 12 months for collaboration with CELAS.That grant will assist in paying studio and equipmentcosts in the Narre Warren area and amounts to $3092.She also raised the issue of another project for linkinganother teacher, Renzo Bonicelli, with four youngsingers of Spanish-speaking background to learn vocaltechniques and explore Latin American music cultures.I am happy to advise her that that project has beensuccessful and will receive a grant of $4072.

The Honourable Ron Best raised a matter for theMinister for Racing with respect to the greyhoundindustry. I will pass that on to the minister to respond inthe usual manner.

The Honourable Andrea Coote raised a question withrespect to answers to questions on notice. She would beaware that the government has been answeringquestions; I believe about 40-odd answers were tabledtoday. All of her concerns are with ministers in anotherplace, and I can assure her that government members inthis house are encouraging our colleagues in the otherplace to respond to those.

The Honourable Elaine Carbines raised a matter for theMinister for Energy and Resources with respect toinforming residents, especially in her electorate but alsogenerally, about the necessity of servicing gas heatersthat are over 20 years old. I will pass that on to her torespond.

ADJOURNMENT


The Honourable Barry Bishop raised a matter for theMinister for Transport about the Charlton railwaycrossing. I will pass that on to the minister for him torespond.

The Honourable Bruce Atkinson raised a matter for theMinister for Community Services about the review ofchildren’s services regulations and aboutneighbourhood houses in particular. I will pass that onto the minister for her to respond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Sang Nguyen raised a matter for theMinister for Sport and Recreation with respect to theannouncement of the Maribyrnong regional aquaticfacility and seeking consultation with the community. Iwill pass that on to the minister to respond in the usualmanner.

The Honourable Roger Hallam raised a matter for theMinister for Environment and Conservation withrespect to water authorities and a circular that was sentout. I will pass that on to the minister and ask her torespond in the usual manner.

The Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips raised a matterfor the Minister for Health regarding radiotherapyservices in his electorate. I will pass that on to theminister to respond.

The Honourable Ron Bowden raised a matter about theparking space issues at the Somerville Rise PrimarySchool, which is attended by 500 students. Part of thatissue relates to road crossings, which are theresponsibility of the Minister for Transport. I will passthat on to him and ask him to respond in the usualmanner.

The Honourable Ken Smith raised a matter about theGarfield Primary School and the satellite dish that is notworking. The government has given money to schoolsthrough the bridging the digital divide initiative, but hecommented on the satellite dish not working and therenot being people in the area who have the expertise tofix it. I will look into that and respond to him withrespect to that issue.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 11.46 p.m.


Wednesday, 29 May 2002 COUNCIL 1237

Wednesday, 29 May 2002

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 10.02 a.m. and read the prayer.


Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I referto the story on the front page of today’s HeraldSun headed ‘Taxpayers’ drug joke’. I make the pointthat we will be moving a take-note motion on this issue,and I invite the Minister for Youth Affairs to hangaround and defend herself and her adviser. I ask theminister: will she detail to the house when and how shefirst became aware that her youth adviser, DavidHenderson, had publicly advocated the illegal use ofdrugs, and what action she took on receiving thatinformation?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — When David Henderson started work withme six weeks ago, it was brought to my office’sattention that he had written an article in the universitynewspaper. One of my staff members raised that withDavid, and he explained that he never seriouslyadvocated the taking of drugs of any sort — that it wasa tongue-in-cheek comment that was never intended tobe taken seriously. He explained that, and I accepted hisexplanation. He was employed in my office based onbeing the best applicant. I have accepted that. I willjudge his performance, and I have no problems with hisexplanation or his performance.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I notethat an article on page 4 of today’s Herald Sun reports:

Ms Gould said she believed Mr Henderson was being set up.

I ask the Minister for Youth Affairs: is it not true thatwhen her office was warned of Mr Henderson’sactivities in this area she dismissed the warningsbecause it was part of an internal factional Laborbrawl?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I did not go to university, but I think thehonourable member on the other side did, and I am notsure whether he got involved in student politics. I amled to believe it can be a very interesting pastime andcan sometimes get a bit overenthusiastic.

As I indicated in my previous answer, the matter wasdrawn to my attention, and I accepted Mr Henderson’s

explanation that the university newspaper article wastongue in cheek. It was never intended to be takenseriously, and I believe he has accepted that it wasimmature. Mr Henderson has accepted — everyone inthis chamber and outside is in agreement — that it wasinappropriate, but he should not he precluded fromemployment because of statements he made four yearsago at university.

Gas: supply security

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — Can theMinister for Energy and Resources advise of recentapprovals that build on the Bracks government’scommitment to strengthening Victoria’s security ofsupply for gas?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. I am always very pleased to remind the housethat under the Bracks government exploration levels arecurrently at unprecedented levels and that we arecommitted as a government to seeing that this situationcontinues well into the future.

The project to develop the Minerva gas field,discovered some 11 kilometres offshore of the coast ofPort Campbell, is strongly supported by the Bracksgovernment. This project represents a $250 millioninvestment in gas infrastructure in this state.

The government is very pleased to welcome theannouncement last week that BHP Billiton confirmedthe corporate approval for this major project by anystandard. BHP Billiton has signed a 10-year gas salesagreement to supply the Pelican Point power plant inSouth Australia as part of the arrangements for theproject.

This project will increase Victoria’s options for gassupply. It will connect to the Victorian system throughthe proposed onshore gas processing plant and toTXU’s gas storage facility at Iona, near Port Campbell.

It also provides significant impetus to the Bracksgovernment’s vision for the emergence of asouth-eastern gas transmission network. Of course,investments like this happen because of theenvironment of confidence in minerals and petroleumexploration and development as well as the highlycompetitive business environment that the Bracksgovernment has created in Victoria.

The government is providing some $7.5 million topromote responsible exploration and improve industryregulations, with some $4 million of that to extend theVictorian initiative for minerals and petroleum. These


1238 COUNCIL Wednesday, 29 May 2002

funds are being used to upgrade Victoria’s regionalgeological database and to build upon industry-acquireddata. This work will encourage further exploration.

Through other Bracks government initiatives such asthe recent Building Tomorrow’s Businesses Todaystatement we are encouraging an environment whereVictoria is a great place to do business.

The Bracks government’s actions in these areas createthe environment where announcements like that of theMinerva project become possible. It is expected that by2004 Victoria will have three gas processing plants: theexisting plant at Longford, the Patricia Baleen site andthe Minerva plant.

These plants, along with the interstate pipeline projects,fit in with our commitment to enhance the options aswell as the security of the supply for Victoria, andindeed the whole south-eastern region of Australia. Theproject also fits in with the Bracks government’sstrategy to build sustainability and environmentalintegrity into everything we do.

For instance, the shore crossing required to pipe the gasat Minerva to the plant will be constructed under thePort Campbell National Park using horizontaldirectional drilling. The drilling will be from a sitenorth of the park boundary over some 2 kilometres to apoint outside of the zone.

The Bracks government is turning things around forminerals and petroleum exploration in Victoria, and lastweek’s announcement is further evidence of thisincreased confidence.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I direct myquestion to the Minister for Youth Affairs. Does theminister personally condone the public promotion ofthe use of illegal and deadly drugs, even if suchpromotion was intended, as the minister andMr Henderson both claim, as a university prank?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — As I have indicated in response to previousquestions, the explanation that David gave me was thathe acknowledged that they were immature comments. Iam sure a number of members in this chamber wouldregret something they may have said or done in theiryounger days. I am sure there are a number ofhonourable members who may have said in theiryounger days something they now regret.

As I have said, everyone is in agreement that the articlewas inappropriate, and David has indicated that he

never intended it to be taken seriously. He respects andsupports the government’s policy on the difficulties wehave in the community with drugs. He supports thegovernment’s campaign against illicit drugs. Somecomments that he made four years ago should not beheld against him, and as the Minister for Youth AffairsI am prepared to give him a chance. I believe he hasexplained himself appropriately and adequately.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I thank theminister for her answer. Does the minister believepersonally that it is a legitimate political tactic toadvocate the use of deadly drugs in order to, in herwords, ‘catch the attention of potential voters’, andthrough that gain electoral advantage? Will this sort ofbehaviour be condoned in her ministerial office in thefuture?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — As I have indicated, David accepts andadmits that his article was immature, that it was not anappropriate thing to do. I do not support it, and it wason that basis that, when the article that was written byhim four years ago when he was 21 and at universitywas drawn to my attention, he acknowledged it wasimmature and that it was not appropriate. He hasexplained to me what the situation was at that time, andI accepted that explanation.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — Myquestion is to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, andI ask: what steps has he taken to ensure that the Bracksgovernment’s delivery of sport and recreationopportunities in Victoria occurs in a strategic manner?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. As I outlined yesterday, in recent weeks Ihave had the good fortune to make significantannouncements in relation to community facilitiesfunding.

One of the most significant areas is the majorCommunity Facilities Funding program, and this yearthe government has delivered further real outcomes asit has done in previous years. I remind the house thatone of the things that the government has done ischange the ratios for funding, and that has ensured thatrural and regional Victoria and interface councils areable to access more funding than they could under theformer government.



Of the 81 applications made to government 57 havebeen funded through this program. Forty-six projectsare in the planning category. Planning is everythingwhen it comes to major facilities in local communities,not only because it gives the communities ownership ofthe project but because they help develop the projectand are consulted on the development. But as well itensures that the centres are feasible and viable. Elevenprojects have been approved.

Some of the significant projects include $500 000 forthe Queen Elizabeth Oval in Bendigo, on top of the$250 000 already provided as part of the Labor Party’selection commitment to ensure that a significantregional facility is enhanced and developed in Bendigo.The Walter J. Tuck Reserve clubrooms development inGippsland has received $100 000. This contributes to atotal project cost of $275 000. In Cardinia shire$108 000 has been given towards a total project cost of$329 000 for a baseball development; and $148 000 hasbeen given for the Ray Bastin playground in the City ofCasey to a total project cost of $445 000. The othernoteworthy project is $394 000 for the GoldsworthyAthletics Reserve in Geelong. This has come about inparticular as a result of the significant endorsement ofLabor members in the Geelong region.

This is great news for Victoria, reinforcing that whilethe opposition is divided it stands for nothing. Thegovernment and the community know that while theopposition pretends to care, it does not care. We are astrong and decent government growing the whole of thestate and governing for all Victorians.


Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — I refer the Ministerfor Youth Affairs to the front-page story of today’sHerald Sun and its continuation on page 4, which says:

The Herald Sun was barred from speaking withMr Henderson …

Why did the minister gag Mr Henderson?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — My adviser David Henderson is at hometoday. He is upset about the article in today’s paper.This is his first job since leaving university last yearand, as I have indicated, he accepts that his commentswere immature and misguided. It is not his position asan adviser to speak to the media. I accept hisexplanation and I am prepared to give him a chance. Hemade the statements four years ago at university. Thisgovernment believes that young people make mistakes,but they move on from them. I am prepared to judgehim on his performance.


Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — My first questionwas quite clear in asking the minister why she hadgagged Mr Henderson. I understand he is not with ustoday, he is at home. I ask my supplementary questionbecause I think Victorians would like to hear fromMr Henderson himself, not just from the minister. I askthe minister when Mr Henderson may speak to eitherthe Herald Sun or the people of Victoria?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I have indicated that David is an adviser. Hehas given an explanation to me and as minister I haveaccepted his explanation. I have made public today onthe radio, in the media and in this house that I accept hisexplanation. I believe that he should be given a chanceand should not be judged on comments made atuniversity that could preclude him from having a jobfor the rest of his life.

Information and communications technology:government initiatives

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —Will the Minister for Information and CommunicationTechnology inform the house of any recent indicationof Victoria’s performance in the information andcommunications technology industry?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Informationand Communication Technology) — I thank thehonourable member for her question. A benchmarkstudy has been undertaken by Pricewaterhousecoopersin relation to the information and communicationstechnology (ICT) sector in Victoria and how itcompares to international competitors. It found thatVictoria was well positioned to attract investments thatwould contribute to a knowledge-based economy.

The study looked at the factors that are crucial toinvestment decisions, such as the availability and costof staff, the cost of land, access to telecommunicationsand transport infrastructure and the cost of utilities. TheICT sector was looked at in three specific areas:specialist software development, telecommunicationsresearch and development, and microelectronics design.The report found that Victoria was highly competitiveand offered a best value proposition in all three areas. Italso found that Victoria was highly competitive againstrival countries in Asia and Europe and in NorthAmerica.

One of the key strengths of the Victorian industry is theclusters that exist within Victoria in this sector. TheBracks government is very keen to promote and nurture



these clusters and has announced under Next Wave theassistance we will be giving to emerging clusters.

The other issue of importance to this sector is havingthe skilled employees — those who can go into the jobsthat come from this sector. That is one of Victoria’smajor strengths. We produce more ICT graduates herein Victoria than anywhere else in Australia. The Bracksgovernment is encouraging and has a range ofinitiatives to encourage more students to look at theICT skills they need to provide for the future needs notjust of this sector but of an innovative industry sector,because all industry sectors will require ICT skills tosucceed in the new economy.

The Chipskills program, which is the first Australiancourse for masters in microelectronic engineering, hasbeen developed at the Victoria University. This isunique to Australia.

The ICT sector here in Victoria is well positioned forthe future and is globally competitive, and the Bracksgovernment will be working with this sector to ensurethat Victoria’s future is innovative and competitive andthat it has the connected economy that it needs for thefuture development of this state.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Myquestion is to the Minister for Youth Affairs. Has shediscussed this issue with the Premier or his office?

The PRESIDENT — Order! Presumably that is theissue of David Henderson?

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Yes.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I think honourable members would beaware that not only the Premier but ministers and thewhole community know about this issue since they readthe front page of the Herald Sun today.

As I have said, it was brought to my office’s attentionin the early stages of David Henderson’s employment.It was raised by him. His explanation was acceptable,and I accepted that. This questioning from theopposition is pathetic. It is not even prepared to give ayoung person a go. It is not prepared to accept thatyoung people make mistakes, admit that they makemistakes, admit that it was immature, and move on. Itwas four years ago. He was a young uni student. Heaccepts he made a mistake. He accepts it wasinappropriate. He accepts it was an immature comment.I am prepared to give him a chance and judge him onhis performance while he is employed with me.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I makethe point at the outset that the Minister for YouthAffairs came nowhere near answering the question Iasked, which was whether the matter had beendiscussed with the Premier. The issue is: does thePremier support the minister’s decision in this case toprotect Mr Henderson? Has she discussed the matterwith him?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — Protect Mr Henderson?

Hon. Gavin Jennings interjected.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — And equal opportunity anddiscrimination laws. It is applicable to all in this state.


The PRESIDENT — Order! The Leader of theOpposition asked a supplementary question of theLeader of the Government. The Leader of theGovernment should be allowed to articulate her answer.

Hon. M. M. GOULD — As I have indicated onnumerous occasions today, I support David Henderson.I support David Henderson in my office, and I have thesupport of my Premier and my ministerial colleagues inthat support, based on David Henderson’s performanceas an adviser to me, and I will continue to judge him onhis performance since his employment with me. I haveaccepted his explanation of something he said fouryears ago.

Belmont High School

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I refer myquestion to the Minister for Education Services. Theminister has previously advised the house of how theBracks government’s massive investment in educationwill impact on her portfolio areas. Can the minister nowadvise how the money targeted for capital works hasbeen used to improve learning environments in theGeelong region?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — I thank the honourable member for herquestion. Education is a key priority of thisgovernment. A massive investment has been made toensure that our schools provide fantastic learningenvironments. We have put over $2.75 billion back intoeducation, allocating $822 million to build betterschools and TAFE facilities in this state. That is doublethe average that was provided in the last two years ofthe Kennett government. It is double the average of



what the opposition put in when it was in government.Unlike the previous government, which wanted todestroy our education system, we are puttinginvestment back into education in this state. We areinvesting in our young people.

One example of this is major upgrade that has takenplace at the Belmont High School. One of thehonourable members for Geelong Province,Mrs Carbines, was at the opening of these newfacilities. I have to acknowledge that the honourablemember for South Barwon in the other place was alsoat the opening of this new facility. Belmont HighSchool is part of the pilot study for the development ofthe hub for computers for the government. The schoolhas a great new facility for its woodwork, arts, IT andtechnology. This government has invested over$2 million to provide the school with a science wingand an art wing. This building project is one of manythat have been funded by this government throughoutVictoria to ensure that schools can deliver innovativeprograms in modern facilities, because the facilitieswere left to rot by the opposition when it was ingovernment.

We are delivering education for Victorian schools andtheir communities. We have a vision for our educationsystem. It is fantastic to see that vision coming to realitywith this upgrade at Belmont High School. I know theHonourable Elaine Carbines was delighted to be thereand to be involved in that school.

The Bracks government is turning the education systemaround and turning the state around to ensure that ouryoung people get to go to school in an environment thatis suitable for learning and that assists with theirretention rates. It is a great investment for our young forthe future.

Rail: Mildura–Portland line

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — Myquestion is directed to the Minister for Energy andResources. Given the minister’s interest in this area andher recent announcements on rail projects linked to herresponsibilities and due to the huge logistical planningeffort required by the major users of the Mildura railline to cope with the rail standardisation upgrades, canthe minister give me a firm time line for that work to beundertaken? Just tell me when it’s going to be done —just tell me that.

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I welcome the question from thehonourable member on this very important initiative bythe Bracks government. As I believe I have already

indicated in the house, the timetable is for works tocommence in the last quarter of this year and to becompleted, in relation to the Mildura part of this muchlarger project, in the first part of 2003.


Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — Minister,that is a most disappointing answer and I can explainwhy. The fact of the matter is that the front part of theyear is the heaviest use period for that particular railwayline. We find Freight Australia moving huge amountsof grain during the early part of the year; we findWakefield Transport doubles its container traffic on railduring the February, March, April, May period and thatcould go from 40 to 100 containers a day, mainly due tothe table grape industry going full blast at that time ofyear. I am advised that Wakefields have alreadycommitted themselves to the October, November,December timetable which was announced earlier bythe government. In fact they have hired 40 semitrailersto cope with that. So will the government ensure thatthe standardisation and upgrade be done in October,November, December this year to avoid the extra costsand huge logistical problems — —


Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — In response, I can well appreciate that,given the some 100 years of failure to standardise railgauges and the problems that that has created forproducers, for a whole range of industries and forcompetitiveness of those industries, honourablemembers as well as the government might wish to seethis happen as a matter of urgency.

Unlike the previous Kennett government, thisgovernment has acted to put in place this importantinitiative and to put up the funding — with no helpfrom the federal government — to rectify this problemof history, and I have outlined the timetable which thegovernment intends to follow.

Marine safety: funding

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — The Ministerfor Ports would be well aware of how much Victoriansvalue their volunteer marine search and rescue services.Can the minister inform the house about what theBracks government is currently doing to ensure theseimportant services continue to be delivered to allVictorians and how the government intends to build onthese initiatives?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — I thank the honourable member for her



question. The Bracks government recognises thevaluable contribution that volunteer marine rescuegroups provide to the boating community, as they areoften called upon by the police to provide the firstresponse in an emergency. I take this opportunity onbehalf of the government and honourable members onboth sides of the house to thank those volunteers fortheir efforts. Their contribution to Victoria and the wayof life that Victorians — particularly those who goboating — enjoy cannot be overstated.

As part of delivering on the government’s objective tostrengthen marine safety, the Bracks government hassignificantly boosted funding to further supportvolunteer marine search and rescue capabilities. This isin marked contrast to the lack of support provided bythe previous Kennett government, notwithstandingrepresentations, again from both sides of the house.This government has acted to support this veryimportant area.

Through the boating safety funding program, theBracks government’s support for volunteer search andrescue groups to date includes a major funding increasefrom $180 000 to $410 000 for replacement search andrescue vessels and equipment. This funding boost willenable the replacement of up to four major rescuevessels. Large search and rescue boats, which attractgovernment funding support, are now being constructedto commercial standards and operated by certifiedoperators.

I can also advise the house that the government hastrebled the amount of funding allocated to reimbursesearch and rescue organisations for their fuel costswhen undertaking activities at the request of thepolice — a significant cost which they have to meet. Aswell as that, a grant of $100 000 has been made to theSouthern Peninsula Helicopter Rescue Service to assistthis important service to meet its ongoing operationalcosts.

These initiatives have been widely welcomed, and theBracks government will continue to deliver support tovolunteer groups to ensure that they remain a viablepart of the state’s marine search and rescue service. TheBracks government will in the very near future build onthese initiatives by announcing the successful recipientsof further grants from a range of community applicants.This funding is part, of course, of the $15.9 millionover five years that the Bracks government hasallocated from the funds raised from recreational boatoperator licences — another initiative by the Bracksgovernment.

The next instalment of $3 million was allocated in the2002 budget, Investing for our Future — and whatbetter way to invest than in boating safety. So theboating community can look forward to even greatersupport from the Bracks government for marine safetywith new initiatives that build on those which havealready been delivered. The allocation in the 2002budget will, of course, be distributed in the next roundof grants. These initiatives are a direct result of fundsraised from the recreational boat operator licences.

I am disappointed that this important achievement forimproved marine safety continues to attract negative,carping criticism from some opposition members —even if they are not paying attention at this moment.Mr President, through these initiatives the Bracksgovernment is continuing to turn things around formarine safety.




That the Council take note of the answers given by theMinister for Youth Affairs to questions without notice askedby members relating to statements made by Mr DavidHenderson, adviser to the Minister for Youth Affairs.

The Minister for Youth Affairs is absent — she fled thechamber at the very instant question time finished.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Look at the vacantseat! We have a minister, a minister, a minister and thena vacant seat, because she will not come in here anddefend her own actions. It is an extraordinaryperformance.

In an article in today’s Herald Sun Australian DrugFoundation chief executive Bill Stronach warned thatecstasy was unsafe for any user. The article states:

He said young Victorians should be left in no doubt thatproblems could arise from even casual use of the drug.

This is a very important issue. It is an issue of publicpolicy, youth behaviour and youth safety. It is animportant issue that should not be treated in alight-hearted manner. The interesting issue that arosefrom the minister’s answers today was that she wasprepared to say, ‘Give Mr Henderson a chance’, but shewas not prepared to say how he was appointed in thefirst place and whether or not there were other jobs in



the government that he could have been appointed to.Why was he appointed as the youth adviser?

Hon. Gavin Jennings — He was appointed onmerit.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — He was appointed onmerit?

Hon. Gavin Jennings — That is what she said.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Mr Jennings says hewas appointed on merit. The question the people ofVictoria are entitled to ask is: was the governmentaware at the time it appointed Mr Henderson on meritthat in a university newspaper he had publiclyadvocated the use of ecstasy and other drugs? Whatbecame clear today was that in the government’sattempt to run its particular line it was prepared to go toextraordinary lengths to avoid answering any questionsat all. As a result of question time today we still do notknow, and the people of Victoria do not know, whetherthe government knew of this fact before Mr Hendersonwas appointed.

I am very reliably informed that, as the Minister forYouth Affairs is quoted as saying in today’s paper, shebelieved Mr Henderson was being set up. This is anissue of internal behaviour in the Labor Party. Wecannot set him up — how could we set him up? All weare doing is responding to the information that hascome forward that when he was running for a positionin student politics he ran on a campaign as outlined intoday’s Herald Sun.

Hon. Gavin Jennings — It was a stupid campaign.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Thank you,Mr Jennings — it was a stupid campaign — and adangerous campaign?

Hon. Gavin Jennings — A potentially dangerouscampaign.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — At least thegovernment is now accepting that it was potentiallydangerous as well.

Hon. Gavin Jennings — Student politics ispotentially dangerous.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Let us say that takingecstasy and advocating the use of ecstasy is potentiallydangerous. But the issue is: at the time the governmentappointed Mr Henderson did it know that he advocatedthe use of ecstasy in this way? Did the governmentknow? To date, we do not know the answers. The

government has gagged Mr Henderson from comingout and telling his story, and it will not confirm whetherthis issue was discussed with the Premier. To everyquestion that we asked today about this issue we got thesame line. The people of Victoria are entitled to knowif, when the government appointed Mr Henderson, itknew of this issue. If it did not know, why did it notknow? What was the process that was followed for theappointment of Mr Henderson?

I am happy for Mr Henderson to work in thegovernment; I do not have a problem with that. Ibelieve young people should be given chances, but I dothink in circumstances such as this for the governmentto hide in the way it is hiding from addressing the realissues and not come clean with the people of Victoriaabout the circumstances is absolutely reprehensible.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) — This isan extraordinary debate. The nature of this issue is thatDavid Henderson did a stupid thing in 1998, and theopposition is making him pay for it today. Membersopposite intend to maximise the punishment they meteout to this young man. For something a foolish youngman did in 1998, which was not illegal, oppositionmembers are encouraging illegal behaviour becausethey are advocating this young man gets sacked, not onthe basis of his performance or whether he satisfies thecriteria of his job, but on the basis of a foolish act thatoccurred four years prior to his employment. Whatwould be the criteria on which the minister could orshould sack this young man? Not one piece of evidencehas been put on the public record by the opposition, bythe Herald Sun or by anybody in the Victoriancommunity to indicate that this young man has notsatisfied the requirements of his obligations to theminister. Not one person — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — Did he tell the minister?

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Today in the housethe minister indicated that she had been made aware ofthis foolish act at about the time of Mr Henderson’sengagement and that he had received some counsellingon the subject. The minister and her office had receivedassurances that what had been reported and commentedon in relation to these foolish comments made in anelection campaign in his university days were viewsthat he does not currently hold. They are positions hewould not advocate either publicly or privately. In fact,that undertaking was clearly given to the minister, andthe answer to the minister in the house today reaffirmsthat it is her expectation that those values will berejected privately and publicly by her adviser, and theycertainly were rejected publicly by the minister today.There can be no doubt about that matter.



Ridiculous things happen in student elections. Iremember during my time at Monash University I wassurrounded by people who I thought were extremelyjuvenile and adolescent in their behaviour.

Hon. Bill Forwood interjected.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — You know that is nottrue, Mr Forwood; I was not an active participant instudent politics because I thought the standard ofbehaviour was infantile and juvenile. Who were thepeople at Monash at that time? The absent Mr Birrell,Peter Costello and the Kroger brothers — they were acomplete joke. They played games through theirstudent politics and would surely be ashamed to admittheir involvement in student politics today.

Should we measure anybody’s political career on thebasis of the stupid things they did during their youngeryears? Is there anybody in this chamber or in public lifewho would want to have their whole career determinedon the basis of the most stupid thing they did as a youngperson?

What Mr Henderson did must fall into the category ofthe most stupid thing because he put into print issuesthat have come back and bedevilled his life. I am sayingon behalf of the government that those values are notacceptable. They will not be acceptable to the ministerand they will not be acceptable to be publicly orprivately advocated by anybody who works for theminister.

We say that people have the right to reconsider theirposition on certain issues. In 1996 Jeff Kennett took aposition to the electorate which indicated he wasinterested in drug law reform. He indicated to thepeople that he was interested in winding back laws withregard to marijuana and heroin use.

The Honourable Jeff Kennett took that issue to thepeople in the same way that this young man foolishlyput to the students at the University of Melbourne aposition on drug use. That position was never adoptedby the Kennett government and then Premier Kennettretracted those views immediately upon being elected.We do not condemn him for the comments he madeabout drug issues during the election campaign, andneither should we condemn this young man on theactions he took in 1998.

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — I join the take-notedebate as the shadow minister responsible for youthaffairs for the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party takes thisissue very seriously. The Honourable Gavin Jenningsconcluded his remarks by talking about an issue theformer Premier, the Honourable Jeff Kennett, took to

the people at the election in 1996. He took a lot ofissues to the people, as we all do, at that election and heput them in a serious manner. It was not a joke or aprank, which is at the heart of this issue today.

This issue involves an adviser appointed to work for theMinister for Youth Affairs who, while running foroffice at Melbourne University, wrote an article as partof a campaign which we now discover is described as ajoke or prank. The minister has said that she acceptedMr Henderson’s explanation and that the views that hemay have held in the past have changed. The questionremains whether the people of Victoria accept theminister accepting that, particularly those people whoare parents of young children and are concerned aboutthe exposure their children will have to drugs,especially drugs as serious as ecstasy.

The use of ecstasy among young people came to mostprominence in the Australian community in 1995 whena 15-year-old New South Wales schoolgirl, AnnaWood, died following taking ecstasy at a rave party.Mr Henderson’s statements were made four years ago,in 1998, which is even closer to 1995 when this issuewas a public issue. I do not think anyone should havebeen making jokes about the use of ecstasy at any stage,but particularly so when it had come to the fore only ashort time before then.

As the Minister for Youth Affairs, the minister clearlyhas an obligation to address the issue of drug taking,particularly of ecstasy, among young people. While it islaudable that young people are given a second chanceand the chance to work, I am still concerned, and I amsure the people of Victoria are concerned, that theminister has made an appointment perhaps withoutchecking the background of this young person andwithout going through a process that would satisfy theappropriateness of the person appointed to that position.

Many questions have been raised today, including theminister’s process in appointing an adviser. We hear theend result of accepting the explanation — that is, givingsomeone a second chance — but the opposition stillwants to know whether the minister was informed ofthis person’s views and whether she would have had adifferent view if she had been informed before theappointment was made? What questions were asked bythe minister or her office as part of the selectionprocess? The minister has an obligation andresponsibility to the young people of Victoria to addressthis issue. In seeking an adviser who will be givingadvice on this area, it is appropriate that her departmentgoes through a process that acknowledges, understandsand takes the issue seriously at all times.



In referring to young people and their exposure todrugs, the views held by Mr Henderson, published inFarrago at the time and described as a university jokeor prank, were circulated widely because thatnewspaper is read by many impressionable secondaryschool children who may not have known whetherthose comments were a joke. They were exposed tosomeone writing about ecstasy, and we are concernedabout the impression that may have had on the youngpeople of Victoria.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Iam pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to thisdebate. What is blatantly obvious when the LiberalParty is divided is that it plays the man because it standsfor nothing; it has nothing to say on any issue. It isabsolutely divided, so it picks up comments made by anadviser and picks on that adviser, even though thecomments were made many years ago. The Herald Sunrefers to a campaign that was run during student councilelections in 1998 at Melbourne University. The articlewas clearly written tongue in cheek and was part ofwhat we would all agree are the colourful antics thattake place during university council elections.

It was written at a time when this person was young andimmature. More importantly, the allegations are aboutevents that took place before he became an adviser tothe minister, before he started to work for thegovernment. The comments were made four years ago.There is no suggestion of any improper conduct byMr David Henderson since he took up his position as anadviser. There is no suggestion of any problems withhis work performance. As already outlined by theHonourable Gavin Jennings, it is proper to assesspeople on the basis of the work they perform and thework they undertake during their working life. Theadviser never meant for the article to be taken seriously;it was written tongue in cheek. It was an immature andfoolish article, and this young person is well past thatimmature stage. He has gained maturity and would notfind such statements humorous now. It would be unfairto deprive this young person of his job on the basis ofsomething he did so many years ago.

I contrast the position taken by the opposition when ingovernment and that taken by the Bracks Laborgovernment on drug and alcohol services, particularlyfor young people. Mr Cover mentioned the unfortunatedeath in 1995 of a young woman after taking ecstasy. In1995 the opposition was in government, and what did itdo about drug services? What did it do about healthissues?


Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — I am talking aboutwhat the coalition government did. It got rid of2000 nurses. It closed Pleasant View alcohol and drugcentre; it closed the Smith Street clinic. That is what itdid. I know the then government closed those alcoholand drug services.

The opposition got rid of 2000 nurses, including nurseswho worked in alcohol and drug services, by givingthem voluntary departure packages. We saw the SmithStreet clinic close, Pleasant View close and otheralcohol and drug services close, as well as hospitalswhich provided detoxification services to these clientsbecause they were left in almost bankrupt situations.

As a government we have injected funds, openedhundreds of beds, re-employed nurses andreinvigorated our health system and our community.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — This is a saddebate, and the saddest thing about it is notMs Darveniza’s contribution, although that comes veryclose. The saddest thing about the debate is that theminister responsible for youth affairs has washed herhands of the matter and walked out of this chamber.She should be here; she should be accountable; and sheshould take responsibility for her decisions. She isunprepared to do so; she wrings her hands like PontiusPilate and walks out because she will not beaccountable for this issue. Young people in Victoria areused to the government and the minister behaving inthat way.

That is the saddest thing about this debate, and nomatter how much government members try to pull theline and convince us that this is about what animmature young man did four years ago, it is not. Thegovernment has completely missed the point, and that isvery sad too.

This is about public policy, process and standards ingovernment; how governments operate; and themessages that governments send to young people in thisstate. Those are the highest responsibilities that thegovernment should address in the debate and that it hascompletely failed to talk about.

Let’s talk about message. What message does it send toyoung Victorians when they hear the Minister forYouth Affairs say, ‘Well, it was a prank. I’m quitehappy to have these standards in my office because allthe person was doing was advocating in an electioncampaign that people should take ecstasy. All he wastrying to do was attract votes so that’s okay because hedidn’t really mean it’. It may be the case that he did not



really mean it — we do not know if he meant it or notbecause the government has closed him down; it willnot let him talk to anybody.

That is another sad thing about the debate. Thegovernment has closed down this fellow. He cannottalk to the media; he cannot explain in his own wordswhat he meant and what he means today. If he has hada conversion on the way to the minister’s office, let himtell us about it. Maybe that would be a positive messagefor young Victorians. But no, Mr Jennings and otherhonourable members on the government side will notallow him to do so. That is another very sad part of thedebate.


The PRESIDENT — Order! This is by necessity arobust debate, but we are still entitled to hear what thehonourable member is saying. Would others who wishto intervene do so at a reasonable level?

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — This is a debateabout messages to young people; it is about process; itis about openness and accountability; it is aboutleadership — leadership that, sadly, this minister isincapable of expressing and that she cannot and will notdemonstrate. It is a very sad day for youth affairs in thisstate.

What the government fails to understand is that in thissituation there are always arguments about themotivations of people. There are also questions aboutwhat the motivations are today and what are acceptablestandards of behaviour today. I take it that whenMr Henderson was interviewed by the minister, orpeople in her office, he did not disclose to the ministeror to the government that he had undertaken this — asthe government describes it — very stupid anddangerous activity when he was at university.

You have to look at that and ask: why did he notdisclose it? Did he feel that the minister might havebeen concerned about it? Why would he have felt thatthe minister might have been concerned about that? Weknow why: because the message it would send to youngVictorians is appalling.

Government members stand by their minister, whowashes her hands and walks out of here, and they say,‘That’s okay’. They try to bring the debate back to animmature young man four years ago in a university. Itwill not wash. This is about standards in government;about openness and accountability; about the messagewe send to our young people, and on all counts thegovernment fails and the minister fails. Mr Henderson

should be sacked, and if the minister will not sack himshe should be sacked by the Premier.

Motion agreed to.

Rail: Mildura–Portland line

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I move:

That the Council take note of the answer given by theMinister for Energy and Resources to a question withoutnotice asked by the Honourable B. W. Bishop relating to theupgrade of the Mildura railway line.

Firstly, I put on record that the standardisation of therail lines throughout Victoria, particularly the Milduraline, is an excellent idea, and I congratulate thegovernment on its move towards that end. This hadbeen done to gain access into the port of Portland,particularly for the mineral sands industry. I raise theissue today with no intention of scoring points. I simplywant to get the job done in the best time for all of theindustries and, I hope, the government. We must havethe upgrade done at the same time to gain the rewardsout of that, and I understand $8 million has been setaside to do the upgrade. The government is not showingany practical commonsense unless it does the work inthe off period. I am not sure what compensatoryarrangements are in place between the government andFreight Australia, Wakefields Transport and others,because it is a huge task to standardise the line and getthe products down to the destinations while the projectis taking place.

I am talking about operators who want to use rail, whowant to increase the work and also want to have thefewest possible impediments to their operation as thework is done.

It is quite clear to me as an observer that it will costmuch more if the work is not done during theOctober–December period this year. Whilst you neverknow what the grain season might end up being at theend of this year and what the volume might be — thecrops are being sown now — let’s be positive and hopeit is a good year and that the grain transport system isrunning hard early next year. If it is not finished beforethen it will impinge on operations.

We may find that the Australian Wheat Board has anearly shipping program and will want to operate earlynext year to catch good prices or reduce storage costs. Itmay be shuttling trains down to the port even at harvesttime during December and the end of November. Forexample, the fast rail loading facility at Carwarp wherethe grain is delivered goes straight into the rail wagonsand straight to port. That area certainly would gain fromheavy operations in the front part of the year. It has

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


been reported to me that Wakefield Transport’s normaloperations are about 40 containers a day on the rail,while during the busy period — the table grape periodat the front part of the year — its operations can go upto 100 containers a day. That is a lot of containers onthe rail. It is a lot of containers to manage, in fact, if youhave to have them on the road. As I have reportedbefore, it is my understanding that Wakefield Transporthas already hired 40 semitrailers, and is committed tothe October–December time line — in fact, thegovernment clearly stated that that was when the workwould be done. It is a huge cost for that particularorganisation, which has acted in good faith andcertainly maximised the use of rail transport.

I am not too sure of the time required to do thestandardisation and upgrade. I know it has beenreported that the standardisation process may well beable to be done in a period as short as six weeks — andthat is from Maryborough to Mildura. Access is clearfrom the Mildura line until the process goes north fromMaryborough. It would seem to me that it would be aconcentrated effort if it were able to be done in thattime. Certainly we do not know at all where the workon the upgrade is at present. Again, we have noted thatthere is approximately $8 million set aside for that, andwe need that to ensure that the savings are in place.

Wakefield Transport was very clear in the advice itgave to me — that is, October–December is thepreferred time. I hope that Freight Australia has beenconsulted fully on this particular issue and not treated asbadly as it has been in the past when bills relevant to ithave come before this house and Freight Australia hasnot even been advised of them.

To conclude, I would urge the government to put intoplace the October–December time line for thestandardisation and upgrade program on that train lineso this essential job can be done with minimuminterference to the businesses of the operators who areabsolutely dedicated to rail.

Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I have answers for questions on notice2494, 2528, 2534–7, 2539, 2541, 2543, 2545,2547–9, 2552, 2553, 2555, 2559, 2560, 2562 2565,2568, 2574–7, 2579, 2581, 2583, 2585–9, 2592, 2593,2595, 2599, 2600, 2602, 2605, 2739, 2761, 2820,2821–3.

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTIONCOMMITTEE

Crime trends

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) presentedreport, together with appendices.

Laid on table.


Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — Imove:

That the Council take note of the report.

It is a great honour to speak on behalf of the Drugs andCrime Prevention Committee of which the HonourableCameron Boardman and I are members, withhonourable members from the other place.

Crime is an issue of concern to the community. Thereare 450 000 individual crimes recorded by the VictoriaPolice each year, not counting traffic, parking and otherregulatory infringements. The Victorian parliamentaryDrugs and Crime Prevention Committee has beenrequired to inquire into, consider and report on theincidence of crime in Victoria and to report every sixmonths to the Parliament on levels of crime, areas ofemerging concern and, where suitable, options forcrime reduction or control. The committee has tabledthree reports; this is its fourth report to the Parliament.

The committee’s primary goal is to answer the firstquestion: is the level of crime in Victoria increasing?Part B of the report relates to how crime statistics inVictoria are compiled and details some of the keyfeatures of the scope, definition and counting rules thatbear on how we interpret crime statistics.

Part C provides a brief overview of the level and ratesof each type of crime and the main findings of theanalysis of crime trends between July 1996 and June2001. There are a lot of tables in this part. Table 1shows the number of crimes recorded in each of the27 categories over the last five years. The first group ofcrimes is referred to as crime against the person, whereone in 12 crimes are reported to the police. Nearlytwo-thirds are non-sexual assault of some kind, andabout one-quarter are sexual assault.

The second group, crime against property, represents80 per cent of the crimes recorded by police each year,mainly involving theft of or damage to property,including burglary, theft and fraudulent offences.

DRUGS AND CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE


The third group is drug crime. There are two categories:one is providers who are involved in the growing,manufacturing or selling of drugs; the second isconsumers.

The fourth group covers public places, people involvedin prostitution and public drunkenness, people failing toappear at court, being unlawfully in possession ofweapons, explosives or housebreaking equipment, andsome other things.

Part D examines in detail each of the 27 crime typesused by the Victoria Police in statistics. The reportdescribes how the number of crimes recorded each yearhas changed over the period between 1996–97 and2000–01. For each crime two tests are applied: a test forshort-term trends for the last two years, and a test forlong-term trends over the last five years.

Part E covers seasonal variation in crime rates. Thispart of the report examines the relative importance ofseasonal variation compared with other factors thatbring about change in crime rates, such as assault,motor vehicle theft and drug consumer offences.

The last part is part F which makes recommendationson how crime statistics should be collected andpresented to Parliament.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. C. A. Strong) — Order! The honourablemember’s time has expired.

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — I thank mycolleague the Honourable Sang Nguyen for tabling thereport this morning and for his contribution to thecommittee. He briefly went through the structure of thereport but unfortunately did not refer to any findings inthe report, which I will now do. In doing so I point outthat it is important for anyone interpreting anyinformation contained in this report to understand thebasic premise that is applied to collating and publicisinginformation and what rules need to be equally appliedin trying to interpret it.

The committee attempted to identify and answer thequestion of whether crime in Victoria is in factincreasing. A number of tests can be applied to try todetermine if that is the case. Irrespective of which testyou apply you may get a right or wrong answer. Youmight get different answers, and that is the unfortunatepart of the robust political environment wherepoliticians will use these statistics to their advantage.

If a raw statistical analysis is done, as the committeehas done in collating over the past five financial yearsavailable to it, the statistics indicate that crime has

increased in Victoria, and in some specific offences ithas increased quite dramatically. Equally it hasdecreased in other offences.

A simple explanation is that the interpreter or theperson reading the report would not be availingthemselves of some of the issues that definitely need tobe considered to be able to make a value judgment. Notall changes in the crime rate are important, and that isbecause some changes are the result of real upward ordownward trends, while others might be simplyreacting to random variation in the environment. Forexample, if police have an operation in a specific areawhere they are targeting a specific offence, of coursethey will detect more offences, and that will result in arise in crime statistics. It might not necessarily be thatthere is a rise in crime for that area but it shows that avariation needs to be considered to make a realinterpretation.

Three types of variations need to be considered for thatpurpose. The first is the regular trend variation. If youapply a basic trend analysis to these types of statisticsyou can determine whether that has occurred. Thesecond is cyclical or seasonal changes, and thecommittee goes into some detail to explain whether thatis appropriate for certain offence categories. Of coursean irregular variation needs to be considered as well.

The committee decided to print the offences on a basicreporting schedule between the financial years of1996–97 and 2000–01, and also published the rates ofcrime on a per capita basis. The findings are: offencesof homicide, robbery, assault, abduction or kidnapping,burglary, including aggravated burglary, theft frommotor vehicle, theft of motor car, justice procedures andweapons offences all increased over that time. That iswhat the raw data says. However, offences such asrape, other sex offences, arson, deception and drugoffences over the equal period decreased. What doesthat mean? Does it mean that is an accurate depiction ofthe crime rate in Victoria?

In order to determine that the Drugs and CrimePrevention Committee applied a statistical test on ashort-term basis and also a long term basis — theshort-term being two years, the long-term being fiveyears — to determine whether that variation is accurate.

For most of the offences there were slight increases anddecreases, as I have identified. The offence of robbery,for example, recorded a 27 per cent short-term increaseover the two-year period and a 24 per cent long-termincrease over the five-year period. The offence ofaggravated burglary — although there cannot be anytrend estimate for the five-year period because of the

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


definition and legislative issues — recorded a 45 percent increase over that period. The same applied withtheft of motor vehicle: 15 per cent over two years and8 per cent over five years.

If we look at drug crimes — and I do this by way ofcomparison — we find over the short-term period oftwo years there was a decrease to 14 per cent and thetotal drug crime decreased 12 per cent.

That incorporates consumer and trafficable drug crime.I do not have sufficient time to go through in greatdetail some of the reasons why those variations mayoccur. Needless to say, we analysed seasonal variationsof three offences — assaults, theft of motor vehiclesand drug consumer crimes — and found very differentreasons as to why those types of offences may increasefrom one period to another. I encourage honourablemembers to read the report.

It is important to place on the record my sincere thanksand gratitude to the staff of the Drugs and CrimePrevention Committee, Sandy Cook, Michelle Heane,Chantel Churchus and in particular Dr Stuart Ross,who, as a consultant, was instrumental in enabling thecommittee to present the report. It is a good read, and Iencourage honourable members to read it.

Motion agreed to.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE

Structural changes in Victorian economy

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) presented report,together with appendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.


Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I move:


I place on the record first and foremost the gratitude ofall the members of the committee to the staff of theEconomic Development Committee, led by RichardWillis, executive officer, Karen Ellingford, seniorresearch officer and Tania Esposito, office manager andresearch assistant, all of whom during this inquiry havedone a fantastic job involving not only theinvestigations and drafting of the report but the hardslog we have had in investigating this matter for theParliament.

The organisation of the hearings and the arrangementsfor us to travel around seeing organisations andinterviewing members of the community has beenefficient. I know all members of the committee will joinwith me in placing on the record our thanks andgratitude to those officers.

Secondly I should record the fact that this is a reportthat has been agreed to by all members of thecommittee in a tripartite manner. There is no minorityreport. It is a report we have all agreed to and it is worthwhile. It covers a wide-ranging set of issues to do withbanking, postal communications, municipal services,public transport, employment services and informationtechnology and communications.

The committee travelled around Victoria andinterviewed a wide range of people and organisations.In the chairman’s foreword I have noted a fewcomments about the situation country Victoria findsitself in:

Rural communities acknowledge that there will never be areturn to the days of old. Rapid technological advancementand globalisation have forever changed the way in whichservices are delivered. It is no longer economically viable forall of these small rural towns to have a wide range ofcommercial premises including several banks and a localmunicipal office in their area.

That is a fact. There are in the order of 70 findings inthe document and more than 50 recommendations aremade for the consideration of Parliament. In thechallenges ahead the greatest challenge confrontingsmall towns is their ability to deal with and get over theproblem of maintaining essential services in the light ofdeclining population levels.

This is a real challenge. In many country towns,however, people have made a difference. It wasinteresting, and is noted at page 247 of the report, to seewhat some towns have done to make a difference. Atthe hearing in Tongala the committee spoke to Ms SueCurtis, a lady who has been involved in having a go,shall we say. She said:

Despite great difficulties the senior citizens got to work,purchased a building, refurbished it, and it was openedofficially by Jeanette Powell on 4 September.

They needed a building and did something about it. Shealso said:

… the impact is totally relevant to the attitude anddetermination of the community. A positive community willgrow no matter what you throw against it.

That is an attitude we saw throughout Victoria. It wasexciting to see citizens establishing community banks,getting involved with rural transaction centres and

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE


having a worthwhile go. The point made to us was thatif the community is willing to get together to make adifference they can succeed no matter how big thetown, no matter how many difficulties they have beforethem.

I hope the report will be given serious considerationbecause its recommendations and findings certainlyprovide ideas for people. I put on record my gratitude toall the members of the committee from all sides ofParliament who participated in what has been a veryworthwhile exercise.

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — It gives mepleasure to comment on this report. All members fromeach of the political parties represented on thecommittee have not only worked together to compilethe report but have also travelled throughout countryVictoria to hear the evidence first hand. I urge thegovernment to look seriously at the findings and thecommittee’s recommendations because unquestionablya range of issues impact on the structure and fabric ofcountry communities. It does not matter whether it istelecommunications, postal services, transport servicesor even the delivery of municipal services, a number ofthe report’s recommendations can improve the life ofpeople in their local communities and the way theywork within those communities.

It is particularly gratifying as a member of aparliamentary committee to get agreement in a report.One of the things that can occur in Parliament, despiteits adversarial nature, is that at times political views areput aside for the greater community good.Mr Theophanous, Mr McQuilten and Ms Darvenizafrom the Labor Party, Mr Lucas, Mr Craige andMrs Coote from the Liberal Party, and I have had theopportunity to put politics aside and look not only atwhat is needed to enable country communities to taketheir place in a modern society but also at the way theydo their business, at the way their transport linkagesconnect to the major regional centres through to themetropolitan area and at the inadequacies of some ofthe services provided.

Unfortunately we are going through a transition periodthroughout the world where technology is very much arequirement of today’s society. Some of therecommendations regarding access totelecommunications and modern technology areimportant for our country communities. The committeefound that there is very much a boom-bust mentalityamong country communities. Many country towns areenjoying enormous growth because of horticulturalproduction or because of the opportunity to grow

particular crops that are meeting world demand, whileunfortunately

other communities are not enjoying growth at this time.That is especially true of broadacre farmingcommunities. We are seeing a polarisation of thepopulation towards regional centres at the expense ofmany small communities.

One of the things the committee identified is the need toensure that the very fabric of those communities canstill be assisted, and that is the objective of the report’srecommendations.

One of the major concerns we have, which wasunanimous across party lines, was the role that themajor banks have played in withdrawing services fromcountry communities. All of us are particularlyconcerned that so many bank branches are closingacross country Victoria. On the positive side, we haveseen a bank that I am closely associated with but not ashareholder of — the Bendigo Bank — taking apositive and proactive role in empowering the localcommunity to think wider than just where they do theirbanking. It is looking at the way it can provideeconomic benefit to the local community and,hopefully, in the future attract investment, greatercompetition and spending power to the community. Itwas interesting to identify some of the statisticsassociated with where bank branches had closed andthe withdrawal of spending power within those towns.

This is a good report; its recommendations give thegovernment a real opportunity to take positive action toassist the very fabric of many of the countrycommunities across our state.

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I have greatpleasure in unexpectedly being able to speak on themotion because the Honourable Theo Theophanous isnot able to do so, and I thank the government for givingme this opportunity.

I had great pleasure in being involved with this report. Itoo would like to put on record my thanks and gratitudeto the Economic Development Committee staff,Richard Willis, Tania Esposito and Karen Ellingford.They did a professional job and it was an interestingand enlightening committee to be on.

As an inner-city member of Parliament it is difficult forme to understand some of the complex issues affectingrural and regional Victoria, and being involved withthis report gave me an opportunity to see some of theissues first hand. The committee went from Gippslandright up to Mildura and saw much of what was goingon. I am really impressed by what I see in rural

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


Victoria. There is enthusiasm, excitement and somewonderful things are happening.

I pay special attention to the town of Nhill, which is inMr Hallam’s electorate. Nhill has taken the opportunityto develop two industries that are doing extremely well.One is Lowan Whole Foods, the muesli and health foodproduct maker, and the other is Luv-a-Duck, the headoffice of which is in my electorate. Unemployment inNhill is zilch — they have to import people from SouthAfrica to help increase the productivity of those twoindustries — and housing is at a premium. This is asmall town that has taken an initiative and put itself onthe map, and that is just one example. Others includeEdenhope, Traralgon, and the list goes on.

It was fascinating to see first hand the impact of theclosure of banks. In Lancefield the bank disappearedand shopkeepers in particular had to travel quite a wayon a round trip just to get money to be able to offerEFTPOS services to their customers. The townspeoplewere very concerned and got together and developed acommunity bank, and the vitality of the town cameback. As the people themselves said, it was evendifficult to get parking in Lancefield once the bank wasback; the whole dynamics of the town changed. One ofthe aspects of the lack of the bank was leadership. Oncethe staff of the bank went there was no-one to coach thefootball team or be involved with community groups.Those were the side effects experienced when aninstitution like the bank disappeared.

One of the surprises was to see how postal serviceshave improved; access is better than it has ever beenbefore. Another was the rural transaction centres, theinfrastructure for which is being provided by the federalgovernment. In Welshpool the committee saw a shopwhich developed its infrastructure through federalfunding. The community has developed a progressivecentre and is to be congratulated for it. The ruraltransaction centre has a Medibank facility and a bankfacility and includes a spot where people can go toaccess the services they want. For example a jewellercomes once a week, as does a person who does shoerepairs. It is a vital area which has been developed forthe community by the community and is to becommended.

Those things are happening all over the state, and I feelproud to be a Victorian. I gained a great deal from thewhole process and I now have a much greaterunderstanding of what some of the issues are. Iencourage everyone in the house to read the report.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATESCOMMITTEE

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) presented report on2001 performance audit.

Laid on table.


Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I move:


There is a statutory requirement that a review of theVictorian Auditor-General’s office be undertaken everythree years by an independent auditor appointed by thePublic Accounts and Estimates Committee. Thatrequirement is designed to ensure that theAuditor-General remains accountable to the VictorianParliament and through the Parliament to the people ofVictoria, and that the work of his or her office is of thehighest standard.

The report that I table today represents the committee’sreasoned response to the independent performanceaudit as produced by Stuart Alford, who wascommissioned by this Parliament to undertake that task.It is a quite unremarkable report, and that is goodbecause Stuart Alford’s performance review by andlarge is a resounding tick for the Auditor-General’s roleand performance. Sure, there are some instances citedin the report in which operational improvements arediscussed, and the committee most certainly would notwant to dismiss those, but we should also acknowledgethat they are at the margin. They are morehousekeeping than anything else, and we do not believethey go to matters of substance in respect to theAttorney-General’s performance.

The report is structured to have the reader seeMr Alford’s suggestions for improvement with theAuditor-General’s response to each, and then they areoverlaid with the committee’s response to both thesuggestion and the response.

We should be reassured by the report because it is aclinical assessment of the Auditor-General’s office andperformance, and it is a very good report card. Thereare two stand-out issues canvassed in the report that Iwould particularly bring to the attention of honourablemembers. The first of those is covered in chapter 3,which goes to the frequency of performance audits ofthe Victorian Auditor-General’s office.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Too many, too often!

PAPERS


Hon. R. M. HALLAM — Thank you, Mr Forwood.

In 1998 the previous performance auditorrecommended that the period be reduced from fiveyears to three years, and that recommendation wasrejected by the government. Again, in the performanceaudit covered by this report we see a similarrecommendation. Again, the committee is notpersuaded. The reasoning for the stance taken by thecommittee is set out on page 62. I invite members,including Mr Forwood, to refer to the response by thecommittee. But we do not think that a consistent, cleanbill of health is a good reason to defer the check-up.Nor are we persuaded on the cost factor because we seethere is some value in confirming that all is well ratherthan simply hoping or presuming that to be the case.

In chapter 4 we go to the question of who qualifies asan auditor to undertake the performance audit of theAuditor-General’s office and the assumption under theAudit Act that that person must be a qualifiedaccountant. That raises a number of quite serious issues.

The first of those is that it is quite hard to find anaccountant of sufficient experience and seniority whodoes not have an existing relationship with theAuditor-General. In those circumstances we run into atleast the inference of a potential conflict of interest.

Secondly, it is our view that, in any event, theperformance audit process is more about a strategymanagement review of the Auditor-General’s officeand that this goes to issues of accountability rather thanthose associated with a traditional financial audit.

It is on those grounds that the committee sees realadvantage in expanding the qualifications of thosedeemed eligible to undertake this performance reviewand suggests quite seriously that the law be amended toremove the existing narrow qualifications.

Our arguments are set out in the report. I referhonourable members to chapter 4. I certainly commendthose arguments to the government.

This is a good report in that it confirms our presumptionthat the Auditor-General is fulfilling his role as thepublic watchdog. I thank Mr Alford for a veryprofessional job in the review, and I thank the membersof the committee for what I consider to be a veryworthwhile report.

Motion agreed to.

PAPERS


Melbourne City Link Act 1995 —

City Link and Extension Projects Integration and FacilitationAgreement Eighth Amending Deed, 24 May 2002, pursuantto section 15B(5) of the Act.

Melbourne City Link Sixteenth Amending Deed, 24 May2002, pursuant to section 15(2).

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBANAND REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Terms of reference


That paragraph (j) of the resolution of the Council of5 December 2001 appointing the Select Committee on theUrban and Regional Land Corporation Managing Director beamended so as to now require the committee to present itsfinal report to the Council on or before 30 September 2002.

On 5 December, in response to considerable interestthroughout Victoria, the Legislative Council resolved toestablish a select committee to inquire into theappointment of Mr Reeves as the managing director ofthe Urban and Regional Land Corporation.

Paragraph (j) of that motion states:

That reports of the committee may be presented to theCouncil from time to time …

And I make the point that two have so far beenpresented —

… and that the committee presents its final report to theCouncil on or before 31 May 2002.

The motion before the house today seeks to extend thatperiod to 30 September 2002. It is narrow in its focus,just dealing with the issue of the extension of time.Today is not a day when we intend to canvass in detailissues that have come to the fore in either of the twointerim reports or in the stacks of evidence that havebeen taken by the committee to date.

On moving the motion on 5 December I made somecomments about the right of the people of Victoria toknow. That was the purpose of the inquiry beingestablished at that time. At that time I believed that aperiod of nearly six months, from 5 December to31 May, would be sufficient time for the work to bedone properly in the interests of all Victorians. I make

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBAN AND REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION MANAGING DIRECTOR


the point that at that time my recollection is that thegovernment moved an amendment, which was defeatedin this chamber, that the length of time be limited to sixweeks, and that obviously would not have been longenough for the task to be done.

The committee, it is apparent to all, has worked hard. Itfirst met on 7 December. It has to my count had at leasteight public hearings and taken evidence from, I think,over 20 witnesses. As I said earlier, transcripts of thosehearings are available for people who are interested inthe information that has come from them. Thecommittee has by my count had at least five or sixdeliberative meetings as well. It is apparent that becauseof some actions by the executive government, inparticular as reported in the two interim reports, thecommittee has not been able to complete its work. Wediscovered yesterday, on the tabling of the Frankstonreport — Mr Wren’s report — that upper housecommittees have their uses, and it is entirelyappropriate that committees have the opportunity tocomplete their work and not be rapidly brought to a haltbefore outstanding issues have been addressed. It is mybelief that it is in the interests of the people of Victoriathat the inquiry into the appointment of the Urban andRegional Land Corporation managing director beextended through to 30 September, which will give thecommittee the chance to complete its work and reportto the Parliament.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) — Timeand time again, despite the fact that honourablemembers of this chamber try to make out that it is acontemporary chamber, that it brings accountability tothe Parliament and the executive government in thename of protecting the public interest and pursuingproper administration in this state and purports to be amodern chamber, the way we operate harks back toyesteryear.

My response to this motion, when I saw what was onthe notice paper as I was whiling away the wee smallhours of the morning contemplating today’s activities inthe chamber, was to be reminded of the old days andthose Bob Hope and Bing Crosby ‘Road to’ movies.What came to my mind was that when they closed upshop as they embarked on those endeavours they wouldleave a sign on the door saying, ‘Gone fishin’’.

That is exactly what this resolution proposes: leaving asign saying, — ‘We’ve gone fishin’ over the winterbreak’. In fact, we’ve been out there, stranded in exoticplaces for the last few months. Neil and Gordon andRoger, Theo and I have been doing our impersonationof Bob and Bing, on an exotic desert island, fishin’. Wehave been desperately trying to land a big fish. In fact I

put it to the committee that we have been spectacularfailures. We have actually thrown out many lines andnets; we have gone deep-sea trawling — we haveactually tried all the devices known to the fishingindustry. In fact, on some occasions when we could notactually land a fish, we have tried to take pot shots atthe fish. We have not been able to land the big fish thatwould warrant this select committee concluding itsdeliberations and it certainly does not warrant that thefishing expedition be continued over the winter break.

The government opposes the motion today on the basisthat there is substantial evidence about to say that wewill not land a fish, that despite taking pot shots at thosefish we are trying to land, we will not get the silverbullet that lands any one of them. I encourage thecommittee to call it quits, give up on our fishingexpedition and come back and let’s do some productivework. The sooner the committee concludes its work andmakes its report — the government is ready, willingand able to conclude the report based on the substantialbody of evidence that has come before us. AsMr Forwood has said in his contribution, we have hadpublic hearings including 20 witnesses, some of whomhave been on the witness stand almost to the state ofexhaustion.

Hon. N. B. Lucas — That was your questioning!

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — It was rigorousquestioning, as Mr Lucas clearly appreciates. There wasample — voluminous — documentary evidence thatthe committee has been required to examine and still,through two interim reports, we have not been able toprovide information to the Council which wouldwarrant concern in the public domain or the extensionof the terms of reference of this committee.

On behalf of the government I say that the governmentopposes the motion. It remains ready, willing and ableto conclude our report and provide a full report to theCouncil. I look forward to any substantial piece ofevidence that this committee obtains between now andthe time that it reports because I have confidence thatthe weight of evidence accumulated through thecommittee’s previous and future inquiries will lead tosupport for the proposition that the select committeewas not warranted in the first place and certainly willnot add to the net value of this Parliament’sconsideration. So bring on the final report as quickly aspossible.

I oppose the resolution. Let’s give up on this wastedexercise which is a monumental fishing expedition.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE URBAN AND REGIONAL LAND CORPORATION MANAGING DIRECTOR


Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — Mr President, Iam not sure whether the Honourable Gavin Jenningswas serious in his attempt to provide the house with5 minutes of comedy this morning or whether he wasjust being totally frivolous in his comments. The latteris probably closer to the case.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — Many a true word is spokenin jest.

Hon. P. R. HALL — It was certainly not a seriouscontribution from the Honourable Gavin Jennings. Itwas a totally irrelevant contribution that failed toaddress any of the substantial issues that wereencompassed by the motion and foreshadowed in thecomments by the Leader of the Opposition in puttingthis motion before the house today.

The Select Committee of the Legislative Council on theUrban and Regional Land Corporation ManagingDirector was established on 5 December last year. It isworth while reflecting on why that committee wasestablished. At that time, and certainly still today, therewas significant public concern with the process that ledto the appointment of Mr Jim Reeves as managingdirector of the Urban and Regional Land Corporation(URLC). The air needed to be cleared, and those wordswere used frequently in the contributions to the debatewhich established this committee. So this committeewas established. It has been diligently pursuing the taskassigned to it since its first meeting on 7 December, andit has reported to the Parliament on two occasions, inMarch and May of this year.

I commend the committee on the work it hasundertaken and also for the way it has reported back tothe Parliament. Its reports have been concise, factualand, more importantly, they have been to the point.They have not been padded out with extraneousmaterial; they have been direct and to the point, and Icommend the committee for that. As I said when Isupported the establishment of the committee, the airneeded to be cleared, but unfortunately, if we read thetwo reports that the committee has so far presented tothe Parliament, the air is far from being cleared; it is infact more polluted now. That veil of secrecy over thewhole affair seems to have become heavier.

The hole seems to be getting deeper for thegovernment, and as confirmation of that a casual readermay need to look at only the subheadings in the tworeports that have been presented to the Parliament atthis time. In the first interim report the subheadingsinclude ‘Intervention of the Honourable R. J. Hulls,MP, Attorney-General’, ‘Delay in the provision ofinformation’, ‘Ministerial breach of summons’,

‘Ministerial advisers’ breach of summons’, ‘Failure toprovide transcripts’, and ‘Pre-emptive ministerialresponses’.

In the most recent brief report, tabled in Parliament justthis month, the subheadings include ‘Intervention of theHonourable Alex Andrianopoulos, MP, Speaker of theLegislative Assembly’. I can understand why membersof the committee feel so frustrated in this matterbecause it appears that there has been a cover-up on thisissue from day 1 and it continues.

In the second report to Parliament earlier this month thecommittee pleads with this house to assist it in trying toresolve these matters. The final point in the report says:

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.

I cannot give the committee any learned advice abouthow it can pursue the matter further and try to get to thetruth. I do not know. The very least we can do is givethe committee more time to consider these matters. Inthe two interim reports presented to this Parliament wehave seen ample evidence that, given more time, thecommittee may get closer to finding the whole truthregarding the appointment of the managing director ofthe Urban and Regional Land Corporation.

From the point of view of the National Party, we wishto see this house and its committees function properly.It will therefore be extremely helpful to give thatcommittee the extra time. The National Partywholeheartedly supports this resolution. We can onlyhope the government becomes more cooperative andassists with this inquiry, and gets to the bottom of thewhole matter.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 27Ashman, Mr Furletti, MrBaxter, Mr Hall, MrBest, Mr Hallam, MrBirrell, Mr Katsambanis, Mr (Teller)Bishop, Mr Lucas, MrBoardman, Mr Luckins, MsBowden, Mr Olexander, MrBrideson, Mr Powell, Mrs (Teller)Coote, Mrs Rich-Phillips, MrCover, Mr Smith, Mr K. M.Craige, Mr Smith, MsDavis, Mr D. McL. Stoney, MrDavis, Mr P. R. Strong, MrForwood, Mr

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES PROTECTION BILL


Noes, 12Broad, Ms McQuilten, MrCarbines, Mrs Madden, MrDarveniza, Ms (Teller) Mikakos, MsGould, Ms Nguyen, Mr (Teller)Hadden, Ms Romanes, MsJennings, Mr Thomson, Ms

PairsAtkinson,Mr Theophanous, MrRoss, Dr R. F. Smith, Mr

Motion agreed to.

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES PROTECTIONBILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 15 May; motion of Hon. BILLFORWOOD (Templestowe).

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — In theabsence of the Honourable Theo Theophanous I ampleased to make a contribution on behalf of thegovernment in respect of the Adventure ActivitiesProtection Bill. The Bracks Labor government regardsthe problem facing the adventure tourism industry asvery serious. It has been precipitated by the significantescalation in the cost of public liability insurance inrecent times.

There are numerous reasons for this escalation in thecost of public liability insurance. Unfortunately, thedebate so far has not fully canvassed all these reasons.They relate to issues concerning the failure of themarket; the failure of adequate numbers of underwritersprepared to offer affordable public liability insurance toenter the Australian insurance industry; the collapse ofthe HIH corporation; and the terrorist attacks in NewYork in September last year. One of the many reasonswe are experiencing a significant increase in premiumsfor public liability insurance at the present time relatesto the claim of a so-called increase in claims in recentyears.

The government is prepared to look at this veryimportant issue. I know that the honourable member forBenalla in the other place, Ms Allen, is workingtirelessly with the community in the Mansfield regionand with the adventure tourism industry in the state tocome up with workable solutions to this problem.

The government is prepared to tackle this issue, whichis the reason why it has played a leadership role in thisissue. The Minister for Finance, the Honourable JohnLenders, has made a number of important

announcements regarding the government’s approachto public liability insurance and insurance in general.The government has a number of concerns regardingthe bill the Liberal Party has brought before the houseand I will outline those concerns shortly.

Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT — Order! I welcome to ourgallery the President of the Bundesrat, Mr KlausWowereit, who is also the governing mayor of Berlin,and his delegation. I am delighted to have you in ourParliament. I was fortunate to be a guest of yourParliament early in 1999. I can recommend such a visitto all of my colleagues.

Honourable members applauding.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I look forward tospeaking with you personally shortly. Welcome.

ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES PROTECTIONBILL

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — As I wassaying, during my contribution I will be seeking tooutline the government’s concerns about the billbrought before the house by the Liberal Party. Iunderstand the Leader of the Opposition has beenprovided with a letter from the Minister for Finance inthe other place in which the government’s position isoutlined, but I will seek to elaborate on the concernsoutlined in that correspondence.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Tell us what time I got theletter!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Let me say that youprobably got it before I did. The bill has not been beforethe chamber for a long time. There have beendiscussions between the Mansfield tourism operators,the Victorian Tourism Operators Association and theVictorian government for some time. The governmentis concerned about the problems being experienced byVictorian tourism operators. However, during thisdebate it is important I indicate the very genuinecommitment the government has to finding a workablesolution to the problems. Unfortunately, this piece of



legislation does not offer a workable solution to thecrisis being experienced by adventure tourism operatorsin this state at the present time.

The government regards the legislation as seriouslyflawed, as having a number of serious draftingproblems, but apart from that, it is conceptuallyproblematic. It is for that reason that I am indicating tothe house that later in my contribution I will move areasoned amendment that will outline the government’sposition in respect of this piece of legislation.

In his correspondence to the Leader of the Opposition,the Minister for Finance indicates that the governmentappreciates the efforts made by the Mansfield publicliability task force to seek solutions to the currentproblems being experienced by the adventure tourismindustry. The minister also acknowledges thecontribution, as I indicated earlier, made by thehonourable member for Benalla who has been workinghard to come up with workable solutions.

The government has a number of concerns about thislegislation and I note that in the correspondence to theLeader of the Opposition the government has alsoprovided him with legal advice provided to it by theVictorian Government Solicitor’s Office. I will alludeto those legal concerns in a moment. The public policyissue that needs to be grappled with is whether, as acommunity, we think it acceptable that we removepeople’s rights to seek compensation under commonlaw — rights that they currently have — and requirethem to seek reliance solely on the social security andMedicare systems as a means of financial redress. Thatis the public policy issue we need to grapple withbecause what the bill seeks to do is preclude peoplefrom seeking access to compensation under commonlaw if their level of injury does not meet the 30 per centimpairment test — a test honourable members will befamiliar with as it operates under the transport accidentcompensation and Workcover legislation.

The fundamental difference here is that under theTransport Accident Commission and Workcoverpeople who fall below the 30 per cent impairment testhave access to compensation for loss of earnings,medical expenses and so on. Under the bill these peoplewill have no redress to compensation for loss ofearnings, pain and suffering or medical or otherexpenses they may incur or their families may face.They will be forced to rely solely on the Medicaresystem or the social security system, and ultimately thecost will be borne by the Australian taxpayer.

I challenge the policy thinking that has gone into thebill as indicated in the objects of the proposedlegislation set out in clause 4(c):

to reduce the social and economic costs to the Victoriancommunity of compensation for injuries arising out of or inthe course of adventure activities …

If what we are doing is shifting the burden away fromthe insurance industry to the taxpayer, then I wouldargue that is not reducing the social and economic coststo the Victorian community. What is happening here iscost shifting, and ultimately someone will pay thecost — and that person will be the Victorian taxpayer.

The advice provided by the Minister for Finance to theLeader of the Opposition is detailed, and I note that thegovernment has given serious consideration to theproposed legislation and has found it to be wanting. Weare very determined to come up with a workablesolution. The government has had discussions withother state, territory and commonwealth governmentson the issue, and there has been an attempt to adopt anational approach to solving what is essentially anational issue.

The insurance industry is regulated by the nationalgovernment and by federal legislation. It has been thefailure by the Howard government to properly regulatethe industry that has led to the severe problems we arecurrently experiencing. It will be interesting to see whatcomes out of the royal commission into the collapse ofthe HIH Insurance corporation — the biggest corporatecollapse in Australian history — and to learn whatrecommendations that royal commission makes aboutthe role of the Australian Prudential RegulatoryAuthority, the body that oversees the Australianinsurance industry. It is clear that the federalgovernment fell asleep at the wheel when it came toregulating the insurance industry in this country.

Hon. W. I. Smith interjected.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — It has failed to keepproper checks on levels of debt and the exposure ofcompanies such as HIH Insurance, and that is having aserious impact on public liability insurance premiumsin this state.

I take up the interjection of the Honourable WendySmith. This government has taken the lead in offeringsolutions to the HIH Insurance collapse, and I find itoutrageous and extraordinary that Ms Smith seeks toraise the issue given it is her party in this chamber thatis holding up legislation that will provide compensationto home owners affected by the HIH collapse.



Hon. Bill Forwood — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, the bill before the house today isspecific and relates to adventure tourism. It is quitelegitimate for the honourable member to bring in thecollapse of HIH Insurance as she did at the beginning inrelation to adventure tourism, but to now start referringto other pieces of legislation that have nothing to dowith the bill is completely out of order, and I invite youto so rule.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, I was responding to aninterjection from the Honourable Wendy Smith. Iappreciate that is disorderly. I will come back to thebill, but in my contribution I am talking about insuranceas a whole and the government’s position on insurance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! On thepoint of order, responding to interjections is not orderly.I am sure that the honourable member is building hercase, and I am certain she will come back to the billimmediately.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — The legislation has anumber of problems. The advice given to the Leader ofthe Opposition by the Minister for Finance indicatesthat there are problems in requiring the relevant insurerto conduct a detailed assessment of the level ofimpairment of a claimant. The letter states:

The application of an AMA impairment assessment is ascientific and complex procedure that is not currentlyundertaken by insurers. It is a test that is capable of challengein the courts and so requires a high degree of expertise in itsadministration. There is no evidence that insurers are capable,interested or willing to perform this type of assessment. Thereis no evidence that the costs associated with this new regimehave been assessed or cleared with insurers. UnlikeWorkcover, it appears that the bill will allow AMAassessments to be reviewed by the courts; this will increasethe degree of litigation in this area, not contain it.

That is one of the fundamental problems with the bill: itputs the onus for assessing the level of impairment backon the insurance industry.

My understanding is that the Insurance Council ofAustralia has not come out and supported thelegislation. The Liberal Party has bolted ahead trying topre-empt the government response on this importantissue, trying to claim political credit by seeking tosponsor into the Parliament a bill it did not even draft. Ithink Peter Clark, SC, has drafted it in consultation withthe operators in Mansfield.

The insurance industry has not indicated that thislegislation is workable — that they are prepared tobecome involved in assessing levels of impairment.Without that level of commitment, this legislation is

just not going to work, because that is the way this billis premised. It says that a level of impairment has to beassessed by an insurer or, where there is no insurer, bythe operator. I am sure that a great number of tourismoperators out there would want to get involved inassessing levels of impairment and get into medicalissues that they know nothing about and are probablynot particularly interested in!

Other problems with the legislation relate to the factthat the second-reading speech makes quite anextraordinary, and in my view completely unjustified,claim that:

Actuarial advice received by the task force —

being the Mansfield public liability task force —

is that operators could look forward to substantial premiumrelief if insurers were not at risk for minor claims.

I look forward to the members of the oppositionproviding that actuarial advice, because it has not beenforthcoming to date.

Hon. Bill Forwood — It was given by Denise Allento the Minister for Finance!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — That is not the case,Mr Forwood — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — Absolutely!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Throughthe Chair, Ms Mikakos. Mr Forwood!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I actually have a bitof paper here that was provided by the Mansfield taskforce to the honourable member for Benalla. Thedocument says:

No written calculations were commissioned on a specificdatabase because of budgetary constraints.

However, two actuaries offered rough calculations on thesummarised VTOA —

being the Victorian Tourism Operators Association —

claims for the last five years. Those calculations revealed aprobability of future claims being reduced in the range 0 percent–50 per cent. In other words, this bill would break thespiral of increase, and a reduction of 50 per cent could result.

I find it quite preposterous that members of theopposition are seeking to hang their hats on this bit ofpaper — that they are seeking to rely on roughcalculations by actuaries that are seeking to claimpotential reductions of somewhere between zero percent and 50 per cent. Well, that is a pretty broad range,and it says here that there were no written calculations



because of budgetary constraints. So no written advicehas come to the government setting out what the actualreduction in premiums will be.

The insurance industry has been asked to provide thegovernment with these types of assurances. It has notbeen prepared to provide the government with thembecause it has plucked them out of the air.

I do not know whether Mr Stoney has something he isprepared to share with us, but we certainly have notseen any actuarial advice to date that sets out anyjustification for the assertion in the second-readingspeech.

Hon. Bill Forwood — We did not use it becauseyou wrote it. I will get it.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Looking forward toit, Mr Forwood.

If the Liberal Party is seeking to make those types ofassertions in the second-reading speech, which is thepremise on which it has based the introduction of thislegislation — it claims that limiting people’s ability tosue will conclusively lead to a reduction inpremiums — then we want to see the evidence.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — You are a liar.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — You have notprovided the evidence as yet, have you, Mr Furletti?You are seeking to rely on wild claims of a possiblereduction in premiums of zero to 50 per cent. Bycontrast, I have received a copy of actuarial adviceprepared by Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd and provided tothe Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association on 14 Maythis year. That actuarial advice, which I am happy toprovide to opposition members, gives an overview ofthe performance of the Australian insurance industryover the past 20 years. It says:

… insurer profits averaged about 18 per cent over the20 years to 1996–97.

… their substantial losses in the four years to 2000–01 mayreflect a more pessimistic view of outstanding claims, as wellas premium cutting by HIH.

It goes on to assert:

… our projections suggest that insurers will make a loss ofabout 4 per cent in 2001–02 and a profit of about 17 per centin 2002–03, without any changes to legislation.

I am not seeking to assert that Cumpston Sarjeant arethe sole experts in the field and that we should taketheir advice as gospel, but they are one actuarial groupthat have been around for a number of years and

provide advice to the insurance industry. That companyis prepared to assert that in 2002–03 the insuranceindustry in this country will turn a profit without anyneed for legislation.

It is important that when we are going down the road ofremoving people’s rights to sue we have a fullyinformed debate about the current crisis facing theAustralian insurance industry, including the reasons forthose problems and the possible solutions, taking intoaccount the cyclical nature of the insurance industryand the fact that at least one participant in the industrytakes the view that it is on the way out of that trough, aspart of this cycle, and that the industry will be headingtowards a profit in the near future.

The other concerns the government has relate to theproposed mechanism whereby the legislation is seekingto make the Minister for Tourism the body that willregister and give accreditation to adventure tourismoperators in this state. An expansive list of activities isset out in the schedule as being inherently risky. I noteactivities such as flying in light planes and ultra lightplanes are listed. I should be interested to know whetherthe opposition has had discussions with the aviationindustry about the impact of that provision, given thatthe bill seeks to define activities to stipulate whethersomeone receives consideration.

I note that a ‘participant’ is defined in clause 3 to be aperson:

… whether or not the person provides any consideration tothe Operator in exchange for his or her participation in theactivity …

That means, for example, that if there were an accidentwhen an aeroplane spraying a family farm withpesticides had a family member on board the situationcould come within the scope of the legislation.

I do not believe that would have been intended by theopposition. However, the way the legislation is drafted,it could apply to those types of scenarios. Myunderstanding is that the legislation was intended tocover commercial operators, but the definition of‘participant’ is extremely broad.

The proposed legislation seeks to commence on 1 July.We all share the concern of the industry that a solutionmust be found quickly, but the bill seeks to establish awhole new bureaucratic structure under the Minister forTourism to conduct inspections and develop riskmanagement plans together with tourism operators andso on. There are complex technical issues to do withassessing risks on the part of tourism operators. All ofthat would need to happen in a short period. The bill



does not give adequate consideration to the frameworkthat would need to be established to make it workable.

The other major problem with the proposed legislationarises as a result of clause 5, which states:

… this Act applies (notwithstanding anything to the contraryin any other Act or law) …

The constitutional parameters under which we operatespecify that commonwealth law overrides state law. Infact the Trade Practices Act would override anyprovisions in the bill, which would effectively meanthat where a person was injured at an impairment levelof under 30 per cent they would seek recourse under theTrade Practices Act. Rather than reducing litigation andthe costs of the insurance sector and adventure tourismoperators we would see an increase in litigation becauseaggrieved parties would seek recourse under section 52of the Trade Practices Act.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Wrong.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I look forward toMr Forwood explaining why it is wrong.

That is why the government sought at the nationalministerial meetings to encourage the federalgovernment to move amendments to the federal TradePractices Act. Without those changes to, for example,section 68A of the Trade Practices Act, stategovernments are precluded from passing legislationthat, for example, allows tourism operators to getconsumers to sign waivers if they want to participate ina high-risk activity.

Apart from the increase in litigation under the TradePractices Act, we also anticipate that if the bill werepassed there would be increased litigation relating tothe assessment of a level of impairment.

The bill itself does not have any internal review orappeal mechanism, unlike the Transport AccidentCommission legislation for example, which allowsdisputes on the level of impairment to go to theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or theWorkcover legislation, which allows disputes to beassessed by medical panels and ultimately to go to courtif there are disputes on questions of law. The LiberalParty is fond of taking away people’s rights to appeal,but this bill has a serious flaw. Injured persons whomiss out on compensation under this system will seekto challenge in the courts the basis on which the insurermade the decision. We will see an escalation inlitigation.

The government is not seeking to give false hope to theadventure tourism industry, which it believes thelegislation is seeking to do because it does not offer anysolution to the current problems. In fact, it will createmore problems and increase costs to the industry.

The test adopted in the legislation which relates to a30 per cent level of impairment is a very high threshold.I note the advice given by the Minister for Finance tothe Leader of the Opposition, which states that the bill:

… denies any compensation, medical, loss of earnings asgeneral damages, to persons injured through the negligence ofan operator where the injury could be as serious as loss ofvision in an eye, amputation of a leg below the knee, hipreplacement. It is not apparent that the community wouldsupport such a radical denial of all benefits to these types ofclaims.

By imposing a 30 per cent level of impairment withoutproviding any recourse to statutory compensationschemes or some other redress, the opposition isthrowing onto the social security system people whowill potentially have suffered very serious injuries.Injuries below the 30 per cent impairment level can bequite serious in nature, and we have had these debatesbefore when we discussed Workcover legislation. Theloss of an eye is a very serious injury as is anamputation, yet these people will have no recourse ifthe 30 per cent level of impairment is adopted unlessthey seek to pursue compensation under the TradePractices Act, which is what they will do.

The second-reading speech states:

Participants will be able, at their own expense, to take outpersonal accident insurance to cover any minor injury, offeredat the farm gate, and envisaged to be part of the operatoraccreditation and approval process.

That may well be what is envisaged, however the billdoes not make it compulsory. There is no mandatoryrequirement in the legislation requiring a tourismoperator to have public liability insurance themselves,to make the consumer aware of the inherent risks of theactivity or to get the consumer to sign up to their ownpersonal cover.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Did you read the bill?

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — There is nomandatory requirement, Mr Forwood. Clause 9(1)(a)allows a minister to specify terms and conditions.Clause 9 (6) states that the operator approval can takeeffect from the date on which the applicant obtainspublic liability insurance, but that is not a mandatoryrequirement for tourism operators to take out insurance.



The approval process set up by the bill gives approvalfor five years unless it is revoked earlier. However, thislong period for approval means that it is possible for anoperator to have public liability insurance in year onebut lose it for some reason in year two. The bill allowsthe minister to revoke approval at a later date.However, there is no compulsion on the operator toinform the minister that they have lost their publicliability insurance or that their circumstances havechanged. So you might end up with a scenario where anoperator gets the approval in year one and for somereason — perhaps they are not doing so well financiallyand their standards drop over time — lose theirinsurance in year two. Most insurance policies are onlyoffered on an annual basis, however, the approvalwould be for five years. So there are problems withmonitoring whether tourism operators have publicliability insurance and making it a prescribed conditionof their approval.

There are also problems with part 3 of the bill, whichrelates to the assessment of the level of injuries for thepurposes of obtaining access to compensation.

As I indicated earlier, the whole basis of this legislationis that it requires the insurer to assess the level ofimpairment. There are requirements here, for example,that the insurer provide a medical examination to theparticipant — that is, the consumer — and underclause 15(5) the insurer can refuse to make adetermination if the insurer is not satisfied that theparticipant’s injury has stabilised. So in this particularcase we could see aggrieved consumers going to courtand arguing that their injuries have in fact stabilised,disagreeing with the view of the insurer in order toaccess compensation. Again, we are seeing the potentialthere for an increase in litigation.

As I indicated earlier, there is no review or appealmechanism against the initial impairment assessment.Clause 15(9) merely provides an aggrieved party withthe ability to rebut material within 28 days of decision.That is a pretty extraordinary review mechanism — onethat I am not aware is replicated in any other piece oflegislation or statutory compensation scheme —because it is putting the review back on the insurer.There is no provision for an independent third party toassess the dispute or the medical information; theaggrieved party merely goes back to the insurer andargues it out with the insurer. Again, we are going tosee people, as the only way of getting their particularcases reviewed, going off to the court.

Hon. E. G. Stoney interjected.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — That does happennow, Mr Stoney, but under the Transport AccidentCommission legislation, people go off to the VictorianCivil and Administrative Tribunal. There are cheapermechanisms for review. We have in VCAT, forexample, people who are specialised to hear theseparticular types of disputes.

The legal advice that has been provided from thegovernment to the Leader of the Opposition alsoindicates that there are a number of technical draftingproblems with the legislation as it relates to the shiftingof the risk onto the insurance industry. I wish to quotehere, because this is quite an important point:

5. A substantial flaw is the fact that it is proposed privateinsurers will carry the risk. The complex injuryassessment provisions in the TAC or ACA workbecause there is a government-backed monopoly insurerto undertake the assessment task. It is virtuallyimpossible to conceive how such an exercise could becarried out satisfactorily and with some consistency ifthis is left to multiple private insurers of variablestandard and substance.

6. The expectation is that public liability insurance coverwould be required as a condition of registering anadventure tourism operator. It should be borne in mindthat policies can vary and the cover under some policiesmight be cheap but limited.

7. It cannot be presumed that private insurers would beprepared/able to carry out the injury assessment functionor that they would be prepared to undertake theinsurance of the serious injury risk at substantially lowerpremiums than at present. The profit motive may lead tosome insurers being reluctant to classify an injury as‘serious’ and this could make the regime litigious.

There are many other concerns that the government haswith this legislation. I am sure the Deputy Leader of theGovernment will indicate some of those in hiscontribution.

It is important to put on the record that this governmentis very serious about this particular problem. Earlier thisyear it provided a $100 000 package to the adventuretourism operators to enable them to prepare riskmanagement strategies to make their activities safer andto reduce the number and value of claims.

In addition to that particular risk management programfunding, the government has taken the lead indeveloping a low-cost insurance scheme for communitygroups. This scheme will commence on 1 June of thisyear. The government is continuing to discuss theimportant issues that are being experienced with theindustry and the insurance industry — unlike theLiberal Party, which has not had the insurance industry



agree to participate in this proposal that they have putup here today.

I indicated earlier that I will be moving a reasonedamendment. Therefore, I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with the view ofinserting in place thereof ‘in light of legal advice that thegovernment has obtained and made available to the parties inthe Council, this house declines to read this bill a second timeuntil major amendments can be drafted or an alternative billcan be introduced.

Hon. Bill Forwood — This is the do-nothingamendment!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — We are happy to havediscussions with all political parties, the tourismindustry and the insurance industry, in order to come upwith a workable solution to this problem. Theopposition’s bill does not come up with a workablesolution.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I welcome theopportunity to put the National Party’s point of view inrespect to this private member’s bill, the AdventureActivities Protection Bill, and also make comment onthe reasoned amendment which has appeared in thedying seconds of the previous member’s contribution. Inotice that in that she is suggesting that the bill bewithdrawn ‘in light of legal advice that the governmenthas obtained and made available to the parties in theCouncil’. Made available to us 5 minutes before debateon this bill started! It is pretty rich when this bill hasbeen in the house for two weeks that the minister andthe Minister for Finance have finally found time torespond five minutes before the debate on the billstarted. It hardly gives members of the opposition — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — And dated 6 May!

Hon. P. R. HALL — Dated 6 May — incredible!The date today is 29 May! Because the Minister forSmall Business has sat on this response until the lastminute, it makes it extremely difficult for members ofthe Liberal Party and the National Party to give fairconsideration — —

Hon. D. G. Hadden interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL — For the benefit of theHonourable Dianne Hadden, she asks, ‘Where is thedate?’. The document we are referring to — —

Hon. D. G. Hadden interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL — No, I did not. I said the dateon the advice in the response handed to the oppositionparties is 6 May.

Hon. E. G. Stoney — The advice, not the letter.

Hon. P. R. HALL — To start with, I want tocompliment the opposition on having a go at tackling areally difficult problem — that is, the increasingpremiums in respect to public liability insurance. I alsoindicate that the National Party is having a go at thisissue as well. We have already given notice in the otherhouse that we seek leave to bring in a bill to protectvolunteers from civil liability for damages. That bill, ifthe government allows it, will be second read this weekand debated next week, if the government wants toallow it.

