parliamentary debates (hansard) · 2005-12-09 · legislative council committees privileges...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Book 8

19, 20 and 21 July 2005

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, Minister for Environment, Minister for Water and Minister for Victorian Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. W. Thwaites, MP

Minister for Finance, Minister for Major Projects and Minister for WorkCover and the TAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

Minister for Education Services and Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

Minister for Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

Minister for Local Government and Minister for Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. C. C. Broad, MLC

Treasurer, Minister for Innovation and Minister for State and Regional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Minister for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

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

Minister for Community Services and Minister for Children. . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. S. M. Garbutt, MP

Minister for Manufacturing and Export, Minister for Financial Services and Minister for Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. A. Haermeyer, MP

Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. Gavin Jennings, MLC

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

Minister for Sport and Recreation and Minister for Commonwealth Games. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Racing, Minister for Tourism and Minister assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. Pandazopoulos, MP

Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. B. J. Pike, MP

Minister for Energy Industries and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. T. C. Theophanous, MLC

Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Information and Communication Technology. . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. M. R. Thomson, MLC

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr R. W. Wynne, MP

Legislative Council committees

Privileges Committee — The Honourables W. R. Baxter, Andrew Brideson, Helen Buckingham and Bill Forwood, Mr Gavin Jennings, Ms Mikakos, the Honourable R. G. Mitchell and Mr Viney.

Standing Orders Committee — The President, the Honourables B. W. Bishop, Philip Davis and Bill Forwood, Mr Lenders, Ms Romanes and Mr Viney.

Joint committees

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): The Honourable S. M. Nguyen and Mr Scheffer. (Assembly): Mr Cooper, Ms Marshall, Mr Maxfield, Dr Sykes and Mr Wells.

Economic Development Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. N. Atkinson and R. H. Bowden, and Mr Pullen. (Assembly): Mr Delahunty, Mr Jenkins, Ms Morand and Mr Robinson.

Education and Training Committee — (Council): The Honourables H. E. Buckingham and P. R. Hall. (Assembly): Ms Eckstein, Mr Herbert, Mr Kotsiras, Ms Munt and Mr Perton.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): The Honourables Andrea Coote, D. K. Drum, J. G. Hilton and W. A. Lovell. (Assembly): Ms Duncan, Ms Lindell and Mr Seitz.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): The Hon. D. McL. Davis and Mr Smith. (Assembly): Ms McTaggart, Ms Neville, Mrs Powell, Mrs Shardey and Mr Wilson.

House Committee — (Council): The President (ex officio), the Honourables B. N. Atkinson and Andrew Brideson, Ms Hadden and the Honourables J. M. McQuilten and S. M. Nguyen. (Assembly): The Speaker (ex officio), Mr Cooper, Mr Leighton, Mr Lockwood, Mr Maughan, Mr Savage and Mr Smith.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): The Honourables Richard Dalla-Riva, Ms Hadden and the Honourables Geoff Hilton and David Koch. (Assembly): Ms Beard, Ms Beattie, Mr Hudson, Mr Lupton and Mr Maughan.

Library Committee — (Council): The President, Ms Argondizzo and the Honourables Richard Dalla-Riva, Kaye Darveniza and C. A. Strong. (Assembly): The Speaker, Mr Carli, Mrs Powell, Mr Seitz and Mr Thompson.

Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee — (Council): Ms Argondizzo and Mr Somyurek. (Assembly): Mr Baillieu, Ms Buchanan, Mr Dixon, Mr Nardella and Mr Smith.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): The Honourables W. R. Baxter, Bill Forwood and G. K. Rich-Phillips, Ms Romanes and Mr Somyurek. (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr Clark, Ms Green and Mr Merlino.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): The Honourables B. W. Bishop, J. H. Eren and E. G. Stoney. (Assembly): Mr Harkness, Mr Langdon, Mr Mulder and Mr Trezise.

Rural and Regional Services and Development Committee — (Council): The Honourables J. M. McQuilten and R. G. Mitchell. (Assembly): Mr Crutchfield, Mr Hardman, Mr Ingram, Dr Napthine and Mr Walsh.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): Ms Argondizzo and the Honourable Andrew Brideson. (Assembly): Ms D’Ambrosio, Mr Jasper, Mr Leighton, Mr Lockwood, Mr McIntosh, Mr Perera and Mr Thompson.

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

Parliamentary Services — Secretary: Dr S. O’Kane

MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. M. M. GOULD

Deputy President and Chair of Committees: Ms GLENYYS ROMANES

Temporary Chairs of Committees: The Honourables B. W. Bishop, R. H. Bowden, Andrew Brideson, H. E. Buckingham, Ms D. G. Hadden, the Honourable J. G. Hilton, Mr R. F. Smith and the Honourable C. A. Strong

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. PHILIP DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: The Hon. ANDREA COOTE

Leader of The Nationals: The Hon. P. R. HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: The Hon. D. K. DRUM

Member Province Party Member Province Party

Argondizzo, Ms Lidia Templestowe ALP Jennings, Mr Gavin Wayne Melbourne ALP Atkinson, Hon. Bruce Norman Koonung LP Koch, Hon. David Western LP Baxter, Hon. William Robert North Eastern Nats Lenders, Mr John Waverley ALP Bishop, Hon. Barry Wilfred North Western Nats Lovell, Hon. Wendy Ann North Eastern LP Bowden, Hon. Ronald Henry South Eastern LP McQuilten, Hon. John Martin Ballarat ALP Brideson, Hon. Andrew Ronald Waverley LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Doutta Galla ALP Broad, Ms Candy Celeste Melbourne North ALP Mikakos, Ms Jenny Jika Jika ALP Buckingham, Hon. Helen Elizabeth Koonung ALP Mitchell, Hon. Robert George Central Highlands ALP Carbines, Ms Elaine Cafferty Geelong ALP Nguyen, Hon. Sang Minh Melbourne West ALP Coote, Hon. Andrea Monash LP Olexander, Hon. Andrew Phillip Silvan LP Dalla-Riva, Hon. Richard East Yarra LP Pullen, Mr Noel Francis Higinbotham ALP Darveniza, Hon. Kaye Melbourne West ALP Rich-Phillips, Hon. Gordon Kenneth Eumemmerring LP Davis, Hon. David McLean East Yarra LP Romanes, Ms Glenyys Dorothy Melbourne ALP Davis, Hon. Philip Rivers Gippsland LP Scheffer, Mr Johan Emiel Monash ALP Drum, Hon. Damian Kevin North Western Nats Smith, Mr Robert Frederick Chelsea ALP Eren, Hon. John Hamdi Geelong ALP Somyurek, Mr Adem Eumemmerring ALP Forwood, Hon. Bill Templestowe LP Stoney, Hon. Eadley Graeme Central Highlands LP Gould, Hon. Monica Mary Doutta Galla ALP Strong, Hon. Christopher Arthur Higinbotham LP Hadden, Ms Dianne Gladys Ballarat Ind Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Jika Jika ALP Hall, Hon. Peter Ronald Gippsland Nats Thomson, Hon. Marsha Rose Melbourne North ALP Hilton, Hon. John Geoffrey Western Port ALP Viney, Mr Matthew Shaw Chelsea ALP Hirsh, Hon. Carolyn Dorothy Silvan Ind Vogels, Hon. John Adrian Western LP

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 19 JULY 2005

TERRORISM: LONDON BOMBINGS ............................1689 ROYAL ASSENT............................................................1689 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electricity: Hazelwood power station ......................1689 Local government: elections...........................1690, 1695 WorkCover: workplace access .................................1691 WorkCover: third-party compensation.....................1692 Consumer affairs: food labelling..............................1692 Occupational health and safety: workplace

accidents................................................................1693 Consumer affairs: advisory services ........................1696 Commonwealth Games: compensation ....................1696 Stolen Generations Organisation: establishment.....1697

Supplementary questions Electricity: Hazelwood power station ......................1690 WorkCover: workplace access .................................1691 Consumer affairs: food labelling..............................1693 Local government: elections.....................................1695 Commonwealth Games: compensation ....................1697

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers .....................................................................1698

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Member for Central Highlands Province:

Bashing the Bush ..................................................1698 Tertiary education and training: student unions......1699 Sustainability and Environment: web site ................1699 Amy Gillett.................................................................1699 Harness racing: country meetings............................1699 Family violence court: establishment.......................1700 Consumer affairs: food labelling..............................1700 Victorian Farmers Federation: annual

conference .............................................................1700 Terrorism: London bombings.........................1701, 1702 Taiwan Trade Mission ..............................................1701 Medical research: achievements ..............................1701 HM Prison Langi Kal Kal: management .................1702 Marie Wallace...........................................................1702

PETITION Police: schools program...........................................1703

NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CODE Films and computer games.......................................1703

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Labour hire................................................................1703

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 8......................................................1704

PAPERS..........................................................................1704 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sessional orders ........................................................1705 HEALTH LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILL Second reading..........................................................1706

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading ......................................................... 1708 Committee ................................................................. 1727 Third reading ............................................................ 1730 Remaining stages ...................................................... 1730

ENERGY SAFE VICTORIA BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1730

ADJOURNMENT Bridges: Echuca–Moama......................................... 1731 Mitcham–Frankston project: EastLink .................... 1731 Liquor: Dartmoor licence......................................... 1732 Health: taxation ........................................................ 1732 Spencer Street station: disabled access.................... 1733 Melbourne: car park levy ......................................... 1733 Pest plants and animals: control.............................. 1734 Responses.................................................................. 1734

WEDNESDAY, 20 JULY 2005

PETITION Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic

control................................................................... 1739 SUPREME COURT JUDGES