In stark contrast to what the government is doing, theLiberal Party and the National Party are having a go attackling this serious problem. The government has beendragged kicking, screaming and scratching to the altarto try to address this particular problem.

It has not put in place any initiatives on its ownaccount. I heard the Minister for Finance on the radioyesterday claiming that the government has taken amajor step forward in conjunction with the MunicipalAssociation of Victoria which has proposed a schemewhereby some community groups can get cheaperpublic liability insurance. The people of Victoria shouldknow that that scheme has been in place since the startof the month and it was an initiative of the MAV, not ofthe government, and here we have the government, atthe last hour and because of the pressure being put uponit by the Liberal and National parties with theirrespective private members bills, trying to claim somesort of credit for an MAV initiative — to jump on thebandwagon, as the Honourable Graeme Stoney said. AsI said, the Liberal Party and the National Party arehaving a red-hot go at this issue and it is thegovernment that is sitting on its hands.

I also make the point that even the New South WalesLabor government is having a go at this as well, and Iheard the Premier of New South Wales, the HonourableBob Carr, also in the media yesterday saying hisgovernment was trying to tackle the rising publicliability issue, unlike this Victorian Labor government.Nobody denies that this is not an easy problem toresolve. We also say that legislation to address thismatter is necessarily going to be complicated and willrequire a lot of thought and perhaps refinement fromthe first go that we have at it. Neither the Liberal Partynor the National Party claims to have all the answers inrespect to this. Quite frankly I do not think thislegislation is perfect. There are things that need to beaddressed in that way but rather than address them inthe negative way that the Honourable Jenny Mikakoshas, we in the National Party intend to put our views



and suggestions in a very positive way and trust that allparties will take on board our constructive suggestionsand deal with those matters during the passage of thebill between houses.

Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. to 2.02 p.m.

Hon. P. R. HALL — Before the luncheon break Iwas outlining the great difficulties everybody is havingin addressing this problem of increasing premiums forpublic liability insurance. I complimented theopposition on its efforts in trying to tackle the problemwith this bill, and I also recognised the efforts of theNational Party in introducing in another place its billwhich addresses another sector of our community thatis facing problems with rising premiums for publicliability insurance. I made the comment that I do notbelieve we have found the ideal solution, and I was juststarting to say that this bill is not perfect in every way atall. In the rest of my contribution I intend to point outexactly what the National Party thinks and pass onthose comments for the opposition to consider while thebill is between houses.

First of all I can indicate that the National Party is goingto support this bill and will oppose the reasonedamendment. I will explain why we are opposing theamendment later in my contribution. We will supportthe bill, even though we do not think it is perfect andthat it needs to be refined in some regard. In thiscontribution I will outline some of the concerns wehave and make some suggestions in a positive way as tohow the bill may be improved. Unlike the previousspeaker from the government, those suggestions will beput positively with no direct criticism of the oppositionfor putting this forward, particularly since I started mycontribution by commending the opposition for havinga go at tackling this very tough problem.

From the outset it is hoped that the ultimate flow-oneffect of this bill will be to reduce public liabilityinsurance premiums for businesses involved inadventure tourism activities. That is the hope ofeverybody with regard to this bill. The great difficultywith any such legislation is that this outcome cannot beguaranteed; the insurance companies need to pass onthe reduced risk of claims in the form of lowerpremiums. It would be nice to have the insurancecompanies commit to these but, unfortunately, at thispoint of time — and it does not matter whether itconcerns adventure tourism or any other communityorganisation — the insurance industry has beenreluctant to commit to passing on lower premiums, sowe all have a challenge there.

To ensure that lower premiums are in fact passed on topeople in adventure tourism and or other businesseswhich might be the subject of similar legislation, I takeon board the comments that I heard on the radioyesterday made by the Premier of New South Wales,the Honourable Bob Carr, that perhaps there is a rolefor the Australian Competition and ConsumerCommission (ACCC) in monitoring the impact oflegislative change such as this on insurance premiums.

There is some sense in that. We need a watchdog toensure that the efforts being made by variousgovernments and political parties around the countrythrough the introduction of legislation achieve whatthey set out to achieve. In that regard it may beappropriate to consider using the ACCC as a watchdog.No doubt pressure needs to be applied to insurancecompanies. We cannot let them off the hook; we cannotfind a solution by ourselves. We seek a commitmentfrom insurance companies to work with governmentsand political parties right across the country in assistingto resolve this very serious problem. That being said, Iturn to the bill.

Essentially the bill does two things: firstly, it puts inplace an extensive system of government regulation ofadventure activity operators through an approvalprocess, as set out in part 2 of the bill. Activities arelimited to those described in the schedule attached tothe bill. Secondly, part 3 of the bill sets out themechanisms for actions for damages on the part ofthose suffering injury or death, based broadly aroundthe Transport Accident Commission (TAC) model.

I will make a couple of comments on some of thoseaspects. Although the National Party does not oppose it,it has some trepidation about the government becominga regulator of adventure tourism activities. There issome potential for the government to play a heavy handand put onerous requirements on businesses seekingapproval. Indeed, it is the minister who has that ultimatesanction of whether to grant an approval or not. Weplead with the minister to show a great deal ofcommonsense in approaching this matter and indrawing up the regulations associated with the approvalaspect. The minister must not place tasks that are tooonerous or levies that are too high on tourism activitybusinesses, thus making the requirements impossiblefor them to achieve. The National Party has someconcerns about the government becoming a regulator.Nevertheless, if this is the only solution that can befound we see it as a necessary step.

As an example of our concerns about this matter I turnto clause 9(3)(c) of the bill. Clause 9 sets out theprocess and the issues a minister needs to take into



account when considering approval or otherwise of abusiness. Clause 9(3) states:

(3) In determining whether it is appropriate to grant a personan Operator approval, the Minister shall have regard tothe following matters —

and it sets out a number of matters. Subclause (c) setsout the following matters:

(c) whether the proposed adventure activity involvesinherent risk of injury to the participant in respectof, but not limited to —

(i) the forces of nature; and

(ii) the behaviour of animals; and

(iii) the terrain, location or environment in whichthe activity is to be conducted; and

(iv) the physical ability of the participant; and

(v) the equipment to be used by the participant —

and it then sets out a number of other criteria.

The problem is that one set of criteria does not fit all;individuals are all different. While the criteria listedmay be reasonable for a person of average age andfitness, they may not be reasonable and the inherent riskmay be higher for younger people, older people orpeople with disabilities. The minister will have somedifficulty with it and will need to use a great deal ofsubjective judgment in deciding whether particulartourism activities can fit the criteria or are to be givenapproval with restrictions on the types of people whocan meet the approval criteria and participate in anactivity. The minister will need to use subjectivejudgment, and we can see some difficulties and perhapssome delays in the assessment of the criteria forapproval.

Clause 9(7)(b) is another area that the parties shouldconsider when the bill is between houses to see if somerefinement is needed. It sets out that an approval, oncegiven, is for five years and five years only. It seems thebill contains no mechanism to make any interimassessments of whether an operator continues to meetthe approval criteria during the course of those fiveyears. I contrast that with the Workcover system whereWorksafe inspectors are consistently on site monitoringthe process and ensuring that appropriate notices aregiven where necessary. I believe consideration shouldbe given to ensuring that some performance assessmentmechanism is in the legislation so that operators whoare given five-year licences continue to meet the criteriafor that entire period.

I turn to part 3 of the bill, which deals with damages inrespect of death or serious injury. I wish to raise acouple of issues for consideration of the parties whenthe bill is between houses. I will do so not with a greatdeal of criticism because I respect that the opposition ishaving a real go at putting this in place. However somethought needs to be given to some of these other issues.

Firstly I refer to clause 14, which provides that anyperson seeking damages for injuries suffered during anadventure activity must comply with the provisions ofthis part. In other words, the days of writing a letter ornegotiating early and getting rid of a claim are gone.Anybody who wants to have a go will need to gothrough the protracted process set out under this part.The National Party believes that where an injury hasbeen suffered there should be a mechanism by whichthe matter can be resolved without having to go to thecourts and having to seek a certificate of serious injury.We believe the bill would be improved if it containedsome mechanism to resolve claims before they got tothe court process, just as there is under the Workcoversystem.

I will also talk about the requirement to obtain a seriousinjury certificate. Compensation can be gained if aperson reaches the status of being seriously injured.Basically the definition of ‘serious injury’ is thatprovided in the Transport Accident Commission Act.The bill sets out that approvals for serious injuriescertificates are to be provided either by the operator orthe insurer. We believe there is a valid argument forsomebody other than the operator or the insurer to beable to provide a certificate for serious injury. After all,it is an extremely onerous task, and an operator may nothave the knowledge to determine whether the criteriafor a certificate of serious injury are met, and theinsurer may be reluctant to do so. Insurers want toprotect their funds, and we know from other experiencethat insurers are not always willing to accede togranting certificates of serious injury. Although theTAC is also subject to criticism in this regard, at least itcan be seen in part to be independent of the operatorand of the insurer in granting serious injury certificates.The alternative is that if you cannot get a serious injurycertificate you can go to a court to get it, but that can bea difficult task.

I also want to comment on the position set out in thesecond-reading speech that it is possible for a client toobtain at the gate a personal insurance policy whichwill provide levels of benefit up to nominal degrees.

However, cheap insurance policies — if that is whatthey are intended to be: reasonably cheap, affordableinsurance policies — of course do not carry great



coverage. It might be insurance for a couple of weeksof lost employment or for coverage of minor medicalcosts, but there is a big gap between what might becovered under a $10 personal accident liabilityinsurance as opposed to what one may get under aserious injury category. The National Party does nothave an easy answer to that but it is something we needto think about as the bill proceeds between the houses.

The bill provides through clause 16 that if the operatoror insurer refuses to provide a serious injury certificate,then the person can go to court to seek such acertificate. The bill does not nominate which court is tohear the matter. The National Party believes that itneeds to be better defined as to which court a personwho is injured can go to.

I want to make a brief comment about mention that wasmade of the Trade Practices Act. I am not a lawyer andI certainly do not profess to be full bottle on this issue,but I suggest there are some issues which theopposition, as the mover of the bill, might perhaps liketo respond to and give us some assurance that the TradePractices Act does not limit the effects of this bill. Ihope that will be covered in future contributions.

It has been suggested to the National Party that it islikely that only adventure tourism operators notoperating as a company would have the benefit of thisact, whereas those operating as a corporation are caughtby the provisions of section 74 of the Trade PracticesAct. I am not saying that that is certain, but members ofthe National Party would welcome some comment onthat from the opposition. We are aware that there hasbeen no higher court decision on such matters and it hasnever really been tested in the courts to date. I justmake those comments as a note of warning. It issomething that needs to be considered and taken onboard as the bill progresses through Parliament.

There are a couple of points that the National Partyoffers for potential amendment, and they are toclauses 9(2) and 11(4). Both those clauses requireamendment. Both are concerned with the 28-day periodnominated whereby, in one case, a certificate ofapproval is either granted or refused and, in the othercase, there is a variation.

In the case of clause 9, it is an approval. If it is notgranted or refused within the 28 days, what happens toit? The bill does not make clear the status of thatapproval. If the minister has not responded in 28 daysto the application for approval, is that approvaltherefore automatically granted or is it automaticallyrefused or does it sit in limbo? We are not sure and wedo not consider that the bill makes that clear. That is

also the case with clause 11: is the variation granted,refused, or does it sit in limbo? We have those concernsand there needs to be clarification in the act.

That is an outline of some of the concerns of membersof the National Party in respect to the bill. As I said, inno way do we raise them as direct criticism. As I saidright from the outset, we believe it is great that thelegislation is in here and that the opposition is having ago at tackling this very serious problem of increasingpublic liability insurance premiums. It is a sad fact oflife that now many of our community groups havealready hit the wall and made the decision to pull out oftheir activities because of the increasing costs of publicliability insurance. Governments and all political partiesshould be making every effort to try to resolve theproblem.

As I also said at the outset, the Victorian governmenthas sat on its hands for too long, and pressure is beingapplied by the Liberal and National parties. We havesuggested a number of things that could and should bedone to address public liability premium increases butthe government has not acted on them at all. It is onlywith insistence from the opposition parties that we areat last seeing some action.

I understand there is a national summit tomorrow to tryto look at the issue of public liability insurance, and Ihope that there will be a resolution and some outcomesfrom that. Perhaps there will be outcomes which cancontribute to making this a better bill.

The reasoned amendment is not necessary. The passageof any legislation is considered while it is betweenhouses; it has to be discussed by both houses ofParliament, and today’s is the first debate we have hadon the bill. We hope some suggestions will be taken onboard by the opposition and that the bill can be refinedand improved in some way. The National Party hasoffered those suggestions with a genuine sense ofgoodwill to try to make the bill better. It is worthpersisting with and there is no logical reason forwithdrawing the bill now and letting the governmentoff the hook.

The National and Liberal parties will keep the pressureon this government until it has done everything it can toassist our community groups to tackle this very seriousproblem. Members of the National Party do not supportthe reasoned amendment. We commend the LiberalParty for having a go with the bill in respect to thisissue as it affects adventure tourism operators, and indue course I expect the Liberal Party to support theNational Party in its endeavours to protect communityvolunteer groups as well. Together we can do it, but if



we have divisions between oppositions andgovernments then it will make this problem particularlyhard.

I call on the government to work with the Liberal andNational parties to try to resolve these particular issues.This is the first of a number of areas, on adventuretourism activities, and we hope resolution on this veryimportant matter can be reached.

Hon. E. G. STONEY (Central Highlands) —Before I make my contribution I need to make a coupleof things perfectly clear because of my family’sinvolvement in adventure tourism activities. I hold astandard business liability insurance on my house andfarm. My broker tells me this is a form of publicliability insurance, and I just need to make that clear. Ithas nothing to do with adventure tourism as such. Myfamily holds a licence and public liability insurance ontheir adventure tourism activities, and they have beenaffected by this crisis. However, they will not beaffected for long because on Saturday they are having amonster clearing sale and they will be selling thehorses, vehicles, camp ovens and everything that goeswith such a company, including the camp-out gear. The20-year-old company will be wound up.

It is the end of a company that was formed by me andtwo friends in about 1981 or 1982. We offeredbackcountry skiing, fishing and four-wheel driving.Later my son bought into the company and we decidedto include and concentrate on horses. When I got intoParliament I sold my shares in the company to mychildren, and I have no financial interest in thecompany. After Saturday, the company will be closed.

I would like to make a few points about thecontribution of the Honourable Jenny Mikakos and justbring the house up to date with where we are with thebill and what we are trying to do. As Mr Hall said, weare trying to have a go, as is the National Party. Icongratulate Mr Hall and thank him for his support andhis constructive and helpful comments. While the bill isbetween houses, we look forward to you, Mr Hall,assisting us to hopefully get the bill through and to theGovernor for assent.

The points I want to make are as follows: firstly, thegovernment had the bill before Easter but it was givento us a bit later; secondly, we waited; thirdly, thegovernment made no response; fourthly, the clock wasticking; and fifthly, it became evident that we had to actto protect the industry.

The bill has to be passed in this chamber today so it cango to the lower house next week if it is to become law

this financial year. We had no idea what thegovernment was thinking. We heard rumours — therewere a lot of rumours about. We heard that thegovernment was bringing in its own bill; we heard thatthe government was going to defeat our bill; we heardthe government was going to support our bill; and weheard that the government does not know what to do.Well, that is true.

We learnt that the government would like another stateto go first. We heard that the Minister for Finance likesour bill, that the Premier likes our bill but that theAttorney-General hates our bill. We heard that theAttorney-General hates the bill because the plaintifflawyers hate it, so honourable members can draw theirown conclusions from that.

We did not know what the government was doing. I didnot know until I received a letter at 11.25 a.m. todayaddressed to Mr Forwood. The letter asks theopposition to pull the bill. In the normal course ofopposition business we would have been well into thedebate on this bill prior to receiving the letter. It just sohappened that another opposition matter held up debateon this bill, otherwise we would have been debating itwhen the letter arrived. That is not a good thing and iscertainly not helpful or constructive, and it certainly isnot assisting the industry in a bipartisan way. The letterarrived too late for the opposition parties to give areasoned, balanced, accurate or thoughtful response. Inthe light of that we suggest that the bill be passed todayand next week, while it is between houses, we all sitdown and in a bipartisan manner thrash out where thegovernment and the National Party can add weight toour bill. We may ask Peter Clark, in light of the debatetoday, to give some more advice as to how we canimprove the bill. I point out that it has to happen bynext week.

Hon. M. M. Gould interjected.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — If we support the reasonedamendment the bill will be buried and nothing willhappen until the spring sitting. You know it and I knowit.

The Honourable Jenny Mikakos proved today that it isa lot easier to tear down someone else’s constructivework than put forward something constructive of one’sown. The government has seriously offended theMansfield task force, the tourism industry, the seniorcounsel, Peter Clark — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — And me.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Mr Forwood was seriouslyupset earlier and bounced out of the chamber like a



two-year-old! The government has proved today that itdoes not know what to do to assist with the bill. It doesnot know what to do and is waiting for other states andthe federal government to show a lead tomorrow so thatthere is some light at the end of the tunnel.

The Honourable Jenny Mikakos said that the bill doesnot offer a workable solution and that it has seriousdrafting problems and serious faults. She mentioned thework the honourable member for Benalla in the otherplace has done on this issue. A lot of politicians on allsides of politics have done a lot of work on this bill forno glory or political kudos, but only to achieve anoutcome. If Ms Mikakos had a bipartisan approach tothis issue she would have said that everyone in theParliament says they are trying to help the industry, butonly some are actually doing something about it. Ibelieve the briefing note has got it right. The briefingnote was attached to the letter from the Minister forFinance to Mr Forwood, the Leader of the Oppositionin this place. It states:

Sensibly, policy is set before the legislation is drafted.Drafting the legislation before policy achieves little — otherthan perhaps to put pressure on the government to react.

They got that right. The government has had a plan forfour months, and has had the bill for two months. It didnot suggest any alternatives today. Ms Mikakos said thegovernment wants actuarial evidence and advice. Ipoint out that the government has its own advice. Theopposition has its own verbal advice, which I willaddress. We had and still have some written advicefrom the insurance industry, and the governmentheavied the company that provided the advice and itwas withdrawn. By agreement the opposition decidednot to produce that advice, yet Ms Mikakos whacked usfor not having advice. That is not helpful; it is appallingbehaviour.

As I said earlier, the opposition received a letter fromthe Minister for Finance addressed to Mr Forwood,which I was handed at 11.25 a.m. It states:

I refer to your letter of 21 May 2002 regarding the AdventureActivities Protection Bill that was second read in the Councillast week.

The letter went on to ask us to withdraw the bill.

In a letter to the minister dated 21 May Mr Forwoodsaid:

I write seeking the government’s assistance with the handling,and hopefully passage, of the Adventure Activities ProtectionBill 2002, which was second read in the Council last week.

This is the critical part of Mr Forwood’s letter:

I realise that this bill can only be dealt with this session withthe active participation of the government.

To my mind this matter is purely about outcomes. TheLiberal Party would be delighted to work with you urgentlyon this current bill, or something similar, in an effort toachieve the best possible outcome for the adventure tourismindustry and the regions in which it operates.

Mr Forwood sent that letter to the Minister for Financeon 21 May 2002. This morning when I got to work,which was early, as is always the case, I found that theAustralian Financial Review had had a leak about whatmay happen tomorrow. I was heartened by the report ofthe leak and the thrust of what may happen tomorrow,because it is in line with the bill being debated today.

The paper’s report on this issue, headed ‘Plan to blockinsurance claims’, states:

If approved by tomorrow’s summit meeting of state andfederal ministers in Melbourne, the scheme would introduce anational accreditation system for inherently risky activitiesthat would allow registered organisations to escape liability atcommon law for killing or injuring people as a result ofbreaching the normal law of negligence.

That is very much our scheme. Our bill is industryspecific. It is designed by the industry for an industry incrisis. It can stand alone. Anything else done withcommunity groups and volunteers can fit around thebill. We are happy to include other ideas agreed totomorrow at the national meeting in Melbourne. I hopethat takes place while the bill is between houses.

Last Saturday night I went down to the family campfire where we stood around with 50 or so guests. It wasa frosty night and the moon was blazing. In the highcountry you can read a book by the moon. It was a verysubdued night. Normally there are jokes, a guitar andsinging, and people really enjoy the evening. OnSaturday night there was none of that — people weresubdued because they knew it was the last campfire andthat on Sunday morning they would be getting on thehorses and riding out of the high country forever andthe horses would be going under the auctioneer’shammer. That business is gone; 60 other businessesthroughout Victoria are gone. By 30 June a further300 businesses will have to reapply for their premiums.

Mansfield, Bright and towns in the electorate of theHonourable Philip Davis and the Honourable Peter Hallrely on the image of the mountain cattlemen. They relyon the image of the outdoors, for rafting, rock climbingand other outdoor pursuits that the adventure activitiesprovide. The image of the horse and the horseman isone of those strong, evocative images for people whomay even just come to the Merrijig pub to rubshoulders with someone in a hat and may never ride a



horse because it is lovely to know the opportunity isthere. It is a bit like the Wilderness Shop — no one evergoes into it, but it is lovely to know it is there.Mansfield, Gippsland and the north-east rely on thatevocative image of the horseman, the cattlemen and thehat.

Hon. P. R. Hall — And the tradition.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Yes, and the tradition.That is what attracts people to the area. We are indanger of losing all that. I have to say in case thegovernment thinks we are blaming it, that we are not.This crisis is not the fault of the government, but it isthe government’s fault that it has not reacted quicklyenough. It has been given several good ideas bymembers of the National Party, the Liberal Party, theMansfield task force and the honourable member forBox Hill in the other place, who put up a good ideaabout insurance and how the government could assistpeople in community groups and other users of Crownland.

I regret that in this case the government is a follower; itis not a leader. With this bill there is a chance to redeemitself, to get on board, and we will all go forwardtogether to achieve an outcome.

As I said earlier, members of the opposition wanted thegovernment to pick up the bill from the Mansfield taskforce. We wanted to sit back and let the governmenthave the glory, let the government work with theindustry and achieve an outcome. We waited and wentcarefully through all our processes. We put thedocument under the scrutiny of our party. We appliedthe blowtorch to this bill. We really gave it theonce-over because we were waiting for thegovernment. We had two sessions with Peter Clark, SC,and the task force, and we really put the blowtorch tothe philosophy behind the bill. It withstood every testwe gave it.

I pay tribute to the chairman of the Mansfield taskforce, Mr Sandy Tod, the Shire of Delatite, themembers of the task force and especially to the learned,clever and articulate Peter Clark, SC. The work done bythe group is first rate. It has created a bill which canchange the culture and the way Australians think, andwe are very happy to build on that proposed legislationwhile the bill is between houses. We are open to allsuggestions, the only proviso being that the industry ishappy with the additions.

The bill encourages people to take responsibility fortheir own actions. It recognises that if a personvoluntarily pays money to go on a scheduled adventure,

that person assumes some of the risk for that activity.The important thing is that if a person is seriouslyinjured they are covered. The operators’ insurancecovers them in exactly the same way as it does now.Under this bill if people want full protection, as somedo even for minor injuries, the operator is able toprovide that insurance at the farm gate. You could likenit to the way people take out insurance on a hire carbefore they drive the car — they pay so much a day.

We know the bill is not the answer to every publicliability problem. It specifically assists adventure andeducational activities and adventure tour operators. I ammost pleased that it picks up pony clubs because of theeducational aspect.

The bill had its genesis in a document prepared by theMansfield task force. The document is called ‘TheMansfield proposal: public liability insurance crisis,seeking solutions’, and the executive summary states:

The Mansfield public liability task force was created todevelop and assist with implementing a strategy to arrest theunsustainable increases in insurance premiums thatbusinesses are being forced to pay or close down.

Success or otherwise hinges on state government passingcomplementing legislation. This would then formalise theplatforms on which collective initiatives could be enacted.

By the look of it the government will not play ball, andafter the contribution today by the Honourable JennyMikakos I am very depressed about the future of thebill.

As I said, the Mansfield task force and Peter Clark, SC,produced this bill. I have said before and I will sayagain: if there are genuine deficiencies, tell us. Let uswork together.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — I just told you!

Hon. E. G. STONEY — I have to say the critiqueand reasons for adding to the bill or deferring the billwould have to be much better than those expressedtoday.

Hon. P. R. Hall — We can work together as long asyou do it my way!

Hon. E. G. STONEY — That is correct. ‘Do it myway or not at all’, and ‘I did not think of it, so I do notlike it’.

I make a plea to the government: please do not cut theguts out of the bill. Please do not play politics. Let usget on and do it while the proposed legislation isbetween the houses. We only have one week left. Iassume that next Wednesday in the other place if the



bill does not go through and become law it sinks untilthe spring, and with it probably 300 businesses.

This is about saving the economic fabric of ruralVictoria. As we said before, time is not on our side, andthe Victorian Tourism Operators Association reportsthat 60 operators have gone and another 300 will go.

The Parliament should embrace the bill and throw itsweight behind it. It is a very specific and positiveproposal. There are no other proposals around that areso specific in assisting adventure activities.

Ms Mikakos could have put up something today but thehonourable member proposed nothing except to dragdown a thoughtful and specific bill drafted not by us butby the industry. New South Wales, Queensland andWestern Australia have legislation floating around. Ouradvice is that that legislation will not assist theadventure industry because the bills are too wide andadventure activities will not benefit in the short term, ifat all, by any reduction in premiums flowing fromthem.

I again make the point that the industry asked thegovernment to bring in the bill it drafted. Members ofthe Liberal Party are proud to introduce it, and we askthe government to work with us.

The second-reading speech clearly outlines thephilosophy and lists quite a few figures that speak forthemselves. It states:

The bill is built around the principle that people voluntarilyundertaking inherently risky activities should not be able tosue for damages if something ‘minor’ goes wrong, but shouldhave unfettered rights in cases of serious injury.

This is the basic premise of the bill: that if it is a seriousinjury it is the same as it is now and people haveabsolute access to the full weight of the law.

The second-reading speech goes to outline the claimshistories, showing that 81 per cent of the claims areminor — less than $50 000 — but that 87 per cent ofthe dollar value of claims is absorbed by this 81 percent of claims. It talks about actuarial advice and Ithink, as has been mentioned by other speakers, that thekey part of the bill is the power given to the Ministerfor Tourism to approve every adventure operator. Theminister can delegate a peak body to put in place anaccreditation process. I take on board Mr Hall’sconcerns about the minister having too many powersand having a draconian set of rules for adventureoperators — a very valid point, and I venture to say thata minister in this government especially might do sucha thing, not understanding business as this governmentdoes not.

The second-reading speech refers to the accreditationprocess that the minister can delegate to a peak body,and says:

Obviously, the accreditation and approval process must berigorous to ensure that appropriate safety regimes are in place,staff possess the appropriate experience, training andqualifications and that risk management issues have beenaddressed.

I think that is very important. It also refers to minor andserious injuries, and further states, referring to the bill:

Part 3, damages in respect of death or serious injury, adoptsthe TAC model as to the entitlement of a participant torecover damages in respect of an injury suffered whilstparticipating in an approved adventure activity.

It then goes on to talk about how the court can giveleave for proceedings if the injury is serious. This isquite important, and I refer to Ms Mikakos’s commentabout serious injury and the debate about whether theloss of an eye is a serious injury. According to the bill,‘serious injury’ means:

(a) a serious long-term impairment or loss of a bodyfunction

I am advised that the loss of an eye or a leg comesunder the heading of a serious injury, so I could notquite pick up Ms Mikakos’s argument. I just could notfollow it because, I think point 6 of the letter from theMinister for Finance is just plainly wrong. Thedefinition of ‘serious injury’ in the bill continues:

(b) permanent serious disfigurement; or

(c) severe long-term mental or severe long-termbehavioural disturbance or disorder; or

(d) loss of a foetus.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that allthe provisions of this Part contain matters that aresubstantive law and are not procedural in nature.

So the fundamental philosophy behind this bill is thatvoluntary participants in activities which have aninherent risk of injury should bear the burden of aminor injury but should certainly be entitled to claimwhen injury is serious.

I would like to explain — and I have tried to put it insimple terms — what the bill means, to try to allaysome of the concerns of the government and explain topeople everywhere what this means. It is reallyimportant, when you have a bill like this, to try toreduce it to simple terms, firstly so the public canunderstand it, and quite frankly so I can understand it,so I have attempted to put this in simple terms.



This is the way the process will work under our bill: if aclient of an adventure activity operator is injured theywill seek medical attention in the same way as if theywere ill. If they had taken out personal accidentinsurance at the farm gate, they would then make aclaim for out-of-pocket expenses and anything else thatpolicy covered. If the client wanted to make a claim forcompensation, they would probably consult asolicitor — this is what happens now. If the solicitor,after consultation with the client, thought the injury wasserious, the solicitor would write a letter of demand tothe operator.

The operator would forward the letter to the insurer andthe matter would be dealt with in exactly the same wayit is dealt with now. The client’s solicitor would thenmake an application to the insurer for a determinationas to the degree of the impairment suffered. If theimpairment is assessed at 30 per cent, then the injury isdeemed to be a serious injury and the client can bringproceedings claiming damages for compensation for alltheir out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and so on.

This is the critical matter: if the insurer determines thatthe level of impairment is less than 30 per cent and theclient is unhappy, the client can go to court for leave tobring proceedings, and the court will decide whetherthe client can bring proceedings and that the injury is aserious one.

The only question that remains is: will all this reducepublic liability insurance? Ms Mikakos was almostoffensive in her comments about the work theMansfield task force has done, given that it is acommunity group and does not have the resources ofgovernment. She criticised the task force for notobtaining written actuarial advice.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — You brought this bill intothe house, you put out a second-reading speech andmade all sorts of claims. Where is your justification?We are still waiting for your actuarial advice.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — You are waiting for theactuarial advice? You have not been prepared toprovide actuarial advice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Throughthe Chair, Mr Stoney.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — The government has notoffered to pay for any advice. The government isseriously criticising a community group and an industrythat are trying to put a proposition and have been givenverbal advice.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — I did not criticise thegroup; I criticised you.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Coupled with that, theMansfield task force received a letter from the industryand the government heavied it into withdrawing itscomments. I think that is an appalling situation, and thegovernment then criticises the Mansfield task force andthe industry for not providing advice. The governmentcould have used its money and got that advice. That isan appalling approach to a very important problem.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — We are working with thetask force to get a solution. This is a political stunt.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Actuaries verbally advisedthe Mansfield task force that the acceptance of, say, thefirst $50 000 of risk would serve to reduce premiumlevels. No written calculations were commissionedbecause of a lack of money. The actuaries providedverbal opinions at no charge. Their calculations revealthe probability of future claims being reduced in therange of zero to 50 per cent — in other words, this billcould result in breaking the increase spiral and reducingpremiums by up to 50 per cent.

I say again that the government could easily havecommissioned actuaries to provide a written opinion,and I am happy to provide the names of those actuaries.I admit, and everybody knows, that it is up to theinsurance companies to reduce their premiums, butthere is a strong belief that commercial principles willapply. If one insurer does not pick up the opportunitythat is presented by the bill it is strongly believed, andthe industry advice is, that a commercial opportunitywill exist and another insurer will pick it up.

Today there has been discussion about the bill and theTrade Practices Act. I think Mr Hall mentioned it,which I missed, but certainly Ms Mikakos mentioned it.I make it clear, and I have advice to this effect, that theTrade Practices Act does not require amendmentbecause the participant retains the right to sue forbreach of contract. They cannot recover damages forpersonal injury unless they are assessed as seriouslyinjured. The principle of transfer of acceptance of riskis supported by the Insurance Council of Australia asone means of reducing the spiralling costs of insurance.

I have an example where a company has assumed someof the risk. It is demonstrated by one large Mansfieldoperator, whom I will not name. The operator assumedan additional $30 000 risk as excess, which is exactlywhat the bill contemplates, and the premium wasreduced from $590 000 to $290 000, a reduction of$300 000, which is more than 50 per cent. There could



be no clearer demonstration to put your mind at restabout what we are saying than that example.

It is heartening to see the support of the InsuranceCouncil of Australia for the thrust of the bill. TheWeekly Times of 22 May states:

The Insurance Council of Australia has backed a LiberalParty bill that could bring insurance relief to hundreds ofhorse industry and adventure tourism operators.

Insurance Council of Australia spokesman Peter Jamvold saidthe bill was a good start on the path to reducing premiums.

‘It seriously looks at costs and how to reduce them by passingthe risk from operators to participants’, Mr Jamvold said.

I make the point, although anecdotally, while talkingabout insurance companies — and this is the time tomake it — that it is common knowledge that mostinsurance companies try to quickly get rid of smallclaims. They find it easier and cheaper to pay up ratherthan fight. There are many anecdotes in the adventuretourism industry about someone who gets slightly hurton, say, a trail ride. They go home, speak to theirsolicitor, the solicitor writes a letter of demand, nothinghappens for a couple of months, and $20 000 arrives inthe mail. This might be a good business decision for anindividual case, but, given the large number of smallclaims, this practice has probably sown the seeds withinthe insurance industry that we are reaping today.

Individually it may be good business practice, but wecannot prove it because we cannot get to see theinsurance companies’ books and the figures to give usthe overall picture, but there is a strong suspicion thatby paying out on small claims without challengingthem and without taking each one to court the insurancecompanies sowed the seeds of what we are faced withtoday.

I have been talking about Mansfield a lot, so I thought Iwould widen the area of reaction to the Liberal Party’sintroduction of the bill, which is supported and wasdeveloped by the industry. I have a letter from Mr CyrilMarriner of Bimbi Park, Cape Otway. It is addressed tothe Honourable Bruce Chamberlain at Hamilton,Victoria, and states:

I read in the Colac Herald this week that the Liberal Party hasa bill before Parliament to limit compensation to adventuretourism activities …

I have been in the horse trail riding business for 30 years andam one of the longest surviving operators in the business …from July, no insurance is available at all.

… My business has also been accredited and I have had a riskmanagement plan.

Mr Marriner sums up the bill well when he says:

Horseriding establishments will have to have a riskmanagement plan, be inspected and accredited to prove theyare responsible operators. On the other side, patrons wishingto pursue adventure activities have to accept someresponsibility for inherent risk.

Mr Marriner refers to a rally that will take place nextSaturday throughout Australia and here in Melbourne.He says:

Next Saturday, 1 June, I and many of my supporters will bemarching to Parliament House in Melbourne … to bring toyour attention the need for legislation to curb the destructivelegal litigation in our society today.

I commend the Liberal Party for bringing forward theAdventure Activities Protection Bill and that your leadershipwill give us hope; hope that we can go forward and continueto give people the adventure they want knowing that theyhave to accept a fair measure of risk that was the norm andshould be the norm in our society today.

That letter says it all.

I am sure Mr Phil Davis, Mr Hall and many others inthis chamber could quote 100 such letters andrepresentations to their offices, and I know Mr Daviswill list some of those he has received in his area, ifthere is time. Everyone knows the problem; there is nopoint in my going on further with it and I will leave thatto other speakers. We want solutions; this bill providessolutions, and we should act on it.

I mentioned earlier the Walk for Cover rally inMelbourne on Saturday. A handout points out that it isvirtually impossible for people conducting horseactivities in Australia to get insurance. It states:

Be part of a national action plan.

Join us … on foot from Melbourne Exhibition Centre …

Saturday 1 June

11.00 a.m. — 1.00 p.m.

There is also a rally in Mansfield at 9.00 a.m. on thesame day, and I will be attending it.

Part of the campaign being pushed by the rally is a listof points people can make in letters to the HonourableSteve Bracks and the responsible federal minister,Senator Helen Coonan. The suggestions include thewords:

As my elected representative I urge you to support thepassage of the adventure activities protection bill throughParliament.

You cannot get any more specific than that.

Today’s High Country Times contains a long letterfrom Mr Jamie Beckingsale, which I do not propose to



read. It is an open letter to the Premier imploring him toshow some leadership on the problem and explore thereal issues. Mr Beckingsale supports the adventureactivities bill, but he also raises the issues of dog clubs,cricket clubs, show societies and footy clubs, and hesays the list could go on and on.

Today’s Weekly Times says that the Bracks governmentis desperately trying to find underwriters to cover theadventure, tourism and horse industries before 30 June.The Victorian Tour Operators Association (VTOA) isquoted as saying:

‘We’re trying to work with the government to find anunderwriter, but all our negotiations, so far, seem to collapseat the 11th hour’, Mr von Saldern said.

VTOA received a grant of $100 000 to develop a riskmanagement plan. The missing link is that thegovernment cannot offer a bill which is part of that riskmanagement plan. If the government had picked up thebill back in March and had it in place together with therisk management plans, the problem would almost havebeen solved today.

In conclusion, the opposition opposes the amendmentand supports the bill. I will close with a quote from themayor of the Shire of Delatite, Cr Don Cummins. TheHonourable Bill Forwood, the honourable member forBrighton in the other place and I attended a publicmeeting a couple of weeks ago to which the honourablemember for Benalla in the other place was also invitedin a bipartisan act. She chose not to attend, and we arestill expecting her apology in the mail any day!

Hon. Jenny Mikakos interjected.

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Well, Ms Mikakos, Iwould not have thrown that in except that you keptpromoting the honourable member for Benalla andignoring the fact that many people are working on thisproblem without looking for any glory at all.

At the meeting the mayor said:

We are desperate and when you are desperate you have tomove quickly. We don’t want to annoy any government buton the other hand we must have a solution.

I make a plea to the government: help us to get this billthrough both houses. It will be the first small step in alonger series of actions to sustainably rebuild theadventure tourism industry in Victoria and Australia. Iwant our children to be able to extend themselves; Iwant our children and our children’s children to learnabout adventure and adventure activities. In Australiawe take responsibility for our own destiny when thingsget really tough. I believe this is a watershed, and

unless legislators such as us bite the bullet, we aregoing to sink along with the adventure operators out inthe bush. Our children will never be able to rock climb,raft or ride a horse. They will never stand around acamp fire in the high country in the frost with the moonbeaming down so brightly that they can read a book,talking about the horse they are going to ride tomorrow.The moon will still blaze down, but there will beno-one underneath to enjoy the horses and theadventure activities, and to learn and grow from theexperiences. I support the bill.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) — Oftenwhen members of this Parliament rise to support amotion before the house in the name of bipartisanshipthey are about to dump a bucket on the other side. Iwant to start my contribution by indicating that thereare no buckets in my hand. I intend to respond to thechallenge that has been outlined. The government andopposition parties in this place should try, if at allpossible, to deal with this matter in a bipartisan fashionand satisfactorily resolve a serious concern in theVictorian community relating to public liability issuesas they affect the adventure activities industry.

I remind the house that the government shares theintention of the bill, which is to regulate thecompensation of persons who die or suffer injuryarising out of or in the course of their voluntaryparticipation in adventure activities which, by theirnature, involve inherent risk of injury to participants,particularly where the physical or environmentalchallenge or the element of risk form part of theparticipant’s enjoyment of the activity.

We are talking about the broad issue of public liabilitythat has been the concern of the Victorian andAustralian communities over the last year. To a degreeit has led to a crisis in confidence within any number ofrecreational activities in the community sector. Wehave seen a crisis with the insurance sector as a wholewhich has led to a reduction in the pursuit ofrecreational, cultural, sporting and community activitieswithin this state and across the nation.

Yes, I am very pleased to be part of a government thatrecognises the concern of the community andrecognises and applauds, where it is appropriate, theconcerns of opposition parties in this matter. We shouldwork within the spirit of bipartisanship to deliver aresult.

The government has identified difficulties in this pieceof legislation and we are moving a reasonedamendment today to say, ‘Let’s not, despite the urgencyof the need and the acute concerns in the community,



add to our set of problems by adopting a piece oflegislation that the government believes does not satisfyits very laudable objectives’. The government has beenadvised that, by the way the bill has been constructedand put together — despite the best intentions of thepeople who have contributed to its construction — itwill not achieve that result. The government is sayingthat, after careful consideration the approach it wouldlike to take is to say, ‘Hold on. We want to have anopportunity to work constructively with you to findmeans by which it can be effectively implemented inthe context of the broad public liability problems thatour community confronts’.

That is the nature of the division and that will be thetone of my contribution — nothing more, nothing less.Allegations of a do-nothing government may be hurledin my direction, but I will respond to them, if they areso made, to indicate that last year, following the demiseof the HIH Insurance scheme, the government movedto introduce a scheme in relation to domestic building.Despite the best endeavours of a number of people,including members of the National Party in particular,and the government to get a resolution on this matter,not 1 cent has yet been paid to a scheme that has beenin operation for almost a year, because there wereproblems with the interpretation of how that lawapplies. A loophole was found, which was not theintention of the government in the first instance. It ledto a series of claims that the government believesshould not have been included within the scope of thebill.

That bill has sat on the notice paper in this place formany months in terms of trying to find a resolution. Iam very pleased to say that finally we may be able tofind a resolution to this matter. That is with the bestendeavours of a number of people within this chamberto patch up a piece of legislation which was shown tohave loopholes in it. Despite the best intentions andadvice that came to the government at the time, throughbitter experience we have discovered the problems wemay have about stepping into the field of warrantiesand insurance. We are acutely concerned about theintroduction of a piece of legislation on which we havereceived advice before it has even been debated whichindicates to us that there are serious problems with itsconstruction.

Let me just briefly outline to the house the progress ofactivities that have taken place over the last few monthswithin the tourism industry, relating particularly to theadventure tourism sector within Victoria. In Februarythis year, in response to urgent concern being expressedin the community and the number of operators whowere doing it very hard because their premiums were

going through the roof and the insurance industry wasindicating it was not prepared to provide them withadequate cover, the government announced a packageof $100 000 to assist adventure tourism operators toprepare risk management strategies to make theiractivities safer for consumers and to reduce the numberand value of claims that they were subjected to andultimately contain future premium increases.

That scheme was adopted in March, when the first ofthat funding package was made available to theVictorian Tourism Operators Association to managethe program with the assistance and guidance ofTourism Victoria.

Hon. P. R. Hall — Has it worked?

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — No. The work is stillongoing, Mr Hall. We do not dispute the urgency ofthis matter. I am indicating for the public record whathas actually taken place.

Hon. P. R. Hall interjected.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — In April anorganisation was charged with the responsibility ofguiding that program. It worked extensively with thesector and the affected operators. It started to prepare,on behalf of the sector, risk management strategies rightdown to assisting operators to adopt specific riskmanagement plans. The brief through this program wasto establish programs that support the development anddelivery of training and to assist in the ongoing riskmonitoring and promotion.

These elements have not delivered the goods as yet, butthey are critical. If you bore down into the mechanics ofthe bill before the house today, you can see that unlessthey are satisfactorily achieved and in place and thatanalysis forms the basis of the contract that is signedbetween the operator and the person using the servicewhich underpins the contract, which is the basis of theinsurance scheme proposed within this bill — unless allthose things are clearly bedded down and the position isas successfully outlined within the terms of thatcontract — then claims would be unsuccessful beforethe courts. It is the capacity within the sector,particularly the capacity within the ministerialresponsibility of the Minister for Tourism, who is theresponsible minister under this proposed bill, to be ableto provide that level of expertise in the area of riskmanagement and that expertise in relation to medicalassessments which become critical.

A major deficiency of the legislation before theParliament today is what administrative arrangementsor capacity there would be within the ministerial



responsibilities of the Minister for Tourism tosuccessfully make those risk assessments andsuccessfully monitor the medical consequences ofinjury that may take place through the operation of thelegislation.

To draw a parallel in this exercise, honourable membersspent many hours in committee about the changes toWorkcover legislation. The government was subjectedto some ridicule subsequent to the committee stage ofthe Workcover legislation on the basis of those criticalmedical tests and the way they would be enforced bythe Workcover authority which has been in place formany years, has many hundreds of employees and hascapacity in this field over the best part of 20 years invarious forms of the Workcover authority. Still, interms of satisfying the opposition’s claims about howwe understood how the Workcover system wasarranged — hour after hour there was questioning byopposition parties about the mechanics of theWorkcover bill, a pre-existing organisation andoperation of significant magnitude within this state, andabout risk assessments and medical assessment.

The Minister for Tourism has no capacity to undertakethose requirements under the rubric of this piece oflegislation — none. There has been not one propositionput forward by any member of the opposition parties intheir consideration to this point in time about how thosemedical assessments would be undertaken.

We were told that serious injury — as defined under theact, which may include an injury to a person’s eye orthe loss of a leg below the knee — those things aretaken as given before the courts. That is not how theworld works. The courts will rely upon the thresholdsbeing determined through a rigorous medicalassessment.

Who does that? Unfortunately, the bill is silent on thatquestion. Fundamentally these are the major reasonswhy the government says, ‘Hang on. You need to havea look at the exposure in a legal sense of insuranceclaims, but you have to look at fundamental questionsabout risk assessment and medical assessment whichare crucial in terms of insurance claims and theirproceedings before the court’. This bill is silent onthose matters.

It is important for the proponents of this bill to be ableto indicate to the Parliament how they believe thatshould be achieved. Again, this is not to ridicule orundermine the integrity of anybody who has beenassociated with the development of this bill, but onadministering it in a way that satisfies the legalrequirements of the courts of this land its proponents

are fundamentally silent. Those are the types of issuesthe government believes need to be assessed andincorporated in the legislative regime that operates inthis field.

The take-up of future insurers has been deafening in itssilence and has been tardy, and again major alarm bellshave rung throughout this community and this sector,but nothing in the material presented by the oppositionin support of this legislation indicates that there will bean appropriate take-up. No evidence has been put onthe public record that supports the proposition that thereis a fundamental connection between the restriction ofthe threshold and the cap of claims that can be madeunder tort law. Indeed, the current Labor Premier ofNew South Wales is desperately scrambling to findsuch a connection to justify his tort law changes inrelation to public liability issues. Unfortunately forhim — and fortunately for the Leader of the NationalParty in the other place, who I understand is very aliveto this issue — he has not had the satisfaction of findingevidence to support the proposition that premiumswould fall.

Despite allegations about his tardiness, my colleaguethe Minister for Finance has played a prominent role inbringing together the relevant ministers across thevarious state jurisdictions to discuss these matters, andas soon as Thursday this week we will be convening ameeting of those ministers to address issues of publicliability across all aspects of community life. We willbe looking at the broadest possible canvas to makeadjustments to tax collection, assumption of risk,capping of payments, changes to insurance premiumlegislation, and data and tax collection. So the ministeris not baulking at any of the range of activities, but, aseven a lay person in the community would understand,the insurance sector is based on the management of riskacross a range of portfolios or activities with a variantrisk applied to different sectors.

The way in which an insurer would manage itsportfolio or finances would be to try to have anappropriate balance of high-risk and low-risk activitiesand to balance premiums across all the sectors so as toapply the lowest premium right across the board. Thatis the nature of risk management that an insurer wouldbring to bear. The difficulty the government has indealing with any one sector in advance of thatcross-sector analysis is that by achieving a desiredoutcome in one sector alone you may be prejudicing theoutcome in other sectors. You might get preferentialpremiums applying in one sector with a financialdisadvantage for premiums for other activities acrossthe risk profile of the insurer, and that is something weare particularly concerned about.



In terms of what has happened before the Parliamenttoday, from the government’s perspective it has tried toplace on the public record and in the hand of the partiesits best advice at this time and its recommendation onhow we can resolve these matters. It has been thrown atus that the notification arrived late — but it arrived —and the government wants to work as productively aspossible from here on to the conclusion of thisimportant matter.

I have briefly outlined the situation to the house andwill conclude my contribution by indicating the rangeof concerns the Minister for Finance identified in hisletter to the Honourable Bill Forwood today. Heindicates from the beginning that the Bracksgovernment appreciates the efforts of the Mansfieldpublic liability task force to seek solutions for thecurrent problems that the adventure tourism industryfaces with public liability insurance.

He goes on to say that the government would seek:

… to have the bill withdrawn to enable workable provisionsto be redrafted and incorporated into the package of measuresthe government will bring to the Parliament after this week’snational summit of governments that is attempting to get anational solution to the issues of public liability insurance.

Advice of the Victorian Government Solicitor and otherexpert commentators shows that the bill:

1. will require the relevant insurer to conduct a detailedTAC or Workcover-type impairment assessment of aclaimant. The application of an AMA impairmentassessment is a scientific and complex procedure that isnot currently undertaken by insurers. It is a test that iscapable of challenge in the courts and so requires a highdegree of expertise in its administration.

The letter goes on:

Unlike Workcover, it appears that the bill will allow AMAassessments to be reviewed by the courts, this will increasethe degree of litigation in this area not contain it.

Point 2 states:

2. does not guarantee the reduction of premiums in theshort … term.

Further, it states:

It is worth noting that Mr Ryan, Leader of the NationalParty, and Mr Carr, Premier of NSW, have had similardifficulties getting the insurance industry to attest to theactual impacts of tort and compensation reforms …

Point 3 states:

3. will have little or no effect on a whole raft of otherindustries that also face dramatically increasing publicliability insurance …

4. will impose substantial new risk mitigation andmonitoring structures for one industry (the adventuretourism industry) …

5. is vulnerable to being bypassed through Trade PracticesAct actions in the Federal Court …

It goes on to say:

Unless the commonwealth government amends relevantsections of the Trade Practices Act to match theprovisions contained within the bill, it will not have thepromised effect.

6. denies any compensation, medical, loss of earnings asgeneral damages, to persons injured through thenegligence of an operator where the injury could be asserious as: loss of vision in an eye, amputation of a legbelow the knee, hip replacement …

It concludes:

Consequently we seek to have the bill withdrawn toenable workable provisions to be redrafted andincorporated into the package of measures thegovernment will bring to the Parliament after thisweek’s national summit of governments that isattempting to get a national solution to the issues ofpublic liability insurance.

That is the offer the government has made; that is itsintention. We would like to resolve this matter asquickly as possible. On Thursday the minister isconvening a meeting of relevant ministers from otherjurisdictions across the country, where it is intendedthese issues will be worked through.

The government hopes it may address this issue with awhole-of-Parliament approach and achieve the desiredresults. I would not appreciate members continuingtheir tit-for-tat contributions about the roles of variouspeople in this argument.

Clearly the government has supported the work of theMansfield Public Liability Insurance Task Force. Asrecently as yesterday the honourable member forBenalla in the other place congratulated that task forceon its work. We support those who have workedcooperatively with the task force to find a resolution tothis matter and an appropriate legislative base that willenable insurers to be introduced into this sector and theoperators to continue to play a very positive,constructive and, in the words of Mr Stoney, enrichingrole in the life of Victorians.

I urge the chamber to agree to the reasoned amendmentto enable the government to do the substantial workrequired in order for this bill to satisfy its objective.

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I would like to enterthe debate for a short time because this is a very



important issue for small businesses. While theHonourable Gavin Jennings said that the government isdoing its best, the reality is and the record shows thatthe government has done very little. It has had a lot ofpress conferences and summits and made a lot ofannouncements and reannouncements, but it has in factdelivered very little in this area.

At the moment one of the greatest difficulties facingbusiness is accessing affordable insurance for publicliability. The public liability insurance crisis requiresurgent action to enable small businesses andcommunity organisations to continue to operate. The30 June deadline is fast approaching, and currentlythere is very little in place in Victoria. Given theurgency, the Liberal Party has taken the lead byintroducing a private member’s bill. I support the billand reject the reasoned amendment which has beenmoved. The bill will give adventure tourism businessessome certainty in the industry, show the way, andprovide some leadership — on which the Bracksgovernment is certainly way behind.

I will give some examples of how badly this situation isimpacting on small business. The Australian IndustryGroup conducted a survey of what has happened tosmall businesses hit by the insurance premiums after11 September. It found that the average industrypremiums were expected to rise by 41 per cent; smallercompanies with 25 or fewer employees faced increasesaveraging 65 per cent; 92 per cent of respondents of thesurvey reported actual or anticipated premiumincreases; 28 per cent reported increases in their policyexcesses; insurers insisted on policy exclusions for actsof terrorism; and increases were being imposed, despitethe fact that 95 per cent of companies have not madehigher claims over the past year.

The adventure tourism industry in Victoria is thehardest hit. Already over 60 businesses have closed,and the Victorian Tourism Operators Association hassaid it is essential to seek a solution as quickly aspossible because many adventure tourism operators areaffected by price rises of up to 1000 per cent for publicliability insurance. The Liberal Party has looked atfinding a way, has consulted with the people involvedat Mansfield, and has put together this piece oflegislation. It is very important to take some action, toget some debate on this issue happening and to getsomething in place.

The Adventure Activities Protection Bill recognisesthat voluntary participants in many adventure andleisure activities undertake those activities in theknowledge that there is an inherent risk of injury. Thebill provides that these participants should bear the

consequences of minor injuries while retaining the rightto seek damages where their injuries are serious. If theywish, participants would, at their own expense, be ableto take out personal accident insurance to cover anyminor injury.

The bill also adopts the Transport AccidentCommission (TAC) model as to the entitlement of aparticipant to recover damages for an injury sufferedwhile participating in an approved adventure activity. Itprovides for the court to give leave for proceedings if itis satisfied the injury is serious, even if the insurer hasrejected the claim.

While the government says how very difficult this issueis and talks about how hard it is to solve and abouthaving consultations, forums, announcements andreannouncements, New South Wales and Queenslandhave been acknowledged by the Australian FinancialReview and many other forums in the media as leadingthe way and trying to tackle this issue. This is a stateissue and states have to take responsibility for it. NewSouth Wales in particular has looked at a range ofissues, and Queensland is following the lead. However,quite frankly, the Bracks government has sat on itshands.

The government could look at a whole range of simplethings. For example, it could look at a person not beingable to sue if they were drunk or on drugs at the time aninjury was caused. It could consider the good Samaritanlegislation, which has been outlined before. Othersolutions include the plaintiff giving expert evidence upfront; costs being capped for small claims; preventingclaims from people injured in the process ofcommitting a criminal act — that is, people who hurtthemselves breaking into premises cannot claim publicliability — capping damages for loss of earnings;periodic payments rather than lump sums, and we knowthe problems with lump sums; and contributorynegligence parties being made liable only for theirpercentage of their role in causing any loss.

While New South Wales may be having trouble legallyimplementing some of the measures, it is certainlyleading the charge and having realistic discussions witha range of people in the industry.

In summary, I support this bill, reject the amendmentand call upon the government to do more than havenegotiations and put out press releases. It should get onwith the job and start doing something for businesses,because by 30 June a lot of businesses will be in a farworse situation than they are in now.



Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I am pleasedto have the opportunity to contribute to this debate,which is a very important debate, particularly for ruralVictorians but generally for the adventure tourismindustry in this state, as a matter of principle inresolving what is a growing dilemma for the whole ofthe community — that is, the increased costs of publicliability insurance. It is quite evident that a largenumber of community events, business activities andprivate activities have been impacted on by theextraordinary increase in premiums for public liabilityinsurance but, more particularly, the fact that in someinstances insurance has become totally unavailable.

What is of primary concern for me is that, far frombeing bipartisan in trying to resolve what are verycomplex matters, the government is attempting to useparliamentary procedures — that is, the moving of areasoned amendment to hold the bill over the nextsitting — to stymie, to halt, to defer and to waste timein terms of resolving at least one aspect of thisimportant public policy.

It is a reflection of the Bracks government’s generalapproach to governance in Victoria — do nothing! Ifthere is a potential excuse to do nothing, that is exactlywhat this government takes as the option. My view isthat the government is attempting, in its continuedresolute way, to frustrate the solutions to a problemwhich have been identified.

The bill is comprehensive and provides solutions to theadventure tourism market problems in relation toliability. The provisions of the bill are quite clear. Thepurpose clause states:

The purpose of this Act is to regulate the compensation ofpersons who die or suffer injury arising out of, or in thecourse of, their voluntary participation in adventure activitieswhich by their nature involve inherent risk of injury toparticipants, particularly where the physical or environmentalchallenge or the element of risk form part of the participant’senjoyment of the activity.

Personally I am of the opinion that a person who jumpsfrom a perfectly sound aircraft at several thousand feetdoes not seem to be participating in a rational act.However, I know that many people enjoy the activity ofskydiving. I do not believe it is appropriate that theperson who takes that action, being of sound mind andbody, should have some recourse to blame the personwho fuelled the aircraft or drove the plane or wasinvolved in some way in the activity that led to theperson availing themselves of the opportunity to jumpout of a perfectly sound aircraft. There areresponsibilities that individuals must take on their ownshoulders to ensure self-reliance, self-responsibility andgovernance of their own risks.

I believe it is clear that the principles established in thebill conform with the principles that have beenelucidated in today’s Australian Financial Review,which refers to the meeting of state and commonwealthgovernments that will be held tomorrow on insuranceissues. The Australian Financial Review summarisesthe proposals that will be under consideration and refersto the fact that there will be discussion about caps beingimposed on the maximum amounts of general damagespaid to injured people and the prohibition of paymentsto those whose injuries fall below a statutory threshold.That is certainly consistent with what the bill proposes.The article states:

… the scheme would introduce a national accreditationsystem for inherently risky activities that would allowregistered organisations to escape liability at common law forkilling or injuring people as a result of breaching the normallaw of negligence.

That point goes to the principle of individuals takingresponsibility for their own actions if they elect tobecome involved in an inherently risky activity.

The article goes on to state that within thesearrangements it is proposed that registeredorganisations would have to adopt risk managementstandards and programs, and in return they would begranted an automatic exemption from the normal law ofnegligence. Again that is entirely consistent with thedraft bill before the house.

The article further states:

The scheme would also abandon the push for a uniformnational response …

That is critically important. State jurisdictions wouldimpose their own solutions because quite clearly thusfar it has not been possible to develop a uniformnational response, but it is too important to wait. Why isit so important? This is where we get to the meat of thedebate. I can say to the house, as a member ofParliament representing a rural community in theGippsland region, that many small towns are highlydependent on adventure tourism activities. Towns likeNoojee, Erica, Lakes Entrance and others are verydependent on, for example, horseback safari businessesthat operate out of those towns.

There are more sedate activities in South Gippslandsuch as horse-drawn wagons from Won Wron throughthe Mullundung forest, which, although they carry alesser degree of risk, similarly have the burden of highinsurance premiums. They are activities which may inthemselves not be seen to be very high profile,notwithstanding their general attraction, but they aresignificant income generators for their local regions.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Some adventure parks have simulated activities, such asabseiling, rock climbing and so on, which have alsobeen effectively priced out of the market. Premiumshave risen from $2000 to $3000 a couple of years agoto $25 000 to $30 000. There is the example of theKinkuna Country Fun Park based at Lakes Entrance,where the public liability premium rose from $15 000to $60 000 in one year, effectively pricing that businessout of the market. The net result is that 15 casual jobsover the busy summer holiday months have been lost.The proprietors of the business, Joe and ShirleyWalters, have decided to liquidate their asset and getout because it is just too difficult to run the business.

There is much more that I would like to contribute tothis important debate, but suffice it to say that I believeit is an absolute disgrace that government membershave come into the house today and have put upreasons to do nothing when the government has donenothing for a year. Mr Stoney raised this issue in thishouse one year ago. What has the government done inthe meantime? Not a damn thing! The only thing it hasdone is come into the house today and find 101 reasonsfor again doing nothing. It is about time the Bracksgovernment got off its backside and dealt with the realissues that are impacting on rural Victorians, and it is adamn disgrace that government members will notsupport this bill.

House divided on omission (members in favour vote no):

Ayes, 27Ashman, Mr Furletti, MrAtkinson, Mr Hall, MrBaxter, Mr Hallam, MrBest, Mr Katsambanis, MrBirrell, Mr Lucas, MrBoardman, Mr Luckins, MsBowden, Mr Olexander, MrBrideson, Mr Powell, MrsCoote, Mrs Rich-Phillips, MrCover, Mr Smith, Mr K. M.Craige, Mr Smith, Ms (Teller)Davis, Mr D. McL.(Teller) Stoney, MrDavis, Mr P. R. Strong, MrForwood, Mr

Noes, 13Broad, Ms Madden, MrCarbines, Mrs Mikakos, MsDarveniza, Ms (Teller) Nguyen, MrGould, Ms Romanes, MsHadden, Ms Smith, Mr R. F.(Teller)Jennings, Mr Thomson, MsMcQuilten, Mr

PairRoss, Dr Theophanous, Mr

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Byleave, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In so doing I thank the Honourables Jenny Mikakos,Peter Hall, Graeme Stoney, Gavin Jennings, WendySmith and Philip Davis.

In thanking honourable members for their contributionsto the debate I indicate that I was grateful to receive aletter from the Minister for Finance today and I lookforward to speaking with him and the National Party tofind a way through this next week.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley) — LastSaturday I had the pleasure of attending the open day ofthe Sporting Shooters Association of Australia(Victoria) Ltd at the Springvale range, 710 DandenongRoad, Springvale. I would like to thank SebastianZiccone, the president of the association, and hismanagement committee for the invitation and tocompliment the association on its foresight indeveloping a range to promote competitive targetshooting as a legitimate sport.

In fact, the association has developed a strategic planthat will take it to the year 2006 — the year of theCommonwealth Games in Melbourne. By developingmore competition and providing more instruction in thedisciplines of shotgun, rifle and pistol shooting, it ishoped that Australia will be at the forefront of themedal tally in shooting at those games. To achieve thisit is incumbent upon government to ensure fundingflows to this sport.

During my visit I was impressed with the strict rulesand discipline displayed by the members as theyactively participated in their sport. I was impressed toowith the number of young people, the high level of

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


female participation and the fact that the SportingShooters Association of Australia welcomes andencourages people with physical disabilities. In fact, thePhysical Challenge Shooters Club utilises theSpringvale range and includes current Paralympic teammembers. It was pointed out to me that shooting is agrowing family sport, with keen competition takingplace between family members. I congratulate theSporting Shooters Association of Australia on itsachievements to date and wish it well with its futuredevelopments.

Amnesty International Australia

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — Iwould like to take this opportunity to acknowledge thework of Amnesty International Australia.

Amnesty International Australia and the Australia TibetCouncil supported the visit to Australia this month ofthe Dalai Lama. The visit was a great success withhundreds of thousands of Australians attending threepublic seminars in Melbourne, Geelong and Sydney.The special youth seminars attracted 1000 seniorstudents and 700 teachers. This is one of many goodexamples of the work of Amnesty InternationalAustralia.

The Vietnamese community and I have worked withthe organisation on many occasions to raise awarenessof human rights in Vietnam and to fight for the releaseof many religious leaders and for the freedom topractise their beliefs. Its work has helped manydissidents to be released. It is here to investigate,document, campaign and expose human rights abuses.It pressures governments to abide by theirresponsibilities under the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, which every member state of the UnitedNations has accepted and signed.

Amnesty International is involved in a wide range ofhuman rights education programs and encouragesnon-government organisations and businesses tosupport and respect human rights.

John Lockett

Hon. R. A. BEST (North Western) — I rise today topay tribute to the life of a quite extraordinary Victorian,the late John Lockett, known as Jack, who died lastSaturday night at Carshalton House in Bendigo at theage of 111.

Mr Lockett was born near Tarnagulla on 22 January1891 and spent much of his life farming property nearWalpa in the northern Mallee, an area which Mr Bishopand I represent. He served in the First World War for

1268 days, most of that service being in France. Hereturned home, and in 1923 he married Maybell, orDoll as he preferred to call her. They had 4 children,15 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, and Iknow he was much loved by them all. His family wastremendously proud of him, as he was of them. Helisted the carrying of the Olympic torch in 2000 as thehighlight of his life, and he did that at the age of 109!However, I am sure his OAM also gave him enormouspleasure and pride.

Jack Lockett will be sadly missed by the Bendigocommunity. He was a Bendigo icon, and during recentyears we celebrated his birthdays. He wore humility asa badge of honour. He was a man who did not believein fuss: just do the job, do it well, but be modest. As Isaid, he will be sadly missed by the Bendigocommunity, and I pass on my condolences to hisfamily.

Local government: funding

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —As a member of Parliament I regularly attend with mycolleagues briefings with my municipal councils, ofwhich there are currently six in EumemmerringProvince. It is the character of these briefings thatcouncils invariably ask for state members’ support toobtain additional state and commonwealth funding inorder to provide the services that ratepayers now expectof their councils; services such as kindergartens andhome and community care as well as the traditionalstaples of local roads and rubbish collection. As amember of Parliament, I am always happy to supportsuch funding requests where they are appropriate.However, it is a worrying trend that local government isputting out its hand for extra cash from state andcommonwealth governments for its core programswhile hoarding cash for the pet projects of theincumbent councillors and executive.

The City of Casey has recently requested help inobtaining more state government funding for home andcommunity care programs — a request that I am happyto support. However, at the same time it is able to senda delegation of councillors to East Timor in support ofan aid project. Foreign aid is not the role of localgovernment, and it represents a misuse of ratepayers’funds. If local government is to be credible whenseeking extra state and commonwealth funding it mustbe responsible in the way it uses its existing budget.

Clunes: film marketing strategy

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I wish to paytribute to the people of Clunes, which is where

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Victoria’s first gold is officially recorded as havingbeen discovered in June 1851. Clunes was named byDonald Cameron who took up his sheep run in 1838and named it ‘the Clunes’ after his native home inScotland. Clunes is known as Victoria’s first gold townbut it is also famous for its wide streets and intact19th-century buildings. The main Street, Fraser Street,has underground powerlines, which is another factoradding to its historic look. However, Clunes is alsofamous for the filming of the first Mad Max movie, andmore recently the ABC series Something in the Air wasalso filmed there.

Over the past few weeks Clunes has been transformed:one side of Fraser Street has been labelled Euroa andthe other side is named Jerilderie, and red sandy gravelhas been spread over the footpaths and main street all inreadiness for the commencement yesterday of thefilming of the new $30 million Ned Kelly moviestarring the famous Australian actor Heath Ledger. Thefilm’s location manager, Russell Boyd, is quoted in theHerald Sun of 25 May as having travelled8000 kilometres looking for a suitable town and sayingthat Clunes is the chosen town because of its historicmain street, buildings and also because of its filmpolicy.

Clunes has a film marketing strategy and sendsinformation packs to production companies. This is aninitiative of the Clunes Tourist and DevelopmentAssociation, and I commend the association president,Graeme Johnstone, and its members.

James Gemmell

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I want torecord the recent death at Cobram at the age of 90 yearsof Mr James W. Gemmell.

Jim Gemmell was the founding chairman of the MurrayValley Dairying and Trading Cooperative CompanyPty Ltd, which subsequently developed into the mightyMurray Goulburn dairying conglomerate, Australia’sleading dairying company. Jim Gemmell and 14 otherfarmers founded the Murray Valley co-op after ameeting at Katunga in 1949.

They were mainly returned servicemen, although JimGemmell himself was not. They have built thiscompany up to the mighty edifice it is today. JimGemmell also served for 20 years on the Cobram shire,and was president on a number of occasions. He wasalso chairman of the Murray Valley DevelopmentLeague, which of course was the predecessor to theMurray-Darling Association which now does such

good work in terms of sustainable regionaldevelopment in the Murray–Darling Basin.

Jim Gemmell was a community leader and a mentor tomany young men and women, particularly in the dairyindustry. He has been a fine citizen in northern Victoriafor many years, and he will be sadly missed.

Housing: Nunawading tenant

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I wish tobring to the house my concern about the failure of theministers of this government and of departments torespond to correspondence sent to them by people onissues that are of great concern to those people. One ofthe ones that concerns me is a public housing tenant inEastbridge Court, Nunawading, who has resided in thatproperty for some four years and who had moved seventimes in the 14 months prior to that and been homelessfor a period. Having lived in this facility for four years,she now faces the problem of not being able to ensuresecure tenancy going forward and not knowing whetheror not she can get a job. She is quite happy to paymaximum rent on this property or even to buy it fromthe department, but she is unable to find out from thedepartment, from the minister, or from my colleague inanother place the honourable member for Mitcham anyinformation on what her entitlement is at this time, orindeed, to obtain any other simple information as towhether or not that property might be available for salein the future.

This woman is trying to make a go of it; she has comeout of a difficult relationship and simply wants verysimple answers from the government, and they are notavailable.


Mount Moriac Recreation Reserve

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I wasdelighted last Friday to announce on behalf of theMinister for Sport and Recreation the allocation of$50 000 for the upgrade of the Mount MoriacRecreation Reserve.

This reserve is the home of the Modewarre football,netball and cricket clubs. Their oval has been in such aterrible condition that several matches have beenrescheduled to other grounds in the interests of playersafety. Indeed, some players have felt compelled toleave the clubs and join others.

The funding will allow Modewarre football, netball andcricket clubs to provide a safe player surface, helping toretain players and providing an opportunity to increase

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC


membership. It sends a clear message to the MountMoriac community that the Bracks governmentsupports their endeavours to keep local sport alive.Congratulations to all at Modewarre, and good luck tothe Warriors!

Stonnington: graffiti strategy

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I would liketo congratulate the Stonnington City Council on theexcellent job it has done in trying to eradicate graffitivandalism in Prahran, Windsor, Armadale, Toorak andMalvern East. Graffiti is a huge and constantlyincreasing problem in Monash Province, and it is onewhich has received much attention in local newspapers.It affects tourism in some of Melbourne’s mostprominent shopping districts — Toorak Road andChapel Street alike.

The Stonnington council has worked for some time ongraffiti management, and it had a trial which went fromNovember last year until February this year. Privateproperties were permitted two free clean-ups andcommercial properties one free clean-up. A graffitihotline was set up for ratepayers, and the council hasalso provided them with free graffiti removal kits,which contain a spray bottle, goggles, gloves et cetera.

We have also had a lot of poster problems inStonnington, with posters everywhere, and the City ofStonnington is to be commended, unlike the Bracksgovernment. Like graffiti, illegal posters denigrate thepublic places in Stonnington. The placement of illegalposters is an offence under the Summary Offences Act.The recommendations of the Scrutiny of Acts andRegulations Committee to deal with this issue havenow been sitting on the desk of the Attorney-Generalfor over six months, and the community is yet to seeany action on graffiti and posters within the City ofStonnington.

David Reynolds

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — At theEducation Week gala dinner last week, a number ofteachers, school leaders and parents were recognisedfor their commitment to building a world-class publiceducation system in Victoria.

One of Victoria’s outstanding secondary teachers,David Reynolds from Princes Hill Secondary College,was awarded the Lindsay Thompson Fellowship for2002 for his work in bringing together clusters ofprimary and secondary schoolteachers to work on awhole range of issues together.

David’s service to public education in Victoria hasextended over a long period. I know that because hetaught my oldest son when he started his secondaryeducation at Princes Hill Secondary College manyyears ago. When I spoke to David at the dinner lastweek he recalled how my son Jeremy corrected hisspelling when he first started teaching at the school. Forhis part, Jeremy recalls David as an excellent teacherwho had a great impact on him and many otherstudents.

I congratulate David Reynolds and the team of teacherswith whom he works to provide first-class teaching andcare to young people of the North Carlton area.

Gallipoli veterans

Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — I pay tribute to thelate Alec Campbell, the last of our Gallipoli veterans. I,along with an overwhelming number of Australians,was saddened by his passing. We must reflect on thepassing into history of Mr Alec Campbell and all theother Gallipoli veterans as they represent a historicalpart of our history and the make-up of who we are.Mention should also be made of the passing of Mr JackLockett, a great old fellow, and I am sure that thefamily and all Victorians mourn his passing.

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THEHELLENIC REPUBLIC

The PRESIDENT — Order! I have received thefollowing communication:

Mr President, the Legislative Assembly transmit to theLegislative Council a resolution inviting members of theLegislative Council to attend the Legislative Assemblychamber next Wednesday, 5 June, at 9.15 a.m.

The resolution adopted by the Legislative Assemblytoday was as follows:

That —

(1) The Legislative Assembly invites members of theLegislative Council to attend in the LegislativeAssembly chamber on Wednesday, 5 June 2002, at9.15 a.m. when the Speaker takes the chair to hearaddresses of welcome to His Excellency, ConstantinosStephanopoulos, President of Greece, by the Premier,Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the NationalParty and an address to the house by PresidentStephanopoulos.

(2) The lower public gallery on the opposition side of thehouse be deemed to be part of the Legislative Assemblychamber for the duration of the addresses to provideadditional accommodation for members of theLegislative Council.

TRANSPORT (FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


(3) The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall chair theaddresses and the conduct of the proceedings shall be inaccordance with the standing orders of the LegislativeAssembly.

The following arrangements will apply in relation toWednesday’s proceedings:

Members of the Council will be permitted to enter theAssembly chamber after the ringing of the Assemblybells at 9.15 a.m.

Assembly members will occupy their usual places, withCouncil members utilising any vacant spaces. Thelower public gallery in the Assembly chamber which isnormally reserved for Council members, together withthe seating immediately behind that area, will bereserved for the exclusive use of Council members toaccommodate any overflow during the proceedings.

For the duration of their attendance in the Assemblychamber Council members will be subject to theauthority of Mr Speaker and the standing orders of theAssembly.

Members of the Council will withdraw from theAssembly chamber following the addresses from thePremier, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of theNational Party and the President of Greece. This isexpected to be by 9.45 a.m.

The Council sitting will commence at 10.00 a.m.

TRANSPORT (FURTHERMISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL



Read first time for Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister forEnergy and Resources, on motion of Hon. M. M. Gould.

MAGISTRATES’ COURT (KOORI COURT)BILL

Second reading



The Magistrates’ Court (Koori Court) Bill 2002delivers on our government’s commitment to establisha Koori court pilot program for Victoria as outlined inthe Victorian Aboriginal justice agreement. This

illustrates the government’s commitment toreconciliation and developing a strong partnership withthe Victorian indigenous (Koori) communities.

The Victorian Aboriginal justice agreement is the firstsignificant negotiated initiative launched by thisgovernment which maximises Aboriginal participationin the development of policies and programs in all areasof the justice system. Our government recognises that itis not possible to address the overrepresentation ofAboriginal people in the criminal justice systemwithout also tackling the disproportionately high levelsof Aboriginal disadvantage caused by the dispossessionof traditional lands and the separation of families.

Together, this government and the broader communitymust be prepared to experiment with inclusive,innovative, culturally appropriate and modernapproaches to strategically reduce Aboriginaloverrepresentation within the criminal justice system.The Koori court represents a fundamental shift in theway in which we as a community deal with Aboriginaloffenders.

We do not pretend that the Koori court is the onlyanswer to address the alarming number of Aboriginalpeople represented within our justice system. Rather, itis one initiative of the government’s and the Aboriginalcommunity’s agreement which encompasses the areasof prevention, accessibility, effectiveness ofjustice-related services and rehabilitation. It aims toimprove the current startling statistics relating toindigenous contact with the criminal justice system inall its forms. The Koori court will complement anumber of existing and planned justice initiatives suchas:

the adult residential program;

the cultural immersion program;

mediation and dispute resolution programs;

Koori family history service and link-up;

community legal education;

improved relations between Victoria Police and theAboriginal communities; and

the increased number of indigenous bail justices.

This initiative will give a clear message to the courtsand the wider community that there is a genuinecommitment by this government to have real andmeaningful participation in the justice system by theAboriginal communities. By adopting this initiative our

MAGISTRATES’ COURT (KOORI COURT) BILL


government intends to incorporate Aboriginalknowledge, skills, values, cultural beliefs and practicesin the legal system. To do so recognises the fact thatKoori communities themselves are seeking means tohave a greater input into the manner in which theygovern their communities. This initiative recognisesthat Koori communities acknowledge the need forsanctions for unacceptable conduct and rehabilitation ina culturally appropriate fashion.

In South Australia, the Nunga court has beenoperational for over two years. Based initially in PortAdelaide, the objective of this court is similar to that ofthe Koori court. In New South Wales and Queenslandlike models have been developed. Such courts havealso been established in many overseas jurisdictionsemanating from first nations’ incorporation of theircultural beliefs and practices in the legal system. Whileindigenous courts have a number of common features,no two courts are identical.

The Victorian Koori court has been developed afterextensive analysis of the effective features ofindigenous courts both in Australia and overseas. Iemphasise that the Koori court model is unique toVictoria, encompassing the best features of existingmodels whilst still acknowledging their culturaldiversity expressed by the Victorian indigenouscommunities.

Why have a Koori court?

The key to understanding the need for a Koori court isan acceptance that historically Aboriginal offendersoften come from the most disadvantaged ofbackgrounds, and that they are often victimsthemselves. Only negotiated innovation can and willaddress this problem.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths inCustody recognised that Aboriginal Australians face amuch greater risk than the general Australianpopulation of becoming victims of violence, possiblyup to 10 times greater in the case of homicide. Further,it is estimated that Aboriginal people are 11 times morelikely than non-Aboriginal people to be placed in anadult prison and more likely to be remanded in custodythan non-Aboriginal people (23.4 per cent compared to13.8 per cent). The number of Aboriginal prisoners incustody at June 2001 has increased since 1995 by17.2 per cent.

Further, in 2000–01 Victoria Police processed 4676Aboriginal people — an increase of 1118 peoplerepresenting an increase of 31.4 per cent over fiveyears.

The opportunity to establish a Koori courtacknowledges that it is essential to incorporateAboriginal communities’ cultural beliefs and practices.It is intended to produce fair and equitable treatment forAboriginal people in the justice system. It is also anopportunity to divert Aboriginal people away fromprison where it is appropriate to do so. These aims arebest achieved through a partnership between theAboriginal community and government that reformsthe justice system, addresses the underlying causes ofcriminal activity and fosters trust, understanding andcommitment through the direct involvement andparticipation of the Aboriginal community in the justicesystem.

Community participation in the sentencing process notonly increases the participation rate of the Aboriginalcommunity within the justice system but reflects theview that input by the offender’s community is both anappropriate and potentially more effective method ofsanctioning unacceptable conduct than traditionaljudicial decision-making models have been. Indeed thecourts and the community must recognise that presentsentencing practices are doing little to reduce the rate ofoffending and that more creative uses of the sentencingprocesses are needed to enable Aboriginal communitiesto exercise greater flexibility and control oversentencing outcomes.

The Victorian Koori court will be piloted over twoyears, commencing at Shepparton with the expectationthat the metropolitan pilot site — Broadmeadows —will be operational within six months after thecommencement of the first pilot site. The selection ofthe location of pilot sites was the subject of extensiveconsultation with key stakeholders and a detailedanalysis of data and statistics was conducted, the resultsdistributed to the Aboriginal community for comment.

Accordingly, Shepparton has been chosen as the firstregional location for the Koori court due to thealarming statistics from the Shepparton region.

In addition, the contributing factor as to why this sitewas selected was the availability of services for Kooricourt participants, such as:

drug and alcohol treatment;

an indigenous women’s mentoring program;

well-developed indigenous community controlledsocial service providers such as RumbalaraAboriginal Cooperative and the Burri FamilyPreservation Service and others, all of which reflectthe commitment of these communities to resolving



difficulties which are long standing and which oftenresult in adverse interaction with law agencies; and

access to social and emotional wellbeingcounselling.

The government anticipates that the Koori court willcommence operation in Shepparton by August 2002and Broadmeadows by the end of the year.

The objective of the court is to actively include theAboriginal communities within the justice system andallow for community involvement in the sentencingprocess. Input by the offender’s community is arguablya more effective method of decision making; however,the magistrate retains the ultimate decision-makingauthority and continues to be the sentencing agent. Allsentencing dispositions are available to the courtincluding prison if this is deemed appropriate.

What is a Koori court?

In essence, the Koori court is an alternative way ofadministering sentences so that court processes aremore culturally accessible, grounded in Aboriginalcommunities’ efforts to promote rehabilitation andimpose sanctions which are acceptable andcomprehensible to the Aboriginal community. The keyemphasis is on creating an informal and accessibleatmosphere and allowing greater participation by theAboriginal community through the Koori elder orrespected person, Aboriginal justice worker, indigenousoffenders and their extended families or wide group ofconnected kin, and if desired, victims, in the court andsentencing process. It aims to reduce perceptions ofintimidation and cultural alienation experienced byAboriginal offenders.

It focuses on the individual through close collaborationwith family, community service providers and criminaljustice agencies. This partnership approach aims tomaximise rehabilitation prospects which benefits thewhole community by assisting offenders to complywith the completion of sentencing orders and whereappropriate to develop a case management plandesigned to meet the needs of the individual offender ina culturally appropriate manner. In this way theMagistrates Court considers and deals with thesentencing of Koori offenders in a more culturallyappropriate and aware manner.

How will the Koori court work?

Rather than being a new court, the Koori court is afundamentally new way of approaching and dealingwith Aboriginal offenders. The bill establishes theKoori court as a new division of the Magistrates Court.

The Koori court magistrate will be assisted by a Kooricourt team consisting of an elder or respected person,an Aboriginal justice worker, a community correctionsofficer and a police prosecutor and defence lawyer. TheAboriginal community’s participation illustrates theirwillingness to incorporate their principles of what isconsidered acceptable and not acceptable behaviour.The role of the elder/respected person is an importantpart of the model. It ensures a cultural context is appliedto the court’s processes allowing for the Koori courtparticipants to comprehend the consequences of theiroffending behaviour from both the law’s and theAboriginal community’s perspective.

The Koori court will generate new and build upon oldpartnerships between judicial officers, lawyers, lawenforcement agencies, correctional authorities,treatment providers and government departments.These organisations and individuals will need to adoptnew roles and embrace a collaborative, team-orientedapproach in working together to manage Koori courtparticipants and reduce their offending.

Another crucial element to this initiative is thedevelopment and incorporation in the process of anAboriginal community code of conduct. Concernsraised by the Aboriginal members of the regionalAboriginal justice advisory committees suggested thatthere is an underlying perception from offenders thatwhen crime is committed the law which is being brokenis the ‘mainstream law’, which does not form part ofAboriginal culture and community. The code is aboutreclaiming and redefining ‘mainstream law’ bydeveloping standards that are owned by the Kooricommunity.

The participation of the elder or respected personsymbolises that the offence is not condoned by eitherthe Aboriginal nor non-Aboriginal communities andthat any sentence imposed is done so after input andinformation provided to the magistrate by thecommunity representative, the elder or respected personin a transparent fashion in open court. In this way thesentencing process as well as the sentence ultimately iscommunity owned so when crime is committed it isagainst community standards. This elder/respectedperson will play a critical role in the effectiveness andacceptance of the Koori court initiative.

The court requires a magistrate to take into account theoffender’s Aboriginality not simply in determining thesentence to be imposed but in adopting suitableprocedures for arriving at that sentence and ensuringthat any order imposed is more likely to be compliedwith given the significant Aboriginal community



approval of the sentence as an outcome which isadopted by that community.

It is expected that successful completion of the Kooricourt program, with its supervision regime, treatmentand support services will prevent or delay the entry ofthe offender into prison.

Indication from other similar courts is that the breachrates for offenders and fail-to-appear rate of offenders isreduced. This translates into the savings in costs ofcorrectional services, savings in prosecution anddefence costs and in welfare and unemployment benefitcosts. There is also evidence of improved health andwellbeing of offenders. The non-Aboriginal communityplainly benefits from these reductions.

What does the Koori court aim to achieve?

The Koori court has several operational andcommunity-building aims. From a criminal justiceperspective, the Koori court aims to:

further the ethos of reconciliation by incorporatingAboriginal people in the process and by advancingpartnerships developed in the broad consultationprocess which has led to this initiative beingadopted;

divert Koori offenders away from imprisonment toreduce their overrepresentation in the prison system;

reduce the failure-to-appear rate at court;

decrease the rates at which court orders arebreached; and

deter crime in the community generally.

Similarly, from the community-building perspective theKoori court aims to:

increase Aboriginal community ownership of theadministration of the law;

increase positive participation in court orders and theconsequent rehabilitative goals for Koori offendersand communities;

increase accountability of the Koori communityfamilies for Koori offenders;

promote and increase Aboriginal communityawareness about community codes ofconduct/standards of behaviour and to promotesignificant and culturally appropriate outcomes; and

promote and increase community awareness aboutthe Koori court generally.

To achieve these goals, the Koori court requirescoordination of services together with the input ofcommunity resources to help offenders, victims and thecommunity to achieve successful outcomes.

Key features of the bill

I now turn to some of the key aspects of the bill.

Not all Aboriginal offenders will be suitable for theKoori court. Currently there is no specific target groupof offenders except that the offender is adult andAboriginal and would otherwise be subject to sentencesimposed by the Magistrates Court.

Individuals will be eligible to appear in the Koori courtwhere they plead guilty to offences within thejurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. At this stageoffenders will be excluded where the offencecommitted is one of crimes (family violence) or sexualoffences given the complexity of the issues and theservices required. Statistics indicate that the most likelyoffences considered by the Koori court will be propertyoffences, given that 55 per cent of the Aboriginalpeople processed in Victoria during 2000–01committed crimes against property.

It will be vital that Koori court participants reside in anarea in the vicinity of the Koori court, to enable them tobe supervised whilst on their order and to allow ease ofaccess as outlined in their order. This will facilitateparticipants’ compliance with the order and thereforereflect a decrease in the number of breaches — one ofthe clear measurables of the Koori court pilot’s success.

The bill departs from the traditional one-size-fits-allapproach to sentencing, by giving the Koori court theability to tailor programs to address offenders’behaviour and meet their complex individual needs.The Koori court’s Aboriginal justice worker and thecommunity corrections officer together will develop acase management plan for each participant which mightinclude matters such as drug and alcohol treatment, andaccommodation, if necessary. The case managementplan will assist the Koori court in determining whichprogram conditions are to be attached to each orderdetermined by the magistrate.

Conclusion

This division of the Magistrates Court has beendeveloped by long and committed consultation with theKoori community, with significant leaders in thatcommunity and with people from the grassroots. It



reflects the Aboriginal communities’ commitment toaddressing the underlying issues offenders face andcreates a greater sense of safety within the community.It provides us with an opportunity to explore ways inwhich we can reduce Aboriginal exposure to thecriminal justice system. As a program of initiatives itprovides us as a community with the capacity to make‘imprisonment the sentence of last resort’ byincorporating options for rehabilitation which will havea better chance of success. It aims to incorporate theleaders in the Koori community in decision-makingprocesses in a way which demonstrates to Kooris whocome before the courts that illegal conduct isunacceptable to the whole community. It will, as apartnership, sanction this unacceptable conduct, but itwill do so in ways which should see offending reducedand greater compliance with court orders.

The effective and appropriate resourcing of the Kooricourt is critical to its success. This is acknowledged bythis government, and we have committed funds underthe Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement for theestablishment and operation of the Koori court and itsprograms. This funding will not detract from existingprograms, rather it is additional in order to absorb theincreased demand on existing services.

The Koori court pilot will be evaluated to determinewhether it has been effective in reducing indigenouscontact with the criminal justice system, a reduced rateof recidivism is evident, and the pilot has ultimatelymade a difference. If the evaluation is successful theKoori court could be extended to further locationsthroughout Victoria.

This bill is the culmination of an extensive period ofconsultation across the justice portfolio, acrossgovernment agencies and importantly with theAboriginal community. I am pleased to say that thecommunity has expressed strong support for a Kooricourt and this innovative approach to ensuring thecourts’ processes are culturally responsive forAboriginal offenders. I would like to thank thoseindividuals and organisations who responded to thediscussion paper and who generously gave up their timefor consultation.

This government refuses to turn a blind eye to theunderlying issues that prove to be causal factorsresulting in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoplein the justice system. It is committed to trying creativeand innovative initiatives which look beyond offendingbehaviour to address its underlying causes. The Kooricourt is a bold and exciting initiative to reduce theoverrepresentation of indigenous people in our systemand its destructive effects on the Victorian community.


Debate adjourned on motion ofHon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash).


ENERGY LEGISLATION (FURTHERMISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading

For Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources), Hon. J. M. Madden (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — I move:


The bill before the house, the Energy Legislation(Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2002, isdesigned to restructure the mechanisms for appealsagainst certain decisions of the gas and electrical safetyregulators, through the transfer of such jurisdiction tothe Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(VCAT), and to further clarify the regulatoryframework for the electricity and gas industries.

By way of background, the Gas Appeals Board and theElectrical Appeals Board were established under part 4of the Gas Safety Act 1997 and part 6 of the ElectricitySafety Act 1998, respectively, to provide avenues ofappeal against certain decisions and actions of theOffice of Gas Safety and the Office of the ChiefElectrical Inspector. Regulatory decisions of the Officeof Gas Safety and the Office of the Chief ElectricalInspector that may be appealed generally relate toindustry licensing and registration, equipment andappliance approvals, the issuing of recall, improvementor prohibition notices and the issuing of specificdirections to industry participants — although somedifferences exist between the two regulatory regimes.

It is worth noting that since the formation of both theElectrical Appeals Board and the Gas Appeals Board,no appeals have been lodged under either the ElectricitySafety Act 1998 or the Gas Safety Act 1997. This maybe a function of the fact that industry participants are inmany cases well trained and have a good knowledge ofthe industry standards that they are required to apply.While this appears to have reduced the likelihood ofappeals, it has also become apparent that the continueddevotion of resources to maintaining these boards asseparate entities is not efficient, and that their functionscan be more efficiently managed through the existingVCAT structure. VCAT has the necessaryinfrastructure, processes and access to tribunal



members and technical experts to effectively manageany such appeals from the decisions of the Office ofGas Safety or the Office of the Chief ElectricalInspector.

In addition, the absence of board activity has made itincreasingly difficult to attract new members to theboards or to retain the interest of existing members. Iwould, however, like to take this opportunity to thankeach of the current and past board members for theirtime on the board and, in particular, the initial chair ofboth appeals boards, Mr John Chamberlain, for hisassistance in setting up and running the mechanismsthat currently underpin the operation of both boards.

I turn now to each part of the bill. Part 1 of the billstates the purpose of the bill and provides for itscommencement.

Part 2 of the bill contains amendments to the ElectricitySafety Act 1998, principally aimed at abolishing theElectrical Appeals Board and transferring its appealjurisdiction to VCAT. The transfer of the appealjurisdiction to VCAT will not change the categories ofdecisions of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspectorthat can be subject to review, with one exception.Section 70(2)(f) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998currently provides that, in addition to the categories ofdecision prescribed by the act, other decisionsprescribed by regulation are also appellable. Thisprovision is not re-enacted in the bill as it isinappropriate to confer additional jurisdiction on VCATby regulation.

Furthermore, the transfer of appeal jurisdiction toVCAT will not change the categories of persons whoare currently entitled to appeal; those same people willbe entitled to bring an application for review before thetribunal. The transfer will, however, provide a moreaccessible mechanism for the review of relevantelectrical safety decisions, as persons consideringbringing an appeal will benefit from access to VCAT’s‘shopfront’ service. Clause 4 of the bill defines thosepersons eligible to apply to VCAT for review of adecision and the types of decisions for which such anapplication is allowed.

In addition to its responsibility for electrical safetyappeals, the Electrical Appeals Board is required tomaintain a register of the exercise of powers of entry byenforcement officers pursuant to division 2 of part 11 ofthe Electricity Safety Act 1998. Clause 6 of the billtransfers this function to the Office of the ChiefElectrical Inspector. The clause provides that theexercise of powers of entry by enforcement officersmust be reported to the Office of the Chief Electrical

Inspector within three business days after the entry.This is comparable to the reporting requirementsimposed on enforcement officers exercising powers ofentry under other Victorian legislation, for example theFair Trading Act 1999, the Legal Practice Act 1996 andthe Infertility Treatment Act 1995.

Powers of entry under the Electricity Safety Act 1998are already subject to various checks on their use,including a general requirement for prior writtenconsent from the Office of the Chief ElectricalInspector before the exercise of a power of entry, and arequirement to provide a copy of entry details to theowner or occupier of the land or premises. Theseprovisions are contained in part 11 of the ElectricitySafety Act 1998.

In addition to the above provisions, part 2, clause 5 ofthe bill contains amendments to empower a fire controlauthority to assign a low or high fire hazard rating forthe purposes of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 andregulations, rather than ratings of high or very high,which is currently the case. This amendment willensure that all areas across Victoria are assigned firehazard ratings that accord with their level of bushfirerisk, and thus ensure that vegetation management oftrees near powerlines is not more extensive thannecessary.

Clauses 7 to 9 of the bill provide for amendmentsconsequential to the transfer of appellate jurisdictionfrom the Electrical Appeals Board to VCAT. Clause 10provides for the repeal of spent provisions of theElectricity Safety Act 1998.

Clause 11 provides for a new schedule 1 to the actwhich sets out transitional provisions for the transfer ofappeal functions from the Electrical Appeals Board toVCAT. It provides that on the relevant commencementdate the Electrical Appeals Board will be abolished andits members will go out of office. In addition, it clarifiesprocesses and procedures for pending proceedings.Proceedings which the board has not begun to hearimmediately before the commencement of clause 9 ofthe bill or which the board has begun to hear at thattime but in which evidence on a material question offact has not been presented will be taken to have beencommenced in the tribunal and will be heard anddetermined by the tribunal. However, if immediatelybefore the commencement of clause 9 of the bill theboard has begun to hear an appeal and has beenpresented with material evidence on a question of fact,that appeal will continue to be heard, and will bedetermined by the board under the provisions of theElectricity Safety Act 1998 as in force immediatelybefore clause 9 of the bill commences.



New schedule 1 also provides transitional arrangementsfor the transfer of the powers-of-entry register to theOffice of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the transferof any register or documents in the possession of theboard, relating to proceedings before the board, to theprincipal registrar of VCAT.

Part 3 of the bill amends the Gas Safety Act 1997 toabolish the Gas Appeals Board and transfer its appealjurisdiction to VCAT. These amendments are inprinciple similar to those contained in part 2 of the bill.The transfer of the appeal jurisdiction to VCAT will notchange the categories of decisions of the Office of GasSafety that can be the subject to review, with oneexception. Section 81(2)(h) of the Gas Safety Act 1997currently provides that, in addition to the categories ofdecision prescribed by the act, other decisionsprescribed by regulation are also appellable. Thisprovision is not re-enacted in the bill as it isinappropriate to confer additional jurisdiction on VCATby regulation.

Similarly, the transfer of the review jurisdiction will notaffect the categories of persons that are currentlyentitled to bring an appeal; those same people will beentitled to bring an application for review beforeVCAT. Clause 13 of the bill defines those personseligible to apply to VCAT for review of a decision andthe types of decisions for which such an application isallowed.

As is the case with the Electrical Appeals Board, theGas Appeals Board is required to maintain a register ofthe exercise of powers of entry by enforcement officerspursuant to division 2 of part 5 of the Gas Safety Act1997. Clause 14 mirrors clause 6 of the bill, transferringresponsibility for maintaining a register of the exerciseof powers of entry to the director of the Office of GasSafety. As with the Electricity Safety Act 1998, powersof entry under the Gas Safety Act 1997 are alreadysubject to various checks on their use, including ageneral requirement for prior written consent from theOffice of Gas Safety before the exercise of a power ofentry, and a requirement to provide a copy of entrydetails to the owner or occupier of the land or premises.These provisions are contained in part 5 of the GasSafety Act 1997.

Clauses 15 to 19 of the bill provide for amendmentsconsequential to the transfer of appellate jurisdictionfrom the Gas Appeals Board to VCAT. Clause 19provides for a new schedule 1 to the act which sets outtransitional provisions for the transfer of appealfunctions from the Gas Appeals Board to VCAT. Itprovides that on the relevant commencement date theGas Appeals Board will be abolished and its members

go out of office. In addition, it clarifies processes andprocedures for pending proceedings. Specifically,proceedings which the board has not begun to hearimmediately before the commencement of clause 18 ofthe bill, or which the board has begun to hear at thatstage but in which evidence on a material question offact has not been presented, will be taken to have beencommenced in the tribunal and will be heard anddetermined by the tribunal. However, if immediatelybefore the commencement of clause 18 of the bill theboard has begun to hear an appeal and has beenpresented with material evidence on a question of fact,that appeal will continue to be heard and will bedetermined by the board under the provisions of theGas Safety Act 1997 as in force immediately beforeclause 18 of the bill commences.

New schedule 1 also provides transitional arrangementsfor the transfer of the ‘powers of entry’ register to thedirector of the Office of Gas Safety and the transfer ofany register or documents in the possession of theboard, relating to proceedings before the board, to theprincipal registrar of VCAT.

Part 4 of the bill provides minor technical amendmentsto the Electricity Industry Act 2000.

Clause 20 amends section 14 of the Electricity IndustryAct 2000 to allow the amendment of the Victorianelectricity supply industry tariff order. Clause 20 willpermit clause 4.5.1 of chapter 4 of the tariff order to beamended so as to clarify the application ornon-application of the provisions of chapter 4 to tariffscharged by the Victorian Energy NetworksCorporation.

Clause 21 clarifies that it is not necessary to apply forauthorisation under the Commonwealth Trade PracticesAct 1974 in order to receive the benefit of thecross-ownership exemption in subsection 68(8) of theElectricity Industry Act 2000.

Part 5 of the bill replicates clause 21 for the gasindustry, clarifying that it is not necessary to apply forauthorisation under the Trade Practices Act 1974 inorder to receive the benefit of the cross-ownershipexemption in subsection 129(3) of the Gas Industry Act2001 that will be available from 1 July 2002.


Debate adjourned for Hon. C. A. FURLETTI(Templestowe) on motion of Hon. B. Forwood.


CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES) BILL


CRIMES (WORKPLACE DEATHS ANDSERIOUS INJURIES) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 16 May; motion ofHon J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation).

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — Onbehalf of the Liberal Party I put on record that weoppose this bill. At the outset I also put on record thatthe Liberal Party has a very good history of supportinginitiatives that increase workplace safety and ensurethat Victorian workplaces, no matter where they arewithin our state, are as safe as possible.

Consistently in this place we have supported legislationand initiatives of the Victorian Workcover Authorityand its predecessors to ensure that the greatest level ofworkplace safety on work sites right throughoutVictoria is achieved.

The reason the opposition opposes this bill is that thebill has no intention of improving workplace safety. Infact, its passage would result in such a significantnegative shift in workplace safety culture on work sitesthat it would lead to outcomes that would not improvebut would in many ways reduce workplace safety andput at risk the gains we have seen over the last decadein Victoria in relation to workplace accidents anddeaths and workplace safety generally.

I do not resile from the fact that the Liberal Party willensure that this piece of legislation will not get onto ourstatute books, because if that happened it would be aterrible outcome for all Victorians. It would be a badoutcome for employers, a bad outcome for employeesand a bad outcome for economic growth andemployment opportunities in our state, and it wouldsend our state backwards, both as far as developmentand employment opportunities are concerned and,importantly, as far as workplace safety is concerned.

Victorians, be they employers or employees, should beproud of the achievements of the past decade withworkplace safety. We have seen a decrease of over70 per cent in workplace incidents and a significantdecrease in both serious injuries and deaths occurring inour workplaces. That has happened because employersand employees have had an understanding that toachieve positive workplace safety outcomes they needto work together. There has been a development of acooperative approach that relies on those people at thecoalface working together to get positive outcomes.

Yes, there has been a legislative framework, and, yes,there have been penalties — and rightly so. But thecrux of the improvement in workplace safety over thepast decade has been the cooperative approach betweenemployers and employees to make the workplace safe.It has been an approach which has developed over timeand which I imagine many years ago both parties tookwith great caution, but they have embraced it becausethey have seen that it works, as we have seen with somany other aspects of workplace culture.

In industrial relations when we took away as much aspossible the adversarial nature — the ‘us and them’nature — of the past and moved to a cooperativeapproach, employees and employers did not speak toeach other through representatives sitting in glasstowers a million miles away from the work site, but gotdown to the coalface and worked together for mutualbenefit and outcomes.

The results are on the record. There has been asignificant improvement in workplace safety — over a70 per cent reduction in workplace accidents andsignificant decreases in the number of workplace deathsand serious injuries — which is a good outcome, andwe want to see people continue to work towards evensafer workplaces.

We all embrace the fact that the best safety record isone with zero deaths and zero injuries. I dare say that15 years ago that might have seemed pie in the sky andan unachievable dream, but today it can become areality. But it will only become a reality if we continuethe cooperative culture that has developed. The billthreatens those gains and puts them at grave risk.

This is a bill about us and them; it is a bill that seeks toapportion blame, and in many ways it is a bill that seeksto play an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That isa mentality that went out with the Dark Ages and led tothe significant problems with workplace safety that wefaced in the state for many years. A return to those darkdays would not help employers or employees, andcertainly would not help Victorians. That is the mainreason for the opposition opposing the bill — it puts thegreat gains of the past decade at serious risk. This is aflawed bill. It is a bill that creates differentiation inclasses of people in Victoria when it comes to theapplication of the rule of law. It changes the boundariesof manslaughter laws and makes it easier to obtain amanslaughter conviction against an employer than toobtain a general conviction for manslaughter. In manyways it attempts to make employers second-classcitizens with less rights than others.



It is a perverse and pernicious bill. It is a bill that shouldnot see the light of day in Victoria’s statute book, and ifthis government were honest with itself, if thisgovernment were a government that truly governed forall Victorians, the bill would never have seen the lightof day in any shape or form in the first place and wouldnot have been debated today. However, thisgovernment says one thing and does another, and wesee examples of that again and again.

Under the guise of workplace safety and protectinginjured workers, or those workers who might be at riskof injury or death in the future, the government hasintroduced a Trojan horse bill to satisfy its paymastersin the trade union movement. That is what the bill isabout: it is about the Labor Party delivering to itspaymasters. It is known that the Labor Party is a whollyowned subsidiary of the trade union movement; weknow that the trade union movement owns the LaborParty.

Hon. R. F. Smith — We have shares in it — we geta dividend as well!

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — Mr Smith, youmay very well be a shareholder in the Labor Party. I donot know how the Labor Party is structured, but I knowit is a totally owned subsidiary of the trade unionmovement. On the opposite side of the chamber theMinister for Sport and Recreation, a former head of atrade union, and Mr Smith, another former head of atrade union, are both confirming that fact. The Ministerfor Sport and Recreation was head of one of the mostsuccessful trade unions of the past few years — itdestroyed a number of Victorian football clubs in theprocess! That is what trade unions are about.

We have heard a great deal about the modern tradeunion movement changing its ways, but leopards do notchange their spots. We know the trade unions pay lipservice to the rights of the workers they purport torepresent and make sure that they feather their beds atthe expense of employees. That is what the bill isabout — it will punish employees as much as it willpunish employers. The best support you can giveVictorian workers is to ensure their jobs are safe andcreate more jobs so that there are more opportunities inthe future for all Victorians. That is what we should beabout when in government — growing the pie, notdiminishing it, not trying to destroy the livelihoods ofemployers so that they are no longer able to provideopportunities for their employees. Governments shouldnot be about driving investment away.

This is an export bill — it exports Victorian jobs toother states. That is why the opposition opposes it. We

will not lamely sit back and watch the Labor Partyreward its paymasters in the trade union movement atthe expense of Victorian workers. In many waysVictorian workers are damn lucky they have a LiberalParty and a National Party prepared to stand up for theinterests of workers rather than the interests of tradeunion bosses.

I will slowly work through all the facts so that evenMr Bob Smith can understand them. He might notaccept them, but I am sure he will be able to understandthem.

Hon. R. F. Smith — Tell us about your first-handexperience!

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — I will get tofirst-hand experience. The opposition has received agreat deal of correspondence on this issue. We havebeen approached by small, medium and large-sizeenterprises and employer groups, representative groups,trade union groups, the Trades Hall Council and variousother interested parties. The impact the bill will have onVictorian employers and employees has been madevery clear to us. We will not sit back and allow a bill topass this place that destroys businesses, that sendsbusinesses away to other states and nations and thattakes away employment opportunities for ordinaryVictorians. I will not stand by and watch that happen,nor will members of the National Party. However, Iknow that, unfortunately, the Labor Party has shownthat it would rather back its paymasters in the tradeunion movement than worry about ordinary Victorianstrying to run businesses or hold down jobs and feedtheir families. They do not interest the trade unionbosses or the Labor Party — they are in it to feathertheir own nests!

Hon. R. F. Smith — What are you going to tell thefamilies?

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — I will pick up thatinterjection. I feel for any person who has had to endurethe outcomes of a workplace incident that has resultedin injury or death. I feel for the people involved and forthe families of the people involved. As have manyVictorians, I have had personal experience of familymembers being severely injured in workplaces. I knowwhat the consequences are of serious injuries, but I alsoknow what it is like to be lied to and to be played like apuppet in a political game that has nothing to do withachieving outcomes that will benefit Victorian workers.

If the bill were about outcomes that would benefitVictorian workers, members on this side of the housewould be joining members opposite and supporting the



bill. Unfortunately it is not about benefiting Victorianworkers. Conversely, the bill threatens the gains of thepast decade, and if Mr Smith were ever able to take offhis trade union blinkers he would understand exactlywhere I am coming from and why this bill should notexist on Victoria’s statute book.

I can tell honourable members what the outcomes ofthis bill will be and I will tell honourable members whatthe government has said the outcomes are likely to be.Firstly, the Premier, Mr Bracks — it is his governmentand members opposite love calling it the Bracks Laborgovernment — was quoted in a radio interview assaying that the legislation was about employers whodeliberately take action that results in the death of theirworkers.

Mr Smith may or may not have studied law, but evenhe would know that a deliberate act that leads to thedeath of another person is not manslaughter: it ismurder. The Premier tried to tell us that this bill is aboutpeople who murder other people. Wrong. Either thePremier did not know what this bill was about or hewas deliberately misleading the public. He tried toincrease the angst by suggesting that there areemployers who deliberately kill employees. Wrong,Mr Bracks; employers are not doing that and, moreimportantly, if they were, manslaughter would notcome into it. If an employer took deliberate action thatled to the death of an employee it would be murder.The Crimes Act has a specific provision that deals withthat.

The bill does nothing of the sort. The Premier wascaught out. Either he did not know what the legislationwas about or he chose to misrepresent what it wasabout to tug at the heartstrings of Victorians and tosuggest that this was about getting the rogue employersout there who were deliberately killing people. If thatwas happening, does Mr Smith think we would standby and watch it happen? No. Not one example has beengiven during this debate about employers takingdeliberate action that has led to a death in this state. It isa shame on the Premier and is an indictment on himand his government that they deliberately mislead thecommunity to garner emotional support for a flawedpiece of legislation.

I refer to the Victorian Trades Hall Council. Mr LeighHubbard, the secretary of the council, wrote to me, as Iam sure he wrote to other members, on 13 March.Among other things he suggests in his letter:

This sanction against senior officers would be used onlywhere the corporation is also convicted and when thenegligence is so gross and falls so far short of the expectedstandard that it warrants criminal sanction. In respect to

companies the great advantage of this bill is that it will exposelarger companies to the criminal sanctions that smallcompanies have faced for many years under the Crimes Act.

This letter, dated 13 March, is signed by LeighHubbard, the secretary of the Victorian Trades HallCouncil.

Hon. R. F. Smith — He is prone to losing his way.

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — The HonourableBob Smith suggests that the secretary is prone to losinghis way. Did I get that right?

Hon. R. F. Smith — Absolutely.

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — If it assists you inyour current internal brawling and factional fighting inthe Labor Party, I am happy to put it on the record. Ireturn to the bill and the flawed logic of Mr Hubbardand the Trades Hall Council. He is telling us that thebill will bring large companies under the same criminalsanctions that small companies have faced for manyyears under the Crimes Act. If that were true whydoesn’t the bill simply say, ‘We extend the coverage ofthe provisions in the Crimes Act’ — I will not quotethem because I do not know which ones he wasreferring to — ‘that apply to small companies to largecompanies’. It would be a simple bill. But that is not thecase. The laws that apply to small companies in theCrimes Act apply equally to medium and largecompanies. They apply equally to all companies and allemployers. This bill is not about catching largecompanies under the same umbrella that currentlyapplies to small companies.

I do not know what Leigh Hubbard was getting at.Maybe Mr Smith is right, maybe he is prone to losinghis way. He is deliberately trying to mislead me and, Idare say, other honourable members of this house andis tugging at the emotional heartstrings to get us tosupport a bill that I am sure he is happy with, but it is abill that we know will lead to the destruction of jobopportunities for Victorians. The Premier is wrong,Leigh Hubbard is wrong and the Trades Hall Council iswrong. Either they are deliberately misleading or theyare unaware of the operation of the law. They are thestark choices. Premier Bracks and Leigh Hubbard standcondemned of one of those two things with theirintervention in the public debate on this bill.

The Labor Party has introduced a flawed piece oflegislation that is simply payola for its trade unionmates. It has in this place and in the public arena usedmistruths and has capitalised on the understandablegrief and concern of people in the community to featherits own nest. That is reprehensible. The government



would stand condemned if that were all the bill did, butit does more.

I have talked about the change in the culture on ourwork sites over the past decade. I have talked about thenew cooperative approach between employers andemployees with workplace safety which has resulted insignificant gains in minimising workplace accidentsand the incidence of death and serious injury in theworkplace. They are wonderful achievements. I amsure even honourable members opposite would applaudthose achievements. I mentioned that all the people whowent through that process years ago would be morethan satisfied with the outcomes so far. I am not sayingthat is where we stop, but at this point in time the gainshave been significant. I congratulate employers,employees and the responsible trade unions and tradeunion officials for working together to achieve thoseoutcomes. However, despite all that wonderfulcooperation there is evidence to suggest that workplacesafety has not always been used in workplaces forgood. Workplace safety has not always been used as agoal in itself. Unfortunately, in some cases, it has beenused as a blunt weapon to achieve other industrialoutcomes.

Hon. R. F. Smith — Rubbish!

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — Mr Smith says it isrubbish. I received a letter dated 11 April from theVictorian Congress of Employer Associations signedby the Australian Industry Group, the AustralianRetailers Association Victoria, the Master BuildersAssociation of Victoria, the Printing IndustriesAssociation of Australia, the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce, the Victorian EmployersChamber of Commerce and Industry, the VictorianFarmers Federation and the Victorian Road TransportAssociation — eight respectable organisations. In thatletter they say:

Unfortunately, OHS issues are sometimes used improperly inthe industrial relations area and there is no doubt that a largearea of support for the proposal indicates that this position canonly be made worse by its introduction.

Employers are saying clearly that this bill will be usedby some rogue trade union officials as a blunt weaponto further their industrial relations aims, and not for thepurposes of workplace safety but to win somecampaign, fight some factional battle or, as we see fromthe revelations of the Cole royal commission into thebuilding industry, to extort another payment from anemployer or conduct some other nefarious industrialrelations fight instead of using workplace safety as agoal in itself.

That is the unfortunate consequence of the actions ofsome rogue trade union officials in Victoria and inother places across Australia. Some of it has alreadycome out during the Cole royal commission. I dare saythere is probably more to come but we knowanecdotally and in writing, signed by eight leadingVictorian employer organisations, that occupationalhealth and safety is unfortunately used as a blunt tool tofurther industrial relations outcomes rather than an endin itself.

What does that do? It would be okay if you were usingsomething as a means to an end if it did not pervert theprocess of workplace safety. If an employer is not surewhether something is being used as an end in itself oras a tool to further some other aim, what weight will theemployer place on that issue?

If you muddy the waters — if you have an employersitting in his or her office thinking: is this workplacesafety issue a real workplace safety issue or is it beingused to further some internecine union factional battle,or some wage case claim, or because the blokes on thesite decided today was a fine sunny day and they wouldgo surfing, or for some other reason — that is the firststep to disaster in workplace safety. You muddy thewaters; you have people having second thoughts aboutwhether an occupational health and safety issue islegitimate or not.

The government is going back to the adversarial systemthat led to the workplace injuries and deaths of the1970s and 1980s that were at astronomically andatrociously high figures. I do not want to go back there;people on this side of the house do not want to go backthere; workers do not want to go back there; families ofworkers do not want to go back there; and employersdo not want to go back there. But that is where thegovernment with this perverse bill wants to take themback to. It is simply not on! The opposition will not sitback and watch workplace safety turned into a politicaland industrial relations football to further the aims ofsome trade union bosses at the expense of ordinaryworkers. It is something we will not stand for!

The bill creates a new offence of directors andcorporations being liable for criminal manslaughter incertain circumstances. It also aggregates the activitiesof various officers within a corporation in order tosustain a criminal charge on a particular individualwithin the organisation. It takes into account the actionsof others and imputes those actions to be the actions ofone individual or a corporation in toto. Both thosethings are a perversion of our system of law.



The government says that there will be a test formanslaughter generally and it will have certainelements to it but in the area of workplace safety therewill be another test for manslaughter. It will be areduced test; you will not have to satisfy the test formanslaughter that exists at law today — —

Hon. Gavin Jennings — Is that for an individual oran organisation?

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — For both.

Hon. Gavin Jennings interjected.

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — You will get yourgo!

The government is seeking to create two classes ofmanslaughter, making Victorian employers subject to alower test. It is proposing to aggregate the actions ofcompany officers and to purport the aggregated total oftheir actions onto corporations. It is a perverseinterpretation of our criminal law system. It is notsomething that will achieve positive outcomes. It willmake employers think twice about being in Victoria.When you hang the threat of criminal prosecution overa senior officer of a corporation, a director of acorporation, or a corporation in total, they willlegitimately start asking the question: do we really wantto be here?

Employers are not out there to try to maim, injure orkill employees — far from it. It is in the best interests ofemployers, as it is in the best interests of employees, toensure that workplaces are as safe as possible.

The government comes into this place and talks aboutthe rogue employer as if there is a plethora of peopleout there who are actively trying to kill their employees.Where is the evidence? There is no evidence becausethere are no rogue employers when it comes toworkplace safety. There is a workplace safety regimeand with a carrot-and-stick approach employers comeinto line — and they have come into line. Employersare telling us and the people of Victoria in general thatif the legislation comes in they will think twice aboutdoing business in Victoria. They are telling us that itwill destroy the culture of cooperation. This is what theVictorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC)said in a media release of 22 March:

… the major contributing factor in the reduction of workplacedeaths — from 102 in 1988–89 to 31 in 2000–2001 — hasbeen the successful growth of a willing and cooperativeapproach toward workplace safety.

This culture of willing cooperation by employers, theiremployees, and government toward workplace safety stands

threatened by a discriminatory, ill-considered and inequitablepiece of legislation …

It goes on to say:

Why put at risk a culture which has so clearly producedresults in increasing workplace safety?

Engendering cooperation and trust are the all-importantingredients in securing workplace safety. There is no doubtthat this proposed legislation is a retrograde step. To proposesuch a law is sheer folly …

The VACC says that. I could also rattle off thecomments made by the Master Builders Association ofVictoria; the Victorian Farmers Federation; theVictorian Congress of Employers Associations, which Ihave already referred to in another context; and theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry (VECCI) in its discussion paper headed ‘TheCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries)Bill — Have we given up on prevention?’. All of thesegroups condemn the government for this legislationbecause it will drive employers from this state and driveemployment opportunity away from this state. Look atwhat Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry says:

VECCI is calling for a responsible approach from thelegislators. High in our deliberations will be the effect the billmight have in achieving actual improvements in workplacehealth and safety. We could not support a proposal whichrisks being detrimental to achieving reduced death and injuryin Victorian workplaces. We do not need a law that divertsthe focus from improved risk controls to a focus onself-defence and avoidance of penalty

That is the crux of why there will be a shift in culture ifthis legislation is introduced. Currently when employersthink of workplace safety they think of improvingsafety in their workplace by introducing furthercontrols, by assessing things, looking at them andintroducing improved risk management. Introducingthis bill will introduce criminal liability.

What will be the first step that a prudent employer willtake? They will reduce their criminal liability anddefend themselves against prosecution; they will gointo self-defence mode and try to avoid penalties. Themost critical thing in their minds will be, ‘I don’t wantto go to jail’, not ‘I want to have a safe environment’.They will do everything in their power to avoid goingto jail. They will get the paper trail right; they will notworry about actual safety. They will worry aboutgetting the defensive mechanisms in place.

When there is a workplace accident today, what do youdo? You call the ambulance, you render first aid, youmake sure the person is looked after, and then you ringthe workplace safety inspectors at Worksafe, part of the



Workcover authority. What will you do if this billcomes into place? You will still call the ambulance —then you will ring your lawyer! You will ring yourlawyer and say, ‘There’s been an accident — will I goto jail?’. That is what a prudent employer will do. Doyou know what the lawyer will say? ‘Do nothing until Iget there; say nothing’ — that is what lawyers say.

Is that improving workplace safety? No, it is not. Whatit is doing is creating that us-and-them mentality thathas dominated trade union thought for generations. It isdestroying cooperation; it is destroying the criticalrelationship between employer and employee thatmakes workplaces run and that builds successfulworkplaces and businesses.

It is destroying that culture and creating a type ofenvironment that is making workplace safety almostimpossible to achieve. That is what the government isdoing with the bill. The employer groups are not happyand potential investors in the state will not be happy.You can imagine in an increasingly globalised capitalmarket decisions about investment in Victoria are beingmade in the boardrooms of large corporations infar-flung places like New York, London, Tokyo andother places. That is increasingly unfortunate. It gallsme that so many companies are now headquartered inSydney rather than Melbourne, but that is where thedecisions will be made. Directors are sitting around theboardroom tables considering not whether they will setup a plant in Victoria but whether they will set up inVictoria, New South Wales, the United States ofAmerica, Japan, Malaysia or Indonesia. They areweighing up the economics and the risk factors.Overlay on that that if you operate a workplace inVictoria and something goes wrong, not only wouldyou be penalised with your Workcover premiums andface a hefty fine but the directors of the corporation inNew York or Tokyo might be charged with criminalmanslaughter and dragged to Melbourne and draggedthrough the courts.

That will be the decision-making process: we can go toNew South Wales or Victoria and set up business, but ifsomething goes wrong in Victoria somebody may go tojail. That is a great way to attract business! That is awonderful incentive to give the good people at BusinessVictoria who are out there trying to attract interstate andinternational business to locate in Victoria to provideeconomic growth, prosperity and jobs for Victorians!What a millstone to hang around the necks of thosepeople who are trying to attract business to the state —by saying, ‘Come to Victoria. We will help you out; wewill help you set up here — but if something goeswrong we will lock you up in jail’. That is a greatmessage to send to the investment community.

I turn to the issue of the small versus the largecorporation. Unfortunately, a lot of the compliancemechanisms in the bill are technical. If you get thepaper trail and the chain of command right, all themanuals upgraded and have them on the shelves, sendyour relevant employees to the proper training courses,all that sort of technical stuff that a prudent corporationwill do, then you are likely to avoid prosecution. Youwill have done everything in your power by dotting thei’s and crossing the t’s. That is what we were told.

I received a briefing, not from a trade union or thegovernment, but from a large and reputable law firm inMelbourne, which said, ‘The prudent employer willupdate their manuals, send employees to courses, dotall the i’s and cross all the t’s and should not haveanything to fear from this legislation’. All that is welland good. You can hire the best legal guns, put yourmanuals in place and update them on a regular basis,and have a dedicated occupational health and safetyunit in your workplace. They can do all that, but doesthat sound like a small business? To me that sounds likea very large corporation.

This is a bill that will make it easier for largecorporations to comply with the technical provisions inorder to avoid prosecution but not for the small andmedium-size businesses out there trying to turn a buckto ensure profitability in difficult economic times,trying to ensure that their doors stay open to earn somemoney to pay their employees and to feed theirfamilies. They are the sort of people who might notcross every ‘t’ or dot every ‘i’, or have the time toupdate page 733 of the occupational health and safetymanual. They are the sort of people who may not seeone of their workers for a couple of days when theyneed to give them a specific instruction because thatworker was somewhere else trying to earn a dollar forhimself or herself in the business.

They are the sort of people who will find trouble underthis legislation. The large corporates in the main willprobably in practice be best placed to avoid the pitfallsof the legislation. It will still be an impediment to them.Directors will not want to be charged, so they will say,‘I don’t want to go to Victoria; I’ll go somewhere else’.It is the small business that will cop the real brunt of thelegislation. It is those people trying to do the right thingby themselves and by their employees but who do nothave a big law firm behind them to prepare their safetymanuals, do not have all the training that is necessary,and do not have the occupational health and safety unitas part of the business. They are the people who willsuffer.



You have to put yourself in the situation of a smallbusiness person. Their employees are like family. If aninjury or a death occurs in a small workplace it affectsthe employers terribly. It will not affect them as muchas employees — it cannot — but it has a devastatingeffect on the employer because the employees are likefamily to them. Employers at that time will bethreatened with the fear of going to jail, having done theright thing but having missed out on some technicalstep along the way. Is that the sort of legislative regimewe want? No, it is not.

They are the reasons why the opposition cannot supportthe legislation. It will not achieve positive workplacesafety outcomes. It will, conversely, lead to a shift backto the past and a return of the mentality on work sitesthat will lead to a more dangerous workplace safetyculture than we have had over the past decade. It willstart reversing the gains of the past decade. It will sendthe wrong message to employers looking to invest inthe state. It will send a bad message to largemultinational companies considering setting up inVictoria, and it will export jobs. If the legislation isintroduced Victorian employers who want to reinvest inVictoria may consider moving offshore or to anotherstate because it is more attractive. It will destroy jobopportunities and growth in Victoria.

Importantly, the bill will unfortunately have an impactthat is likely to be felt most inappropriately in the smallto medium-size business sector. They, together withothers, are the reasons why we oppose the bill.

The bill also increases financial penalties for workplaceincidents, in some cases threefold. There has been noconsultation and no communication. The bill introducesthe measures by stealth. Maximum penalties increasefrom $250 000 to $750 000 in some cases. They aresignificant increases. The government has not arguedwhy those increases are required when workplacesafety is improving, when Worksafe inspectors areworking more cooperatively than ever before, andwhen incidences in the workplace, serious injuries anddeaths are continuing to decline.

The government has not spelt out the case why in anenvironment where safety performance in the Victorianworkplace is getting better it will increase penalties. Dowe need a deterrent effect? Things are working well. Iwould say the government should congratulateemployers, employees, the trade unions and Worksafefor the gains they have made over the past decade. Wehave heard very little of that.

There are many reasons why the opposition will notsupport the bill. What will be left in its place and will

workers be worse off by the legislation not beingpassed?

The primary aim of the legislation is to somehow orother create an offence of corporate manslaughter andnegligently causing serious injury. Can it be done todayor do we need this legislation? Interestingly, just lastweek the Victorian Law Reform Commission releaseda report into criminal liability for workplace deaths andserious injury in the public sector, which was tabled inthis place. In many ways the report attempted to justifythe actions of the government. The commission wasappointed by the government with its membershand-chosen by the Attorney-General. The reportsimply attempted to justify — —

Hon. W. R. Baxter — It is extremely sycophantic!

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — Mr Baxter says itis extremely sycophantic. I will put that on record — Iwill not take issue with the description. In the report Iexpected to find a litany of rogue employers andmiscarriages of justice on work sites in Victoria thatneeded this legislation to help the workplace safetycase. I expected it to outline the case for change and tofind examples of those rogue employers that thegovernment keeps yelling about. Where is the list ofthem?

The commission referred to one unreported case. Ithung its hat on the case of supposedly one rogueemployer who got off. It was the 1995 case of theQueen v. A. C. Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd and theunreported decision of Justice Hampel. It was a veryserious incident that led to the death of one man and aserious injury to another man. Officers of the companyas well as the company itself were charged withmanslaughter. Remember, this is the case thecommission used to justify that there were rogueemployers out there who were getting off scot-free. Itwas the one example that the Law Reform Commissioncould find in the Victorian law courts.

In a very learned judgment that talks a lot about the lawof manslaughter as it applies to industrial incidents —and I recommend to people in their spare time if theywant to know more about this area, they could do a lotworse than read this judgment — Justice Hampel says:

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

He goes on further to say:

Those matters in combination could well amount tonegligence but not, in my view, criminal negligence. The



negligence alleged against the others is well below thestandards required for criminal negligence.

That is very clear. Justice Hampel goes on to say:

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

Justice Hampel is saying, ‘We have heard the evidencein the case. There has been a lot of evidence but theevidence we have heard does not reach the test’. Thereis a test for criminal negligence that can lead to aconviction for manslaughter. It is already in place, butthis is not a rogue employer. It has not reached thatstandard. It has not been criminally negligent. JusticeHampel says that there are tests, but the employer hasnot reached them.

Later on Justice Hampel talks about a company andsays:

A company may be liable for criminal negligence in extremecases of failure to provide a safe system or to supervise itsimplementation. This is not such a case because there wasundoubtedly a safe system provided which was to beimplemented by employees such as Hill and de Zilva.

Bingo! This case, which was held up by the LawReform Commission as indicating rogue employerswho were getting off, is decided in favour of theemployer because it was found that it had a safe systemthat was to be implemented by its employees. It was nota rogue employer at all: it was a good employer with agood, safe system which stood up in a court of law.Justice Hampel found that there had not been a failureto provide a safe system and to supervise itsimplementation. It was not a rogue employer: it was anemployer who was prosecuted under the law and wasfound to have been fully compliant with it.

The employer was not a shonk operating in the dead ofnight. It was not so negligent as to be reckless aboutwhether its employees would suffer a serious injury ordeath. It was a good employer, but it is held up as anexample of rogue employers.

So when you look at the commission’s report and theonly example of a supposedly rogue employer that isgetting off under the current system, and you go and getthe unreported case and examine it, you find that thecompany was not a rogue. The examples cited by thecommission do not prove the case, but rather disprovethe case and therefore disprove the government’s case.

Justice Hampel in his judgment says there are laws thatcan fine individuals and corporations liable for criminal

negligence that leads to manslaughter. The laws exist.The tests are strong. And he makes the point that thetests for criminal negligence are higher than for civilnegligence. That is fact in our law. Civil cases aredecided on the balance of probabilities and criminalcases are decided beyond reasonable doubt. That is thefundamental basis of our legal system.

What the government is trying to do is reduce the testbecause it does not like it. It does not like thefundamental basis of our criminal justice system. Itwants to convict Victorian employers and corporationsby changing the goalposts, by reducing the test, bythrowing away the principles enunciated byJustice Hampel in this 1995 decision of Queen v. A. C.Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd. It wants to throw that allaway. As I said, Justice Hampel quotes the law lordsfrom England and various other jurisdictions. I think atone stage he quotes Lord Denning and others who havedecided these cases over the years.

There is an established process. We are not leavingVictorian employees and their families high and dry. Itis not as if by rejecting this bill we will find there is nolaw for manslaughter in workplace accidents. There is alaw. It is there, and it works. The reason Victorianemployers have not been convicted under this law isthat there are not the rogue employers out there that thisgovernment likes to claim, recklessly creatingworkplaces with such total indifference to the safety oftheir workers that they can be held to be criminallynegligent.

This government wants to use some arbitrary method ofaggregation of other people’s actions to pin liability onone particular person — and not just to pin liability butto send them to jail. That is a perversion of our criminaljustice system. That, tragically, is what this bill does.Not only does it pervert the prevailing cooperativeculture in our workplaces that has led to suchsignificant increases in workplace safety; not only doesit pervert the operation of legitimate businesses inVictoria and drive investment away from this state, butit perverts the fundamental basis of our criminal justicesystem. ‘If you do not like the outcome, you move thegoalposts’. That is not good enough. And why is thegovernment doing it? It is doing it to satisfy its tradeunion masters.

I reiterate that the Liberal Party is fully committed toworkplace safety. Beyond that it is fully committed toworking in a cooperative manner with everystakeholder — employers, employees, employergroups, trade union organisations and Worksafe and theVictorian Workcover Authority to achieve even betteroutcomes, to build on the gains of the past decade. But



we are not prepared to throw those gains away andreturn to an adversarial ‘us and them’ nature that willdestroy the basis of the success we have had as a stateand as a community in workplace safety. We will notpervert the fundamental principles of our criminaljustice system to pay back our paymasters — or thegovernment’s paymasters — the trade unionmovement. We are not paying back the trade unionmovement with this perverse legislation that it will useas an industrial weapon.

The Liberal Party is standing up for Victorianemployees and Victorian employers equally, and it isstanding up for the future economic prosperity and jobgrowth of this state. That is why the opposition isrejecting this bill. I proudly say that I stand up heretoday to make sure that this perverse and illegitimatepiece of legislation will not see the light of day in ourstatute books.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) — Todayis another black day for the Legislative Council and it isa very black day for the Parliament. It is a day whichdemonstrates yet again that this chamber, in exercisingits mandate that derives back to the majority ofnumbers that were obtained from 1996, is rejecting animportant piece of legislative reform introduced by theBracks Labor government — a clear mandate that wastaken to the people at the election in 1999 and satisfiesan undertaking we gave to the people.

The extraordinary issue about the hysteria that has beengenerated by the opposition in its contributions to thisdebate is that so far, and I anticipate more to come, it isvery different from the begrudginggrinding-of-the-teeth contribution that we witnessedfrom the opposition when it agreed to the restoration ofthe common-law entitlements. It has clearly seen thatthe longer that its stale mandate goes on, it nowbelieves it can operate within the luxury of denying themandate of the Bracks government, which includes thispiece of legislation.

It is on the basis of time and luxury that the oppositionthinks is available to it, given that there is inadequatescrutiny on this chamber, that it believes it can votedown this important piece of legislation in a total stateof denial of the truth.

I have just listened to a lengthy contribution by amember of the Liberal Party who says that this piece oflegislation is not required because the trend line inworkplace deaths in this state is a good one. That isclearly not the case. One death is too many. Thirty-oneor 32 deaths that occurred in the last year are far toomany. The 15 deaths that have occurred in the

Victorian workplace this year are 15 too many. Thetrend line is not a good trend line because unfortunatelythe history in the last 10 years has been on average thatthere have been 30 to 35 or more deaths in Victorianworkplaces consistently over that period of time, andconsistently the number of serious injuries that havetaken place in Victorian workplaces has been in theorder of 3500 serious injuries each and every year.

From the government’s perspective, one death is toomany. It is not going to be complacent about one death,let alone the 15 that have taken place this year. It has aclear commitment to do whatever is required within itsresponsibilities to turn that drastic and tragiccircumstance around. It does not have the luxury ofsitting in opposition and being able to use numbers thatare not accountable to the people to vote down thislegislation.

In my interjection to the previous speaker I said that thegovernment’s intention is not to have a convictionunder this piece of legislation. There would be nobodyhappier in Victoria if this legislation was passed andwas never required to be prosecuted through the courts,because that would mean that no deaths had occurred inVictorian workplaces or that no deaths had occurredwhere there were serious questions raised aboutoccupational health and safety standards in theworkplace and the degree of responsibility shown bythe corporations or senior officers within thoseorganisations. It would mean that there was no reasonto prosecute these cases through the courts.

That is the head of power the government hopes sitswithin the provisions of this bill — the legislation thatsits on top of the good work that has been done in termsof occupational health and safety dating back to 1985when the original legislation setting out occupationalhealth and safety laws was introduced in this state. It isthe head of power that sits on top of the cooperativearrangements that have been in place over many yearsunder different administrations, and it builds on thegood work that has taken place to improve occupationalhealth and safety practices. It also builds on the goodwork undertaken by the Workcover authority in itsvarious incarnations over the last 15 or so years. Therehave been many success stories along the way in termsof cooperative workplace arrangements facilitatedunder Victorian statutes and supported by Workcoverauthorities, employers and certainly by trade unions inthis state.

About 10 years ago I undertook an occupational healthand safety training program. I was very pleased to be aparticipant and to have the opportunity to learn aboutthe nature of risk reduction. I understand that the intent



of the legislation was not only to permeate everyworkplace in Victoria with an understanding of thenecessary standards and the requirements of thelegislation but, more importantly, to enable theidentification and removal of risks from the workplace.

Hon. Bill Forwood — What job were you doing?An acting job?

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — I was working for aunion.


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Doesn’t that totallyturn around my contribution to the debate! Doesn’t itseriously bring into question the legitimacy of what I’msaying and the concerns that I have! The jokes beingperpetrated in the chamber at the moment are petulantand pathetic, with people living in denial of theunacceptability of workplace deaths in this state.

When Mr Katsambanis started his contribution he saidthe Liberal Party has a good track record in this regard.What track record? Why should we be satisfied? Whyshould the Parliament — or the people — be satisfiedwith a good track record? The Liberal Party’s trackrecord is inadequate, and demonstrably so.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You have to make a case thatthis bill will improve workplace safety.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — That is in fact whatthis bill does. It builds on the regime I have outlined tothe house — the emphasis on occupational health andsafety that was generated by the Cain government in1985 and which has had a significant impact uponworkplace safety.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You were Joan Kirner’sadviser, not John Cain’s.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — No, you’re wrong;you’re wrong again.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You were John Cain’sadviser as well as Joan Kirner’s!

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Yes, thank you somuch for putting the record straight.

The history of this Bracks government since 1999 hasseen a number of important legislative reforms that fallwithin a suite of legislation to improve the calibre ofVictorian law applying to occupational health andsafety matters and the access employees have to it toensure their entitlements. These include theAdministration and Probate (Dust Diseases) Bill, the

restoration of common-law rights, accidentcompensation legislation and other important measuresthat were rejected by this place. The Fair EmploymentBill — a bill which would have improved the workingconditions of 300 000 lowly paid workers and theirfamilies in this state — was rejected out of hand by thischamber. Regardless of the consequences of theworking conditions, living conditions and standards ofliving of constituents of all members of this chamber,that bill was dismissed out of hand and treated withcontempt.

In addition to that legislation, this government hasintroduced in the course of the last two years asignificant increase in the effort undertaken by theWorkcover authority with regard to occupational healthand safety measures. We have seen the number ofworkplace inspectors grow to over 230, an increase ofabout 30 per cent. We recognise that the effort we havemade in workplace occupational health and safety is notnecessarily only in the interests of workers — who weare proud to say are the Labor Party’s traditionalconstituency and whom it is particularly concerned todeliver to — but, equally importantly, it has been in theinterests of the business community in Victoria in orderto ensure a viable economy for businesses to grow andthrive and flourish. We understand the essential natureof good occupational health and safety practices and thepositive role a low rate of accidents, injuries and deathsplays in terms of the bottom line and the ongoingviability of Victorian businesses. We are a governmentthat is particularly alive to those concerns, and wedevote a great deal of effort to ensuring that this statehas a growing economy and thriving businesses.

We do not believe that this piece of legislation comes atthe cost of the viability of businesses in Victoria.Indeed, it will play a role in assisting, by providing ahead of power for the enforcement of a tougherapproach to occupational health and safety in theworkplace. That is its intent. Its intent is not to result ina prosecution, because a prosecution means we havelost the exercise because a death has taken place incircumstances that our community would be alarmedabout. We have seen the emphasis within theWorkcover regime. In addition to the restoration ofcommon-law rights we have seen an escalation in theeffort put in to support employers and employees in theworkplace, to providing advice on reducing risks and toproviding all the types of training programs of which Iwas a beneficiary 10 to 15 years ago.

As has been indicated by the previous Liberal Partyspeaker in this debate, we have seen an increase in thepenalties and sanctions that apply to abuses ofworkplace health and safety practices and a failure to



satisfy obligations under the Occupational Health andSafety Act.

We have also seen a continuing emphasis by theWorkcover authority and its previous forms onhigh-profile promotional media activities which fromtime to time address particular concerns, risks, andsafety measures in the workplace and reinforce for bothemployers and employees the importance of adheringto occupational health and safety standards in this state.Through the Workcover authority the government hasmade a significant investment in ensuring a high degreeof recognition of these issues within the Victoriancommunity.

In the era of the Kennett administration Workcover adswere probably as well known as any other ads that wererun during the course of that regime. I will notcomment about whether from my perspective those adshad the appropriate balance that I had hoped they wouldhave, but the message was and continues to be clear inthe public domain that both the previous governmentand this government recognise the value of investmentin high-profile media campaigns to support the workbeing undertaken by the Workcover authority.

During the course of this regime we have seen newrigour being brought to bear through the restoration ofaccess to common law and an emphasis onrehabilitation and restoration of people back into theworkplace. This government has not just sat on itshands — an expression I have heard used on a numberof occasions today — and said that it only wantspayments under common law to satisfy the ongoingworking life of men and women in this state who havebeen injured in the workplace. It wants to get them backto work. It does not want to be complacent. It does notwant workers to lose their enthusiasm for andcommitment to working, or their families to bedemoralised and feel as if they have been washed upfollowing their workplace accidents. As far as thegovernment is concerned it is vital that people whohave been injured in workplace accidents get back onthe job and have as productive and happy working livesas possible.

The government has put a great deal of effort intoensuring that additional rigour is brought to bear withimprovement and prohibition notices in the workplaceand has tried to be proactive in ensuring that thosestandards are met each and every day. But despite theoverall effort that has been put in with advertisingcampaigns, increased inspectors, and improvement andprohibition notices, there are still too many deaths inthe workplace — last year there were 32 deaths inVictorian workplaces and this year there have been 15.

So the government has taken action which it believesappropriate to satisfy its commitment to the people ofVictoria and to finally turn around this totallyunacceptable rate of workplace deaths. The governmentbelieves the existing laws to be inadequate, as theAttorney-General in the other place indicated in hissecond-reading speech, when he gave a number ofexamples which demonstrably prove them to beinadequate.

On a number of occasions under the existing legislationprosecutions have been attempted but have failed. Onone occasion a company admitted its guilt in relation toa workplace death, but a prosecution was not successfulbecause that company was in liquidation. There wasnobody left to take the responsibility for that tragicdeath.

There has been and will be discussion in this debateabout the mechanisms adopted with the legislation toprovide the appropriate test for determining culpabilityand the degree of responsibility that corporations andofficers within those corporations must bear for tragicdeaths that occur on their watch. Despite what theopposition has alleged, the government firmly believesthat those tests are fair, complete and do not lower thestandards that would have to be satisfied within thecourts of the land. We believe that it is an extremelydifficult test to satisfy. That is why there has been muchpublic discussion, which the Premier has entered intoon a number of occasions to indicate that tosuccessfully convict a senior officer of an organisationthere has to be almost an admission of guilt — that is,knowingly sending a worker into a situation that causedtheir death. The test is so onerous that without thatadmission a conviction would never be satisfied.

The government will take the quantum leap and makesignificant inroads into the reduction of workplacedeaths by adopting the approach of using the head ofpower in this piece of legislation to drive reforms in theworkplace even further than has been possible after allthe good work that has been undertaken in the 17 yearssince the introduction of the first occupational healthand safety legislation in this state.

We believe there will be a culture shift. That is theessential part of what this legislation is about — toprovide within the ranks of employers a deeper level ofunderstanding of their responsibility and obligations tosatisfy this piece of legislation. That does not mean theywill be preoccupied with saving themselves. Instead ofsaving themselves from prosecution they will need tofocus on what is required to reduce and manageworkplace risks to demonstrate that they have anunderstanding of and a method of addressing and



reducing those risks. If and when they can demonstratethat they have acted in accordance with reducing risksin the directions they have provided to their employees,they will be assisted in not only being able to preventinjuries and deaths occurring in the first place but theywill be provided with an instant defence to theirculpability should a case ever proceed to the courts.

It is the very nature of the proactive intervention in eachand every workplace in Victoria that the governmenthopes will underpin this head of power and will play apositive role in reducing the unfortunate incidence of,on average, over 30 deaths in Victorian workplaceseach year to our, hopefully agreed, intention of none.That is what the government intends to achieve throughthis legislation.

The test required to be passed will be an assessment ofthe gross negligence that has been demonstrated by acorporation. If a corporation — an employer, for wantof a better word — is able to demonstrate that it hasassessed and reduced the risks and has acted inaccordance with the requirement to provide directionsthat minimise risks to workers, gross negligence at thecorporate level will never be proven. The subsequenttest that applies to an individual’s culpability within thatcorporation will never be satisfied, because the mereevidence of having complied with the obligations underthe act, which mitigate against risk, will be an instantdefence. This evidence will demonstrate that peoplehave not acted recklessly in their responsibilities toprovide direction to workers in their organisation.

That is why the government totally refutes theargument put by the opposition that this is a witch-huntor vendetta against employers in the state. The bill notonly provides the legislative framework and the clearrequirements of what actions should be taken in theworkplace to reduce deaths, but it very clearly putswithin the one piece of legislation the obligation toprovide a safe workplace. In doing so it provides arigorous framework for a defence if and when a caseever proceeds.

The difference between a civil and criminal case is thatin a civil case culpability for manslaughter isdetermined on the balance of probabilities whereas inthe criminal jurisdiction it must be proven beyondreasonable doubt that the corporation was grosslynegligent. It is clearly the view of the government thatthat is a higher test; the courts will have a greaterrequirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt thatgross negligence has occurred.

Contrary to the hysterical contributions made bymembers of the Liberal Party in the other place and in

this chamber today, the government is confident that inmoving from the civil to the criminal jurisdiction ahigher standard of proof is required. The governmenthas not adopted that approach lightly; it is a consideredapproach. If, as the opposition alleges, the governmentwere doing nothing but pandering to the interests of theunion movement, one would have assumed thegovernment would have dropped to the lowest commondenominator: any conviction will do. That is not theway it has approached the legislation. The governmenthas applied the highest standard it possibly can, astandard that it believes is appropriate to be placed onthe Victorian statute book. It is totally appropriate toprovide safety and security for employers andemployees and their trade unions in this state. That isthe mindset that we have brought to bear here.

In terms of how the legislation will work in practice, thegovernment has determined that in the case of acorporation or employer a case of gross negligence hasto be identified. The workers covered by the bill do notnecessarily have to be direct employees of theemployer. They may be acting as contract workers onbehalf of an employer or working on the site where theinjury takes place. It is a roping-in mechanism to gobeyond the direct employer–employee relationship butit involves a contractual connection between thecorporation and the worker. There may be one or twosteps in that contractual obligation, so long as there is acontractual arrangement between the employer and thecorporation that controls the workplace and theindividual workers.

The government fully appreciates that there needs to bean understanding within the legislation about decisionsthat may be made on the spur of the moment or inmoments of crisis or emergency. The bill is alive tothose precarious situations such as are involved withfirefighting or with other emergency services wheredecisions must be made on the spur of the moment.They may be extremely risky activities that workers arecalled upon to do at the direction of others. Thegovernment is particularly alive to the onerousresponsibility of those in emergency services who mustgive directions at those times.

The bill takes into account those circumstances byallowing the courts to make an assessment of theurgency of the situation. It takes into account theprevailing work practices and the systems approach torisks that are part of emergency service operations. Thecourts will make an assessment about whetherdirections are given in accordance with the procedures,practices and approach of the employer — for example,the Country Fire Authority — to comply with safetypractices.



The only circumstances by which emergency serviceemployees or officers of those emergency servicescould possibly be roped in is if they were to giveinstructions counter to the prevailing safety proceduresthat were operating within that corporation. However,the government believes it is important to understandthe context in which decisions are made and directionsgiven. So it has allowed for emergency situations but itwill not allow boards to sit in splendid isolation formonths or years preceding an accident in the workplaceand make one or a series of decisions which ultimatelylead to unsafe circumstances in the workplace that leadto injury or death. Those examples may includedecisions made not to invest in safety equipment or toemploy inappropriate staff and untrained staff. Thosedecisions will not be acceptable and if and when thosedecisions lead ultimately to unfortunate incidents in theworkplace it is possible within the head of power of thelegislation to create a causal link between those acts ofnegligence and the injury that ultimately is caused.

The bill is not vexatious and it is not onerous for thevast majority of employers in Victoria. It is not theintention of the government to ever go down the path ofvexatious prosecutions or prosecutions that wouldundermine the spirit of what has been achieved in thepast 17 years in occupational health and safety. It is notthe intention of the government to provide adisincentive to current or prospective Victorianemployers. The government wants to provide a clear setof obligations for all Victorian employers. It wants tomake sure that the laws of the land are clear andrigorous and consistent and have the capacity to beconsistently applied. In particular the government wantsthe ability to make the quantum leap in the culture thatprevails in Victorian workplaces to lead to a reductionin the number of deaths that occur in Victoria.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You have not demonstratedthat the bill will do that.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Mr Forwood hasbeen chatting to people for the last half hour and thenhe says I have not made a contribution to the debate.

The Liberal and National parties live in a state ofdenial, a denial of their responsibility to carefullyconsider — —


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — I do not know aboutyour state of denial. The Liberal and National partieshave an extraordinary inability to recognise thelegitimacy of any piece of legislation that comes to thisplace that tries to improve the prevailing working

conditions of ordinary workers in this state. It is anextraordinary state of denial that people in theopposition parties do not hear the evidence aboutworkplace deaths and not recognise that there is anurgent need to do something about the 15 workplacedeaths in Victoria already this year. We do not wantone more.


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — The Liberal Partyshould wake up from its slumber and complacencyfrom sitting in this place and respond.


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — You know those15 lives cannot be retrieved. That is a ridiculousinterjection. You know we cannot bring those peopleback — —


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — This is ridiculous. Icannot make the case because you refuse to accept thereis a case. The Liberal Party has refused to accept thereis a case. The contribution from Mr Katsambanis was tothe effect that ‘we have a good track record’. It is notgood enough to have 30 deaths occurring in theworkplace. It is not good enough to indicate that youhave regard for the working conditions for people in thestate. The opposition’s flagrant denial of the FairEmployment Bill indicates that it dismisses out of handthe working conditions of the men and women in thisstate, and that is an absolute disgrace and continues tothis day. I will not be baited to concede in any shape orform that the opposition is doing anything but living ina state of denial and in splendid isolation. Get out of thechamber and talk to real people and go to realworkplaces!


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! The Chair has beenvery tolerant and I know that this debate hasconsiderable interest and emotion and the Chair willcontinue to be tolerant. I ask honourable members to bemindful that there will be adequate time for mostmembers to make their contributions and that it wouldbe helpful for honourable members if each membercould make his or her contribution with a minimum ofassistance.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — I appreciate yourassistance, Mr Acting President, in relation to providingme with a forum to discuss this issue. The great



disappointment to all the people of Victoria is that youcannot guarantee that the opposition will listen. Youcannot guarantee, regardless of how long I stay here,regardless of how much evidence I put on the publicrecord, regardless of the truth of those tragic cases Iread into the record in preparing for this debateillustrating the deaths occurring in the Victorianworkplaces, that the opposition will listen. I do notunderstand how it cannot be affected by the degree oftragedy that has taken place in Victorian workplacesand why it would not do everything in its power tomake a difference.

If I flip over the argument, the opposition has providedno evidence to support its hysterical claims that thiswould be a disincentive for Victorian employers toemploy more people and would lead to an investmentdrain in this state. Not one bit of direct evidence hasbeen put, only ongoing hysteria and whipping upresistance in the community on the basis ofmisrepresentation about how the law applies.

The total inconsistency and the illogical leaps made byMr Katsambanis in his contribution wereflabbergasting. They were totally consistent with theviews taken by the Liberal and National parties to thecommunity and in the debate in the other place whichwill be replicated tonight in this place, before theopposition takes the sorry action of voting down thispiece of legislation.

I continue to implore the members of the Liberal andNational parties — —


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Listen to the case,read Hansard, remember the 31 deaths that occurredlast year and the 15 deaths this year and look into yourheart of hearts to see if there is not a case for us to makea quantum leap in Victoria. See if there is not a case toprovide a head of power that enables the legislation thatapplies in the state to lead to safe workplaces. Look intoyour heart of hearts and see whether you believe that isthe case.


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — Yes, and what comesout of your mouth is a complete state of denial. Whatcomes from the contributions of members of theopposition parties is a state of denial. Take someresponsibility and pass this piece of legislation. This billis distinct from other private members bills that havebeen debated in this place, which have no idea how topass legal tests or to provide for certainty within ourcourts. This legislation does that. The work has been

done over a lengthy period and it provides for criminaljurisdictional cover for workplace deaths and injuries.

I congratulate the Attorney-General and the Ministerfor Workcover for bringing this legislation into theParliament and I thank all those who have worked incooperation with them in preparing the bill. I condemnthe opposition parties for their intransigence and stateof denial in relation to what is required to make asignificant difference. It is not good enough to say thatthe trend line in deaths and injuries in the workplace isacceptable. It is clearly not acceptable, despite the goodefforts of the Victorian Workcover Authority,employers and employees.

We will not rest on our laurels and sit on our hands. Weare not a do-nothing government. This is an importantpiece of legislation — —


Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — This is a case wherean important reform in Victorian legislation is beingdenied by the recalcitrant upper house. It is a chamberthat lives in a state of denial and in a different world.You want to go back to the dark ages of industrialrelations and you are not prepared to support modern orsafe workplaces or support the efforts of thegovernment to turn around the incidence of deaths andworkplace injuries in this state. I implore the oppositionparties to wake up to themselves, to be alive to the truthin this state and to support this legislation, because thischamber’s time is running out. Its credibility is zilch. Itsrespect and regard of ordinary working people in thisstate is at an all-time zero. The only zero that isacceptable to the government is zero deaths and injuriesin the workplace. We will keep working until that isachieved.


Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — Prior tothe suspension the house was treated to a very curiouscontribution from the Deputy Leader of theGovernment, the Honourable Gavin Jennings, who Iwould have anticipated as the lead speaker for thegovernment might have attempted to justify thelegislation and explain to the house how it mightachieve its stated purposes. He singularly failed to doso. He started his contribution with reference tomandates. I have never much subscribed to the mandatetheory because it is difficult to come up with anappropriate definition of what a mandate is. I wouldhave thought looking at the vote in another place on thislegislation — 44 to 43 — and the fact that it is aminority government and that the legislation got



through on the vote of an Independent, albeit asympathetic Labor Independent, was hardly anillustration that a mandate for the legislation existed inthe Legislative Assembly. In fact the vote could nothave been any closer or it would have failed.

Then Mr Jennings suggested that there is somehow orother a stale mandate here and that if those honourablemembers who were elected in 1996 did not vote, thelegislation would pass. I am not sure how he arrived atthat conclusion because I have looked at thecircumstance. If we disregarded the opinions of thoseelected in 1996 and took only the 22 people who werevoted into this house in 1999, I anticipate the legislationwould still fail 13 to 9. So the honourable member’sallegation that somehow or other the government’slegislative program is being stymied by people whohave been here longer than the most recent electiondoes not hold water.

In any event, the people decided that they would elect aminority government in the Legislative Assembly butwould preserve a non-Labor majority in this place. Ireject entirely the honourable member’s allegation thatsomehow this house is acting irresponsibly in taking adecision on this legislation in the way that I anticipate itwill.

This is bad legislation but it is dolled up in respectableclothes and they are the emotions surroundingworkplace deaths and injuries. No-one would disputethat any death or injury in the workplace is a tragedy,not only for the person directly involved and his or herfamily but for their friends, relations and employers.The point was well made by Mr Katsambanis that inmany businesses — small, medium and perhapslarge — the death of any employee is a tragedy for theemployer and the family company. They feel it verydeeply as if it were a family member directly affected.However, that does not seem to be understood by somehonourable members of the government.

I found it very disappointing to hear a month or so agothe first law officer of this land, the Attorney-General,on the front steps of this building whipping up anaudience in Spring Street with entirely inappropriateemotional language, alleging there were rogueemployers out there and suggesting that employerscould not care less about their employees and wereprepared and ready to put them into dangeroussituations day by day. That is patently not so.

Employers in this state are very safety conscious. Apartfrom the duty of care and their own sense of wellbeingand living in the community, it is economically sensiblethat they look after their employees and have safe

workplaces. The cost involved in employing someone,training them, replacing them if they leave or areinjured, paying the Workcare premiums and so on is soexpensive it makes economic sense to operate aworkplace that is as safe as possible. I can contend thatis what businesses do in this community.

I totally reject this sort of ideological warfare that is stillconducted by some honourable members down in theTrades Hall Council, as if we were still in the age of theindustrial revolution. They are fighting this class warthat is now 200 years out of date — I just wish theywould get themselves up to speed and really understandhow business works in this state.

There is absolutely no contention from the NationalParty about the need for safe workplaces. We havesupported amendments to the occupational health andsafety legislation, both in the time of the lastgovernment and the present government. We are verykeen on having safe workplaces.

We have seen dramatic improvements in industrialsafety — much of that initiated by the HonourableRoger Hallam when he was Minister for Workcover inthe last government. He turned around Workcover,which was $2 billion in the red, had claims running outits ears, a high injury rate, and perhaps not enoughemphasis on workplace safety as there should havebeen. I think the community owes Roger Hallam agreat debt because he seized upon this problem, ranwith it, and worked very hard to get a better culture inthe workplace. And the facts speak for themselves —he succeeded overwhelmingly. The statistics onworkplace deaths — which have been bandied about inthe house tonight, and which appeared in theadvertisement run in the metropolitan media byemployer organisations back in April and in thestatistics that are in the Workcover annual report —demonstrate that there has been great achievement andgreat progress.

Yes, we would acknowledge that there is more to bedone — of course there is more to be done! And, asMr Jennings said — and I am very sorry that he is nothere at the moment — one death in the workplace isone too many. I agree, but you have to acknowledgethat great progress has been made over the last decadeor so.

Yet I was somewhat taken aback by Mr Jennings’s useof Workcover statistics. He referred to the 31 deathslast year and the 15 deaths that have occurred in theworkplace so far this year. The implication of hisremarks was that if this legislation had been in placeeither these deaths would not have occurred, or if they



had, the respective employers would have been liable toprosecution under this legislation. That was theimplication he gave to the house before dinner. I am notsure at all how he arrived at that conclusion, because ifone examines 15 deaths that have occurred in the firstquarter of this year, one will see — and I will just runthrough some of them — that two of the deathsoccurred on four-wheel bikes. I happen to knowsomething about one of them in particular, a farmer inmy own area, a self-employed operator, who met hisdeath while spraying blackberries on a four-wheel bike.Clearly if this legislation had been in place it would nothave prevented that and it would not have led to aprosecution under the bill. Yet Mr Jennings led us tobelieve that either of those scenarios might well havetaken place.

Another one of the workplace deaths this quarter hasbeen a crime — indeed, a murder. The Crimes Act willdeal with that as it is in its present form. This legislationwould not have added anything to that at all.

Another one was a death caused by someone beingcrushed against a float by a horse. That is dealing withanimals — animals can be dangerous. I do not see how,if this legislation had been in place, that tragedy wouldhave been avoided. One was a crushing death of amotorcyclist who was hit by a tailgate falling from atruck on the road. I am doubtful that that should be putin the workplace deaths tally — it seems to me it is atragedy that has occurred on the road, that it is one ofour road deaths occurring, regrettably, every day of theweek, and we have seen another tragedy at Bendigotoday.

One was a death caused by a falling tree. I would havethought that that was an act of God! This legislation, ifit had been in place, would not have prevented that, norwould it have led to a prosecution, I would havethought.

There was another death of someone falling from ahorse. Again, I do not think this legislation could haveprevented that if it had been in place, nor is it likely tolead to a prosecution if someone falls from astockhorse, and so on. So I believe that Mr Jenningsmisled the house to a degree in suggesting or verystrongly implying that if the legislation had been inplace some of those deaths would have been preventedor prosecutions would have resulted therefrom. Frommy study of the statistics I do not think either of thoseevents would have occurred.

Hon. E. J. Powell — He gave no evidence.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — No, he did not provideany evidence. Most employers are bending overbackwards to maintain safe workplaces. Regrettablythat is not always reciprocated by employees. I thinkmost employees are safety conscious: they take care oftheir own safety and are conscious of the need to workin a safe manner so as not to put their colleagues at risk.But there are some who are recalcitrant in terms oftaking instructions from managers, employers andsupervisors on how to work safely. Some are carelessor reluctant to put safety guards on machinery after theyhave been taken off for maintenance or whatever. Wehave those difficulties.

Sometimes when persons refuse to abide by safetydirections and they are dismissed it results in an unfairdismissal claim, usually aided and abetted by a unionofficial, and that generates a lot of bad blood betweenemployers and employees. It is another one of thefeatures we have in Victoria now where businesses,particularly small businesses and farms, are going outof their way not to employ people. If they can find amechanism whereby they can do without takingsomeone on, they use it because it has become toodifficult to employ people. Unfair dismissal laws andthe activities of some union officials are one of theprime causes in that circumstance.

We need a much more cooperative workplace betweenemployers, employees and union officials. I feel a greatdeal of sympathy at times for employees who want todo the right thing but are often heavied by unionofficials to take action, to make allegations that theywould prefer not to make. It is time that unions wokeup to the fact that they are driving employment out ofthe state by some of their activities.

Why is the government taking unilateral action on thisparticular measure? We spent a long time in thiscountry getting Corporations Law at a national level sothat company law across the nation was the same, sothat if you were in Victoria the same law applies to youas it does in Queensland in terms of company law, andwe got away from the old days where state borderscaused a great deal of difficulty with businesses thatwere operating nationwide. Yet here we have agovernment wanting to turn the clock back andintroduce a law applying to corporations which will beVictoria exclusive.

That is counterproductive to generating investment andemployment in Victoria, and I can see no reason whythe government should move ahead in the way it hasdone. It will drive away investment from Victoria. Itmay even drive it away from Australia. TheHonourable Peter Katsambanis gave a good example



when he talked about the boards of directors inSingapore, Hong Kong or wherever looking to wherethey will invest. When they see this sort of legislationon the statute book in Victoria, why would they want tocome here, why would they not go somewhere else inAustralia, or indeed to another nation? I believe thegovernment has not thought this through sufficiently. Ifwe are to grow Victoria — the government keepstelling us every day of the week that that is theintention — here is an action it is taking which willstymie that potential growth.

I am also concerned at the breadth of the bill. Thedefinition of ‘worker’, for example, is broad indeed andwill include in the company work force many peoplewho would not be considered workers in the normalcourse of events. The Victorian Minerals and EnergyCouncil says:

The definition of ‘worker’ is extremely broad and includesany manner of people providing services to an enterprise.Many people supplying services are not managed orcontrolled directly by the body corporate. The definitionshould be amended to exclude the liability of a bodycorporate for the acts of subcontractors which the bodycorporate did not engage, but who were engaged by aprincipal contractor. Responsibility for the acts ofsubcontractors should rest with those body corporates whodirectly engaged the subcontractors.

I could not agree more. How can a company, a seniormanager or a board possibly be responsible for theactions of an agent’s agent? It beggars belief that youcan somehow be held responsible so far from the actualengagement and the direction of the particularemployee, yet this is the situation the bill sets out tobring about.

It also attempts to include outworkers again in thedefinition of ‘employee’. We are revisiting the FairEmployment Bill again because that was a provision init.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — The old union agenda.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Yes, the old unionagenda. That bill was rightly rejected by this housebecause there was a union agenda to have those peopleout there in Springvale, or wherever they are, workingin their own homes, included and defined as workers sothe union could send union officials out there, forcethem into a union, interfere in their activities and putconditions upon how much work they might do in a dayand what their productivity might be. Fortunately it wasrejected by this Parliament.

One thing I have learnt about Labor governments is thatthey never give up when they are being told what to do

by the Trades Hall Council, and they come at it anotherway. We are seeing it in this legislation tonight.

Hon. R. F. Smith interjected.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Well, Mr Smith, we didnot come down in the last shower. We will watch youall the time. We will certainly protect those people whodo not consider themselves to be employees and do notwant to be defined as such at the behest of the union.

I would like to ask the government to explain, becauseMr Jennings certainly did not, where is the demand forthe legislation. The government says, ‘Oh, well, wehave run four cases and only one has been successful’. Iwould have thought a 25 per cent success rate in thecourts is not too bad anyway, seeing that you have toprove things beyond reasonable doubt, but I wouldwant to have run a lot more than four cases under theexisting law, whether it be the Crimes Act as currentlydrafted or the Occupational Health and Safety Act, andnot be making any progress if I genuinely thought I hada case.

Only four cases have been run. The one that wassuccessful was successful because the companypleaded guilty. We heard from Mr Jennings that thatwas ineffective because the company went out ofexistence, had gone bankrupt and the fine was notcollected. That is true, but what does that have to dowith the price of fish in terms of this particularlegislation? He also did not acknowledge that theproprietors of the company, whom I happen to knowbecause they were engaged in the road constructionindustry when I was the roads minister, were totallydestroyed by the death of that employee.

They have paid a very stiff penalty indeed. Theirbusiness went out of business and they have certainlysuffered an extraordinary amount of stress, yet listeningto Mr Jennings one might get the impression that therehad been some sort of conspiracy almost not to pay thefine, that they wound up the company, that they hadliquidated it. Nothing like it. It went bankrupt purelyand simply because of this incident and it lost work.

I also advise the government that it should have a lookat the Blair experience. The Parliament and the Britishgovernment have been looking at this problem for quitesome time. The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw,produced an extensive discussion paper, which I haveread, and the Brits are having a great deal of troublecoming up with a workable scheme. With all theexperience that they have had, and regrettably theyhave had some horrendous industrial accidents, there isprobably more pressure for them to have in place



legislation which would address criminal negligencewhere it can be proved, but they have been unable tocome up with a law to bring to the House of Commons.

It would have made a little more sense if thegovernment had not gone off on its own tangent buttaken note of the British experience.

I am also concerned about the inconsistency in thelegislation. The same crime can be subject to criminalsanction if it is proved to be committed by someonewho happens to be in receipt of some sort ofremuneration, but the identical action proved to becommitted by a volunteer is exempt. I am notadvocating extending this sort of law to volunteers, butI have some difficulty with the logic of the same crimebeing treated differently only on the basis of whether ornot the person is remunerated. As a matter of logic, Icannot see how that can be allowed to stand, yet thegovernment wants to go down that path.

I support Mr Katsambanis in his very well putcontention that this legislation is not going to foster asafe workplace or encourage senior people to take aninterest in what is happening on the factory floor and inthe workplace. It will cause them to distancethemselves from it, to put up a wall between themselvesand the actual workplace. They will not want to beassociated with anything. They will not want to be seenat any time to have taken any particular decision thatmight come back later with an allegation that they werenegligent. It will cause a separation between seniormanagement and the coalface. That is the directopposite to what we should be endeavouring to achieve,and which we are achieving under the current culture inthe workplace where senior people are much moreconscious of the need to be involved in running a safeworkplace. Yet this government is going to drive in awedge and employers will say, ‘We cannot afford to beseen to be hands on. We have got to distance ourselvesfrom it’. That would be absolutely counterproductive.

If the government really wants to assist employers tocreate safer workplaces it might do something aboutgiving them some powers to check on the suitability orcapability of an employee to do a certain job at aparticular time of the day. As an example, I refer toforklift drivers operating in warehouses. They go upand down on forklifts at quite high speeds in narrowcorridors between stacks of pallets of product. Duringtheir lunchbreak, some of the drivers may indulge inalcohol or other drugs. At the moment there isabsolutely no provision for an employer to conduct anytests to see whether that employee is in a suitablecondition to be operating a forklift in thosecircumstances at a particular time of day. Currently if

he attempts to do so he will have the union down onhim like a ton of bricks because it will be alleged thathe is discriminating against people.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — And a Labor law firm toboot!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Indeed, Mr Birrell; aLabor law firm would be on his doorstep the nextmorning. Mr Bob Smith smiles because he knows thatis the circumstance. If the government is reallyinterested in safe workplaces it might have donesomething about that problem. It may not be a bigproblem, but it is certainly a problem. I know of a largeemployer who is very worried indeed about that.

While I am on my feet, and without going on for toolong, I want to make a couple of references to thecurrent annual report of the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority, because it is a notorious document. It isstaggering that someone can be appointed as chairmanof a statutory authority and can present a document tothe Parliament that is as political as this one is. I quotefrom the chairman’s report, none other than Mr JamesMackenzie.

The failure to anticipate this surge in claims at the time thatthe old common law was abolished in November 1997coupled with the failure to effectively manage the oldcommon-law system when it was in place, was symptomaticof a Workcover scheme that had not been properly managedfor a decade.

Some of us remember what it was like in 1992 whenthat outfit was $2 billion in the red. Victoria had thehighest Workcover premiums in the land, andsomething needed to be done. The former governmentgot hold of it and got it back into credit, got the injuryrate down and managed the thing properly. It got thepremiums down to the second lowest in Australia, all ina matter of seven years. Yet this chairman has thetemerity to make a political statement in the annualreport presented to Parliament which is absolutelycontrary to the facts. I find that very disappointing.

It has caused me to have a look at the currentmanagement and ask how it is going now. I will give aminor example. There has been a tender process forprivate investigators. We saw what happened up inBendigo where a Workcover recipient who had been onWorkcover for 104 weeks and had absolutely no trackrecord at all got through the first hurdle of the tenderprocess against a long-time private investigator whohad a perfect success record but who did not get overthe first hurdle. That is just one example of the odditiesof this tender process.



The Honourable Ron Best took up the case and, to hiscredit, he did not let go. Along with Mr Best andMr Hallam, I had a meeting with Mr Mackenzie andMr Mountford only a month ago in this very building.They brought along a couple of heavies: one from aleading law firm and one from an accounting firm.They came here with the intention of convincing us thatthis was all above board, there was nothing wrong withit and it had been well done. I suppose if we had beeninexperienced members of Parliament we might haveaccepted that, but we did not.

We gave them a run for their money and at the end ofthe day they backed down and admitted the whole thingwas shonky and they have abandoned the tenderprocess. I asked Mr Mountford, ‘Where was thisdecision made? As you have never tendered for privateinvestigators before, why did you take this decision todo it?’. Do you know what his answer was,Mr President? He said this was a decision taken deep inthe bowels of the organisation. Here he was, the CEO,not prepared to accept accountability for an action butblaming some underling deep in the bowels of theorganisation. I say that if this is the sort of report theywant to bring to this Parliament and that is the sort ofanswer he wants to give me, I am standing by to see theyear 2002 report because he had better come clean.

I also want to make a comment about the big-stickapproach that this government is now exerting and whatit is requiring Worksafe to do. I had a look at theworkplaces visited in the first three months of this year.They range at around 550 in each month. But whatabout the notices issued? In January there were 162;February, 355; March, 313. So the rate of issuingprohibition notices has doubled.

Hon. Bill Forwood — They have to get the quota.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — That presumably is it,Mr Forwood. We know they have appointed all theseinspectors and they are going around issuing notices.

I would have thought that the approach that Mr Hallamadopted of working cooperatively was getting results. Ithink they will find that the big-stick approach iscounterproductive or it is going to lead to the mostabsurd circumstances. I will give you one example ofan absurd circumstance. It relates to the Country FireAuthority. I have a memorandum here from themanager of state operations, dated 13 March 2002:

Following a recent incident where a volunteer firefighter fellfrom an appliance while trying to clean the top of the cab Irequest you implement the following direction:

‘All brigades be advised that personnel are not permitted tocarry out brigade cleaning or maintenance tasks which require

access to the top (roof area) of a vehicle, or, from a locationwhich is not designed for work to be carried out unless thattask can be performed safely from a correctly positionedladder and is done in accordance with a documented safesystem of work which has been approved by the localoperations manager’.

Any cleaning of vehicles should be undertaken from theground using a broom/brush which has soft bristles or similar(so as not to damage paintwork) and an extendable handle asper attached example.

Worksafe Victoria have issued CFA with a prohibition noticewhich prohibits access to the roof area unless directorates candemonstrate a safe system of work for such purposes.

Please note that a prohibition notice is a legal direction andany breach of this requirement will expose CFA toprosecution.

The point I want to make is that I am all in favour ofeliminating risks and I am all in favour of riskmanagement, but the art of it all is managing the risk,not entirely eliminating the risk if that means you haveto go to absurd and extraordinary lengths to do so. Justbecause you have one incident, that is no reason tointroduce a prohibition notice and put conditions uponeveryone else which can be totally impractical.

Hon. M. A. Birrell interjected.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — We could put them incotton wool, Mr Birrell, and I have to say just as aninterlude the CFA official who sent this to me wrote onthe bottom, ‘Is this what we have been reduced to?’.Here he is, a volunteer firearm, who spends hours andhours maintaining the local fire truck, and that is thesort of response he gets. No wonder volunteers arewalking away, if this is the sort of thing they have toput up with.

Let me finish on this note: I do not believe that thislegislation if passed will actually result in many, if any,convictions, in any event. I think it will be very difficultto prove the breaches and offences that the actenvisages. I believe it will be very hard particularly toprosecute big companies, and they are the people thegovernment keeps telling us they want to get at.Mr Katsambanis expressed that very well indeed. Thebig companies can dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Theycan hire the big-end-of-town lawyers; they’ll be right. Itis the smaller companies, the really conscientious guys,who may just slip up on some technical matter — theyare the ones who are going to cop it under thislegislation. I simply think that that is unfair on them.

The existing occupational health and safety law, or theprovisions of the Crimes Act, if need be, are quiteadequate to do what the government wants. What it willdo is give the unions a mighty club to go around with,



beating up employers. I hate to say it, but it isabsolutely true that there are too many union officialswho are not interested in productivity gains; they arenot interested in cooperation. They simply want to usetheir power to extract concessions, cash, or whateverfrom employers. If you want to ask, ‘What is yourevidence of that?’, just read the transcript of the royalcommission that is currently under way. There areexamples after examples of union officials heavyingemployers for a cash reward. That is what it boils downto.

You can just imagine them coming around with aphoney occupational health and safety claim,threatening managers. It would be a gloriousopportunity for them. I wish that I were not soconvinced it would happen, but I have seen too much ofit in the past. The leopard does not change its spots.That is exactly what we will get.

The National Party will be voting against thislegislation, but we would not be averse to referring theissue to a parliamentary committee, for example. If thegovernment is so serious about this and can produceevidence that a change to the law is necessary, it shouldrefer it to a committee. All-party parliamentarycommittees over the years have done excellent work inthis Parliament that has led to legislative change in anumber of areas. More particularly, theAttorney-General could take it off to the StandingCommittee of Attorneys-General so we could get someuniform legislation throughout Australia.

Why did he not choose to do that? Why did he go offon his own excursion? Was he afraid that he could notpossibly get this past the Standing Committee ofAttorneys-General anyway, so he did not even bother totry?


Hon. W. R. BAXTER — I suspect he would not getit past the Carr government, no.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — He would not get it past theBeattie government.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — I repeat that the NationalParty has no contention at all that deaths in theworkplace are not serious. They are bad and we want toeliminate them. We acknowledge there are too manyfarm deaths. Most of them happen to owner operators,not employees, and regrettably a lot of them are elderlyfarmers past what would be the normal retiring age inindustry. But we have a particular responsibility in theNational Party to address that problem, and we are.

We have to acknowledge that great strides have beentaken and that employers are much more safetyconscious now than they were. Most employees arelikewise much more safety conscious than they mighthave been 10 or 20 years ago, but there are still someold-style mavericks down at the Trades Hall Councilfighting the class wars of years ago. They should puttheir prejudices aside and work in a cooperative mannerwith their members and their employers. I think we canreduce last year’s death toll of 31 down to much lesswith that sort of action, rather than the big-stick,heavy-handed action that is envisaged in this bill.

The National Party will vote against it.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — Eventhough by world standards Victoria has safeworkplaces, I believe everyone would want to ensurethat we have safer workplaces in this state. I cannotbelieve that there is anyone who does not agree with thecentral thrust put forward by the government that oneworkplace death is one too many. It is hard to imaginethe tragedy that surrounds a family whose breadwinnerdoes not come home from work, nor perhaps the impactthat serious injury would have as a result of aworkplace accident.

The only question before the house is not whether wewant to achieve the objective of safer workplaces oravoid death and injury but how that can be done. I donot believe that over the last few months or during thedebate in either house of Parliament the governmenthas provided sufficient reasons to pass a bill which, aswell as having a measurable downside, createsextraordinary precedents. If you cannot argue the casefor such a radical and controversial proposal, then thereis a duty on Parliament to pass judgment. I believe thishouse is likely to pass judgment against this bill on thebasis of analysing it on its merits.

In simple terms, this proposal from the government isunprecedented, unwise and unjust, and therefore it isunproductive. In political terms, this type of legislationwould not be passed by the Carr Labor government, theBeattie Labor government or, indeed, by any other stateLabor government in this country. It would also not bepassed by the Blair Labour government in the UnitedKingdom, because the whole proposal is withoutprecedent in this precise form in any Westerndemocratic government.

To those who are attracted to this debate by theemotional argument of saying ‘Oh, surely you wouldpass any law if it would allegedly save a life’, I say this:reflect on the fact that no-one has passed this law in anyother democratic, industrialised nation or state because



they do not believe it will have that impact or that it willimprove workplace safety. I do not believe that this billis in the public interest because I do not believe that itwill improve workplace safety over time. Indeed, itcould sow the seeds of breaking down the cooperativearrangement which, since the 1970s, has seen asubstantial improvement in the attitude to workplacesafety and the outcome of that change in attitude.

No-one would suggest we face perfection in ourworkplaces now, but the real issue is that if we want toabandon the cooperative approach to achieving saferworkplaces, is the alternative any better? The onus is onthe government to say why its unprecedented actionsshould be experimented with within this jurisdiction.With the exception of the predictable support of theTrades Hall Council which, to be fair, is the author ofthe proposal, I find no other convincing group in favourof it, and I am not swayed from my view that it isagainst the public interest.

This bill needs to be defeated; it will be defeated, andthe hard heads within the Labor government will heavea sigh of relief. They know that if they had expected towin the last election this would not have been part oftheir platform. They know that this is something theywould like to get out of the way, even though publiclythey will say they tried their valiant best to get this billpassed. They will be delighted if it is defeated and outof the way. It is an unworkable and undesirable piece oflegislation which would probably harm workplacesafety and environments if it were passed. It wouldcertainly harm the employment and investmentenvironment of this state if it were passed.

It is because of genuine efforts by employers andemployees, governments and government agencies,particularly over the last 10 years but starting in the1970s, that we have seen a sea change in attitude toworkplace safety. Particularly amongst small andmedium-size businesses, the attitude of near enough isgood enough when it comes to looking after theemployee has almost completely broken down. As aresult of that, over the last decade there has been a fallin workplace deaths of about 70 per cent. This is aconsiderable achievement and a reflection of thesuccess of what until this moment was generally abipartisan policy. We may have disagreed at the fringesover some changes, particularly the justifiable concernsof the Liberal and National parties about politicisationof occupational health and safety at the behest of theunions, but we have not disagreed about the issuewhich is currently before the house.

I cannot overstress the fact that this proposal is untriedand untested because it is without precedent in a

Western democracy. The reason it lacks a precedent isthat governments like the Blair government, despite itsown connection to the trade union movement in Britain,have baulked at the chance to bring in such legislationwithin their own jurisdictions.

I am pleased that workplace deaths are down but, likethose members of the Labor Party who would like toclaim a monopoly on compassion, I believe that oneworkplace death is too many and we have to keep onexploring ways of getting the numbers down. The onlysolution surely is to get employers who have unsafeworkplaces to reach the conclusion that that is againsttheir interests, is totally improper and therefore changesin those workplaces have to be made.

The problem is that, despite the Labor Party’sallegation that this bill is designed only to affect‘cowboys’, it in fact treats all employers as cowboys.Instead of bringing in programs and policies that get tothe very small minority of employers who have unsafeworkplaces, it wants to bring in a new law thateffectively terrifies genuine employers and whichwould have ramifications well beyond workplacesafety, to the very point of questioning whether theywould even want to have workplace employees becauseof their concerns about the implications of the bill.

In simple terms, this legislation, if passed, would createthe offence of corporate manslaughter. It would makecompany directors and company officers personallyliable for accidents. Distant, removed, but notemotionally or morally detached from their workplace,they would have to argue in court why they should notbe treated as criminals for a tragic accident that hadoccurred, despite their best endeavours, their bestefforts and their proper actions.