Report 2002–04......................................................... 1739 PAPERS.......................................................................... 1739 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Pest plants and animals: control.............................. 1739 Frankston-Cranbourne Road: duplication .............. 1739 Buses: Ringwood ...................................................... 1740 Gordon Institute of TAFE: upgrade......................... 1740 Locksmiths: security laws......................................... 1741 John Byrne ................................................................ 1741 Bendigo: Chum Street palliative care house............ 1741 Koori court: Mildura ................................................ 1742 Schools: pre-driver education .................................. 1742 Terrorism: London bombings................................... 1742 Bridges: East Gippsland........................................... 1743 Melbourne Juvenile Justice Centre: beds ................ 1743

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading .................................. 1743 Second reading ......................................................... 1743

RACING: INDUSTRY POTENTIAL ............................... 1746 RULINGS BY THE CHAIR

Members: speaking time........................................... 1771 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Melbourne Health: financial responsibility ............. 1772 Energy: nuclear power ............................................. 1773 Hume: councillor ...................................................... 1774 Environment: sustainable workplaces ..................... 1774 Insurance: fire services levy ..................................... 1775 Commonwealth Games: infrastructure.................... 1776 Commonwealth Games: compensation.................... 1777 Housing: tenants’ rights ........................................... 1777 Gas: regional supply................................................. 1778

CONTENTS

National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee Week...............................1779

Supplementary questions Melbourne Health: financial responsibility..............1773 Hume: councillor.......................................................1774 Insurance: fire services levy......................................1775 Commonwealth Games: compensation ....................1777 Gas: regional supply .................................................1778

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers......................................................................1780

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ..................................1780

ENERGY SAFE VICTORIA BILL Second reading..........................................................1780

HIGHER EDUCATION ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading..........................................................1780 Third reading.............................................................1792 Remaining stages.......................................................1792

COMMONWEALTH GAMES ARRANGEMENTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL Second reading..........................................................1792 Committee..................................................................1807 Third reading.............................................................1810 Remaining stages.......................................................1810

NATIONAL PARKS (POINT NEPEAN) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1810

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Second reading..........................................................1810 Third reading.............................................................1819 Remaining stages.......................................................1819

ADJOURNMENT Housing: advocacy funding ......................................1819 Diabetes: multilingual advertising ...........................1819 Electricity: prices ......................................................1819 Disability services: accommodation.........................1820 Disability services: after-school care .......................1820 Responses ..................................................................1821

THURSDAY, 21 JULY 2005

CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES Publications, films and computer games..................1829

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Adjournment ..............................................................1829

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Melbourne Victory Football Club.............................1829 Industrial relations: federal legislation ..........1829, 1831 Kew Residential Services: site development.............1829 Refugees: government assistance .............................1830 Banyule: council elections ........................................1830 Immigration: Palmer report .....................................1830 Commonwealth Games: economic impact ...............1831 Rail: Bendigo service ................................................1831 Barwon Heads: multipurpose facility.......................1832 Won Wron prison: residential diversion

program.................................................................1832

Mornington Peninsula: aged care facility................1832 Hepburn: management .............................................1833 Terrorism: London bombings...................................1833

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes

Entrance property sale .........................................1833 Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee:

violence associated with motor vehicle use1834, 1839 Office of Police Integrity: witness protection

program ................................................................1835 Justice: asset confiscation operations —

activities summary 2003–04.......................1835, 1842 Economic Development Committee: labour hire.....1836 Auditor-General: managing intellectual

property in government agencies .........................1837 Auditor-General: managing stormwater

flooding risks...............................................1837, 1840 Victorian WorkCover Authority: report 2003–04....1838 Melbourne Health: report 2003–04 .........................1839 Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes

Entrance property sale .........................................1841 NATIONAL PARKS (POINT NEPEAN) BILL

Second reading..........................................................1843 ENERGY SAFE VICTORIA BILL

Second reading..........................................................1844 Remaining stages ......................................................1852

HEALTH LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL Second reading................................................1852, 1869 Committee .......................................................1876, 1881 Third reading ............................................................1884 Remaining stages ......................................................1884

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Commonwealth Games: community

participation..........................................................1860 Home and community care program: funding.........1861 Commonwealth Games: compensation....................1862 Consumer affairs: credit...........................................1863 Rural and regional Victoria: sports facilities ..........1863 Goldmining: Fosterville............................................1865 Environment: greenhouse gas emissions .................1865 Information and communications technology:

trade mission.........................................................1866 Gas: Creswick supply ...............................................1867 Sport and recreation: participation..........................1868

Supplementary questions Commonwealth Games: community

participation..........................................................1861 Commonwealth Games: compensation....................1862 Rural and regional Victoria: sports facilities ..........1864 Environment: greenhouse gas emissions .................1866 Gas: Creswick supply ...............................................1868

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Answers .....................................................................1868

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (WILLIAMSTOWN SHIPYARD) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1884

CONTENTS

TOBACCO (AMENDMENT) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1884

OWNER DRIVERS AND FORESTRY CONTRACTORS BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1885

ADJOURNMENT Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic

control ...................................................................1885 Mitcham–Frankston project: EastLink.....................1885 State Emergency Service: horse units.......................1886 Dental services: waiting lists ....................................1886 Roads: Manningham.................................................1887 Bicycles: city parking................................................1887 Melbourne University: Glenormiston campus .........1888 Chewton: dingo farm ................................................1888 Roads: funding ..........................................................1889 Tourism: south-eastern suburbs ...............................1889 Orbost Exhibition Centre: funding ...........................1890 Occupational health and safety: health care

workers..................................................................1890 Melbourne Markets: relocation................................1890 Indonesia and Malaysia: Vietnamese

monuments ............................................................1891 Rural Ambulance Victoria: vehicle safety................1891 Responses ..................................................................1892

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

TUESDAY, 19 JULY 2005

1694. Corrections: GPS tracking equipment.......1895 4077. Corrections: minister’s office —

alcohol purchases..................................1895 4285. Transport: Melbourne Port

Corporation — entertainment expenses .................................................1896

4380. Transport: Haystac Public Affairs Pty Ltd — payments .....................................1896

4461. Transport: Social Shift Pty Ltd — payments ................................................1897

4588. Transport: VicRoads — Access to Parks program.......................................1897

4596. Environment: Strathbogie and Mansfield — land clearance .................1897

4631. Transport: Infrastructure — interstate trips ........................................................1898

4787. Police and emergency services: Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme — advertising and credit card expenditure ............................................1898

4788. Police and emergency services: Victoria Police — advertising and credit card expenditure..........................1898

4790. Police and emergency services: Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board — advertising and credit card expenditure..........................1899

4791. Police and emergency services: Country Fire Authority — advertising and credit card expenditure ............................................ 1899

4794. Corrections: prisons — education program................................................. 1900

4798. Corrections: prisons — illicit drugs .......... 1900 4831. Environment: carbon tender program....... 1901 4879. Transport: roadside noise barriers............ 1902 4885. Community services: Human

Services — disability services division budget ...................................... 1903

4886. Community services: Signposts packages — funding.............................. 1905

4887. Community services: disability services — southern region .................. 1905




4896. Community services: support and choice — individualised planning and support initiative ............................ 1908

4897. Community services: disability services — flexible care packages ........ 1909

WEDNESDAY, 20 JULY 2005

1806. Corrections: private prisons contract review notice.......................................... 1911

4101. Transport: Spencer Street Station Authority — interstate and overseas travel...................................................... 1911

4146. Transport: V/Line — revenue and passenger journeys................................ 1912

4200. Transport: Victorian Rail Freight Advisory Council — entertainment expenses................................................. 1912

4284. Transport: Marine Safety Victoria — entertainment expenses ......................... 1913

4288. Transport: Spencer Street Station Authority — entertainment expenses .... 1913

4290. Transport: VicRoads — entertainment expenses................................................. 1915

4421. Transport: Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd — payments................................................ 1915

4786. Police and emergency services: Police Appeals Board — advertising and credit card expenditure ......................... 1916

4789. Police and emergency services: State Emergency Services — advertising and credit card expenditure.................. 1916

4796. Corrections: home detention program ...... 1916 4799. Corrections: prisoners — unemployed...... 1917 4867. Transport: mobile traffic safety

cameras — siting................................... 1918

CONTENTS

4869. Transport: Waverley Road — mean speed ......................................................1918

4870. Transport: Waverley Road — accidents ....1918 4890. Community services: disability

services — southern region ..................1919 4898. Community services: disability

services — Kew Residential Services ..................................................1919

4899. Community services: Disability Services Act — eligibility for services...................................................1920

4911. Victorian communities: Victorian Communities — budget 2005–06..........1920

4913. Victorian communities: Victorian Communities — performance measures ................................................1921

THURSDAY, 21 JULY 2005

1722. Transport: Connex — punctuality and reliability reporting................................1923

1723. Transport: Yarra Trams — punctuality and reliability reporting ........................1923

1755. Transport: M>Train Siemens cars.............1923 1866. Transport: City Circle Tram Promotion

Committee — stress-related leave.........1924 1871. Transport: Victorian Bicycle Advisory

Committee — stress-related leave.........1924 3677. Transport: public transport zones —

revenue...................................................1924 3678. Transport: City Saver tickets —

revenue...................................................1924 4080. Police and emergency services:

minister’s office — alcohol purchases ...............................................1925

4145. Transport: Infrastructure — freedom of information requests..............................1925

4170. State and regional development: Docklands Film and Television Studios complex project.........................1926

4289. Transport: Urban and Regional Land Corporation — entertainment expenses .................................................1926

4291. Transport: Victorian Channels Authority — entertainment expenses.....1927

4293. Transport: VicTrack — entertainment expenses .................................................1927

4294. Transport: City Circle Tram Promotion Committee — entertainment expenses .................................................1928

4350. Multicultural affairs: VITS Language Link — entertainment expenses.............1928

4654. Transport: V/Line — services.....................1929 4868. Transport: mobile traffic safety

cameras — siting ...................................1930 4892. Community services: disability

services — southern region ..................1930

4893. Community services: disability services — southern region ..................1931

4894. Community services: disability services — needs register......................1931

4895. Community services: support and choice — individualised planning and support initiative.............................1932

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

TERRORISM: LONDON BOMBINGS

Tuesday, 19 July 2005 COUNCIL 1689

Tuesday, 19 July 2005

The PRESIDENT (Hon. M. M. Gould) took the chair at 2.03 p.m. and read the prayer.