If one refers back to the workplace injuries that theHonourable Bill Baxter referred to in his address andthe fact that that definition is so broad that it includesdeaths, as tragic as they are, which happened to be at aworkplace but which had nothing to do with theworkplace, then one realises that this is a complexmatter that is not facilitated or assisted by simplesloganeering, and never to be benefited from legislationwhich has as its roots a political promise rather than apublic interest outcome. ‘Hit the cowboys’ by allmeans, but do not do it in a manner that harms thewhole sector, including the very employees you claimyou are concerned about.

The Liberal Party believes that prevention, educationand inspection are the keys to further reductions inworkplace deaths, and not just deaths but perhaps themore overwhelming prevailing problem of workplace



injuries. In saying that, in no way do I downgrade thetragedy and horror of deaths, but we have a large issueto deal with in terms of injuries.

In its May 2002 Business Forum magazine theVictorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry precisely outlined some of the problems withthe proposed legislation. The chief executive officer ofVECCI, Neil Coulson, states:

The responsibility for health and safety in Victorianworkplaces must remain the shared responsibility of bothemployers and employees — punitive measures that targetonly companies and so-called ‘senior officers’ in thosecompanies are not the way to drive this shared obligation.

Mr Coulson then goes on to say:

The decision by the opposition —

to defeat the legislation —

is a sensible policy response in these circumstances and theyare to be congratulated for taking a stand on this importantissue.

VECCI correctly points out that there needs to be ashared obligation. In the reforms brought in by theKennett government under the excellent leadership inthis area of Mr Roger Hallam, we saw the sharedobligation heightened, strengthened and reinforced.That is one reason for the improved situation inVictoria in terms of workplace deaths. Notably thegovernment is not undoing the vast bulk of the reformsbrought in by Mr Hallam under that government, buthere it is seeking to graft on top of that system anunprecedented set of criminal laws which are more todo with repaying a political promise to the Trades HallCouncil than they are to adding to the layers ofprograms and legal systems in place to deal with aproblem that concerns us all.

The Victorian Farmers Federation said it best in a letterdated 22 April 2002 to me and other honourablemembers from Peter Walsh, the president of the VFF:

The bill changes the treatment of workplace accidents inVictoria. Its provisions are punitive and will turn accidents inthe workplace into ‘crimes’ under Victorian law for whichpunitive criminal law prosecutions could be applied tobusiness owners and management. In essence, directors andmanagers of many family farms could face criminalprosecution for workplace accidents under the bill’sprovisions.

The punitive nature of the changes will be a disincentive forpeople to invest their capital into employing people. Someexisting employers may choose to reduce employment. Earlyschool leavers and young people would be especiallydisadvantaged by the bill because of the greater potential riskto employers of hiring inexperienced staff.

In a nutshell, that points out that this law would notonly completely alter the system under whichemployers operate but it would also have manynegative consequences. We cannot stand idly by andsay, ‘We will just let it through’. We must look at thoseconsequences. It does not surprise me to know that theconcerns of employers, many of which are privatelyshared by the Bracks government, are ones that shouldbe reflected in dealing with this debate sensitively, andas a result of that seeing the bill defeated.

I was concerned that the bill was the result of suchinadequate consultation with the community and withemployers and businesses specifically. In this vein Iparticularly want to rely on the outstanding work doneby the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Frommy memory I have not experienced the AICD beingpolitical; it is not really that type of organisation.However, this bill was of such extreme significance andimpact upon company directors that they took a veryclear and well-researched stand. They were particularlyconcerned about the lack of consultation with them andthe impact that that would have on business and thelong-term damage it could cause. In their submission tothe legal policy and court services section of theDepartment of Justice on 14 March 2002, in dealingwith the proposed legislation, they state:

We have been disappointed with the nature of theconsultation process and, particularly, with ministerialcomments that consultation has been extensive. In our casewe made two consistent submissions within short time framesand had a meeting with departmental officials. At thatmeeting we were advised of intended changes to the originalbill and told that we would have an opportunity to commentupon the redrafted bill before its introduction into Parliament.As you know, we only saw this bill on a restricted basis theday before its introduction.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors, theprincipal body affected by the legislation, was treated asif it were an irrelevant pressure group, was pushed toone side and alienated from the process. Thegovernment dares to suggest that it consulted over along time. It may well have consulted with the TradesHall Council, to which it owed a great deal, but it didnot consult broadly or with those who would be harmedby the bill, and therefore perhaps it did not learn thelesson of how bad the bill is.

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce hadsimilar concerns about the absence of consultation. In aletter to me of 12 July 2001, it states:

Despite two submissions and constant requests for feedbackby VACC in relation to the proposed Crimes (IndustrialManslaughter) Bill, no consultation or amended draft bill hasbeen forthcoming from the Department of Justice since therelease of the initial draft in October 2000.



Given the significance of the proposed legislation to Victorianemployers, VACC requests that members of Parliament notethe failure of the Department of Justice to adequately consultwith employers …

The consequence is that we were confronted with a billcoming before Parliament that most members of theVictorian community were not even aware of, and onethat most of the bodies one would expect to beinformed about the legislation have not been able tostudy. It is the strength of the Legislative Council that itis able to use its systems to bring to bear the necessaryresearch and study and is able to properly passjudgment on legislation after it has consulted with thebodies that have been cut out of the government’sprocess.

We are not bluffed by old commitments to Trades HallCouncil; we do not owe the union movement anyspecific debt. Therefore we can come to the debate withclean hands and an open mind.

Like the Blair government, the Carr government, theBeattie government and other Labor governmentsthroughout the world, we do not like the legislation.No-one thinks this is the path you should go down inthe 21st century, but it is seriously suggested there issome moral necessity for this chamber to pass thelegislation. I would like to see it work somewhere else.I do not believe it will or that others will try.

The fact that no other jurisdiction has this type oflegislation is a central concern of the VictorianCongress of Employer Associations (VCEA). Thecongress complained to me in a letter dated 11 Aprilthat:

The proposed legislation is an attempt to turn the clock backto an adversarial system which was discarded in the 1980s …

It is interesting to note that for some six years, legislation ofthis type has been under consideration in the United Kingdombut, to date, the complexities of the issue have not resulted inany proposals being agreed.

The VCEA represents the Australian Industry Group,the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, theAustralian Retailers Association, the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, theMaster Builders Association of Victoria, the VictorianFarmers Federation, the Printing Industries Associationof Australia and the Victorian Transport Association.The congress members are an informed group,moderate in their public statements, and they deserve tobe listened to. The Liberal Party, like the NationalParty, has listened to them and we believe they are rightin their concerns about this proposal.

Clearly also in our mind is the concern that thelegislation, if passed, would not achieve its central goal.As the Australian Institute of Company Directors states:

No evidence has been produced to show that bodies corporateand their senior officers are a source of the government’sconcern.

No argument has been put forward that legislation thatdeals explicitly with bodies corporate and their seniorofficers should be the focus of the government’s attack.As the institute says:

… the rate of workplace death is decreasing and static in 2000and 2001. The latest statistics also show that the agriculturalsector has the greatest number of workplace deaths, whichseems to have been the case for some time …

The bill is concerned with punishment not prevention.

It is that view which strikes the strongest chord withme. Of course, it is not only larger businesses andindustries that are affected. I received a number ofrepresentations from small businesses in my electorateand beyond the boundaries of my electorate. I quoteone local small business, R and M Boys, automotiveengineers of Hawthorn. In a letter to me dated 16 Aprilthe firm says:

As a business owner and employer, I object to theintroduction of the proposed legislation. From my point ofview, modifying the Victorian Crimes Act and OccupationalHealth and Safety Act 1985, will not enhance workplacesafety, but rather adversely affect the positive and cooperativeapproach already adopted by government, employers andemployees.

Hear, hear! A letter to me from the WarrnamboolCheese and Butter Factory at Allansford states that thelegislation is:

… counterproductive to good management and does noteffectively reduce industrial accidents.

The last word in terms of what a small business has saidto me comes from another one of my constituents,Graeme Cuthbert, an automotive engineer. He states:

There is no evidence that the proposed crimes bill willimprove work practices and do anything to protect workers. Itis critical that the Parliament fully comprehends the potentialimpact of this bill, and forces the government to properlyconsult with the various interest groups.

I strongly reject the crimes bill because the basis for it isflawed. As my local member, I call on you to reject the bill.

The duty is not on us to say that something which isunprecedented and which enjoys limited public supportshould be passed through this Parliament when it isclear that the cooperative regime that has existed underLiberal and Labor governments is achieving betterresults and better workplaces and increasing the safety



levels within the Victorian community. The duty is onthe government to explain why its proposal is betterthan the current law.

Given our concern to ensure that we do not have lawsthat are fundamentally flawed, you can understand thereasons that the Liberal and National parties have takenthe stand that they have.

I conclude by calling on the words of the VictorianFarmers Federation, which has led a strong campaignagainst this proposal and which raises the broader issueof the impact on the Victorian economy. I leave it untillast because perhaps when talking about deaths andinjury it is a lower order issue, but it is not aninsignificant one. If passed, what impact would this billhave on the Victorian economy, industry, employmentor, if you look through the eyes of the VFF, regionaldevelopment? The VFF says to me:

The proposed legislation would have a major negative impacton employment in rural and regional Victoria, especially inthose industries associated with agriculture.

The bill changes the treatment of workplace accidents inVictoria. Its provisions are punitive …

The VFF speaks logically about the damaging impactthe bill would have on the economy, and I believe itsviews apply equally to the damaging impact on urbancentres throughout Victoria.

No doubt one of the reasons that the New South WalesLabor government has not followed this policy isbecause it fears the flight of investment by companydirectors who choose to move footloose investments toother jurisdictions to avoid an unwelcome andunexplained criminal system.

We cannot turn a blind eye to those economicconsequences, and I have not heard a convincingargument from the government that those consequencesare not real. They are real and they are at the heart ofthe concern of the Australian Institute of CompanyDirectors. They motivate the public statements againstthis bill by the Victorian Congress of EmployerAssociations and they have fuelled the anger of theVictorian Farmers Federation.

I believe on balance all of that leads to the conclusionthat the current cooperative system, potentially withfurther improvement, is a lot better than a criminalsystem that would treat innocent people as people whohave to prove their innocence. Clearly we do not want acriminal system that overwhelms what should be acooperative, team act.

Hon. R. F. SMITH (Chelsea) — Where to start! Inormally start by saying that I am pleased to make acontribution on this bill, but not in this case. It isdepressing and, in fact, I feel great despair. One couldargue that there is no point in making any contributionto the debate given that the conservatives opposite havedecided to number crunch and do in the bill. I askmyself: why would they be so obstructionist to what inmy view is a sensible bill? It is clear: they areresponding to the concerns handed to them by theirconstituent base — the employer groups. That is whothey represent.

Speaker after speaker from the opposite side has mademuch about the fact that this government is simplyresponding to the pressures of the union movement orthe Victorian Trades Hall Council in particular. To adegree that is right. We make no apologies for that. Wesay on numerous occasions that we represent workingpeople. I commented in my inaugural speech that Icame here in the hope that I would improve the livesand conditions of ordinary working men and women.This bill is one of those rare opportunities where wewill get to do just that — if we are successful.

I am a bit bemused by the comments coming from theconservatives opposite that they care about workers andthe workplace and are nurturing a more cooperativeworkplace environment. What hypocrisy! Their interestis in one thing only, and that is the profits generatedfrom the workplace — nothing else. That is the bottomline — how do they get there?

In 1985, on one of those rare occasions when the LaborParty had the numbers in the upper house, we were ableto get through the Occupational Health and Safety Act.Members of the opposition at the time did not supportthe bill; in fact, they fought like alley cats to prevent itbecoming law. Now they want to claim credit forimproving the workplace and reducing the number ofworkplace accidents and deaths as a direct result oftheir caring for ordinary working people. I am afraidthat not even an alligator is going to swallow that line!

Mr Katsambanis went to great lengths to explain hisviews about what happens in the workplace. I asked, byinterjection, how he would know. He has never had areal job; he has never been on the factory floor. TheLeader of the Opposition accused me of not having hada real job. What I was doing on the floor of a steel mill?That was a pretty good imitation of a job. As I said, inmy view, that gives me the qualifications to stand hereand debate this subject — I have been there and donethat.



At the end of the day, at least the government has thecourage to admit who we represent, and we are quiteopen about it. The opposition will never admit publiclythat it is on the side of the bosses and no-one else; itonly cares about the bottom line. We know it does notcare, and the Minister for Sport and Recreation willreiterate that point!

Mr Baxter — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — Spoke well!

Hon. R. F. SMITH — Yes, he did, in fact. I thoughthe was quite amusing and he put on quite a turn for us. Ikept glancing at people sitting in the gallery, and theywere amused as well. I thought it was a great littleperformance. However, he made some comment thatwe on this side of the house need to understand whatbusiness is about. Well, let me give my view on whatbusiness is about and what it needs: I go back to 1985when I was the senior union delegate at the steel mill atWesternport when the Occupational Health and SafetyAct came in. I was the first occupational health andsafety delegate on the site, and the senior one and Ihelped formulate our first consultative committee. Letme tell you about the attitude of business then. It wasabsolutely distraught — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — When was this?

Hon. R. F. SMITH — It was in 1985–86.Businesses in the steel industry were distraught athaving to consult with the work force, to sit down withdelegates in a consultative manner and talk about waysand means of improving the workplace.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Seventeen years ago theBerlin Wall was still up!

Hon. R. F. SMITH — It came down and the otherside lost, I know. The fact remains that big businesswas extremely put out that it had to actually talk with itswork force, consult and agree on ways and means ofimproving safety in the workplace because it took awaysome of its status or the born to rule — —

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Just like I said, you’re stillfighting the class war!

Hon. R. F. SMITH — Mr Baxter says we are stillfighting the class war. On the contrary, because wehave won it in the workplace; it is over. The reason it isover is because the union acted responsibly anddelivered the goods that significantly improved theworkplace.

The steel mill I worked at had, and on the odd occasiontoday still has, more than its share of industrialaccidents. I am sad to report that some of the accidentsresulted in deaths. Some I was close to — I mean bothin location to the accidents and to the individuals whowere killed — but I was always involved in some waywith the ramifications of those deaths in the workplace.I can honestly say that on not one occasion was asupervisor or senior officer of the company charged orfound guilty of wilfully placing someone at risk. Theaccidents were avoidable and were the result of a lackof training or education or of sheer negligence on thepart of some workers.

There are occasions when workers make mistakes andtake risks for the wrong reasons, and unfortunatelysome have paid the ultimate price. It is quite disturbingand distressing for everyone in the workplace — mates,employers and so on. I agree that many — in fact, thevast majority — of employers care about the peoplewho work for them, and I will not be flippant andsuggest it is just because they make money out of them.That would be unfair; they do care.

As an example of how accidents can happen, I recallonce when we had a shutdown in the zincalum line,which is part of a process of coating the sheet steel usedfor roofing. The sheets of steel are uncoiled and gothrough vats of hot molten zinc. During routineshutdown maintenance periods these areas are closedoff. On one occasion in an area that was roped off with‘Danger’ and ‘Do not enter’ signs, warning flags,switches isolated — everything that could possibly bedone — a contractor stepped over and walked acrosswhat he thought was concrete. In fact it was a thin cruston the molten zinc pot. The pot was about 2 metres by2 metres and probably 3 metres deep, but it was moltenzinc. It was all the way up to his waist before he gothold of the sides to pull himself out, and the poorbugger lasted about three days before he died. Whatmore action could be taken to prevent that? I suggestmaybe some more education for contractors orwhatever. This guy was clearly a little gung-ho. Herefused to recognise the safety standards andpreventions that were in place, and in thosecircumstances no employer could have been chargedunder the proposed bill because it was not an action thatwould have fitted in.

I refer to another near fatality, and this goes to people’sattitudes in the workplace. Once the occupational healthand safety delegates had been established in 1985, theattitude of foremen was causing a great deal of angst.They felt that their authority was being taken away bypeople who had the capacity now to say, ‘No, I will notdo that’ or, ‘No, that is unsafe’. I recall on one occasion



a worker had been instructed to go and help get somescrap out of the work rolls at the hot strip mills. Thosework rolls weighed approximately 10 tonnes each, andthere were also much bigger rolls. Hydraulic pressurewas used to flatten hot slabs of steel into thin coils,et cetera. They go through a reduction process.

During the course of that process we had what we call acobble where the steel flies up, the system crashes, sowe have to clean it all out, cut it out, et cetera. Theworker was instructed and wanted to go in betweenthose rolls, lying down, crawling in with some longplier-type appliances and pull some scrap out, whichwas completely contrary to the safe working practicesthat we had designed. As the occupational health andsafety delegate I went down immediately and stoppedhim. I nearly got into a punch-up with him because hefelt I was impacting on his willingness to be gung-hoand prove to the foreman that he was foreman material.He was most upset about that.

The foreman took his side, naturally, because hewanted the job fixed as quickly as possible so we couldget on with rolling because we had a bonus system: themore tonnes you produced the more bonus you got atthe end. We got rid of that system by using the actbecause we felt it created an incentive for people to putthemselves at risk. That incident escalated into a majordispute, and we won that too. It all went to people’sattitudes at that time, and it was not before theintroduction of that act that people started to change,contrary to the views of those opposite that they hadstarted to change the culture in the workplace — whichis laughable.

The introduction of that act proves that introducinglegislation that tells people they will be punished if theygo beyond this, or if they put people at risk wilfully,will have an immediate impact. After the introductionof that act people started to think about and reflect onwhat they were doing. The act applied to workers,supervisors and employers. If that is the case — and Ithink most people agree that is the case — then is it notlogical that by extending the powers and penalties toinclude industrial manslaughter charges against peoplewho wilfully put others at risk or do something thatresults in someone being killed in the workplace, it islikely we will reduce the number of deaths? It isimpossible to calculate how many; no-one attempts todo that. In his contribution earlier the HonourableGavin Jennings did not claim that it would reduce thenumber of deaths, but that it is likely because of theattitudinal change of both workers and employers inparticular.

The opposition over the last week — the leader inparticular — has rabbited on publicly about being forlaw and order in this state, and said that it does not wantcriminals getting away with anything, et cetera. Howdoes that then sit with its objection to this bill, which isclearly designed to make it a criminal offence if youdeliberately and wilfully put someone at risk to thepoint where they are killed? Is that not culpable? Theopposition supports laws punishing people for culpabledriving; why would it not support laws punishingpeople who are culpable in the workplace? It ishypocritical.

The only reason the opposition does not support the billis because it has got its riding instructions from theAustralian Industry Group. Mr Bob Herbert, the head ofthat group, was having lunch — wining and dining —with Mr Birrell last week. I happen to knowMr Herbert. Guess what they were talking about? Theirriding instructions. He made a comment to me in thepassageway. When I said, ‘Bob, I wonder what you arehere for?’, he said, ‘You’re right, and you are notgetting it up’. That was Bob Herbert and not Mr Birrell.

I gave examples earlier about some tragedies in theworkplace. I have a couple more I want to refer to.While I have no chance of convincing membersopposite to change their minds and to demonstrate a bitof heart and compassion for people — that will nothappen — with respect to the families and to thosedeceased in the workplace I will raise these issues. Anumber of people have asked me, and in some casesbegged me, to get this legislation up so that such a lossdoes not happen to anyone else. It is pretty emotionalstuff.

At BHP’s uncoiling site at Braeside they uncoil6 to 8-millimetre steel that has been rolled up and takenfrom the steelworks at Hastings to be uncoiled and cutinto sheet. A young 21-year-old, a fantastic youngfellow who was liked by everyone — the supervisors,his workmates, et cetera — was a little gung-ho. As hewas uncoiling the steel it got a kink in it and it could notget through the work rolls. The work rolls at that stagewere about 8 millimetres apart. He decided not toisolate the equipment but to jump the wire fence —which is an absolute no-no, and there was plenty ofnotification of that, such as signage, including ‘Do notenter’ signs, lock-out switches, et cetera. He got a lumpof four-by-two and started jemmying it to get it throughthe rolls to get it past that kink. Unfortunately for him ittook off. He got it through, and the steel and roll caughtthe lower part of his bluey work jacket and dragged himthrough the rolls.



Honourable members can just imagine what that lookedlike. The despair in the workplace and the shock wasvery difficult to describe. When I got there the youngman was on the ground and it was very distressing.What I will never forget is the impact it had on all thework force there, including supervisors, office staff, andhis blue-collar workmates. It took an enormous amountof counselling and the like for people to get over that.The occupational health and safety delegate was justdistraught, blaming himself and almost beating himselfphysically for not having done enough, and thinkingthat maybe it was his fault in some way. It was quitetragic but, again, no-one there could have beenprosecuted under our proposals.

I will talk about Simsmetal. In the latter part of the1980s Simsmetal had a site — it still has a site — atBraybrook, where it smelted scrap metal. In the smelter,the workers pour in bags of chemicals, et cetera, to helpheat the smelter itself. It had another site down the roadwhich it closed. It transferred chemicals to this site in avery ad hoc way and stored them next to the bags ofchemicals used in the furnace.

The problem was that it was, I think, phosphorousnitrate that was brought down. The foreman whobrought down the bags knew where he stacked themand knew that it was irresponsible and in fact dangerousto do that. As Murphy’s Law would have it, within daysone of the workers, with a forklift, got some bags fromthe stack to put into the furnace, but he had gone to thewrong stack — they were next to each other. He putthem in the furnace. As soon as he put the second bagin, it exploded, killing four people and injuring sevenvery badly. I had the, well, good fortune — I have tosay — of having met and talked at length with one ofthe survivors a couple of years later, and what a messhe was! His fingers were melted together and his ear tothe side of his face, and he had massive scarring,et cetera.

That company was found guilty of the charges laidagainst it. It was fined $45 000, with four men dead andseven seriously injured. It was clear to the unionmovement then and discussed quite extensively withinTrades Hall — at that time I was a vice-president ofTrades Hall — that something had to be done toaddress this situation, because it was clearly inadequate.By that I mean the legislation at the time wasinadequate to prevent those sorts of things fromre-occurring.

People now say, ‘Well, this won’t reduce the number ofindustrial deaths, et cetera — the only way to do that isthrough training and education’. I might add that thepeople who say that are the employers and their

representatives in here. Well, I wonder what Essowould think of that? Do you think Esso at Longfordwould argue that it really cares about its work force? Ibet it does now! But at the time of and prior to thatexplosion would it argue that it really cared about thework force, that it did not need any legislation todemonstrate whether it could improve, that it would doit as a matter of course because it was responsible?

Well, all the evidence is to the contrary and thearrogance displayed by Esso had to be seen to bebelieved. It was just an extraordinary example ofemployer arrogance in a situation where it was clearlyculpable for what happened in that particularworkplace. They got massive fines and the like but itwas a drop in the bucket for Exxon.

Now let me give you a little bit of insight into some ofthe goings-on and the thinking behind Esso’s decisionsat Longford. Exxon had made a global decision that itwould cut costs around the globe to make up for themoney lost through the Exxon Valdez disaster —another example of it taking its eye off the ball, Isuppose you could say. It cost them something in theorder of US$10 billion. Well, it said, ‘Let’s tidy that up,let’s cut costs around the world’. Guess where it did it?It did it in maintenance: program maintenance costswere slashed. Talk to any of the labour hire companiesthat do maintenance work on these sites and they willtell you that Esso made a deliberate decision to cut theircosts and, in doing so, put not only the plant but itswork force at risk. Do not tell me it cared; do not tellme that training or attitudinal change in the workplacewill take place with companies like that without thelegislation we propose. It will not.

Over the years — I do not want to go back forever intoa genuine class warfare situation — we had kids inmines and up chimneys. What changed that? Workingmen and women, through their unions. That is the onlything that changed it and the only thing that will everchange it. When you look around the world today andsee the exploitation that is going on at different worksites in Third World countries and so on, where is theunion movement? You will not find one, or if you do itsmembers are deceased and are in the local graveyardsor wherever, or about to go there because they impacton the bottom line of employers.

It has always been the case. The difference here, ofcourse, is that we are a little stronger, better organised,and, dare I say it, more effective in this country. That isone of the reasons we have such a high standard ofliving by Western standards. We are right up there witha strong union movement. That is what delivered it,



nothing else. If anybody wants to tell you somethingdifferent they are kidding themselves.

The Victorian Farmers Federation says to theconservatives opposite, ‘You must oppose the bill’, andthe opposition’s response is, ‘Do you want us to jump?How high do you want us to jump?’. The VFF says thatthis will drive investment out of the state. Whatnonsense! Not one employer will move out of the stateas a result of the legislation, not because the bill will notget up. Every member in this place knows it.

It is interesting that the VFF would have this viewbecause clearly it is representing its constituent bodythat happens to be in the agricultural industry. Thefarming industry has one of the worst rates of deaths inthe workplace. We all know there is a constant barrageof statistics and injuries in the workplace associatedwith agriculture. I never thought the VFF had anycredibility anyway, but now I am convinced of it.

What is the bill all about? At the end of the day it isabout delivering on a commitment made on deliveringa new crimes act that creates offences when dealingwith workplace deaths. The proposal is that maximumfines would be imposed for industrial manslaughter ofup to $5 million for corporate bodies and $2 million fornegligently causing serious injury. I stress that thesefines are for the body corporate. For senior officers ofthe body corporate the jail terms and fines are five yearsand/or $180 000 where a body corporate has committedmanslaughter, and two years or $120 000 for someserious injury.

If anyone suggests that this will not change attitudes inthe workplace they are mistaken, because it willcertainly straighten up a few people in terms of theirthinking in the workplace. We are only targeting ahandful of people who would actually be so uncaring orirresponsible as to deliberately put people at risk. By farthe majority would not. Again, workers are entitled tobe covered wherever they work.

I started my contribution by saying that it is depressingto make a contribution to debate on the bill in theknowledge that it is futile, that it is going nowhere, butmy views are still the same. It is a pity because I believethe bill has great merit and would improve the chanceof workers working in a safer workplace, which wouldbe a good thing. Its passing would have brought somerare credit to this house. It is a pity there is not aconscience vote on the bill because I genuinely believesome members on the other side have a genuineconscience, are genuinely caring about people andwould vote to support the bill. However, it will nothappen. As I am ever the optimist; and I believe we will

be back and we will get it at some stage. I commend thebill to the house.

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — TheNational Party opposes the Crimes (Workplace Deathsand Serious Injuries) Bill. The Honourable Bill Baxtereloquently put the National Party’s case and explainedwhy we made this decision. The government hasbrought forward a number of reasons why it thinks thebill will fix all the problems of workplace safety. It hasnot at this stage put anything on record that even faintlylooks like a way that would make a workplace safer,but rather would increase punishment and put people injail. This is not the way we should be going.

The bill has caused a great deal of concern in thecommunity. The government is wondering why theopposition parties are opposing it and saying it is justbecause we have the numbers. We are opposing itbecause we think it is bad legislation. We do notbelieve it will achieve the aims it wants to achieve.Therefore we will oppose the bill because it is badlegislation, not just because we have the numbers.

When the bill was introduced in this place some12 months ago the government thought it was perfectlegislation, but since then it has already buckled undercommunity pressure where some volunteer groupsvoiced concern that they may be brought under thislegislation in a way that perhaps the government hadnot intended, but obviously the government had notexamined that.

The Honourable Bill Baxter and I received letters, onebeing from Mr Bruce Brisbane, the coordinator ofMurchison Community Care, who expressed absolutedismay about the impact on his community and onvolunteer committees of management if they werebrought under this legislation. It is difficult in all areasof Victoria, but probably more importantly in countryareas of Victoria, to get volunteer groups because ofpublic liability insurance problems, but to now put thisonerous burden on committees of management so thatvolunteers could be found responsible for workplacedeaths and receive jail sentences is inappropriate.

We also received a letter from the Barwo Homesteadaged care hostel in Nathalia. The secretary, Mr GeraldQuin, said that the organisation is a not-for-profitorganisation, and that the committee of managementconsists of volunteers. The government buckled underthis provision. It obviously received a lot of phone callsand much pressure from community groups saying thatvolunteer groups should be exempt from the legislation.



The Honourable Gavin Jennings in his contribution saidthat the government had a mandate, but already thegovernment has amended this so-called perfect piece oflegislation that is supposed to be the perfect foil toensure that workplaces throughout Victoria will bemade safer. In the second-reading speech I was pleasedto see that the government has responded to communitypressure, and that the provisions in this bill now onlyapply to a senior officer who holds the position for afee, gain or reward or the expectation of a fee, gain orreward.

The government went into damage control and said inthe second-reading speech that it recognises theindispensable contribution made by those whovolunteer in senior positions in charitable or othercommunity sector organisations such as school councilsor hospital boards.

The government has buckled under that pressure, butwhat it has not said is that some of these boards ofmanagement and community centres have boards andcommittees that have people who receive a fee or anallowance. Are those people not to be exempt under thebill? It seems that is the case. Somebody who is on amanagement board could be exempt from the bill ifthey do not take a fee, but if they receive an allowancethey could be caught under the legislation. I am sure thegovernment did not intend that to happen. We still havepeople doing exactly the same job, but they will not beexempt under the legislation.

It will cause huge anomalies on boards of managementwhere people who are volunteers sit beside people whoreceive some sort of fee for service or allowance,perhaps a travel allowance. It will be interesting to seehow this works if it ever becomes law, which I hope itdoes not.

On 12 July 2001 I received a letter from the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce which wasconcerned about a number of provisions in the draftbill. It provided me with a copy of the submission sentby the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations tothe government on 3 November 2000 — two years ago.The VCEA was established in 1974 to provide a focalpoint for the needs of Victorian employers. It is a peakVictorian employer body made up of nine employerorganisations in Victoria that represent over 30 000employers directly and thousands more by indirectaffiliation with the industry organisation. Thesignatories to that affiliation are the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, theAustralian Industry Group, the Master BuildersAssociation of Australia, the Printing and Allied TradeEmployers Federation of Australia, the Plastics and

Chemicals Industries Association, the Retail TradersAssociation of Victoria, the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce, the Victorian FarmersFederation and the Victorian Road TransportAssociation. As I said, it is the peak body for a largenumber of employer groups across Victoria.

Its submission raised a number of concerns about thedraft legislation that first came to this place, which hadthe potential to expose an employer to onerouspenalties because of its broad definitions. We have seenthat some of those definitions can be interpreted inmany different ways. It was one of the VCEA’sconcerns, because while the government says, ‘Thesethings will not happen because the case study does notprove it’, that has not been proved because no otherstate in Australia or any other country in the world hasintroduced this legislation, so we cannot get feedbackfrom anyone else to find out how it works in otherstates or countries.

The VCEA was also concerned about the introductionof an unprecedented and unfair new law which singlesout employers. The current legislation provides for anindividual to be charged with manslaughter if they arecharged with gross negligence. That charge existsanyway. There is also the requirement for an officer toprove that he or she is not guilty once a corporation isfound guilty. The VCEA say it is unreasonable to havethe reverse onus of proof where penalties are increasedand imprisonment is also a penalty.

In his presentation Mr Jennings said that the oppositionparties are not listening to the community, and we hearthat rhetoric from the government time and again. Hesays that the only reason the opposition is votingagainst the government’s legislation is because we havethe numbers. That is not true. Many of us have beeninundated with phone calls, letters and visits fromemployers, employer groups or employees who workfor good employers and who can see the impact it willhave on their workplaces. I counted the letters Ireceived, because I had to respond to each and everyone of them. I received 23 letters from businesses rightacross Victoria. Many were from people andorganisations in my electorate and yes, Mr Smith, theVictorian Farmers Federation was one of the bodiesthat wrote. It represents the farming industry, so it is abody that the National Party takes note of because itspeaks to the people that it represents. When the VFFspeaks, we listen because we know that it has theinterests of the constituents in its communities at heart.When it talks about the farming and agriculturalindustry, the National Party listens, as I am sure theLiberal Party does. When the Victorian FarmersFederation as a peak body talks about what is in the



best interests of the farming community, we certainlylisten and take notice.

All of the letters asked me, as the local member, toreject this bill. I know personally many of the businesspeople who wrote to me. They have a good reputationin the towns where their businesses are and they careabout their employees. A number of governmentmembers talked about the fact that the National Partyonly looks after the employers. Many of our employerscare about their workplaces and the people who workfor them and they have a good reputation with thoseemployees. Many are family businesses and have hadthe employees for many years. I know some employeeswho have worked for some of the businesses for15 years, and you do not work for a business for15 years if it is not going to look after you! Thegovernment seems to think it has a mandate oncompassion. I say to it: you do not have the mandate oncompassion in this house.

I would like to read some of the concerns listed in oneof the letters I received. The letter comes from Lorraineand Gordon Threlfall of HSM Auto Repairs and Sparesin Shepparton. I will not go through the whole letter,but will list some of the major concerns about the bill:

The bill jeopardises what has been an effective andcooperative approach between employers, unions andgovernments to enhance workplace health and safety inVictoria.

The harsher penalties and the new criminal offences willadversely and inappropriately affect business.

Employers will be exposed to harsher penalties, without theprovision of clear guidelines on what constitutes grossnegligence and reasonable precautions.

They are saying that the government is putting theguidelines in place but is not stating what the guidelinesare. The government is saying, ‘If you do the wrongthing, we are going to put you in jail and increase thepenalties’. But that is not working with the employergroups. The letter continues:

The bill has the potential to deter new business investmentand further reinvestment in Victoria.

The Honourable Peter Katsambanis, in his openingaddress for the Liberal Party, put on record the way inwhich we as Victorians might have to try to competenot just against the other states in Australia but, moreparticularly, overseas countries. It is just ludicrous thatwith some of the draconian laws that the governmentwants to bring in somebody could be sent to jail not forbeing part of a business but for just being on a board ofmanagement or perhaps of a body corporate.

The letter continues:

The crimes bill is a worldwide precedent and,notwithstanding what the government says, there has not beensufficient meaningful consultation with employers on thematter.

We have heard a number of members on the Liberaland National Party side talk about the consultation thegovernment has had, but it has been with unionmembers rather than the employers and the employees,and perhaps even some of the farming community.

The letter goes on to say:

As business owners, we believe the proposed crimes bill willnot reduce or prevent workplace deaths and serious injuries,but only expose our business to unnecessary financial andlegal exposure.

It finishes by saying:

We strongly reject the crimes bill because the basis for it isflawed. Jeanette, as our local member, we call on you to rejectthe bill.

The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce andIndustry (VECCI) put out a discussion paper that we allhave had a copy of, about the Crimes (WorkplaceDeaths and Serious Injuries) Bill. On the front page itsays:

Have we given up on prevention?

It goes through some of the issues and says, as we onthe opposition side have said, that the best way todecrease workplace deaths and injuries is to work withemployers and find a way to go in and inspect theirworkplaces, and if there is a problem to work with theemployer and the employee. A number of people haveraised the issue that if an employee is negligent anddoes not adhere to all the safety precautions, you cannotsack that employee. You still have to carry them. Wehave had this situation at our own workplace where anemployee often came into the business on a Mondaymorning quite intoxicated. We were not able to sackthat person, yet they put us at risk because when usingany of our machinery or working on any of the vehicleswe have in our workshop they could be seriouslyinjured or killed. In that instance we obviously wouldbe liable for their death or injury, whereas there wassome contributory negligence on the part of theemployee. This bill does not look at that. It does notaddress any of that.

The VECCI discussion paper talks about the approachthat has been adopted historically by Victoria inoccupational health and safety. It has always beenbased on risk management, education, improved safetystandards and a simplification of legal requirements,



with the overall objective of preventing workplaceinjuries. Figures released recently by the Minister forWorkcover suggest that this approach has producedresults, with the number of deaths and injuries inVictorian workplaces continuing in a pattern of decline.The report contains some graphs that have come fromthe Victorian Workcover Authority statistics report, andthey are quite interesting. A number of members havetalked about the statistics that are in the Workcoverauthority’s report. While every member here has saidthat 31 deaths last year is too many, 15 so far this yearis also too many, although it is much better than the 93in 1985 to 1986.

We have a long way to go, but I believe if we workwith our communities and our employees and tell themwhat their responsibilities are — that there is alsoresponsibility on the employee and not just theemployer — we will make sure that everybody in theworkplace has a cooperative approach to make sure thatnobody has an accident or dies.

Many of the people who have businesses in myelectorate would be devastated if an injury orparticularly a death occurred in the workplace. Theywould not be saying, ‘It is not our fault’. They wouldfeel it very severely because in country areas nearlyeverybody in the community knows the people inbusinesses there. We are a very close community. Ifsomebody did the wrong thing, it would get around thearea very quickly, and that person would lose a lot ofbusiness because they have unsafe work practices.

There have been a number of people on this discussionhere today talking about the overrepresentation of theagricultural industry in workplace deaths, and that istrue, and it is tragic. Eleven of those deaths last yearoccurred in the agricultural sector. There were seven inconstruction and five in manufacturing. So agricultureis still overrepresented in deaths and injuries on farms.

The former government was working very strongly totry to reduce those statistics because it realised it had towork with the industry. As the Honourable Bill Baxtersaid in his presentation, a farm is a unique workplace.You are working in all sorts of conditions and ondifferent sorts of terrain. You are working with animals.You are working with machinery. You are workingvery early in the morning and working very late atnight. Calves seem to want to be born at about2 o’clock in the morning. Usually it is quite dark andusually the person that is coming out to do the calvingis tired. They are wanting to get back to bed.

They are working with people who live on theirworkplace, which is also unique. There are not many

workplaces in Victoria or in Australia where peopleactually live and have visitors coming there. They arenot only there for themselves; they have people whocome there for social reasons. They come there to visitthe family. There are young children in thoseworkplaces. Many young children work on the farm aswell. I think the reason for the overrepresentation offarms in workplace deaths and injuries is the uniquetype of industry or workplace that the agriculturalindustry is. We need to work more closely with thosepeople instead of condemning them. If there is anaccident on a tractor or a piece of machinery, we shouldtry to rectify that in the beginning rather than puttingthe farmer’s wife into jail because perhaps she is on theboard of directors or is a shareholder.

We have a long way to go. The former governmentbrought in the tractor rollover bars program, which wasvery successful. After the rollover bars were put ontractors — with a government subsidy, I have to say —the number of deaths on tractors, which had been one ofthe highest in Victoria — most deaths on farmsoccurred on tractors — decreased dramatically. That isthe sort of thing we need to look at. We need toexamine instances where safety could be made a higherpriority and to consider which way we should bedealing with safety precautions to make sure that thenumber of workplace injuries and deaths, not just forthe people who work there but also for those who visitthere, is reduced.

The former government also brought in a programunder Pat McNamara, who was the then Leader of theNational Party and also the Minister for Agriculture. Heunderstood first hand the importance of bringing downthe number of workplace deaths in the agriculturalindustry. He organised a number of seminars goingright across country Victoria. Those seminars werecalled Growing the Farm Business. They were directedat women. I was a contributor to those seminars. Therewere 10 seminars that visited Victorian country townsand about 500 women attended them. There were sevenpresenters, all women. They were speaking to thewomen on farms. One of those presenters was JulianneAdams, who was the information manager for theVictorian Workcover Authority. She spoke to theconferences about the tragedies that happen on farmsand workplaces.

As I travelled around country Victoria with her, Iunderstood the message she was trying to get out to thepeople who live and work on farms and who visitfarms. The message was very clear: that the farmworkplace is unique. What she was saying to thefarmers in the audience was that there is help at handand that the Workcover authority has a number of



people who can come to look at your property. She wassaying that they can talk to you about some of theresources available. There are grants available if youneed to upgrade some of your farming practices. Sowhat we were doing was going around country Victorialifting the profile of farm safety to the people where itmatters — to the people who live on the farms and thepeople who run those farms. That is an important part.

It is not the heavy-handed, big-stick approach of saying,‘We are going to throw you in jail or throw the book atyou’. It is working with these people and saying, ‘Weunderstand you have a problem. Now let’s see iftogether we can overcome it’. As I said earlier, theunpredictable nature of a farm is why the agricultureindustry is overrepresented in farming accidents anddeaths.

An article in the Weekly Times on 25 May refers to a kitthat focuses on farm safety, and I would like to read avery small part of it:

A farm safety education kit for children being launched atBeechworth …

which is in the electorate that the Honourable BillBaxter and I represent —

… next month might become a national program.

‘Farm safety is fun’ is the new program to create awarenessand help prevent children being injured and killed on farms.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — I am going along.

Hon. E. J. POWELL — Mr Baxter is going alongto that launch. It shows you what can be done toimprove farm safety on farms without the governmentcoming in and saying, if there is a farm death or a farminjury, after the event, ‘We can put you in jail’,because, tragically, the people where the accidents ordeaths happen feel the impact probably more than ifthey had to go to jail.

One of the presenters here today — I think it wasMr Baxter — was talking about the impact on abusiness that ended up going bankrupt. A member ofthe Labor Party was using that as a bad example, andyet when you heard Mr Baxter’s example, youunderstood that that firm felt that death very strongly,and continues to do so.

The second-reading speech states that Victorians wantand deserve workplaces that are safe and productive.Victorian families have a right to expect that when theysee their loved ones off to work each morning they willreturn home safely each night. I agree with thatsentiment. I wish to put on the record something that is

a very personal to a friend of mine. I have a friend,Katrina Mooney, who lost a son in 1997. Just recentlythe court case was finalised. I spoke to her and told herabout this bill.

Katrina’s young son Adam was 24 years of age. He hadbeen working at J. D. Coates in Shepparton for threemonths. He was so excited to have got the job; he hadleft home and was living in a flat. His mother drovehim to work on the particular morning, left him thereand drove home. She was going to pick him up atlunchtime so they could have lunch together, as theydid every day. When she arrived at his workplace topick Adam up, there were ambulances and police carsthere. She knew something was wrong, but nobodywould talk to her. She found out later that Adam hadbeen crushed. He had been working near a silo that held20 tonnes of apricot kernels, and the silo had split andcrushed him. Adam died a horrific death. I attended thefuneral, as did many people in Shepparton; Adam was avery well liked and popular young man.

His mother waited and waited to hear from Workcoverto find out what she should do and what washappening. She waited again to hear from the police.After phoning the police again and again, 16 weeksafter the accident they told her that the officer who wasinvestigating the case was in court in Melbourne fortwo weeks. After she phoned again she was told,‘Sorry, he is on leave’. She was finally contacted20 weeks after Adam had been killed; that is almost5 months. Can you imagine the trauma that mother wasgoing through? She did not know what was happening,when the court case was coming on or whom sheshould see for support or help. There was nocounselling; she was just in a never-never land waitingfor somebody to contact her. Six weeks later she wasgiven the name of a Workcover contact.

Next day, 26 weeks after her son was killed at work, thecontact person came to see her. He said he was sorry,but the system had let her down; Workcover had notbeen aware Adam had a mother. Katrina had to do allthe work contacting Workcover to find out what washappening with the health and safety investigation.There was no information forthcoming and no-one gotback to her. She continually phoned the courts to findout when the inquest was on. Can you imagine herdistress when she went to the court one day to ask whenAdam’s inquest would be on to be told by the personbehind the counter that they did not know; it could be3 days, 3 weeks or 3 months. She walked out of there intears.

Hon. Gavin Jennings — The system is not goodenough, is it?



Hon. E. J. POWELL — It is not good enough,Mr Jennings, it is not good enough. What thegovernment should be doing instead of trying to changeit so that we take the big-stick approach, is to perhapslook at how people who are going through this traumaare dealt with. The system let Adam’s mother down.

Katrina Mooney came to see me again, and I contactedWorkcover. It then appointed Julianne Adams tocase-manage her time with Workcover, and from then itstarted to get much better. However, no-one fromWorkcover was at the second coronial inquest. Katrinaasked to speak to the Minister for Workcover, theHonourable Bob Cameron, and asked me to send him aletter asking him to talk to her so she could tell himhow badly the system had let her down and thatWorkcover had not got back to her.

I acknowledge that lots of people make claims on theWorkcover system, but somehow this single motherwho had had Adam when she was 16 — he was not anaccident; she wanted to have him and he was the joy ofher life — was in a system that nearly destroyed herbecause no-one would help her. She asked me whethershe could talk to the Minister for Workcover to let himknow how the system had let her down, so I wrote tothe minister in October 2000. Katrina knew that thiscould not help Adam, but she was hoping that it wouldhelp somebody and would make some other parent’sroad much easier. I received a letter from the minister,and his response was that he did not meet withWorkcover claimants or their families but that he wouldmake available the services of a senior Workcoveradvisory officer to meet with her.

I spoke with the Honourable Roger Hallam today tofind out whether he, when he was the ministerresponsible for Workcover, had met with families andclaimants — people who were making claims. He said,‘Many times. It was not an easy task. It was verydistressing to meet with people but you had to do it;you had to listen to them and make them feel that theyhad been listened to’. If the former minister, theHonourable Roger Hallam, could meet these peopleand listen to their stories with feeling and empathy, whywill this minister not meet with, as he calls them,Workcover claimants? This is the mother of a deadchild.

When this government says that we are not listeningand we represent the big end of town and are justmaking the numbers up, that is not true. We haveexamples of times when the system has failed, butputting employers in jail will not help. MakingWorkcover and the courts more responsive to thosepeople who have lost loved ones is the way to help.

Katrina Mooney has allowed me to use her example tomake sure that nobody else goes through what she hasbeen through.

The manager of Workcover advisory services came tomy office in Shepparton because Katrina felt she couldnot meet the adviser by herself; it was just tootraumatic. The adviser gave a memorandum, a briefingnote, to the minister, documenting the history of thecase. An interesting point is that the memorandum tothe minister from Frances Corker, the senior adviser,states:

For further action:

Maybe Workcover needs to look at funding some sort ofsupport service that goes beyond what the advisory servicecan provide. We deal more with the claims process, whichwhile important does not flow on to court cases etc. If it is tobe expected that Workcover provides people to visit familiesthen I think you’d need people who are trained in dealingwith these sorts of issues. Maybe the authority could havegrief counsellors or ‘court angels’ on a retainer similar to howour crisis psychologist operated who could make themselvesavailable to visit families and make sure they have theappropriate support networks in place and if required supportthem through court processes.

That was on 31 January 2001, and I ask: has thishappened yet? The adviser goes on to say:

Ms Mooney still needs to know the status of the health andsafety investigation.

The court case has finally finished more than four yearsafter Adam was killed. Justice has been done. Theemployer was found to be at fault and he was finedaccordingly. Under the heading ‘Kernel firm fined$25 000 for death’ an article in the Shepparton News of22 January 2002 states:

A Shepparton company was fined $25 000 in SheppartonMagistrates Court yesterday for the workplace death of AdamNeil Mooney more than four years ago.

Mr Mooney, 24, was killed in an industrial accident at apricotkernel processor J. D. Coates on August 18, 1997.

He died when a container holding 20 tonnes of apricot kernelssplit with the contents throwing him against a forklift.

Mr Mooney was found to have died from asphyxiation andhead injuries.

After the accident, J. D. Coates was charged over failing toprovide a safe work environment under the OccupationalHealth and Safety Act 1995.

The article goes on to say:

The company has since spent $92 000 replacing the silos withcontainers that are bolted to the floor, with warning signs andmarking on the floor warning of potential hazard.



However, Dr Auty said the action was no consolation for hismother, Mrs Mooney, who was in court during thesentencing, for the loss of her son.

The company was ordered to pay a $25 000 fine and $6750 incosts.

When Mrs Mooney phoned me after the hearing shesaid she had heaved a sigh of relief, but she did notwant Mr Coates to go to jail. She said, ‘I just wanted tomake sure it does not happen again’.

Mrs Mooney had to put a victim impact statement tothe court. I will not read it all because it is toodistressing. However, at the end she says:

The lack of respect, compassion and consideration shown tothe mother of a workplace victim is intolerable andunbelievable. I have been treated as though I don’t exist, thatmy cherished role of mother was worthless. I have lost faithin the ‘system’ that I had believed was there for ‘we’ thepeople.

Adam would be disgusted if he knew his mum had beentreated so poorly by so many people involved in his death.

The bill is about punishment, increased penalties andjail terms, even for those not actively involved inrunning a workplace. We need to make sure thatattitudes in regard to workplace safety continue tochange. We need to provide education and informationon risk management and prevention; that is the bestway to get cooperation. The government says Victoriais leading the way. No other state has this legislation.There is no evidence to say this legislation will reduceworkplace injuries, and for that reason the NationalParty rejects it.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I rise to speakin support of the Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill. I am concerned that theopposition does not support this bill and has made itclear that it will not support it. I am concerned about anumber of areas, but the major concern is with the firstopposition speaker, the Honourable Peter Katsambanis,who is a lawyer. He knows the tests for manslaughter,murder and gross negligence. He knows the tests aswell as I do, yet he says he supports workplace safetyand initiatives. If he did so truly and in fact he wouldsupport this bill. I say to Mr Katsambanis: you arebeing hypocritical and not true to your lawyer trainingand profession.

I also say that to Mr Birrell, who was also a lawyerbefore he entered this place. There is a saying, ‘once alawyer, always a lawyer’. Once we qualify we eitherpractise or do not practise but we are still lawyers.Mr Birrell said that the message needs to be sent outthat what is damaging to our rural and regional

economy is workplace deaths and serious injuries.Indeed, it is, and if he were true to his word he wouldsupport this bill. The bill is not about those minoraccidents or negligence or unavoidable accidents in theworkplace. The bill is about industrial manslaughter —that is, a killing in the workplace.

The bill is also about gross negligence. I listened toMrs Powell. We are not talking about a simple accidentor negligence; we are talking about gross negligence.Mrs Powell would have served her constituents betterhad she looked at the bill and told her constituents whatthe definition of gross negligence is.

I turn to the bill. Proposed section 13 under the heading‘Corporate manslaughter’ states:

A body corporate which by negligence kills —

(a) an employee in the course of his or her employment bythe body corporate; or

(b) a worker in the course of providing services to, orrelating to, the body corporate —

is guilty of the indictable offence —

which means a very serious offence —

of corporate manslaughter and liable to a fine not exceeding50 000 penalty units.

Proposed section 14, under the heading ‘Negligentlycausing serious injury by a body corporate’ states:

A body corporate by negligence causes serious injury to —

(a) an employee in the course of his or her employment bythe body corporate; or

(b) a worker in the course of providing services to, orrelating to, the body corporate —

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine notexceeding 20 000 penalty units.

Proposed section 14B, under the heading ‘Negligence’states:

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

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

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

that the conduct merits criminal punishment for theoffence.

That is what we are talking about. We are not talkingabout the unavoidable accidents or negligence in aworkplace, because those incidents are already covered



in common law under occupational health and safetylegislation and dangerous goods legislation. It is on theissues of gross negligence and industrial manslaughterthat we do not have a level playing field in the state inrelation to the workplace. Corporations hide behind thecorporate veil, and Messrs Birrell and Katsambanisknow exactly what I am talking about. It is impossibleto charge a body corporate with murder ormanslaughter because you have to prove, firstly, mensrea and, secondly, actus rea. The mens rea is the mentalelement, the intent to kill. How do you get behind thecorporate veil to prove that? Do not laugh,Mr Forwood; it is not a laughing matter. That is why itis essential that the bill be passed and supported by thehouse.

In his second-reading speech the Attorney-Generaltalks about the level playing field for small business. Itis difficult to prosecute large corporations because ofthe corporate veil, and one has to find the directing orcontrolling will and mind to be able to attach a chargeof manslaughter or murder. It is less difficult toprosecute small business due to the fact that prosecutionrequires the identification of one controlling mind andwill of the corporation. It is easier to find onecontrolling mind and will in small corporations wherethere are 1, 2, 3 or 4 persons, compared to a largecorporation where one has a board of directors behindthe corporate veil.

It can be difficult to find one controlling mind and willin large corporations because many people are ofteninvolved in a decision and a single senior officer is notalways responsible. What this bill would do, if passedby this house, is establish a level playing field for largecorporations so that they are brought down to the levelof small corporations and are equally liable in theworkplace for injuries and deaths caused as a result ofgross negligence or industrial manslaughter.

I use the analogy of culpable driving. I do not see why Ishould go to my workplace and die as a result of grossnegligence or industrial manslaughter by my employerand the offender not be dealt with under the law. I donot know of any person who would not know that ifyou get in your car and kill someone you run the risk ofbeing charged with culpable driving. Culpable drivingcausing death on a conviction can attract a maximum of20 years imprisonment. Where is the difference? Anemployer who causes gross negligence at a workplaceshould be equally liable and culpable as is the personwho gets behind the wheel of a car and goes out on theroad and kills someone. I do not see any difference.Section 318 of the Crimes Act has a provision forculpable driving causing death, yet we do not see anyproposition from the opposition to reduce the penalty

under culpable driving where there is a correspondingreduction in deaths on the road. This bill is beingmirrored in a discussion paper in Queensland at themoment.

I now look at deaths in the workplace. I attended aseries of seminars, I think in March, in Ballarat wheretwo senior barristers, one a Queen’s Counsel and one adoctor of law, went around to regional centres on behalfof the government, the Attorney-General and theDepartment of Justice to hold seminars on the bill.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — What were their names?

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — Dr David Neal and RossRay, QC. I attended both seminars on this particularday over a period of about 51⁄2 hours. The first seminarstarted at the Trades Hall and the second seminar wasconducted by the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry. I refer to the VECCIdiscussion paper because it provides statistics of deathsin the workplace taken from the Victorian WorkcoverAuthority’s statistical reports. Yes, there is a decliningtrend. In 2001 there were 31 deaths in the workplace,with 11 of them occurring in the agricultural sector,followed by 7 in construction and 5 in manufacturing.The graph of statistics shows that in 1990–91 deaths inthe workplace were 67, and they have reduced to 31 by2000–01. That is to be commended. We also have areduction in Workcover claims reported over the sameperiod, of about 50 per cent.

Worksafe statistics were quoted in VECCI’s discussionpaper. It sets out the increase in the number ofprosecutions for breach of the Occupational Health andSafety Act from 127 in the year preceding 2000–01 to210 prosecutions. It also sets out the prohibitionnotices, which have nearly doubled to 2752 in 2000–01.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — What is the point?

Hon. D. G. HADDEN — The point is, as theHonourable Gavin Jennings said, that one death is onetoo many. In 2001 there were 3700 workers seriouslyinjured and as at the middle of April this year the 12thperson died in the workplace. He was a young labourerwho died near Ouyen and he brought the statistic up tothe 12th workplace fatality for this year.

We have heard from a previous contribution about thecase of Denbo Pty Ltd in the Victorian Supreme Courtin June 1994, which is the only case in Australia inwhich a body corporate has been convicted ofmanslaughter. There was a plea of guilty tomanslaughter under the Crimes Act and the companywas fined $120 000. That company went intoliquidation. The claim concerned the death of an



employee driver. The director was convicted and fined$10 000 for two offences under the OccupationalHealth and Safety Act. The other case was in the late1980s involving Simsmetal in the County Court, whichwas unreported. That case did not result in amanslaughter charge being brought. Simsmetal wasconvicted and fined $45 000 for three offences underthe Occupational Health and Safety Act. TheSimsmetal case involved an explosion killing fouremployees, with seven seriously injured and sufferingserious burns.

The other case that I will mention tonight is that of twoyoung men who went off to work on 12 November1998 and on their first day of work, having been hiredby a labour hire company, were dropped off at DrybulkPty Ltd in Footscray. They received no training orsafety equipment. They were told to sweep the floor infront of 5.5 tonne cement walls. The slabs shifted andfell on them, killing one of the young men, AnthonyCarrick, and severely injuring his mate, resulting incrushing injuries to his back, pelvis and legs. DrybulkPty Ltd was fined $60 000; the company wasliquidated; and the fine has not been paid. Similarly,separate court orders for loss of pain and suffering wereawarded to the deceased’s family and surviving friendand they remain unpaid. The company was not chargedwith common-law manslaughter and the company thatowned Drybulk Pty Ltd now operates from the samepremises.

A pamphlet authorised by Mr Leigh Hubbard, thesecretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, himselfa lawyer and a very knowledgeable and intellectualperson, says simply:

Workplace death laws will help send a message to corporateexecutives and other senior company officers.

It also says that corporate killing needs a law against itand that there will be one if we all support it. Of course,members of the opposition are not prepared to supportit. Victor Jose, of the Australian ManufacturingWorkers Union in Ballarat, wrote an eloquent andsimply written letter which appeared in the BallaratCourier of Saturday, 13 April. He said:

The aim of this bill is to punish ‘those found guilty’ ofcorporate manslaughter or serious injury.

There is nothing sinister or misleading about the bill.

…

Unfortunately there are still some ‘bad apple employers’ outthere.

…

Those who do the right thing have nothing to fear … thosewho don’t, hopefully will be motivated enough under this billto change their ways before another statistic is added.

Industry groups such as AIG and VECCI should put aside thepolitical arguments about the bill, and simply see it as a moralobligation to support a bill which has the potential to reduceworkplace deaths or injuries.

The bill, if supported by the opposition and passed bythis place, would have the effect of improvingworkplace safety initiatives. It would prevent corporatemanslaughter and gross negligence in the workplace,and so prevent all future deaths of young people andothers going to work, who should go to work in theknowledge that they will come home safely at the endof the day. That is the bottom line, and I commend thebill to the house.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — Thegovernment has given itself away on three counts:firstly, in response to a suggestion that it was really justplaying its part in some arrangement with the tradeunion movement to bring in the legislation, Mr Smithsaid, ‘Yes that’s right. We’re responding to the tradeunion movement’.

The second count is the numbers in the chamber. If theopposition has a strong view on an issue, we are allhere. This is the government’s legislation, and I havetaken a count of how many government members havebeen present. For a bill it says is so important I wouldhave expected all the 13 available members to havebeen here this evening, or at least to have been here forthe commencement of the debate. I have taken a countand it shows — and let’s have it recorded inHansard — that it took 3 hours of debate for thegovernment to get six of its members into the house.For the whole of the first 3 hours of the debate thegovernment could not muster six members! Let therecord show that there are now four members here, yetthe government is saying that this is an important pieceof legislation. Where are they? They are not here for adebate they are telling us is so important. They were nothere for the start, and it does not look like they will behere for the finish!

The third count is that the government has not givenone reason in the debate for introducing the legislation.Mr Jennings gave his usual grab bag of intellectualstatements. Mr Smith argued the case not in the contextof 2002 but in the context of 1985. Gosh, we havecome a long way since then! The number of deaths inthe workplace has come right down since then, but it isstill too high, I agree. I agree with one thing thatMr Jennings said, and that is that one death is too many;we all feel exactly that way. Then we had Ms Haddenwith her usual legal grab bag, where she gets up and



reads out definitions, legislation and judgments butadds nothing to the argument.

The bill before us is unreasonably and improperlypunitive. It is unworkable and unfair. We know it is nota government bill; it is a union bill. The fundamentalquestion about what is proposed here is: will it improveworkplace safety? The answer to that is no. In fact, itcould do the opposite; it could act as a dampener onbusiness growth in Victoria and create a situation whereemployment opportunities are reduced.

Sadly, it will take away the cooperative approach wehave had in this state for many years in trying to reducethe number of deaths and accidents in the workplace.We have had considerable success. Since 1988–89 thenumber of injuries in the workplace has reduced fromapproximately 104 700 to around 46 000 — still toomany, but the number is coming down. In the sameperiod, the number of deaths has also come downfrom 104 to 31. We have to drive that down further, butthe way to do that is to work cooperatively — bosses,managers, union people, workers — everybodyworking together to improve safety in the workplace.

It is a fact that we have an Occupational Health andSafety Act, safety and health programs in theworkplace, and training and supervision like we havenever had before. The training in relation to healthissues has increased, and will continue to increase toimprove the situation further. We have a law to covermanslaughter where a corporation can be prosecuted ifit owed a duty of care to an employee, breached thatduty and thereby caused the death of an employee.

As the Honourable Mark Birrell indicated, theVictorian Farmers Federation says this about the bill:

Its provisions are punitive and will turn accidents in theworkplace into ‘crimes’ under Victorian law …

The opposition undertook a survey which showed thatmany people are against this punitive legislation. I willread a couple of quotes:

Who will want to be a company director? I have two youngchildren — why should I have the risk of going to jail.

That is from somebody employing 15 people. Anotherwho employs 10 people in cabinet-making says:

I employ a deaf person — extra responsibility? Will have tocarefully consider any thoughts of growth — maybe moremachinery and not people.

I have a cousin who is 100 per cent deaf and he wastaken on in a cabinet-maker’s workshop — not thecabinet-maker quoted here. Would someone like that beable to get a job with a cabinet-maker if this legislation

with a punitive jail sentence hanging over somebody’shead goes through? Are employers going to put ondisabled people, people with disabilities that couldcause a higher rate of accidents in the workplace?

What will be the results of this legislation? This is adisincentive to invest in Victoria, and to employinexperienced or disabled staff and it is an incentive toreduce employment. The VFF has said that there willbe a reduction in employment. We all have to worktogether to eliminate accidents in the workplace but thislegislation would turn an accident into a crime wherethe first thing you would do is ring your lawyer andthen you would ring the ambulance.

This legislation should be defeated. The governmenthas shown by its inability to muster even half of itsmembers in this place at any time during the debate thatit really does not have its heart behind this legislationand that it does not really want it to go through either. Ifit wanted to go through it would be fair dinkum. Therewould be 13 people over there shouting at me and notthe 5 who are in the house at the moment.


The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! This is a debate thatrequires concentration and careful consideration and Iask honourable members to consider the ability of eachhonourable member to make their contribution. I askthat Mr Lucas continue with a minimum of assistance.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — To sum up, we do not needan adversarial approach in the workplace. We do notneed farmers’ wives wondering whether they are goingto end up in jail. We do not want something that isgoing to drive employment down in this state. What wewant is a cooperative workplace where everybody canwork together whether they are unionists, bosses,management — no matter who they are. We all have todrive deaths in the workplace down together through acooperative approach. This proposed legislation is notgoing to achieve that, so I do not support the proposal.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Iwould like to say how pleased I am to have theopportunity to rise this evening to make a contributionand speak in support of this very important bill. Can Isay how sad and disappointed I am that this bill whichwill deliver workplace safety is being opposed by boththe Liberals and the Nationals in this place.

The Bracks government is indeed serious aboutimproving workplace safety in this state. Thisgovernment, together with the Victorian community,believes that one death in the workplace is one too



many, as a number of colleagues in this place have saidbefore me. We introduced this bill into the house todaybecause we do not want to see another avoidable deathor serious injury in the workplace. Thirty-one peoplewere killed and 3711 people were seriously injured inVictorian workplaces last year. I understand that thenumber of individuals who have been killed inworkplace accidents this year is up to 15. This is totallyunacceptable to us.

We should not forget as we rattle off the figures andstatistics that what we are talking about is real peoplewho have had their lives tragically cut short or whohave not been able to fulfil their dreams or perhapsreach their potential and that this has come aboutunnecessarily because of unsafe work places andnegligent employers. I am talking about the loss ofhuman life. In the case of a workplace death this tragicloss occurs in the context of a crime which often goesunpunished and which only adds to the long-lastingeffects that such a death has on the victim’s family,friends, and workmates.

We have heard the criticisms that have been levelled bythe opposition and some of their employer supporters.Mr Lucas in his contribution just prior to mine raisedthe criticism that we do not really need this legislationbecause the number of workplace deaths and seriousinjuries is decreasing compared to previous years.

This argument simply does not stand up. It does notmake sense because if the number of deaths decreasesas a result of fewer road accidents or armed robberiesthere would be no expectation by any honourablemember that we should soften our drink-driving laws orchange the offences in the Crimes Act regarding armedrobbery. The fact that there has been a reduction inworkplace deaths is a good thing, but it certainly doesnot mean that we need to in some way lessen theburden of legislation or lessen the punishment thatshould go with such deaths.

I wish to refer to a number of accidents that haveresulted in deaths, and I know some honourablemembers have already done this in the debate. Two ofthose deaths have been mentioned previously by priorspeakers. What I want to do is not only talk about theaccident itself, negligence in the workplace and the factthere was little consideration to health and safety whichresulted in the accident, but to focus on what that meanswhen a death in a family occurs in that way, and thetragedy that it brings to the family, friends and workcolleagues.

This has been mentioned by previous speakers,particularly the Honourable Bob Smith. To give some

understanding of the reasons why the governmentbelieves the bill is so important, I refer to the death ofAnthony Carrick and his friend and work colleague,Barry Ward, who was seriously injured.

An article in the Herald Sun of 9 March 2001 under theheadline ‘Son’s death haunts devastated mother’ states:

Anthony was killed and a school friend Barry Ward, 18,seriously injured when a 5.5 tonne concrete slab fell on themat a grain warehouse operated by Drybulk Pty Ltd on12 November 1998.

The facility is in my electorate of Melbourne West. Thearticle continues:

The two teenagers, who attended Sunshine SecondaryCollege, were employed as casual labourers.

It was their first day on the job.

Another article appeared in the Herald Sun of24 February 2001 dealing with the same matter. BarryWard, although he was not killed, was permanentlydisabled as a result of the accident. His injuriesincluded a broken pelvis and broken bones in his back.The prosecutor at the time said that:

Mr Carrick and Mr Ward —

Mr Carrick died as a result of the accident and Mr Wardwas permanently disabled —

had been hired as casual labourers at the dry goods storeroomin Coode Road to sweep grain into piles to be scooped by afront-end loader.

The accident occurred when the loader dislodged one of16 slabs that formed an inner ring in the shed.

The freestanding slabs protected the walls of thecorrugated-iron shed, but were unsupported.

It was known the slabs would wobble if hit with a shovel orfrom vibrations caused by traffic outside.

There had been an earlier occurrence where one ofthese slabs had been bumped, had wobbled and hadfallen. At that stage it did not fall on anybody and theslab was propped up and again it was unsupported andpeople continued to work there. The article continues:

… no effort had been made to secure the slabs.

Everyone knew a hazardous situation existed … theconsequences were extremely serious and the mechanism bywhich the consequences could have been avoided weresimple and cheap …

Judge John Barnett said an inadequate system of safetyself-regulation had failed to protect the teenagers.

That says something about the situation that existed inthat workplace and the issues that the employer was



aware of and did nothing about. He could have donesomething about it but did not. This is not only a storyabout the tragic circumstances under which the boydied and another boy was permanently disabled butabout the effect on the family. The article of 9 Marchfurther states:

Anthony Carrick was a sporty, generous and outgoingteenager, with an infectious smile, who planned to do ahospitality course at TAFE. He had taken the labouring job toearn some spending money for Christmas.

That fateful day plays like a constant slow-motion movie inMrs Carrick’s head.

‘It’s a nightmare’, she said yesterday. ‘When you close youreyes at night, you dream of it’.

…

Each member of the family has responded to Anthony’s deathin different ways.

As I said, it affects the whole family, not only theindividual who has been killed or injured. The articlecontinues:

Mrs Carrick said Anthony’s father, Barry, had bottled up hismotions and was in denial.

Older sister Tanya was devastated, while Anthony’s brothershad never been the same.

She goes on to say:

This has torn my family apart so much that I used to have ahome with a family in it, and now I’ve just got a house withfour people in it.

It’s no longer a family.

It was a union at that time, which has been underminedin the contributions by opposition members, that calledfor the introduction of the crime of industrialmanslaughter for the worst workplace accidents.

Mrs Carrick goes on in an article that was published inthe Age of 22 March 2001 under the headline ‘Myson’s bosses paid just $65 000 for his life’, and says:

… my family and I have gone to hell and back. We haveexperienced the worst kind of pain, suffering and emotionaltrauma, and continue to do so.

We’ve lost our friends and extended family — they havesimply stopped coming around. I guess they don’t know whatto say to us any more.

She then talks about the panel that fell on her son andsays:

It was one of these panels that crushed my son to death andpermanently injured another young worker.

The company, the manager and a supervisor were chargedwith breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act,which has maximum penalties of $250 000.

All my hopes for any form of justice for Anthony werecrushed on Friday, March 9, when Judge … of the CountyCourt gave his finding: fines of $50 000 for Drybulk, $10 000for the managing director and $5000 for the supervisor.

Anthony and his co-worker had been directed to undertakedangerous work. They had not been given any occupationalhealth and safety training, no site safety induction, noinformation about potential hazards of the work involved.

She goes on to say that she wished the judge could havebeen at the coroner’s office when she had to identifyAnthony because she says:

… it will be in my mind for as long as I live.

She continues:

I felt betrayed, and I know so many other grieving familiesfeel the same.

That really demonstrates the sorts of feelings andeffects that such accidents and deaths have on a familyand the friends of the family. I have other examples aswell; I will not go into all of them but another examplecomes from an article in the Herald Sun of 28 October2001. It deals with three accidents and states:

A 33-year-old man was killed … in one of three horrificindustrial accidents in country Victoria.

It goes on to say that the first accident involved:

… a casual worker … on a construction site at Oz Bulk … atwhich a grain bunker was being built …

It continues:

The man who died was operating a big road roller. For somereason he came off the road roller and then it rolled overhim …

…

… the man’s workmates went to his aid, but he had sustainedmassive injuries.

In another horrific accident at Benalla a fitter aged38 was crushed at a chipboard manufacturing company.The article states:

Police said the accident happened soon after midnight, but theman could not be freed from the machine until 2.15 a.m.

… the maintenance worker was called to fix the machinewhich applies a coating to chipboard.

He thought the machine was not in operation … jumped onthe conveyor belt. The conveyor belt started to move. He gotpulled into the press part of the machine. He was apparentlytrapped up to his waist.



A seven-tonne forklift had to be used to pry the machine openand free the man …

The other accident in country Victoria involved aseven-year-old boy who was standing behind a ploughand a tractor on a farm when his mother accidentallyreversed over him. Fortunately the boy was not killedbut sustained severe abrasions and bruising.

Those are horrific deaths, and as a former nurse withmany years experience I have always known that thereare good ways and bad ways to die. These accidents areexamples of bad ways to die. The deaths are mademuch worse by the fact that they could have beenavoided with proper health and safety practices.

The government is committed to improving health andsafety in the workplace. It is an issue that it went to itsconstituents with and campaigned on in the lastelection. It is an area where it has worked hard to bringabout change and has successfully brought about awhole range of changes, including this bill. The bill is agood bill which deserves the support of all honourablemembers in this place. Safe workplaces benefit bothemployers and employees. For employers it hasbeneficial effects on productivity and costs. It meansthat Workcover premiums are lower and there is higherstaff morale, a happier and more productive work forceand it makes the workplace far more attractive topotential employees.

The government’s main concern is the effect workplaceinjuries have on workers, their workmates and theirfamilies. I pointed out earlier the very real andlong-lasting effects of such workplace tragedies onfamilies and family relationships.

The offences set out in the bill make employers moreaccountable for the safety of those who work for them.The new range of penalties — which I have not goneinto in any detail, but previous government speakershave — will provide much stronger additionalincentives for those who need them to comply withtheir health and safety obligations. The only peoplewho need to fear this legislation are corporate cowboyswho do not give a damn about the safety of theiremployees. The vast majority of employers providesafe workplaces, and they have absolutely nothing tofear.

There are always a minority who think they are abovethe law, but criminal behaviour should not gounpunished. This bill introduces far more effectivemechanisms for holding corporate cowboysaccountable to the standards which good corporatecitizens already comply with today. By opposing thisbill the Liberal and National parties are sending an ugly

message to all Victorians that they do not care aboutworkplace health and safety. For every death thatoccurs because of criminal negligence and goesunpunished, people will question those who sit on theopposition benches who did not support this importantlegislation. It is important for our workplaces and thesafety of workers in our workplaces. It is importantbecause it will ensure that those who are responsibleand have a duty of care to their workers abide by andlive up to their obligations. I commend the bill to thehouse.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I rise toindicate that I will oppose the Crimes (WorkplaceDeaths and Serious Injuries) Bill with the opposition onthis occasion. I am, however, very mindful, as are mostof my colleagues, of the importance of achieving saferworkplaces. There is absolutely no dispute that oneaccident in a working environment is one too many orabout the fact that we should be vigorously pursuingsafer workplaces. In my view, and I believe in the viewof most of my colleagues in the opposition, there is alsono place for employers who flagrantly abuse theirresponsibilities to their employees or in some cases tomembers of the public by failing to secure the safety oftheir premises or their equipment and who createcircumstances in which accidents could all too easilyhappen.

I do not believe, however, that this legislation is theway to address those issues. When I heard the casesmentioned by the Honourable Kaye Darveniza, whopreceded me, I could not help but wonder how many ofthose cases might have been taken to court, and if anywere taken to court how many would have fit thedefinitions that have been suggested by the governmentin the legislation and achieved prosecution. Many ofthem were very sad cases. Indeed as has been rightlysaid any circumstance that results in a death or an injuryof any description, but particularly a serious injury, hasan impact on many people and not just the individual.

It affects families, friends and the community, and itaffects them not just financially. Very often becausemany of those people who suffer are also people whocontribute to the community in other ways such ascoaching football or as members of other organisationssuch as Rotary and Lions clubs there is a very real andgenuine social cost associated with such accidents quiteapart from the direct cost to the family and theindividual, which may be loss of life or loss of lifestylethrough serious injury and a life ahead of serious painand suffering. The question is whether the legislationwill address those issues and stop those accidents fromhappening, and whether it is right to take up a piece oflegislation as is framed here and try to make punitive



provisions against corporations, directors or seniorofficers of companies as are defined in the bill bymaking them culpable for the results of accidents.

The problem with the bill is that it is the sort oflegislation that whilst setting a range of possibilitiesdoes not define them anywhere near well enough toensure that the courts will have sufficient guidance inthe way they might approach the legislation if it were topass into law.

I do not want to cover all the things that have beenmentioned by my colleagues in this debate because weare tight on time so I will make a fairly radicalsuggestion. One of the real concerns I have about thelegislation is the thinking behind it. It occurs to meconstantly in the context of workplace safety andworkplace management that the whole bill is predicatedon the basis that the employer is the bad guy and theonly bad guy. This may be a bit radical but perhaps weshould be looking at a situation where all employees aremade to front up each day to be tested to see they arenot on drugs or suffering from the effects of alcohol —and when I say ‘drugs’ I do not mean just illicit drugsbut also that workers might front up and explainprescription drugs they might be taking at a particulartime. Many of the accidents that happen in theworkplace can be directly attributed to the taking ofdrugs, including and probably especially normalmedication, and the use of alcohol.

Some cases are due to fatigue because of lifestylefactors. People go out and party in clubs until 4.00 a.m.and 5.00 a.m. and then turn up at work at 8 o’clock or9 o’clock and try to run an assembly line project orwork on a construction site and so forth. It is hard forme to criticise those people because I can rememberduring one period of my life doing the same thing. Youwould party all night and then turn up for work and getthrough another day. In certain areas of employment,however, that is an extremely dangerous practice. Inextensive consultations we have had on the bill I havebecome aware of some people who have contributed toand in fact caused accidents in those circumstances.

I am also aware of one particular incident thatconcerned me and would concern most honourablemembers where an employee turned up in aconstruction business to drive a forklift while under theinfluence of alcohol. His employers deemed that he wasnot fit to drive that forklift and that in fact he wouldcreate a safety hazard and would incur difficulties forthem or leave them exposed under workplace safetylaws so they said he was not to drive the forklift truckthat day. The employee was not too happy about thatbecause that was his job so he kicked up a fuss. The

employers insisted and he kicked up a bigger fuss. Theysaid, ‘Look, we are sorry, but because of the sorts ofobligations that we have to our other employees wehave to let you go. You will not abide by our directionson this and you are clearly not fit for work for theparticular job you have to do’. That employee thenwent on to take the employer to court on an unfairdismissal case and he won — the employee won!

Here is an employer who is beggared no matter what hedoes. He lets that employee stay on the forklift,obviously unfit for duty for that particular job, at a riskto that employee and to other employees in thatworkplace, or he actually takes a stand, as he did, andthen he gets hit with other legislation because he hasnot been supportive enough of that employee to put upwith this sort of behaviour.

This cuts both ways. I think we have to start looking atsome of these issues. As I said, there are a great manyworkplaces — and honourable members would find ithard to dispute this, as most would be aware ofincidents — where employees turn up to do work underthe influence of drugs, including prescription drugs,which can make them weary. There are warnings on thepacks. But how many of them turn up for work and sayto their boss, ‘Excuse me, but I am on such-and-suchmedication today. I think we had better vary my work’?How many of them turn up with a blood alcoholreading over .05 or with a significant amount of alcoholin their bloodstream and then undertake work which ishazardous to themselves and to others?

Under this legislation, such an employee could turn upand do exactly that and the employer could be chargedwith industrial manslaughter and put through thewringer, when in fact the key cause of what was a verysad and tragic accident was in fact the employee’s owndiminished responsibility in that circumstance.

We have to be serious about this and we have to look atthese things very carefully. We have to make sure thatwe do not try to find scapegoats for accidents. We haveto address the issue of the accidents. I am aware thegovernment has had an extensive program to try toeducate employers. Frankly, I think there have beensome very effective advertisements and some effectiveeducational material produced by the government inthis very field. It is one area where I would commendthe government for some of the work it has done. Ithink some of the TV advertising in this area has beenvery effective. I believe that sort of work needs to bedeveloped further. I think what is missing very muchfrom that program at the moment is the same sort ofeducation factor for the employees: advising them oftheir responsibilities and their need to make sure that



when they turn up to work they are fit to carry out thedangerous work that in some cases they do carry out. Ifthey do not, they are at enormous risk to themselvesand to their workmates and in some cases to the public.

In this situation I wonder about the culpability that acourt might attribute to a truck driver, for instance,because many trucking companies send truck drivers oninterstate and country runs and we know from evidencethat has been presented in different safety forums andother places that those truck drivers pop pills to stayawake, to keep themselves high, and to get through thelong drives that they make.

At the moment in many cases the accidents that resultfrom some of that behaviour are dealt with under ourroad traffic laws. In these circumstances they mightwell be dealt with under these laws. An employer canbe held culpable where in fact he had absolutely nocontrol over that behaviour. We have to stop. Whatworries me about this legislation is that it is looking forscapegoats and we have to stop looking for scapegoatsbut rather attack the problem, which is to get rid ofaccidents from workplaces.

The government would be surprised at just how muchthis legislation would affect investment in this state. Asa member of Parliament I have not had any issue thathas given me as many communications in terms ofletters, phone calls and faxes from business owners of arange of sizes, but particularly smaller andmiddle-range employers, and no other issue that I knowof has brought out all of the representative associationsof businesses, including organisations as diverse as theVictorian Farmers Federation, the Australian RetailersAssociation, the Victorian Employers Chamber ofCommerce and Industry and the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce. All those organisations saywith one accord: first, not enough consultation; andsecond, this punitive legislation is simply not theanswer to the problem that the government hasidentified.

Like my opposition colleagues I stand with thoseassociations and those people who are opposed to thislegislation.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I wish tomake a relatively brief contribution to this debate, giventhe hour and the fact that my colleagues on thegovernment side have already covered the legislation inconsiderable detail. I want to begin by saying that it ison occasions like this when we are debating importantlegislation such as the Crimes (Workplace Deaths andSerious Injuries) Bill that we see exactly how irrelevantthis chamber has become.

I am quite ashamed of the fact that I am a member ofthis house when this house will be the reason whyVictorian workers will not have the opportunity to seethis bill become law in this state and ensure thatVictorian workers have the benefit of the mostgroundbreaking workplace health and safety legislationthat this government is seeking to introduce.

This government went to the last election with acommitment to introduce this type of legislation. It hada commitment to improve the system of occupationalhealth and safety inspectors. It has delivered on thatcommitment with an increase in the number of thoseinspectors. Now it is seeking to introduce somethingthat will go a long way towards not just preventingdeaths and serious injuries but ensuring a whole cultureshift in Victorian workplaces to ensure that Victorianemployers turn their minds to the issue of safety andadequately put in safeguards and adopt riskmanagement practices that will ensure that theiremployees are able to work in a safe environment.

This government is not about scaring employers orscapegoating employers. Victorian employers havenothing to fear from this legislation. Most Victorianemployers already adopt very good workplace healthand safety practices. However, we know that there are anumber of rogue employers in particular industries thatcontinue to be a problem. The particular industries thatwe are seeing, in accordance with the Workcoverauthority statistics, are those industries that seem tohave a disproportionate number of workplace deathsand serious injuries.

In my electorate I have a very significantmanufacturing industry and for that reason I would bevery keen to see this type of legislation pass — toensure that those people working in those factories havethe benefit of a safe workplace environment.

We know that education and training can go some waytowards preventing workplace deaths and seriousinjuries. However, it cannot go all the way. Memberson the other side who were putting this argument todaymust be kidding themselves! I do not think they areactually kidding themselves; I do not think they actuallybelieve that assertion they are making. They are seekingto oppose this legislation purely on ideological grounds.They cannot bring themselves to support any type oflegislation that seeks to protect Victorian workers inthis state, and that is a very sorry state of affairs.

I note that in previous contributions made by membersof the opposition they sought to assert that there wasgoing to be a flight of capital away from Victoria —



that Victorian employers would shut up shop and movestate if this legislation were passed.

I categorically reject that assertion, which implies thatthe majority of Victorian workplaces and the majorityof Victorian employers are currently engaged in somesort of rogue unsafe work practices. That assertionimplies that workplaces in this state are currentlytreating their employees in a very shoddy way, and Ireject that implication. In the majority of Victorianworkplaces employers make a genuine effort to ensurethe safety of their work force and they are genuinelycommitted to ensuring that the best possible workplaceenvironment is made available. However, in a numberof instances that is unfortunately not the case.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I will also address theassertion made by some members of the opposition thatthis legislation is in some way especially unique. I ampleased that this is groundbreaking legislation, and Iinform Mr Birrell that that is not a reason in itself tooppose this legislation. Precedents sometimes need tobe created, particularly when they are good pieces oflegislation, as this bill is, and they form a model onwhich other states in this country can base their futurelegislation. I hope other states and other Labor premiersaround the country will take up this initiative.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Mr Birrell will bepleased to know that my understanding is thatQueensland is currently looking at introducing a crimeof dangerous industrial conduct. Currently theQueensland legislation has very severe penalties underits health and safety legislation — for example, wherean employer breaches his or her duty to ensureworkplace health and safety and where that breachcauses death or grievous bodily harm, a penalty of$60 000 or two years imprisonment applies. Althoughthat does not quite match our penalties it is quite asignificant penalty, and it is certainly an indication thatother states have been prepared to tackle this issue andprovide an effective deterrent to rogue employers.

I note also that the United States of America, France,Germany, Canada and the commonwealth governmentalso have hefty health and safety fines under theirrespective occupational health and safety legislation.This is groundbreaking legislation and it is importantthat Victoria leads the way. I hope other Australianstates will follow Victoria’s lead in the future.

I will turn briefly to the primary reason why we areseeking this legislation. A number of members on the

other side have sought to assert that in some way this isa huge step beyond what the common law provides.Honourable members should remember that currentlycorporations are able to be held liable for criminalmanslaughter. The problem is that the common law isnot effective and it is not an effective deterrent. In orderto get a corporation convicted of industrialmanslaughter under common law you need to be able todemonstrate that there is a directing mind and will ofthe corporation. That is pretty hard to do when youhave a major corporation with a number of peopleinvolved in decision making in that corporation.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I inform Mr Forwoodthat for that reason there have been only threesuccessful prosecutions of corporations formanslaughter in this state and one successfulprosecution for negligently causing serious injury. Theonly time we have had a successful conviction of acorporation in this state for common-law manslaughteroccurred when the corporation itself pleaded guilty, andthe only reason it pleaded guilty was that it was inliquidation at the time and it never got to pay the fine.We can see from that instance that the common law isnot working.

Victoria already has in place a system of industrialmanslaughter. Chief executive officers around this stateare already familiar with that as a concept. This is notgroundbreaking stuff. What the government is seekingto do here is to codify that system in this legislation toensure that we can attribute a decision to a specificindividual within a specific corporation. The bill seeksto aggregate the decision making in a corporation toensure that we do not have this directing mind and willimpediment preventing corporations from beingsuccessfully prosecuted.

The bill will in effect put large corporations and smallbusinesses in this state on an equal footing, becausecurrently under the common-law system it is really onlysmall businesses that can be pursued; potentially incommon law if the business is small enough oneindividual can be identified as being the directing mindand will of that business.


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Mr Forwood knowsthat there has been significant consultation with variousstakeholders and he knows that the exposure draft wasfirst put out a couple of years ago. There has been a lotof toing-and-froing and the government has made anumber of changes to the original exposure draft, and



those changes go a long way towards addressingindustry concerns.

The other reason why this legislation is so important isthat currently under the Corporations Law if a companyis convicted of an offence it can go into liquidation andleave nobody accountable for a workplace death orserious injury. As you indicated in your contribution,Madam Acting President, the corporate veil effectivelyprevents a company’s directors from being pursued forthe wrongs done by that company.

Historically corporations were set up to enable capitalto be raised and to enable business and investment toflourish across all our capitalist economies.Corporations were set up primarily for the purposes ofraising capital and not as a legal device to preventpeople being held liable, which is effectively how theyare being used today.

I have worked as a commercial lawyer and I know thatall these small $2 companies are being set up to preventpeople from being held personally liable. Why shouldthe families of the Anthony Carricks of the world beprevented from seeing a corporation’s directors beingsuccessfully prosecuted because that corporation hasgone into liquidation? And how could that corporationthen have the temerity to set up shop again under thesame directors in the same office using a differentcompany name? They are using the corporate veil toescape any liability.

These are situations that no Victorian would findacceptable. By opposing this legislation the oppositionis allowing these types of legal fictions to be used as away of preventing people from being successfullyprosecuted and it is preventing an effective deterrentfrom being established to encourage Victorianemployers to do the best they possibly can to protecttheir work force.

The legislation is groundbreaking stuff. I make noapology for that and the government makes no apologyfor that. The bill is designed to prohibit certainbehaviour and to punish behaviour that is soreprehensible that it warrants criminal punishment. Thebill will affect those large corporations that havepreviously been unable to be prosecuted under thecommon law. It will also affect those companydirectors who have used the corporate veil to escapepersonal liability in the past.

A number of members opposite indicated in theircontributions that one death in the workplace is toomany. That is a sentiment which I think all honourablemembers of this house would share. However, by

opposing this legislation the Liberal Party is missing anopportunity to set up a legislative framework to ensurethat Victorian workers do have the best possibleworking environment. It is an opportunity that will besadly missed and one which will no doubt be revisitedat the next state election when Victorian workers willbe reminded of the opposition’s position here tonightand also of its position on the Fair Employment Bill.Until now it has taken a purely ideological position inopposing every piece of legislation that comes beforethis Parliament that seeks to protect Victorian workers.

I commend this bill to this house, and I urge membersopposite to have a good hard think about theirideological obsession against legislation that protectsVictorian workers.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I am pleasedto join this debate and make a relatively shortcontribution but I hope one that is to the point. Firstly,on the basis that Ms Mikakos said in her openingcomments that she is ashamed to be a member of thishouse I say, ‘Begone!’, because she adds no value tothe legislative process. She comes in here and deridesthe value of this chamber which has for more than100 years been a significant component of thedemocratic processes in Victoria. The reason theopposition is debating this bill today is because it ispoor legislation. It is poor legislation because thetroglodytes of the Australian Labor Party, who havebeen described as manager-owners or a subsidiary ofthe trade union movement, are basically here doing thebidding of the unions without regard to the economicconsequences for Victoria.

More importantly it is quite apparent that there aresome grudges being brought to bear. It was clear to mein Mr Bob Smith’s contribution earlier this evening thathe nominated Exxon, or Esso Australia Ltd, as a targetof this legislation. I know a little about what he wasreferring to: he was explicitly referring to the tragedy ofthe explosion in 1998 at Esso’s Longford plant wheretwo people, Peter Wilson and John Lowrey, werekilled. I knew both those gentlemen well because I hadworked with them. Peter Wilson was my plantsupervisor when I worked for Esso in the 1970s andJohn Lowrey was a maintenance fitter at that time. Itwas an absolute tragedy. I regarded it so then and willcontinue for the rest of my life to say that it was one ofthe most devastating things to affect the community ofSale and the surrounding district. Everybody in thatarea knew that Esso had a very strong safety cultureand it was a great shock to the community that such anaccident could occur.



As somebody who came from a farming andagricultural background and who had worked inagriculture nearly all my life it was a big contrast forme to go and work in the oil industry and see thesignificant difference in a corporate industrialenvironment compared with the standards, attitudes andculture of safety in agriculture. It is absolutely true thatthere is a lack of awareness in the farming communityabout safety issues and it would be useful before peopleentered agriculture as a profession for them to work in acorporate environment where safety standards arerequired to be met because of the necessity to complywith law and importantly to experience issues that arerelevant to the effective functioning of a largeorganisation where the mutual dependence of theemployees means they need to look out for one another,particularly in a potentially high-risk industry such asthe oil industry.

For Mr Bob Smith to have come in here and slagged offabout Esso was typical of a former Australian WorkersUnion secretary and displayed a great deal ofignorance. Also, Mr Smith displayed ignorance aboutthe nature of the farming industry.

It is clear that the Victorian Farmers Federation, as oneof the employer organisations in Victoria that has takena position opposed to the bill, has done so advisedly.We have to be aware of the fact that most farmbusinesses in Victoria are organised along fairly simplelines. They are family businesses, and generally theyare either sole traders or partnership businesses. The billdoes not seek to deal with that sort of businessstructure; it deals specifically with corporate structures.

It is also true that a number of farm businesses and notnecessarily large agricultural businesses are organisedas companies. To my knowledge a lot of the businessesin the area I have farmed in were organised alongcorporate lines simply for convenience. I can recite anexample specifically and well known to me of the likelyconsequences of this legislation impacting on a familyfarming unit.

I will not name names because it is inappropriate. Ishall speak of a very close friend of mine who operateda beef and sheep grazing property literally within astone’s throw of my farm. The couple were of a similarage to me, with children of similar ages to mine andwho are now in their mid to late teens. They were in thesituation of having a business that was a company andwhere the directors, the controllers of the company,were the husband and wife. Both were activelyinvolved in the management of the business financiallyand on a day-to-day basis.

The husband would be perceived as the principalbreadwinner and happened to go mustering onemorning. He was an exceptionally competent horsemanand was a former national president of the AustralianStockhorse Association. He was a regular campdraftcompetitor and was well known in stockhorse circlesthroughout Australia and also through the farmingcommunity in south-east Australia and Queensland.

My friend went mustering, as was not unusual, and hehappened to be on his own. He took a horse that wasnot flighty but just one of the usual stockhorses. He didnot come home. He was found later that evening afterhaving been thrown and having his skull crushed on astump. He inevitably failed to regain consciousness andafter a couple of days the life support was removed. Hedied.

That happened about 12 years ago. The children wereleft without a father, and his wife was left without ahusband. The farm situation was such that because itwas organised as a corporate entity, the sole survivingdirector could easily, under the legislation that is beforethe house, have been charged in such a way aspotentially to be jailed for negligence, and the companyand the director fined excessively for what was agenuine accident, the cause of which nobody could everexplain. The most unpredictable things occur when youare working with machinery and livestock in thefarming industry.

It is true that the culture in agricultural industries hasnot been one of high safety consciousness. As I haveled in evidence here previously, I had quite are-education when I worked in the oil industry and sawthe contrasting conditions. I have always rememberedhow shocked I was at those differences in terms ofstandards. Nevertheless, there are some things youcannot control. Certainly if you work with animals it isimpossible to control some circumstances.

This bill is entirely unsatisfactory in the consequencesthat it sets in terms of import. It is the reason thatemployer organisations have as one opposed thelegislation. Frankly, I am mystified why thegovernment has persisted other than delivering on acommitment to an agenda of the union movement andthe fact that the Australian Labor Party had signed up toit to maintain that support. I believe the government isgoing through the motions. As other honourablemembers have pointed out, there seems to be no realcommitment to this bill. It surprises me that there areonly two government members on the other side of thehouse as we proceed with this bill at 11.30 at night. Iwould have thought that if there was such a ragingdebate on an issue of such passion and commitment by



government members they would all be here cheeringon their fearsome warriors who are defending theircase. The fact is that there has been an inadequate caseput and members of the opposition have dealt with itquite adequately.

I do not need to say any more. The bill standscondemned by the mere fact of the implications thatexist for people in small business. From my ownperspective of representing rural Victoria, I could notconsider supporting legislation which would havedirectors of family companies jailed because ofaccidents over which they had no control.

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I beginmy contribution by saying quite categorically that it ismy belief, based on rather lengthy exposure to the workforce, that companies do care. They do care for theiremployees! I am not aware of any company — large,small or of medium size — that does not have a veryresponsible attitude towards the welfare and wellbeingof its employees.

To suggest that legislation as austere, as difficult and aspunitive as this is based on the premise that companiesdo not care or may not care is irresponsible. They docare and there is lots of legislation on the statute bookto make sure that those recalcitrant people who may notwant to care do so. There is an honest intention in thebusiness community towards employees and I rejectoutright the premise that businesses do not care. We aredealing with legislation that would deal a full bodyblow to business confidence. There is no question inmy mind that large, small and intermediate companieswould certainly have a knock to their businessconfidence levels and consequently investment andemployment would fall if this bill were passed.

Let us look at the size of this potential problem.According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figuresof June 2001, there are 381 000 operating businesses inVictoria. In November last year those businessesemployed 2 323 600 Victorians. In June 2000 therewere 37 304 agricultural establishments and83 748 persons were employed in them. This is not asmall situation. There are large numbers of businessesinvolved and large numbers of people — millions ofthem! It is not inconsequential.

Small business does not have the same resources asgovernment or large industry. I believe that is animportant part of this. We have heard this legislation isgoing to make all institutions equal and small businesswill be on the same footing as large business. It is verydifficult for small enterprises to put the resources intoliterally conforming to the spirit and the letter of

legislation. When you look at the complexity of thelegislation that faces small business today — such asoccupational health and safety regulations,common-law obligations, equal opportunityregulations, Workcover requirements and environmentprotection regulations — you see that the list goes onand on!

I am not saying that they are not necessary but I amsaying that to the small business operator they add up toa level of stress. Should the bill pass — and I do notsupport it — there would be a layer of stress above thedirectors, senior management and the responsiblepeople inside companies permanently. I think it istotally irresponsible of this government to propose thatfor the Victorian work force.

There are personal risks for directors and seniormanagement based on genuine business practices andethical standards which are of a high order in ourstate — and they are required to be of a high order bothto be commercially successful and to conform to ourlaws. They are disproportionately exposed to attack bythe legislation. There is no corresponding obligation onemployees, and previous speakers have givenconvincing reasons as to why all the risk is put on theshoulders of the corporation and the people in thesupervisory chain. I have looked at the bill and listenedto honourable members preceding me, and there is nocorresponding obligation on the employees. As a matterof fact, the employees can use a whole raft of legislativeactions which can be quite punitive if employers try toimpose those sensible, precautionary and conservativeapproaches that would mean that they could conform tothe legislation, so it is counterproductive.

Government cannot control the details of the courtpractices. We have heard that this will not happen, thatwill not happen or this is not intended. If it is in the bill,the government has no control because we have theseparation of powers. Once the legislation passes, theseparation of powers prevents the government and theadministration from interfering in what should orshould not happen in the court process, so I have noconfidence in the assurances given by governmentmembers so far in their contributions on the basis of,‘Don’t worry about it. It won’t apply to too manypeople’. I do worry about it because the governmentwill have control over the finite application of the billshould it pass. It is bureaucratic and costly and it willadd another layer of delay, caution, documentation andcost.

In concluding I would like to refer honourable membersto an article which appeared on 18 March on page 9 ofthe Herald Sun under the heading ‘Anger at safety bill’.



It provides a short list of the consequences should thebill pass:

Critics claim the bill:

Gives no recognition to health and safety being a sharedobligation

Makes a corporation liable for the actions of an agent, andthat agent’s agent, and so on, extending the chain ofresponsibility beyond a workable scope

Forces businesses into an adversarial relationship withemployees

Shifts the focus of workplace safety from prevention topunishment

Sets up senior officers to take the fall for the company

Is not supported by evidence that increasing fines andpenalties will reduce workplace deaths and injuries

I believe that those points are accurate. The wholephilosophy of the legislation can be said to be soundand sensible but the detail and the potential impactwould be devastating to the work force and the level ofconfidence. It is totally unacceptable.

In my electorate alone, there are thousands of smallfamily businesses, particularly in agriculturalenterprises and on farms. Previous speakers have givena good understanding to honourable members of theconsequences of corporatisation and the difficulties thatcould arise from those aspects of the legislation whenpeople are injured or lost to us through workplaceinjury.

In conclusion, I cannot support the bill. I think it isentirely irresponsible. It will drive away jobs andinvestment. If anyone external to Victoria was lookingto invest here they would have to not only think twice,they would have to think at least a dozen times: do theyreally want to come here and have this hanging overtheir heads? I do not support the bill.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I riseto make several brief points. Government membershave accused the opposition of being ideological on thismatter, most recently the Honourable Jenny Mikakos,and by implication having arrived at a position on thebasis of that ideology and not on the basis of thelegislation before the house.

The Liberal Party has been through a rigorous processin considering this legislation and many members of theparty were actively involved in that process. Not allhave been able to speak on the legislation in this houseand the other place. However, I met many times withmany people to discuss, learn and understand, as did theHonourable Wendy Smith, who represents small

business, the Honourables Carlo Furletti and MarkBirrell, the honourable members for Brighton andBerwick in the other place and others. In arriving at theposition we are taking today we took advice from a vastrange of people on this legislation. Many members ofthe party conducted surveys with their constituents andwith their business groups. Many met with theirbusiness groups. This was not an issue that we tooklightly. The honourable member for Berwick in theother place twice met with the trade union movement.We did not treat this lightly; we did not treat itideologically.

We spent considerable time discussing the issues withthe member firms of the Victorian Congress ofEmployer Associations, the Australian Industry Group,the Victorian Farmers Federation, the AustralianRetailers Association, the Victorian AutomobileChamber of Commerce (VACC), the VictorianEmployers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, theprinters, the road transport authority and, as Mr Birrellpointed out, the Australian Institute of CompanyDirectors. We took this process seriously in arriving atthe position we have.

Much information was made available by those groupsto various people and some of it has been quoted heretonight. I have an essay by the VACC titled ‘TheCrimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill’. Iwish to read a little of it to the house tonight:

Will this bill before the house … achieve what thegovernment assures the community it will achieve? Will thisbill make workplaces safer or less safe? Does this bill pass thefair person test? Is it fair, is it equitable? These are thequestions that are central to the matter and must be debated.

There are, however, a number of things which are crucial tothis examination, but which sit outside the argument:

What is not in contention is that workplace deaths are terribletragedies.

What is not in contention is that a mother who waves her sonoff to work should expect to set a place for him at the dinnertable that evening, and see him there, safe and secure, and inthe company and comfort of his family.

What is not in contention is that a wife or husband departingfor work should expect to return to their door, safe and secure,at the end of the day.

What is not in contention is that it is an employer’sunconditional and steadfast duty to provide — as much as canbe provided — a safe workplace for all employees.

What is not in contention is that employers and employeesshould strive to improve safety in their workplaces, andshould cooperate — one with the other — in the interests ofsafety and the wellbeing of their fellows.

CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL


What is not in contention is that the government shouldpursue sensible reforms in the interests of workplace safety,and should seek solutions to the tragedy of death and injury inour workplaces.

On this, there is no argument: our workplaces should nevertake lives away, our workplaces should never maim nor injurenor disfigure.

…

There is no political divide on this. We accept these matterswithout reservation and without qualification.

This noble aim of seeking to make workplaces as safe as theycan possibly be is not in contention. This is simply our duty.

What is in contention is whether this legislation … is the bestway to achieve safer workplaces, is the best way to buildupon the gains of the past decade, and is the best way toensure that no family faces an empty chair at a dinner tablewhere a working son or daughter or mother or father mightotherwise have been seated.

That is not in contention. We do not believe on this sideof the house that the government has made the case thatthis piece of legislation would improve workplacesafety. For that reason alone we will be opposing thebill. There are other reasons that have been canvassedwidely by the members of this chamber tonight on ourside and the National Party that explain other reasons,but the crucial reason is that this legislation is bad law;it will not make workplaces safer. I am afraid thegovernment knows that.

One of the really sad parts of this debate has been thecynical manipulation of grieving people by theAttorney-General. I know and others know that theyhave been misused in this debate. My heart goes out toevery person in this state who has had to deal with aworkplace tragedy of any sort — death or seriousinjury. My heart goes out to them, and I find itunforgivable that they should be exploited in this wayby a government that knew it did not want this bill topass, a government that was behind the scenes saying topeople, ‘We have to do this but don’t worry, theVictorian upper house will block it; it won’t gothrough’. While the Attorney-General was cynicallymanipulating grieving people, the Treasurer and thePremier were quietly saying to people, ‘Don’t worry,this bill will be stopped in the upper house’. This bill isbeing stopped in the upper house for one reason only —it is a bad law that would not improve workplace safety.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 12Broad, Ms McQuilten, Mr (Teller)Carbines, Mrs (Teller) Madden, MrDarveniza, Ms Mikakos, MsGould, Ms Nguyen, MrHadden, Ms Romanes, Ms

Jennings, Mr Thomson, Ms

Noes, 27Ashman, Mr Forwood, MrAtkinson, Mr Furletti, MrBaxter, Mr (Teller) Hall, MrBest, Mr Hallam, MrBirrell, Mr Katsambanis, MrBishop, Mr Lucas, MrBoardman, Mr Olexander, MrBowden, Mr Powell, MrsBrideson, Mr Rich-Phillips, MrCoote, Mrs Smith, Mr K. M.Cover, Mr Smith, MsCraige, Mr Stoney, MrDavis, Mr D. McL. Strong, MrDavis, Mr P. R. (Teller)

PairsSmith, Mr R. F Ross, DrTheophanous, Mr Ms Luckins

Motion negatived.

CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT)(AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN(Minister for Sport and Recreation).

STATE TAXATION ACTS (FURTHER TAXREFORM) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. C. C. BROAD(Minister for Energy and Resources).

ADJOURNMENT



Bail justices: immunisation

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I wish toraise with the Minister for Energy and Resources forthe attention of the Attorney-General in the other placea matter to do with the immunisation of bail justices. Iraised this issue in October last year, seven months ago,when I sought the Attorney-General’s consideration of

ADJOURNMENT


providing immunisation against hepatitis for theapproximately 350 bail justices in Victoria.

Hepatitis infection is at a high level among thoseassociated with the drug scene, and people from thatscene are some of the people with whom bail justiceshave to deal. In November last year theAttorney-General advised that he had requested hisofficers to make the necessary arrangements. Because Ihad heard nothing further, in February this year, just onfive months ago, I wrote to the Attorney-General andasked what steps had been put in place. I suggested thatif bail justices obtained the immunisation for hepatitisfrom their general practitioner perhaps a system couldbe put in place for reimbursing the costs.

My letter of 4 February was acknowledged but I haveheard nothing further, so I raised the matter again bywriting to the Attorney-General on 2 April. Again I hadan acknowledgment — it would appear that theAttorney-General is good at acknowledging letters butnot at answering them.

Given that it is now six months since the ministeragreed to direct his officers to put some processes inplace, I am wondering whether this is another exampleof inaction and procrastination by the government orwhether a review is being undertaken into this issue.Indeed, I am wondering what is the hold-up.

I ask the Attorney-General when the arrangements forthe immunisation of bail justices against hepatitis willcommence, and what those arrangements will be.

Gippsland: harvesting and haulage funding

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — Tonight I wish toraise a matter for the attention of the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation. It follows a letter of16 May written to me by the East Gippsland Harvestingand Haulage Restructure Group. The letter states that inJanuary this year the government announced financialassistance of $800 000 as interim support funding fortimber harvesting and haulage contractors in EastGippsland.

The funding was certainly welcome. Some of it hasbeen used by harvesters and haulers in East Gippsland,but because of the fluctuating market in residualroundwood not all of it has been expended. In fact some$570 000 of the $800 000 is yet to be spent. TheDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment,which administers this money, has been instructed byTreasury that all of the $800 000 is required to beexpended by the end of this financial year, and itproposes to spend the remainder of those funds todevelop and implement a major road improvement

program. While that is welcome, the people involved inthe harvesting and haulage restructure group believethat that money will be better carried over to the nextfinancial year and spent by its members when there is afurther downturn in the market. Already there areindications that the residual market is again on thedecline.

I put a simple request to the government that theremaining funds of $570 000 be rolled over until the2002–03 financial year and used as originally intendedby the people involved in harvesting and haulage inEast Gippsland until such time as the restructure of thehardwood industry is in fact finalised. This is a mostreasonable request, and I ask that the request beconveyed to the Minister for Environment andConservation.

Road safety: speed cameras

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I seekthe assistance of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices through the Minister for Energy andResources. In the recent state budget there is a largeincrease of $337 million in the provision for fines andpenalties mainly based on the use of speed cameras,which are often used in unmarked and disguisedlocations.

The Herald Sun of Tuesday, 28 May, reports that in theUnited Kingdom to avoid accusations that it is revenueraising through the use of speed cameras the UKgovernment is legislating to ban the disguised locationsand secret siting of traffic speed cameras as part of itsaccent on safety on UK roads and to make sure that theUK public are clearly able to understand that revenueraising is not a priority. Under the UK legislationcameras will need to be out in the open, clearly marked,clearly visible and operated by police staff in visiblyrecognisable uniforms and vehicles.

Will the state government examine the results of theUK experience and legislation in relation to road safetyand location of speed cameras so that the UK practicesand results can be compared directly with the operationof speed cameras in Victoria?

White Wreath Day

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I raise anissue with the Minister for Health in another placethrough the Minister for Energy and Resources. Todayis National White Wreath Day. At 1 o’clock today inQueen’s Hall a memorial service was held for victimsof suicide. People were invited to lay a wreath inmemory of colleagues, family and friends and to hear

ADJOURNMENT


speakers tell of their personal stories. I know a numberof members of this house attended that service.

Heather Creighton, the coordinator of the Melbournesub-branch of the White Wreath Association, talkedabout how important today was in raising communityawareness of suicide and its effects on family andfriends and the broader community. The White WreathAssociation is a voluntary association and receives nofunding from governments. Funds are raised byvolunteers to give support to those who have beentouched by suicide.

John McGrath, a former National Party member ofParliament and Deputy Speaker in the LegislativeAssembly spoke about his family’s personal tragedy.John’s son died as a result of suicide. He also spokeabout the alarming statistics. One in five Australianswill be affected by mental illness, including one in fouradolescents. He is concerned that the treatment foryoung people does not involve parents — for example,hospitals do not contact parents when a child is releasedand doctors do not talk to parents about their child’streatment.

This month I launched the mental health forum inShepparton and speakers spoke about the link betweenmental health and suicide. The suicide rate is muchhigher in country Victoria. I know of a number offamilies who have been touched by suicide. I know ofthree well-respected and high profile men and fouryoung men who in the prime of their lives havesuicided.

I ask the Minister for Health to address the issue raisedby John McGrath, to work with organisations like theWhite Wreath Association and with mental healthassociations to investigate appropriate treatment plansin partnership with the families of people with mentalhealth problems in an effort to prevent suicide.

HMVS Cerberus

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — The issue Iraise this evening through the Minister for Ports is forthe attention of her colleague the Minister for Planningin her role in looking after shipwrecks, or it may beeven for the attention of the Minister for Ports herself. Itrefers to HMVS Cerberus — ‘HMVS’ stands for HerMajesty’s Victorian ship — which was once the prideof the Victorian navy and for many years the mostpowerful battleship in the Southern Hemisphere.

In 1926 the ship was sunk at Black Rock as abreakwater. Because of the vessel’s historicsignificance — she was a monitor class vessel and isrelevant to the transition from wooden ships of the line

to the metal battleships of today — there is anunderstandable desire to preserve what is left of the shipas an important part of Victoria’s and Australia’smaritime history. That is something I support.

Unfortunately this is a multimillion-dollar undertaking.Locally much ratepayers’ money has been spent overmany years looking at the question of preservation. Forinstance, between 1985 and 1992 the formerSandringham council spent $40 000 on various studies;in 1996, $16 700 was spent by Bayside City Council onfurther studies; and just a couple of weeks ago BaysideCity Council voted another $12 500 for more studies.

I ask the minister to indicate clearly whether thegovernment will support the multimillion-dollarexpenditure to preserve the HMVS Cerberus so that astop can be put to these ongoing studies which aredraining the local ratepayers’ purse.

Mildura: hospital site

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — Myadjournment issue is directed to the Minister for Energyand Resources for the attention of the Minister forFinance in the other place. There has been a lot ofmedia and community attention directed to the oldMildura hospital site of late. A great deal of that interesthas been driven by debate about where the futureaccommodation of the Mildura Rural City Councilmight be positioned. The hospital site has been vacantfor about two years now, and I for one have no clearinformation on exactly what will happen with the sitewhich, if my memory serves me right, is almost17 acres in size — quite a large site.

I understand the Sunraysia Community Health Servicehas been allocated a portion of the site, and I commendthat move. I also understand that Princes Court Homes,an excellent aged care facility, is also expected to gainsome extra space as it is adjacent to the site, which isalso to be commended. I am not sure what else isallocated. However, time is marching on and anincreasing number of my constituents are raising theissue of the cost of the 24-hour surveillance of the oldhospital site, which must be costing an absolutefortune! No doubt this money could be better used inproviding additional health services around thecommunity.

Another issue is what heritage orders have beenimposed on the old hospital building and what needs tobe done and can be done to manage that process. I askthe Minister for Finance to inform me of thegovernment’s final plans for the old hospital site andthe time lines associated with those plans.

ADJOURNMENT


Consumer affairs: email scam

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —I wish to raise a matter with the Minister for ConsumerAffairs in the other place. Last night I received an emailfrom Miracle Sankoh, who purports to be a person fromSierra Leone. The email was apparently sent fromGhana, West Africa. The content of the email issomething that we would all be increasingly familiarwith. Among other things the email says:

… I solicit … your assistance to transfer this fund into youraccount …

It asks for bank account details, assistance in obtainingtravelling papers and also for introductions to profitablebusiness ventures. Not surprisingly, it goes on to saythat if I am forthcoming with bank account details, thisperson will deposit US$28 million into the account, ofwhich I will ultimately receive 15 per cent, which isroughly A$6 million, for providing bank accountdetails.

Frankly I was surprised at the audacity of this person insending an email like this to a member of Parliament.We have heard of these things in the generalcommunity from time to time, but the fact that they arenow being sent to members of Parliament I found quiteextraordinary. Given that, I ask the Minister forConsumer Affairs to again highlight this issue as aproblem that is occurring in the community, that peopleare running these scams, and to ensure that as fewpeople as possible are pulled in by them.

Fishing and hunting: regulation

Hon. R. M. HALLAM (Western) — I raise amatter for the attention of the minister responsible forthe regulation of hunting and game management in thisstate, the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Itconcerns a submission that has recently been lodgedwith the Bracks government by the Game ManagementCouncil of Victoria, or Gamecon (Vic), whichadvocates that a statutory body be established todevelop our hunting and game management strategyand that a trust fund be established from shooterslicence fees to support this general proposition.

I do not intend to argue the merits of the submission —that organisation is quite competent to do that — but asa keen hunter I have an interest in this and havetravelled enough to know that we in Victoria andAustralia are wasting a valuable tourism incentive —for example, I have seen at first hand what NewZealand does to entice international fishermen andhunters to try its magnificent trout streams and itstrophy game varieties. It is a very big part of New

Zealand’s tourism strategy and indeed its domesticeconomy.

My view is that we in Australia have a far better andwider hunting and fishing opportunity to market but, farfrom actively pursuing this market, we actually make ithard for international visitors to participate. Forexample, a visiting hunter must not only take out aVictorian shooters licence and pay for the authority tohunt before he or she can participate, but also toparticipate in our annual duck season a visitor mustpass a waterfowl identification test (WIT), which is noteasy to arrange and is very time consuming. Thateffectively means that our most qualified internationalvisitors are barred from participating, whereas thelogical compromise would be for us to simply requirehim or her to shoot under the direct supervision of afully qualified local guide — in other words, someonewho does hold a WIT. That is hardly a novel suggestionbecause it applies in almost every other country aroundthe world.

I commend the Gamecon submission, particularlyinsofar as it advocates a subtle but critical shift in thefocus of government. I respectfully ask the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation to seriously considerthe Gamecon message that what we need is realisticmanagement of all facets of recreational fishing andhunting in this state rather than pedantic regulation ofthose who participate, or, more specifically, those whowould participate in this popular pastime.

Consumer affairs: airbag scam

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley) — Iraise a matter for the attention of the Minister forConsumer Affairs in another place — namely, anemerging scam developing in the smash repairbusiness. I will explain how the scam works. It beginswith a dishonest repairer’s quote that includes, alongwith labour and spares, replacing the airbag or airbagstriggered in a crash. The repairer orders them from thedealer’s spare parts counter and the airbag kit isinvoiced and duly delivered.

The repairer then obtains a stolen airbag at a fraction ofthe new price, returns the unused, legally obtainedairbag kit to the dealer and is duly credited with theprice. This, of course, is not noted on the originalinvoice. The stolen airbag is then fitted to the repairedcar and the repairer is paid in full by the insurancecompany for the price of the legitimate airbag andpockets the difference. Just to give you an example ofthe size of the scam, a replacement airbag for a Ford ora Holden is roughly $300 to $400, and for more

ADJOURNMENT


expensive imported cars it costs in the vicinity of$1000.

I ask the minister if she will investigate the extent of thescam in Victoria and work with the insurers and theautomotive industry to help stamp out this shonkypractice.

Western Ring Road: speed signage

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — I raisean urgent issue for the attention of the Minister forTransport in the other place regarding speed limitsignage on the Western Ring Road. Today I have beenadvised by two people that there is a significant signageerror that could cause extremely dangerous conditionson the Western Ring Road and could even threatenlives. It is on the part of the Western Ring Road whichwould affect motorists travelling south-west from theHume Highway out towards the West Gate Freeway. Itis after the Hume Highway turn-off and before theSt Albans, Sunshine and airport turn-off.

There is at a point in the road two signs — one on theleft-hand side of the road and one on the right-hand sideof the road — purporting to indicate the speed limit forthat portion of the road. The unfortunate thing is thatthe left-hand speed sign says that the speed limit is60 kilometres per hour and the right-hand side sign atexactly the same point says the speed limit is80 kilometres per hour. Honourable members wouldappreciate what sort of confusion this is likely to causefor drivers and how dangerous this situation would be ifit is allowed to go unchecked. It is unbelievable, butunfortunately it has been confirmed to me by email andby phone cal by two residents who have travelled onthat road today.

I ask the minister to immediately correct this issue andto advise the public of Victoria whether this is a regularoccurrence and to explain why it has happened, becauseit is just unacceptable.

Child care: regulations

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I raise a matter forthe Minister for Community Services in the other placein regard to children’s services and some of theregulations that are being made, particularly forcommunity houses. Community houses have been asource of occasional child care for many years, butwhat is happening with some of the new regulations ismaking it difficult for community houses to keeprunning occasional care for kids.

There is no denying that there is a need for occupationalhealth and safety standards, space standards and a

whole range of standards, but the increasing number ofstandards and the amount of funding that needs to gowith these standards is going to close some communityhouses. In particular, I refer to a letter from thecommittee of management of the North RingwoodCommunity House, which has written to me on thechildren’s services regulations, saying it has concernsabout the new regulations that will come into effect on1 June 2003. The committee of management has threebasic problems: access, employment and financial.

Concern has been expressed about the additionalamount of staff it will have to put on in regard to thenew staff-child split ratios, the availability of suitablyqualified staff, the cost of training existing staff to reachnew qualified standards, and the access to training thatis not available in the area. The committee is saying thatthe impact will be considerable on neighbourhoodcommunity houses, which are the main providers ofoccasional care across Victoria, and in some areas maybe the only facility offering child care.

Bill Port, the chairperson of this committee ofmanagement, believes the impact of these regulationswill end up directly infringing state government policyto protect the health and wellbeing of all Victorians,emphasising vulnerable groups and those most in need.He believes these centres will start closing down or startrunning in a manner which will be a problem for thesafety of children. I ask the minister, as these needs aregrowing and the funding for space and extra stafftraining is growing, if she will provide extra funding toneighbourhood and community houses which arehaving problems meeting these new standards.

Goulburn Valley Water: management

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) — I wishto raise a matter for the Minister for Environment andConservation. Once again I raise in this place an issueof the mismanagement and incompetence of GoulburnValley Water.

In October 2001 I raised the issue of unauthorised entryby the water authority, the removal of trees and a wasteof money on lawyers. In April 2002 I raised anothermatter in respect of Goulburn Valley Water aboutunauthorised entry, removal of trees, and a pipeline thatwas laid outside the 8 metre easement. I asked theminister to inquire into it, but no action has happened atall other than the fact that we have had cover-up lettersfrom the catchment and water division of theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment. Nodoubt they are working at the direction of the ministerto try to look after their mates in Goulburn ValleyWater.

ADJOURNMENT


The saga goes on. Gill and Rhonda Livesay areproperty owners on the same pipeline who have hadtheir fence cut and whose cattle have got out. Thecontractor has been in and out of the property and hehas ripped up the property along the pipeline. Treeshave been removed, the land has now been eroded, andthe final connection is a 6-foot hole on that property.That land is now eroded and unusable by cattle.

Steve and Jodie Hopper have a sewerage pipe whichtook 21 months for the contractor to lay and it is stillnot cleaned up properly and the area is being eroded.They have had a water treatment plant put on theirproperty by Goulburn Valley Water, which promised itwould be in there for two weeks; seven months later itsworkers are still there, with the land being eroded.

The damage and destruction caused by GoulburnValley Water seems to go on and on with no actionbeing taken by this government. It is time for theminister to act in respect of the management ofGoulburn Valley Water and it is time the chiefexecutive officer was held accountable for what hasbeen occurring. If he does not want to be then clearly heshould be sacked.

I ask the minister to immediately send in an investigatorand an administrator to stop the water authoritydestroying people’s lives and property.

Princes Highway–Chapel Street, Windsor:safety

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Transport inrelation to an additional red-light traffic camera at theintersection of the Princes Highway and Chapel Streetin Windsor. It is a very dangerous intersection and thetraffic flow through the intersection every day isconsiderable. The police have a great deal of troubletrying to catch people who run the red lights at thatintersection and they have to go through the red lightsvery quickly to catch them.

The statistics for the area indicate an urgent need forattention. They indicate that over the past five yearsthere have been 202 injury collisions and 5 fatalities atthis intersection. The red-light camera that is currentlyinstalled in Dandenong Road has not been in operationfor five years. One of the reasons given by the TrafficCamera Office is that the width of the roadway does notallow the photographs to identify offending vehicles onthe far side of the camera. This results in the flashoperating but no offender being prosecuted.

A possible solution is to use the current loop that isinstalled in the roadway to install a second camera inDandenong Road, which would allow for the taking ofphotographs of the lanes that do not show up clearly onthe photographs taken by the current camera. The costof an additional camera is only $15 000, and given thatthe collection of police fines is expected to skyrocket to$336 million in the next financial year and that thePremier has said that much more funding will be goinginto road safety initiatives, I ask the minister to ensurethat an additional camera is installed at this busy anddangerous intersection to ensure the safety of Victorianroad users.

Port of Portland: fishing wharf

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I referthe Minister for Ports to the port of Portland, which Ihad the pleasure of visiting in April of this year andwhich I am confident the minister will have visitedsince she has taken on her role as minister. If she has,the minister would be well aware that the trawler andcrayfishing facilities of the port, which are still underthe management of the operating company, the Port ofPortland Ltd, are falling into a serious state of disrepair.I am sure the minister is aware that the small slipway inPortland is no longer useable and that the 300-tonneslipway, which is now being used for all local fishingand maritime pastimes, is very much overused.

In December last year the port of Portland offered totransfer the professional fishing precinct which formspart of its facilities back to public ownership. Acommittee to investigate the proposal was due to havebeen convened in March, with the transfer of theprecinct to have been completed by the end of June.Given that the committee has not yet met, I ask theminister what prospect there is of this pressing issue forthe Portland fishing community being resolved by theend of June.

Cycling: Melbourne–Geelong network

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — My matter on theadjournment tonight is for the Minister for Transport inthe other place. I say by way of introduction that I havethe good fortune to advise the house of a new cyclingcommunity organisation that has been formed inGeelong, namely Cycling Geelong. Like many othercycling organisations it is keen to promote cycling inthe Geelong region and at the same time see that thereis increased road safety for cyclists.

In a letter Cycling Geelong refers to the reconstructionof the Princes Freeway between Geelong andMelbourne which will provide on-road bicycle lanes on

ADJOURNMENT


the shoulders of the freeway carriage lanes betweenGeelong and Werribee. However, it is obvious that notall cyclists would wish to ride on the shoulders of suchfreeways for reasons of safety, particularly familygroups, young and inexperienced cyclists and someolder cyclists.

Through its president, Debi Hamilton, Cycling Geelongadvises that the soon to be built Federation Trail willprovide a high-quality off-road cycling facility betweenMelbourne and Werribee but that cyclists wishing tocomplete the journey between Werribee and Lara willbe required to use a poorly maintained and circuitousnetwork of minor roads should they not wish to or areunable to cycle along the freeway. Once at Lara theywill be able to rejoin an existing bicycle path for thejourney from Lara to Geelong. Cycling Geelong isasking that consideration be given to making permanentand appropriate provision for recreational cyclists alongthe approximately 25 kilometres of the Princes Freewaybetween the Werribee River, where the Federation Trailwill end, and Lara, where the William Hovell Creeklinear park path already exists.

There are two major issues which the organisationwould like the Minister for Transport to address.Firstly, the retention of the 4.5 kilometre temporarybicycle path which is being built between the LittleRiver overpass and Wests Road for the use of cyclistsduring the reconstruction of the freeway. Secondly, acommitment to the planning and funding of thecompletion of the off-road cycling network betweenMelbourne and Geelong. Off-road cycling facilitiesbetween Melbourne and Geelong have not been a highpriority to date according to Cycling Geelong and itsubmits that this represents a great disservice to themany cyclists who would wish to cycle between thetwo cities and beyond to enjoy the recreational pursuitsaround the Bellarine Peninsula and along the GreatOcean Road.

I seek advice from the minister as to how he willaddress these important issues raised by CyclingGeelong.

Fishing: rock lobster

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — Myadjournment query is to the Minister for Energy andResources. The minister and her department areresponsible for a fair amount of devastation in thefishing industry, and particularly the rock lobsterindustry for which she has responsibility. In April thisyear the Marine and Freshwater Resources Instituteproduced its risk assessment figures for rock lobster toSeafood Industry Victoria. The figures equate to about

16 per cent of the 60-tonne total allowable catch of theeastern zone. This would amount to about a 9.6-tonnereduction in the total allowable catch — in dollar termsabout $450 000.

Honourable members should bear in mind thatfollowing the introduction of quota managementeastern zone fisherman have already this year sufferedan 18 per cent reduction in their catch — and nocompensation was paid. This means a total enforcedreduction in catch of 34 per cent for 2002–03 now thatmarine parks are proposed to be implemented. Thisequates to a $990 000 loss to the eastern zonefishermen. How can the minister justify this hugereduction in the eastern zone rock lobster industry whenit will ruin a number of the rock lobster fishermen? It ismost certainly going to devastate towns and theindustry down there and will probably be responsiblefor the closing down of the San Remo Cooperative.Why is the minister doing it?

Responses

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy andResources) — The Honourable Neil Lucas requestedthe Attorney-General to respond to his inquiries inrelation to the immunisation of bail justices and askedwhen that would proceed. I will refer that request to theAttorney-General.

The Honourable Peter Hall requested the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation to roll over funding tothe 2002–03 financial year in relation to certain roadfunding. I will refer that request to the minister.

The Honourable Ron Bowden requested the Ministerfor Police and Emergency Services to examine the UKlegislation in relation to road safety, and specifically tospeed cameras. I will refer that request to the minister.

The Honourable Jeanette Powell requested the Ministerfor Health to work with a number of associationsregarding appropriate treatment plans to preventsuicide. I will refer that request to the minister.

The Honourable Chris Strong made a request that Ithink is actually for the Minister for Planning in relationto her heritage responsibilities, which includeshipwrecks. He requested the minister advise himwhether there is support for the expenditure necessaryto preserve the HMVS Cerberus. I will refer thatrequest to the minister.

The Honourable Barry Bishop requested the Ministerfor Finance to advise him of plans and time lines inrelation to the site of the old Mildura hospital. I willrefer that request to the minister.

ADJOURNMENT


The Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips requested theMinister for Consumer Affairs to continue to highlightthe problem of certain scams and to expose thosescams. He particularly referred to a million-dollar offerhe had received by email. I will refer that matter to theminister.

The Honourable Roger Hallam requested the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation to consider asubmission in relation to certain matters to do with theregulation of hunting. I will refer that request to theminister.

The Honourable Andrew Brideson requested theMinister for Consumer Affairs to work to investigateanother scam, in this case an airbag scam. I will referthat to the minister.

The Honourable Peter Katsambanis requested theMinister for Transport to rectify problems of signage onthe Western Ring Road in the interests of safety and toadvise him of the origins of that problem. I will referthat matter to the minister.

In relation to the request by the Honourable WendySmith for the Minister for Community Services toprovide additional funding in relation to theimplementation of new community neighbourhoodhouses regulations, I will refer that to the minister.

The Honourable Geoff Craige requested the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation to investigatecertain actions by Goulburn Valley Water in relation toan impact on his constituents. I will refer that matter tothe minister.

The Honourable Andrea Coote requested the Ministerfor Transport to install an additional red light trafficcamera for safety reasons at a particular location. I willrefer that request to the minister.

In relation to the matter raised by the Honourable CarloFurletti about the fishing wharf at Portland, I havevisited the port of Portland and listened to what anumber of stakeholders had to say in relation to thisissue.

It is the case that this is another example of a flawedprivatisation by the previous Kennett government.When that privatisation took place the interests offishing communities were entirely disregarded and notaccounted for. In contrast, this government is acting tosecure a solution to this problem which was caused bythe previous Kennett government. The government isacting in the interest of the port of Portland, its fishingcommunity and the people who depend on the fishingindustry. I am confident the discussions that are going

on between all of the stakeholders will produce somematters for the government to consider in the future.

The Honourable Ian Cover requested the Minister forTransport to advise how he intends to respond to certainmatters raised by Cycling Geelong in relation to cyclingmatters, and I will refer that request to the Minister forTransport.

In relation to the statements made by the HonourableKen Smith, I reiterate statements I have made to thehouse: that this government has acted to secure thefuture of the rock lobster fishery in this state. This is incontrast to the previous government’s failure to act.That government watched this fishery decline to adangerous state. It did nothing because it was too hard.This government has made the hard decisions and hasimplemented them, and I am confident we will see therock lobster fishery recover.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 12.41 a.m. (Thursday).


Thursday, 30 May 2002 COUNCIL 1343

Thursday, 30 May 2002

The PRESIDENT (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain) took thechair at 10.03 a.m. and read the prayer.



Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I directmy question to the Leader of the Government andMinister for Youth Affairs, and I refer to an article inthe first edition of the Melbourne MX of 6 April 2001,reporting the violent invasion and trashing of the officesof the vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, causingover $100 000 of damage, terrorising numerousoccupants of the office and resulting in the arrest of74 students. I ask: will the minister confirm that theDavid Henderson reported in the article as beingpresident of the National Union of Students, whichorganised the criminal invasion, is her adviser on youthaffairs who in 1998 publicly promoted the use of deadlydrugs?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — The opposition stoops to the lowest level!

If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had actuallydone his proper research, and did not have to havepieces of paper handed to him, he would have seen thatDavid Henderson — my adviser — at the time andimmediately following that incident was reported ascondemning the violence that took place at thatinvasion of the vice-chancellor’s offices. David wasreported later that day as not supporting the invasionand saying that he did not support the violence that tookplace on that day.


Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — As theminister would be aware, the offenders involved in theinvasion were dealt with in the courts yesterday. Willthe minister advise the house: was Mr Henderson atcourt giving support to his troops?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — They are getting worse! The answer is no.


Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Irefer my question to the Minister for Sport andRecreation. In light of the minister’s previousstatements to the house relating to the good work theBracks government is doing in the area of sport and

recreation, will he advise the house what he is doing toensure that all Victorians have access to qualitysporting opportunities in rural areas of the state?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — As I have mentioned over recent days,during the last few weeks I have had the tremendousopportunity to announce the distribution of substantialamounts of money for a number of community groupsin relation to sport and recreation. Many of theseannouncements have included projects within the minorfacilities category of community facilities fundingdistributed by the Sport and Recreation Victoriawatchdog.

The financial assistance provided through the minorfacilities category, as honourable members in this placeshould be aware, is for projects of less than $150 000.The Bracks Labor government believes this program inparticular addresses the grassroots needs of localcommunities in sport and recreation.

When we came into government we doubled the budgetfor this program from $2.5 million to $5 million. Wealso increased the capacity of rural communitiesthrough their councils to access funds and changed thefunding ratio to $2 for every $1 compared to theprevious government’s funding of $1 for $1.

This round of funding for the 2002–03 financial yearsaw 166 projects in 73 municipalities across Victoriareceiving financial assistance. One of the tremendousaspects of this is the diverse nature of the projects —from lighting of venues, increasing playing timeavailable for those groups, to upgrading of pavilions toprovide access to women and people with disabilitiesand the provision of skate parks for teenagers inisolated rural towns.

Not only is the immediate outcome outstanding forthose communities, what is also impressive andheartening in terms of the distribution of funds is that itendorses the work of those members of the communitywho put in extensive time and effort to strengthen theirlocal communities in a volunteer capacity. Not only arethey getting a tremendous outcome in terms of physicalinfrastructure, but the outstanding work of those localcommunity members is being endorsed.

Combined with the local dollars, this program will seethe development of over $10 million worth ofinvestment in community sport and recreationinfrastructure across Victoria that will provideincreased opportunities for participation at thegrassroots level.


1344 COUNCIL Thursday, 30 May 2002

I am also pleased to advise the house that an additionalcommitment of funds for this program has been madefor the 2003–04 financial year. This is a tremendousportfolio and a tremendous outcome for people in sportacross the whole of the state, and again reinforces thatthe government is strengthening communities, growingthe whole state and delivering for all Victorians.


Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — My question is tothe Minister for Youth Affairs. I note in her previousanswer to Mr Furletti the minister said that Mr DavidHenderson condemned the invasion at MelbourneUniversity, yet the newspaper article indicated that hewas warning that students were planning to step uptheir campaign. In that light, I refer to the minister’sresponses to answers yesterday when she advised thatthe conduct of Mr Henderson in promoting andadvocating the use of deadly illicit drugs in 1998occurred at a time when he was immature andmisguided. Does the minister condone Mr Henderson’sinvolvement in the invasion and trashing of the officeof the vice-chancellor at Melbourne University in Aprillast year, and does she excuse the criminal offencescommitted on that occasion as a joke or a harmlessprank?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I have already answered this. This is just apolitical stunt by the opposition. It is on a witch-huntinvolving a young man who is just starting his career. Ihave answered that question. I have indicated theposition that David Henderson took in relation to thatmatter.


Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — In the light of theanswers we heard yesterday when the ministerinformed us that Mr Henderson had now resiled fromthat position and has been given a second chance — theevidence today suggests that he might be havinganother chance — does the minister accept thatMr Henderson is not a suitable person to give hersensible and rational advice on youth affairs?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I have indicated that I am fully supportiveof David. On 19 April 2001 David received a letterfrom Professor Alan Gilbert, the vice-chancellor of theUniversity of Melbourne, thanking him for his letterand for his assurances that the:

… union’s promotion of the national day of action on 5 Aprilin no way implies support for the students who engaged inviolent and destructive protest at the University of Melbourne.


The PRESIDENT — Order! We have finished thatquestion.

Port of Melbourne: channel deepening

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — Can theMinister for Ports advise the house what the Bracksgovernment is doing to ensure that the proposal forchannel deepening in Port Phillip Bay meets the socialand environmental expectations of Victorians?

Hon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Ports) — I thankthe honourable member for her question and herinterest in the continued development of the port ofMelbourne.

I am very pleased to provide the house with details ofwhere the process currently stands in relation to thechannel deepening proposal. The port of Melbourne is,of course, a key driver of Victoria’s economy. Last yearit handled more than $65 billion worth of cargo. Thisincluded 37 per cent of Australia’s containerised cargo.

The Bracks government, as part of its strategy tomaintain the port of Melbourne as one of Australia’spremier ports, believes the port must have the rightinfrastructure, including channels at the right depths. Inline with this commitment, last December the Bracksgovernment delivered in-principle support for thechannel deepening, subject, of course, to the resolutionof appropriate environmental, technical and feasibilitystudies.

The Bracks government delivered on this commitmentwhen it announced a detailed investigation into channeldeepening as part of its Building Tomorrow’sBusinesses Today statement, and funding of$5.2 million for the investigation in the 2002 budget,Investing in Our Future.

Building on these actions, I welcome the decision bymy colleague the Minister for Planning to require anenvironment effects statement (EES) to assess theenvironmental impact of the proposed deepening of theshipping channel at the entrance to Port Phillip and theapproach channels to the port of Melbourne. Inparticular, I welcome the agreement which the ministerwas able to reach with the commonwealth governmentwhich has been successful in gaining the accreditationof the Victorian environment effects statement processfrom Environment Australia, the federal environmentbody responsible.

This is very significant for the proponent and meansthat the Victorian environment effects statement will



satisfy the requirements of the commonwealthlegislation, and will ensure that the environment effectsstatement process is undertaken as expeditiously aspossible. This is good news for everyone involved inthis very important project for the future of the port ofMelbourne and the Victorian state economy.

These decisions ensure that a balanced assessment ofthe proposal will be undertaken and that it will considerall of the key economic, social and environmentalimplications. It fits very well with the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to build sustainability intoeverything it does. The EES will include an extensiveconsultation program which will provide opportunitiesfor the broader community to contribute to theproposal’s assessment.

The Bracks government has a vision for the port ofMelbourne and recognises its key role in the economiclife of our state. The government is committed to takingthe necessary actions to ensure that the port continues toserve the needs of the whole Victorian community andplays an even stronger role in the state’s economy intothe future.

School buses: Echuca

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I direct aquestion to the Minister for Education Services andrefer her to her frequent trumpeting of the outcome ofthe government school bus review. If the government’sactions are as beneficial to country students as theminister frequently proclaims, why then as recently as14 May did she refuse to maintain travel assistance tocertain students attending schools in Echuca who needto use a New South Wales school bus for part of theirjourney?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — The government has a view with respect toits responsibility to get Victorian students to school.The policy is to assist Victorians to attend Victoriangovernment, and in some cases non-government,schools. It is not for students from other states travellinginto this state or vice versa. The government’s policyand position is quite clear: we will look after Victorianstudents who attend Victorian schools.


Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — Theminister did not listen to my question, because thestudents to whom I am referring are constituents ofmine from the Picola and Barmah areas, and they need,because of a quirk of geography, to travel into NewSouth Wales to get to an Echuca school. I will give theminister an opportunity to re-answer the question, and I

will also ask a supplementary one. The school busreview accepted that students could access the nearestsuitable school, provided they paid the bus fare up to amaximum of $756. What then is the justification forcharging the families that I referred to in my question,who are Victorian families, up to $1640 simply becausegeography requires them to travel through New SouthWales to get to school?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — The policy of the department is that withbuses that travel interstate, students are required to paythe full fare that is charged to the department for theservice of the bus by the operators. It is for that reasonthat these students have been charged the full amount.

Information and communications technology:skills program

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — I refer myquestion to the Minister for Information andCommunication Technology. The minister often refersto the Bracks government’s programs to enhance youngpeople’s information and communications technology(ICT) skills. Can the minister inform the house whetherany of these programs also enable young people to gainpractical ICT experience?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Informationand Communication Technology) — I thank thehonourable member for her question. I have alreadymentioned in the house that — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! I am not interested ina discussion between the leader on this side andMr Craige on that side. Just keep quiet and allow theminister to respond to the question that has been put toher!

Hon. M. R. THOMSON — I have alreadymentioned in the house that Victoria has the largestnumber of graduates coming out of our tertiaryinstitutions with information and communicationstechnology (ICT) skills — a fact that is good for thesector’s future here in Victoria. We also want to ensurethat we continue to develop the skills of our youngpeople in ICT. It is important for their own personalfutures, and it is also very important for the sector itself.

It is important that we provide that experience not justat a university level but also in our school system. Tothat end, the Bracks government has instituted the ICTAchievers program, which is a pilot program developedby Multi Media Victoria being run through theDepartment of Education and Training in 50 schools.



This program introduces 11 new ICT curriculum areasranging from animation, which is a niche area ofdevelopment here in Victoria, through to computergraphics and robotics.

This pilot will involve not only the studentsparticipating in enterprise training and those skills inICT but also the professional development of ourteachers so they can assist in developing the potential ofour students. The participating schools will undertake a10-week program aimed at developing the students’ICT and entrepreneurial skills and will also look atinnovation, applications of ICT, intellectual propertyand privacy, and commercialisation. The program willbe demonstrated later in the year at a range of ICTeducation and business expo settings.

Among the number of schools that are out there doingthings that are a little bit different and also assistingtheir own communities is Mornington SecondaryCollege, which is working with the Histar InvotekGroup to provide the wireless networking facilities forthe upcoming edutech conference. It will also providethe help desk facilities for those who will be presentingat the conference. Also, Lorne P–12 College is workingwith local cottage accommodation businesses todevelop new web sites. This is of great benefit to thestudents who get to work and interact with these localbusinesses, but it is also great for those businesses whowill have access to new and modern web sites andfacilities to market their accommodation facilities.

The Ararat Community College is working with thesenior community in Ararat to develop a web portal sopeople can have access to the kinds of services andinformation that they require to make it easier for themto find out what is going on in their community andwhat facilities are available to them as seniors. This isanother example of students working with thecommunity, firstly to better their skills and secondly togive something back to the community. It is a greatexample of what can be achieved.

The Bracks government recognises that ICT skills arevitally important to our young people for their owncareer futures, but it is equally important that — —



Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I direct myquestion to the Minister for Youth Affairs. I refer theminister to the answer by the Minister for Education inthe other place yesterday when she laid responsibilityfor drug education policy and implementation inVictorian schools at the feet of the Minister for

Education Services, who is also the Minister for YouthAffairs. I ask the minister: is it true that Mr DavidHenderson, who we know has fulsomely promoted theuse of illegal and dangerous drugs in the recent past,recently refused a formal request by the Youth off theStreet Foundation to implement a groundbreakinganti-chroming kit into Victorian schools, when everyother state and territory in the nation has alreadyembraced the program? Is it true, Minister?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I have been advised that some schools inVictoria have recently received a teaching resourcefrom a New South Wales charitable organisation calledFr Reilly’s Youth off the Street Foundation. Thisorganisation has sent this resource to Victorian schoolswithout consultation with the schools or theDepartment of Education and Training. I am advisedthat no request was made to the department forapproval and no permission was requested to distributethe resource. The department will evaluate the resourceto determine its consistency with the government’s drugeducation policy and provide advice to schoolsaccordingly. The department is undertaking that reviewat the moment.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I thank theminister for her answer and point out to her thatFr Chris Reilly has made public statements thatcontradict completely what the minister has told us herein the chamber today. Fr Reilly has said — actuallyhere in this Parliament building yesterday — that hewas directed to Mr David Henderson of the minister’soffice by the education department to request that thisanti-inhalant kit be introduced into Victorian schools,and that he directly refused to do so. Fr Chris Reilly hasmade that allegation. How does the minister respond tothat allegation, and if that is the case why did theminister accept Mr Henderson’s advice?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — The honourable member obviously was notlistening to my answer when I said that the departmentwas undertaking the review. Contrary to the reportcontained in the Australian, the department has notadvised the organisation or any school to date that theresource has been banned. Mr David Henderson spoketo them and advised them to send a copy of thatdocument so the department could review it!


The PRESIDENT — Order! We have finished thatquestion and we will move on to the next one.



Schools: lifesaving carnival

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — Will theMinister for Education Services inform the house ofany Education Week initiatives that provide examplesof links between communities and schools?

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for EducationServices) — As I have informed members of the house,last week was Victorian Education Week, and it was agreat success. As part of that week the Royal LifeSaving Society held a bronze rescue carnival in bothDandenong and Ballarat, also involving the Victorianyouth development program.

More than 300 students from years 9 and 10 competedin this innovative lifesaving carnival. Teams of25 students from nine metropolitan and four countryschools tested their water and land rescue skills. In theprocess the students developed team-building skills andself-confidence. At the metropolitan event the studentswere joined by marathon swimming star Tammy vanWisse.

The bronze rescue carnival highlighted the partnershipsthat 10 secondary colleges have developed with theRoyal Life Saving Society of Australia, and that is whatthis government is all about — building partnershipsbetween the community and school organisations.

The carnival was a great showcase for the Victorianyouth development program, and this youthdevelopment initiative provides a framework for youngpeople to be actively involved in their communities andto direct their own personal development.

Unlike the opposition, the Bracks governmentunderstands the vital importance of supporting thecommunity’s desire to work together. That is somethingthe opposition does not understand, but the governmentdoes, and we are getting on with the job of supportingyoung people, in contrast to opposition members, whohave been doing nothing but fight among themselves.They are divided and they are whining and carping; incontrast, the Bracks government is getting on withbuilding a better society.


Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I referthe Minister for Youth Affairs to her answers toquestions without notice yesterday and today when sheindicated that Mr David Henderson had her full supportand that that support was reinforced by the Premier andher ministerial colleagues, and I ask: does the Premierstill support the position of her employment ofMr David Henderson who, as president of the student

union, organised the protest which saw its membersengaging in wilful and criminal destruction of propertyand the traumatising of staff at Melbourne Universitylast year? Does the Premier still support it?


Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I support David Henderson, the Premiersupports David Henderson and Professor Gilbertsupports David Henderson!

Hon. R. M. Hallam — On a point of order,Mr President, members at this end of the chamber hadno opportunity at all to hear the question. I ask you toinvite the honourable member to repeat it.


The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourablemember makes a reasonable request. Members at theback of the chamber could not have heard the questionbecause of interjections. The honourable member willrepeat the question.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — Thankyou, Mr President. I am conscious of the fact thatobviously a very sensitive nerve has been touched. Irepeat for Mr Hallam my question, which was whetherMr Henderson has the support of the Premier and of theministerial colleagues of the Minister for Youth Affairs,notwithstanding that as president of the student unionhe was the one who organised the trashing andthe — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! I think we have theflavour of the question.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — I think the honourable member heard myanswer, but I will repeat it. I support David Henderson,the Premier supports David Henderson, my ministerialcolleagues support David Henderson and ProfessorGilbert supports David Henderson, you grub!


Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — Giventhe minister’s response to my primary question, I askher to elucidate as to whether the Premier and herministerial colleagues also endorse the suitability of aperson who promotes the use of illicit drugs and whoorganises — —

Hon. M. M. Gould — On a point of order,Mr President, I have answered that question asked by



the honourable member. He is making untruestatements, and I ask him to withdraw.

The PRESIDENT — Order! There is no basis onwhich to require that. The question is clearly asupplementary question. The provisions allow for asupplementary question, and the minister now gets1 minute to respond to the question, and she can givethe response she wishes.

Hon. C. A. FURLETTI — Thank you,Mr President. My primary question related to thesupport of the Premier for the employment ofMr Henderson. This supplementary question relates tosupport of the Premier and the ministerial colleagues ofthe Minister for Youth Affairs of the suitability ofMr Henderson to act as the minister’s adviser on youthaffairs.

Hon. M. M. GOULD (Minister for YouthAffairs) — This was a better question, but it has beenasked and it has been answered. Yes!


The PRESIDENT — Order! If honourablemembers have problems with each other, I suggest theyleave the room — one from that end and one from thisend!

Lawn bowls: funding

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I ask theMinister for Sport and Recreation to advise the house ofwhat steps he has taken to ensure that Victoria’ssporting sector leads the country in terms of developingskills and promoting professional development.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — The Bracks government introduced apolicy prior to the previous election of committing$520 000 over a four-year period to assist with thedevelopment of lawn bowls in Victoria. An element ofthis policy was to promote excellence in greensmanagement throughout Victoria’s lawn bowls clubs. Iam please to advise the house that I have recentlyallocated $30 000 to the Victorian GreenkeepersAssociation (VGA) to promote excellence in greensmanagement.

The VGA was established early in the 1900s andcurrently has a membership of 246, the majority ofwhom are employed in preparing greens for Victorianbowls clubs. Since the Bracks government’scommitment, VGA membership has risen from 75 to246, and professional services are being offered togreenkeepers across Victoria. The VGA has close links

with the Royal Victorian Bowls Association and theVictorian Ladies Bowls Association, and is representedon a joint greens committee that grades and programsgreens.

With the government’s assistance the VGA intends todevelop a number of specific initiatives to promote andencourage excellence in greens management. Theseinclude a seminar highlighting new technology ingreens management and information on occupationalhealth and safety, the presentation of industry awards torecognise excellence in various aspects of greensmanagement, further improvements of the VGA’scommunications capacity via newsletter and web sitedevelopment. I understand it is undertaking research,including investigation of the incidence of nematodes. Iam reminded of what nematodes are when I look acrossthe house. If Mr Craige is not sure what a nematode is,it is a parasitic worm. The identification of andtreatment for nematodes will be part of this research.This is undoubtedly a fine example of the Bracksgovernment’s commitment to grassroots sport.



Hon. C. A. FURLETTI (Templestowe) — I move:

That the Council take note of the answers given by theMinister for Youth Affairs to questions without notice askedby honourable members relating to Mr David Henderson,adviser to the Minister for Youth Affairs.

I note that, as she did yesterday, the Minister for YouthAffairs has fled the chamber at a pace surpassed onlyby gazelles! It is interesting to note the significance sheplaces on issues which are indeed significant forVictorians.

I start by referring to what honourable members willhave read — that is, an editorial in the Herald Sun thismorning that makes a very simple statement which is atthe core of the questions that were asked today. I referto the public’s right to know about Mr Henderson’sinvolvement in youth affairs. This is not aboutMr Henderson’s employment; it is more significantthan that. It is about the government’s processes for theemployment of people in the very sensitive areas ofyouth affairs. This is a very significant issue, because ifwe have one adviser who has this track record then weare entitled to ask whether there are any others hiddenaway.

It was brought to bear yesterday and reinforced todaythat we have a situation where, without prompting,



Fr Reilly, who came to address a prayer breakfast atParliament House yesterday morning, raised the issueof Mr Henderson refusing to allow in Victoria thedistribution of the groundbreaking anti-chroming kitdistributed by the Youth off the Street Foundation. Itwas interesting to see the minister’s reaction todaywhen she was asked whether she took the sameMr Henderson’s advice, the Mr Henderson who, fouryears ago at the ripe old age of 21 — not a youth, but a21-year-old, and only four years ago and not 10 — wasadvocating and promoting not only for fun, as wassuggested, the use of illegal drugs, but for politicaladvantage to get himself elected to the National Unionof Students, which eventually he was. That is treated bythe government as a joke and a prank.

That may be what the government thinks, but the realityis that in gagging Mr Henderson yesterday, thegovernment has cloaked itself in the utmost secrecy —as we have been saying in this place for some time.This government, which signed an agreement with theIndependents to be open, transparent and accountable,is clamming up tighter than an oyster, and it will notopen. We are seeing now in the other place that finally,after almost three years, the Independents are coming torealise that this government cannot be trusted and thatall the deals they have made are falling to pieces.

Only in the last sitting week in this place the fact wasraised with the Minister for Energy and Resources thatshe was not answering questions honestly. Honourablemembers will recall that I quoted on a number ofoccasions the Independents charter that was signed.Yesterday and again today we had questions askedabout how something like this could happen, and whatdid the government do? It pulled up the barriers andrefused to answer those questions. The minister startedscreaming down her microphone trying to drown outthe question.

I suggest that the minister get onto the telephone latertoday and scream down the phone to the editor of theHerald Sun, because its editorial is saying thegovernment needs to be open and needs to tell thepeople of Victoria what the circumstances are with thisman who, four years ago may have been guilty ofimmature and inappropriate conduct but last year wasthe organiser of a group that went to MelbourneUniversity and ransacked the vice-chancellor’s officecausing over $100 000 in damage and traumatisinguniversity staff. He was at the front of it saying, ‘This isonly the beginning’. It is in the newspaper, which I amhappy to quote. It is shameful and disgusting, and thesooner this government becomes open and honours itscharter with the Independents, the better off Victorianswill be.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) —Interestingly, when I alleged time and time again duringMr Furletti’s contribution that he was lying he did notask me to withdraw the imputation about what he wassaying. He knows he was lying to the Parliament in thequestions he asked and in the take-note motion he putto the house today — —

Hon. C. A. Furletti — On a point of order,Mr President, I did hear Mr Jennings say that I waslying to the Parliament and I ask him to withdraw.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — In fact, I know thehonourable member was lying, and I will not withdrawthat comment.

The PRESIDENT — Order! If in fact inappropriatecomments or objectionable comments are made againsta member who is present in the chamber and the wordspass an objective test that they are offensive and thehonourable member objects to them, there is arequirement on me, if I believe it is of that nature, torequire the honourable member to withdraw. I haveconsistently done that to both sides of the house. I askthe honourable member to withdraw the statement hemade.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — I appreciate thedifficulty that I may be placing you and perhaps thechamber in, Mr President, but the honourable memberhas brought this upon himself. At this point I find greatdifficulty in withdrawing.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Can I put it in adifferent perspective. My suggestion is that, indeference to the Chair, the honourable memberwithdraws. That has been the requirement and the issueis not debatable; I require that from both sides of thehouse. When a statement is made I make the request.Clearly the precedent is that words such as, ‘You arelying’ or ‘You are a liar’ are objectively offensive.Once objected to I have consistently required thosewords to be withdrawn without debate, and I make thatrequest now. I suggest you do that as a mark ofcourtesy to the Chair, if nothing else.

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS — In deference to theChair, I withdraw. It is pretty clear to the chamber thatthat is the only reason why I have withdrawn, becausethe truth is that the allegations made in the chambertoday — that Mr Henderson organised activities atMelbourne University that led to some destruction ofproperty and to some injury — are clearly untrue. Onthe public record, on the university’s web site and in itsnewsletter the vice-chancellor of the university hascongratulated the joining of the student leadership of



the university with the leadership of the university tocondemn those actions. Mr Furletti knows that, thechamber knows that and the people of Victoria shouldknow that if they are going to make assessments on thecalibre of the individuals concerned.

Yesterday in my contribution I agreed with theproposition that Mr Henderson did a stupid thing in1998 when he advocated the use of ecstasy. I saidclearly on behalf of the government and the minister atthe table that the statements made in 1998 were stupidand were totally unacceptable if privately or publiclyadvocated today. I laid down to the chamber the realtest of whether this young man deserves to beemployed by the minister — that is, his ability toperform the job, provide advice and satisfy theexpectations of his job. That is the measure to use tojudge whether he deserves ongoing employment.

Before my contribution to this take-note motion todayand in anticipation of the debate I was handed materialabout an employee of the opposition currentlyemployed within the Parliament. The material datesback some years and is clearly racist, clearly goesbeyond sexual innuendo and clearly advocatesviolence. I was encouraged to name names and put it onthe public record. I was encouraged to call for asacking, but I will not put it on the public record orname names, because I encourage the opposition to getout of the cesspool, to stop this besmirching of thereputations of people for actions they may have takenprior to their employment.

Get out of the cesspool and do not encourage atit-for-tat activity. Raise your standards. Improve yourmoral fibre. Get up and make real assessments aboutwhat is appropriate administration. Get up and make aproper assessment of whether the minister and heroffice are delivering on her ministerial responsibilities.Don’t play grubby games or make pathetic attempts todrag down an individual for alleged statements made in1998 that were clearly not illegal but stupid — in fact,absolutely stupid.

What the opposition is calling for in the sacking of thisindividual is clearly illegal. What you are advocating isillegal because it does not satisfy the equal opportunityand unfair dismissal laws. You are the advocates ofillegal behaviour. Your behaviour is reprehensible and Iwill not engage in similar activities. I will not bereduced to your standards. I will not come before thisParliament and lie in my questions or contributions. Itake this place seriously. You are treating this placewith contempt because you come in here and you lieand get away with it!

Hon. I. J. COVER (Geelong) — I join this debatefollowing the Honourable Gavin Jennings, who hasmade another bid to be the Leader of the Governmentin this place. At least he has stayed here and addressedthe motion before the house. Towards the end of hiscontribution he said, ‘I take this place seriously’. It is ashame on you and the government that your ministersdo not take this place seriously. This is a serious debatethat has been going on in this place for two days and onboth days the minister responsible has fled the chamberat the start of the take-note motion.

Many serious matters have been raised in take-notemotions in this place. I put it to the house that this is themost serious and it is echoed by the Herald Sun in itseditorial today when it refers to the accountability andopenness of the government, particularly the minister. Ichallenge Mr Jennings, as the quasi Leader of theGovernment, to get your minister in here to contributeto the debate. If we are to judge the suitability ofMr Henderson’s performance and get further views it isimportant that she is here to contribute to the debate.

I further put to this place that you cannot take seriouslyMr Jennings’s claim that he takes this place seriously. Ihave been here since 1996 and for the three and a halfyears the opposition were sitting on the other side of thehouse I could not imagine ministers of the calibre of theHonourable Mark Birrell, the Honourable RobertKnowles, the Honourable Roger Hallam, theHonourable Geoff Craige and the Honourable LouiseAsher ever leaving the chamber and not facing anychallenge given to them by the opposition. They stoodup and responded to every challenge. The hypocrisy ofthe Labor government now that it is on that side of thehouse is appalling and a disgrace.

The Minister for Sport and Recreation goes onad nauseam about how much the government cares. Hesays, ‘We care; you don’t’. If you care so much, getyour ministers in here not just today but every day thereis a take-note motion to address the issues theopposition is raising on behalf of the people of Victoria.It has been picked up by the Herald Sun this morning.Mr Furletti challenged the minister to get on the phoneto the editor of the Herald Sun. Today’s editorial states:

The only joke here is the government’s handling of this issueand its glaring failure to live up to lofty pledges of opennessand accountability.

It starts right here in this place, during the motion totake note on this very important issue. The Herald Suneditorial also states:

Youth affairs minister Monica Gould said yesterday thatDavid Henderson’s call for students to try ecstasy andamphetamines was just a silly Melbourne University prank.



It then states:

Wrong, Ms Gould.

The people of Victoria are saying, ‘Not happy,Minister’. They are not happy with the appointmentprocess and the lack of openness and accountability inthis place about the process. In the past two days theissue has been raised in this place and through themedia exposing the lack of process of the governmentand its claim to be open and accountable.


Hon. I. J. COVER — I am talking about thegovernment and the minister and the lack of processand accountability and openness. Furthermore,Mr Jennings might also get on the phone to the editor ofthe Herald Sun because he told us it is illegal to call forthe sacking of the adviser. He had better also tell theeditorial writer, who states:

Mr Bracks, ditch Ms Gould’s paid youth adviser and take thisfree youth affairs advice: don’t treat voters like children.

The government says it takes this place seriously, yet itis treating this place and the people of Victoria likechildren and it stands condemned for its behaviour inthis matter and for not addressing the issues during thedebate on the motion to take note.


Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) —Again I am pleased to rise and make a contribution tothe debate. Again we see the opposition members doingnothing but fighting and squabbling among themselves,when they are totally divided. They could not even getthis story right. Is it Mr Olexander’s story? Was hegoing to run with it, or was it Mr Cover’s? Yesterdaythat was one of the biggest things happening on theopposite side of the chamber.


Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — They are trying torun this story when the minister has already answeredthe question, about the statements made by DavidHenderson when he was a university student. Hebelieved that they were foolish and they were done in atongue-in-cheek way, which has already been pointedout. The opposition saying that he should be sacked isludicrous. It is ridiculous to say that on the basis ofsomething somebody did four years ago, statementsthey made at university when they were running forstudent council elections — comments made in atongue-in-cheek way — somebody should be dismissedfrom their employment. That is not the way it operates;

it is not the way it works. It may be the way theopposition hires and fires people but it is not the waythat people should be hired and fired. Employmentshould be about how people do their job and whether itis being done competently and properly. The fact thatsome years previously somebody made statements as astudent is no reason to deny them employment today.

The opposition goes on about the statements madeabout drugs. Yesterday in my contribution I comparedand contrasted the opposition policies and activities indrug and alcohol services when it was in governmentand this government’s attitude to drug and alcoholservices. I pointed out that the opposition when ingovernment was on about closing services such as theSmith Street clinic and Pleasant View clinic — thenurses in those services and other alcohol and drugservices across the state were simply given voluntarydeparture packages and left the system. The oppositionparties when in government had that sort of attitude toalcohol and drug services, but since our election thisgovernment has substantially increased youth alcoholand drug treatment services, including very importanthome-based withdrawal services, outreach workers andrehabilitation and accommodation services.

I want to quickly outline some of those because thegovernment believes these activities and services, suchas specialist alcohol and drug services and facilities, arevery important in addressing the drug and alcoholproblems of young people. The government has spent$1 million on local community projects aimed at youngoffenders and victims of child abuse as well as youngpeople at risk; established a prevention research project;set up an inhalant issues forum; and developedprotocols and guidelines. It is these sorts of programsthat clearly demonstrate our government’s attitude toalcohol and drug services and the importance that weplace on ensuring that we do everything we can to lookafter young people, unlike the opposition when it wasin government.


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I rise toparticipate in this debate with some regret that thedebate is necessary in the first place. The big questionhere is: what do you have to do in the Bracksgovernment to have your hands on the policy levers inyouth affairs? The answer is: all you have to do is havethe support of the minister, the Honourable MonicaGould. You can advocate the widespread use of illegaland illicit drugs to thousands of students forcefully andrepeatedly, and all you have to say is, ‘I didn’t reallymean it; I was just young and silly at the time’.



What else do you have to do to keep your hands on thelevers of youth affairs in this state? You can organise aprotest where bolt cutters, crowbars and axes are takenalong and where 74 or 75 students are arrested forwilful damage; you can terrorise the staff at theUniversity of Melbourne and you can destroy propertyand all you have to say is, ‘Sorry about that, but I havethe support of my minister. Therefore, that’s okay —because I will still keep my hands on the policy leversin youth affairs in Victoria’. In today’s Bracksgovernment you just have to say you did not mean it;that you are sorry about the wilful damage and the staffthat had to undergo trauma counselling because theyfeared for their safety; that you are sorry about morethan $100 000 worth of damage, and about 75 youngpeople facing court.

One thing is very clear: the Bracks government’swagons are circled around Mr Henderson and they willnot let anyone near him. They have decided to dig inand back this fellow. They will not let the media talk tohim; they will not let him talk to the media. They willnot let anyone scrutinise his activities. There is a verygood reason for that. His advice and presence in theminister’s office goes directly to the credibility of theLeader of the Government in this place. She is backinghim, the Premier is backing him, the ministers arebacking him, and the wagons are circled around him.What they do not understand is that the public moodabout this is shifting. If there is one thing that can shiftthe wagons it is public attitudes, and public attitudes arechanging.

Everybody agrees that this government’s administrationof youth affairs policy in this state has become anabsolute joke. However, in the minister’s eyeseverybody else is wrong and she is right, the Premier isright, all the ministers are right, having the wagonscircling around Mr Henderson is right, andMr Henderson is right, too. The youth community iswrong, youth organisations are wrong, studentorganisations are wrong, the opposition is wrong, andFr Chris Riley is wrong — everybody else is wrong,but the Bracks government is right. The governmentshould get a mirror and look into it, and then it will seewhat everyone else sees: that it is wrong on this issue.

This goes to the credibility of the standard and level ofadvice being received on youth affairs in this state. Thegovernment is dragging the credibility of that issue intothe gutter. Nobody else is doing it. The government hasnot been able to show the leadership required in thissituation. In this situation ‘Sorry’ is not good enough; ‘Ididn’t really mean it’ is not good enough. To controlthe levers of youth policy in Victoria some leadershipneeds to be shown.

It is unfortunate that the minister has walked out of thischamber yet again. However, it is unfortunately typicalof this government’s approach. The government has todecide: is it governing in the best interests of youngVictorians, or in the interests of its union mates andMr David Henderson?

Motion agreed to.

Schools buses: Echuca

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I move:

That the Council take note of the answer given by theMinister for Education Services to a question without noticeasked by the Honourable W. R. Baxter relating to school busservices.

I am thoroughly disappointed that the minister is not inthe chamber. Today the five questions from theopposition and the third party were all directed to theLeader of the Government. I am confident in sayingthat there would not be another Parliament in theBritish commonwealth where a minister — not just anordinary minister but the Leader of the Government —who has questions directed to her, and then take-notemotions on her answers debated, does not stay in thechamber to defend her answers and her government.

On many occasions the Commonwealth ParliamentaryAssociation has seminar and conference topics that goto the issues of parliamentary democracy andaccountability of the executive. It is quite likely that theactions of this government since the sessional orderswere changed in this chamber may well become asubject of discussion at a future CPA conference,because I think delegates from around the world wouldfind it quite extraordinary that a minister would notremain in the chamber to be accountable in the veryway that the Westminster system of parliamentarygovernment is designed to operate.

I was also thoroughly disappointed with the minister’sanswer to my question. Firstly, it is hardly likely shemisunderstood what I said in assuming that I wasreferring to New South Wales students; and secondly, ifshe did believe that I am thoroughly disappointed thatshe would think I would be advocating the expenditureof Victorian taxpayers’ money on New South Walesstudents. Of course I would not be doing that.

I also find it extraordinary that she had no recollectionof signing only 16 days ago a letter to my colleague, thehonourable member for Rodney in the other place,which went to this very subject and where she refused,despite the recommendations of the school bus reviewcommittee, to maintain assistance to those studentswho, by a quirk of geography and the meanderings of

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


the Murray River, cross from Victoria into New SouthWales and then back into Victoria to travel toappropriate schools in Echuca. It seems extraordinaryto me that this government, which claims to look aftercountry Victoria, would deny these people equity and afair go simply because the meanderings of the MurrayRiver dictate that that is the way they must get toschool.

The stupidity of all this is that the minister stated in herletter that they could go at the $756 rate — and I pointout that the parents have no objection to paying the$756; what they object to is paying $1640 — if they goton another bus and went in the reverse direction towhere they want to go: into Nathalia, change buses, andthen travel an even longer distance into Echuca. Theycould do that for $756. The oddity is that that sendsthem off in the wrong direction and means the studentsare on the bus for 1 hour longer each day than theyneed to be. The irony of it all is that they change busesat the front gate of Nathalia Secondary College. Whatstupidity to say, ‘Yes, you can go via another school for$756, but if you go direct to the school you want to getto, and the school we have acknowledged you areentitled to attend, we will charge you $1640 for noother reason than you happen to cross the border intoNew South Wales and then come back into Victoria’.Where is the logic in that? That is the sort ofgovernment we have in this state — —

Hon. M. R. Thomson — Was it any different underyou?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — In answer to theminister’s interjection, yes, it is vastly different to othertimes. Here we have this extraordinary claim by theminister that the school bus review has done so muchfor country children and has been a great breakthrough.But this is the oddity that is thrown up by a ministerwho is clearly not on top of her portfolio: she cannotrecall the letter she signed in the last fortnight, but shewants to go off on a tangent and suggest that I do notknow what I am talking about. The opposite is directlytrue: this minister is clearly out of her depth, as we haveseen today in answers to all her questions. It is time shewent, and it is certainly time that she ceased to be theLeader of the Government.

Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for SmallBusiness) — I have answers to questions 2546, 2787,

2788, 2794, 2830–6, 2884–7, 2890, 2891, 2902, 2903,2920.

LAW REFORM COMMITTEE

Entry, search, seizure and questioning powers

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) presented report,together with appendices and minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report and appendices be printed.

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I move:


The Law Reform Committee is a bipartisan committee,which has looked at the powers of inspectors in over120 Victorian acts over the last 12 months since thereference was given to it by the Premier on 18 April,2001. The committee found an enormous variety and,indeed, inconsistency in the way powers were describedand applied, and it has recommended a set of basicprinciples that should apply to the powers of inspectors.

The Law Reform Committee said that the starting pointshould be that restrictions on civil liberties andindividual and commercial activities should be aslimited as possible. It has recommended that greatrestraint should be exercised in giving inspectorspowers, especially private inspectors. It also found thatthere were too few provisions in current acts tosafeguard citizens’ rights and ensure transparency andaccountability. The committee also found that morework needs to be done on the selection and training ofinspectors and creating complaints mechanisms andconsistent standards between enforcement agencies.

The most contentious issue dealt with by the committeewas that of the powers of transport inspectors on thenow privatised transport system. It found that the keyissue was to reform the ticketing system so that itoperated to make the use of the powers of detention andarrest by private inspectors a rarity, rather than acommon occurrence. While supporting the powers ofinspectors to ensure the integrity of the public transportsystem, the committee recommended that significantadditional safeguards be imposed on the use of theirpowers. The safeguards recommended includeamendments to the Transport Act 1983 to clearlydelineate when the powers can be used, significantadditional mandatory training of inspectors and theestablishment of a separate public transport unit withinthe Victorian Ombudsman’s Office.

PAPERS


The Law Reform Committee made some82 recommendations; it looked at over 120 Victorianacts of Parliament and received and considered33 submissions and 43 final submissions and heardevidence from 63 witnesses. I wish to thank andacknowledge the tremendous support of Hansard staffwith this investigation over the last 12 months. I alsowant to thank and acknowledge the dedication and hardwork of our executive officer, Merrin Mason; ourresearch officer, Kirsten Giles; our research assistant,Janey Tootell; and our office manager, Jaime Cook.Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

PAPERS


Auditor-General —

Report on Investment attraction and facilitation inVictoria, May 2002.

Report on Nurse work force planning, May 2002.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 — Code ofPractice for the Welfare of Rodeo and Rodeo SchoolLivestock.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 — Minister’s exceptioncertificates under section 8(4) in respect of Statutory RulesNos. 33 to 35.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THEFRANKSTON CENTRAL ACTIVITY

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT

Report

Debate resumed from 19 March; motion ofHon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley):


Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN (Chelsea) — I wouldrather not have had the opportunity to participate in adebate such as this because this is yet another sorryinstalment in the misguided and philosophicallyconfusing attitudes and strange actions of the AustralianLabor Party and its blatant interference in democraticprocesses.

It is a tragic day for Frankston. What should havehappened was that through the actions of the FrankstonCity Council to try to ensure that transparency andprobity were the utmost concern, there should havebeen closure on this very important issue. Thisdevelopment should have proceeded in the best

interests of all members of the Frankston communitywithout interference, without interruption and withoutthe sorry, sordid circumstances that have evolved sincethis whole inquiry and this whole sham started.

This yet again confirms how the Australian Labor Partybases itself on the politics of envy, of class and ofdivision simply because all that its members want toachieve is their own political survival. They have littleinterest in community outcomes and little interest inwhat the community really wants. Their sole andterrible interest is only in themselves and their ownpolitical capital.

We remember when the select committee wasestablished the debate in this place. Allegations of ‘It isa sham’; ‘It is a Star Chamber’; ‘It is a kangaroo court’;and ‘It is a witch-hunt’, were flying around, being madewithout any hesitation from members of thegovernment. They deliberately tried to slam thisprocess because they knew that one of their own wasabout to get caught. These circumstances and the storyare being told, and clearly that process has not onlybeen vindicated but endorsed.

On Wednesday, 17 October 2001 the Minister for LocalGovernment, Bob Cameron, issued a press releaseheaded, ‘Minister hits out at kangaroo court’. It statesthat:

The Minister for Local Government, Bob Cameron, hasslammed the state opposition for its attempt to instigate apolitically inspired inquiry into a tender process at FrankstonCity Council.

Is it not wonderful how words come back to haunt you?The press release of the minister issued on 28 Mayconfirms that there is a prima facie case for aproceeding to be brought against Cr Mark Conroy for abreach of the Local Government Act.

Have we heard anything from the Minister for LocalGovernment, Bob Cameron, subsequent to that pressrelease? Has he apologised to this house for calling theopposition inquiry a sham and a kangaroo court? Hashe apologised to the people of Frankston who werebeing represented by the Liberal Party and the NationalParty to try to find the truth of what happened? No, hehas not, because the government cannot face the realitythat its own people have been caught — prominentmembers of the Australian Labor Party: the honourablemember for Frankston East, Mr Matthew Viney; andthe former mayor of the City of Frankston, Cr MarkConroy.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FRANKSTON CENTRAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT


I refer to the honourable member for Frankston East’smaiden speech in the other place on 9 November 1999,in which he stated:

The Labor view is that the role of government is to supportand strengthen community institutions, services andstructures, so that individual community members can grow,develop their potential and prosper. I am passionatelycommitted to that view.

He also said:

In my time in the house I hope to contribute to thestrengthening of our community and to deliver goodgovernment for the people of Frankston East and Victoria sothat they may grow and develop their enormous potential andmay prosper in all ways.

Once again, it is remarkable how words come back tohaunt you. If this fraud of a politician were genuinelycommitted to the sentiments he outlined in his maidenspeech, he would not have intervened in this tragicsituation.

I place on the record the Macquarie Dictionarydefinition of ‘bribery’ and ‘corruption’. ‘Bribery’ is:

the act or practice of giving or accepting bribes.

And ‘bribe’ is defined as:

any valuable consideration given or promised for corruptbehaviour in the performance of official or public duty.

‘Corrupt’ is defined as:

dishonest; without integrity; guilty of dishonesty, especiallyinvolving bribery.

If we take the literal interpretation of those definitionsthen Mark Conroy and Matt Viney are guilty. They areguilty because this investigation — —

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — On a point of order,Mr President, the honourable member has just accuseda member of the other house of bribery. I take greatexception to that accusation and ask him to withdraw.

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN — On the point of order,Mr President, that is why I have gone through theprocess of giving a definition of ‘bribery’. I will givethat definition again for the honourable member’sedification:

any valuable consideration given or promised for corruptbehaviour in the performance of official or public duty.

The honourable member is being premature in regard tomy contribution on this issue because I am clearlygoing to outline circumstances which give strongweight and consideration to why the two people I havenamed are in fact guilty — —

Hon. Jenny Mikakos interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The position inrelation to this matter is that the rules in relation tocomments about members of another house are clearand consistent. An allegation against a member ofanother house that they could or may be guilty ofcorruption is clearly beyond the pale of a motion likethis, which is a motion to take note of a report. If thereport referred to corruption then that would beappropriate. In this case the report I gather does notrefer to corruption by that particular person andtherefore the honourable member is not allowed to godown that path.

If he wanted to make such an allegation against amember of another house it would be by substantivemotion. I suggest that the honourable member move onand withdraw the allegation he made in relation toMr Viney.

Hon. B. C. BOARDMAN — I withdraw, and Ithank you for your ruling, Sir.

I will continue along the same lines and quote from thereport by Mr Chris Wren and Mr Kelvin Goodall inrelation to this issue presented subsequent to the selectcommittee report that was tabled in this place earlierthis week. In paragraph 34 at page 15 reference is madeto a file note that was printed in August 2000 where theGandel Corporation noted the endorsement of MarkConroy as the Labor candidate for the federal seat ofDunkley, and it states:

The significance of this is that Conroy is operating to ensurethat everything has politically beneficial results. Thus he takesno risks unless he sees it as an advantage to his politicalcareer.

It goes on to say:

Conroy’s ‘delivery list’ includes a new aquatic centre likely tobe built on Sherlock Reserve, not far from the CAD.

If I go back to my interpretation of the definition I havequoted from the Macquarie Dictionary, it does notmention that there has to be a pecuniary benefit for aperson to be corrupt or to accept bribes. I offer that byway of consideration.

Moving on, the relationship between Mark Conroy andMatt Viney was pivotal to this whole circumstancebecause Mark Conroy was elected as a councillor inMarch 1997 and Matt Viney, prior to his election in1999 to the other place, had an extensive history inworking in local government, particularly in the thenHastings shire. You would have thought that thesepeople would have had an understanding of the Local



Government Act: its involvement, its responsibilitiesand what the rules and regulations were for thesepeople to operate in their various offices. Nonetheless,that aside, they have still deliberately misinterpretedtheir roles and responsibilities to go down a path whichunfortunately has developed to the situation we havetoday.

I always thought that Mark Conroy was bad news. Theday he was elected he was elected on a false premise,one which I have continually questioned over the pasttwo years. It is fortunate that that continued questioningresulted in Mark Conroy being unsuccessful in hisquest for election to the seat of Dunkley. It is interestingthat the company I have referred to, Gandel, was takingspecific note of Mark Conroy. It is extraordinary thatthe mayor of the council, someone who by virtue of hisposition is supposed to be at arm’s length from thesetypes of processes, was constantly being referred to bythe Gandel Corporation in case notes, in discussionsand communications between the Gandel board and theGandel Trust.

It is confirmed on page 16 of Mr Wren’s report whereyet another internal meeting note of May 2001 statesthat:

Mayor Conroy’s concern over Dunkley was seen as a risk,with the regional aquatic centre being his priority.

This is the situation: we had a mayor and a councillorwho was fixated on his political career. He wasbesotted by his own personal ambition. All he wantedto do was to try to implement projects and obtain someform of result that was beneficial to himself, to thecomplete exclusion of the community. That is whyGandels went down this path of deliberately trying tonegotiate with this person on a one-on-one basis, evenextending that negotiation and that involvement to theemployment of Mr Rogan Ward, someone who has along and detailed history with Mark Conroy, to try andovercome some of these issues. They knew that MarkConroy was bad news. They knew he could not betrusted. They knew, because of the vulnerability of hissituation, because his ambition was blind and he wastotally and utterly fixated on one outcome — election tothe seat of Dunkley — that they had to pay him specialattention. That is why this situation evolved.

That is why it led to a change in the Gandel bid. That iswhy it led to information being passed to Gandels,where it quite clearly should not have been. That is whyit led to Mark Conroy tipping off the Independentnewspaper. That is why it led to Mark Conroy havingextraordinary levels of conversations, by way of phone,facsimile and other means of communication, withMatt Viney and Rogan Ward to tell them exactly what

was going on in an internal, confidential way whichclearly and utterly is illegal. That is why this brief thatthe government has announced on Tuesday willproceed and why Mark Conroy will be found guilty.

In the short time I have available I want to quote MarkConroy, because this quite clearly needs to go on therecord. In the Frankston Leader of 25 March 2002under the heading ‘Inquiry clears me: Conroy’, hestated last Wednesday that he had been cleared of whathe called:

‘slanderous allegations, despite the committee still“smearing” his reputation under parliamentary privilege’.

The article further states:

He said he had been the victim of a political witch-hunt.

This is what he said on ABC Radio yesterday to KateArnott:

If you can’t go and talk to a local member of Parliament abouta very, very important local project — then I mean what’s hisjob — what’s my job — and if hasn’t done anything wrong,and he hasn’t, then how could’ve I done something wrong.