TERRORISM: LONDON BOMBINGS

The PRESIDENT — Order! Recently Victorians, together with all the people of the world, have been struck by the horror of the London terrorist bombings. This house sends its condolences to the families and to the loved ones of those who were lost and our best wishes to those who are recovering from this act of evil and cruelty.

In memory of the departed, I ask all members to stand in silence for 1 minute.

Honourable members stood in their places.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message read advising royal assent to:

21 June

Accident Compensation (Amendment) Act Appropriation (2005/2006) Act Appropriation (Parliament 2005/2006) Act City of Melbourne (Amendment) Act Courts Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments)

Act Dangerous Goods and Equipment (Public Safety)

Acts (Amendment) Act Emergency Services Superannuation

(Amendment) Act Energy Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments)

Act Sex Offenders Registration (Amendment) Act

28 June

National Parks (Alpine National Park Grazing) Act

State Taxation Acts (General Amendment) Act.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electricity: Hazelwood power station

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. The panel report on the

environment effects statement (EES) for the proposed Hazelwood coalmine expansion was received by the government on 1 March. Given that it will take some time to move the Morwell River and the Strzelecki Highway, given the project is already 12 months or so behind schedule, and given that if the project does not start soon Hazelwood will not have the coal to continue to operate at full capacity, can the minister advise when the government will make a decision on the EES?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank the member for his question and for his interest in the Hazelwood power station and in this area. It is not my responsibility to comment in relation to the environment effects statement processes, which are of course not conducted by my portfolio at all. My role in relation to this is the negotiations, which are separate to the EES and involve the question of the proposal, or the request, from Hazelwood power station and International Power for additional coal to be added to their current mining licence for the west field.

The addition of coal under a mining licence does come under my responsibility. It is therefore appropriate that I continue discussions with Hazelwood and with International Power in relation to the issues that have been raised by me in my consideration of the granting of the additional coal that has been requested. Those issues go to the same questions that were raised during the original brown coal tender a number of years ago and are issues about the introduction of new technologies, the reduction in greenhouse gases and so forth. We have indicated to International Power that the government is willing to consider the provision of new coal as part of a package, if you like, and negotiations are occurring in relation to that.

Already we have made a significant concession in relation to negotiations on new coal, as Mr Forwood would be aware — that is, in reaching the targets under the brown coal tender we are prepared to spread that out over the projected life of the plant. Negotiations are continuing around those issues. Obviously they are at a critical point at the moment, and I do not wish to make any secret of that. That is the situation. We are at the pointy end or the final stages, and we are considering a range of issues in relation to a proposed agreement between the government and Hazelwood, which would deal with the issues that I am concerned about in relation to the provision of the additional coal. On the one hand these are questions of ensuring that Hazelwood continues to operate, because we are concerned that it continue to operate and provide cheap power to the state, but on the other hand that it also provides some significant reduction in the projected


1690 COUNCIL Tuesday, 19 July 2005

greenhouse gases that would emanate from the station in exchange for the government providing it with additional coal.

Supplementary question

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I thank the minister for his answer. Will the government be therefore making two decisions: one decision on the environment effects statement and the shifting of the river and the Strzelecki Highway so it can get to its existing coal; and a separate and second decision in relation to the capacity for new coal under the minister’s department?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — As I said to the member, the environment effects statement process is not my decision. However, Mr Forwood would be aware that the panel report both referred to the issues relating to the moving of the road and the river and reported on negotiations between me and International Power in relation to the deed. The panel report indicated that that was an appropriate way for the government to deal with this issue. So there are two sets of issues, but obviously the two issues are connected to each other.

Local government: elections

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — My question is to the Minister for Local Government, Ms Broad. I ask the minister to outline to the house how the Bracks government is governing for all Victorians with its continued reforms to local government elections to strengthen democracy in Victoria.

Honourable members interjecting.

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — I thank the member for her question, and for the response from those opposite. The Bracks government is governing for all Victorians by listening to what they have to say and taking their views into account. Unlike the last Liberal government, the Bracks government does listen to the views of people, including people in local government. It is also continuing to strengthen democracy in local government.

The Bracks government’s Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act set the agenda for greater democracy in Victorian local government by introducing important and long overdue reforms to local government elections, including independent reviews of council electoral structures, proportional representation and a process to align all council elections to a common date and cycle.

Draft regulations released over a month ago for public consultation continued the process of implementing the government’s agenda to strengthen local democracy. Important provisions ensuring proper disclosure of candidate campaign donations, provisions for silent voting in council elections, improved procedures for computer counting of votes and provisions to support the preparation of more accurate electoral rolls have been supported and will proceed as part of the final regulations.

There has been a great deal of discussion about elements of the draft regulations that sought to address a number of problems associated with postal voting. These problems have been raised in country and regional Victoria as well as in Melbourne by MPs on both sides of this house, by individuals, by councils and by commentators. The Bracks government has listened to what people in local government and the community have said in response to those draft regulations, we have taken their views into account, and we have acted. The final regulations will now require candidate statements published by the electoral commission to carry a disclaimer to make it clear to voters that statements are not endorsed by the returning officer, and candidates will be required to make a declaration about the accuracy of their statements to the returning officer.

I will also be including provision for candidates’ preference recommendations to be retained in postal voting material. The proposal to remove candidates’ preferences was intended to address the issue of dummy candidates. But clearly there is not sufficient support for those provisions to continue. A number of responses to the draft regulations have argued that a return to attendance voting would provide a remedy for some of these problems which have been caused by postal voting. I note that the opposition spokesperson for local government has also made this observation.

It is a very interesting observation given that it was the last Liberal government that introduced postal voting for local government elections. I have advised councils and the peak local government bodies that I support discussion of these issues; in fact I welcome it, and I look forward to a debate about the issues of the merits of postal voting and attendance voting in local government elections. In the meantime the Bracks government will continue to support the implementation of proper democratic principles for the conduct of local government elections in Victoria as part of its commitment to governing for all Victorians.



WorkCover: workplace access

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I direct my question without notice to John Lenders, Minister for WorkCover and the TAC. I refer to section 80 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which enables the minister to limit the number of persons who may hold entry permits as authorised representatives. Has the minister decided what is the appropriate number of unionists to have this right of entry? What criteria did he use in making his decision?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC) — I welcome Mr Forwood’s question on the issue of authorised representatives of registered employee organisations — often called ARREOs — which is a feature of the new Occupational Health and Safety Act. As we may recall from the three days of debate on the new act in this place last year, one provision of that act is that the minister has the capacity to put a quota on ARREOs if need be. It takes us right to the very point of why we have the Occupational Health and Safety Act, why an office of ARREOs was created. That was fundamentally so that we could build on the safety record in workplaces in this state by not just having the existing elected occupational health and safety representatives, the new deputy occupational health and safety representatives and the WorkSafe inspectors but also the ARREOs as another layer of people checking for safety in workplaces.

A lot of anxiety and concern was raised by some, not the least of whom was Mr Forwood and his colleagues opposite, that somehow or other by the creation of ARREOs we would have a wave of union officials sweeping across the state and disrupting every workplace known to humanity, that somehow or other they would use this vehicle to do things they should not be doing.

The act certainly gives the minister the power to put a quota on this area, but I would have thought that any minister, before exercising any such power, would first see how the registrations were going; see how the enrolment of ARREOs was going and see what advice there might be from the Victorian WorkCover Authority. I would have thought that the minister would want first and foremost to see what actually happened on 1 July when this new legislation came into place and whether the doomsday fears and naysaying from Mr Forwood and those opposite on this issue actually came to fruition.

To my knowledge — and it could stand refreshing, because it is probably a couple of days old — 1 July passed some weeks ago; and the last time I heard about

the outcome it was apparent that there has not been a ripple of fear throughout workplaces in the state. We have not had hundreds of union thugs descend on workplaces and disrupt the universe as we know it. In fact a modest number of ARREOs have been licensed by the Magistrates Court and given the authority to go into these workplaces under the very strict conditions set by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. To my knowledge, there has not been a wave of complaints; in fact, I do not think there has even been a single formal complaint. I think there has been the odd phone call or two and inquiry, but I would be happy to stand corrected on that.

WorkSafe set up an apparatus to deal with some of the concerns raised by Mr Forwood. There would be genuine concerns if this thing does not work, but I can assure the house that come 1 July those people licensed as ARREOs had the correct focus. Their job is to assist with the process of making workplaces safer so we can bring down the last year’s statistic of 29 deaths and 30 000 injuries in Victorian workplaces and bring about a culture and regime that will result in safer workplaces.

I would have expected quite a number of queries, given the anxiety that was around and being fanned by those opposite; 1 July came and there were undoubtedly some queries. On whether they were formal complaints or not I stand to be corrected — Mr Forwood may have one for me — but certainly the main objective of the act, which is to make workplaces safer and ensure a good regime is in place, has been achieved; and this makes Victoria a better place to raise a family.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — In the interests of certainty in the workplace will the minister advise the people of Victoria how many unionists from each union have been authorised to enter workplaces throughout the state?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC) — I am happy to take that question from Mr Forwood on notice. However, if he is concerned about the issue of certainty I would have thought that Victorian employers would be far more interested in how the Occupational Health and Safety Act was working. If there were issues of abuse by ARREOs, that would be something on which you would obviously want a level of certainty and clarity, as well as the procedures to deal with them.

The issue of certainty in numbers is not of particular relevance out there — the issue is whether the act is being applied, whether the powers of ARREOs are



being abused, and whether the powers of ARREOs and the newly elected deputy occupational health and safety representatives are enhancing safety in Victorian workplaces to bring down those statistics.

The answer to all of those questions is positive. They are enhancing the safety of workplaces. This is a great reform that will make safer workplaces as we govern for all Victoria, making it a better place in which to bring up a family.

WorkCover: third-party compensation

Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) — My question is to the Minister for WorkCover and the TAC. Can the minister advise the house how the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s commitment to improving the way third-party recoveries are handled demonstrates that the Bracks government is governing for all Victorians?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC) — I welcome Mr Hilton’s question. It is a great day in the Legislative Council when we have two questions in a row on the issue of WorkCover. It is a great Victorian institution that is a legacy of the Cain Labor government. It has been put in place to make Victoria a better, safer place for workers to work. It is a regime that deals with the injuries of workers in a sound financial way that it is not an onerous burden on employers.

Mr Hilton specifically asked the question about third-party recoveries under WorkCover, and I would be churlish not to note that Mr Hall raised a similar question regarding a couple of constituents of his the last time we were sitting in this place. The issue that Mr Hilton raised is an issue about balance in these areas and about what is being done with third-party recoveries to give confidence to the people in the community generally that this is a reasonable approach, that it is something that is necessary for the WorkCover scheme and that the balance is correct.

Third-party recoveries are an incredibly important part of any regime. Let us understand what a third-party recovery is. If a worker is injured in the workplace and that worker then claims compensation from the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA), the authority can claim back from a third party which is in one way or the other liable some of the money it has expended. We know that in Victoria about 95 per cent of third-party recoveries involve a person being injured on a clearly defined work site controlled by another party, such as in areas involving outsourcing and some of the labour hire cases. I do not think any in this debate wish

to address this in a transparent sense, but there are some people jumping on this bandwagon who just do not like third-party recovery generally and who are hiding behind another veneer on this issue — I am not saying that anyone in this place is.

The issue also comes into the remaining 5 per cent of areas. One example involved the Krupjack family in the Latrobe Valley. A worker who went onto a site to care for some very disabled people in a household was bitten by a dog and suffered some fairly horrendous medical consequences. A big issue was who was actually liable. First and foremost, as I advised Mr Hall and the rest of the house the last time the matter was raised, the Victorian WorkCover Authority is not proceeding against the family. It is trying to seek some redress from its insurance, but it is not proceeding against that family and has given the family that assurance. The VWA chief executive officer and I have made it quite clear that the VWA did not handle it sensitively, and we do not want that to happen again. Let us be unashamed to put that on the record.

However, arising further from that, the people in these categories obviously need guidance on how they can safely operate in these areas. I am pleased to advise the house that next week the Victorian WorkCover Authority will be distributing a Victorian home care industry occupational health and safety guide on some of the reasonable precautions that can be made in these areas. This guide is the consequence of a lot of work done over a long period of time by the Municipal Association of Victoria, carers groups, the Department of Human Services and a range of others to add some clarity in this area.

There are a number of balances that need to be brought into place, but first and foremost we need to deal sensitively with the remaining 5 per cent of people in this category of third-party recoveries, and the VWA is moving down that path. We need guidelines in this place so the VWA and the rest of us know how to deal with it. Only senior people in the VWA will deal with it. Fundamentally we need a system that looks after injured people responsibly and in a way that is beneficial for all Victorians. We govern for the whole state, and we want to make this a better place to bring up a family.

Consumer affairs: food labelling

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — My question today is directed to the Honourable Marsha Thomson, the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I simply ask the minister this question: what is the Victorian



government’s policy on country-of-origin labelling for consumable goods?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Consumer Affairs) — The Premier has made it clear in media reports today of his support for country-of-origin declarations, and there is federal legislation in place in relation to that. The issue is important for all Victorians and other Australians, because we would like to be able to make choices about whether we are purchasing Australian goods or overseas goods with a sense of confidence. Consumer Affairs Victoria has responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of labelling, and if there are any incidences of labelling of goods or products being inaccurate or misleading, Consumer Affairs Victoria can act. I am sure that most Victorians and other Australians when evaluating goods produced, manufactured or sold in Australia would like to be able to assess whether they are Australian.

We would like to see the federal government take action to ensure that that level of confidence can be there. Consumer Affairs Victoria will continue to act to ensure that the labelling of goods and products that people buy is in fact accurate, and in any instances where that is not the case Consumer Affairs Victoria will act.


Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I therefore ask the minister: as she has indicated Consumer Affairs Victoria has a role in the accuracy of the labelling of goods, does it have a definition of ‘product of Australia’?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Consumer Affairs) — As the member will be aware, the issue of what constitutes ‘product of Australia’ and what percentages are taken into account when determining what is a product of Australia has been an item of discussion on the national agenda for some time. These are important national debates to be had. It is important that people understand that there are set standards in place, and we would urge the federal government to talk with the agencies to ensure that those discussions are being had, and that the federal government is following up on the need to ensure that we can have confidence in relation to produce of Australia and what it may mean.

Occupational health and safety: workplace accidents

Hon. R. G. MITCHELL (Central Highlands) — My question is to the Minister for Energy Industries

and Resources. Can the minister report to the house the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a worker at a quarry in Donnybrook last week and what action the government intends to take in regard to this matter?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank the honourable member for this important question. Let me first of all indicate to the house that it is with great regret that I report to the house the tragic death of Mr Jason Bux, a 38 -year-old maintenance contractor from Craigieburn, at the Barro Group Mountain View Quarry at Donnybrook on Melbourne’s northern fringe on Friday, 15 July 2005. In my ministerial capacity I take these incidents to be of the absolute and utmost importance. In my judgment they not only require reporting to the house but also require fully investigation and action to be taken.

At approximately 10:45 a.m. on Friday Jason was fatally injured when the fixed-jaw liner of a primary crusher fell on him when he was carrying out maintenance work.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — On a point of order, President, I seek your clarification on the minister pursuing the answer to this particular question given that the coroner is likely to undertake an investigation of this matter and provide findings. I would have thought the status of the Coroners Court would mean the minister needs to be very careful in the answer he gives to this question.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — On the point of order, President, I find it extraordinary that the member would take a point of order in relation to this issue in the way that he has, but I am happy to report to the house that I believe in regard to these incidents that, where they fall under the responsibility of government, I as a minister certainly have a responsibility to ensure that everything can be done so that this type of incident does not occur again.

President, I am not intending as part of my response to Mr Mitchell’s question to go into the detail of apportioning blame in relation to this issue. I merely wish to report to the house what actions my department intends to take in relation to its own investigations into this matter in ensuring that safety is adhered to in the workplace.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I do not uphold the point of order, but the comments that were made with respect to the question, as I understand it, are that this matter may lead to the Coroners Court. It is not a question of sub judice at this point in time, but the



minister should be cognisant of the rules of the house in that matter. I will allow the minister to continue his answer in respect to the question put to him in the house.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — Perhaps it is appropriate for me to begin by first of all on behalf of the government offering my sincerest condolences to Jason’s family, including his wife and young child, and to his many friends, both in the workplace and out of the workplace. The Department of Primary Industries — —

Hon. J. H. Eren — On a point of order, President, I noticed through that debate that the clock was continuing.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Please stop the clock while I give my ruling on this. The question of stopping the clock is one that I have been considering, and I have not yet got to the position of making a ruling on it or of advising the house on whether there are certain times or occasions on which the clock will be stopped and what those occasions will be. The general principle at the moment is that the clock will continue to count down unless the Chair indicates that the clock should be stopped if it is believed that points of order are being used to eat up someone’s time unnecessarily.

I have to say when account is taken of the 4 minutes allocated during question time, a point of order, which seemed to be reasonable when it was raised by the honourable member, the minister’s response and then my ruling on it have consumed the minister’s time so that the minister now has only 26 seconds for the remainder of his answer.

Hon. Bill Forwood — On the point of order, President, I think that the house has the capacity to grant leave to the minister to give a proper answer to the question, and with the Leader of the Government I would so move that he should be given 4 minutes.

The PRESIDENT — Order! On that basis we will set the clock back 4 minutes, and the minister will continue his response to the question from Mr Mitchell.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — I thank the opposition and Mr Forwood for providing that additional time. I probably will not need the full time but I do want to make some points in relation to this very serious matter.

The Department of Primary Industries received notification from the company of this incident and promptly sent two inspectors to the Donnybrook site. The inspectors also received assistance from the

Victoria Police and the Victorian WorkCover Authority. It is my understanding that the coroner also attended at the incident and that his investigations are also ongoing, as are the investigations of my department.

Can I assure the house that this incident will be thoroughly investigated from the point of view of my department in terms of safety questions, and that every measure will be taken to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future. This government is committed to ensuring that the highest safety standards are met at all mines and quarries throughout Victoria and I, as minister, as I have indicated to the house, put this as the highest of priorities to ensure that these things do not occur.

The reason that I think it is appropriate to highlight these things in the house is that when an accident of this sort occurs in an area like mining it affects the entire mining community, and it is appropriate at the time to put the view of the government and what it intends to do to ensure that these things do not happen. On the whole the record of safety in the mining and quarrying industry in this state is in fact a good one when compared to other mining activities in other states and across the world. However, I am sure that industry workers and regulators all believe that more can be done and more can always be done to ensure that what is inherently a dangerous industry does not have these kinds of incidents that clearly affect not only the people who work there but also impact on their families.

Everyone who sees a loved one go to work is entitled to expect that loved one will come home from work safely. It is our responsibility as a government and as regulators to try to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that that is the case. The Bracks government is committed to ensuring this very high standard is met. It is part of the newly introduced Occupational Health and Safety Act which has been mentioned by the minister responsible for that act.