Mark Conroy now admits that he broke the law, and heis guilty.

Hon. G. D. ROMANES (Melbourne) — TheHonourable Cameron Boardman’s contribution hasdemonstrated overwhelmingly once more that thegovernment’s view of the select committee on theFrankston CAD development, which was stated by theHonourable Gavin Jennings, the Deputy Leader of theGovernment, on 19 March in a previous debate, wasthat this was a tawdry exercise of the select committeein the lead-up to the federal election.

The comments of the Honourable Gavin Jennings onthat occasion were:

The net worth of the select committee’s consideration is itsfinding that it is likely there was a breach of protocol andprobity issues in relation to matters that were reported in thepress in the Frankston area on 2 October. In its summary ofthe select committee’s findings and recommendations thecommittee was unable to shed any light on where, when andhow those breaches occurred.

As we all know — those who have read the report ofthe select committee — the committee found that therewas a need for further investigation by the Office ofLocal Government into the alleged breach of section 77of the Local Government Act. That was an offer madeby the Minister for Local Government previously thatwas not taken up by the opposition.

What has happened in the last few days is that we havehad the tabling of the report of the municipal inspectors



who were appointed by the Minister for LocalGovernment to undertake the investigation that wasrecommended by the select committee.

The independent report of the municipal inspectorsthrows into stark relief the inadequacies and thepolitical bias of the select committee. It is interestingthat there are significant findings in the Wrencommittee report that are contrary to the upper housefindings. If we look, for example, at the selectcommittee’s assessment of the process — that theprocess was okay — and if we look then at the Wrencommittee’s assessment of the process, it makes it veryclear that the bidders themselves found somethingwrong with the process.

In part 26 on page 13 it states:

One of the difficulties the working party found during thecourse of the process was that it had to be reactive rather thanproactive in order to satisfy the requirements of the probityprocess. That process seems to have constrained a free flowof communication and gave rise to a considerable amount ofsecond-guessing. For instance, if one party requestedinformation from the working party, it felt constrained tomake that information available to the other party but withoutindicating why it was doing so. That gave rise to conjectureon the part of the receiving party about whether it was beinggiven a message that it should therefore respond to in someway within its bid.

So the bidders themselves found the process complex,lengthy, difficult and costly.

The other issue which is central to the reason thesecommittees came into being was the issue of the tip-off.That goes to the heart of the matter because it was backin the spring session of Parliament that a member fromthe other place, the honourable member forCranbourne, alleged in the Parliament that Cr Conroy,the mayor of Frankston, had made a telephone call on amobile phone that tipped off Gandels and that Gandelsincreased its bid by $5 million at that point.

There are findings in the Wren committee report whichthrow interesting light on this. If we look at page 43 ofthe Wren committee report, section 120, the committeeconcludes that:

In the circumstances, notwithstanding McClelland’sobservations, I am satisfied that there was no tip-off phonecall made to Gandels that gave rise to McNamara’ssubsequent call to Kerr.

The select committee had found that Mark Conroyprobably tipped off Gandels in a phone call. The Wrencommittee found the opposite. It was not satisfied, andthere were no mobile phone records to substantiate theallegations. Furthermore, in sections 118 and 119 thereis further information which throws light on that

conclusion of the Wren committee. I quote from section118 on page 43 of the report:

Another factor to be considered is the level of detail andinsight that Conroy would have had into the critical aspects ofscoring at the time the tip-off phone call was allegedly made.It was not until after 4.30 that the Excel spreadsheetcomponent of the briefing occurred at which stage Conroymay have appreciated the scoring significance of Gandelsfailing to execute the contract and requiring the 90-dayassessment condition.

I quote from section 119:

A further factor to remember is that by the time the allegedtip-off phone call was made, the Gandel group board meetinghad concluded and the holidaying directors were in the airhaving already discussed the execution of the contract andwhether it would or would not retain the condition. As statedpreviously the Gandels personnel all deny receiving anytip-off.

It is there in black and white that the board that wassupposed to have been tipped off at that point were inthe air flying to Queensland on holiday.

There is another very important point that needs to bemade. In the upper house select committee inquiry it isreported that Cr Fuller, an opponent of Cr Conroy, gaveevidence that she had written a note in a diaryobserving Cr Conroy’s conduct in the working partymeeting on the day when he was supposed to havemade that tip-off.

Cr Fuller made the comment in her diary that MarkConroy was blatantly biased, and with encouragementfrom the chairman, went on to add the word ‘corrupt’.That is what has been used in the local paper to destroyMark Conroy’s federal campaign for Dunkley.

Pages 34 and 35 of the Wren committee report show avery different perspective on Cr Fuller’s diary note.Section 97 of the report says:

Fuller said ‘initially some of the questioning I thought wasactually good, but as it went on he just — I felt he was almostdebating and that’s when I thought he was way oversteppingthe mark, he was actually showing preference …’. Sherecorded in her diary ‘MC blatantly bias — corrupt’. Sheexplained to me that the use of the word ‘corrupt’ meant hewas corrupting the process. She felt he was corrupting theprocess by his behaviour in that he wasn’t allowing theviewpoint from the consultant to be different from his, he wasarguing with them all the time. She felt he was trying toimpose on others his viewpoint. She did not mean he waspersonally corrupt.

Investigator Wren concluded that the evidence does notsuggest that there was a tip-off being made to theprospective tenderer Gandels or that there was a bribe.The government therefore confirms its view that theappointment of the select committee has been a



political witch-hunt in the middle of a politicalcampaign. The Wren committee, which was requestedto undertake further investigations by the selectcommittee, found no corruption, no bribes and notip-offs to prospective tenderers. The select committeehas been a waste of time and taxpayers’ money and aslur on the reputation of this house.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I am pleased tojoin the debate on the select committee’s report into theFrankston central activity district development report.

Today I want to talk about the process rather than thecontent of the report because in this sort of activity theprocess is important as well. It is particularly relevantnow to add to the debate, given that the report from themunicipal inspectors, Mr Chris Wren and Mr KelvinGoodall, in respect of the same matter was tabled in thishouse earlier this week.

In talking about process, it is instructive to look at achronology of important dates associated with thismatter. They start back on 17 October 2001 when thischamber appointed a select committee to inquire intothe Frankston central activity district development. On19 March the select committee reported to theParliament, on 26 March the Minister for LocalGovernment appointed municipal inspectors to lookinto the matter, and on 28 May — earlier this week —the inspectors’ report was presented to Parliament.

Going back to 17 October when this chamber voted toappoint a select committee, as part of that debate — andit is very clear if people go back and read the debate onthat day — there was an offer on the table from theopposition which said that if the minister was preparedto appoint a municipal inspector, then it would notproceed to appoint a select committee of the upperhouse. That was a very clear commitment, and ifhonourable members go back and read the HonourableBill Forwood’s contribution on 17 October, they willsee it is there in black and white — the offer was on thetable.

As events turned out, the offer was refused by thegovernment — there was no agreement at all — and theselect committee was appointed and undertook itswork. History also tells us that there was noparticipation by the Labor Party in that committee.Despite having the opportunity to appoint two membersto that committee, it did not accept the invitation.

Following the publication of the select committee’sreport on 19 March — surprise, surprise! — exactlyone week later, on 26 March, the Minister for LocalGovernment appointed a municipal inspector. Is it just

coincidence that a week after the tabling of the selectcommittee’s report, the minister suddenly changed hismind and suggested that it might be a good idea toappoint a municipal inspector? He made that decisionon 26 March. Why has he changed his mind since17 October? There is only one explanation, and that isthat the work of the select committee and its reportjustified a further investigation by the governmentitself. It realised that it should have done it way back inOctober. The work of the select committee inencouraging action on the part of the government hasbeen vindicated.

For goodness’ sake, if the minister had had that viewback on 17 October, a great deal of time could havebeen saved. I do not know how many hours of work theHonourable Andrew Brideson put in as chairman ofthat committee, but I would think it was a great deal. Asa diligent member of the committee, the HonourableGeoff Craige also put in a lot of time. I know mycolleague the Honourable Roger Hallam put anextensive amount of time into it, and we know that heundertakes his work responsibly, diligently andseriously. The secretary of the committee, MatthewTricarico; research officer Sarah Davey and all of thosepeople could have been saved a great deal of time hadthe Minister for Local Government made the decisionto appoint a municipal inspector way back on17 October. Parliament could have been saved theexpense of the committee — and there would beconsiderable expense in having all of the publichearings recorded and reported and then ultimatelyreports published.

All that could have been saved because there was anoffer on the table from day one that this selectcommittee, appointed by the upper house, would notproceed if the minister had agreed to appoint amunicipal inspector back on 17 October.

As I said before, the fact that eventually municipalinspectors were appointed to investigate the mattervindicates the decision of this chamber to appoint aselect committee to inquire into the matter.

I will refer to a couple of remarks made by theHonourable Glenyys Romanes, because she describedthe select committee report and process first as being atawdry exercise and then as a political witch-hunt. Itseems to me there is a great contradiction in that,because I ask myself: what was different between theinquiry of the select committee and that of thegovernment’s own appointed municipal inspectors?There was no difference! They were inquiring intoexactly the same things, so if the select committee wasa political witch-hunt, we should be describing the



municipal inspectors’ inquiry as a political witch-huntas well because they were undertaking exactly the sameexercise. There is a complete contradiction there. Whatis the difference between the Parliament appointing aninspection process and the minister appointing aninspection process? There is no difference whatsoever.

The Honourable Glenyys Romanes said there was adifference in the reports. I have read both reports and Ihave them in front of me, and I reckon there is a greatdeal of commonality between the two reports, both intheir content and even in some of their terminology.

Hon. Andrew Brideson interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL — As the Honourable AndrewBrideson said, they have come to the same conclusions.What is the significant difference? I do not believe thereis any significant difference at all. The outcomes have agreat deal in common — in fact, the outcomes of bothinquiries are almost identical. To suggest that one is apolitical witch-hunt and the other is a valid processundertaken by a municipal inspector just does not makesense. There is no validity in coming to that conclusion.

Hon. Andrew Brideson — And Wren repeatedpages and pages of the report.

Hon. P. R. HALL — The Honourable AndrewBrideson agrees with my comment that there is even alot of commonality in content between the tworeports — and so there should be, because that provesthat the select committee appointed by this upper housedid its job properly and did it well.

I will say in conclusion that an important function ofthe Legislative Council of this Parliament is the abilityto appoint such committees to inquire into matters ofpublic importance. Long live the Legislative Council!

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) — Thereport by Chris Wren and Kelvin Goodall states onpage 59 in paragraph 174:

I therefore consider Cr Conroy has released confidentialdetails provided to him during the course of the workingparty’s briefing to Matt Viney and Rogan Ward in breach ofsection 77(2) of the Local Government Act 1989.

It is signed by C. J. Wren, Inspector of MunicipalAdministration.

It is difficult to understand, given this statement of aguilty verdict on Cr Conroy, that Matt Viney andRogan Ward were not cited for their total involvementin this process. There is no doubt in the minds of thepeople of Frankston and Victoria that as guilty asConroy is, so are Rogan Ward — the bagman in this

little exercise — and Matt Viney, the honourablemember for Frankston East in the other place.

The Bracks Labor government branded the LegislativeCouncil select committee a witch-hunt and claimed thatno evidence of wrongdoing had been presented. Whathave I just read from paragraph 174 at page 59 of thisdocument? Is that not evidence — —

Hon. M. R. Thomson — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, the house has just had an incidentin which the Honourable Cameron Boardman had towithdraw in relation to declaring a member of anotherplace guilty of something, and I suggest that thismember does the same.

Hon. K. M. Smith — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, no allegations have been made byMr Craige in regard to this issue. Mr Craige said thatMr Conroy was most certainly guilty of corruption, buthe did not say — —

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, I did not say he was guilty ofthat.

Hon. K. M. Smith — From that point of view thereis no point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! On thepoint of order, I have listened as carefully as I can to thedebate, which is obviously my job here. I do not believeany serious allegations have been made at this stage. Irule that there is no point of order and ask Mr Craige tocontinue.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — Read the Hansard report!

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — The government claimedthat there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Do not readHansard; read paragraph 174 on page 59 of theinspectors’ report: guilty, Your Honour! Conroy isguilty, according to this independent report, which saysthat he breached the Local Government Act.

What else did the Bracks Labor government say aboutthe select committee? It said it was a kangaroo courtand a Star Chamber, against a private citizen. It went onto say it was a fishing expedition, a political stunt,and — importantly — a tawdry exercise. It said when itwas established it was a tawdry, sorry day in the historyof the Parliament. It also said that the inquiry had nopurpose other than as a Star Chamber.

It is now time for government members in this chamberto stand up and admit they were wrong. They werewrong in every single way, and the government’s



independent report clearly illustrates and demonstratesthe guilt and delivers a guilty verdict. There is no doubtin anyone’s mind that there is a guilty verdict handeddown in this report.

I will add some more weight to this independent reportand to the argument for how important the selectcommittee was. As the Honourable Roger Hallam said,this select committee did not even need to be appointedbut because of the tardiness of the Minister for LocalGovernment and the tardiness of the Bracks Laborgovernment — the kings and queens of cover-up in thisstate did not do anything — we appointed a selectcommittee.

The government’s independent report relies heavily onthe select committee report and it relies heavily on itsevidence. If we turn to page 6 of the inspectors’ reportone cannot help but have a smile upon one’s face,because in paragraph 19 this independent inspectors’report states:

The select committee report provides a useful summary ofevents between November and March 2001 which, at the riskof plagiarism, I adopt …

Over 50 per cent of this report contains evidence fromthe select committee!

Hon. B. C. Boardman interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!Mr Boardman!

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — The government refers tothe committee as a Star Chamber, a kangaroo court, atawdry affair, a political stunt, yet your report — —

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Craigewill address his remarks through the Chair.

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — The government’sindependent report relies extensively on what the selectcommittee did and on the select committee report.

The ALP spin doctors were certainly at work when thisreport was handed down. The Herald Sun of 29 Mayfeatures the headline ‘Labor MP cleared by report onland deal’. I say in this chamber that I support thestatement made yesterday by the honourable memberfor Mildura in the other place, Russell Savage, that hedid not believe the report went far enough. The terms ofreference of the inspectors’ inquiry were written in sucha way that a statement would be made only aboutCr Conroy, yet if you read their report you find thestench of the involvement of Rogan Ward and MattViney goes right through it and the report has theirfingerprints on it from front to back.

The inquiries by the two local government municipalinspectors and the select committee dealt with the issueof confidential information leaving council and gettinginto the hands of a third party and the newspapers.Confidential information was used inappropriately, andthat is what this report is all about. If honourablemembers look at pages 15 and 16 of the inspectors’report they will see how the plot unfolded. Thehonourable member for Frankston East in the otherplace, Matt Viney, encouraged the release of thatinformation. According to paragraphs 33 and 35 onpages 15 and 16 of the report, Viney spent a lot of timeadvising Conroy on how to position himself to have thebest political advantage throughout 2001.

The relationship between Conroy and Viney isimportant in the context of the investigation. Conroyregarded Viney as a mentor and a confidant anddescribed their relationship as a fairly close onepolitically and personally. I put to this chamber that infact the release of this information was encouraged byMatt Viney. Mark Conroy used Matt Viney’s officeregularly and used the equipment — this report says it.He had a key to the door and he was in and out of thereall the time.

Hon. M. R. Thomson — So what?

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — There’s no relationship?‘So what?’, we hear. There was very importantconfidential material being discussed, and if one looksat the evidence of the phone calls and goes to page 62of the report, one cannot help but reach a conclusionthat there was a very close relationship between MattViney and Conroy and a number of phone calls. Mostof us would not make that number of phone calls to ourbest friends on a given day, so there had to besomething going on. When I look at page 62, for 28September, I have a question for the two inspectors ofmunicipal administration: why is the phone call fromConroy’s mobile phone to the electorate office of thePremier not listed? A phone call was made at 1305 —and for those who do not know, that is 1.05 p.m. — butit is not listed in the report!

I go on to page 63, and there is a factual error in thisreport: the investigators mucked up some of the phonecalls. In fact on 2 October they listed two phone calls, at2.34 p.m. and 2.54 p.m., as Ward to Conroy and Wardto Conroy. Wrong! It should have read Conroy toViney and Conroy to Viney. They were wrong again.

There is no doubt that this whole thing smells, and MattViney and the bagman for the ALP and for Conroy andViney, Rogan Ward, were involved in this up to theirnecks. Bribery is not always about money; it can also



be about political capital. and there is no doubt that thepolitical capital that was offered to Conroy and toViney was extensive. It was not bribery in moneyterms — not brown paper bags — but the politicalcapital, the advantage politically, that they could havegot out of what was going on. The government mustinvestigate the puppet master Viney. Viney is thepuppet master in all of this, not Conroy, and certainlynot Rogan Ward. Viney was certainly an accessory andconspired to release that confidential information.There is no doubt that that occurred.

Viney is guilty of corruption — —

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, the honourable member has madea number of assertions that I take great exception to. Hehas asserted that a member of the Legislative Assemblyis an accessory to a criminal offence. In his subsequentstatement he said that the honourable member forFrankston East is guilty of corruption. I ask him towithdraw those assertions. Absolutely nothing in thisreport suggests either of those assertions.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, the honourable member ismaking allegations that relate to Mr Craige’s indicatingthat there were criminal offences involved. Mr Craigewent to great lengths to indicate that there were nocriminal offences involved. What Mr Craige did say,however, was that the honourable member forFrankston East in the other place was an accessory tothe breach of confidentiality by Mr Conroy and thatthey conspired together — that is exactly what hesaid — to release that information.

Hon. M. R. Thomson — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, the President ruled not so longbefore you took the chair that you could not impugn thereputation of another member without it being bysubstantive motion. Mr Craige has impugned a memberof the other house and he should be asked to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Theprevious point of order was about guilt but there was nodefinition of that guilt so I ruled against that. I havelistened again very carefully to the honourable memberas he made his contribution. The honourable memberdid say that a member of the other house had conspired,and I believe that that would require a substantivemotion so I request the honourable member towithdraw that.

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — I withdraw. There is nodoubt that Viney is guilty of bribery and corruption inthis whole exercise.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, again the reputation of a memberof another house is being impugned and I ask again forthat to be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Yes, on thepoint of order, Mr Craige is flouting the ruling of theChair. I request him to withdraw both of thosecomments.

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE — I withdraw. He is guilty!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — What adisgraceful performance! Both the HonourableCameron Boardman and the Honourable Geoff Craigehave given us the most disgraceful performance thatdoes no credit to them or this chamber. If honourablemembers opposite are interested in making thischamber relevant they need to stop this type ofbehaviour and lift their standards, because at themoment they are bringing this chamber and thisParliament into disrepute. They know that politicians inthis country are unfortunately not regarded very highly,and this type of behaviour does nothing to enhance thereputation of members of Parliament.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Craige!

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Mr Deputy President,the members opposite have gone to great lengths tothrow a lot of mud around at individuals who haveactually been cleared by this report. The honourablemember for Frankston East has in fact been cleared bythis report. They were unable to find anything in theirwitch-hunt or through that biased Star Chamber processthat they set up.

When a report of an independent inquiry established toinvestigate the process concludes that there were nofindings of bribery — and I will refer to the specificpassages in the report that make that assertion —members of the opposition use parliamentary privilegeto make absolutely slanderous allegations that they donot have the courage to repeat outside this house. Ichallenge Mr Boardman and Mr Craige to go out on tothe steps of Parliament House and repeat thosestatements if they dare. They know their statements aredefamatory, and they do not have the courage to repeatthem outside this place.

This government takes very seriously allegations ofbreaches of the Local Government Act and improperbehaviour under that act. That is why the Minister forLocal Government in the other place on 3 October lastyear, following a complaint from the chief executive



officer of the Frankston City Council, appointed aninspector of municipal investigations to begininvestigations into possible breaches of the LocalGovernment Act. Even before the Star Chamber wasset up the minister had put in train a process toinvestigate possible breaches of the act.

Today we have seen a rewrite of history. Honourablemembers opposite have completely forgotten about theactions of the minister and the bureaucracy inbeginning an investigation in October last year after acomplaint was made. They have forgotten that duringthe debate on the terms of reference of the StarChamber committee the government made an offer toset up — —

Hon. B. C. Boardman — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, I caution the honourable memberto consider what she is saying, because she has just saidthat an offer was made to the opposition during thedebate on the terms of reference of the selectcommittee. That is not correct. If she can provide someevidence of that we will be very interested to hear it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! That is nota point of order. I invite Ms Mikakos to continue.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — You will recall thatdiscussions occurred about setting a process in train andappointing a municipal inspector, which is very similarto what occurred, but the opposition parties weredetermined to set up a process that would enable themto throw mud at the Labor candidate for the federal seatof Dunkley. That is what the select committee was allabout — of the six public hearings, five happened totake place before the federal election and the committeewould have had the sixth hearing before the election ifthat witness had been available. That is all it was about.The Honourable Cameron Boardman made that clear inhis contribution when he gloated about the fact thatMark Conroy was not elected as the federal member forDunkley.

The government takes the Local Government Act veryseriously. It takes the independence of localgovernment as the third tier of government veryseriously. It set up a process to investigate possiblebreaches of the act when a complaint was made.

I refer to the assertions made by the HonourableCameron Boardman, because the report clears thehonourable member for Frankston East and MarkConroy of any bribery allegations — —

Hon. G. R. Craige — That wasn’t even in the termsof reference.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — You need to haveanother look at the terms of reference, because if youlook at them — —


Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — I have, actually.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! TheHonourable Jenny Mikakos is on her feet, and I am surewe all want to hear what she has to say. The housecannot hear anything because of the constant barrage ofinterjections. I urge honourable members on my left todesist.

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS — Page 1 of the reportsets out the terms of reference. Paragraph (b)(ii) states:

… under other legislation which require further investigation.

‘Other legislation’ includes the Crimes Act. The termsof reference were broad and were not limited to theLocal Government Act. The investigators were able tomake findings, if there was evidence, which therewasn’t, of bribery. Paragraphs 151 and 152 indicate thatthey obtained all of the books of account of thehonourable member for Frankston East.

Paragraph 151 of the report states:

Viney made available all the books of account, pay-in booksand ledgers relating to the Dunkley campaign and I can findno evidence to suggest there is any substance to thisallegation.

The honourable member for Frankston East wasprepared to make all the relevant information available.The investigator concluded in paragraph 152:

This is a serious allegation that imputes the integrity of Vineyand Conroy. I consider it is baseless …

People have been cleared of bribery and corruption, yethonourable members opposite give their owndefinitions and tests and say that if members ofParliament or elected local government representativeswork towards community outcomes, work for theircommunities, in some way that makes them guilty ofbribery. That is the most absurd test I have ever heard.If we adopt that test probably most members ofParliament in this place would be guilty. Perhapshonourable members opposite do not work for thebenefit of their communities and therefore do not fallwithin that definition. It is a ridiculous test, and it isoutrageous that honourable members opposite havecome into this house and have ignored the findings of



this report and effectively attempted to come up withtheir own conclusions.

I acknowledge that there are serious findings in thereport. The executive summary of the report concludesthat it is also highly likely that confidential informationwas released. That is not a conclusive finding. Underthe rule of law someone must be prosecuted and foundguilty. This is a recommendation for action to be taken.The Minister for Local Government has set in train aprocess so a prosecution can be commenced — —

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Thehonourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I firstmake the observation that if it were not for this upperhouse we would not have a document that reported thata select committee found a breach of section 77 of theLocal Government Act had occurred.

We also would not have a select committee reportsaying that a further breach of section 77 of the LocalGovernment Act may have occurred, and we would nothave a select committee report saying that a thirdbreach of confidentiality is most likely to haveoccurred. If it were not for the upper house we wouldnot have a document from inspectors of municipaladministration saying:

I therefore consider Cr Conroy has released confidentialdetails provided to him during the course of the workingparty’s briefing to Matt Viney and Rogan Ward in breach ofsection 77(2) of the Local Government Act 1989.

If it were not for the upper house we would not havehad either the select committee report or the report ofthe inspectors. We have the first because this housetook a decision to investigate allegations that had beenbrought to its attention about activities occurring in theCity of Frankston. The government called thecommittee a Star Chamber and a witch-hunt. Thegovernment proved itself wrong, because that selectcommittee, which comprised three members from thischamber who did an excellent job under greatdifficulties and received no cooperation from thegovernment, came up with a document which draggedthe government kicking and screaming to a situation inwhich it had to establish a further investigation byinspectors of municipal administration. I think theupper house is working. In the context of this sordidaffair we established a select committee and forced thegovernment to take action to investigate the matter atFrankston.

The second point I wish to make is this: if it were amember of either the National Party or the Liberal Party

that was the subject of allegations of corruption orbribery or any breach of an act of Parliament at anylevel, we would have the whole of the house heredefending that person. Today only five members of thegovernment are present; two of them have just arrived.To support the previous speaker we had the most juniorminister and three government members. It isunbelievable that a government would allow a debateon such an important issue to occur without itsmembers being here in force to put its side of the storyand to support its speakers. That means something elseto me. Maybe government members think there is a lotmore in this than is in the report.

When you read the report you wonder what else wasgoing on that could not be found out. There may be alot worse things happening in Frankston than havecome forward in this report. What would makesomebody believe that that could be the case? Thephone calls referred to by Mr Craige? They are not onlyreferred to in this document; they are there in chapterand verse.

Hon. J. M. Madden — Now you’re making it up.You’re speculating!

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — It is not speculation. Thedetails of the phone calls are in the document — pagesand pages of them. Do you know that within seven daysthere were 60 calls on this issue to Mr Viney’s office orto Mr Viney?

Hon. G. R. Craige — From whom?

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — From all the people involvedin this affair. Within that seven-day period 86 callsinvolved Cr Conroy. Are you going to tell me thatsomething was not going on? That there was nothingwrong in Frankston? Some 146 calls to Viney’s officeand Conroy’s office within seven days. What was goingon, I ask you! We know what was going on. It was thevery time when the council was down to the finalconsideration of this huge project — a project involving$100 million to $150 million. That is what was goingon during those seven days!

The Brideson committee came up with some ideas onthis and pointed out on page (iii) that there werebreaches of section 77 of the Local Government Act.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order!

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — I was involved in localgovernment for 30 years, and during all of that time



councillors and officers were aware of section 77 of theLocal Government Act.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Thecross-conversations in the chamber will cease. I amsure everyone wants to hear the contribution beingmade by Mr Lucas, so I invite him to continue, withoutinterruption.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — During that time councillorsand senior management were very aware of theprovisions of section 77 of the Local Government Act,which refers to the improper use of information. Itstates:

(2) A person who is, or has been, a Councillor or a memberof a Council committee must not release informationthat the person knows, or should reasonably know, isinformation —

(a) that is confidential to the Council; and

(b) that the Council wishes to keep confidential.

Penalty: For a first offence: 20 penalty units;

For a second or subsequent offence:imprisonment for 3 months.

I know about that provision; anybody who has workedin local government would know about that provision.The question is: has Mr Viney ever worked in localgovernment? Answer: yes he has, as a senior officer.Has he ever worked in local government or with localgovernment as a consultant? Yes, he has.

Mr Viney would know about the provisions of theLocal Government Act. Yet when Cr Conroy camealong to him with confidential information, did he sendhim away? No, he did not — and he took a whole lot ofcalls after that on the phone. Not only did he haveinformation, but there are records in the inspectors’report of phone calls to Mr Viney’s office over a periodof one week. The figures show 60 calls within sevendays, at the very time the council was considering this$100 million to $150 million project. Did Mr Vineysend Cr Conroy away? No, he did not.

That means a lot to me because as a former localgovernment officer and local government consultant hewould have known that he was participating insomething that was illegal. He has participated in anillegal arrangement whereby someone has come alongto him with information that he should not have beensharing with him or talking to him about. However, thisdocument shows that the information was given. Thereis no intimation on any page of either report that

Mr Viney sent Cr Conroy away. Indeed, Mr Viney wasa willing participant in this, and that is what comesthrough from this document. I put to this house that heknew he was getting involved in something he shouldnot have been involved in. So, yes, Mr Viney is guilty.It is clear from this document that he is guilty. Heshould also be investigated — —

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, again I call on the honourablemember to withdraw that statement. There is nothing inthe report that concludes that Mr Viney is guilty ofanything. I take exception to that remark and ask him towithdraw it.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, the guilt referred to was theassociation between Mr Viney and Cr Conroy.

Hon. Jenny Mikakos — Guilt by association!

Hon. C. A. Furletti — It referred to the associationbetween Mr Viney and Cr Conroy, and that was theguilt referred to. I submit there is no point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Again Ihave listened carefully to the comments made in thisdebate. I uphold the point of order and ask thehonourable member to withdraw that particularcomment.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — I withdraw. I am not sureexactly what I am withdrawing, but I withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I haveasked the honourable member to withdraw theaccusation that the particular member was guilty. Imake that clear.

Hon. C. A. Furletti — Of what?

Hon. J. M. Madden — Just withdraw it!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Thehonourable member has withdrawn. I have just clearedup — —

Hon. J. M. Madden — With qualification.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Minister! Iinvite Mr Lucas to continue.

Hon. N. B. LUCAS — I respect your ruling,Mr Deputy President, and I withdrew. I said thatMr Viney participated in this discussion and in thereceipt of information that was banned under the LocalGovernment Act. He was involved in discussions of arange of issues and he also should be investigated.



Motion agreed to.


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Minister,and honourable members on both sides, the debate hasbeen cleared up.

TRANSPORT (FURTHERMISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading



The bill serves a broad range of purposes designed toimprove Victoria’s public transport system, includingreform of the taxi and hire car industries and regulationof security cameras in taxis. It also includes furtherreform of the tow-truck industry and gives theSecretary of the Department of Infrastructure power toinspect and audit medical records of public transportsafety workers to ensure a safer transport system. Thebill clarifies the power of an authorised transportenforcement officer to request a person suspected of atransport offence to provide verification of their nameand address. Finally, the powers of the director ofpublic transport will be extended to facilitate theperformance of his functions.

The bill also amends the Melbourne City Link Act1995 by extending by two days the period in whichTransurban may backdate temporary registration.

The thrust of the taxi industry reforms in the bill is toretain regulated entry into the industry while improvingthe quality of service provided to the Victorian publicby means of an accreditation regime for taxi depots andcommunication networks which dispatch bookings onbehalf of the taxi industry. These initiatives willcomplement further proposals to develop accreditationrequirements for taxi operators and licence-holdersunder new powers set out in the bill. The reforms havebeen designed to introduce gradual change to theindustry in an effort to protect existing interests whilealso stimulating a dynamic industry environment whichis more responsive to consumer and driver needs. It isproposed to introduce a late-night tariff on taxi fares,and the bill provides for a new condition to be appliedto taxicab licences which will ensure that this tariff ispaid entirely to taxidrivers — a change that is expectedto improve the availability of taxis during times of peakrequirement.

Other changes include removal of the public interesttest as a barrier to market entry for small commercialpassenger vehicles other than taxis, with theintroduction of a commercial fee based on the marketrate payable for a hire car or special purpose vehiclelicence. These two changes to the licensing provisionsfor small commercial passenger vehicles other thantaxis are applicable to all licences applied for from9 May 2002.

In order to improve safety for taxidrivers and theirpassengers, amendments have also been made to theTransport Act to enable the regulation and control ofsecurity cameras in taxis and the images taken by thecameras. The installation of security camerascommenced in the last few months of 2001, and isexpected to be completed by the end of June 2002. Todate, control of the cameras has been maintained undertaxi licence conditions. However, the new legislationwill allow a process for the Secretary of the Departmentof Infrastructure to enter into an agreement with aperson or body authorised to download the images andprovide them to police in appropriate circumstances forlaw enforcement purposes.

The proposed agreement has been prepared inconsultation with the Victorian Privacy Commissionerto ensure that the provisions are sufficient to protect theprivacy of people using taxis. Other than authorisedpersons who work under an agreement with thesecretary, only staff of the department and the policewill have access to the images. The new provisions alsoprovide substantial penalties for any person whounlawfully possesses, downloads, publishes, transmitsor discloses the images from a taxi security camera.

A review of the tow truck industry recommended theaddition of objectives to the tow truck provisions of thelegislation to emphasise the role of the provisions in theprotection of consumers — particularly accidentvictims — when dealing with tow truck operators andvehicle repairers as well as timely clearance ofaccident-damaged vehicles from accident sites andprevention of undesirable behaviour by tow truckoperators. The bill removes non-accident-relatedtowing of motorcycles from regulation by the TransportAct but accident towing of motorcycles will still beregulated. The cooling-off period for an authority torepair accident damage has been extended to 72 hourswith provision for a written waiver after 48 hours, toallow an owner of a vehicle for example, a taxi orcommercial vehicle, to arrange quicker repair whenneeded. The new legislation also provides for extensionof police powers to enable police to maintain control ofan accident scene. The new powers are necessaryparticularly at heavy vehicle accident scenes to prevent



touting for repair work and to ensure the orderlysalvage and recovery of damaged vehicles and theirloads.

The bill provides that responsibility for determinationof taxi fares and tow truck fees, currently determined bythe Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, willnow rest with the Minister for Transport, afterevaluation by the Director of Public Transport and anindependent assessment by the Essential ServicesCommission. The commission will be able to exerciseits usual powers of investigation and inquiry inconducting evaluations and its report will be tabled inParliament.

The bill amends the powers of the Director of PublicTransport in order to clarify the director’s ability toconstruct, maintain and operate public transportinfrastructure and to run public transport services. Thedirector is also given power, to be exercised with theminister’s approval, to compulsorily acquire land forpublic transport purposes. This provision will facilitateprojects which are funded or managed by theDepartment of Infrastructure.

The bill also inserts a power for the Secretary of theDepartment of Infrastructure to audit rail safetyworkers’ medical records for the purposes ofaccreditation of operators. This amendment is to allowsafety accreditation auditors to ensure that an accreditedrail operator or a contractor has appropriate medicalexamination procedures and health monitoring systemsin place to ensure that safety workers are medically fitfor their work. This measure will further improve thesafety of public transport operations in Victoria.

The bill clarifies the power of authorised officers torequest a person suspected of a transport or ticketoffence to provide evidence to verify the person’s nameand address. The information is necessary to ensure thatenforcement proceedings or an infringement notice canbe expeditiously served on the correct person. Theinformation has always been requested and recorded bytransport enforcement officers and for many years theMagistrates Court has upheld that practice. However, inview of the requirements of privacy laws, the billincludes a number of measures to clarify the power ofauthorised officers to request verification informationand to record the information. The bill also introduces asubstantial penalty for misuse of the verificationinformation, and only permits the information to beused for enforcement purposes. To ensure theprotection of privacy, guidelines governing thecollection, use and disposal of personal informationgathered in the process of detecting and enforcing

public transport related offences are currently beingdeveloped.

Relevant to the proposals for the Minister for Transportto determine taxi fare and accident towing fees, afterindependent assessment by the Essential ServicesCommission, I wish to make a statement pursuant tosection 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of thereasons why the bill alters or varies section 85.

Clause 22 of the bill inserts a new section 255E into theTransport Act 1983, which states that it is the intentionof section 189(7) of the act (as inserted by clause 20 ofthe bill) to alter or vary section 85 of the ConstitutionAct 1975.

The combined effect of proposed sections 255Eand 189(7) is to confer an immunity on persons as aconsequence of their making of a statement or giving ofa document or information to the Essential ServicesCommission in good faith, in connection with aninvestigation under proposed division 9 of part VI ofthe Transport Act. The protection applies whether ornot an oral statement is made or a written document orinformation provided in connection with a writtensubmission or public hearing. These provisions havethe same effect as the equivalent provision in section 63of the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, whichwas inserted to cover section 51(7) of that act.

The reason for limiting the jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt with respect to these matters is to give personswho wish to make statements or provide informationunder division 9 of part VI of the Transport Act adegree of confidence that their statements orinformation can be made or given without fear oflitigation. This is likely to enhance the quality of thesubmissions and information made available to theEssential Services Commission, and thus enhance thequality of its reports.

These provisions are important to improve the qualityof service provided to the Victorian public and tofacilitate a more efficient and customer-focused smallcommercial passenger vehicle and tow-truck industry.

The bill amends section 73C of the Melbourne CityLink Act 1985 to allow the backdating of temporaryregistration by an additional two days. Motorists willhave until midnight on the Tuesday immediatelyfollowing the weekend of travel on City Link topurchase a weekend pass, enabling payment with cash.Motorists will have three days after first travel topurchase other City Link passes such as the 24-hourpass and the Tulla pass. This amendment wasnegotiated by government and delivers a significant

CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL


improvement to City Link products for occasional usersand country Victorians.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G. B. ASHMAN(Koonung).


CASINO (MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT)(AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading



The Casino (Management Agreement) Act was passedin 1993; it ratified the management agreement betweenthe state and Melbourne casino operators. Section 15 ofthe Casino Control Act provides for the managementagreement to be varied by the parties, however thevariation has no effect unless it is ratified byParliament.

The purpose of this bill is to ratify the seventh deed ofvariation to the management agreement for theMelbourne casino complex. This deed of variationprovides for Crown to be released from its contractualobligation to build a lyric theatre. In return, Crown willpay to the state $18 million over five years. Thiscontribution by Crown will be allocated towards amajor arts project in the arts precinct near the YarraRiver. Crown will have no equity or interest in thisproject.

Crown will still be required to construct an alternativecapital development of no less value than $42 million,the cost of the lyric theatre as determined by anindependent quantity surveyor on 9 March 2001. Thenature and timing of the development will be up toCrown to determine. Crown will be responsible forobtaining the necessary permits and approvals for thealternative project, however the state retains the right toapprove or not approve the project being included aspart of the casino complex.

This deed of variation has been approved by thegovernment, as the construction of the lyric theatrewould have severely undermined the viability ofMelbourne’s historic theatre precinct, and the paymentof $18 million to be made by Crown will benefit theVictoria community.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. ANDREWBRIDESON (Waverley).


STATE TAXATION ACTS (FURTHER TAXREFORM) BILL

Second reading



This bill contains the government’s tax measures forthe 2002–03 budget. The government’s business taxinitiatives have already been announced in the BuildingTomorrow’s Businesses Today package that providesbusiness tax cuts of $262 million over the next fouryears. These initiatives build on the government’sBetter Business Taxes package of last year whichfollowed the most comprehensive business tax reviewundertaken in Victoria for nearly two decades. All ofthese initiatives bring the total business tax cutsannounced by the Bracks government to over$1 billion — a significant achievement in a first term ofoffice. The budget also contains targeted measures toassist first home buyers with families to purchase theirown homes and it also assists concession cardholderswho wish to move to other accommodation.

In formulating the Building Tomorrow’s BusinessesToday package, the government has focused onmeasures to grow the whole of Victoria and delivermore high-quality jobs and better living standards.

These taxation measures are financially responsible andtarget improved outcomes for businesses and families.They provide a solid basis for the continuedimprovement in living standards for all Victorians.

I now turn to the major features of the bill. The billcontains a number of important changes to the Pay-rollTax Act 1971 that will stimulate employment inVictoria and encourage business investment.

Effective from 1 July 2002, the rate of payroll tax willbe lowered to 5.35 per cent, one year ahead of theschedule previously announced in Better BusinessTaxes.

The rate of payroll tax will be further reduced to5.25 per cent, effective from 1 July 2003. Theseinitiatives mean that the Bracks government will have



reduced the payroll tax burden for business by 9 percent since coming to office.

The payroll tax-free threshold will also be increasedfrom $515 000 to $550 000, effective on 1 July 2002,one year ahead of schedule. This will free around 300small businesses from the burden of paying payroll tax.In addition, hundreds more that would have becomeliable for the tax will now remain below the threshold.This increase in the payroll tax threshold is the firstthreshold increase in a decade.

The land tax threshold will also be increased from$125 000 to $150 000, effective from 2002–03. Thiswill remove around 21 000 taxpayers, or around 15 percent of all taxpayers, from the burden of land tax. Intotal, almost 6000 properties in regional Victoria willbecome exempt from land tax.

Stamp duty on unquoted marketable securities will alsobe abolished from 1 July 2002, one year ahead ofschedule. This stamp duty impedes investment decisionmaking and financing by small business and itsabolition will save businesses over $10 million eachyear.

This bill also recognises the government’s communityobligations. The government will reform, streamlineand expand the concessions system presently in place toassist first-home-buying families and concessioncardholders. The existing concessions were lastreviewed in 1998 and the two schemes currently havedifferent exemption requirements and cut-off levels.Both schemes will now be consolidated for the firsttime and expanded with a full exemption applying forboth first-home-buying families and concessioncardholders up to $150 000 and a partial exemptionfrom $150 000 to $200 000. The removal of the incometest for first home buyers with families will simplifyadministration. It will also remove any unfairdiscrimination where, in a family situation, one of thepartners might be moving in and out of the work force.

These reforms mean the value of the maximumconcession for both schemes will increase to $4660.Previously, the maximum concession for concessioncardholders was $2200 and for first-home-buyingfamilies, it was $2560. As a result of these reforms, upto 4000 additional families, pensioners and lowerincome earners will be eligible for relief, bringing thetotal number estimated to benefit from theseconcessions to about 8000 — many of whom will be inregional Victoria. Common arrangements will provideimproved accessibility, ensure efficient streamlinedadministration and eliminate any current confusion in

the marketplace regarding the present variationsbetween the two schemes.

The government’s Building Tomorrow’s BusinessesToday package cements Victoria’s position as a goodplace to do business. Furthermore, our reform andexpansion of the concession arrangements will assistfirst-home-buying families, lower income earners andpensioners.


Debate adjourned for Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra)on motion of Hon. N. B. Lucas.



Debate resumed from 16 May; motion ofHon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources):


Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — Australia’sautomotive industry, which is principally headquarteredand based in Victoria, is a major contributor to ournational economy and Australia’s skills base. I wish touse this budget debate to urge clear-cut governmentfacilitation of car companies and automotive companiesin this state. Particularly in the light of the currentProductivity Commission review of Australia’sautomotive industry tariffs, I emphasise the need forhigh-level advocacy of the long-term case for ourefficient automotive sector. This is critically importantfor public policy in 2002.

As I see it there are three dynamic challenges facingthis important Australian industry. The first is globalmarket access and as part of that the future of the tariffregime in this country. The second is industrialrelations and the need to improve labour productivity.The third concerns exchange rate fluctuations and theinevitable impact they have on the export capacity ofthis important sector. My remarks are heavily weightedtowards the first issue, given the ProductivityCommission’s assessment of the tariff regime as itaffects car manufacturers and automotive componentmanufacturers.

At the outset I want to say that I believe tradeliberalisation since the 1980s has been good forAustralia. It has made our manufacturers moreefficient; it has put in place disciplines that have createdhigher productivity and generated an even strongerfocus on the most important goal for the Australianeconomy, which is to be export based.



During that period we have seen the automotive sectorcompletely transform itself. Regardless of the oldstereotypes that a few people still apply to this sector, itis now skills based, export focused and in many areasworld competitive. Tariffs have fallen from a high of57.5 per cent to what will be a level of 10 per cent by2005 — an extraordinary cut in historic protection. Theindustry has been reborn, and Melbourne is fortunate tobe the home of that sector and the benefits it nowbrings.

Total automotive exports in 2000–01 are a guide to itscritical importance. They were just under $5 billion,and there is a likelihood that they will reach $7 billionby next year. This is a sector of the Australian industrythat is leading through its own performance and hasattracted the eye of people who in the past may havebeen its greatest sceptics.

It employs over 50 000 Australians, with about 27 000involved in the component sector.

There are the four major car manufacturers, which arethe most visible, but of equal importance are around200 local component tooling, engineering and designbusinesses.

Significantly, this sector is also an R & D leader withresearch and development expenditure of about$420 million per annum — something that has led to itshigh level of achievement over recent years.

We have also seen regular reinvestment and freshinvestment, with the most recent announcements ofscale being those by Holden, with its $386 millionV6 aluminium engine plant, and Mitsubishi’sannouncement of a $170 million investment in itsoperations.

These are welcome investments by the large players asthe industry gains strength collectively through suchindividual additions to investment.

The strengths of this sector obviously bring majorbenefits to Melbourne and to some of our regionalcentres. They also bring significant benefits to Adelaideand Sydney and the South Australian and New SouthWales economies and to the Australian economyoverall because of export performance. We see inMelbourne that we are the principal beneficiaries ofinvestment by Toyota, General Motors and Ford.

Perhaps less publicly understood is the equallyinspiring work of automotive products manufacturerswithin our realm. I mention particularly outstandingcorporations like Robert Bosch Australia, the AirInternational Group, PBR International and Delphi

Automotive Systems. These Australian-basedautomotive manufacturers are examples of companiesthat see a long-term future for this sector and hugepotential for export growth and who are investing inskills. Along with other operations, be theydomestically owned or foreign owned, they are creatingsignificant employment, they are adding to the trainingand education base of the nation and they are assistingin the R & D effort with value adding production.

When you put all those achievements in together, itonly emphasises the point that a focus on theProductivity Commission’s review of this sector is ofvital importance to Victoria as well as Australia.

In dealing with the first major challenge that I cited atthe beginning of my speech I want to address some ofmy remarks to how this industry will fare, especially interms of governmental decisions on future levels ofindustry assistance.

In its submission to the Productivity Commission Ibelieve Ford Australia correctly sums up the strengthsof this sector and its role. It says:

Australia’s automotive manufacturing industry, small byglobal standards, has been transformed into a uniquelyvaluable national asset with skilled and motivated employeesproducing high value and high quality motor vehicles.Increasingly, Australian vehicle producers have theconfidence to put their products to the test in some of theworld’s most competitive markets.

The submission also says that Australia is now:

… one of the most open and competitive home markets ofany country in the world …

Indeed it is. We are competitive. We are coping withcompetitive pressures, and we need the right domesticpolicy settings to ensure that we extract the maximumbenefit out of the future growth opportunities for thissector.

In its submission to the Productivity Commission theFederation of Automotive Parts Manufacturers makesthe point:

The Australian automotive industry is a major contributor tothe economy in many ways:.

It generates relatively high numbers of jobs, substantialoutput and investment.

It is a leading-edge customer for many industries such assteel, glass, plastics, paints and tooling.

It is important to the future of particular regions such asparts of Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney …

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Its submission then goes on to make perhaps the mostimportant point:

It contributes substantially to skills formation inAustralian manufacturing.

It is a major innovator in product design and processengineering.

It is a leader in best practice manufacturing methods andtechnology.

It has substantial linkages to the services sector.

It has developed a large and growing export market.

Given that no significant Australian business is likely tothrive without export sales, implicit in which is a needto break into fresh markets, we can draw some strengthfrom the fact that the automotive industry has achievedthat goal, even though it has faced some of the mostdifficult circumstances and of course significantlyfalling tariff levels.

Debate interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Stonnington: sporting facilities

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — I bringto the attention of the house the severe lack of openspace, in particular sporting grounds, in inner suburbanMelbourne and the consequent decision of theStonnington City Council within my electorate toimpose a 12-month freeze on the number of sportingteams and clubs that are allowed to be established inthat city.

People who are aware of the changes in innerMelbourne would know that young families havemoved back into the area and that there is a significantnew demand for open space and for sporting facilitiesand sporting grounds. All people need to do is comedown to Stonnington on a Saturday or Sunday morningto see the number of people playing various sports —football in the winter and cricket in the summer, as wellas netball and various other sports.

All sporting clubs in the area have experiencedsignificant growth. There is a continuing need for moreopen space and for more sporting clubs. I understandthat the Stonnington council has made this move to puta freeze on the number of sporting clubs because of thelack of available grounds, but more creative solutionsare needed long term.

We as a society — the council, the government and thecommunity — need to look at providing more openspace and utilising existing open space more creativelyto ensure that the needs of our residents are met. If wewant people to stay fit and to get engaged in sport andnot get involved in antisocial activities, we need toencourage them to play sport, and we need more openspace and more sporting facilities to do so.

Anglicare Victoria winter appeal

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I takethis opportunity to express my appreciation of the workof Anglicare Victoria. I will be delighted to attend thelaunch of the Anglicare Victoria winter appealtomorrow at Footscray railway station. The appeal willbe launched by the Melbourne Anglican Bishop, theMost Reverend Peter Watson, and Sharan Burrow,president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

The aim of the appeal is to help families who are indifficulty and struggling with poverty, who oftenbecome overwhelmed and unable to cope and who fallinto despair, isolation and illness.

Some 678 000 Australian children are growing up injobless families, where their risk of living in poverty isincreasing. The fact is that homelessness, hunger, coldand violence are part of our community, and for thoseenduring poverty the harsh realities of winter simplymake matters worse.

In 2001 financial counsellors from Anglicare Victoriareported that on average 59 per cent of their clientspresented with a problem or dispute relating to creditcard debt.

The people from Anglicare also help their clients withissues relating to unemployment, mobile phonecontracts, motor vehicle insurance and other types ofinsurance.

Sunraysia Tennis Academy

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I take thisopportunity to congratulate one of my constituents, RayKilkenny, for developing the Sunraysia TennisAcademy in Mildura, which I recently had the pleasureof opening as its patron.

Ray has developed a program that will combine formaleducation with a professionally planned tennis programfor secondary students. Sunraysia is the ideal place forsuch an academy, given its climatic conditions, whichare fantastic all year round, and the fact that Sunraysiais a fast-growing regional area.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


It is fair to say that Australian tennis does not haveplayers of the standard we have seen in the past, so theacademy will play a vital role in ensuring that thoseplayers with real potential have the opportunity to reachthe highest level of excellence.

The players’ formal education is the priority componentof the program, and if students fall below thedesignated scholastic level their tennis training willcease until that level is achieved.

Ray will be assisted by Phil Lancaster, who hascoached tennis players in Australia and the UnitedStates of America for over 20 years, and Sam Swan, alevel 1 Tennis Australia coach.

I commend the formation of the Sunraysia TennisAcademy and have much pleasure in being its patron.

Disability services: transport

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I rise tospeak on a matter of importance to frail and elderlypeople as well as to the disabled and their carers,particularly those in the Dandenong Ranges and in thesouth-west portion of the Yarra Ranges in myelectorate. It has been brought to my attention that thereis an urgent need for volunteer drivers to transport thesepeople, as they struggle to access public transport andare basically immobile without assistance.

Volunteers are required as part of the efforts of theKnox Community Volunteers program and South-WestTransport. Those organisations put in a desperate pleafor members of the community to come forward andaid in maintaining their services. The volunteer driversare required to deliver people to medical and socialappointments. They receive training and support as wellas petrol allowances and newsletters.

I stand today to encourage people in my localcommunity who have any spare time on their hands tobecome part of this admirable service. They willreceive the personal reward of assisting residents whocannot move unaided from point A to point B, whichmost of us take for granted. They will be contributing toa fantastic service to the community in allowing theelderly and the disabled to maintain their independenceand prevent social isolation.

The program is flexible in that it allows volunteers tonominate which times best suit them to support theprogram. I encourage all people in the outer easterncommunity to volunteer for this valuable service.

George Tibbles

Hon. J. M. McQUILTEN (Ballarat) — I will talktoday about the recent death of Mr George Tibbles inCasterton. He was a wonderful man who will be sadlymissed. He was our ALP branch secretary in Castertonfor 42 years, which is an amazing effort on his part. Hewas a true believer.

Somerville, Tyabb and District Heritage Society

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — Irecognise and commend the valuable community workof the Somerville, Tyabb and District Heritage Society.This heritage society, in association with others, has anextensive collection of irreplaceable historic artefactsand is strongly supported by many of my constituentson the Mornington Peninsula.

The society recognises the need to gather and preserveimportant historic documents and artefacts, which itdoes with great care and enthusiasm. I am proud to bethe patron of this successful heritage society and I willrecord the important contribution made to thecommunity by several individuals who work hard topreserve the heritage of the area.

Somerville, Tyabb and District Heritage Society isfortunate to have a strong membership, and in particularI recognise the contributions of president Mr KenArcher, secretary Mrs Brenda Thornell and visiblesupporters such as Mrs Leila Shaw and Mrs Valda Colefor their continuing efforts to preserve for futuregenerations a high-quality, accessible history of thedistrict.

Toongabbie Primary School

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — It has beenbrought to my attention that the Department ofEducation and Training intends in the next few days torelocate a portable classroom away from ToongabbiePrimary School. Toongabbie Primary School is acountry school of approximately 126 pupils. It uses thisportable classroom as a computer laboratory. Theschool has recently purchased new computers. Theschool community has gone to considerable expense toinstall new cabling and wiring to fit out this portable asa computer room, and now the government is intendingto take it away from them. There is no suitablealternative facility at the school to house the school’scomputers.

The parent community is incensed at this proposedaction of the government, as I believe it has every rightto be. The government makes great claims aboutimproving information technology services in schools,



but this proposed action completely contradicts thoseclaims. I call on the Leader of the Government in herrole as Minister for Education Services to actimmediately to prevent the removal of this essentialfacility from Toongabbie Primary School.

Knox hospital

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — Health care is afundamental right of every person in Australia andVictoria, and particularly in the outer east. Individualsin Victoria expect equitable access to health care, toemergency services and to expertise. People in the outereast do not have that because they do not have a tertiarypublic hospital out there. The Kennett government wascommitted to building a tertiary hospital at Knox, butthe Bracks government has completely walked awayfrom it.

I acknowledge that it put some money into the twohospitals in the area — the William Angliss Hospitaland the Maroondah Hospital — but the people in theouter east have a lot of trouble, and one reason for thatis that there is no Scoresby freeway so it is not that easyto get into some of the inner city hospitals. Their closestaccess for emergency services is the Alfred hospital andthe Box Hill Hospital, and with kids and families it isvery difficult.

I call upon the Bracks government to stop turning itsback on the people of the outer east and to acknowledgethe desperate need for emergency services, a tertiaryhospital and expertise in a whole range of medicalservices lacking in that area by starting to commit to aKnox hospital.

Surf Coast: community consultation

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — Last week amost positive Bracks government communityconsultation was held in my electorate on the SurfCoast, involving the Attorney-General, the Minister forEducation Services and Minister for Youth Affairs, theMinister for Finance and Minister for IndustrialRelations, and the Minister for Tourism and Ministerfor Employment. The two-day consultation includedvisits to local schools, industries and youth agencies.Consultations both formal and informal were held withthe Surf Coast Shire Council and many members of thelocal community.

A packed community reception was held at the Jan JucSurf Life Saving Club, followed the next day by a verywell attended community morning tea at the SurfworldPlaza in Torquay. I thank the ministers and all members

of my community who participated and made ourtwo-day consultation such a success.

Reservoir: mobile phone tower

Hon. JENNY MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — OnSunday, 26 May 2002, I attended a public rally inSt Vigeons Road, Reservoir. Many local residentsattended, together with the honourable member forPreston in another place and Cr Stanley Chaing, thelocal ward councillor, to protest against HutchisonOrange erecting a mobile phone tower on top of avacant shop at 51 Banff Street. The antenna is beingerected in a residential area against the wishes of thevast majority of local residents. At the public rallyresidents raised concerns about the safety ofelectromagnetic radiation, and scientific evidence hasquestioned the safety of this technology. I call on thefederal government to change its telecommunicationslegislation to give local councils and communities a sayin the planning process, and I call on Hutchison Orangeto listen to the views of my constituents.

Arts: cultural grants

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — Iam pleased to inform the house of a grant that wasmade by the Bracks government to Ms AlisonCroggon, who is a poet who lives in my electorate.Through the Arts Victoria International programMs Croggon has been granted $5000 so that she canundertake a poetry reading tour of Ireland in the latterpart of this year.

That demonstrates the Bracks government’scommitment to supporting both new and establishedartists. By supporting Ms Croggon and many otherslike her, whether they be poets, sculptors or dancers, weencourage a diversity of opinion from a diversity of artforms, and that is extremely important in a healthydemocracy. This is the message that Ms Croggon andmany other recipients of these grants will take to theworld: Victoria under the Bracks government is a veryproud and healthy state and a tolerant multiculturalsociety.


Debate resumed.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL (East Yarra) — Prior to thebreak I was talking about the significance of theautomotive industry, and I believe those values areneatly summarised by the comments of the AustralianIndustry Group in its publication A Core Foundation of



the Australian Economy of May this year where itstates:

The future development of Australia’s automotive industriesis of critical importance to the growth and wellbeing of themanufacturing industry and the Australian economy …

Australian automotive industries are a vital component ofdomestic manufacturing. Despite its small size relative to theglobal market, the domestic automotive sector accounts foraround 8 per cent of total manufacturing activity.

It then highlights what I believe to be the most relevantpoint.

The sector has also contributed strongly to the improvementin the export performance of the manufacturing industry inrecent years.

That export performance is on the line as part of theProductivity Commission’s review because it will leadto final federal government decisions about the level ofindustry assistance over coming years and the level oftariffs.

My concern is that we ensure that any movement intariffs after 2005 takes into account a wide range offactors that impact upon our industry. I support thecurrent review of tariffs. I support the reduction oftariffs to 10 per cent by 2005 but I do not believe thereshould be unilateral or ill-considered movements afterthat date. Specifically I believe we have to take intoaccount what overseas nations have done with tradeliberalisation — have they opened their markets toAustralian cars and components and offered somethingthat is the equivalent of a level playing field? There isno such level playing field now, including the tradeactivities of the United States of America, wheresignificant barriers are placed in the way of Australiancompanies that wish to compete in that automotivemarket.

I am concerned about the failure of other countries todeliver on their trade liberalisation goals. In fact, mostother countries that are relevant to this issue are wellbehind what Australia has done, and it should educatethose decision makers who seek to further reduce tariffsafter 2005.

The Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturerspoints out in a submission to the ProductivityCommission that it has:

… little confidence that the United States will be willing toforgo its 25 per cent tariff rate on imported light trucks by2010.

In that part of its submission to the ProductivityCommission it highlights that the so-called land of thefree, the United States, has one of the most punitive

tariffs on imported automotive vehicles. It has notreduced that tariff to date and is not planning to do soby 2005 and may not have done so by 2010. We needto take into account whether the APEC-Bogor goals arelikely to be met: whether the public commitment ofother countries to trade liberalisation is rhetoric orwhether it will become reality.

If you look at other countries that we wish to considerin terms of trade liberalisation, the story is at bestmixed. In the United Kingdom, while there is no tradecontrol on goods originating from European Unionmembers there is a common tariff of 10 per cent onpassenger vehicles and a 3.5 to 4.5 per cent tariff onautomotive components. In the United States there is a2.5 per cent tariff on passenger vehicles and, as Imentioned before, 25 per cent tariff on light trucks. Itshould not be forgotten that light trucks make up 70 percent of United States production and therefore the tariffhas a profoundly damaging impact on those that wish tocompete against America.

In Germany, whilst it is free from tariffs originatingfrom the European Union members, there is a commonexternal tariff rate of 10 per cent on passenger vehicles.In Canada there is a 6 per cent tariff on vehicles andautomotive components. Worse still, if you look closerto home, Malaysia has 140 per cent to 300 per centtariff for passenger vehicles and 60 per cent to 200 percent for four-wheel drives. Its outrageous tariff oncomponents is 25 per cent to 42 per cent. In Thailandthe tariffs on vehicles range from 60 to 80 per cent.

The story gets even worse when you look at non-tariffimport barriers. Once again this information is to betaken on board by those who make the final decisionson what we do with our protection regime, noting as Ido that there has been a massive reduction in the pastand there will be inevitable reductions some time in thefuture. Japan has very significant non-tariff barriersagainst Australian automotive companies that want toexport into the marketplace. They include uniquevehicle type approval systems, design rules,environmental and safety standard rules and complexand rigid distribution systems. All of these aredeliberate non-tariff barriers on our products. Korea hasa variety of customs delays and indirect taxes onautomotive imports. Malaysia has quotas on importedvehicles, restrictive and discretionally applied importlicences and, on top of that, a local content schemerequiring over 45 per cent local sourcing.

Taken together the tariff and non-tariff barriers of ourcompetitors and markets that we want to enter are stillvery high, and very few countries can claim to havedone as well as Australia in terms of trade



liberalisation. This is not a case against future reform inthe area by the commonwealth government, but it is acase for taking into account all relevant factors beforeyou make a decision.

I believe the difficulties that our manufacturers arehaving in accessing global markets should be at thefront of the mind of the commonwealth governmentover coming months, and I hope it is well considered bythe Productivity Commission. In a nutshell, while thereis no doubt that the access levels have increased we stillface considerable difficulties in terms of getting intomarketplaces that have opportunities for us, if not forthe barriers that have been put there.

The second major challenge facing this industry that Iraised in my opening remarks is industrial relations.Given that there is a need for Australia to be worldcompetitive, we need increasing labour productivitylevels across the sector. If we do not have that our costswill rise proportionately and we will become less likelyto win new contracts. The Australian Industry Grouphas correctly focused on this problem in its submissionto the Productivity Commission. It states:

… the level of industrial disputation in the automotive sectorremains unacceptably high.

It addresses issues that need to be tackled withoutdelay, including the following:

Union and award structures within the automotive industryneed to be reformed.

Union delegates need to be better trained.

Against the backdrop of the destructive and roguebehaviour of the Australian Manufacturing WorkersUnion (AMWU) and in the context of recent damagingindustrial disputes in Victoria and New South Wales itis clear this is a major issue requiring action inparticular by state governments. They can be leaders ofpublic opinion and should be so, particularly in the caseof the AMWU, which is correctly described by the AIGas a union that is:

… racked by factional infighting and interdivisional rivalries.Such lack of cohesion has a negative impact upon automotiveindustry employers.

The AIG submission goes on to point out:

The highly militant Workers First faction controls the metalsdivision of the AMWU in Victoria … The Workers Firstfaction appears to have little interest in cooperating withemployers and adopts a highly militant approach. Officials ofthe Workers First faction have shown little regard for the ruleof law.

The intolerable behaviour of this union is harming theprospects of the industry. It would not matter what wasdone in trade liberalisation or further policy on tariffs inthis nation over the coming decade or more if there isthis heightened problem of industrial stability forautomotive makers and component makers, becausethen industry will have very little future at all.Improved workplace relations has to be a major policyand program focus of the state government as well asthe federal government.

The final challenge which the industry faces and whichshould be a focus of ongoing government interest iscurrency fluctuations. There is no doubt that the exportelement of this great industry has gained by the relativeposition of the Australian dollar, and we have to ensurethat our exports are the highest priority in broadermacro-economic planning in this field.

On page 7 of its submission to the productivitycommission, General Motors Holden has put thesematters in this context:

In the area of exchange rate factors, the vulnerability tofluctuations in exchange remains a significant issue and onethat needs to be reflected in any future assistancearrangements for the industry. There is hope that in the longterm, the disincentive to capital intensive industry created byAustralia’s volatile exchange rate will be alleviated. The shareof the national export revenue represented by services andmanufactures has shown a steadily increasing trend. If thiscontinues, in time the currency will come to be regarded asproductivity driven rather than commodity driven, andvolatility should decline as a result. Additionally, ascompanies such as Holden build their export capability thereis an increasing opportunity to develop natural currencyhedge positions.

I commend Holden and other members of the industryfor their focus on this issue and for their attempt toensure that the Productivity Commission reflects on thischallenge to the whole sector as well as others in itsreview of the future of the industry.

In conclusion it is my personal view that the automotiveindustry can face these challenges successfully and passany tests that will be set for it over the coming decade.It is increasingly competitive and export focused; itdraws on skills and creates clusters of knowledge. Allof that is highly desirable. In a government context itneeds the advocacy of both state and federal levels. Inparticular, I urge caution after 2005 in terms of agovernment’s approach to changing tariffs if there is nocomplementary reduction in tariff and non-tariffbarriers overseas.

I strongly support the continuation of industryfacilitation schemes and in particular a new form of theautomotive competitiveness and investments scheme,



known as ACIS, which has been successful and needsto continue in a new form in the future.

Finally, these issues do not divide us on party lines, andI commend a collaborative and multipartisan efforttowards achieving these objectives.

Hon. E. G. STONEY (Central Highlands) — I wishto confine my remarks to expressing mydisappointment at the lack of government support inthis budget for both tracks and trails and rail trails inVictoria.

In 1994 the Kennett government initiated the rail trailprogram under the then Minister for Conservation, theHonourable Mark Birrell. I speak with someknowledge, having headed up the committee ofparliamentarians appointed by the then minister. Wehad an officer and a budget to look at 63 disused railcorridors in Victoria with a view to recreating those thatwere suitable for rail trails. After we started theprogram we discovered that rail trails were verypopular worldwide and there was a rush towardscreating rail trails along disused rail corridors. Wediscovered this after we started the program, so wewere in line with a worldwide trend. Large tracts ofcorridors that had been sold in the 1970s by the thenBritish government are now being bought back.

Victoria was in a fortunate position where thecommunity still owned the corridors — they wereowned by the Public Transport Corporation — and ourjob was to bring them across to the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment and create them asCrown land with a view to developing rail trails.

At the end of 1999, at the time of the election, we had17 official rail trails and during that time, in the Kennettera, the rail trail program was a designated item in thebudget. The item was in two parts: the first, to repairand strengthen structures along disused rail corridorsand the second, to develop rail trails and hand themback to the community. The community was givenback control of its own land and many communitiesjumped at the opportunity, rose to the challenge andcreated committees of management, and some of thoserail trails have had fabulous outcomes. For example, theWarburton to Lilydale rail trail is 97 per cent finishedand every weekend you have to almost book to get on itin sections where people are walking, riding horses orbicycles or exercising their dogs. Most of the rail trailsare multi-use trails, which means you can get out thereand really enjoy the country, perhaps with your pet dogor on your horse.

Other trails include the Murray to the Mountains trail.We put $1.6 million from the Community SupportFund, along with money from the core budget, into that.The trail is 93 kilometres long and it is sealed fromWangaratta to Beechworth. Another line takes off andgoes to Bright. On weekends I understand it is almostovercrowded as hundreds and hundreds of cyclists forsome reason come down from Beechworth and then getpicked up at the bottom of the hill. They really enjoythat ride down and being picked up. Of course, it isgreat for tourism because they stay the night atBeechworth, Myrtleford or Bright and use the localfacilities.

I understand the committee of management and thecouncils in that area are planning to go fromWangaratta to the Murray and ratify the name that waschosen in the first place. The planning is well underway with the councils and committee of management,and I wish I was part of the government so that I couldpush this along and give them a hand to get this greatproject up and running. The Murray to the Mountains isthe iconic rail trail north of the Divide and has becomewell known throughout Australia.

The Bellarine rail trail is finished and is very popular; itwas finished with grants from the previous government.The Bairnsdale to Orbost rail trail will cover96 kilometres when it is finished. The trail betweenBairnsdale and Nowa Nowa is now finished; it is sealedto Nicholson and is hard gravel after that. I understandthe government has now allocated $102 000 fromtimber regional forest agreements adjustment moneyfor further sealing of that trail. It is pulling it from othersources and not from the budget. For some reason thegovernment is reluctant to allocate any money in thebudget for these things. The trail will be surfaced fromColquhuon to Nowa Nowa, which is good.

That project has widespread community support in thatarea. I know many people have had the phone call fromMr Bob Yeates, the manager and owner of theBairnsdale Advertiser, and once you get the phone callfrom Mr Yeates it is, as the Honourable Mark Birrellwould know and as the Honourable Marie Tehan alsofound out, worthwhile humouring him and findingsome money to do a bit more on the trail.

A lot of the trails through different areas have producedpassionate local advocates, and it was all made possibleby initial funding from the Kennett government. Thepoint I am making is that since its election thisgovernment has not found anything in its core budget tocreate rail trails. It is relying on other funding, such asthat from timber readjustments and from the localoffices of the Department of Natural Resources and



Environment, and then claiming credit for supportingrail trails.

The timing of the election in 1999 was unfortunate formany reasons; the three-year funding for the rail trailprogram was about to be renewed. The first three yearshad run its course, and it was always known we wouldget another three-year budget because the governmentsupported the program. Some senior people in thedepartment perhaps did not support it, and successiveministers were always getting advice that perhaps theyshould scale it down. However, because the Kennettgovernment ministers supported it, money was alwaysfound and enough arrived from the budget to continuethe program.

In the Shire of Mitchell there is a little trail that I hopewill be developed one day. It leads from Tallarook uppast the art gallery to the Trawool convention centre.The Shire of Mitchell is very interested in that, andMr Gary Cecil has approached me many times aboutpromoting it. I cannot understand why this governmentcannot see the advantage of finding some money andovertly supporting rail trails through the budget. Thereis no doubt that the whole program is moribund; it hascome to a halt. The status of the rail trails today is reallyabout the same as it was in 1999, except for a few bitsand pieces and a few special allocations. There hasbeen nothing from core funding.

For example, the Nyoora–Wonthaggi rail trail inMr Ken Smith’s electorate is only 30 per cent complete;the Ballarat–Skipton rail trail, only 17 per cent;Bandiana–Cudgewa, which is in Mr Baxter’selectorate, nothing done; Gippsland plains, nothingdone; Camperdown–Timboon, 10 per cent;Merton–Mansfield, 10 per cent; and Warrnambool–PortFairy, nothing. Others that have been finished and wereopened around 1999 include Mirboo North–Boolarra,the Yea township rail trail, the Walhalla goldfields andthe O’Keefe rail trail.

I congratulate the government on finding some CSFmoney for the Great Southern rail trail, which is justoutside Mr Ken Smith’s electorate. Again, the fundingis not from the core budget; I understand the CSFcontributed about $600 000; the local DNRE office, notthe central office, $265 000; the local catchmentmanagement authority, $75 000; and South GippslandShire Council, $270 000, totalling about $1.2 million.That will not be enough to finish that Great Southernrail trail but it will get close. There is nothing that thisprogram or any other can rely on out of the budget;there is nothing in the budget papers to support it.

Right from 1994 it was always planned that thegovernment would have to find that initial capitalfunding to get these projects up, and then thecommunities and the councils would take them over,maintain them, look after them and update the signage.That is impossible for those local communities to dowithout initial capital funding from the government. Itis very disappointing that the government has notpicked up this program.

One rail trail advocate, Mr Ray Pearce, is also veryconcerned at the way rail trails are being funded. Hewrites:

The key element in all this, however, is to reinstate a reliableregime of funding for trails across the entire state, rather thanthe government of the day ‘cherry picking’ a single trail forextensive development, as recently happened with GreatSouthern in Gippsland. This has not entirely stoppeddevelopment elsewhere but has certainly set it back.

I do not want honourable members to take what I saythe wrong way: no-one denies it is fabulous that theGreat Southern rail trail has got up; I was always astrong advocate of it. It is an area with a cool climateand is a lovely place to go for a walk, ride a bike or ridea horse. However, the principle of funding is one ofcherry picking and there is not an overall programthroughout Victoria. It shows a great lack of vision onthe government’s part that it has not picked up thisprogram.

It is interesting to note that by 1999 the development ofVictoria’s tracks and trails was regarded as leadingAustralia, and Victoria was one of the leading states inthe world. Many interstate and overseas visitors havebeen to see what we are doing. In fact, on 4 September2001 I received an email from well-known trackconsultants from Western Australia, Jesse Bramptonand Mike Maher. They came over here for a couple ofweeks, travelled around, saw a lot of rail trails andcame up to my electorate and then went down toGippsland to have a good look around. I quote fromsections of the email:

We’d like to give you some brief feedback of what we saw ofyour trails …

Rail trails

We saw quite a number of these: Lilydale–Warburton,Murray to Mountains, East Gippsland, Great Southern,Mirboo North, Bass Coast.

The consultants went on to praise some of the rail trailsbut were quite scathing that some of them arelanguishing. This is the part that is of most concern tome.

Hon. G. R. Craige — Are you going to read it out?



Hon. E. G. STONEY — I am going to read it out,because they list the deficiencies they saw:

Perhaps many of these things will be attended to as the trailsare finished, but at present they left us a bit flat. We are awarethat support and dollars have been limited, and that in manycases local communities are doing the best they can, but thesequestions remain valid even under those circumstances.

Those consultants are telling us that Victoria is losing,and probably by now has lost, its status as the leadingstate in the development of rail trails and tracks andtrails generally. It is something we built up fromnothing; the former government created this status ofVictoria being the leading state, and I am most fearfulthat we have lost it and may never get it back.

There is no doubt that we need a new announcement onrail trails; we probably need a minimum budget of, say,$3 million over three years — $1 million a year wouldgo a long way to finishing the job. I know that manyorganisations think that is about the figure that couldand should be found.

I do not know why the Minister for Environment andConservation has not picked this up — it is obviouslyvery politically attractive to the government. I noticethat she and the Minister for Transport are very keen totake the credit — and attend a lot of photoopportunities — but they just do not want to put theirhands in their pockets.

I would like to see an outcome; I would like to see thisprogram kick-started and finished. I know thatorganisations like Bicycle Victoria and RailtrailsAustralia, and most certainly the 17 committees ofmanagement of the official rail trails, are desperate tohave this recognition and to have this core funding puttheir way again.

As well as the rail trail program, the Kennettgovernment formed the Victorian Tracks and TrailsCoordinating Committee. This interdepartmentalcommittee was chaired by myself and based at TourismVictoria. After the election, the chair became Mr GeoffHoward, the honourable member for Ballarat East inthe other place. I understand that the VTTCC has beenmoved to Parks Victoria. It appears it is beingdowngraded and will possibly be disbanded. This willbe a great opportunity lost to promote and encouragethe use of tracks and trails for tourism and a great lossto the opportunities for building and development oftracks and trails.

I know that Parks Victoria does some promotion oftracks and trails, but the VTTCC brings in variousdepartments and gives them ownership of the wholeprogram, and keeps it a little bit apart from the

management of our tracks and trails most of which are,of course, on public land.

I would have thought that tourism would be the one toadminister this. It would move it one step from ParksVictoria if that were the case. When such a body isbased at Parks Victoria, obvious pressures are broughtby Parks Victoria that perhaps could not happen if itwere based in another department and one stepremoved. It would be very tempting for Parks Victorianot to actively support promotion, construction andupgrades of tracks perhaps because of budgetconstraints, access and other policies.

In conclusion, the Kennett government started twoexcellent programs: the rail trails program and thetracks and trails program. The government, whenelected, has ridden on the backs of these initiatives, hashad many photo opportunities — I know the Ministerfor Transport has been from the Murray River to themountains for the opening of anything, including a cokecan, on that rail trail, and has had many opportunities ofgetting photos in the daily media up there. I do notmind that; I do not mind the government of the daytaking up the challenge and getting praise for it. Whatwe want are the outcomes. I am suggesting again thatthis government look very closely at the opportunitiespresented to it — the political opportunities andcertainly the opportunity to finish the job and perhapshelp a lot of those rural communities.

I call upon the Bracks government to put its hand in itspocket and continue the two wonderful programs wherethe opportunity presents itself — —

Hon. G. R. Craige — Short arms, long pockets!

Hon. E. G. STONEY — Short arms and longpockets — I think you’ve hit it on the head, Mr Craige.

I call on the government to continue the program: seizethe opportunity and continue to develop Victoria’stracks and trails and rail trails.

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — In rising tospeak on the take-note motion, it is worth commentingthat those on the other side who have spoken on thebudget papers have expressed great pleasure with thisbudget. I guess one can understand how this is so,because in the short term they probably feel very goodbecause spending is up and to a certain extent a surplusis being maintained. It is a very nice feeling to be ableto hand out money to everybody.

It is a nice feeling to make people happy with handouts,but it is a nice feeling in the short run. In truth,expenditure under this government has been generous. I



might also describe it as splurging. That is fine whilethe money is rolling in, but how long will it keep rollingin and is it prudent? When the money is rolling in aprudent manager starts to invest, to husband, tosquirrel — however you like to describe it — thatmoney away, to put it aside for a rainy day, because onething you can be sure of: a rainy day will come sooneror later.

There is no doubt that the economic growth of Australiahas been outstanding, thanks in large measure to thefederal government, which has managed the economyand the budget with great skill and great care. Throughthe introduction of the goods and services tax and itsgeneral management of the economy it has managed tosee that Australia has missed the worst of the economicdownturns that have affected other parts of the world.Victoria and the Victorian budget have benefited fromthat prudent management at the federal level.

I said there has been a splurging expenditure under thecurrent government. This year’s budget papers showthat expenditure for the last financial year wassomething like $24.2 billion, a massive $1.285 billionover the $22.96 billion that was allocated, anoverexpenditure of some 5.6 per cent; that is asignificant overspend of a budget.

The government should be worried about that, but thebudget papers do not display any of that worry. Why?Because although expenditure has blown out by$1.285 billion, income was over budget by$1.541 million, a 7 per cent increase. The overspendinghas been matched by the increases in income. Thegovernment should be worried about a 5.6 per centblow-out, but it does not seem to be at all worriedsimply because that blow-out, luckily for it, has beenmatched by an increase in income. To a great extentthat has been through greatly increased taxes that havenot been particularly deeply felt by the citizens ofVictoria because of the booming economy, which, as Isaid, has been achieved by the federal governmentrather than by the state government.

Since the last Kennett government budget taxes andcharges for the average Victorian family have increasedby about $1500 per annum, a significant impost. Howwould a prudent manager who was getting increasedincome spend it if you decided to spend it rather than tosquirrel it away or repay debt or fund superannuationliabilities and so on? A prudent manager would spend itin building on the infrastructure of the state — the typeof activity that could be cut back when revenues start todecline — but that is not what the government hasdone. It has committed this bubble of revenue comingthrough the system to ongoing expenditure in wages,

salaries and the types of things that will be extremelydifficult to cut back to match any cutback in revenue.

Although the budget papers show that to a certainextent debt has not increased, they also reveal, if onereads a little further, that debt has increased, becausethey show a $1 billion increase in unfundedsuperannuation liabilities through the projection period.

I shall dwell in more detail on the soundness of budgetexpenditure and the risk, as I see it, at which this budgetplaces Victoria, the risk inherent in taking a revenuebubble that is coming through and committing it torecurrent expenditure. If that revenue bubble passes,how do you go about meeting that recurrentexpenditure to which you have signed yourself up?How realistic is it to have such high recurrentexpenditure? You can already see how realistic some ofthat is, as page 17 of budget paper 2 shows a chart ofper capita spending in selected portfolios for the variousstates of Australia.

The major portfolios, as we all know, are basicallyeducation, health and welfare. These charts clearlyshow that for 2001–02 Victoria spent more per capitaon education than the other major states of New SouthWales and Queensland. In health and welfare Victoriaspent significantly more per capita than the states ofNew South Wales and Queensland.

Compared with the other major states for these twoprimary areas of expenditure — education, and healthand welfare — the per capita spending in Victoriasignificantly outpaced the other states. Clearly there isan element of overexpenditure in those areas.

I turn to one of the most vital areas of a budget, theeconomic outlook that underpins the revenue forecastson which the expenditure is based. If those forecasts areoptimistic, the budget is fatally flawed. Once againbudget paper 2, in chapter 3, deals with the economicconditions and outlook, particularly the world economicenvironment. In that context it is important to note thebasic parameters on which the budget is based, whichare derived from the budget overview document atpage 8, which shows the economic growth forecast of3.75 per cent for the current year, 2001–02, which onecan expect to be fairly accurate. The growth forecastsfor the subsequent four years of the outlook period arerunning at 3.5 per cent, which as we would all know ishistorically a high level of economic growth.

The unemployment rate for the current year of 6.25 percent is projected to decline over the four years of thebudget outlook period to 5.5 per cent. Obviously as theunemployment rate goes down, the costs on



government decrease and the revenue to governmentincreases through the various taxes that apply toemployment. It is a very optimistic forecast forunemployment to decline to that level.

Inflation is predicted to be maintained at 2.25 per cent.Once again that is a highly optimistic forecast, giveninflation is creeping into the system and interest ratesare on the increase. They are fairly optimisticassumptions on which to base the budget and it isimportant to put them in context. Page 46, chapter 3,budget paper 2 puts them into the international context.Victoria is projecting growth rates of about 3.5 per centover the outlook period, whereas world growth rates areprojected at between 1 and 1.5 per cent, and growthrates for the United States of America are projected atabout 2 per cent. So we are projecting for Victoria agrowth rate wildly in excess of the world rate, and verysignificantly in excess of that of the United States.Therefore one can only hope that the federalgovernment — because it will be the federalgovernment that is responsible for this — is able tomatch those growth rates. Certainly they could be seento be very much at the higher range and therefore placethe budget at some risk.

The extent of the risk is set out in chapter 6, page 111of budget paper 2 — ‘Statement of risks’. It is asensitivity analysis of the effect of a movement in manyof those parameters and what the impact of thatmovement will be on the budget. I will quote from thetable on page 113:

To assess sensitivity to change, the level of the economicindicator, in each case, is permanently increased by1 percentage point in the first year (above the forecasts …)and is then reverted back to the forecast growth rate.

It is not a cumulative increase or decrease of 1 per cent:it is a one-off step increase of 1 per cent and then acontinuation of the previous growth rate — a very finesensitivity measure. The measures look at gross stateproduct, employment, consumer prices, average weeklyearnings, share prices, property prices, interest rates etcetera and show that if there is a 1 per cent movementin one year — not a cumulative 1 per cent movement,but a 1 per cent movement in one year — the 2004–05impact is $320 million bottom line to the budget. It isfairly sensitive to those economic assumptions.

The prudent thing to do when you find yourself in thevery happy position of having increased expenditure isto make sure that you use that expenditure to reducedebt, and if you want to spend some of that extraincome, you use it on items like infrastructure which itis possible to curtail in the event that that increased

expenditure dries up. It is imprudent to commit all thatincreased expenditure to recurrent expenditure.

Unfortunately that is what this budget seeks to dobecause although things are fine now, this budget islaying the seeds for exactly the same sort of problemthat the previous Labor government left to Victoria.During the good times it spent up big, and then whenthe economy turned — as it will inevitably turn — itfound that its recurrent expenditure was way abovewhat its reduced income could fund, and hence it was inbig trouble.

In real terms all we see for this expenditure is anincrease in political spin and an increase inbureaucracy. That is the recurrent expenditure on whichI have dwelt. Hospital waiting list figures are up, giventhat Victoria spends more per capita in that area than allother states. The crime rate is up, and given thatVictoria spends more per capita on education than anyother state, things like teacher-student ratios have notsignificantly improved at all. What does all that mean?What does the fact that members on this side of thehouse are expressing this level of concern mean? Whatdo the experts say?

One of the key changes that the Labor governmentbrought into the budgeting process was to have theAuditor-General go over the budget and, as it were,sign it off. I would like to quote from a letter which wassigned on 2 May 2002 by the Auditor-General,Mr J. W. Cameron, and is included in the budgetpapers. It is addressed to the members of the Parliamentof Victoria. I had to take a copy of the budget papers tothe photocopier in the library and put it on 150 per centenlargement to be able to read this letter — it ispresented in such small print in the budget that it isalmost impossible to read, but it is instructive to read. Iwill read into Hansard certain sections of this letter toconclude my contribution to this debate.

The Auditor-General, in commenting on the variousassumptions underlying the budget, says in part in thesecond paragraph of his letter:

Any assumption of responsibility for any reliance on thisreport or on the estimated financial statements of theVictorian general government (budget) sector to which thisreport relates is disclaimed to any person other than themembers of the Parliament of Victoria.

You could not get a wider ranging disclaimer than that,could you? Everything is disclaimed. The only peoplewho have any accountability and responsibility for this,he says, are honourable members. He then goes on inthe fourth paragraph to say, again in terms of his



comments on how the budget is prepared and theassumptions underlying it:

The review has been conducted in accordance with AustralianAuditing Standards applicable to review engagements —

and this is the key clause —

and has been limited primarily to inquiries of relevantpersonnel and assessments of the reasonableness of the keymethodologies and processes followed …

He then goes on to say:

These procedures do not provide all the evidence that wouldbe required in an audit, thus the level of assurance provided isless than that which would be given in an audit. Accordingly,an audit has not been performed and an audit opinion is notexpressed.

Once again, a total disclaimer of all the underpinningassumptions.

In the fifth paragraph he reiterates that, saying:

As a result, I am not in a position to obtain the level ofassurance necessary to express a positive opinion on thoseassumptions and the accompanying forecast informationincluded in the estimated financial statements. Accordingly,an opinion is not expressed on whether the forecasts will beachieved.

If that were an audit comment in any form of financialreport from an organisation, you could not get a moredamning audit comment, simply saying:

Accordingly, an opinion is not expressed on whether theforecasts will be achieved.

In other words, he is expressing no opinion at all as tothe extent that the budget stands up in any sense. So notonly is this budget condemned by members on this sideof the house but the fundamentals underlying thebudget are condemned by the Auditor-General and, as Iindicated before, that letter is reproduced hidden in thebudget documents in about 6-point type, which isvirtually impossible to read without a magnifying glass.

With those few comments, I conclude my contributionto the take-note motion.

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — I alsorise to speak on the budget papers and to put on recordthat this is one more budget that is a missed opportunityto provide good government and sound financialmanagement for the people of Victoria.

Unfortunately, the budget that was presented earlier thismonth by the Treasurer in the other place indicates thatthe Bracks Labor government is the highest taxinggovernment in this state’s history. A lot has been madeabout the fact that the government has managed to

balance the books and that it is not a deficit budget. Butthat is only half the battle when it comes to fiscalprudence.

I have made the point in this place on a number ofoccasions, and I make it again, that one of my majorguiding principles in public life is to ensure that we canreduce the burden of taxation and other forms ofgovernment revenue collection, including fines andcharges, on the residents of Victoria. It is not goodenough to simply make the figures add up at the end ofthe day.

As legislators we should be aiming to reduce taxes. Weshould be aiming to reduce the financial impact uponthe daily lives of Victorian citizens and Victorianbusiness people.

Despite some tinkering at the edges and someadjustment in rates, this government is presiding overthe largest increase in taxation revenues that I canrecall — that is, the largest increase in taxationrevenues in a generation. It is sitting back andcollecting the revenue without a thought to giving itback to the people whose money it is. It is reaping thebenefits of economic growth without returning thosebenefits to the people to ensure that economic growthcan continue.

By sitting on its hands and doing nothing, by being thetax collector that it is, this government is sowing theseeds for an economic downturn in Victoria. It iscreating serious disincentives to investment and aclimate where people are assessing whether they shouldstay in this state or move elsewhere — be they businesspeople or wage and salary earners.

There is no doubt that this budget provided one of thebiggest opportunities of all time to deliver meaningfultaxation reform and a meaningful reduction in theoverall impact of taxation on the Victorian public. It isan opportunity missed and we will rue that for an entiregeneration because if you cannot provide for taxationreform and taxation reduction at times of economicprosperity — and we are living in times of relativelyhigh economic prosperity, thanks mainly to themacro-economic settings of the federal government —and you cannot deliver the benefits of taxationdecreases and taxation reform in this sort of time, youare certainly not going to deliver it in future years whenthere may necessarily be a need for belt tightening.There are many aspects of taxation revenue that shouldhave been addressed by this government in this budget;they were not, and the government will standcondemned for its actions.



One of the largest areas of growth in taxation revenue,as all Victorians know, has been stamp duty, inparticular stamp duty on the sale of property, andresidential property in the main. Stamp duty onresidential property is an iniquitous tax based onlooking at the past and not at the future. In many waysit taxes the Australian dream. It stops people frompurchasing their own homes and it stops people fromchanging their homes as their circumstances dictate. Itis a tax that needs reform. The government cannotsimply sit on its hands without adjusting stamp dutyrates on residential properties while reaping the benefitsof increasing property prices.

The government does not need to increase tax rates; itallows economic growth to increase the tax take for it.It is a passive recipient of the largest transfer of fundsfrom Victorian home owners to a high-taxinggovernment in the history of this state. It is just notgood enough for this government to sit and wait, and itis not good enough for it to say the impact of stampduty is none of its business. It is its business. It is actingas a tax collector, and it is not governing in the bestinterests of Victorians.