Obviously delegation from my department under that act occurs in relation to safety in mines, and we are very pleased with the changes that have been brought in, which will also add to safety and ensure it is improved in future.

Again I pass on my condolences to the family of the worker concerned, and I assure the house that everything will be done to investigate this incident and to make sure that this kind of incident does not occur in future.



Local government: elections

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — I direct my question without notice to Ms Broad, the Minister for Local Government. It appears that the minister’s proposal to gag council candidates has been dumped due to the enormous backlash from local government, the media and the general public. The minister claims these proposals were intended to combat dummy candidates in council elections, where the rest of the population saw it as an attack on freedom of speech. Does the minister now support a return to attendance voting at local government elections, as compared to the postal ballot system, to combat dummy candidates? And this time will the minister consult before she makes any decision?

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — I am not sure that the member heard my response to an earlier question in question time today when I dealt with these matters. I think he has revealed that some members on the other side are not very quick on their feet when it comes to adjusting their question time strategy. But I am very willing to reiterate some of my responses earlier in question time today for the benefit of the opposition, which does not seem to have understood them.

There was consultation with the peak bodies prior to the release of the draft regulations and, as I promised at the time I met with them, I had further consultations with them after the one-month public comment period had been completed. Everything in those draft regulations was a response to issues raised by the community; by members of Parliament, including members on the other side of the house; by commentators; and by councils in both rural and regional Victoria as well as in metropolitan Melbourne.

This government, which does listen to what the community has to say in response to its proposals, has acted accordingly. As a result those draft regulations have been changed to take into account the response from the community and from local government — as I always indicated the government would do after it had heard responses from the community.

There are some very disappointed councils as a result of the changes the government has made, but the government’s view is that local government is an independent tier of government in its own right — something this government has moved to recognise in the state’s constitution, unlike the previous government, which trampled all over the rights of people in local government — and accordingly our view is that it is only appropriate to proceed with measures to do with

local government elections which have genuine support from people in local government. That is why we have listened, and we have acted in accordance with the responses that have been received.

In relation to the question of attendance voting and postal voting, noting that the problems attached to postal voting have been raised by many people right across the community and noting that postal voting is still a relatively new feature of local government elections, introduced by the former Liberal government, I have agreed to consider the views of the local government peak bodies, and I welcome all views on this subject. I look forward to a debate about the many issues around postal voting and attendance voting in local government elections. I think it is a very timely debate to have, some 10 years after the former Liberal government introduced postal voting into local government elections.

I think it does deserve a very close examination as we move to 2008 when we will see all councils across Victoria going to election on the same date as a result of the reforms of this government. That will enormously increase the standing of local government.


Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — I thank the minister for her answer. She said that she respects local government, but during the two-month caretaker period councillors will be treated as children. They will not be trusted to make media statements or officiate at council functions. Their names will have to be removed from council web sites, and they will not be able to make decisions on things that will cost more than $100 000. For two months before a council election the councils will basically be defunct and council operations will grind to a halt. After this latest backdown, will the government remove the legislation that effectively gags sitting councillors during the two-month caretaker period?

Hon. Bill Forwood — No!

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — Yes, President. The short answer, in response to the Honourable Bill Forwood, is indeed no, but by way of explanation the reforms the government has brought in through the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act are very important reforms to improve democracy in local government. This government believes it is important that similar standards be applied to local government elections as apply to state and federal elections. Caretaker periods have long been accepted as a matter of standard practice in federal and state



elections. Their being brought into place for local government elections is long overdue. This government believes this is an important reform. I will continue to work with the local government sector — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister’s time has expired.

Consumer affairs: advisory services

Ms CARBINES (Geelong) — My question is to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. On 1 July the Bracks government commenced the direct delivery of consumer affairs advisory services. Can the minister advise how this will lead to better services for all Victorians?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Consumer Affairs) — I thank the member for her question. As of 1 July there is a consumer affairs advisory service in Geelong. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Scheffer for the work he did on behalf of Minister Lenders, the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, in conducting a review into the provision of consumer affairs services across this state.

A number of questions were asked of my predecessor in relation to the establishment of consumer affairs advisory services in the state. I am pleased to be able to say that 1 July saw the establishment of a regional network to provide consumer and tenancy advisory services for all Victorians. Victorians will now have access to that first-hand advice. They will have access to offices in Ballarat, Geelong, Bendigo and Morwell, and there will be suboffices in Warrnambool, Hamilton and Mildura. This adds to the office in Wangaratta that was opened by Mr Lenders nine months ago. If the initial figures from Wangaratta are correct and are replicated across the state, we will see Victorians utilising these services in great numbers.

We are not only providing these services in those cities and towns, there will also be extensive mobile services from those offices going out to smaller towns and centres to ensure that people have access to on-the-ground consumer and tenancy advice. Those towns will be visited weekly or fortnightly, or monthly for some of the very small rural communities. These will not be the only services available. There is the web site for information and the 1300 line for those who want access via the telephone at the cost of a local call.

Last week I had the pleasure of opening the Ballarat office. There were a large number of people present to welcome the service to Ballarat — a highly visible service, I might add. I am pleased to be able to tell the house that one of the officers could not be present at the

opening because she was in Horsham conducting the first of the mobile services — seeing consumers and delivering services into Horsham. The Ballarat office will be providing services into not only Horsham but also Avoca, Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Daylesford, Edenhope, Meredith, Nhill, Rokewood, St Arnaud and Warracknabeal. There will be plenty of services and access points available to consumers.

It is important that these services offer face-to-face support. It is important that all Victorians have access to Consumer Affairs Victoria. We are governing for all Victorians, and we are giving them first-class services.

Commonwealth Games: compensation

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I wish to address my question to the Honourable Justin Madden, the Minister for Commonwealth Games. Could the minister advise when the sports associations running hockey, basketball, netball, swimming, cricket and other sports in Commonwealth Games venues, which will be forced to vacate their facilities for up to eight or nine weeks in the lead-up to and during the Commonwealth Games, will receive compensation? By what process will the level of compensation payable to each sport be assessed?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s question, but I have made this clear quite often in relation to sports located in many of the venues where the Commonwealth Games will take place. They are predominantly located in either the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre or the State Netball and Hockey Centre, but there are some land users in and around other precincts. I understand one is close to the Commonwealth Games village and the other groups are probably located in and around the Albert Park precinct. There are a number of venues in those locations where sporting groups will be impacted on by the Commonwealth Games, but we are very conscious and mindful of the need to minimise that impact. Let me reinforce that from the very beginning.

While the Honourable Bruce Atkinson might suggest that it will be eight or nine weeks, we are setting about minimising that so it is as reduced an amount of time as is practicably possible. The games will run for two weeks, and there may be a week either side, so it could be about a month. We are working conscientiously to minimise that impact. We will have to work with the venue operators and Melbourne 2006 to ensure that we get the games into those venues with as little impact as possible on all those users. We have worked with the venue operators and they are working with each of



those sporting groups. The Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre is working with its client base — all those sporting groups which use the facility. The State Netball and Hockey Centre is operated by the State Sports Centre Trust, and it is being worked with and is working through these issues.

We are very conscious and mindful of the issues. However, let me just state quite firmly that it is anticipated that there will be no compensation for any of these groups — just as there is no compensation from the state government for any other group. Let me put that on record first of all. Mr Atkinson should not scaremonger out there and build expectations that people are entitled to something when they are not. The investment the state is making in the Commonwealth Games and the investment this government is making in the Victorian economy will ensure that all these businesses and all these sports which are organised through the games will get significant benefit post the games.

What is important, though, President — and Mr Atkinson should be mindful of this — is that if there is to be any compensation at all for any of these groups, it is to be managed with the venue operators; they are the ones who, if there are any conditions or arrangements, will be doing the negotiating. It will not be done directly with the state government of Victoria but with the venue operators — that is, the State Netball Hockey Centre through the State Sports Centre Trust, the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre or the Melbourne Cricket Club through the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust. The venue operators have the responsibility for negotiating with their stakeholders any arrangements in relation to the Commonwealth Games. We are very happy to work with those groups. We are very happy to work with the venue operators to make sure we not only maximise the benefit of the games but also minimise any impact on those sports or any businesses.

I reinforce that this government has a record that is second to none when it comes to facilitating, encouraging and leading sporting groups in the community and investing in those groups, and we will continue to do that not only in the lead-up to the Commonwealth Games but during and on the back of those games to make sure we get the best legacy practically possible for all these sports in the delivery of the Commonwealth Games.


Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — According to Auditor-General reports the minister has already

budgeted for compensation for the Australian Football League, Cricket Victoria and the Melbourne Cricket Club for the disruption to sporting fixtures for football and cricket during the Commonwealth Games period. Why has the minister refused to consider compensation issues for smaller sports displaced from venues by the Commonwealth Games, to allow them to confirm alternative arrangements for their sports fixtures and events?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s question again and say that the only organisation that has anything that might even be considered as compensation is the Australian Football League (AFL), and I will point out why that is the case — —

Hon. B. N. Atkinson interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — If Mr Atkinson would like to listen, he might hear an answer that he might understand. The only compensation that has been agreed to in any shape or form is with the AFL and that has been done as part of the entire equation or arrangement with the AFL because it is contributing $150 million to the Melbourne Cricket Ground redevelopment. Let me just say to Mr Atkinson that that $150 million contribution from the AFL was negotiated by this government through this minister. This government was able to bring the AFL to the table with $150 million that saw that MCG redevelopment started — and it will be completed — probably more than anything that the Kennett — —


The PRESIDENT — Order!

Stolen Generations Organisation: establishment

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The commitment to establish the Stolen Generations Organisation was a key part of the Bracks government’s response to the Bringing Them Home report. Can the minister advise the house of recent developments in establishing the Stolen Generations Organisation?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) — I thank the member for her question and her ongoing commitment to human rights issues globally and particularly in relation to the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the state of Victoria. The Stolen Generations Organisation, which was established in this year’s Bracks government budget, continues a number

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


of recognitions by the Victorian government and the Victorian Parliament.

In the year since the publication of the report on the inquiry into the stolen generations which culminated in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report in 1997 tabled in the commonwealth Parliament and known as the Bringing Them Home report, I take the opportunity to mention the importance of that report in terms of the healing process embarked upon by this nation in the name of reconciliation and the important role played by Sir Ronald Wilson, who passed away in Western Australia over the weekend, just one month short of his 83rd birthday.

Sir Ronald was a wonderful Australian who played a significant role as president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. He sat on the High Court bench; he was a pilot in World War II. He played a major role in the development of the appropriate response to the issues dealt with by the stolen generations and co-authored a report with Mick Dodson that has been seen as a very important piece of work. He maintained that all jurisdictions across Australia are charged with the responsibility of rising up and responding to the 54 recommendations contained within that report. I am very pleased to say that in Victoria there is a tripartite record of recognition of this issue, and that when the Kennett government was in office, both houses of this Parliament made an apology to members of the stolen generations.

During its life the Bracks government has recognised through various actions — the creation of the Koori records task force, the information services about family reunification and a number of other initiatives — the importance of that work, culminating in the creation of Australia’s first Stolen Generations Organisation. It is led by members of the stolen generations in partnership with other important members of the community who can bring expertise such as philanthropic and legal expertise and who can help build bridges with the service system required for members of the stolen generations to make reconnections with their families, to retrace their loved ones who may have been lost to them over the decades and to deal with the healing process that might be involved in the reunification of those families.

The government is keenly committed to ensuring that top-quality care is provided to members of the stolen generations into the future, and that there is a maximising of the potential for family reunification. The organisation will play an ongoing role in the education of our general community about the importance of this issue and hopefully enhance the

commitment of all within our community to reconciliation.

It is appropriate that as we take that organisation forward we have recently introduced a board whose members include Lisa Bellear, Mick Edwards, Syd Jackson, Merryn Edwards, Lance James, Muriel Bamblett, Daphne Milward, David Parsons, Jim Kennan and Ann Byrne, with Lyn Austin agreeing to play the role of patron of that organisation. They will continue the fine work of people such as Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson.

I take this opportunity to pass on my condolences and best wishes to the family of Sir Ronald Wilson on the tragic passing of this fantastic Australian.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I have answers to the following questions on notice: 1694, 4077, 4285, 4380, 4461, 4588, 4596, 4631, 4787, 4788, 4790, 4791, 4794, 4798, 4831, 4879, 4885–89, 4891, 4896, 4897.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Member for Central Highlands Province: Bashing the Bush

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — This is an ode, courtesy of Pat O’Connor, to Graeme Stoney, who is retiring:

Banjo wrote of stockmen, so fearless, bold and brave. If he knew what was going on up there at Bogong now, he’d roll over in his grave. Thwaites and Bracks have done something now I’m sure they will regret. For men from Snowy River haven’t finished yet. The high country cattlemen have been told that they must go. They’ve been dealt a fearful blow by Bracks and Thwaites and Co. Bracks has blocked the tracks and Thwaites has slammed the gates. We must support the cattlemen, they are our Aussie mates. We’ll see movement down at Spring Street, I’m sure they’ll feel the pain. The true blue Aussie bush folk won’t vote for them again. The time has now come for us to set the pace. And Bracks’s Labor government will lose its final race. I am quite sure they’ll rue the day When we got behind the cattlemen and had the final say. So let’s all get together and shout out very loud. Let us rid our state of this useless Labor Party crowd.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Tertiary education and training: student unions

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — I want to place on record my strong condemnation of the federal government’s voluntary student unionism legislation. It is an example of the arrogant and dangerous ideological bent of the Howard government. As a result the education and welfare of students at La Trobe University, in my electorate, will suffer. Like the attacks on student unions under the Kennett government, this proposed legislation is simply payback for students daring to criticise the Howard-Costello agenda. It is also payback for the electoral humiliation faced by senior Liberals decades ago when they contested student union elections.

Voluntary student unionism will destroy or severely diminish a range of essential services at universities. At La Trobe University the Students Representative Council (SRC) and services union receive the majority of their funding from the university’s general services fee, overseen by an annual university review, ensuring that all funds are spent in the best interests of students. Without this fee, La Trobe students now risk losing the following services: child-care service; computing rooms; counselling and careers advice; legal service; medical and dental services; sporting facilities; student employment service; student theatre and arts; and support for international and mature-aged students.

Membership of the La Trobe student union and SRC are voluntary. Only 10 universities include membership of a student organisation as a requirement of enrolment and none are in Victoria. Without a general services fee La Trobe University will see a shortfall in funding of $5.8 million, which will see the retrenchment of up to 300 full and part-time employees.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time has expired.

Sustainability and Environment: web site

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (North Eastern) — A section of the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s web site contains statements that are inappropriate, offensive and demeaning to women, and I wish to draw this to the attention of the Minister for Women’s Affairs and the Minister for Environment, both in the other place.

The offensive section is within the Sustainables household challenge under the heading ‘Who are the Sustainables?’, where there is a description given of each member of the Sustainable family. Several women have contacted me to complain about the offensive and

demeaning description of Lemony Sustainable that reads:

Like her name, Lemony is bright, effervescent and at times a bit tart, but only in her sense of humour and her wardrobe!

She has a powerful optimism for life which she spreads like a good smell, and can most often be seen spreading it on her morning, afternoon and evening power walks around town.

In high heels or low heels, Lemony prefers to walk than using the car.

Not only is she doing her little bit for the layer upon layer of greenhouse, she is also keeping her derrière looking more like a ciabatta than a Bakers Delight country loaf.

Regardless of whether these comments have been made about a real person or a fictitious character, comparing a female’s derrière to a loaf of bread, or to refer to a female as a bit of a tart, is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. I call on both ministers to ensure that the offensive description of Lemony is removed immediately and replaced with a more appropriate statement that reflects — —


Amy Gillett

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I quote from the cyclingnews web site:

Australian rider Amy Gillett has died after she and five other riders from the Australian women’s team were hit by a car during a training ride in Germany on Monday … The other riders involved are Katie Brown, Lorian Graham, Kate Nichols, Alexis Rhodes and Louise Yaxley.

This is a great tragedy. Our thoughts are with their families and friends.

I understand Amy was from Buninyong, and those close to her and her family will be grief stricken. The Australian Institute of Sport, the Victorian Institute of Sport and the cycling fraternity will be in shock. We love our sportspeople and we love our sport. Whilst we may not know them personally, we feel a great affinity with them because of the characteristics they embody and exemplify. We collectively feel a personal loss at a tragedy of this kind. Our hearts go out to those who are grieving at this time. We wish the others in the team a swift and safe recovery.

Harness racing: country meetings

Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — The seven harness racing clubs that lost their TAB meetings met the Minister for Racing in the other place at St Arnaud on Friday, 8 July, to discuss the return of racing at their

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


tracks. The minister expressed disapproval in the way Harness Racing Victoria introduced its V3 document and left little doubt he is not pleased with the current governance model of HRV. He proposes to put a more industry-based model in place, similar to that of thoroughbred racing, and also indicated funding availability to clubs for upgrading their tracks to an industry standard so that racing could resume in 2006. A sticking point at the meeting was reaching a consensus with what HRV recognised as the industry standard that must be met before racing could resume. HRV’s public statements reveal an agenda at variance to that of the minister, ignoring his endeavour to negotiate an outcome that could see racing return to these tracks. HRV has freely expressed it is not interested in community obligation or the importance of maintaining rural economies. While the clubs believe the minister has their interests at heart, he now must act quickly to regain racing at these venues. Meanwhile, the minister remains a hostage to and at odds with his own statutory body. It is critical he regains his authority so these principally volunteer clubs can race again at their tracks.

Family violence court: establishment

Ms ARGONDIZZO (Templestowe) — I take this opportunity to congratulate the Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, in the other place on the introduction of the first family violence court in Victoria. On 5 July I had the pleasure of being present at the launch, together with Ms Mikakos and many other interested parties, at the Heidelberg courts.

The court will provide added on-site support services for families who have experienced violence in their homes. Women and children are generally the groups in our community more likely to experience family violence. It is important for the victims of family violence to feel safe in reporting the crime and it is also important that the system does not cause confusion, isolation and intimidation to the victims.

The introduction of this new system will mean a group of professionals such as police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, magistrates and support agencies will undergo intensive education and training to assist victims in family violence cases with issues such as the physical, psychological, financial and social effects of family violence.

Family violence affects one in five women across all socioeconomic, geographic, cultural and religious groups. The family violence court division of the Magistrates Court will operate out of Heidelberg and Ballarat for a two-year trial period. Again, my

congratulations to the Attorney-General for tackling an important issue in our community.

Consumer affairs: food labelling

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — I wish to give my support to the Tasmanian farmers who were on the steps of Parliament House yesterday protesting against retailers replacing Australian-grown food with cheap imports. These farmers will travel 2100 kilometres over four weeks on eight tractors to highlight the fact that Australia’s food labelling laws need to be reviewed. We have all seen imported products display the words ‘Australian product’ on the packaging even though the contents were imported — the package container was Australian, but the ingredients were imported. It is false advertising, and tougher labelling laws are required. Australian products should be clearly visible, and their signage should be clearly visible and accurate. I am sure many consumers would be happy to buy Australian.

Australian farmers produce clean and green products with strict codes of practice regarding pesticides, herbicides, chemicals et cetera. Advertisements on television lead us to believe that only one in three apples, oranges, pears, peas or whatever are not rejected. I wonder whether the same standards apply for imported fruit and veggies: of course they do not!