There are many ways in which the government canmove to alleviate the impact of stamp duty onresidential conveyancing, especially at times of rapidlyincreasing property prices. It can index the stamp dutyscales; it can look at lifting the threshold; it can adjustthose scales on a one-off basis; it can look at reducingthe actual tax rate at each level of the scale; or it couldget radical and start considering whether stamp duty onresidential conveyancing is a tax we need in Australiaand in Victoria in 2002.

What is not good enough is for this government to sitback and say that the average Victorian home ownerwho purchases a medium-price home in Melbournewill pay $15 000 in stamp duty — a state tax — to thestate government for the privilege of purchasing thathome, when an equivalent first home buyer inQueensland will pay around about $5000 in stamp dutyfor an equivalent property. That is three times the stampduty level of Queensland.

I said earlier that government taxation policy is not justinfluencing investment, it is influencing lifestylechoices, and that is the sort of impost this governmentplaces on average Victorians, mainly young Victorianfamilies looking to make a start on their own, get a roofover their heads and realise the Australian dream. Thisgovernment is taxing them at the time they can afford itleast. It is inequitable; it is iniquitous, and it should belooked at. This government is sitting on its hands. Itstands condemned.

Another emerging stamp duty issue is related to thegreat problems that are being identified in the insuranceindustry. Premiums are increasing as a result of therealignment in the Australian insurance market after thecollapse of HIH and also as a result of the realignmentof the international insurance market following manymajor catastrophes, the most major being the veryunfortunate events in New York of 11 September lastyear. The insurance industry is going through ashake-up, and rightly so. I have often privatelydescribed the whole basis of reinsurance throughout theworld as the world’s largest pyramid scheme. It is asystem that was based on a 17th century premise thatdoes not hold good in 2002. HIH found that out, andthe major world reinsurers found that out after11 September.

I would dare to say that the industry did not really pullup its socks back in the 1980s with the Lloyds crash,but it is finally getting its house in order, and as a resultthere is pain, there is suffering and there is an increasein premiums. What is this government doing? As weknow, this government sits back and taxes insurancepremiums through the imposition of stamp duty. Notonly does it tax the premium, but in its classictax-collector way this government sits back and taxesthe GST payable on that insurance premium as wellthrough the imposition of stamp duty on the GSTportion.

As insurance premiums rise, the tax collector sits backand watches the money roll in. Mr Brumby, Mr Bracksand their mates in the Labor Party are just sitting backand rolling in the cash. They are benefiting from themisery of those poor unfortunate individuals, businesspeople and community groups who are suffering hugeincreases in insurance premiums as a result of themassive realignment in the insurance industry.

This government pays lip-service to making somechanges to assist those people — it goes through themotions — but the one clear mechanism at thegovernment’s disposal, to adjust the stamp duty payableon insurance premiums, it does not want to know about.It does not want to hear about it, and it runs away. It isthe government’s tax, and its tax take is going up as thelevel of pain and misery caused by the problem is goingup out in our community.

Rather than assisting the people who are suffering as aresult of increased insurance premiums, thisgovernment sits back and collects the dollars insilence — and it is condemned by its silence. It is ahigh-taxing government that does not care about theimpact of its high-taxing policies on the people ofVictoria whom it purports to represent and support. The



public should be aware of that, and the public shouldnot let this government get away with it.

There are other taxes. We could start on payroll tax andgo through the impacts of payroll tax. We could starttalking about the impact of Workcover premiums onbusinesses and the fact that again this year thegovernment has chosen not to adjust the premium rates.Back in 1999 it gave a commitment to look at reducingthe impact of its totally nonsensical legislative changesthat led to 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 per cent increases forVictorian businesses in their Workcover premiums, butagain this year this government walked away from it.

No matter where we look on the taxation side, despitesome pyrrhic cuts, this government is sitting back andacting as the greatest tax collector in this state’s history.It should stand condemned. It would stand condemnedif all it did was collect the tax and let it sit in a bankvault or in the Treasury, but it is further condemned bywhat it is doing with the money, because, as otherspeakers before me have pointed out, it is not onlytaxing Victorians far too heavily, it is spending like adrunken sailor.

The government is bloating the public service, payingexorbitant salary increases that can only have aninflationary effect as their impact reverberates throughthe marketplace. It is not providing for the real needs ofthe Victorian community. You only need to look at myelectorate of Monash Province to see why thisgovernment is letting the people of Monash Provincedown on the expenditure side of the budget as well ason the revenue side. Whilst this government sits backand collects the dollars, it gives them away to its mates.It calls committees of inquiry, increases public servicesalaries and positions in the public service and spendson glossy brochures and advertising campaigns to tellus how good and fantastic it is, but it does not deliverreal infrastructure and service benefits to the people ofVictoria.

Monash Province is an inner urban area. My electorateborders the central business district of Melbourne, andit has experienced significant change in the pastdecade — an amazing demographic transformation. Itis a vibrant place, a place people want to live in, butwith the return of the population from the middle andouter suburbs to the city areas we have emerginginfrastructure needs that this government hascompletely ignored.

Earlier today in my member’s statement I highlightedthe need for more public open space. There is a greatdemand for public open space for sporting fields andparks. Does this government care? No. It is actually

reducing the size of the Albert Park reserve. I know weneed an extension to the Melbourne Sports and AquaticCentre, but it should not be achieved at the expense ofparkland and open space for which there is a cryingneed. The government is not providing in that area.

On the topic of road funding, particularly in the area Irepresent, this government stands condemned by itsinaction. The people of Port Melbourne have beencrying out for the dockside road to be built. It wasscheduled in the 1990s to be built in the 2002–03financial year. It was in the forward estimates backwhen the Liberal Party was in government. Here we arewith the budget delivered for the 2002–03 year. Is thereany funding for the dockside road? No, it hascompletely disappeared. It has been wiped off theagenda. The dockside road is needed to divert the trafficthat is currently going down Williamstown Road andthrough the residential areas of Port Melbourne fromthe port of Melbourne directly onto the West GateFreeway by providing a direct connection from ToddRoad through to Webb Dock. It is a road that isabsolutely necessary to stop the impact of heavythrough traffic on the residents of Port Melbourne.

We know the port of Melbourne is expanding and itslift rates are getting better because of a protracted battleto make our ports more competitive. More ships arecoming in, more containers are being unloaded andmore trucks are loading those containers to take them tomarket. That is a good thing; we want to encouragethat, but we do not want the truck traffic driving in frontof people’s lounge rooms and bedrooms. We do notwant it travelling through residential streets. That roadhas been planned and scheduled and should have beenbuilt, but it is not being built. The Labor Party standscondemned. The Deputy Premier, who is the locallower house member for Albert Park, standscondemned for ignoring the residents of PortMelbourne, who have been demanding the building ofthe dock road. Now it is not going to be built; it isnowhere in the forward estimates. This governmentstands condemned for that.

There are other projects that desperately need roadfunding. We need significant resurfacing of other majorroads in the area — roads like Toorak Road. The part ofthe Princes Highway known as Dandenong Road thatcomes through my electorate needs resurfacing. Weneed black spot funding. The corner of Chapel Streetand Dandenong Road, to which my colleague theHonourable Andrea Coote referred yesterday in thisplace, is a significant black spot. Further down onChapel Street, at the intersection with Peel Street, is anidentified black spot that has not been funded by thisgovernment. The government chose not to fund that

ELECTORAL BILL


high-accident area in its black spot program. There isno funding there. We need our major roads looked at.They are carrying more and more traffic as a result ofchanges in the demographics of the area, yet thegovernment is doing nothing.

Particularly in the area of education this governmenthas let Monash Province down. The influx of newresidents has seen burgeoning numbers of children atlocal schools. Our local schools are at bursting pointthroughout the electorate. The Port Melbourne school isat bursting point. Right through South Melbourne,Albert Park and St Kilda schools are at capacity, as theyare also at Prahran and Caulfield, and the three primaryschools in Malvern — Lloyd Street, Malvern andMalvern Central primary schools — are well beyondtheir capacity. There is an urgent need for new capitalfunding for schools in the area to meet the increaseddemand.

I put on record that I know other areas have urgentcapital works needs and I know the standard answer ofthe Department of Education and Training is, ‘Whenthe school numbers increase the first thing we do isbring in some portables’. That can be a solution and amedium-term solution for a lot of schools, especiallythose in outer areas on large blocks of land. But whenyou come into the inner city and you are dealing withschools built over 100 years ago, with very limitedopen space as it is, the choices are currently to put in aportable or have a playground. If you put in a portablein inner city schools, there is no play area. Thisgovernment and the Department of Education andTraining should know this and should make a priorityof these inner urban areas that cannot simply expandout into the open space as other schools do, becausethese schools do not have open space. They have direneeds.

The numbers in the schools are expanding at analarming rate. People with young families are movingback into the area, which is a great thing. There hasbeen a rejuvenation of inner suburbs from PortMelbourne through to the other end of my province atChadstone. Governments need to provide infrastructureto support the families moving into the area. It is notgood enough to ignore them; it is not good enough tosquander the taxation dollars this government iscollecting on glossy brochures, on advertisingcampaigns and on hundreds of reviews, committees andinquiries. It is not good enough to bloat the publicservice when there is an urgent need for capital worksprograms to increase the size of our local schools, to goup rather than out and take up valuable playgroundspace.

The government is doing nothing. It is sitting on itshands. This is a budget of wasted opportunities. This isa budget that may well deliver to the Labor Party’s truebelievers in the trade union movement and the ranks ofthe Labor Party, who like to fight among themselves atstate conferences and so on, more union membership. Ido not know. But I know what it does not deliver: itdoes not deliver positive outcomes for the people ofVictoria and of Monash Province. They are the Laborgovernment’s forgotten people. They are the people thisgovernment expects to continue to pay higher andhigher taxes. They are the people the government alsoexpects to have second-class infrastructure andservices. It is not good enough. This government shouldbe less about taxing and more about delivering. It isgreat and wonderful at taxing — that is the one thingthe government is expert at. Unfortunately, it is ashambles in everything else.

The people of Monash Province condemn thegovernment for again ignoring their needs and demandsso it can fill its coffers and help out its mates.

Debate adjourned for Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan)on motion of Hon. Bill Forwood.

Debate adjourned until later this day.

ELECTORAL BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 28 May; motion ofHon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation).

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Thefundamental foundation of our democracy is the votingsystem we have and the capacity we have to electpeople to Parliament to represent us. It is important thatwe have a system that is not only fair and transparentbut is also seen to be fair and transparent. It is vital thatwe have an electoral process that the people of Victoriahave absolute confidence in.

After the 1999 state election the Victorian ElectoralCommission produced a substantial two-volume reportto Parliament. In the introduction to the report theElectoral Commissioner, Colin Barry, states:

This report comments on the performance of critical electionarrangements and procedures and, where appropriate,indicates directions for future improvement. The report alsomakes a number of recommendations to deal with areas inneed of urgent legislative change.

Finally, the contribution made by the VEC’s staff, whoprovided tireless effort and personal commitment to ensure

ELECTORAL BILL


the highest quality electoral services were provided to theelectors of Victoria, should be acknowledged.

I have been intimately involved in elections in Victoriafor some time, and I believe we can all agree that wehave had the highest quality of electoral services. Asthe second-reading speech points out, The ConstitutionAct Amendment Act, the bible by which we run ourelections, was enacted in 1958 and was in need of somerewriting and updating. Examples were given in thesecond-reading speech. I make the point that to have anelectoral act which sets out clearly the rights andobligations of all participants in the electoral process,from voters to candidates to political parties, isimportant.

Having flagged in his foreword that he believes thereare areas in need of urgent legislative change, on pages60 to 62 of the report, the Electoral Commissionerdetails the changes he believes are important under theheading ‘Recommendations for legislative change’.The first is a rewrite of Victoria’s electorallegislation — the bill with which we are dealing today.I make the point that this bill has 175 pages, so it is asubstantial rewrite. It is in 12 parts. It is important that Iput the various parts of the bill on the record.

Part 1 deals with the preliminary issues. Part 2 dealswith the establishment of the Victorian ElectoralCommission, which will become a body corporate withthe Electoral Commissioner the sole member of thatcorporation. Part 3 goes into detail about the enrolmentprocedures and information. Part 4 refers to theregistration of political parties. There has been someinterest recently in what constitutes a political party.

Hon. R. M. Hallam — Particularly in Queensland.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Particularly inQueensland. One notes the recent events there inrelation to the founder of the One Nation party. It isimportant that those issues be dealt with in the bill.Part 5 refers to the election procedures in detail. Part 6deals with voting. Part 7 deals with the election results,which come after the voting process and in which weare all intimately interested.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD — True. It is worthpicking up Mr Baxter’s interjection. There are parts ofthe world that do not have the robust system we have inthis state nor the confidence in the results of thatsystem. Victoria is very fortunate in that we have asystem that works and also a system in which we canhave confidence. I make the point that in the last federalelection two seats were won by a margin of less than

100 votes when the total number of votes counted wasover 80 000. At the last state election the seat ofGeelong was won by 16 votes and the HonourablePhilip Davis had a landslide in Gippsland Province ofaround 600 out of about 135 000 electors.

Part 8 deals with the Court of Disputed Returns. Thesystem of having a Supreme Court judge acting as theCourt of Disputed Returns is maintained. Part 9 dealswith enforcement and offences. Part 10 refers to generalprovisions, evidentiary provisions, offences bycorporations and refunds of deposits. Part 11 refers totransitional inconsequential matters, and part 12 dealswith election expenditure and brings public fundinginto Victoria. I will touch on that later.

The point I was making is that on page 60 of theElectoral Commissioner’s report Mr Barry asked for arewrite of Victoria’s electoral legislation. He states:

Victoria needs coherent electoral legislation written in plainEnglish.

I think that is a sensible approach and I am impressedby the way this process has taken place.

As one would expect with a piece of legislation likethis, there was real interest in what was happening. Onmore than one occasion I was fortunate to be briefed byofficers of the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC)and in particular Paul Thornton-Smith, who went out ofhis way to assist me to come to grips with the issues. Iplace on record my congratulations to the officers andto the staff of the Attorney-General for their assistancein this matter.

When reading the new legislation I was concerned tounderstand where each bit came from, and I have in myhand a document that was prepared for the LiberalParty by the VEC which took each clause of the newbill and said, ‘This is its provenance, this is where itcame from; it is a direct take from the old act; it is amodified version of what we want to do; it is based onthe commonwealth model’. It became the way that Icould get an understanding of the way we were goingwith the bill. It enabled me to be fully confident that Iwas across the issues in the bill, and in thiscircumstance I think that was important. I know theamount of work that went into producing aclause-by-clause analysis of the bill and I am gratefulfor the efforts that the VEC put in to make its analysisavailable to me. It was because of that, as I said, that thebill that comes before the house today is one that theLiberal Party can support.

The second part of the recommendations for legislativechange was crucial: only those electors who are

ELECTORAL BILL


enrolled and live in the electorate should be entitled tovote in the election. There were real principles aboutthat — where people live, how long they have livedthere and issues such as that. This request for legislativechange is in clause 87 of the bill, which talks about theentitlement to vote and goes through what an elector is,where they come from, how it can work and goes on tosimilar issues. This matter is also covered in clause 90of the bill which is the clause that lists questions thatmust be asked of a voter, such as: what is your fullname, where do you live, have you voted before in theelection today? That request is picked up in those twoclauses.

Qualification to be a candidate is also an amendment inthis bill to the Constitution Act.

The bill also deals with the death of a candidate onelection day. We all remember the extraordinarilyunfortunate death of Peter McLellan, the then sittingmember for Frankston East at the time of the lastelection, who died on voting day and caused asupplementary by-election but also caused somehead-scratching on that particular day.

The bill also deals with web sites. It deals with postalvoting being replaced with pre-poll voting. The billbrings in a change of language, and I do not object tothat. We now have election centres rather than pollingbooths; we now have election managers rather thanreturning officers — —

Hon. N. B. Lucas — What’s in a name?

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — What’s in a name,Mr Lucas asks. We now have clear English, and that isan advance. I note that one of the recommendations onpage 62 which would have had the effect of allowing apostal vote that had been postmarked the Sunday afteran election to be counted was not accepted, and therewere quite obvious reasons for that. Despite the factthat the aim of the VEC was to ensure that everyonewho wanted to vote could vote, it would not beappropriate to allow postal voting the day after pollingday. I see a nod from the Deputy Leader of theGovernment, and I suspect he is of a similar mind,although I know he can speak for himself. We thoughtabout that, and on balance we believe the bill is right inwhat it has done in this regard.

There was also a review of offences and penalties. Theadministrative side of the bill as requested by theVictorian Electoral Commissioner has been done anddone well and is appropriate and, as stated in theconclusion of the second-reading speech:

The bill is clear, simple, rationally organised, and moreaccessible to voters and other stakeholders in the electoralprocess. It sets out essential principles of electoral law …

I think that is sensible and worthy of support.

Last week I noticed that the Standing Committee onElectoral Matters of the federal Parliament issued a callfor submissions on the recent federal election. My viewis that a major change to electoral procedures likethis — and I hope that if we ever go down this roadagain this could be take into account — should be morewidely canvassed than this one was. I understand thatlast year quite some work was done in preparing the billbefore us today but that because of the federal electionother things got in the way. My belief is that if youwant to change the electoral laws perhaps providing aparliamentary inquiry or at least an exposure draft orsome process that would enable all people to beinvolved might be wise. As I said, I am comfortablewith this, but I think the federal model is one that couldbe considered.

The final part of the bill is part 12. The Liberal Partyhas traditionally been opposed to public funding ofelections, but I note that public funding is now anintegral and normal part of federal elections andelections in New South Wales, the Australian CapitalTerritory and Queensland, and I am pretty sure thatthey will become the standard for elections acrossAustralia over time.

I was lobbied by some longstanding friends andacquaintances who strongly put to me that this wasagainst our philosophy and that it was not anappropriate position for the Liberal Party to support oraccept. My belief is that it is most important that peoplevoting on polling day have in front of them informationon which to make an informed decision.

Honourable members know it is an extraordinarilyexpensive process to run an election now. Bringing inthe commonwealth system of $1.20 per vote is asensible way to ensure that political parties and/orcandidates and individuals who get more than 4 percent of the vote in a particular seat have some basicfunding which enables them to communicate theirviews to the voters they wish to persuade to vote forthem. It is becoming more and more difficult to raisefunds and at the same time elections are getting moreand more expensive. The commonwealth model hasbeen adopted where there is sensible disclosure of that.

We have not gone the full way with the commonwealthmodel because in the proposed Victorian model youmust spend the money in order to receive the publicfunding component. A profit cannot be made because

ELECTORAL BILL


you run for Parliament. Candidates will be entitled toclaim up to the amount that they have spent only if theyget more than 4 per cent of the vote.

With those few words I indicate on behalf of theLiberal Party that it supports this legislation and looksforward to fighting the next election according to itsrules. I say to the government: bring it on!

Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Melbourne) — Onepleasant aspect of living in Victoria, indeed Australia, isour democratic traditions and the electoral processes, ofwhich Australians are the beneficiaries. There are manyfine democratic traditions within this nation.

Anybody who is an observer of what happens in theLegislative Council in the Victorian Parliament knowsthat on many occasions I bring into question thecontribution of the Legislative Council to ourdemocratic institutions, but that will be a debate foranother time. In this debate we should focus on thecontribution the electoral system plays in ourdemocracy, and the opportunities there are for voters toparticipate in an electoral process which is moretransparent, easier to gain access to, and provides for adegree of accountability in terms of the validation of thevoters roll in the electoral processes. The bill will makea positive contribution to the way our democracyworks.

An additional feature of the bill is that it provides anopportunity for public funding of election campaigns.Many people in the Australian community may besceptical, if not cynical, about the value of theopportunity for public funding of election campaigns.Let me be absolutely positive in my affirmation of theprinciple of public funding on the basis of increasedaccess to the public domain for minority parties andindividual candidates. It will increase their opportunityto make an impact on the voters during the electoralcycle and to canvass a broader range of issues withinelection campaigns. The opportunity to place thosepoints of view in the electoral marketplace has beenpreviously denied them because they have not hadaccess to sufficient funds.

Obviously the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Partyand the National Party, all of whom will have memberscontributing to this debate, will be major beneficiariesbecause traditionally in the election outcomes over thelast century the majority of votes have landed on thepile of either the ALP or the Liberal Party, in particular.Indeed, one would anticipate that to be the case in thefuture.

I say to any candidates from minor political parties whomay have ambitions about my seat at the next election:I do not cringe from the possibility of them mounting asuccessful campaign from the left or the right in termsof making a claim for my seat. That is their right andpublic funding will provide that opportunity forcandidates of political parties from the left and right ofthe ALP. That excellent opportunity will be afforded tocandidates across the political spectrum.

The bill provides for a range of reforms that wereidentified in a comprehensive review of the 1999election undertaken by the Victorian ElectoralCommission under the stewardship of Colin Barry andhis team. That review proved a useful guide for thegovernment and the Parliament on the ways in whichour electoral system can be improved. It culminates inthe bill before the house today.

The bill is designed to do a number of things: toimprove the administrative procedures and conduct ofelections and to make it easier for candidates and otherelection stakeholders to understand the electoralprocesses and their opportunities to participate in thisvibrant democracy. In terms of the conduct of thatelection, the bill will enable the Victorian ElectoralCommission to introduce new technology to assist inthe generation of voters rolls, the maintenance of votersrolls, and the conduct of ballots as they occur onelection day.

The bill provides the head of power for the VictoriaElectoral Commission to issue election manuals anddirections regarding these procedures and to make themavailable to members of the Victorian community,members of Parliament, registered political parties, andprospective candidates.

Many aspects of our electoral procedures under statuteneed to be brought into line. In many ways we have anantiquated approach to our election law. It is almost likea camel that has been constructed by committee andvariation. It is a very clumsy legal animal. It dates backin various forms through the Constitution ActAmendment Act 1958 to the original designation in the1850s. The legislative framework of the election law inthis state is a cumbersome construction.

There were clearly a number of deficiencies in thatlegislative framework and the government intends toaddress them with a total rewrite of the electoral law.We found the existing regime was overly prescriptivein certain areas and very tightly regulated, yet hadmonumental variation and a significant number of blindspots in its regulatory regime about how elections wereundertaken. In a fashion similar to my contribution in

ELECTORAL BILL


the last few minutes, the language is fairly cumbersomeand convoluted and does not assist the Victoriancommunity to understand their election law. It certainlywas not conversant with modern election practices andthe way in which elections take place.

I would not want to impart any motivation for someconservative members of the chamber to perhapsspeculate on why they may be pleased to repeal certainelements of the act, such as those that provide asanction for members of the Victorian community totake a gun, pistol, sword or bludgeon to the pollingplace. I am certain no members of this chamber wouldadvocate the repeal of those sections on the assumptionthat they would be taking their bludgeons to the nextpolling day. That is a clear demonstration of theantiquated nature of the electoral laws that apply upuntil this very day and until the new act receives royalassent. So we can see that there are a number ofantiquated aspects of the current laws that needed to bemade right.

The bill provides, as has been indicated in the debatealready, the opportunity for political parties to receivefunding for their election campaigns — which is apre-existing feature in the commonwealth jurisdictionand in New South Wales, Queensland and theAustralian Capital Territory. It provides an opportunityfor political parties from right across the spectrum and,indeed, independent candidates, if they receive 4 percent of the vote, to be able to claim their expenses forthe costs they have borne in getting their message to thepeople.

A number of people in the community may be scepticalabout that because they think it is motivated byself-interest. It may be in part, but there is a broaddemocratic principle that underpins access toinformation in the modern world, which is dictated byaccess to the media and often requires paid advertisingto get your message across — particularly for thosepeople in the margins of the political debate, thoseemerging minor parties and independents that havebeen a feature of electoral outcomes in the last fewyears both in Victoria and across the nation. This billprovides the opportunity for a reimbursement of$1.20 per vote received by those parties and candidates,and will be payable upon verification through anauditor’s statement that those costs have been borneduring the course of an election campaign.

The bill provides powers for the Victorian ElectoralCommission to be satisfied that they are legitimateexpenses and have been incurred during electioncampaigns. The commission will be empowered toreceive additional information if it is dissatisfied about

the quality of information it has received about thoseclaims. It will have powers to enforce penalties uponthose who make false claims.

As has been indicated, there is no opportunity withinthis scheme for profiteering to occur in relation to thoseclaims. It will not be possible, in the Victorian model,for any candidate or party to make a claim and receivefunding for amounts in excess of what they haveexpended in election campaigns. I believe this is clearlypreferable to the commonwealth government system,which has in the past enabled parties to receive moneysin excess of their expenditure during the electioncampaign.

A key element relating to the question of providing forpublic funding of election campaigns is an undertakingthe Labor Party took to the 1999 election — to cap thedonations of gaming licence operators. In fact, it was anundertaking that we cheerfully made in the course ofthat election. We believe that was responded topositively by the people of Victoria, and we havesatisfied that undertaking in this piece of legislation.

In the deliberations of how that cap of politicaldonations may apply, the government explored a rangeof options of how to legally ensure that that cap wasestablished and maintained, and decided to create thelegal link between the licences that the gamingoperators hold to generate their income, and that is thedevice that has been provided in the bill. A holder of agaming licence is prohibited from donating in excess of$50 000 in a financial year to any political party. If it isfound through the returns, as assessed by the VictorianElectoral Commission, that a donation in excess of$50 000 has been made there will be a requirement toreturn those additional funds to the state effectively inthe form of a fine both of the donor and the recipient ofthat donation.

In exploring the legislative options for creating thatlegal connection between gaming licences, thegovernment has contemplated extending that ban of thecap of donations to licences that generate income forany corporation that holds them within Victoria. TheAttorney-General has indicated in the second-readingspeech that it is his intention to make a reference to theScrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee to makerecommendations about how that roping-in mechanismfor other licence-holders may be given effect and forthe committee to provide advice to the Parliament by30 June 2003 about how that mechanism may be usedto broaden the scope of the capping of donations topolitical parties.

ELECTORAL BILL


I shall briefly outline the range of measures that applyto the election process itself that form the heart of thesubstantial rewrite of the bill and run through how itincreases accountability, transparency and access toelections in our vibrant democracy. They fall undervarious categories. The impacts of the bill on electorsare aimed at encouraging more Victorians to vote inelections by making it easier for them to enrol in thefirst instance and then to cast their vote at election time.By various means of improving the technical capabilityof the Victorian Electoral Commission the bill makes iteasier for electors to update their enrolment usingprocedures operated by the commission, so electors canprovide their change of address and other informationin an easier way. The commission will be obliged toinvite voters to update their enrolment on their changedcircumstances. There will be a more interactiverelationship between the commission and the voter.

Privacy provisions are being added to the legislation toenhance the security of the voters roll. Electoral rollswill not be available for sale, and the use of those votersrolls will relate wholly and solely to electoral mattersrather than being used for telemarketing or put to anyother purpose that may facilitate either lobbying or forcommercial activity outside the electoral process. As Ihave indicated, the commission will introducetechnology that will assist voters to use computertechnology for interstate and overseas locations and toprovide early voting opportunities.

The bill tightens the restrictions in relation to theeligibility of voters and is more prescriptive than theexisting regime in ensuring that electors must enrol attheir principal place of residence and can only votefrom that residence and must have resided at thatlocation for more than three months before the electiondate.

The impact of the bill on political parties is that in amore coherent way than we have ever seen before itoutlines the duties and obligations of political parties inthe electoral process. It guarantees political partiesaccess to enrolment information about ordinary, postaland absent voters from the Victorian ElectoralCommission. It includes a requirement for theregistration of political parties to be tightened so thatwe have a degree of confidence in our democracy thatonly those parties that can generate substantialcommunity support will be registered. It is the criticalthreshold 4 per cent again. It is the same trigger thatapplies to the availability of political donations. The4 per cent is the figure that applies to both of thoseinstances.

If a party falls below the 4 per cent return across theseats it contests at an election, the bill requires theVictorian Electoral Commission to trigger a reviewabout its ongoing registration. A number of politicalparties that were particularly prominent in the 1950sand maybe into the early 1970s disappeared by thewayside, about which I do not cry crocodile tears. Theway in which the commission will operate in the futureis that once a particular political party’s supportdiminishes and is below that 4 per cent trigger it will bederegistered.

The impact of the bill upon individual candidates is thatthe candidate will be required to be enrolled as anelector instead of being merely entitled to enrol. Wewill not see the bizarre situation of somebodypotentially being elected to the Victorian Parliamentwho was not on the electoral roll. In the name ofincreasing security and confidentiality, the bill setslimits of access to information about candidates so thatonly the candidate’s name and nominated contactdetails will be made available by the commission.

The impacts of the bill on the commission itself, as Ihave indicated in my contribution, fall into a number ofcategories. They assist the commission in establishingand maintaining modern electoral managementpractices. The commission itself will consist of theElectoral Commissioner and become a corporatisedbody with the powers and duties to be transferred to theVEC.

A number of name changes are being made by the bill.Responding as a citizen, I believe some are useful andsome are obscure regarding the role that may beundertaken by members of the VEC or the locationswhere elections may take place. For better or for worse,swings and roundabouts, returning officers will now beknown as electoral managers. From a political party’sperspective, if election outcomes could be managed, asrepresentatives of the Parliament we may all be a lothappier! That is something in my experience thatcannot be managed.

Polling day in future will be known as election day;polling places will be known as voting centres; pre-pollvoting, hospital voting and interstate and overseasvoting will be known as early voting; and the locationsfor such services will be early voting centres.

In relation to early voting centres, there will be anopportunity for the Victorian Electoral Commission todetermine whether it is a mobile voting centre or a fixedvoting centre to ensure that there is equitable andreasonable access, particularly for those Victoriancitizens who may find themselves in hospitals or

ELECTORAL BILL


nursing homes during the course of an electioncampaign. The commission is obliged under the bill tobe sensitive and mindful of those access issues toguarantee maximum voter access to polling day — it isnot called polling day any more, it is election day.

Through the use of improved management systems andtechnology we would anticipate that the electoralcommission will encourage more Victorian citizens tobe active participants in the electoral process, and this agood thing for our democracy.

On the way through there has been a clear role playedby Colin Barry and his team at the VEC, whichincludes some good citizens now in the advisers box,and a very positive role has been played by theDepartment of Justice — a number of key advisers tothe Attorney-General have played a prominent role inthis exercise. I personally would like to put on therecord my gratitude to a good friend of mine, DanielAndrews, for his contribution to the delivery of thesemeasures, and we look forward to future elections beingoperated in an efficient, transparent manner that willadd to our democracy and the traditions that we areparticularly proud of in Victoria. We would hope thatwith improved participation and improved access toelection campaigning from people from right across thepolitical spectrum, this can only enhance our vibrantdemocracy, and I too look forward to the next election.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I ampleased to join with the Leader of the Opposition andthe Deputy Leader of the Government in supporting thebill before the house — the update and rewrite of theelectoral provisions of this state.

I have thought for some time that it was a little curiousthat these provisions were contained in the quaintlynamed The Constitution Act Amendment Act, and Ithink it is quite a good idea that these provisions beincorporated in a single act that has the more obvioustitle of Electoral Act.

I have no objection at all to the update of the languagethat is used, although I share Mr Jennings’s cynicism toa degree, I suppose, as to whether some of thedescriptions are entirely clear. For old stagers such assome of us in this house it will take some time to getour minds around the new terms. I have been a boothworker at every state and federal election in Victoriasince 1961. Now I am going to have to call myself acentre worker, apparently, instead of a booth worker.Nevertheless I think it will be better for the public atlarge that odd names like ‘returning officer’ and‘polling place’, which are not entirely clear to peoplewho do not deal with politics every day of the week

have been changed. So to that extent I think these namechanges are acceptable and will become commonplaceand widely understood after an election or two.

It has been noted by previous speakers how fortunatewe are in this state and this nation to have a very robustelectoral system. Its integrity is absolutelyunquestioned, and I think that that is a safeguard andbenefit which we should cling to dearly and take everyopportunity we have to protect it and safeguard theintegrity of the voting system.

On top of that, in this state we are fortunate that it is onevote, one value. We are not assailed by gerrymanders ormalapportionment, and the will of the electors can beexpressed with confidence and be reflected in themembership of a parliament that is elected to be indirect relationship to what the electors intended.

I similarly do not have a particular objection to some ofthe archaic provisions being repealed. I would not bebringing a bludgeon along to a polling place, and I havenot done so — although I have to say, regrettably, thatduring the Benalla by-election it might have beenhandy before the booths opened if I had had a bludgeonavailable because some apparatchiks came up fromMelbourne on behalf of the Australian Labor Party andconducted themselves in a manner that those of us incountry Victoria were unaccustomed to. The Laborapparatchiks removed banners and posters that hadbeen erected by other parties and erected their ownbanners in front of others which had already beenplaced there by representatives of other candidates. Aparticularly nasty situation developed at the BenallaWest Primary School which took some settling down. Ido not know whether that sort of activity is customaryin the suburbs of Melbourne on election day. I hopenot, and I expect it is not, but it certainly occurred at thetime of the Benalla by-election and left a very bad tastein the mouths of quite a few people.

The bill goes to a number of issues which have beencanvassed by the previous two speakers, and I am notgoing to go through them all again. Obviously theaccuracy of the electoral register and the electoral roll isvery important indeed. It seems to me it must be amassive job for the VEC to keep the roll up to datebecause not everyone is as conscientious as they mightbe in advising the electoral office of their change ofresidence. The extension of the provisions to askelectricity retailers to supply some information to thecommission at first glance seems to be a bit curious, butfrom my discussions with Mr Barry and others I can seethat that is a resource that is a fairly accurate record ofwhere people live. Everyone has to have electricityconnected and register with the retailers. I do not have

ELECTORAL BILL


any objection to appropriate arrangements being madewith the electricity retailers to provide informationwhich might assist in keeping the electoral roll in anaccurate and up-to-date condition.

I am a little concerned, though, about the overreactionwe seem to have in this community in terms of privacy.I cannot see for the life of me why the electoral rollcannot be a more public document than is envisagedunder this act. My experience over many years has beenthat the electoral roll has been a good resourcedocument in the community, used for altruistic andbeneficial purposes. On any instance in which I havebeen involved, I have never seen it usedinappropriately. I always thought at the time under theCain government when the roll was changed to deletegender and occupation that it was more difficult to useit and actually locate the person whom you were hopingto find, and usually you were hoping to find that personfor a reason which was going to be beneficial to thatperson.

I just sound this warning so we do not get too carriedaway with some of these privacy issues, which seem tobe very fashionable at the moment. If I were beingentirely cynical I would say there is an element ofhypocrisy in this bill, because it extends the amount ofinformation which will be made available about theelectoral roll to political parties and candidates andmembers of Parliament but further restricts what isavailable to the general public. In a sense I think that isan unwise thing to be doing. That will increasecynicism about politicians in the community rather thanlessen it because it will be seen by some people that weare in fact looking after ourselves and we are restrictingwhat is available to them.

I also support the tightening up of what names peoplecan register themselves under on the electoral roll, orindeed register a political party. We have had numerousexamples of self-publicists wanting to register namesthat were clearly concoctions, contrivances or attemptsto embarrass either a government or an individual. Wehave also seen people attempting to register politicalparties so their names can appear on thousands of ballotpapers simply as a publicity stunt, a lobbying exerciseor a lever, without being at all serious about beingelected to Parliament. The changes that arecontemplated to those provisions are wise and fullysupportable.

I likewise endorse the proposals that Mr Jennings hasjust covered for the registration of parties and thederegistration of those parties that either do not stand atleast one candidate over a period of five years or whosemembership appears to have fallen under the required

number, as well as the proposal that once registeredparties should not remain registered forever and thatthere ought to be a review mechanism. Those issues areproperly covered in this bill, and I certainly supportthose provisions.

I also note the change of name from pre-poll voting toearly voting. That is obviously a sensible name change.Pre-poll voting was a bit of a misnomer in somepeople’s minds. I have had discussions with theElectoral Commissioner about pre-poll voting, or earlyvoting as it is now to be called. While I do not disputethe principle that we need to make provision forpersons who will not easily be able to vote on electionday and that they should have an opportunity to voteearly and directly without having to formally apply fora postal vote, I would be concerned if early voting wereto be extended to establish early voting centres widelythroughout electorates in the fortnight preceding votingday.

I do not have any objection at all to giving people thecapacity to go and vote at the election manager’s officein each Assembly electorate, as I think that isappropriate, but in the Benalla by-election pre-pollvoting centres, as they were then called, wereestablished at Benalla, Mansfield, Bright andYarrawonga. The logic of that was to enable peoplewho needed to lodge a pre-poll vote to be able to accessa pre-poll vote centre easily, and yes they achieved that,but by the extension of that logic if you were providingease of voting for people at Mansfield why not providesimilar ease for the people of Nagambie, for example,or Myrtleford or wherever?

It would seem logical that if you are going to have morethan one pre-poll voting centre you would need to haveone at each town of reasonably significant size. Theproblem with doing that is, of course, that it is a hugeresource requirement not only for the electoralcommission but also for the political parties, which feelthey need to man those booths. I do not believe thenumber of people pre-poll voting justifies an extensionof facilities to that degree.

The other problem I have with encouraging pre-pollvoting — which is what you would do if youestablished centres all over the place — is that peoplemay vote early then something might happen during theelection campaign, an issue may arise or a verysignificant development may occur which would havechanged the way they voted, but it would be too late,and they may well be disappointed that they did notwait until nearer to voting day. I sound a warningagainst an undue extension of pre-poll voting.

ELECTORAL BILL


I place on record that my discussions with Mr Barryhave been fruitful. He has taken my concerns on board,and I hope that at a general election, yes, we will haveearly voting available at each election manager’s officein each Assembly district, but that will be about theextent of it unless there are particular extenuatingcircumstances that dictate otherwise. One suchcircumstance might be in the new seat of Lowan, withthe cities of Horsham and Hamilton at either end of theelectorate, where it may well be necessary to have anearly voting centre at each of those towns. I do notobject to that, but what I am trying to do is quarantinethe establishment of early voting centres to locationswhere it can be clearly demonstrated to be warranted.

I also note in passing that we need election managers toexercise a bit of commonsense about where partyworkers can operate from early voting centres. We havenot had too much difficulty in Victorian elections, but Iwill give the house an example of what occurred in thefederal election last year in the seat of Indi. At apre-poll voting centre in Stanley Street, Wodonga, thereturning officer insisted on the booth party workersbeing 6 metres from the door. That had the effect ofpushing them up in front of a business two doorsremoved from the returning officer’s premises. When Ispoke with the returning officer and suggested that thatwas a bit unreasonable, he suggested I speak with hissuperior in Wangaratta, the divisional returning officer,which I did. She gave me the glorious answer that therules were the rules and she was there to enforce them,so I did no good there.

I waited until after the election and then wrote to thefederal electoral commissioner and pointed this out. Isaid that we needed a commonsense set of rules andthat enforcing the 6-metre rule was not alwaysappropriate. I also pointed out to him that I had hadcause during the course of the election to take a personto pre-poll vote in the division of Kooyong and that tomy surprise and satisfaction I found the three boothworkers from the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and theDemocrats in the foyer of the building immediatelyoutside the returning officer’s door. That was a quitesensible and practical arrangement, rather than what wehad seen in Wodonga.

This week I received a reply, not from thecommonwealth electoral commissioner — I wouldhave thought when a member of Parliament writes tothe electoral commissioner one might have got a replyfrom the commissioner himself — but from someone inthe office, who basically said that I did not know what Iwas talking about and that the reason the 6-metre rulewas enforced was that the booth workers were causingcongestion outside the returning officer’s office. It so

happens that the booth was being manned only by theNational Party and the Liberal Party on the occasionabout which I made my representations to the returningofficer, so it could hardly be contended that the twopersons outside the door were causing congestion whenfewer than 20 people a day were voting on those earlydays.

I put on the record that these are the sorts of ridiculousanswers one tends to get on occasions. I am pleased tosay that the Victorian system works much better thanthe federal system and that I will be further pursuing thematter with the federal electoral commissioner becausethe last thing we want during elections is theinappropriate application of rules and regulations withno commonsense being used, to the detriment ofbusinesses that have nothing to do with the election atall.

I will move on to what is probably the significant newfeature of the bill — that is, election funding. I knowthere has been a little bit of angst in some quartersabout public funding of elections, and I confess that inthe early days I was philosophically opposed to theconcept myself. However, I have changed my mind fora number of reasons. One is that I believe one of thethreats to democracy that we have in this nation is thedeclining direct involvement in the political process bymembers of the public. There is no doubt at all that a lotfewer people are paid-up financial members of politicalparties these days than was the case in the 1950s, inparticular the major parties and to some extent thesmaller parties. Even more importantly, there are fewerand fewer people actively involved, even though theymight be financial members of a political party.

It seems to me that one of the dangers is that partiestherefore rely more and more on donations, and that haswith it some element — I put it no higher than that —of undue influence, because some element of undueinfluence can be exercised by people making asubstantial monetary contribution to a political party. Ifin the absence of a high membership base parties haveto rely more and more on donations, then consequenceswill flow therefrom. I believe it is quite acceptable touse public funding to give political parties the resourcesthey need to at least get their message out, and ofcourse it would be of greater assistance to smallerparties than larger ones. We know the Labor Party isfunded to a fairly generous degree by the unions.

We know that corporations, whilst they tend to be moreeven-handed than the unions and to give money to bothsides of politics, do tend to make some substantialcontribution to the conservative parties, in particular theLiberal Party. But we should be encouraging diversity

PATHOLOGY SERVICES ACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL


in our political system and giving those who arecapable of putting an alternative point of view anopportunity to do so and to get together a structure thatgives them a number of votes which justifies theirexistence. There is nothing to be lost by encouragingthem and enabling them to have some sort ofassistance. It means they are then less reliant on fundingfrom elsewhere, which might have some undueinfluence implicit in its giving.

The $1.20 and the indexation factor are eminentlyreasonable, and I support them. The aspect Iparticularly like is that you do not get it automatically.You have to ask for it and demonstrate to the electoralcommission that you have spent the money. So youcannot have a windfall gain by getting more than youspent and you cannot have the cheque sent to youunless you actually file a return. That will really put tothe test the Independents in another place who havegone around this state in the most populist fashionopposing public funding. Should they happen to beback here after the next election — I do not expect anyof them will be — and even if they are not back theywill have to ask for the money. Bearing in mind howmuch they opposed it, it will be interesting to seewhether they hold their hands out and accept it after theelection.

The reporting requirements by and large mirror thecommonwealth provisions. The original bill introducedin the other place had a myriad of differences betweenwhat was proposed and what is the commonwealthcircumstance. I had a lot of difficulty with that conceptbecause it seemed to me that all that was likely to dowas impose an onerous burden on volunteers who workfor the parties and it was likely to lead to technicalhiccups and confusion between the two. No-one iscomplaining that the commonwealth requirements areinadequate or are being abused. The system is workingwell at the commonwealth level and it seems to me thatit makes commonsense that the state provisions shouldmirror those of the commonwealth. I am glad that thegovernment has come around to that point of view andthat that is basically what we have here, save for thematters I have just alluded to, in terms of certifying thelevel of expenditure.

The National Party is pleased to support the bill. Webelieve it has merit and that the introduction of publicfunding is justified. As such, the bill will strengthen andunderpin democracy in this state. We can be proud andwe can also be rightly thankful that we live in a systemwhere votes are properly cast in secret and areaccurately tallied and that the results derived are indeedthe wishes of the electors.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! I am of the opinionthat this bill requires to be passed by an absolutemajority. I ask the Clerk to ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Members having assembled in chamber:

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! In order that I mayascertain whether the required majority has beenobtained I ask those members who are in favour of thequestion to stand where they are.

Required number of members having risen:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read second time; by leave, proceeded to third reading.

Third reading


That this bill be now read a third time

In doing so, I thank honourable members from therespective parties for their contributions.

The ACTING PRESIDENT(Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! I am of the opinionthat the third reading of this bill requires to be passedby an absolute majority. I again ask those honourablemembers who are in favour of the question to standwhere they are.

Required number of members having risen:

Motion agreed to by absolute majority

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.

PATHOLOGY SERVICESACCREDITATION (AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. M. R. THOMSON(Minister for Small Business).

TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


TOBACCO (MISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. M. R. THOMSON(Minister for Small Business).


Debate resumed from earlier this day; motion ofHon. C. C. BROAD (Minister for Energy and Resources):


Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I rise tomake a brief but succinct contribution to the 2002–03budget debate. In so many ways this is a typical LaborParty budget. Many Victorians are beginning tounderstand what is always typical about a Laborbudget — that is, the tax take and tax rates are goingup. The government will be seeking, obviously, to liveoff unexpected financial windfalls. The governmentwill again fail to deliver, on the basis of this budget, oninfrastructure and other major projects. This is a typicalLabor budget in the aspect that it lets the economicfundamentals of the state deteriorate further.

To date, many people in the Victorian community havefelt some of the tax windfalls, and accumulated budgetsurpluses of the past have at least been spent to providebetter services to the people of Victoria. Many peoplehave laboured under that misapprehension for at leastthe last three years. This budget puts the lie to thatmisapprehension.

I also put on the record that this budget can becharacterised by a number of expenditure blow-outsand priority misdirections and that there is vaguereporting encapsulated in it. We have seen aproliferation of political advertising funded by it and, ofcourse, massive growth in the bureaucracy.

The most serious criticism of the budget is that it isbased, as are all Labor budgets, on inputs rather thanoutputs. By that I mean it is big on bottom-lineincreases in spending and the numbers of bureaucratsand/or public servants, but very short on results. Anoutput is a result, and the results being achieved by thisbudget are minimal.

When talking about results I talk about hospital waitingtimes, which are up; about crime rates, which are risingdramatically despite the increased inputs provided forin the budget; juvenile justice centres which are rife

with illicit drugs; and teacher-student ratios, which,after all the hype and added expenditure in the area, arevirtually identical to those the government inheritedwhen it came into office. Like most Labor budgets, thisbudget is very big on inputs and talk of inputs, and veryshort on outputs and results.

The total operating expenditures for this financial yearare expected to reach $24.242 billion, which is anincrease of approximately $1.2 billion over the budgetestimate of $22.957 billion. In other words, over thepast year the Bracks government has had a$1.285 billion budget blow-out in unplanned,unbudgeted operating expenses. If it were not for the$1.5 billion unbudgeted windfall in revenue, this year’sbudget would definitely be in deficit. Within two and ahalf years of coming to office, this government wouldhave been writing a red line under Victoria’s financesand would have had none of the valid reasons for doingso that our federal government has in terms of addedmassive expenditures for defence and border security,or any other reasons. The federal government has facedvery serious issues of security for the nation. TheBracks government has not, but it would have been inthe red were it not for that approximately $1.5 billionwindfall.

The $1.2 billion unbudgeted expenditure increase cameabout because the government realised it did have theextra money and decided to tell Victorians it wasrewarding them with some extra sweeteners. That is notwhat has occurred. The extra expenses have beenincurred because of unplanned increases in costs whichthe Bracks government had little choice but to incur.The $1.2 billion was basically made up ofhigher-than-expected wage increases which are to bepaid to police, health workers and people in the generalpublic service and the flow-on costs of those increasesin superannuation expenses. That is why there is anunbudgeted $1.2 billion blow-out in this budget.

It is very difficult, however, to quantify how much ofthat is going into superannuation because none of theagreements have been disclosed, but logic dictates a fairwhack of that unbudgeted blow-out has to be devotedto those superannuation expenses. The budget papersdo reveal that in total there has been about a$540 million unbudgeted increase in superannuationexpenses in the current year and by any reading that hasto be seen as an understatement.

I said this budget was strong on inputs but very short onoutputs and results. The Bracks government is boasting,of course, that the unemployment rate in the state fell to5.7 per cent in April, which was down from 5.8 per centin March. It said that that is the lowest of any state in



seasonally adjusted terms. That could be interpreted asa result or an output. However, the reduction in theunemployment rate to 5.7 per cent was due to the lossof over 11 500 job seekers in that month in this state. InApril in seasonally adjusted terms employment fell byover 8000, of which 5000 were losses of full-time jobs.

During every month of this year full-time employmenthas fallen in trend terms in Victoria, and sinceDecember 2001 there has been a loss of 4800 full-timejobs in this state. To put it in other terms, over the yearto April 2002, of the approximately 19 500 full-timejob losses in Australia about half, or 48 per cent, werelocated in Victoria, and our population is notcommensurate with a 48 per cent reduction of thefull-time jobs in the nation. This is not a great output,not a great result, but it is a reality.

We also have to look at the other output or result areaand that is business investment. Last year, in 2001,manufacturing investment in Victoria wasapproximately $2.7 billion and that is about 15.5 percent lower than a year earlier, and 16.5 per cent lowerthan in the last year of the Kennett government. That isnot a fantastic output and not a fantastic result. Thelevel of investment in manufacturing in particular isnow at its lowest level since 1992. That is an output anda result, but not one the Bracks government should beproud of.

Investment in non-residential buildings and structureshas declined in every quarter under the Bracksgovernment and is now about 40 per cent lower in trendterms than when the Bracks government was elected.That is a huge and significant reduction. The oppositionhas been asked what the state government should do tocontribute to greater economic prosperity and betteroutputs and results through its budgetary management.It might seem to be stating the obvious, but perhaps theBracks government should be finding and encouragingareas where growth has a high potential. Perhaps areasof strength could be identified as they were by theprevious government and they could be supported andresourced. Perhaps instead of ramping up public sectorexpenditure on the public service in particular — I amtalking about the bureaucracy — the government couldadopt the role of ringkeeper and allow industry ratherthan the public sector to grow. Perhaps it could look atthings like the motor vehicle industry, pharmaceuticals,telecommunications manufacturing and foodprocessing or a range of other areas.

The previous Kennett government did that. It identifiedareas of potential growth in the state and worked outbudget parameters that would support growth in theprivate sector in those areas. It fast-tracked projects and

assisted with seeding and capital funding and taxreductions. It used fiscal levers to do that. It is notimpossible. Perhaps the Bracks government could dothat if in another year or two it wants to boast somegood outputs as a result of its budget and itsmanagement.

Maybe it could control the union movement; improvethe tax regime; remove some of the legal uncertaintiesfacing business. Perhaps it could concentrate more onthe necessary infrastructure that the private sector needsthan it currently does. The Bracks government’s recordon infrastructure spending is not even as good as that ofthe Tasmanian government. That is an output or resultthat the Bracks government should not be proud of.

Ask any Bracks minister what they have done and theywill talk about inputs. If you ask, ‘What have you donein education?’, they will say, ‘We have spent $X billionand hired this many teachers’. Ask them what they havedone in health and they will tell you the same story:‘We have put in $X billion and hired so many nurses’.Ask what they have done for community safety andthey will talk about the same thing: the 800 police.They talk about inputs; they do not talk about results.The fact is that in each of those areas — communitysafety, health and education — there is not an outputrecord that the government can be proud of. In fact,when compared to the output or result areas of the lastgovernment it is a worse record. Services aredeteriorating. They are not expanding or getting betteror more efficient.

The Bracks government can boast that in the past twoyears it has increased the public sector byapproximately 5000, and this budget continues thattrend. In the first two years the government averagedabout an 8 per cent growth in the bureaucratic sectorevery year. The size of the Victorian public servicegrew by approximately 4380 by the end of the secondBracks government budget.

Information that has been provided to the Parliamentshows that at the end of the last full financial year of theKennett government, which was 1998–99, the numberof members of the Victorian public service was 26 255.By the end of the last budget period — that is,2000–01 — the Bracks government had grown thepublic sector to 30 635. In the first two years the Bracksgovernment saw an increase in public sector numbersof over 4000, representing an increase of 16.7 per cent.

That is an output result, and the Bracks government cantalk about that, but most of that increase of 16.7 percent was not on service providers. They were notdoctors, nurses, teachers or police, but public



servants — people who sit behind desks in buildings incity offices. The figure of more than 4000 relatesprimarily to staff numbers in the eight core departmentsand approximately a dozen administrative officersassociated with those core departments.

Premier Bracks has led this charge in his owndepartment. He has increased the number of full-timeequivalent staff within the Department of Premier andCabinet from just over 400 at 30 June 1999 to anestimated 630 by 30 June 2001, and that has increasedfurther in this budget period. Even that increase on Junelast year is a 55 per cent increase. Last year thegovernment spent $3.8 million on new ministerial staffand will spend $3.8 million each year over four years, Ibelieve, again funded in the budget and costing thetaxpayers $15.2 million. These are advisers in thePremier’s office.

Since coming to power the Bracks government has alsoincreased its expenditure on consultants. The averageannual spending on Bracks government consultantsover the first two completed financial years was$38 197 611, an increase in average annual spendingover 1998–99 of about 10 per cent, so there are moreconsultants and not less, despite the promises, and thisbudget continues that trend. It is not possible for theBracks government to claim that the increase in thepublic service has been funded by a reduction inconsultancies. It is certainly the opposite. It hasincreased and ramped up the amount of money to bespent on those consultancies.

It is not only public servants who are seconded intothese offices, but external consultants have beenbrought in apace. Many of those consultants have veryspecial links to the Labor Party. Because this is the keyresult area of this budget, I will briefly outline some ofthe information the opposition has been able to obtainabout how that money is being spent.

The Bracks government has repeatedly refused underfreedom of information to supply complete lists of itsministerial advisers and permanent staff appointments.However, through the excellent work of theopposition’s waste watch committee it has been able topiece together this picture from other sources and fromthe odd Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunalvictory where opposition members have been grantedaccess to information on how this money is being spent.

Premier Bracks has packed his office and the offices ofmost of his ministers with Labor mates and manypartisan appointments, which we can only surmise hasbeen to reward Labor Party people for past favours orperhaps for future favours. Unfortunately the

government has been reluctant to share this informationwith Victorians.

Heading up the list is Tim Pallas, who was, of course, afailed Labor preselection candidate for the federal seatof Melbourne Ports, but importantly a formerAustralian Council of Trade Unions assistant secretary.Again in the Premier’s staff from the trade unionmovement come Jenny Newcombe from the AustralianEducation Union and Jenny Doran from the ACTU.Jacqueline Flitcroft, the Premier’s speechwriter, has aninteresting political background and link to the LaborParty. She was once a staffer to former Labor starcandidate Cheryl Kernot. She is now working inVictoria and being funded very nicely.

Premier Bracks’s private office is full of well-paiddirectors, senior advisers and press secretaries whohave not had a huge amount of experience in industryor anywhere else. Most of them are former unionofficials, failed Labor election candidates, or both.

The chief of staff in the Deputy Premier’s office isAndrejs Zamurs, a former Department of HumanServices official, who donated over $1500 to theVictorian ALP in 1999–2000. It is not known whetherMr Zamurs donated this money to the ALP before orafter he was employed by the minister, but donate it hedid.

Last year’s state budget, as does this year’s, shows thatmore staff are to be hired. It is interesting to note thatlast year an extra nearly $4 million was spent. Againanother nearly $4 million will be spent this year, andthe budget provides for that. We have another two yearsto go of spending an extra $4 million, which will bringthat up to more than $15 million over the purportedterm of the full Bracks government.

Even though this money has been provided for in thebudget, there was still a $700 000 blow-out in the lastfinancial year. Even though a generous $3.8 million ayear has been allocated for extra staff and advisers,there is still a blow-out. How is that money beingspent?

The state administrative committee of the ALP coulddouble as a list of the Who’s Who of ministerialadvisers. Committee members include Garth Head withthe Minister for Police and Emergency Services in theother place; Jill Hennessey with the Premier; AndrewMcKenzie and John Scheffer with the HonourableGavin Jennings; Fiona Richardson with the Minister forSmall Business; Natalie Sykes with the Minister forPlanning in the other place; and Tony White with theAttorney-General.



Basically that means that this budget not only fundsservices and the core public service in Victoria, but itfunds the state administrative committee of the ALP. Ifyou win a job on the state administrative committee itwill not take you long to get into a minister’s officewith a salary.

Hon. K. M. Smith — A big salary.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — As Mr Smithinterjects, a big salary, absolutely. I wonder if at ALPconferences when they call for nominations for thesepositions they also ask for a job description, because itis almost a certainty that if you get on theadministrative committee you will be working for aminister somewhere.

Scattered throughout other ministerial officers there area lot of failed election candidates of the Labor Party.Kerri Erler, who was unsuccessful in winning the seatof Bellarine in the other place, is in the Premier’soffice; Garth Head, who ran for Waverley Province, isin the office of the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices in the other place; and Claire Thorn, who wasspectacularly unsuccessful in the lower house seat ofBox Hill, is now in the office of the Minister for SeniorVictorians in the other place.

The office of the Minister for Health in the other placeseems almost to be the failed candidates burial ground,because he has Jacki Willox, who ran for MonashProvince, and Maxine Morand, who ran for the federalseat of Kooyong, making up the numbers there. Itmight be that if you run for a safe Liberal seat you get ajob in the office of the Minister for Health!

Former union officials are also represented strongly inthis extra expenditure, which is budgeted to increase by$4 million per year for at least another two years. In theoffice of the Minister for Energy and Resources thechief of staff is Robyn McLeod, who is well known tohonourable members in this chamber. Ms McLeod wasformerly a senior industrial officer for the AustralianWorkers Union. She is also a two-time failed candidatefor the seat of Mordialloc in the other place. RobynMcLeod — she is fantastic!

The Australian Nursing Federation is represented inBronwyn Pike’s office by Julie Ligeti, who is the chiefof staff there. Ms Ligeti is a former industrial officerwith the ANF.

The Minister for Local Government of course is not tobe outdone — Bernie Dean comes from a backgroundin the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous WorkersUnion. And scattered throughout many of the other

ministerial offices are a whole range of former unionofficials and Labor Party operatives.

Hon. K. M. Smith — Hacks!

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER — Mr Smith refers tothem as hacks, and I defer to his better judgmentbecause he is our whip and has been here a lot longerthan I have.

The Premier, interestingly, refuses to hand over toVictorians a complete list of ministerial advisers, whichreally flies in the face of his promise of open andaccountable government, but I think we have all gottenover that — we are so over that now; we know it is notthe reality. Labor obviously is committed to this extraannual expenditure on employing unionists, its mates,time-servers, operatives, hacks and people whom itpossibly wants favours from in the future.

The attempted appointment of Jim Reeves and anotherLabor mate, Andrew Hockley — as chief ofgovernment communications — demonstrates this. Itjust seems to us on the opposition side that if Victoriantaxpayers are going to be required to pay for the LaborParty’s retirement and superannuation scheme, then atleast the Bracks government could be open and honestabout that.

In concluding I call on the Premier and the governmentto release full lists of how this money is being spent, tobe honest about how they are spending this money andto at least allow Victorian taxpayers to understand howtheir valuable tax dollars — $3.8 million now andincreasing each year for the next two at least — arebeing spent.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I am pleasedto join the budget debate and — —

Hon. J. M. Madden — Brief and succinct?

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — I will make a verysuccinct and to-the-point contribution, and no doubt apassionate one at times.

Hon. J. M. Madden — Vitriolic?

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — No doubt a bit of that too,perhaps.

I actually wanted to make some general commentsabout the nature of the budget we have seen this yearfrom the government, because it would be fair toconcede that the commentary we have seen in some ofthe media has been benign. There has been a great dealless criticism about the budget than we have seen in



previous years, and I guess that is a reflection of thestate of the economy. Revenues are up, and as aconsequence the government has maximised itsleverage over the revenues of the state — in fact, this isa record-taxing budget. Revenues to the extent of anadditional $1500 per household have been received as aresult of taxation increases by the Labor governmentsince it came to office in 1999.

Being given the title of the highest taxing governmentin the history of Victoria is no compliment,notwithstanding my observation a moment ago that thecommentary in the media was rather benign. Victoriansare increasingly becoming aware of that increased taxburden, and it is only possible for that to be the casewhile we are undergoing what is a period of relativelyhigh prosperity.

The budget structure is completely dependent on whatis in effect a booming property market which is likelyto persist, according to the budget estimates, for somelittle while, but clearly as pressure comes on theAustralian dollar, on interest rates and inevitably on anadjustment to the property market we will see a declinein revenues from stamp duties from that sector. Theother areas that the government is dependent uponinclude revenue from tax-sharing arrangements with thecommonwealth through the goods and services tax.

There have been significant increases in a range oftaxes, and motorists in particular have been hit by therecent budget with an increase in motor vehicle taxesfrom $895 million to $1050 million.

Having made a general comment about increases intaxes, one of the areas of revenue which I findsurprising is that the Victorian government isdetermined to ensure that the Victoria police forcebecomes a tax collector, having seen an increase of240 per cent in police fines from $99 million to$336 million since the advent of the Bracksgovernment. That is not a healthy position in relation tothe role of the police force to be seen and to be revealedin the budget documents as an increase in revenue. Thegovernment will bring the police force into disrepute.You can reflect on biblical times when tax collectorswere seen to be pariahs. I do not think that is anappropriate way for the community and the governmentto measure the Victoria Police. Those are some generalremarks.

I now want to reflect on an area that is relevant to myelectorate, tourism expenditure, which has plummetedfrom $52.2 million last financial year to a budgetestimate of $38.4 million this year. That is a projectedreduction of nearly one-third and is a significant blow

to an important industry in Victoria and a blow tocountry Victorians because a lot of economic activitydepends on tourism, in particular to far East Gippsland,which we know is also being battered by recentdecisions of the Bracks government in relation todownsizing of the sustainable yield volumes in thetimber industry.

There is an exceptionally tough time coming up forEast Gippsland, not only adjusting to reduced levels ofeconomic activity in the timber industry, but alsoclearly because of the declining effort by thegovernment with respect to tourism. This is reflected bythe reduction in the number of visitor nights recorded inVictoria, which have fallen since the government cameto office. The number of nights spent inaccommodation in Victoria fell from 55.4 million in thefinal year of the previous Liberal government to52.5 million in the first year of the Bracks government.The government’s budget target for 2002–03 isbetween 52 million and 54 million, still below the levelachieved by the previous government. It is a sadindictment.

A tax that will particularly affect rural Victorians is anew $50 levy to be applied to the registration ofmotorcycles, a regressive tax. I am sure the ActingPresident would share with me a concern that mostfarms have at least one and generally severalmotorcycles that must be registered and will be taxed,irrespective of the capacity of the owner to afford thatadditional tax. It is certainly true that many people havemodest financial means, particularly young people andstudents who choose to ride motorcycles as a means oftransport because of, relatively speaking, theircheapness, and that tax increment of $50 will obviouslyhurt them severely.

With a budget surplus in excess of $500 million, thisnew tax will generate in the order of $10 million. Itseems a miserable — in fact miserly — contribution torevenue coming from a government that chooses toincrease its expenditure like a mad thing. Expenditurehas increased by more than $2 billion since the Bracksgovernment came to office, and it looks as ifpreparations are being made to continue to increasetaxes to ensure that growth and expenditure can becontinued. I do not regard that as being responsible, andthe Liberal Party has already announced that it wouldremove the $50 motorcycle tax upon being elected tooffice.

I do not wish to dwell too long on the budget but willmake one more point in relation to it. It is disappointingto me that a member of Parliament in the other placeshould use the opportunity after the state budget to not



only promote his political party’s activities but tomisrepresent those activities in the sense ofcommitments to the electorate. I was disappointed tolearn that the honourable member for Narracan in theother place was saying that the government iscommitted to funding the Pakenham bypass. An articlein the Latrobe Valley Express of 20 May states:

‘The state government has indicated it will match the federalgovernment but they (federal) haven’t put it (money) up yet’,Mr Maxfield said.

He is referring to funding for the Pakenham bypass.That is a lie. There is clearly no funding in the statebudget for the Pakenham bypass this year, next year orany year. It is a project that will cost approximately$200 million. The federal government has previouslyallocated funds to it which have not yet been taken upby the state government. It initially committed$30 million, but in October last year the federalgovernment increased that commitment to $100 millionto be matched by $100 million by the state government.That announcement was matched by the federal LaborParty. There is provision for funding to flow to thePakenham bypass project from the commencement ofthe 2003–04 financial year. Those funds have beenallocated and are set out in this year’s federal budget.

However, Mr Maxfield has, throughout theelectorate — in media comments in newspapers, radioand television — been claiming that the stategovernment has funded the Pakenham bypass to theextent of being prepared to match what the federalgovernment is doing. That is simply untrue, and I find itdisappointing to have to come into the house and adviseit that a member in another place would so mislead hiselectorate and people in Gippsland. He would beabsolutely condemned for it were it possible for thatdiscussion to occur in this house between the two of us.

In my view the comments I have quoted clearlyindicate that Mr Maxfield has expressed views aboutthe funding arrangements which are a gross distortionand misrepresentation; all of that, in my view, means itis an absolute lie. In the 10 years I have been here I donot think I can recall ever making that observationabout a member of Parliament, but I think it needs to beon the public record. I am quite happy — —

Hon. G. D. Romanes — On a point of order,Mr Deputy President, we have dealt with a number ofissues along these lines during the course of variousdebates today. Mr Davis is casting aspersions onanother member of the Victorian Parliament in anotherplace, calling the honourable member for Narracan aliar, and I ask him to withdraw.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, I have not accused a member inanother place of being a liar. What I have just said isthat the facts presented in public media, from which Ihave quoted, are deliberately and knowingly not true. Ihave said that those statements are so untrue as to be alie. I have not called anybody a liar. You can rule,Mr Deputy President, but I am not making thatallegation. I am not saying that the honourable memberfor Narracan, Mr Maxfield, is a liar; I am saying thatthe facts of the matter are that I have read into thetranscript — and can provide a copy for the honourablemember who takes objection — that the material that isbeing circulated — the commentary being made by thehonourable member for Narracan — is not true.

Hon. G. D. Romanes — Further on the point oforder, Mr Deputy President, we have only Mr Davis’sword for his view that what the honourable member forNarracan has said is untrue, and as before I ask him towithdraw his statements, which cast aspersions on themember in the other place.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — On the point of order,Mr Deputy President, were it necessary for me to provethe point, I could quote from the federal budget papersto substantiate the fact that funds have been allocated inthe federal budget this year, notwithstanding the claimsmade by Mr Maxfield.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis,is now debating the point of order. On the point of orderraised by the Honourable Glenyys Romanes, I havelistened very carefully to what the honourable memberhas been saying, and certainly he has been veryinsistent in his remarks about the honourable memberin the other place. When you look at the rulings on therules of this place, there is no doubt that the only way amember can make a citation or an attack on anothermember is by a substantive motion. Therefore I rulethat Mr Davis withdraw the remark about thehonourable member in the other place.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — Mr Deputy President, Ineed clarification because I am not quite sure what thewords are that I am to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! In my viewfrom where I sit — and I listened very carefully — Ibelieve that you said the member had lied about theparticular position, so I ask Mr Davis to withdraw.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — With deference to theChair, I withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Thank youvery much, Mr Davis.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — I was saying that inrelation to the material that has been circulating in theGippsland area and in various media outlets, thehonourable member for Narracan has made certainstatements which are clearly misleading anduntrue — —


Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — Absolutely untrue, inrelation to the way funds are to flow for the Pakenhambypass. It is absolutely a fact that no funds are providedin the Victorian government’s budget for the Pakenhambypass. It is absolutely a fact that the federalgovernment has provided funds, which will flow fromthe commencement of the 2003–04 financial year, thatthose funds are required to be matched by a statecontribution and that the state government has notprovided for those funds.

The honourable member for Narracan has made itexplicitly clear, and I read these words into Hansard ashort time ago:

‘The state government has indicated it will match the federalgovernment but they (federal) haven’t put it (money) up yet’,Mr Maxfield said.

The federal government has put money up and themoney is — —

Hon. J. M. Madden interjected.

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — That comes from theLatrobe Valley Express of 20 May — —


Hon. PHILIP DAVIS — I am simply making thepoint that it is a great disappointment to me to have tocome into this place and take issue with anothermember about the truth and the facts of a particularmatter which is in debate. I believe it would be moreappropriate for a member of Parliament representing hisconstituency, rather than misleading the communityabout the availability of funding, to get in and lobby hisown government, which has determined that there willbe no funding.

We know that the Treasurer visited Warragul recentlyand advised the community, including journalists, thatthere would be no funding for the Pakenham bypass. Soit surprises me that the honourable member forNarracan is insistent upon continually running this line,which is a complete misrepresentation of the facts —the facts being that the federal government hasprovided funding from the commencement of the 2003financial year. That funding is to the extent of

$100 million, which is currently unmatched by anycontribution from the state of Victoria. Butnotwithstanding those facts, the honourable member forNarracan persists in misrepresenting that issue.

This is probably the most important issue for theGippsland region. It is the most important infrastructureproject for the Gippsland region because the solutionsto the increased difficulties of accessing, in both asocial and economic sense, the main transport corridorof the Princes Highway east and City Link are totallydependent upon an improvement of traffic flow throughPakenham, which is one of the most dangerous roadtraffic corridors in Australia, and that is the reason thatthe federal government has provided $100 million forthat project.

In conclusion, my biggest disappointment with thisbudget is the failure by the government of Victoria toprovide any funds for the Pakenham bypass.

Debate adjourned for Hon. M. T. LUCKINS (Waverley)on motion of Hon. Bill Forwood.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Adjournment


That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 4 June.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT



Road safety: car computers

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley) — Iwish to raise a serious road safety issue tonight for theMinister for Sport and Recreation to raise with theMinister for Transport in the other place.

A company in the electorate of Clayton has designed acomputer system that fits into a regular car. I have apicture of the two computer screens which you can seebehind the steering wheel. On this computer you canplay music files, watch movies, write assignments, playgames, use the touch screen to operate temperature

ADJOURNMENT


controls, open and close windows; and perhaps openthe doors at the touch of a button. It has a portable harddrive that can be hooked up to your home computer andyou can download any data whatsoever.

It seems to me that this raises some very serious roadsafety issues. I do not know how any person could bedriving a car and using this computer at the same time.

Hon. R. M. Hallam interjected.

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON — Or whetherindeed, as Mr Hallam interjects, you would want themto.

This computer is going to cost about $6000 so it isreally not in the realm of many people to use it, but Iwould like to ask the Minister for Transport toinvestigate the risk to drivers of this in-built computer,and I seek an assurance that appropriate regulations andmaybe even some legislative changes to the RoadSafety Act be instigated forthwith. We all know that theroad toll is far too high. We in the Parliament mustcontinue to be proactive in combating it.

Small business: Yellow Pages survey

Hon. W. I. SMITH (Silvan) — I wish to raise amatter for the Minister for Small Business in regard tothe dorothy dixer she asked herself on small businessconfidence in this state, and the Yellow Pages quarterlysurvey. She declared yesterday, and also put out a pressrelease, that Victorian small business confidence hassurged. But the minister obviously has not analysed thefigures as well as she could have or she has notunderstood the figures because, yes, indeed smallbusiness confidence has surged, but it has also surgedacross the whole of Australia. In fact, the figures forVictoria are exactly the same as those for other states.

The telling assessment in the Yellow Pages quarterlysurvey that the minister did not articulate yesterday wasthe assessment of the state government’s policies. Inregard to the Victorian state government’s policyattitudes, 18 per cent of small businesses in Victoria aresupportive of them. I repeat that: 18 per cent aresupportive of the Victorian government’s policies. Theindicator has gone backwards; it has gone back minus12 per cent.

If you look at the confidence rates by state, sector andsize, you will find that Tasmania and the AustralianCapital Territory are well ahead of Victoria inconfidence levels. In fact, if you look at the YellowPages business index you will find that for small andmedium business for Victoria the survey says:

Employment was flat.

Prices rose significantly.

Expectations for capital expenditure were flat.

Small and medium enterprises (SME) support for theVictorian government was lower than national trends.

The reality from the survey, instead of what theminister was putting to us, is that small businessattitudes towards the Bracks government’s policieshave again proven negative in the latest quarter. Morethan one quarter of small businesses in Victoriabelieved government policy was detrimental to theiroperation. Since the election of the Bracks government,small business sentiment towards Labor governmentpolicies has been negative in every quarter.

I ask the minister, when she is putting out her pressreleases and giving her dorothy dixers in Parliament, tobe a little bit more transparent and open and do a littlebit more assessment of the facts. She says that smalland medium businesses are feeling confident about thefuture. I suggest that since the index revealed smallbusiness sentiment about state government policy hasbeen negative in every quarter since the election of theBracks Labor government it clearly highlights thatsmall business is concerned about the policies. So whenthe minister does her review and looks at her figuresand puts out the next one she should make sure sheunderstands what the figures say.

Warrior Women exhibition

Hon. E. C. CARBINES (Geelong) — I wish toraise a matter with the Minister for Health in the otherplace. Last week I had the honour of launching inGeelong at the Gordon Institute of TAFE an exhibitionentitled Warrior Women. This exhibition is currentlytouring regional Victoria to raise the community’sawareness of breast cancer.

Warrior Women is a most confronting exhibition, as allthe pieces displayed have been created by women whohave been diagnosed with breast cancer. Each piecereflects the artist’s individual response to her diagnosisand its impact not only on her life but on those closestto her. The stories depicted are truly moving — storiesof endurance, survival and, most sadly, loss. WarriorWomen is an inspirational exhibition, and Icongratulate everyone involved for their courage andthank them for bringing it to Geelong.

Inescapably the message that Warrior Women brings isthe prevalence of breast cancer in our community.Health professionals at the launch spoke of breastcancer being the major killer of Victorian women, with

ADJOURNMENT


an estimated 1 in 10 women diagnosed at some time intheir life with this insidious disease. Accordingly, I askthe minister what steps the Bracks government hastaken to address the incidence of breast cancer amongVictorian woman.

Insurance: public liability

Hon. E. J. POWELL (North Eastern) — I wouldlike to raise an issue with the Premier in the other placeabout public liability insurance cover for pony clubs.Over the last year we have heard in this house manyinstances of organisations whose public liabilityinsurance premiums have escalated or, worse still,where they have not even been able to gain insurancecover at all. This is forcing some business organisationsto scale down or, even worse, to close down.

Yesterday in this house we debated and passed aLiberal Party motion which we hope will protectadventure tourism operators. This bill was supported bythe National Party but opposed by the Labor Party. Wehave been frustrated. The National Party has beentrying to get this government to act for the last12 months, and members have raised the issue manytimes in both houses of this Parliament.

The Leader of the National Party, Mr Peter Ryan, hassought leave in the other place to bring in a privatemembers bill to protect volunteers from civil liabilityfor damages. I will be attending a rally in Sheppartonwhich will coincide with the Melbourne rally onSaturday, 1 June, at 11.00 a.m. This rally has beenorganised by Maurice Brown, the chairman of NorthernZone Pony Clubs, in conjunction with Wendy Holland,the district commissioner of the Shepparton Pony Club.They were notified by the Pony Clubs Association ofVictoria that public liability insurance is now almostimpossible to obtain and that their cover will cease on30 June 2002, which means they will have to closedown because they cannot operate without cover. Therally is not just for pony clubs; any sporting group orany organisation that wants to voice concerns is invitedto attend.

I know that a meeting was held today to look at publicliability insurance across Australia, and I understandthat it was to finish at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, if anyresolutions arise out of this meeting I ask the Premier toact quickly and to give our volunteer organisations suchas these pony clubs protection against spiralling publicliability insurance costs which are crippling them andother industries right across country Victoria.

Angliss Hospital

Hon. G. B. ASHMAN (Koonung) — I direct amatter to the attention of the Minister for Health in theother place, and in doing so I acknowledge the fundingthe government has provided for the minor upgrades atthe Angliss Hospital in Ferntree Gully. I welcome thestage 1 works and hope that the stage 2 works are veryclose behind.

The issue I raise arises because of this minorredevelopment that is under way, because part of theredevelopment will impinge on the car parking facilitiesat the hospital, which are quite inadequate at themoment. Some on-street car parking is available inJohn Street, but I remind honourable members that thishospital is located in a residential area. On previousoccasions I have indicated to the house and to theminister that this site is landlocked and that it is almostimpossible to expand the footprint of the hospital. It isgoing to be somewhat difficult for the government toprovide on-the-ground additional car parking.

What is required as a matter of urgency on this site —although it has certainly not been funded and nofunding is flagged in any of the budget papers — is amultistorey car park of some size. The site is notparticularly well serviced by public transport. As I havesaid time and time before, the preferred option of thepeople in the outer east of Melbourne was to build theKnox public hospital, and that is still our preferredoption, but given that the government appears to becommitted to these minor upgrades of both the Anglissand the Maroondah hospitals it is imperative that theminister give urgent attention to the car parkingresources that will be available to the Angliss Hospital,otherwise we will end up with overcrowding in thesuburban streets surrounding that area.

Helmeted honeyeaters: recovery program

Hon. D. G. HADDEN (Ballarat) — I raise animportant matter for the attention of the Minister forEnvironment and Conservation in the other placeregarding Victoria’s state bird emblem Lichenostomusmelanops cassidix, or the helmeted honeyeater, whichis about 20 centimetres in total length and is found onlyin Victoria.

I became a member of the Friends of the HelmetedHoneyeater after listening to an honourable member’sparliamentary contribution early in 2000 on the neardemise of our state bird emblem. In 1989, when theFriends of the Helmeted Honeyeater was formed, therewere just 15 breeding pairs left and the birds’ habitathad been reduced to a small area at Yellingbo. Our state

ADJOURNMENT


bird emblem was threatened with extinction. Thefriends have continued to study the birds’ behaviour,conduct bird surveys and assist the recovery team andthe Healesville Sanctuary breeding program.

The successful 2001–02 breeding season recorded21 breeding pairs and 37 fledglings across 11 breedingterritories around Cockatoo Swamp and MacclesfieldCreek at Yellingbo, south-east of Lilydale. The survivalof captive-bred helmeted honeyeaters released into theBunyip State Park east of Gembrook will also bemonitored to ensure the successful habitat of a secondpopulation of the birds. This recovery program is agood example of a successful partnership betweendedicated volunteer community groups andprofessionals and the ongoing support of government.

The Bracks government recently guaranteed itsongoing funding of this vital recovery program forVictoria’s bird emblem of the equivalent of $180 000per annum as a condition of the Natural Heritage Trustfunding program. I therefore ask the minister if shewould could make urgent representation to her federalcounterpart to commit ongoing and recurrent fundingfor a full-time field ornithologist’s position for thehelmeted honeyeater recovery program.

Panel beaters: insurance system

Hon. B. W. BISHOP (North Western) — I directmy adjournment matter to the Minister for SmallBusiness through the Minister for Sport and Recreation.It is a pity the minister is not here tonight because Iknow she has received a number of requests in relationto this particular area of the vehicle repair industry.

I raise the issue of insurance companies reducinghourly rates for remove-and-replace and repair workwithout any reference to or negotiation with thebusinesses concerned. As an example, my constituentsRichard and Helen Munro, partners in United PanelWorks at Mildura, have provided me with excellentdocumentation outlining their problems with regard totheir insurers.

Three months ago the Munros found out that theirinsurers, CGU-VACC Insurance, had decided to reducethe hourly rate it would pay from $30 an hour to $23 anhour for remove-and-replace work and for repair jobs.The Munros wrote to their insurer on 7 January 2002pointing out that the rates have been unchanged foralmost 14 years but that the cost of providing their workhad increased dramatically during that time. They havewritten numerous letters since that date and havereceived no response at all.

The cost of just employing a tradesperson has beenconservatively calculated at $25.46 per hour, but thetotal cost of covering that tradesperson’s wage, plus thewages of non-productive quoting and office staff andthe overheads, comes to a whopping $59 per hour.

United Panel Works has approached a number of otherinsurance companies for competitive quotes but hasfound that almost all wanted to reduce their hourly rateto exactly the same figure, which suggests collusionbetween companies.

United Panel Works feels it is fully justified in askingfor an increase in the hourly rates that CGU-VACCInsurance pay for their claims and believes that $40 perhour for remove-and-replace work and repair work and$50 per hour for group 1 paint jobs are realistic figures.

Will the Minister for Small Business please contact theinsurance industry so a practical and swift resolution tothis important issue can be achieved?

Homelessness: park bench shelter

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — I refer theMinister for Housing in the other place to an article inthe opinion page of yesterday’s Age newspaper entitled‘Melbourne’s new affordable housing: park benches for$2700’. The article refers to a design by prize-winningarchitect Sean Godsell, who has developed a uniquepark bench shelter, and it states that in response to thegrowing problem of homelessness in Melbourne, thepark bench can be opened up at night to provide a littleroof under which homeless people can shelter.

The article by Chris Middendorp states:

But if we accept Godsell’s bandaid measure, we’re sayingthat we have finally given up. Turning our back on a traditionof care, homelessness will officially be dumped in thetoo-hard basket. Our people will be banished to the bench.

I tend to have some sympathy with his views, and I feelthat giving people this bandaid measure is not what thiscommunity is all about; in fact, I think it is an appallingsuggestion.

The budget contains an extra $2.2 million to supporthomeless people, but since we have 17 800 homelesspeople in this state that means each one of them willreceive only $123.60 and these benches cost $2700,which is almost a whole year’s accommodation for ahomeless person in an apartment. It is an appallingscenario.

The article goes on to say:

Can it be acceptable to spend squillions on wonderfulcommunity structures such as Federation Square and the new

ADJOURNMENT


museum and allow men, women and children to sleep roughon a park bench next door to them?

Yet there are real solutions to homelessness. More publichousing flexible enough to respond to the aspirations of thehomeless. Increased crisis accommodation. Employment …

My questions is: with the Bracks government’s2002–03 budget showing a cut of $12.2 million overallfor homelessness assistance programs, does thegovernment support the park bench proposal?

Live music: promotion

Hon. P. A. KATSAMBANIS (Monash) — I raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for the Arts inthe other place relating to the continuing decline in theavailability of live music venues in Victoria.Honourable members in this place would know of mylong-term commitment to the live music industry inVictoria and would recall that around this time last yearI mentioned the continuing decline in live musicvenues. I notice that last week the Minister for the Artsput out a press release entitled ‘Play it loud — Bracksgovernment gets behind live music in Victoria’. In thatrelease the minister was talking about some initiativesthat assisted local artists to play live music.

Unfortunately since May last year when I raised theissue of live music venues in this place the minister hasdone absolutely nothing to ensure that live musicvenues continue to be available to musicians here inMelbourne and Victoria generally. You can have asmany musicians as you like, you can resource them asmuch as you like, but if there is nowhere for them toplay and they are still stuck in their garages playingaway in their neighbourhood they will never get thechance to be discovered or signed up. They will neverget the chance to realise their dreams and achieve thereal gains for our community that we know gettingsigned can achieve for a band and for Victoria.

The minister’s letter replied to my concern back thenwith some mealy-mouthed platitudes but really offerednothing, and in the 12 months since the minister hascontinued to offer nothing. I put it to the minister thatapart from issuing these press releases and makingsome statements like the one she made last week shehas yet to demonstrate any real commitment to makingsure that live venues become available aroundMelbourne.

Last year I highlighted the closure of the Continental inPrahran and since then many other venues have closeddown, the most well-known being the Punter’s ClubHotel in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, which wasdisappointing for all the bands and fans who went there.I now seek from the minister some commitment in

practical terms as to what she is doing to ensure thatlive music venues do not continue to close and that theywill be available for Melbourne’s very good livemusicians to continue to play and be discovered inthese venues.

Motorcycles: safety

Hon. G. R. CRAIGE (Central Highlands) — I raisea matter with the Minister for Sport and Recreation onthe basis that a document I have has the web siteaddress www.vic.alp.org.au/policy/sport, so I presumeit comes under his jurisdiction. It is headed ‘A newpartnership with motorcycle riders’ and ‘Labor’scommitment to the Victorian community’. I will raisesome matters on behalf of the Alexandra and DistrictMotorcycle Club and Victorian motorcyclists. Thisdocument states:

We are committed to working with motorcycle riders andtheir organisations to improve rider safety and increase theopportunities for recreational riding.

It goes on to state that:

Labor will ensure that the motorcycle community gets a sayon road safety and traffic management …

What about the $50 tax on motorcyclists that thegovernment is to take? I have looked at the documenton 31 August 1999 and it is all there. I have looked atanother document on 11 January 2000 and I lookedagain today and that policy and this document are stilllisted as the ALP’s relationship with motorcycle riders.

I will comment on two areas of the ALP’s commitmentto partnership — education and safety and off-roadfacilities. The Labor Party, in this document, promisednot to put any more wire-rope barriers up. I do notknow what they have put on the Eastern Freeway butthey look like wire-rope barriers to me. This documentmentions commitments to funding for rider educationand safety awareness programs, but none of that moneyhas been allocated at all to any group. In 1999–2000,$15 000 was promised, with $30 000 a year in2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03, yet no money hasbeen allocated to any organisation.

I read on further in relation to my issue in Alexandraand in particular off-road facilities. The motorcycleclub has a very good off-road facility at Alexandra thatfills all the requirements. The club has placed itself inthe right position and inquired about funding, but nomoney has been allocated. Yet the document promisesfunds for the development of off-road facilities —$30 000 in 1999–2000, then $60 000 a year in2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03. Our bike riders withinternational recognition have got their expertise on dirt

ADJOURNMENT


bikes, whether it is Wayne Gardner, Mick Doohan,Troy Bayliss or Kevin Magee. They have all gainedtheir experience on dirt.

The minister made a commitment that he woulddevelop facilities off road. It is in this document but hehas not allocated 1 cent of that available money toanywhere in this state. On behalf of motorcyclists andtheir safety, and the Alexandra and District MotorcycleClub, I ask the minister to immediately address thisissue and be fair dinkum about the commitment he gavethem.

Government: investment assistance

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —I raise a matter for the Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment in the other place. Earlier this day theAuditor-General’s performance report into investmentattraction and facilitation in Victoria was tabled in thisParliament and chapter 4 of that report relates to theextent of and criteria for government investmentassistance in Victoria. The report contains a number ofinteresting statistics covering a six-year period, fiveunder the previous government and one full year underthe current government.

The report by the Auditor-General indicates that in thelast full year of the previous government some5775 jobs were attracted through investment facilitationand the cost of direct financial assistance in that yearwas $20 million. If you compare that with the first fullyear of the current administration in 2000–01, some5456 jobs were facilitated — that is 300 less than underthe previous administration at a cost of $107 million indirect investment — an extra $87 million spent toproduce 300 fewer jobs.

To compare the full period quoted in the report, underthe previous minister, the Honourable Mark Birrell, theaverage cost of a facilitated job with direct financialassistance was $3500 but under the current minister thecost of each job facilitated is now $19 700 — adramatic increase. In terms of direct investment, underthe previous minister for every dollar spent in directinvestment assistance a return of $88 was achieved ininvestment facilitated. Under the current minister thereturn for every dollar spent in financial assistance isonly $15.

I seek from the Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment an explanation of what projects havebeen assisted with the $107 million provided in the2000–01 year, what were the employment andinvestment targets for each of the projects and what wasthe level of assistance provided. I also ask for an outline

of the government’s policy with respect to providingdirect financial assistance.

Southern Family Life

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) — The issue Iraise tonight is for the Minister for CommunityServices and refers to the Southern Family Lifeorganisation based in Sandringham in my electorate. Ithas been providing help and support for families incrisis in the Higinbotham area for over 30 years. Itprovides an outstanding service as the first point of helpfor family problems, child protection, family violenceand other such problems. It tries and in many cases isable to provide help, support and solutions to families,so keeping them out of the formal social welfaresystem, thus helping families and in most cases savingthe social welfare system budget.