Fast-food outlets are marketing themselves as selling healthier food these days because, they claim, this is what people want. I agree with them. The best way to ensure that healthier food is served to the customer is for these outlets to use Australian-grown produce, because that is the healthy alternative.

Victorian Farmers Federation: annual conference

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — Last Tuesday and Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending the 26th annual conference of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF), and a very successful event it was. I commend the outgoing president, Paul Weller, for his three years of outstanding leadership of the organisation, and also congratulate the incoming president, Simon Ramsay. I am sure he will be a very effective representative of farmers. However, I want to express my dismay and disgust that not one member of the Labor Party and the government of Victoria attended the official opening of the VFF conference.

There are more than 70 ALP members in this Parliament. They talk about representing rural and regional Victoria and about the fact that they allegedly

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


listen. Why is it, then, that they could not bring themselves to send even one person to the VFF annual conference opening to hear debate on the wide-ranging issues that were on the agenda? I can understand that at times ministers cannot attend every event, although I would have thought it should have been number 1 on the calendar for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place. If he could not be there, surely he could have designated his parliamentary secretary, but no-one was there — not a backbencher, absolutely no-one.


Terrorism: London bombings

Ms CARBINES (Geelong) — Today I wish to publicly express my deep regret at the loss of life, the injuries and the devastation as a result of the bombings that took place in London this month. Like most, I watched the live coverage on TV with an increasing sense of disquiet and concern, turning to numb shock as the awful reality of the deliberate carnage was revealed.

It seemed to me incomprehensible that innocent people of all nationalities and all faiths who were going about their own business or were on their way to work or school, who were shopping or enjoying holidays in vibrant, multicultural, tolerant London, should be the targets of such an indiscriminate attack.

I pay tribute to the British emergency services, which responded immediately to the unfolding threat in such a coordinated, professional and calm manner, caring for the wounded and ensuring the safety of the wider population. The subsequent work of the British police in identifying those responsible was swift and determined, and it deserves commendation.

I wish to pay my respects to the families and friends of all the victims of this senseless attack, many of whom will never recover from the physical and psychological trauma forced into their lives.

Taiwan Trade Mission

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the Taiwan Trade Mission to Australia, which was in Melbourne. I would like to congratulate the organisers of that impressive trade mission from Taiwan to Victoria. The trade links between Victoria and Taiwan have expanded significantly over the years and there is a great pool of goodwill at an official level and also at a commercial level for an expansion of those important trade links. There were 36 significant companies from Taiwan visiting Melbourne yesterday

at this impressive trade mission. I was absolutely delighted to see that this was taken so seriously and supported by a vice-minister from the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Taiwan as well as Mr Jack Cheng, the director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.

This important trade mission was organised by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Taiwan and was supported by the Board of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Taiwan External Trade Development Council. I was also pleased to see the Victorian government was represented by Tim Holding, the former Minister for Manufacturing and Export, who spoke in a supportive way on this important occasion. I would like to congratulate all concerned and wish everyone all the very best in development of those economic links.

Medical research: achievements

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — Recent events continue to consolidate Victoria’s position as Australia’s leading biomedical research and development location and to vindicate the Bracks government’s strategy to invest over $400 million in the Bio 21 project and precinct. Melbourne University’s magnificent Bio 21 molecular science and biotechnology institute building opened in June in Parkville with considerable financial assistance from the Bracks government and support from Atlantic Philanthropies and the commonwealth government. It brings researchers together from across disciplines ranging from medicine and dentistry to nanotechnology and engineering. Also an extensive complex of visitors’ laboratories facilitates access to state-of-the-art technology and encourages collaboration. A business incubator provides accommodation on site so discoveries and inventions can be transferred into commercial outcomes.

A further achievement in Parkville happened last week when six scientists from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and two scientists from the University of Melbourne were awarded major international research grants from the US-based Howard Hughes Medical Institute for malaria, T-cell and human pathogen research. A stunning outcome! Forty-two scientists from 20 countries received awards, with Australia scoring most of any country, and all eight of them going to scientists in Melbourne. Congratulations to those eight scientists.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


HM Prison Langi Kal Kal: management

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) — I rise to raise a significant concern about one of our prisons in Victoria, the Langi Kal Kal prison based in the Western region of Victoria. This prison had a meeting of its prison officers on 13 July. They passed a motion expressing major concerns about the operation of the jail and condemning the management practices of that prison, and in particular those of the general manager. They expressed a no-confidence vote in the way that the prison is being run.

This prison controls and holds around 110 prisoners. This is not a situation where we can allow the Minister for Corrections in the other place to continue to sit in his luxurious office in Melbourne and have a prison potentially enter into a meltdown situation. This has gone beyond the situation of just purely management practices. There are significant concerns occurring within the Langi Kal Kal prison. It is about time the minister got out of his office in Melbourne and started to actually address some of the serious concerns that have been raised, not only to me — —

Mr Lenders interjected.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — If the minister had been listening and if he had understood, I would not have had so many prison officers ringing me with their concerns. I am not going to scaremonger, but this is a prison in Victoria that is at significant risk of — —



Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — At 8.50 a.m. on the morning of 7 July my husband and I were evacuated from Kings Cross Tube station. We later discovered that it was because the train 3 minutes behind had been bombed by terrorists. This was the site of the worst loss of life of the four bombings that took place on this day. Forensic scientists and emergency services personnel are still working at this site under horrendous conditions. I would like to take this opportunity to pay homage to the work of the police and all emergency service workers and medical personnel. Their quick, efficient responses on this day undoubtedly saved lives. The death toll from this atrocity stands at 56. Undoubtedly as the gruesome work is completed at Kings Cross the number will sadly rise.

In the days following the bombings I read with extreme sadness the stories of families and friends searching for

missing loved ones. I walked past the floral memorial at Kings Cross station and the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Square. I used the Tube early on Friday morning. It was extremely quiet for 10 o’clock in the morning. In fact London was very quiet and somewhat eerie.

The British people are very resilient. They are not cowed by these abhorrent acts. Acts of terrorism are evil and never ever justified. I salute the response of the British government, the police, Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose response from Gleneagles was memorable and stirring. Most of all I salute the British public, who in the face of much-publicised continuing threats choose to get on with their lives with resilience and stoicism. I express my condolences to all those affected by this heinous crime.


Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) — I would like to join my colleagues Ms Carbines and Ms Buckingham in making a brief comment on the London bombings. I would first of all like to send my deepest sympathies to all those who have been affected. Both my wife and electorate officer were in the UK at the time of the bombings. Fortunately neither was involved.

The UK is no stranger to terrorism. I was living in Birmingham at the time of the Birmingham pub bombings when 21 innocent people were killed and the Irish Republican Army came very close to killing Margaret Thatcher and half her cabinet in the early 1980s. The resilience of the British population was evident then as it is now. Terrorism is an unavoidable fact of our present lives; it can happen to anybody, anytime, anywhere. In more recent times we have had the Turkish bombing and of course the Iraqi bombings which have killed over 100 people. We were told at the time of the invasion of Iraq that that invasion was part of the war on terrorism. If that is the case, that part of the war on terrorism has been an absolute failure and we need a new strategy.

Marie Wallace

Hon. C. D. HIRSH (Silvan) — Today I pay tribute to Marie Wallace, OAM, JP, who passed away peacefully on the evening of Sunday, 17 July. Marie was a much-loved figure throughout the city of Knox, particularly in Bayswater, for many years. She will be greatly missed by her many friends throughout Knox and also by local organisations with which she was involved, a couple of examples being the Knox

PETITION


opportunity shop in Bayswater and the Bayswater football club — they will miss her.

Marie’s involvement in the community went well beyond Bayswater. She served as a councillor with the City of Knox for 24 years, including three terms as mayor. She was the inaugural Honorary Freeman of the City of Knox. Her interest and activity in the community was unflagging throughout the years, but this involvement never took away from her love for and commitment to her family and her dedication to their wellbeing. She suffered the grief of losing one of her six children, Angela, to whom she devoted great care. On the other hand she gained enormous joy and pleasure from her 12 — I think it is up to 12 — grandchildren as well as the rest of her extended family.

I extend my deepest sympathy to all members of Marie’s family, in particular her children, Anne-Marie, Anthony, Amanda, Alison and Andrea and their partners and children. I will miss her.

PETITION

Police: schools program

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (North Eastern) presented petition from certain citizens of Victoria requesting that the state government reinstate the police schools involvement program to build a secure environment for the children of Victoria (152 signatures).

Laid on table.

NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION CODE

Films and computer games

For Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation), Mr Lenders, by leave, presented copy of revised code, 19 July 2005.

Laid on table.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Labour hire

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) presented final report, including appendices, together with minutes of evidence.

Laid on table.

Ordered that report be printed.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

This is the second report associated with this inquiry into labour hire that has been presented to the Parliament. An interim report was previously tabled in the house, and this report represents the final report arising from this particular inquiry.

Three members of this house were involved in the inquiry — they were the honourables Ron Bowden, Noel Pullen and me. The committee was chaired by Tony Robinson, the member for Mitcham in the other place, and other committee members were the members for Lowan, Morwell and Mount Waverley in the other place — Hugh Delahunty, Brendan Jenkins and Maxine Morand respectively.

The committee was assisted in the preparation of the report by Dr Russell Solomon, the committee’s executive officer; and Kirsten Hewitt, its research officer. The committee coopted Frances Essaber, an editor who is probably well known to many members of the Parliament for the work she does on various reports. Andrea Agosta, office manager for the Economic Development Committee, also played a key role in the preparation of this report.

The inquiry extended over quite a number of months and took a great many submissions from industry associations, unions and other stakeholders and interested parties. Whilst there may well have been an opportunity for this report to come out with some fairly draconian measures, in the view of one or other of those parties, in fact the report represents a very balanced position and probably goes to the very core of the value of our all-party parliamentary committee system in terms of examining issues outside a partisan party position, being able to establish the merits of a particular issue and obtaining appropriate responses from a public policy point of view.