For some years Southern Family Life has received agrant from the government for these services — not forall its services because it is self-funding in many of itsprograms — that are the government’s responsibility.The Department of Human Services funding for theseprograms has been barely adequate for many years butthis year a so-called productivity dividend has beenapplied to further reduce the amount received. This is inthe face of direct cost increases of between 4 per centand 5 per cent. This will be impossible for theorganisation to bear so its services will be cut. That willnot only be bad for local families in crisis but will alsobe an extra load on the social welfare system.

I request that the minister review the so-calledproductivity dividend for Southern Family Life and forall Child Welfare Association of Victoria membersacross the state.

Taxis: multipurpose

Hon. N. B. LUCAS (Eumemmerring) — I raise amatter for the attention of the Minister for Transport inthe other place. A constituent in Pakenham has raisedwith me an issue concerning users of the multipurposetaxi program, the M40, and what appears to be thegrowing financial disadvantage they are experiencing.

In 1984 Victorians with disabilities were able to obtainsubsidised taxi travel at a rate of 50 per cent up to alimit of $25. Unfortunately, over the years the value ofthat subsidy has reduced dramatically. From 1986 to2000, as an example, taxi fares have increased by124 per cent. Although I am not quoting the sameperiod, I note that between 1989 and 1999, a 10-yearperiod, the increase in the basic pension rate was 29 per

ADJOURNMENT


cent. It has been raised with me whether it is a fair levelof subsidisation and whether it can be looked at.

I am aware that Blind Citizens Australia raised thismatter with the government last year. It received aresponse from the parliamentary secretary, whoindicated:

… there is no additional funding available to increase thelevel of subsidy within the 2001–02 financial year.

I have not heard any announcements this year of anyincrease in this level of subsidisation for the 2002–03budget, which means there will not have been anyincrease for a number of years. On behalf of myconstituent in Pakenham and the members of BlindCitizens Australia, who use this form of travel regularlyto get where they want to go at a reasonable fare, whichis becoming harder and harder, will the Minister forTransport provide his views to me and any otherrelevant information relating to a possible increase inthe support for disabled people using taxis under theM40 multipurpose taxi program?

Banks: community

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I raise for theattention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs in theother place a matter relating to community banking. Ifirst comment on the Kew East community bank in myand the Honourable Mark Birrell’s electorate. Kew Eastis the first community bank to begin operating in theCity of Boroondara and recently surpassed the$10 million mark in banking business, which is asuccessful and rapid achievement of that goal. It is the29th community bank in Victoria and the 59th openednationally and operated as a franchise in conjunctionwith the Bendigo Bank. I congratulate Chris Bovill andthe board of management on their achievement. Iunderstand they will also achieve their 1000th customerin the next few weeks.

The bank has made a grant to the Fourth Kew ScoutGroup of $1000 for maintenance works on its hall inGlass Street, East Kew. The work of the communitybank — I was fortunate to be present at the launch ofthe bank in December last year — has been verysuccessful and swift. It is a model for the integration ofthat banking service into the community, both seeingthe community do the work to support theestablishment of the bank with both financial andin-kind contributions and eventually the bank beingsuccessfully able to return a small share of those profitsto the community, in this case in Kew and around theEast Kew shopping centre.

The nature of my question relates to communitybanking generally. I note three other community banksare trying to establish in my province — one inCanterbury, another in Surrey Hills — those two arecooperating very closely — and the Ashwood group,which is working very hard to find a partner in theneighbouring area to establish a successful communitybank. The precise nature of my question is to establishwhat the new minister’s attitude is to communitybanking. We know that the Honourable MarshaThomson, as Minister for Consumer Affairs, was notsupportive of community banking and failed tointervene when major banks closed their bankingoperations in both country Victoria and metropolitanMelbourne.

Hon. M. A. Birrell — Shame!

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — As Mr Birrell says, it is ashame, and it was disgraceful. We witnessed the failureof the minister to stand up for small businesses andolder Victorians in this place when she refused toanswer questions about community banking. We have anew minister, and I am very interested to establish herattitude to the closure of banks. Labor’s policy at thelast election was that without government action thedevastating consequences of bank closures wouldcontinue. I want to establish whether she will take thatpromised government action and support communitybanking.

Making the Most of Life

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) — I addressmy question to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Iam sure he would like to join me in wishing FelicityMurphy in the papers office a happy birthday foryesterday. I can see that the minister wants to burst intosong, but I ask him to hold himself back.

On 20 March during the adjournment debate I raisedwith the minister matters about an organisation calledMaking the Most of Life. It is an organisation to whichthe minister made a presentation of a prestigious awardin 2000 but shut down the next year by taking away allits funding.

I asked the minister at the time if he would looktowards giving the organisation a $20 000 grant so thatit could promote healthy lifestyles for older Victorians.The minister said:

… I am willing to seek clarification on the status of that issuewith my department and shall provide the honourablemember with the information.

ADJOURNMENT


Each day the mail comes in and I eagerly expect a letterfrom the minister but he has not had the commondecency or courtesy to give me a reply. The ministerhas had more than enough time to make up his mindwhether he will support this group of elderlyAustralians, and I ask him to give me a responsetonight.

Responses

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport andRecreation) — In relation to the question by theHonourable Andrew Brideson regarding computersystems for cars and the associated risks, I am happy torefer that matter to the Minister for Transport in theother place.

In relation to the question asked by the HonourableWendy Smith regarding small business and the YellowPages business survey, I will refer this to the Ministerfor Small Business.

In relation to the issue raised by the Honourable ElaineCarbines regarding the Warrior Women exhibition andissues associated with breast cancer, I will refer this tothe Minister for Health in the other place.

In relation to the question asked by the HonourableJeanette Powell regarding public liability issues,particularly in pony clubs, I will refer this to thePremier in the other place.

In relation to the issue raised by the Honourable GeraldAshman about the Angliss Hospital upgrade undertakenby the Bracks Labor government and issues associatedwith car parking in the area, I will refer this to theMinister for Health in the other place.

In relation to the Honourable Dianne Hadden’s issueregarding the state bird emblem and the Friends of theHelmeted Honeyeater, I will refer this to the Ministerfor Environment and Conservation in the other place.

In relation to the matter raised by the Honourable BarryBishop about the hourly insurance rate relating to aparticular constituent, I will refer this to the Minister forSmall Business.

In relation to the matter raised by the HonourableAndrea Coote regarding homelessness issues and thelatest design by a particular architect of a park benchand associated matters, I will highlight those to theMinister for Housing in the other place.

In relation to the issue raised by the Honourable PeterKatsambanis relating to the decline in live music

venues, I will refer this to the Minister for the Arts inthe other place.

The Honourable Geoffrey Ronald Craige raised thematter of motorcycle riders and associated policyissues, and a number of those issues cross portfolios. Iam happy to seek clarification across the portfolioswhich the issues relate to and will seek to have theinformation provided to the relevant member.

The Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips raised a matterregarding government investment assistance. I willrefer this to the Minister for State and RegionalDevelopment in the other place.

The Honourable Chris Strong raised a matter regardingthe Southern Family Life organisation, and I will referthis to the Minister for Community Services in the otherplace.

In relation to the issue raised by the Honourable NeilBedford Lucas regarding taxi fare subsidies for BlindCitizens Australia and other associated groups, I willrefer this to the Minister for Transport in the otherplace.

In relation to the Honourable David Davis and theissues he raised regarding the Kew East communitybank and associated community banking matters, I willraise this with the Minister for Consumer Affairs in theother place.

In relation to the Honourable Kenneth Smith’s issueregarding the Making the Most of Life program, I havesought the information. I understand that it wasdetermined that the model in which the Making theMost of Life program set up an exhibition was notdeemed as the most appropriate way of using the funds.It was believed that getting people physically activerather than just putting up a display is better, andbecause of that, I understand, a different model hasbeen formulated and funded through the relevantorganisations from Sport and Recreation Victoria. If thehonourable member requires further details, I am happyto provide them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 6.25 p.m. until Tuesday, 4 June.

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 Council.

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, 28 May 2002

Transport: Scoresby freeway

2409. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What are the impediments (if any) to the immediate commencementof construction of the Scoresby freeway.

ANSWER:

The construction of the Scoresby Freeway is possible because the Bracks Government has committed to fundingthe project, and has obtained a commitment from the Commonwealth Government for it to fund 50% of theproject’s costs. A decision to proceed with the Freeway could not have been made sooner, because the KennettGovernment failed to commit any funds to the project, or obtain any Commonwealth funding.

Before construction of the Scoresby Freeway can be commenced, the following activities must be undertaken:

– Preparation of a business case under the Partnerships Victoria policy to determine the scope and potential forprivate sector involvement in delivery of the project. The business case will be considered by Government inmid 2002.

– Once a decision is made, processes will be commenced for the identification of suitable contractors andsubsequent tendering processes.

– In the meantime, work is proceeding on land acquisition, contract document preparation, environmentalclearances (including EPBC Act Referrals) and other pre-construction activities.

State and regional development: industrial liaison officer

2467. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for State and Regional Development): In relation to the Industrial Liaison Officerwithin the Department of State and Regional Development:

(a) What is the salary range of this officer.

(b) Is this a full-time position.

(c) What is the job description for an Industrial Liaison Officer.

ANSWER:

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on the Department’s Industrial Liaison Officer provided toan Opposition member by the Department of State and Regional Development on 2 November 2000 under FOI.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Premier: industrial liaison officer

2468. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Premier): In relation to the Industrial Liaison Officer within the Department of Premier andCabinet:




ANSWER:

I am informed that:

This information has already been provided and I direct the Honourable Member to previous information onIndustrial Liaison Officers provided to an Opposition MP by the Department of Premier and Cabinet on5 December 2000 under Freedom of Information.

Health: Human Services — industrial liaison officer

2469. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Health): In relation to the Industrial Liaison Officer within the Department ofHuman Services:




ANSWER:

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Industrial Liaison Officers provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Human Services on 8 December 2000 under Freedom of Information.

Treasurer: Treasury and Finance — industrial liaison officer

2470. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Treasurer): In relation to the Industrial Liaison Officer within the Department of Treasuryand Finance:




ANSWER:

I am informed that:

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Industrial Liaison Officers provided to an OppositionMP by the Department of Treasury and Finance on 9 November 2000 under FOI.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Education and training: Employment, Education and Training — industrial liaison officer

2471. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Education): In relation to the Industrial Liaison Officer within the Departmentof Employment, Education and Training:




ANSWER:

I am informed as follows: The Department of Education and Training (DE&T) employs two officers who performroles as Industrial Liaison Officers (ILOs). Both of these positions are classified at the VPS 5 level($62,220–$87,108). The ILO role (industrial) is undertaken as part of the duties of the Manager, IndustrialRelations, within the Human Resources Division of DE&T. The ILO (Building Services) role is a specific rolewithin the Facilities Branch of DE&T. Both positions are full time.

The job description for the ILO (industrial) position is encompassed in that applying to the Manager, IndustrialRelations, and includes the provision of strategic employee relations/industrial relations advice to seniormanagement and dispute resolution.

The ILO (Building Services) position is a specific position with responsibilities that include providing strategicadvice to senior management in relation to the implementation of the Department’s capital works program.

Industrial relations: State and Regional Development — annual report

2483. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations: In relationto page 27 of the Department of State and Regional Development 2000–2001 Annual Report:

(a) Who were the representatives that attended the inaugural industrial relations round table and when was itheld.

(b) Is another round table planned for 2001–2002.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The inaugural Industrial Relations Roundtable for the automotive components industry was held on 27 June2001. It was attended by representatives of fourteen automotive component companies, five unions, AustralianIndustry Group, and the Victorian Government.

(b) Yes.

Transport: Scoresby freeway

2502. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): How will the Government fund the $550 million share of Scoresbyconstruction costs.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

Under this Government’s Partnership’s Victoria initiative a comprehensive review of options for private or publicfunding is required to be carried out for major projects such as the Scoresby Freeway and this is currently underway. The exact method for funding the freeway will be decided by Government later this year.

Transport: train signalling

2512. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport):

(a) What money has been spent on train signalling in the metropolitan area for each year since 1995 for —(i) signalling maintenance; (ii) new signalling infrastructure; and (iii) total signalling spending.

(b) What money has been spent on train signalling in the rural area for each year since 1995 for —(i) signalling maintenance; (ii) new signalling infrastructure; and (iii) total signalling spending.

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

Notes:

1. Pre-privatisation data (ie before 29 August 1999) not available within DOI. The data is being sought from otherparties 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

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Notes:

1. Pre-privatisation data (ie before 1 July 2000) not available within DOI. The data is being sought from otherparties 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 isbeing 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 otherparties 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 partiesbut may not be available to the breakdown required.

Manufacturing industry: manufacturing industry consultative committee

2624. THE HON. P. A. KATSAMBANIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (forthe Honourable the Minister for Manufacturing Industry):

(a) On what dates has the Manufacturing Industry Consultative Committee met since 1 July 2001.

(b) Which members attended each meeting.

(c) Did any Ministers or Ministerial advisers or staff attend each meeting; if so, who and on what dates.

(d) What topics did the Committee discuss at each meeting.

(e) Has the Committee discussed the Feltex dispute.

(f) What effect, if any, does the Committee believe that this dispute will have on investor confidence inVictoria.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) Since 1 July 2001, the Manufacturing Industry Consultative Committee has sat on the following dates:

– 8 August 2001– 26 September 2001– 25 October 2001– 13 November 2001

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(b) The following members attended the meetings:

8 August 2001:Ms Stella Axarlis – BilconMs Helen Cusack – UnileverMs Christianne Davies – BoschMr Paul Fennelly – AIGMr Leigh Hubbard – Victorian Trades Hall CouncilMr Craig Johnston – AMWUMr Peter McDougall – VECCIMr Cesar Melhem – AWUMr David Stobart – Austrim NylexMr Peter Thomas (Chairman)

26 September 2001:Ms Christianne Davies – BoschMr Peter Phillips – VECCI representative for Peter McDougallMr Paul Fennelly – AIGMr Craig Johnston – AMWUMr Cesar Melhem – AWUMr David Stobart – Austrim Nylex (Acting Chairman)

25 October 2001:Mr Peter Black – TenixMs Christianne Davies – BoschMr Paul Fennelly – AIGMr Leigh Hubbard – Victorian Trades Hall CouncilMr Craig Johnston – AMWUMr Peter McDougall – VECCIMr David Cragg – AWU representative for Cesar MelhemMr David Stobart – Austrim NylexMr Peter Thomas (Chairman)

13 November 2001:Ms Helen Cusack – UnileverMs Christianne Davies – BoschMr Peter Black – TenixMr Leigh Hubbard – Victorian Trades Hall CouncilMr Peter McDougall – VECCIMr Cesar Melhem – AWUMr David Stobart – Austrim NylexMr Peter Thomas (Chairman)

(c) My adviser on Manufacturing, Mr Tony White, was in attendance at the meetings on the following dates in anobserver capacity:

– 8 August 2001– 13 November 2001

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(d) The Committee discussed the following topics at each meeting:

8 August 2001:– The New Agenda for Manufacturing– Ballarat Manufacturing Week– Wodonga Manufacturing Week

26 September 2001:– Progress on MICC Reports on The New Agenda for Manufacturing, these included:

– Economic Scenarios– Value of Manufacturing– Advocacy– Skills & Education– High Performance Workplaces– Building Better Businesses– Delivery Mechanism– Building the Case / Drafting Process

25 October 2001:– MICC Reports on The New Agenda for Manufacturing

13 November 2001:– MICC Reports on The New Agenda for Manufacturing– Round 2 STI Applications– ISO Report

(e) The Committee has not discussed the Feltex dispute.

(f) The matter was not discussed.

Transport: East Burwood–Knox City tram line extension


(a) What is the status of the proposed East Burwood to Knox City tram line extension.

(b) How much has been allocated to this project and when will construction commence.

(c) What arrangements have been put in place to facilitate adequate public transport integration withsurrounding areas.

ANSWER:

(a) A comprehensive feasibility study is under way to investigate a range of options being developed inconjunction with local government and public transport operators. These options include improvements toexisting bus services, as well as various tram scenarios and will be costed and assessed in both financial andeconomic 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 seven metropolitan public transport projects, of which theextension of the tram to Knox City is one.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


A decision on construction timing will be made after scope and funding issues are finalised.

(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.

Premier: Constitution Commission of Victoria

2719. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Education Services (for theHonourable the Premier):

(a) What was the total cost of the Constitution Commission Victoria Seminars held throughout Victoriabetween 16 August and 28 November 2001 (including, but not exclusively, Commissioners’ fees, travel,room hire etc).

(b) What was the total cost of advertising for the promotion of the Constitution Commission VictoriaSeminars held between 16 August and 28 November 2001 and in what publications were theadvertisements featured.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The answer is $195,992.07. This figure includes the Commissioners salaries over the consultation phase of theCommission’s work from August 2001 until November 2001. Some portion of the salaries may not haverelated to either the seminars or the public consultations. The figure also excludes the salaries of the threeCommission staff.

(b) The answer is $199,856.42. This figure includes $40,297.22 for Multicultural Advertising. In relation to whichpublications were the advertisements featured, there was a mixture of television, radio and newspaperadvertisements. Advertisements were arranged with:The Age The Wimmera Mail TimesThe Australian Country Press Co-operativeHerald & Weekly Times Rural Press Agricultural PublishingThe Law Institute Warrnambool StandardEast Gippsland Newspapers Sunraysia DailyGeelong Independent Win TVGeelong Advertiser Bay FMFairfax Newspaper The RiverLeader community newspaper 3WM Weekly AdvertiserBendigo Advertiser DMG Regional RadioBallarat Courier 3SR FM – Sun FMNorth East Newspapers 3YB radio3TR radio 3WM radioDMG Regional Radio


2720. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Education Services (for theHonourable the Premier): In relation to the Constitution Commission Victoria (CCV):

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) How many days have each of the Commission members worked for CCV from its inception until 28February 2002.

(b) How many days have each of the Commission members been paid for from the inception of CCV until28 February 2002.

(c) What is the total amount that has been paid to each of the Commission members for services to CCVbetween its inception and 28 February 2002.

(d) What is the total amount that has been paid to each of the Commission members for expenses incurredbetween its inception and 28 February 2002.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) Commissioner Hampel worked 43 days. Commissioner Macphee worked 32 days. Commissioner Huntworked 74 days

(b) See part (a) above.

(c) Paid to Commissioner Hampel – $86,666. Paid to Commissioner Macphee – $45,360. Paid to CommissionerHunt – $90,909.50.

(d) Paid to Commissioner Hampel – $1134. Paid to Commissioner Macphee – $1989.06. Paid to CommissionerHunt – $617.15.



(a) What are the names of all organisations and individuals who have received contracts from theConstitution Commission Victoria between 16 August 2001 and 19 March 2002, respectively.

(b) What is the purpose and value of each contract.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) None.

(b) Not applicable.



(a) What consultancies have been undertaken by Constitution Commission Victoria from its inception until19 March 2002.

(b) What is the name of each of the consultants.

(c) What was the purpose and value of each consultancy.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) Survey analysis.

(b) and (c) Mr T. O’Farrell for survey analysis – $950



(a) What are the terms and conditions of Mr Richard Wright’s employment as Director – Research andCommunications at the Constitution Commission Victoria.

(b) What is the specific salary and gratuity paid to him.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) and (b) Mr Richard Wright is a VPS 5, employed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the VictorianPublic Service. It is not appropriate to identify the specific salary of Mr Wright.



(a) What are the terms and conditions of Shannon Dellamarta’s employment as Communications andResearch Adviser at the Constitution Commission Victoria.

(b) What is the specific salary and gratuity paid to Shannon Dellamarta.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) and (b) Ms Shannon Dellamarta is a VPS 4, employed in accordance with the terms and conditions of theVictorian Public Service. It is not appropriate to identify the specific salary of Ms Dellamarta.

Industrial relations: ACTU call centre code of conduct

2734. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Industrial Relations): Has the Government signed the ACTU’s call centre codeof conduct; if so, on what date was it signed.

ANSWER:

I am informed as follows:

The Government has not signed the ACTU Code of Minimum Standards for the Call Centre industry, nor has itsigned the ACTU Charter of Practice for the call centre industry.

There is no document entitled ‘Call Centre Code of Conduct’ produced by, or promoted by, the ACTU.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Health: needle and syringe exchange program

2756. THE HON. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Health): In relation to the Needle and Syringe Exchange Program(NSEP) operated by Southern Health in the Dandenong Springvale area:

(a) How many syringes were distributed in the 12 months to June 2001.

(b) How many syringes were returned to the exchange by syringe users or members of the public in the 12months to June 2001.

(c) How many syringes were retrieved by Southern Health staff or their agents in the 12 months to June2001.

ANSWER:

In relation to the Needle Syringe Program (NSP) operated by Southern Health in the Dandenong Springvale area:

(a) There were 734,814 needles and syringes distributed by Southern Health in the 12 months to June 2001.

(b) There were 461,166 needles and syringes returned to Southern Health by service users in the 12 months to June2001.

(c) There were 72,274 needles and syringes retrieved by Southern Health staff or their agents in the 12 months toJune 2001.

Treasurer: Kingston — land tax

2768. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Treasurer): What is the annual land tax collected in the City of Kingston since 1996 for —(i) residential property; (ii) commercial property; and (iii) industrial property.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Land tax is calculated on the aggregated value of an owners total non-exempt land holdings. Whether the land isused for residential, commercial or industrial purposes does not affect the calculation of land tax. Consequently theSRO does not record land use data and it is therefore not able to provide a breakdown of the proportion of the landtax attributable to residential, commercial and industrial property.

Transport: public transport — drunkenness and vandalism

2771. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): In relation to public transport in each year since 1985:

(a) How many incidents have been reported to police regarding drunken behaviour.

(b) How many reported incidents of drunken behaviour have resulted in fines or other penalties.

(c) How many incidents have been reported to police regarding vandalism.

(d) How many of the reported incidents of vandalism have resulted in fines or other penalties.

(e) How many people have been arrested and charged for vandalism.

(f) What is the total financial penalty enforced for vandalism offences.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(g) What is the total court ordered jail terms for vandalism offences.

(h) What has been the financial cost of rectifying vandalism offences.

(i) What other non-financial penalties have been issued for vandalism offences.

(j) What are the annual patronage figures for the public transport system under its various guises.

ANSWER:

Parts (a) to (i)

The Honourable Member has placed a large number of questions on notice that relate to public transport and trafficoffences. Most of the questions are unclear as to the specific information he is requesting and all requirereconciliation of data held by separate agencies to prepare a reply. To answer the questions would represent anunreasonable diversion of time and resources.

If the Honourable Member focuses his question more closely I would be happy to reconsider it.

Part (j)

The annual patronage of the public transport system under its various guises from 1985 to 2001 is available fromthe following annual reports:

– Metropolitan Transit Authority Annual Reports 1984/85 to 1987/88– The Met Annual Report 1988/89– State Transport Authority Annual Reports 1984/85 to 1988/89– Public Transport Corporation Annual Reports 1989/90 to 1997/98– Department of Transport Annual Reports 1993/94 to 1994/95– Department of Infrastructure Annual Reports 1995/96 to 2000/01– V/Line Corporation Annual report 1999– Bayside Trains Annual Report 1999– Hillside Trains Annual Report 1999– Swanston Trams Annual Report 1999– Yarra Trams Annual Report 1999

Transport: rail projects group


(a) How many staff in the Rail Projects Group are former KPMG staff since the appointment of the BracksGovernment.

(b) What percentage do these staff make up of the Rail Projects Group.

ANSWER:

(a) There are three former KPMG staff currently working in the Rail Projects Group on contract.

(b) These three contractors constitute 7.5 per cent of the Rail Projects Group.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Nightrider bus — daily validation figures

2797. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What is the average daily patronage figure for each of the followingNightrider bus services annually since 1996 — (i) Melton; (ii) Werribee; (iii) St Albans; (iv) Sunbury;(v) Craigieburn; (vi) Epping; (vii) Eltham; (viii) Lilydale; (ix) Croydon; (x) Bayswater; (xi) Belgrave;(xii) Dandenong; and (xiii) Frankston.

ANSWER:

The Nightrider network of bus services comprises 9 bus routes which operate to Bayswater, Croydon, Craigieburn,Dandenong, Eltham, Epping, Frankston, St Albans and Werribee. Various extensions have been added to some ofthese routes since 1993 when Nightrider commenced, services to Belgrave and Rowville on the Bayswater route, aservice to Lilydale on the Croydon route, a service to Mornington on the Frankston route and services to Meltonand Sunbury on the St Albans route.

Patronage is only reported on a regular basis against the main route. Total patronage by route between 1996 and2001 is provided in the attachment.

NIGHTRIDER PATRONAGE BY ROUTE 1996 – 2001

Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Bayswater 8704 8384 8532 8596 10739 10676Craigieburn 4116 3905 4163 3676 4258 3417Croydon 10613 10065 10229 9456 11153 12619Dandenong 13557 11775 12413 10978 12446 14284Eltham 6694 7245 6643 6660 7660 7284Epping 4016 4482 4809 5476 6048 5557Frankston 12438 12184 12697 11615 13059 12453St Albans 8969 9082 9405 7215 7450 5971Werribee 7458 6970 7265 5324 4896 3962Total Patronage 76565 74092 76156 68996 77709 76223

Transport: Nightrider bus — average daily revenue

2798. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What is the average daily revenue collected on the followingNightrider bus services annually since 1996 — (i) Frankston; (ii) Dandenong; (iii) Belgrave; (iv) Bayswater;(v) Croydon; (vi) Lilydale; (vii) Eltham; (viii) Epping; (ix) Craigieburn; (x) Sunbury; (xi) St Albans;(xii) Melton; (xiii) Werribee; (xiv) Frankston; (xv) Dandenong; and (xvi) Belgrave.

ANSWER:

The information requested is confidential to the individual contract arrangements between the Nightrider busoperators and the Department of Infrastructure and therefore cannot be provided in this instance.

Transport: motor registrations since 1985

2804. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): How many car registrations have been made since 1985.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

Data from the financial year 1985/86 through to 2000/01 is presented in the table below. Please note that as feesrelating to vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme are collected on behalf of theCommonwealth Government, information relating to those vehicles participating in the scheme has not beenincluded.

FINANCIAL YEAR REGISTRATION VOLUMESMotor vehicles, cycles and trailers

85/86 2,899,40986/87 2,997,50187/88 3,053,573*88/89 3,190,066*89/90 3,198,01790/91 3,237,39291/92 3,272,68492/93 3,308,91493/94 3,376,56494/95 3,433,08195/96 3,481,72296/97 3,533,71497/98 3,696,37998/99 3,815,44999/00 3,877,09800/01 3,957,234

* Denotes trailers excludedSources: 85/86 to 88/89 RTA/VicRoads Annual Reports

89/90 to 00/01 VicRoads’ Central Payment Management Database

Transport: motor registrations — revenue

2805. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): How much money has been raised from car registrations in eachyear since 1985.

ANSWER:

Data from the financial year 1985/86 through to 2000/01 is presented in the table below. Please note that as feesrelating to vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme are collected on behalf of theCommonwealth Government, information relating to those vehicles participating in the scheme has not beenincluded.

FINANCIAL YEAR GROSS REGISTRATION REVENUEMotor vehicles cycles and trailers

(Exclusive of refunds)85/86 $190,545,00086/87 $202,582,00087/88 $194,429,00088/89 $142,115,00089/90 $103,480,849

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


FINANCIAL YEAR GROSS REGISTRATION REVENUEMotor vehicles cycles and trailers

(Exclusive of refunds)90/91 $105,482,03591/92 $213,991,68792/93 $293,596,85293/94 $358,201,80794/95 $372,414,55795/96 $376,166,62196/97 $388,552,43497/98 $410,236,38798/99 $425,267,67999/00 $437,104,55100/01 $453,758,304

Sources: 85/86 to 88/89 RTA/VicRoads Annual Reports89/90 to 00/01 VicRoads’ Central Payment Management Database

Ports: port of Melbourne — final land use plan

2827. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: What are therecommendations of the final Land Use Plan at the Port of Melbourne.

ANSWER:

I am advised that a draft Land Use Plan, developed by the Melbourne Port Corporation (MPC), was put to publicexhibition and consultation in the second half of 2001. The MPC has received 19 submissions and is workingtowards finalising that report with the Webb Dock Implementation Group, an interagency forum convened todeliver the requirements of the Webb Dock EES.

The Draft document does not contain recommendations, but outlines a land use strategy and planning objectives forland and infrastructure in the Port of Melbourne over the next 20 years.


2828. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: What importanteconomic benefits will the Land Use Plan at the Port of Melbourne bring to the local community.

ANSWER:

The Port is one of Victoria’s major assets and it is a key economic generator for the State. I understand that one ofthe key purposes of the Land Use Plan is to articulate the Melbourne Port Corporation’s vision and direction forland use planning and development of the Port over the next 20 years aimed at achieving economic prosperity forthe State of Victoria.

In terms of economic contribution, based on the 1998/99 trading year, the Port:

– Employs a total of 18,181 people directly and indirectly; (NIEIR* 1999)– Supports annual wages/salaries of $1.008 billion; (NIEIR 1999)– Contributes $5.8 billion to the Victorian economy; (NIEIR 1999)– Handles $60 billion worth of trade annually;

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Imports and exports through the Port also play an important role in the economies of the adjoining localgovernment areas. For example, for 1998/99, it has been estimated that the Port contributed:

– $418 million to the City of Melbourne’s gross regional product (1.7%);– $125 million to the City of Port Phillip’s gross regional product (2.7%);– $49 million to the City of Hobsons Bay’s gross regional product (1.8%); and– $46 million to the City of Maribyrnong’s gross regional product (2.0%).

* NIEIR – National Institute of Economic and Industry Research


2829. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: What importantenvironmental benefits will the Land Use Plan at the Port of Melbourne bring to the local community.

ANSWER:

I am advised that the Port of Melbourne Draft Land Use Plan references significant work undertaken by theMelbourne Port Corporation (MPC) in developing a Whole of Port Environmental Management Plan (EMP). TheMPC has already committed funds towards implementing this environmental improvement plan, with landscapingworks at port interfaces and a waste management plan. Tenants have also responded with the development of sitespecific EMP’s.

The ongoing implementation of the Whole of Port EMP (as summarised in the Port Land Use Plan) will deliver arange of benefits to local communities adjoining Port land.


2837. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: What important socialbenefits will the Land Use Plan at the Port of Melbourne bring to the local community.

ANSWER:

I am advised that a key theme of the draft Land Use Plan is Port Sustainability. The MPC believes that asustainable port is one which is economically successful and achieves this in a socially and environmentallyresponsible manner by taking a holistic and integrated approach to port management.

Consistent with the Government’s policy approach established in Growing Victoria Together, over the next threeyears the Corporation aims to develop a “triple bottom line” approach to business practice which recognises theinterdependence of economic viability, environmental soundness and social responsibility in delivering sustainablebusiness outcomes.


2838. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: How will the Land UsePlan at the Port of Melbourne take into account the effect of port development on local amenity.

ANSWER:

I am advised that in developing the land use plan the MPC has sought to involve as many stakeholders as possible,particularly the surrounding Local Municipalities and community, to ensure that the plan reflects the needs of abroad range of interests.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The draft Land Use Plan includes strategies to deal with visual impact and amenity issues. These includeimplementation of the Port Amenity Enhancement Program, the provision of landscape buffers, noise monitoringand noise attenuation measures and strategies to deal with light spill.

The main areas of vacant port land at Webb Dock and Victoria dock were subject to environmental assessment andplanning processes which resulted in specific mitigation measures. The MPC has also prepared, and isimplementing, a Whole of Port Environmental Management Plan.


2839. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: How will the Land UsePlan at the Port of Melbourne be reviewed.

ANSWER:

I am advised that once finalised, the Land Use Plan, developed by the Melbourne Port Corporation (MPC), will bereviewed every two years. The biennial review may include a review of trade forecasts and port infrastructureneeds. The review process will take account of:

– New port and intermodal technology and productivity improvements;– Stakeholder input from MPC’s Communications Program; and– Private sector decisions and government policy.


2888. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: How many submissionsin relation to the Land Use Plan at the Port of Melbourne were received from — (i) local residents;(ii) corporations; (iii) Melbourne Ports Corporation; and (iv) Melbourne Port Operators.

ANSWER:

The Melbourne Port Corporation advises that nineteen (19) submissions were received on the Draft Land Use Plan.The submissions came from:

(i) Residents – 1 individual, 1 residents group and 1 consultant(ii) Corporations – 2 Corporations(iii) Government – 6 Government agencies and 4 Municipal Councils(iv) Melbourne Port Operators – 4 port operators/tenants


2889. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: In relation to the LandUse Plan at the Port of Melbourne, when will the viewpoints at the end of Webb Dock become accessible tothe public.

ANSWER:

The Melbourne Port Corporation advises that the new Webb Dock East landscaping, including the planting, publicaccess path and fishing platforms, are expected to be complete at the end of June 2002, however it will remainclosed to the public until June 2003 for the maintenance/establishment period. This will enable greater opportunityfor plant survival and establishment.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Community services: Kew Residential Services

2900. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the redevelopment of Kew ResidentialServices (KRS), as at 30 December 2001:

(a) How many properties have been purchased off-site for the relocation of KRS residents.

(b) What is the purchase price of each property.

(c) What is the expected renovation cost (if any) for each property.

(d) How many residents can each property accommodate.

ANSWER:

(a) 10 properties have been purchased off-site for the relocation of KRS residents. Five have been redirected fromother use.

(b) The average purchase price is $ 206,494.

(c) The average expected building cost is $450,999.

(d) One property will accommodate four residents and nine properties will each accommodate five residents. Theaverage cost of three of the properties redirected from other use is $151,666 and the average estimated buildingcost is $430,000. These accommodate five each. Two properties are existing stock.

The following table provides the detail on each property.

Properties purchased as at 31 December 2001No. Purchase Price Building

CostBeds Comments

1 161,484 462,364 5 Works have commenced2 198,023 480,068 5 Works have commenced3 214,873 386,686 4 Works have commenced4 261,799 386,686 5 Works have commenced5 167,999 480,068 5 Works have commenced6 105,000 414,118 5 Works have commenced7* 94,819 520,000 5 To be tendered for construction8* 374,765 460,000 5 To be tendered for construction9* 319,626 460,000 5 To be tendered for construction10* 166,555 460,000 5 To be tendered for constructionTotal 2,064,943 4,509,990 49

Properties redirected from other use as at 31 December 2001No. Purchase

PriceBuilding

CostBeds Comments

1 210,000 340,000 5 Works completed2 0 0 6 Existing stock at PRS3 0 0 6 Existing stock at PRS4* 130000 520,000 5 To be tendered for construction5* 115000 430,000 5 To be tendered for constructionTotal 455,000 1,290,000 27

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Notes:Includes all property purchases prior to 31 December 2001. Prices do not include GST*Construction costs is estimate only as tenders have not been sought. Remaining figures based on tender sum,

Community services: Redlands, Wandin North

2901. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the redevelopment of the Redlands,Wandin North, accommodation for people with disabilities, as at 30 December 2001:

(a) How many properties have been purchased off-site for the relocation of Redlands residents.




ANSWER:

(a) 1 property has been purchased to date.

(b) The purchase price was $352,500.

(c) The anticipated construction cost is $940,000 for this new facility, which will provide one unit with 4 residentbeds and a second unit, divided into two, each part with 3 resident beds.

(d) The property will accommodate 10 residents.

Community services: accommodation — people with disabilities

2904. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): How many people with disabilities were in receipt of —(i) in Home Accommodation Support; (ii) Accommodation Outreach Support; (iii) Family Options Support;(iv) Home Support; (v) a Shared Supported Accommodation place; and (vi) a Training Centre place, as at30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Table 1: Breakdown of Clients by Activity, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 31 Dec 2001In Home Accommodation Support 574 598 600Accommodation Outreach Support 1273 1216 1347Family Options 94 90 72*Home Support 0 272 299Shared Supported Accommodation 4031 4168 4196Training Centre 818 811 794

*Note: the decrease in the number of clients placed with a carer family reflects the department’s efforts to ensure,wherever possible, that clients remain with their birth families.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



2905. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): What was the Disability Services expenditure for peoplewith disabilities for — (i) In Home Accommodation Support; (ii) Accommodation Outreach Support;(iii) Family Options Support; (iv) Home Support; (v) Shared Supported Accommodation; and (vi) TrainingCentres, as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Table 1: Expenditure for In home Accommodation Support, Accommodation Outreach Support, FamilyOptions Support, Shared Supported Accommodation, Training Centres, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 30 December 2001In homeAccommodationSupport

$19,600,000 $23,400,000 $11,100,000

AccommodationOutreach Support

$11,400,000 $12,400,000 $5,000,000

Family OptionsSupport

$3,500,000 $4,700,000 $2,000,000

Home Support $0 $6,300,000 $5,200,000Shared SupportedAccommodation

$264,400,000 $297,300,000 $154,900,000

Training Centres $69,400,000 72,900,000 39,600,000

Community services: respite services for carers

2906. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to respite services for carers of people withdisabilities, how many households were in receipt of a respite service as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

The information provided in Table 2 demonstrates a cumulative figure for the financial years 1999–2000,2000–2001 and the first half of 2001–2002.

Table 2: Carer Households receiving a Respite Service, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 31 Dec 2001Respite 9870 10634 8090

Community services: respite services for carers

2907. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to respite services for carers of people withdisabilities, what was the Disability Services expenditure for respite services as at 30 June 2000, 30 June2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Table 1: Expenditure for Respite Services for Carers, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 30 December 2001Respite for Carers $28,900,000 $32,300,000 $16,400,000

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Community services: flexible care packages

2908. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Flexible Care Packages for people withdisabilities, how many people with disabilities were in receipt of — (i) a short-term assistance package; and(ii) an ongoing package as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

The information provided in Table 3 demonstrates a cumulative figure for the financial years 1999–2000,2000–2001 and the first half of 2001–2002.

Table 3: People with a Disability in Receipt of a Flexible Care Package, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 31 Dec 2001Flexible Care Packages 1348 2945 2159

A further breakdown by short-term assistance package versus an ongoing placement is not available for 30 June2000, or 30 June 2001 as short-term assistance packages were not introduced until the second quarter of the2000–01 financial year. As at 31 December 2001 approximately 75 percent of people receiving a Flexible CarePackage were receiving an ongoing placement with the remaining 25 percent receiving a short-term assistancepackage.

Community services: flexible care packages

2909. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Flexible Care Packages for people withdisabilities, what was the Disability Services expenditure for — (i) short term assistance packages; and(ii) ongoing packages as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Table 1: Expenditure for Flexible Packages, 30 June 2000, 2001 & 31 Dec 2001Activity 30 June 2000 30 June 2001 30 December 2001Flexible CarePackages*

$8,300,000 $13,000,000 $6,400,000

* Detail information re short term assistance and ongoing packages as requested in the question is not available.

Small business: supply needs of government departments

2917. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business: Whatpercentage of supply needs of the Department of Justice are met by small and medium size business.

ANSWER:


The Honourable Member’s question falls outside my portfolio responsibilities. The Honourable Member shoulddirect her question to the Honourable the Attorney General.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



Wednesday, 29 May 2002

Environment and conservation: coast action program

2494. THE HON. J. W. G. ROSS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation):

(a) How many new plants have been planted along Victoria’s coastline in each local government regionunder the Coast Action Program in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, respectively.

(b) What audits have been undertaken of the plant survival rate by way of local government region for theCoast Action Plan in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, respectively, and what are the results.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The Coast Action/Coastcare program has provided grants to community groups to undertake revegetation,restoration, conservation and management activities since 1994. Over the three years in question, over 250,000indigenous plants have been planted through this funding (the table shows these plantings in years and broadlocal government regions*). It is important to note that through activities such as weed control, many moreplants have naturally regenerated, and that community groups have planted many more plants not funded bythis Program.

The grants program provides opportunities for funding for a wide range of coastal and marine conservation andmanagement projects including weed control, provision of visitor facilities, walking tracks and beach accesses,monitoring programs, erosion control and the development of interpretative and educational materials. Projectsare developed to address the needs of each individual area as identified by the relevant community groups andland managers. In some areas revegetation is not required, or is not high a priority as other projects. No plantshave been planted using Coast Action/Coastcare Program funding during the periods referred to in the localgovernment regions covered by Cardinia Shire Council, Bayside City Council, City of Port Phillip, City ofMelbourne, Maribyrnong City Council and Warrnambool City Council. The table below lists only fundingprovided for revegetation.

Local Government Region* 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001East Gippsland Shire Council 6,900 5,000 6,500South Gippsland Shire Council 2,500 14,500 400Wellington Shire Council - - 500Bass Coast Shire Council 12,000 10,100 16,250Casey City Council 1,000 - 200Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2,700 10,200 18,000Frankston City Council 10,000 1,100 -Kingston City Council - - 3,000City of Hobsons Bay - 2,000 3,500Wyndham City Council - - 1,000City of Greater Geelong - 1,000 3,000

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Local Government Region* 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001Borough of Queenscliffe 10,000 6,000 2,200Surf Coast Shire 14,500 14,500 18,500Colac-Otway Shire Council 16,250 2,000 6,000Corangamite Shire Council - 2,000 10,000Moyne Shire Council 700 5,000 11,200Glenelg Shire Council 2,500 2,000 -TOTAL 76,900 75,400 100,250* Note these councils were not always the land manager for the area where the new plants were

placed, but they have been organised into the requested broad local government regions.

(b) For each project funded under this program there is a nominated body, often the land manager or communitygroup, that is responsible for the maintenance of the project.

Industrial relations: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2528. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations: What are thenames of all staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area whoheld government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


There are no statutory authorities operating within my portfolio area.

Consumer affairs: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2534. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Consumer Affairs: What are thenames of all staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area whoheld government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

There are relatively few statutory authorities in the Consumer Affairs portfolio and I am informed that there are nostaff in those authorities who held government credit cards as at the relevant dates.

Workcover: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2535. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Workcover): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

No positions were identified as holding Government credit cards in statutory authorities within my portfolio area.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Finance: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2536. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Finance): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authoritiesoperating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The following statutory authority positions within my portfolio responsibility has been identified as holding aGovernment credit card:

Government Superannuation OfficePosition As at 30 June 2000 As at 30 June 2001Chief Executive Officer Yes YesGeneral Manager Corporate Yes YesGeneral Manager Customer Services Yes YesChief Financial Officer Yes YesChief Information Officer No YesGeneral Manager Beneficiary Choice Program No YesGeneral Manager Strategy & Investments Yes NoChief Information Officer Yes NoAssistant GM Customer Services/Secretary to theParliamentary Trustee

No Yes

Acting Assistant General Manager CustomerServices/Corporate

No Yes

Web Design and Content Coordinator Yes YesPersonal Assistant to the General Manager CustomerServices & Chief Information Officer

Yes No

Personal Assistant to the Operations Manager Yes YesPersonal Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer Yes NoPersonal Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer No YesPersonal Assistant to the General Manager Corporate No Yes

Office of the Regulator-GeneralPosition As at 30 June 2000 As at 30 June 2001Regulator-General Yes YesAdministrative Officer Yes YesDirector – Corporate Services Yes YesGeneral Manager Yes Yes

Arts: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2537. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Arts): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authoritiesoperating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30June 2001, respectively.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I advise that:

Given the number of statutory arts bodies, answering this question would be an unreasonable diversion ofDepartmental resources, and I therefore recommend that the Honourable Member write directly to each agencyrequesting the information.

Treasurer: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2539. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Treasurer): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authorities operatingwithin the Treasurer’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001,respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:


Environment and conservation: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2541. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What are the names of all staff working in orfor statutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The provision and verification of information covering all agencies within the Environment and Conservationportfolio would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Should you wish to specify aparticular statutory authority I will endeavour to provide a response.

Transport: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2543. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

VicTrack

As at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, 12 members of VicTrack staff held government credit cards.

Position Titles of authorised card holders are attached. Names of individuals are not provided as this is consideredto be an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs.

Spencer Street Station Authority

At 30 June 2000 the Spencer Street Station Authority was not in existence.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


At 30 June 2001 there were three credit cards issued. Names of individuals are not provided as this is considered tobe an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs Position titles of authorised card holders are as follows:

- Chairman.- Business Manager.- Director – Property & Commercial Development.

Public Transport Corporation

As at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001 there was one card issued. Name of individual is not provided as this isconsidered to be an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. Position title of the authorised card holder is:

- Manager at Preston Tram Workshops.

VicRoads

Position titles of authorised card holders are attached. Names of individuals are not provided as this is considered tobe an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs.

Position Titles of Corporate Credit Card Holders - VicTrack

- Supervisor PABX Maintenance- Service Manager, Telecommunications- Technical Officer, Networked Database Administration- Technical Support Officer (Non Urban Train Radio)- Supervisor (Non Urban Train Radio)- Lines Maintenance Supervisor- Executive Assistant- Supervisor Transmission Maintenance- Supervisor Centrol Systems- Manager Customer Services Telecommunications- Technical Support Officer Centrol- Installation Services Officer

VICROADS CORPORATE CARD HOLDERSAS AT 30 JUNE 2000

SENIOR INVESTIGATIONS OFFICERPATROLMANLEADER TRAFFIC CONTROLROAD DEPOT OFFICERCOORDINATOR QUALITY AND PROJECTSFIELD GANG OFFICERROAD SAFETY COORDINATORMANAGER REGISTRATION & LICENSING AND TRANSPORT SAFETY SERVICESROADWORKER/SEALINGMANAGER LIBRARY & BUSINESS INFORMATION CENTREFINANCIAL OFFICERADMINISTRATION OFFICER ADMIN & HRADMINISTRATION SUPPORT OFFICERTEAM LEADER INCIDENT MANAGEMENTSURVEILLANCE MGR MAINTENANCE PROJECTSMANAGER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTSENIOR MAINTENANCE ENGINEER

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Education and training: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2545. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Education): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Education and Trainingportfolio responsibilities.

The information requested is not readily available and the time and resources necessary to obtain and process theinformation cannot be justified. The Member is invited to submit a more specific question.

Police and emergency services: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2547. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): What are the names of all staff working in orfor statutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that the number of statutory authorities within my portfolio is such that to answer the question wouldinvolve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. If the Honourable Member wishes to indicate thosestatutory authorities he has a particular interest in, I will reconsider the question.

Corrections: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2548. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Corrections): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am advised that the number of statutory authorities within my portfolio is such that to answer the question wouldinvolve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. If the Honourable Member wishes to indicate thosestatutory authorities he has a particular interest in, I will reconsider the question.

Planning: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2549. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Planning): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authoritiesoperating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Given the number of statutory bodies in my portfolio, answering this question, would be an unreasonable diversionof departmental resources, and I therefore recommend that the Honourable Member write directly to each agencyrequesting the information.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Major projects, and tourism: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2552. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Major Projects and Tourism): What are the names of all staff working in or forstatutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWERS:


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Major Projects portfolioresponsibilities.

No staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within my portfolio area held Government credit cards asat 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Tourism portfolioresponsibilities.

No staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within my portfolio area held Government credit cards asat 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

Gaming: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2553. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Gaming): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authoritiesoperating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Details of credit card holders for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority and the Office of GamblingRegulation are as follows:

Position As at30 June 2000

As at30 June 2001

Chairman – VCGA (current) No YesChairman – VCGA (previous) Yes NoDirector of Gaming and BettingDirector of Casino Surveillance

Yes Yes

Assistant Director, Gambling Operations & Audit Yes YesAssistant Director, Legal &Legislation No YesAssistant Director, Compliance & Investigation Yes YesAssistant Director, Information Technology No YesCasino Project Manager Yes YesSolicitor No YesOffice Manager Yes YesAdministration Officer Yes Yes

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Women’s affairs: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2555. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Women’s Affairs): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

No staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within my portfolio hold government credit cards.

Aboriginal affairs: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2559. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs): What are the names of all staff working in or for statutoryauthorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

There are no statutory authorities within the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio.

Workcover: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2560. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister Assisting the Minister for Workcover:What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within the Minister’sportfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:


Planning: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2562. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning:What are the names of all staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within the Minister’sportfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

Given the number of statutory bodies in my portfolio, answering this question, would be an unreasonable diversionof departmental resources, and I therefore recommend that the Honourable Member write directly to each agencyrequesting the information.

Transport: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2565. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister Assisting in Transport (Roads)): What are the names of all staff working in or forstatutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

VicTrack

As at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, 12 members of VicTrack staff held government credit cards.

Position Titles of authorised card holders are attached. Names of individuals are not provided as this is consideredto be an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs.

Spencer Street Station Authority

At 30 June 2000 the Spencer Street Station Authority was not in existence.

At 30 June 2001 there were three credit cards issued. Names of individuals are not provided as this is considered tobe an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs Position titles of authorised card holders are as follows:

- Chairman.- Business Manager.- Director – Property & Commercial Development.

Public Transport Corporation

As at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001 there was one card issued. Name of individual is not provided as this isconsidered to be an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. Position title of the authorised card holder is:

- Manager at Preston Tram Workshops.

VicRoads

Position titles of authorised card holders are attached. Names of individuals are not provided as this is considered tobe an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs.

Position Titles of Corporate Credit Card Holders - VicTrack

- Supervisor PABX Maintenance- Service Manager, Telecommunications- Technical Officer, Networked Database Administration- Technical Support Officer (Non Urban Train Radio)- Supervisor (Non Urban Train Radio)- Lines Maintenance Supervisor- Executive Assistant- Supervisor Transmission Maintenance- Supervisor Centrol Systems- Manager Customer Services Telecommunications- Technical Support Officer Centrol- Installation Services Officer

VICROADS CORPORATE CARD HOLDERSAS AT 30 JUNE 2000

SENIOR INVESTIGATIONS OFFICERPATROLMANLEADER TRAFFIC CONTROLROAD DEPOT OFFICERCOORDINATOR QUALITY AND PROJECTSFIELD GANG OFFICERROAD SAFETY COORDINATORMANAGER REGISTRATION & LICENSING AND TRANSPORT SAFETY SERVICES

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ROADWORKER/SEALINGMANAGER LIBRARY & BUSINESS INFORMATION CENTREFINANCIAL OFFICERADMINISTRATION OFFICER ADMIN & HRADMINISTRATION SUPPORT OFFICERTEAM LEADER INCIDENT MANAGEMENTSURVEILLANCE MGR MAINTENANCE PROJECTSMANAGER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTSENIOR MAINTENANCE ENGINEER

Industrial relations: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2568. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations: What are thenames of all ministerial and departmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio areawho held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


No Ministerial staff members have Government Credit Cards. In relation to Departmental staff, I direct theHonourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an opposition MP by theDepartment of State and Regional Development on 10 January 2002 and the Department of Innovation, Industryand Regional Development on 14 March 2002 under FOI.

Consumer affairs: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2574. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Consumer Affairs: What are thenames of all ministerial and departmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio areawho held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

No ministerial staff have Government credit cards.

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Justice on 20 December 2001 under FOI.

Workcover: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2575. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Workcover): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

No Ministerial staff members hold Government credit cards.

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Treasury and Finance on 16 January 2002 under FOI.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Finance: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2576. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Finance): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff workingand/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:



Arts: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2577. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Industrial Relations (for theHonourable the Minister for Arts): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff workingand/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I advise that:


I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an OppositionMP by the Department of Premier and Cabinet on 21 December 2001 under FOI.

Treasurer: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2579. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Treasurer): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff working and/oremployed within the Treasurer’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:



Environment and conservation: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2581. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What are the names of all ministerial anddepartmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government creditcards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed that:

No Ministerial staff members have Government credit cards.

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment on 26th March 2002 under FOI.

Transport: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2583. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

In respect of Ministerial office staff, no Ministerial staff members have Government Credit Cards.

In relation to Departmental staff within the Minister’s portfolio area the information was previously provided to anOpposition Member of Parliament by the Department of Infrastructure on 18 March 2002 under FOI.

Education and training: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2585. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Education): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:



I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an OppositionMember by the Department of Education and Training on 8 March 2002 under FOI.

Education and training: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2586. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Post-Compulsory Education, Training and Employment): What are the namesof all ministerial and departmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area whoheld government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


Names should not be provided as this is deemed to be an unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. NoMinisterial staff members have Government credit cards. I direct the Honourable Member to previous informationon Departmental credit cards provided to an Opposition Member by the Department of Education and Training on8 March 2002 under FOI.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Police and emergency services: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2587. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): What are the names of all ministerial anddepartmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government creditcards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Justice on 20 December 2001 under FOI.

Corrections: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2588. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Corrections): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am advised that no Ministerial staff members have Government credit cards.

I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Justice on 20 December 2001 under FOI.

Planning: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2589. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Planning): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff workingand/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


In relation to Departmental staff within the Minister’s portfolio area the information was previously provided to theOpposition Member by the Department of Infrastructure on 18 March 2002 under Freedom of Information.

Major projects, and tourism: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2592. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Major Projects and Tourism): What are the names of all ministerial anddepartmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government creditcards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWERS:


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Major Projects portfolioresponsibilities.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


No Ministerial staff members have Government Credit Cards. In relation to Departmental staff, I direct theHonourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an Opposition Member ofParliament by the Department of State and Regional Development on 10 January 2002 and the Department ofInnovation, Industry and Regional Development on 14 March 2002 under Freedom of Information.


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Tourism portfolioresponsibilities.

No Ministerial staff members have Government Credit Cards.

In relation to Departmental staff, I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental creditcards provided to by an opposition MP by the Department of State and Regional Development on 10 January 2002and the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development on 14 March 2002 under FOI.

Gaming: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2593. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Gaming): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff workingand/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:



Women’s affairs: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2595. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Women’s Affairs): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on departmental credit cards provided to an OppositionMP by the Department of Premier and Cabinet on 21 December 2001 under FOI.

Aboriginal affairs: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2599. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs): What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staffworking and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government credit cards as at30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



I direct the Honourable Member to previous information on Departmental credit cards provided to an oppositionMP by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment on 26th March 2002 under FOI.

Workcover: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2600. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister Assisting the Minister for Workcover:What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’sportfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:



Planning: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2602. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning:What are the names of all ministerial and departmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’sportfolio area who held government credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


In relation to Departmental staff within the Minister’s portfolio area the information was previously provided to theOpposition Member by the Department of Infrastructure on 18 March 2002 under Freedom of Information.

Transport: ministerial or departmental staff — government credit cards

2605. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister Assisting in Transport (Roads)): What are the names of all ministerial anddepartmental staff working and/or employed within the Minister’s portfolio area who held government creditcards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:


In relation to Departmental staff within the Minister’s portfolio area the information was previously provided to anOpposition Member of Parliament by the Department of Infrastructure on 18 March 2002 under the Freedom ofInformation.

Environment and conservation: catchment management authorities

2739. THE HON. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (forthe Honourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the funding of each of thestate’s catchment management authorities:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) What was the individual funding allocation to each Authority during the periods 1999–2000 and2000–01.

(b) Which programs were funded for each Authority during the periods 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The figures below are the allocations provided through State Government grants funding. Additional fundingsources include Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and other initiatives. These additional sources are not includedin this response, the totals are presented in the Annual Reports of the Catchment Management Authorities.

The allocations are provided through quarterly grants payments to Authorities.

Name of Authority Total State Budget Allocations1999/2000 2000/2001

Corangamite 3,886,000 4,400,000East Gippsland 2,062,000 2,388,000Glenelg-Hopkins 1,978,000 2,581,000Goulburn-Broken 3,641,000 4,433,000Mallee 374,000 1,252,000North Central 3,534,400 4,079,000North East 1,883,000 2,608,000West Gippsland 5,178,000 4,975,000Wimmera 447,000 1,296,000

(b) Programs funded in each Authority are:

Name of Authority Program 1999/2000 2000/2001Corangamite

Catchment PlanningSecond Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland AgricultureTariff Replacement Funding

--

1,031,000128,000

2,727,000

190,000380,000

1,105,000-

2,725,000East Gippsland


--

1,120,000152,000790,000

292,000351,000955,000

-790,000

Glenelg-HopkinsCatchment PlanningSecond Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland AgricultureTariff Replacement Funding

--

1,042,00083,000

853,000

282,000437,000

1,010,000-

852,000Goulburn Broken

Catchment PlanningSustainable Irrigated Agriculture

-200,000

380,000155,000

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Name of Authority Program 1999/2000 2000/2001Second Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland AgricultureTariff Replacement Funding

-1,140,000

373,0001,928,000

651,0001,120,000

200,0001,927,000

MalleeCatchment PlanningSustainable Irrigated AgricultureSecond Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland Agriculture

-203,000

-150,00021,000

485,000199,000371,000160,00037,000

North CentralCatchment PlanningSustainable Irrigated AgricultureSecond Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland AgricultureTariff Replacement Funding

-368,400

-1,050,000

446,0001,670,000

345,000525,000519,000

1,020,000-

1,670,000North East


--

1,035,000110,000738,000

240,000462,000

1,170,000-

736,000West Gippsland


--

910,00060,000

4,208,000

225,000320,000230,000

-4,200,000

WimmeraCatchment PlanningSecond Generation LandcareRiver Health and Water QualitySustainable Dryland Agriculture

--

390,00057,000

453,000368,000440,00035,000

Environment and conservation: Lake Bolac — serrated tussock

2761. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation):

(a) When did the Department of Natural Resources and Environment become aware that serrated tussockwas in the vicinity of Lake Bolac.

(b) What did the Department do on becoming aware of the problem.

(c) Did the Department notify the neighbouring properties of a problem with serrated tussock; if so, when.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(d) Did the Department notify any other Federal, State or Local agency of a problem with serrated tussock;if so, when.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The Department of Natural Resources and Environment became aware that there was serrated tussock in thevicinity of Lake Bolac in December 2000.

Department employees inspected, assessed and mapped the Lake Bolac foreshore infestation and alsoinspected the adjoining freehold land to determine the extent of any further infestations. The infestationcovered less than one hectare in area and had been slashed just prior to the above inspection.

The Department notified Parks Victoria, the responsible land manager of the Lake Bolac foreshore reserve, ofthis infestation shortly after the initial inspection and provided Parks Victoria advice on how best to managethe problem in association with protection of natural values and water quality, and requested that ParksVictoria undertake a control program.

A Property Management Plan was developed for Lake Bolac in December 2001 involving Parks Victoria, theDepartment and the Lake Bolac Committee of Management (Rural City of Ararat). Department employeesinspected the foreshore reserve and adjoining freehold land again in December 2001 and provided extensionmaterial in the Lake Bolac township on identification and control of serrated tussock.

No further infestations have been recorded in the Lake Bolac location since the initial inspection

(c) The Department notified adjoining land-holders of the presence of serrated tussock as part of the follow-upinspection and assessment in December 2001.

(d) Apart from notifying Parks Victoria of the infestation in December 2000 and involving the Lake BolacCommittee of Management in the development of the Property Management Plan, no other Federal, State orLocal agency has been notified.

Environment and conservation: Chinaman’s Bridge caravan park, Nagambie

2820. THE HON. E. G. STONEY — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): Will the Minister make available a copy of theindependent report prepared by Offor Sharp and Associates reporting on the concerns of residents of theChinaman’s Bridge Caravan Park, Nagambie.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In December 2001 Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Authority appointed Ms Leanne Taylor from Offor Sharp andAssociates as a Community Liaison Officer to work with the users of the Chinaman’s Bridge Caravan Park onissues associated with the closure of the Park and the development of a new Tourist Park in Nagambie. Ms Taylorwas required to submit a summary of her findings directly to Sinclair Knight Merz, the consulting firm engaged byGoulburn-Murray Water to prepare the Nagambie Lakes Tourist Park Business Case Analysis. This was to assistSinclair Knight Merz in the preparation of the report which was subsequently released for public comment inMarch 2002.

I have been advised that the discussions between the park users and Ms Taylor are regarded as confidential. Inorder to respect the confidentiality of the individual park users the Authority released Community InformationStatement No. 4 which included a list of the issues raised in the report. The Statement which also includedGoulburn-Murray Water’s responses to the issues was mailed to all Park residents in mid March 2002.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Copies of the Statement can be obtained from the Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Authority.

Environment and conservation: commissioner for ecologically sustainable development

2821. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the release of the ConsultationPaper in December 2000 seeking the views of key stakeholders on the establishment of a Commissioner forEcologically Sustainable Development:

(a) What work has the Minister and her Department done on this since that date.

(b) How many and which officers have been working on this proposal.

(c) Which (if any) officer is responsible for the implementation of this proposal.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) The Minister and Department have done considerable work on the proposal since the release of theConsultation Paper in December 2000. This work has included review of submissions received in response tothe Consultation Paper, further meetings with stakeholder groups and the development of possible models forthe establishment of a Commissioner for consideration by the Government.

(b) Officers from the Policy Co-ordination Branch have been working on the proposal. These officers have beensupported by a Departmental Working Group and also an inter-Departmental Working Group.

(c) Implementation responsibilities will be determined when a final decision is taken on the form in which theoffice is to be established.


2822. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the consultation with keystakeholders on the establishment of a Commissioner for Ecologically Sustainable Development:

(a) How many submissions have been received and from whom.

(b) What do the submissions say.

(c) What support has been expressed for the proposal.

(d) What opposition has been expressed to the proposal.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) A total of sixty-six submissions were received including eleven from environment/community groups, threefrom educational institutions, eight from industry groups, eleven from individuals, four from local government,and twenty nine from State Government agencies, statutory authorities and other Government bodies.

(b) It is not feasible nor would it do justice to the sixty-six submissions received to summarise them as an answerto this question.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(c) Most submissions essentially supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Ecologically SustainableDevelopment but with varying views about the appropriate roles and responsibilities and the basis on which itshould be established.

(d) Four submissions did not support the establishment of a Commissioner.


2823. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the establishment of aCommissioner for Ecologically Sustainable Development:

(a) What budget has been allocated to this work since 18 September 1999.

(b) What expenditure has been incurred in work on this proposal since that date.

(c) Have any, and what, workshops been held on this proposal.

(d) Has a draft bill been prepared; if so, why has the Bill not been introduced into the House.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) $1 million was appropriated in 2000–01 to establish the Commissioner for Ecologically SustainableDevelopment. This funding was carried forward to the 2001–02 budget and will be carried forward to the2002–03 financial year.

(b) The only expenditures incurred to date have been against normal departmental operating provision for policydevelopment.

(c) A number of workshops have been held with key stakeholders on the proposal prior to the release of theConsultation Paper in December 2000.

(d) No.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



Thursday, 30 May 2002

Education and training, and employment: statutory authorities staff — government credit cards

2546. THE HON. D. McL. DAVIS — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for theHonourable the Minister for Post-Compulsory Education, Training and Employment): What are the namesof all staff working in or for statutory authorities operating within the Minister’s portfolio area who heldgovernment credit cards as at 30 June 2000 and 30 June 2001, respectively.

ANSWERS:


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Education and Trainingportfolio responsibilities.

The information requested is not readily available and the time and resources necessary to obtain and process theinformation cannot be justified. The Member is invited to submit a more specific question.


As a result of recent Ministerial portfolio changes, this response only relates to my Employment portfolioresponsibilities.

No Statutory Authorities exist within the Employment portfolio.

Transport: rail standardisation program

2787. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What are the top priority projects for the $96 million railstandardisation program.

ANSWER:

The top priority is to provide standard gauge access to the Ports of Portland and Geelong and adjacent areas and tothe Port of Melbourne and to rail facilities in Melbourne’s west from Mildura, Kulwin and Robinvale lines. Thiswill enable grain, mineral sands and general freight to compete with road in accessing all three ports and interstatemarkets from the productive North West of the State.

Transport: metropolitan Melbourne — level crossing upgrades

2788. THE HON. G. B. ASHMAN — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Transport): What are the top priority projects for level crossing upgrades inmetropolitan Melbourne.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

The Government is committed to improving safety at those metropolitan level crossings most in need. To this end,the Government commits $3M each year to improve level crossing safety in metropolitan Melbourne and acrossVictoria. In the metropolitan area, the focus is on automating pedestrian gates at level crossings.

In addition, $12.5M has been allocated over the next four years to upgrade and improve safety for pedestrians,cyclists and people using wheelchairs when crossing railway lines. This initiative will improve safety at stand-alonepedestrian crossings.

Transport: Melbourne bus patronage


(a) What are the ten least patronised bus routes in metropolitan Melbourne.

(b) What is the average daily validation figure for each bus service annually since 1996.

(c) What is the annual government subsidy for each bus service since 1996.

(d) What is the annual government subsidy of metropolitan buses since 1980.

ANSWER:

(a) & (b) The 10 least patronised bus routes in Metropolitan Melbourne based on dailyvalidation figures for the month of February 2002 are as follows.

10 Lowest Patronised Routes per weekdayAve DailyValidation

784 Mornington-Osborne-Mornington 43795 Cranbourne-Tooradin via Cannons

Creek/Warneet/Devon Meadows27

479 Moonee Ponds – Sunbury 22699 Belgrave – Upwey 19797 Cranbourne Town Service 17525 Coburg – West Reservoir 16839 Fountain Gate SC/Oatlands Estate 14687 Healesville to Chum Creek 8796 Cranbourne-Clyde via Five Ways 6609 Kew to Royal Talbot Hospital 3

Notes:

– It should be noted that the 10 least patronised routes represent services that are operated in isolated areasproviding only a few trips per day, operated as a community obligation or in the case of Route 609 to service asheltered workshop for intellectually handicapped people.

– Validation data for all routes in the Metropolitan network with the exception of those operated by the NationalBus Company (NBC) was progressively recorded from 1996 to February 2002. Validations for NBC operatedroutes were only recorded from February 2002. In view of the above, validation data up to February 2002 isincomplete.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


– The OneLink validation data is progressively archived and its recovery would require OneLink to allocatesignificant time and resource to retrieve.

(c) Contracts are not subsidised on a route by route basis.

(d) The annual government subsidy of metropolitan buses since 1980 is as follows:

Metropolitan Buses Subsidy

Years $m1994/95 153.41995/96 169.61996/97 165.81997/98 170.91998/99 187.21999/00 193.92000/01 208.3

Notes:

– Metropolitan bus services were managed by the Public Transport Corporation and its predecessors prior to1994/95.

– Information regarding subsidies prior to 1994/95 is not readily available and considerable resources would berequired to search for archived material to be able to provide this information.

Environment and conservation: helmeted honeyeater recovery program

2830. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What State Government funds were budgetedfor the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The following are the State Government funds budgeted during the requested periods for the Helmeted Honeyeaterprogram. These figures are combined totals for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, ParksVictoria and Zoos Victoria.

1999/2000 - $163,0002000/2001 - $171,9002001/2002 - $172,560


2831. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What State Government funds were spent onthe Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Funds spent on the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program during the requested periods are as follows:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


1999/2000 - $172,6002000/2001 - $178,5002001/2002 - to April 2002 estimated $152,400


2832. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What Federal Government grants/funds werereceived or spent to support the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and2001-2002, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Grants received from the Federal Government’s Natural Heritage Trust to support the Helmeted HoneyeaterRecovery Program in the requested years are detailed below. The National Heritage Trust does not operate on afinancial year cycle, instead grants are given for the 12-month period between 1 October and 30 September. Allgrants were fully expended in each year.

1999-2000 - $100 0002000-2001 - $70 0002001-2002 - $70 000


2833. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What other grants/funds were received orspent to support the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002,respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

No other grants have been received to support the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program during the requestedperiods and the Program is funded entirely from the State Government budget and the Natural Heritage Trust. TheFriends of the Helmeted Honeyeater have however received various grants from Melbourne Water and ParksVictoria which complement the work of the Recovery Program.


2834. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What officers were employed on the HelmetedHoneyeater Recovery Program in 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The following officers were employed on the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program during the requestedperiods:

During 1999/2000 a total of 4.4 full-time equivalent officers.During 2000/2001 a total of 4.4 full-time equivalent officers.Until March 2002 a total of 4.4 full-time equivalent officers.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



2835. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What officers are now employed in theHelmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program and where are they working.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

There are 3.4 full-time equivalent officers currently employed on the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program.


2836. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): How many Helmeted Honeyeaters wereknown to exist in the wild as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001, and 17 April 2002 and any other dates on whichassessments have been made since 1980.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Figures from the annual censuses conducted by the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Team since 1990 are givenbelow. Prior to the establishment of the Recovery Team two less comprehensive surveys were conducted by theFisheries and Wildlife Department and those results are also included.

Between 1989 and 1998 the entire wild population of Helmeted Honeyeaters was individually banded with aunique colour-combination which allowed accurate population counts. However, as the population increased andthe priorities of the recovery team changed, it became impracticable to maintain a fully-banded population.Complete population counts were therefore no longer attempted. Instead, the population has been monitored bydocumenting the number of successful breeding pairs and the number of young fledged each breeding season.

Since 1980 the only population that has existed is at Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve.

September 1984 40-44 adultsMarch 1987 32-36 adults1 March 1990 46 adults and 24 juveniles [18 breeding pairs in the preceding summer]1 March 1991 53 adults and 20 juveniles [15 breeding pairs]1 March 1992 53 adults and 29 juveniles [20 breeding pairs]1 March 1993 55 adults and 28 juveniles [22 breeding pairs]1 March 1994 65 adults and 33 juveniles [21 breeding pairs]1 March 1995 58 adults and 42 juveniles [27 breeding pairs]1 March 1996 60 adults and 45 juveniles [27 breeding pairs]1 March 1997 63 adults and 42 juveniles [25 breeding pairs]1 March 1998 66 adults and 37 juveniles [24 breeding pairs]1999 breeding season 20 breeding pairs produced 30 juveniles2000 breeding season 19 breeding pairs produced 36 juveniles2001 breeding season 20 breeding pairs produced 33 juveniles2002 breeding season 21 breeding pairs produced 37 juveniles

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



2884. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): How many Helmeted Honeyeaters were keptat Healesville as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001, and 18 April 2002, respectively, and any other dates onwhich assessments have been made since 1980.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The total numbers of Helmeted Honeyeaters in captivity at 30 June each year are listed below. The reduction of thetotal population since 1999 is mainly attributable to the intensive trials of release to the wild that have taken placesince then.

30 June 1990 – 13 individuals30 June 1991 – 23 individuals30 June 1992 – 25 individuals30 June 1993 – 4 individuals30 June 1994 – 7 individuals30 June 1995 – 18 individuals30 June 1996 – 20 individuals30 June 1997 – 19 individuals30 June 1998 – 32 individuals30 June 1999 – 40 individuals30 June 2000 – 39 individuals30 June 2000 – 32 individuals22 April 2002 – 36 individuals


2885. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): How many Helmeted Honeyeaters were keptat any other institution as at 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001, and 18 April 2002, respectively, and other dates onwhich assessments have been made since 1980.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Two Helmeted Honeyeaters were held at the Melbourne Zoo on behalf of the Recovery Team between 22 August1997 and 26 November 1998 when they were returned to the captive breeding colony at Healesville Sanctuary.


2886. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): What releases of Helmeted Honeyeaters havebeen made under the Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Program since January 2000.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Since 1 January 2000 a total of 22 captive-bred Helmeted Honeyeaters have been released. Details are providedbelow:

5 February 2000Two juveniles released at Beer’s Bridge, Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, as part of trials of releasetechniques.

12 January 2001One pair with two nestlings released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

26 January 2001Two adult pairs released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

27 February 2001One pair and their 35-day-old offspring released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

March-April 2002Two adult pairs, one adult female and four immatures released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park, i.e. nineindividuals in total.


2887. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the Helmeted HoneyeaterRecovery Program:

(a) On what dates and at what places were releases of Helmeted Honeyeaters made since January 2000.

(b) On each of those releases, how many Helmeted Honeyeaters were released.

(c) How many of the released helmeted honeyeaters remain alive.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(a) and (b).

Since January 2000 the following releases of captive-bred Helmeted Honeyeaters have taken place.

5 February 2000Two juveniles released at Beer’s Bridge, Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve, as part of trials ofrelease techniques.

12 January 2001One pair with two nestlings released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

26 January 2001Two adult pairs released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

27 February 2001One pair and their 35-day-old offspring released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park.

March-April 2002Two adult pairs, one adult female and four immatures released at Diamond Creek, Bunyip State Park, i.e.nine individuals in total.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(c) Two of the birds released in February 2001, and all except one of the birds released in March and April 2002,were alive on 19 April 2002. The other 11 birds have disappeared from the release sites after remaining forvarious periods and their status is unknown.


2890. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Ports: In relation to the LandUse Plan at the Port of Melbourne, when will the Port Heritage Trail become a reality at the Port ofMelbourne.

ANSWER:

The Land Use Plan proposes as a strategy to:

“Investigate opportunities for cultural interpretation throughout the Port, especially at landings at WebbDock, Victoria Dock, South Wharf and the Williamstown foreshore.”

It is expected that this will occur progressively over the next two years.


2891. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Energy and Resources (for theHonourable the Minister for Environment and Conservation): In relation to the Helmeted HoneyeaterRecovery Program, what is the known cause of death of the released helmeted honeyeaters.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The cause of death has only been established for one released Helmeted Honeyeater. It is known to have died as aresult of injuries caused by an ill-fitting radio-transmitter harness. Attachment of tiny radio-transmitters is astandard method of tracking wild birds to monitor their movements. It is the only technique that gives a goodchance of understanding the fate of released birds once they leave the general area of the release site.

The fate of the other 11 birds released is unknown as none were carrying a radio-transmitter at the time of theirrelease.


2902. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): In relation to shared supported accommodation forpeople with disabilities, for the financial year 2000-2001 and the six months ending 30 December 2001:

(a) How many properties have been purchased which will accommodate people not already being providedwith a residential service.




(e) What is the average time from purchase to a property being operational.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

(a) 47 properties have been purchased during this time. Five existing properties have also been provided to housenew residents.

(b) and (c) and (d) – see Table below

Property Purchases 1 July 2000 - 30 December 2001No Of Property Construction No of CommentsProps. Purchase Costs Residents

$ $1 $86,498 $416,960 52 $119,237 5 Existing site3 $78,800 $530,145 64 $196,888 $116,100 45 $327,050 $250,000 56 $106,349 $598,965 67 $67,955 $442,916 58 $555,176 5 Existing site9 $88,505 $414,061 510 $161,684 $454,854 511 $50,770 $486,601 512 $393,636 5 Existing site13 $31,650 $500,000 614 $71,740 $417,000 515 $392,758 $596,223 716 $67,500 $457,091 617 $291,063 $417,176 518 $226,844 $353,781 519 $201,841 $344,405 520 $272,500 $396,033 521 $225,701 $361,300 522 $166,500 $395,250 523 $226,644 $560,445 624 $328,151 $251,449 625 $368,250 $375,000 526 $206,654 $416,667 527 $347,000 5 Existing site28 $177,500 $339,545 529 $248,147 $276,531 530 $137,175 $416,667 531 $124,000 $416,667 532 $307,041 $416,667 533 $416,667 4 Existing site34 $68,000 $318,241 535 $274,500 $292,727 536 $103,341 $629,500 537 $452,500 $352,405 6

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Property Purchases 1 July 2000 - 30 December 2001No Of Property Construction No of CommentsProps. Purchase Costs Residents

38 $192,000 $697,905 739 $351,894 $470,000 640 $582,579 $400,000 541 $261,930 $434,000 442 $342,500 $380,900 543 $13,500 $500,000 544 $58,000 $513,465 545 $24,000 $441,425 546 $39,000 $409,240 547 $180,000 $345,320 548 $165,000 $339,085 549 $180,000 $278,573 550 $280,000 $350,590 551 $75,000 $400,000 552 $135,000 $148,491 2

Notes:1. All figures shown are GST exclusive.2. Property purchase dates, not settlement dates have been used.3. Construction costs shown are actual tender or anticipated construction prices.4. Estimates are shown in ‘italics’.5. These costs exclude contingencies, Project management and Consultants fees.6. All of the above construction works are totally new buildings or significantredevelopments of the existing dwellings.

(e) The average time from settlement of the purchase to a property being operational is approximately 12 monthsdue to the extensive and specific/specialised nature of the accommodation to be provided.

Community services: Plenty Residential Services

2903. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Small Business (for theHonourable the Minister for Community Services): How many residents were at the Plenty ResidentialServices (PRS) for people with disabilities, as at 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001, respectively.

ANSWER:

There were 103 residents at 30 June 2001 and 30 December 2001.

Education services: schools — staff

2920. THE HON. W. R. BAXTER — To ask the Honourable the Minister for Education Services: Whichschools have had their staff withdrawn, been closed or otherwise ceased operation since 18 October 1999.

ANSWER:


Since the Bracks government came to Office on 18 October 1999, thirteen school sites have been closed orunstaffed. This compares with 326 school sites closed under the previous government.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The schools are:

Heatherton PS, closed 31/12/1999, approved in August 1999 by the previous governmentMandurang South PS, closed 31/12/1999, voluntary merger with Strathfieldsaye PSIrrewillipe East PS, closed 26/4/2000, voluntary merger with Elliminyt PSSunshine West PS, closed 26/4/2000, voluntary merger with Glengala PSBrim PS, closed 31/12/2000, voluntary closureWando Vale PS, closed 31/12/2000, voluntary closureYouanmite PS, closed 31/12/2000, voluntary closureGerangamete PS, closed 31/12/2001, voluntary closureLexton PS, closed 31/12/2001, voluntary closureWatchem PS, closed 31/12/2001, voluntary closureJames Harrison SC, closed 31/12/2001, voluntary merger with Newcomb SCBuffalo PS, unstaffed 28/2/2002, voluntary unstaffingGelantipy PS, unstaffed 28/2/2001, voluntary unstaffing.

1460 COUNCIL

MEMBERS INDEX

28, 29 and 30 May 2002 COUNCIL i

MEMBERS INDEX

ASHMAN, Hon. G. B. (Koonung)

Adjournment

Angliss Hospital, 1401

Budget papers, 2002–03, 1217

Rulings, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209

ATKINSON, Hon. B. N. (Koonung)

Adjournment

Child care: regulations, 1232

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1327


Members statements

Housing: Nunawading tenant, 1279

BAXTER, Hon. W. R. (North Eastern)

Bills

Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1301Electoral Bill, 1389

Members statements

James Gemmell, 1279

Motions to take note of answers

Schools buses: Echuca, 1352

Questions without notice

School buses: Echuca, 1345

BEST, Hon. R. A. (North Western)

Adjournment

Greyhound racing: industry code of practice, 1231


Economic Development Committee

Structural changes in Victorian economy, 1250

Members statements

John Lockett, 1278

BIRRELL, Hon. M. A. (East Yarra)

Bills


Budget papers, 2002–03, 1368, 1372

BISHOP, Hon. B. W. (North Western)

Adjournment

Mildura: hospital site, 1337Panel beaters: insurance system, 1402Rail: Charlton crossing, 1232


Members statements

Sunraysia Tennis Academy, 1370


Rail: Mildura–Portland line, 1246


Rail: Mildura–Portland line, 1241

BOARDMAN, Hon. B. C. (Chelsea)

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee

Crime trends, 1248

Points of order, 1207, 1355, 1362

Select Committee on the Frankston Central Activity DistrictDevelopment

Report, 1354

BOWDEN, Hon. R. H. (South Eastern)

Adjournment

Road safety: speed cameras, 1336Somerville Rise Primary School, 1233

Bills


Members statements

Somerville, Tyabb and District Heritage Society, 1371

Rulings, 1300, 1324

BRIDESON, Hon. ANDREW (Waverley)

Adjournment

Consumer affairs: airbag scam, 1338Road safety: car computers, 1399

MEMBERS INDEX

ii COUNCIL 28, 29 and 30 May 2002

Members statements

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, 1277

BROAD, Hon. C. C. (Melbourne North) (Minister for Energy andResources, Minister for Ports and Minister assisting the Ministerfor State and Regional Development)

Adjournment

Responses, 1341

Bills

Energy Legislation (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill,1230, 1285

State Taxation Acts (Further Tax Reform) Bill, 1335, 1367State Taxation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1177Transport (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1281, 1365


Energy and greenhouse technologies centre, 1167Gas: supply security, 1237Marine safety: funding, 1241Mineral sands: government initiatives, 1169Port of Melbourne: channel deepening, 1344Rail: Mildura–Portland line, 1241

CARBINES, Hon. E. C. (Geelong)

Adjournment

Gas: heater maintenance, 1232Warrior Women exhibition, 1400


Members statements

Mount Moriac Recreation Reserve, 1279Surf Coast: community consultation, 1372


Belmont High School, 1240Education Week, 1166Schools: lifesaving carnival, 1347

COOTE, Hon. Andrea (Monash)

Adjournment

Homelessness: park bench shelter, 1402Ministers: adjournment responses, 1231Princes Highway–Chapel Street, Windsor: safety, 1340




Members statements

Stonnington: graffiti strategy, 1280

COVER, Hon. I. J. (Geelong)

Adjournment

Cycling: Melbourne–Geelong network, 1340


Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1244, 1350

Points of order, 1207



CRAIGE, Hon. G. R. (Central Highlands)

Adjournment

Goulburn Valley Water: management, 1339Motorcycles: safety, 1403



Report, 1359

DARVENIZA, Hon. Kaye (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

CELAS Youth Network, 1231

Bills


Members statements

Arts: cultural grants, 1372




Information and communications technology: governmentinitiatives, 1239

Sport and recreation: funding, 1343

DAVIS, Hon. D. McL. (East Yarra)

Adjournment

Banks: community, 1405

MEMBERS INDEX

28, 29 and 30 May 2002 COUNCIL iii

DAVIS, Hon. PHILIP (Gippsland)

Bills

Adventure Activities Protection Bill, 1276Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1331



DEPUTY PRESIDENT and CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES,The (Hon. B. W. Bishop)

Rulings, 1188, 1257, 1269, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1364, 1365,1398

FORWOOD, Hon. BILL (Templestowe)

Bills

Adventure Activities Protection Bill, 1277Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1334Electoral Bill, 1383


Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1242Youth: proof of age, 1173



Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1237, 1240Youth: proof of age, 1166

Select Committee on the Urban and Regional Land CorporationManaging Director

Terms of reference, 1252

FURLETTI, Hon. C. A. (Templestowe)

Adjournment

Port of Portland: fishing wharf, 1340


Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1348

Points of order, 1349, 1361, 1364



GOULD, Hon. M. M. (Doutta Galla) (Minister for IndustrialRelations and Minister assisting the Minister for Workcover)

Adjournment

Responses, 1234



Belmont High School, 1240Berwick Primary School, 1168, 1169Education Week, 1166Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1343,

1344, 1346, 1347, 1348School buses: Echuca, 1345Schools: lifesaving carnival, 1347Tertiary education and training: student concessions, 1165Youth: proof of age, 1166

HADDEN, Hon. D. G. (Ballarat)

Adjournment

Helmeted honeyeaters: recovery program, 1401

Bills



Law Reform Committee

Entry, search, seizure and questioning powers, 1353

Members statements

Clunes: film marketing strategy, 1278


Business: Internet presence, 1165Marine safety: funding, 1241Port of Melbourne: channel deepening, 1344

HALL, Hon. P. R. (Gippsland)

Adjournment

Gippsland: harvesting and haulage funding, 1336

Bills

Adventure Activities Protection Bill, 1261

Members statements

Toongabbie Primary School, 1371


Energy and greenhouse technologies centre, 1174


Energy and greenhouse technologies centre, 1167


Report, 1358

MEMBERS INDEX

iv COUNCIL 28, 29 and 30 May 2002



HALLAM, Hon. R. M. (Western)

Adjournment

Fishing and hunting: regulation, 1338Water: authorities financial ratios, 1233


Public Accounts and Estimates Committee

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 1251

JENNINGS, Hon. GAVIN. (Melbourne)

Bills

Adventure Activities Protection Bill, 1271Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1296Electoral Bill, 1386





KATSAMBANIS, Hon. P. A. (Monash)

Adjournment

Live music: promotion, 1403Western Ring Road: speed signage, 1339

Bills



Members statements

Stonnington: sporting facilities, 1370

LUCAS, Hon. N. B. (Eumemmerring)

Adjournment

Bail justices: immunisation, 1335Berwick hospital, 1230Taxis: multipurpose, 1404

Bills





Berwick Primary School, 1175



Berwick Primary School, 1168, 1169


Report, 1363

McQUILTEN, Hon. J. M. (Ballarat)


Members statements

George Tibbles, 1371

Points of order, 1206, 1207

MADDEN, Hon. J. M. (Doutta Galla) (Minister for Sport andRecreation, Minister for Youth Affairs and Minister assisting theMinister for Planning)

Adjournment

Responses, 1406

Bills

Casino (Management Agreement) (Amendment) Bill, 1335, 1367Electoral Bill, 1180, 1392Magistrates’ Court (Koori Court) Bill, 1230, 1281


Lawn bowls: funding, 1348Sport and recreation: funding, 1168, 1238, 1343

MIKAKOS, Hon. Jenny (Jika Jika)

Bills

Adventure Activities Protection Bill, 1255Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill, 1329

Members statements

Reservoir: mobile phone tower, 1372


Youth: proof of age, 1174

Points of order, 1173, 1257, 1355, 1361, 1364


Lawn bowls: funding, 1348Sport and recreation: funding, 1168, 1238

MEMBERS INDEX

28, 29 and 30 May 2002 COUNCIL v


Report, 1361

NGUYEN, Hon. S. M. (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

Maribyrnong: aquatic centre, 1233


Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee

Crime trends, 1247

Members statements

Amnesty International Australia, 1278Anglicare Victoria winter appeal, 1370


Small business: Yellow Pages survey, 1170

OLEXANDER, Hon. A. P. (Silvan)


Members statements

Disability services: transport, 1371


Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1245, 1351Tertiary education and training: student concessions, 1171



Minister for Youth Affairs: adviser, 1238, 1346Tertiary education and training: student concessions, 1165

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Alert Digest No. 5, 1176

POWELL, Hon. E. J. (North Eastern)

Adjournment

Insurance: public liability, 1401White Wreath Day, 1336

Bills


PRESIDENT, The (Hon. B. A. Chamberlain)

Address by President of Greece, 1280

Distinguished visitors, 1255

Rulings, 1166, 1167, 1169, 1170, 1172, 1173, 1240, 1246, 1344,1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1355

RICH-PHILLIPS, Hon. G. K. (Eumemmerring)

Adjournment

Consumer affairs: email scam, 1338Government: investment assistance, 1404Monash Medical Centre, 1233


Members statements

Local government: funding, 1278

ROMANES, Hon. G. D. (Melbourne)

Members statements

David Reynolds, 1280


Tertiary education and training: student concessions, 1172



Gas: supply security, 1237Information and communications technology: skills program, 1345Mineral sands: government initiatives, 1169


Report, 1356

SMITH, Hon. K. M. (South Eastern)

Adjournment

Fishing: rock lobster, 1341Garfield Primary School, 1234Making the Most of Life, 1405


SMITH, Hon. R. F. (Chelsea)

Bills


Members statements

Gallipoli veterans, 1280

MEMBERS INDEX

vi COUNCIL 28, 29 and 30 May 2002

SMITH, Hon. W. I. (Silvan)

Adjournment

Child care: regulations, 1339Small business: Yellow Pages survey, 1400

Bills


Members statements

Knox hospital, 1372


Retail tenancies: review, 1170

STONEY, Hon. E. G. (Central Highlands)

Bills



STRONG, Hon. C. A. (Higinbotham)

Adjournment

HMVS Cerberus, 1337Southern Family Life, 1404


THOMSON, Hon. M. R. (Melbourne North) (Minister for SmallBusiness and Minister for Consumer Affairs)

Bills

Pathology Services Accreditation (Amendment) Bill, 1392Tobacco (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1393


Questions on notice

Answers, 1176, 1247, 1353


Business: Internet presence, 1165Information and communications technology

government initiatives, 1239skills program, 1345

Retail tenancies: review, 1170Small business: Yellow Pages survey, 1171

parliamentary debates (hansard) · 2002-09-03 · parliament of victoria parliamentary debates...

Documents