I draw the attention of members who are interested in the committee’s findings to a number of key recommendations. These certainly include recommendation 2.1 that the federal government ought to commission a new Australian workplace industrial relations survey as a matter of urgency. Also, recommendation 4.1 was that the Victorian WorkCover Authority commission ongoing research to examine occupational health and safety in the labour hire industry.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE


Both of those recommendations are very important in the context that the committee found it difficult to quantify some of the issues with which it was dealing in the course of this inquiry. In other words, some of the data available to the committee was outdated in terms of our being able to establish exactly what the trends were in the workplace at this stage and what were the requirements of public policy responses to some of the issues that were raised in submissions.

The committee also recommended that the Victorian WorkCover Authority should establish, in conjunction with the labour hire industry, a process by which we address return-to-work paths for injured workers. It was certainly established as part of the recommendations that there ought to be a continuation of responsibility for injured workers on behalf of both host employers and labour hire companies.

In other words, neither one party nor the other should bear full responsibility; both have an ongoing responsibility to injured workers. In that context there was certainly a recognition that the rehabilitation and return to work of injured workers was also a responsibility that both should have to address.

This report contains a recommendation to introduce a registration system for labour hire companies. I must say that I have some concerns about registration. I am vigorously opposed to red tape and have concerns about bureaucratic processes that cost a lot of time and have heavy compliance responsibilities on small businesses. However, most of the submissions that came before the committee recommended that there ought to be a registration system, and the committee has come out in favour of a fairly light registration system that would be incorporated within the purview of the Victorian WorkCover Authority and paid for as a charge on the industry. In the circumstances and certainly given the submissions and representations that were made to us, this particular recommendation is worth proceeding with at this point as a matter of public policy. We have recommended that it be reviewed after a two-year period to make sure that it works as expected. We are certainly very mindful of the fact that companies that do not obtain registration under this system ought to face a penalty to ensure the health and safety of workers.

Motion agreed to.

SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

Alert Digest No. 8

Ms ARGONDIZZO (Templestowe) presented Alert Digest No. 8 of 2005, including appendices.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Asset Confiscation Operations — Report to the Attorney-General, 2003–04.

Auditor-General — Annual Plan, 2005–06.

Auditor-General — Report on Managing stormwater flooding risks in Melbourne, July 2005.

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 — Notice pursuant to section 32(3)(iii) in relation to Statutory Rule No. 24/2005.

National Parks Act 1975 — Advice of National Parks Advisory Council to Minister on several proposed excisions from existing parks.

Office of Policy Integrity — Review of the Victoria Police Witness Protection Program, July 2005.

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

Ballarat Planning Scheme — Amendment C83.

Baw Baw Planning Scheme — Amendment C10 (Part 2)(i).

Bayside Planning Scheme — Amendment C41.

Central Goldfields Planning Scheme — Amendment C7.

Colac Otway Planning Scheme — Amendment C44.

East Gippsland Planning Scheme — Amendments C31 and C43.

Glen Eira Planning Scheme — Amendments C38, C41 and C43.

Glenelg Planning Scheme — Amendments C21 and C22.

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme — Amendment C112.

Hepburn Planning Scheme — Amendments C29 and C32.

Horsham Planning Scheme — Amendment C23.

Indigo Planning Scheme — Amendment C26.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Kingston Planning Scheme — Amendment C48.

Maroondah Planning Scheme — Amendment C30.

Moorabool Planning Scheme — Amendment C32.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme — Amendments C64 and C73 Part 1.

Moyne Planning Scheme — Amendment C19.

Northern Grampians Planning Scheme — Amendment C12.

Stonnington Planning Scheme — Amendment C39.

Surf Coast Planning Scheme — Amendments C16, C23 and C24.

Swan Hill Planning Scheme — Amendments C12 and C18.

Warrnambool Planning Scheme — Amendment C41.

Whittlesea Planning Scheme — Amendments C50 and C66.

Yarra Planning Scheme — Amendments C66.

Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme — Amendment C44.

Yarriambiack Planning Scheme — Amendment C5.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament —

Architects Act 1991 — No. 53.

Audit Act 1994 — No. 65.

Building Act 1993 — Nos. 51 and 57.

Cemeteries Act 1958 — No. 75.

Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 — No. 76.

Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2001 — No. 84.

Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 — No. 54.

Electricity Safety Act 1998 — No. 74.

Gambling Regulation Act 2003 — Nos. 60 and 61.

Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 — No. 55.

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 — No. 59.

Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 — No. 73.

Marine Act 1988 — No. 82.

Meat Industry Act 1993 — No. 49.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 — No. 64.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 — No. 80.

Pharmacy Practice Act 2004 — No. 50.

Police Regulation Act 1958 — No. 72.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 — No. 70.

Private Agents Act 1966 — No. 78.

Private Security Act 2004 — No. 77.

Public Administration Act 2004 — No. 52.

Road Management Act 2004 — Nos. 62 and 63.

Road Safety Act 1986 — Transport Act 1983 — No. 68.

State Owned Enterprises Act 1992 — No. 85.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 — No. 58.

Surveillance Devices Act 1999 — No. 83.

Surveying Act 2004 — No. 56.

Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003 — No. 79.

Transport Act 1983 — Nos. 66, 67, 69 and 81.

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 — No. 71.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 —

Ministers’ exception certificate under section 8(4) in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 57, 59 and 82.

Ministers’ exemption certificates under section 9(6) in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 48, 50 to 55, 71 to 73, 75, and 81 to 83.

Proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing an operative date in respect of the following Act:

Children and Young Persons (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2005 — Section 45 — 30 June 2005 (S120, 28 June 2005).

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Act 2004 — Section 45 — 1 July 2005 (Gazette No. G23, 9 June 2005).

Gambling Regulation (Further Amendment) Act 2004 — Section 39(6); Sections 4(3), 4(4), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 32, 37(2), 37(4), 37(6), 39(1), 39(2), 39(3), 39(4), 39(5) and the remaining provisions of Part 3 — 25 June 2005 (Gazette No. G25, 23 June 2005).

Melbourne (Flinders Street Land) Act 2003 — 29 June 2005 (S120, 28 June 2005).

National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 — 1 July 2005 (S120, 28 June 2005).

Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 — Section 100(2) comes in to operation on 31 August 2005 (Gazette No. G28, 14 July 2005).


Sessional orders

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — By leave, I move:

HEALTH LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


That sessional orders 5 and 17(c) be suspended to the extent necessary to enable general business to take precedence of all other business for 3 hours following members statements on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 and for 60 minutes to be allocated for statements on reports and papers on Thursday, 21 July 2005.

Motion agreed to.


Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated for Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) on motion of Hon. M. R. Thomson.

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Consumer Affairs) — I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

This bill contains a series of amendments to the following acts —

the Mental Health Act 1986;

the Health Services Act 1988;

the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003;

part 5C of the Building Act 1993 —

and the legislation regulating the registration of health practitioners, namely —

the Chinese Medicine Registration Act 2000;

the Chiropractors Registration Act 1996;

the Dental Practice Act 1999;

the Nurses Act 1993;

the Medical Practice Act 1994;

the Optometrists Registration Act 1976;

the Osteopaths Registration Act 1996;

the Physiotherapists Registration Act 1998;

the Podiatrists Registration Act 1997; and

the Psychologists Registration Act 2000.

The Veterinary Practice Act 1997 is also amended along with the other registration acts.

The key provisions in the bill are intended to ensure the efficacy of recent legislative changes to the Mental Health Act and to the regulation of cemeteries and crematoria under new legislation due to come into effect on 1 July 2005.

The amendments to the Health Services Act and to the health practitioner registration legislation will improve the administration of those acts and enhance the functionality of health practitioner registration boards. They will thus contribute to the provision of high-quality, efficient and accessible health services.

Part 1 of the bill contains the purpose and commencement provisions.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003.

That 2003 act contains provisions regarding cemetery trust fees. The bill amends those provisions to allow the Secretary of the Department of Human Services to declare some cemetery fees exempt from the universal CPI increase currently provided for under the act. This will allow more flexibility in the administration of cemetery trust fees and will allow fees to be adjusted over a period of time, should that be considered appropriate in some cases.

The bill amends the requirement for the payment of a prescribed fee on application for approval for interment outside a public cemetery to allow for the situation if no fee is prescribed.

The bill also amends the provisions in the act allowing for the interment or cremation free of charge by a cemetery trust of a deceased person whose relatives or friends are unable to provide for the interment or cremation. The amendment clarifies that a coroner can make orders for such interments or cremations. The current wording would require the coroner to sit as a Magistrates Court in order to make such an order. As this is not considered appropriate, the amendment removes this restriction.

The bill adds a requirement that an application for an exhumation licence must be accompanied by specified documentation identical to the documentation already required when making an application to inter bodily remains. The intention is to enable the Secretary of the Department of Human Services to have before her sufficient information to consider the interests of all affected parties before issuing such a licence.

In addition, the bill creates an offence for knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an exhumation licence, to reflect the seriousness of inappropriately disturbing bodily remains.

Part 3 of the bill makes some housekeeping amendments to the Health Services Act 1988, to improve the administration of that act.

In particular, the bill will amend the Health Services Act as it relates to the composition of Health Purchasing Victoria.

The current statutory provisions reflect the recommendations of the final report of the procurement reference group. That group was established in 2000 to advise the government on the best way of implementing joint purchasing arrangements in public health services and hospitals.

That group recommended that HPV should:

mainly comprise current public hospital staff, to ensure that HPV has up-to-date knowledge of issues in health purchasing and clinical knowledge;



include public hospital chief executive officers, to ensure appropriate communication with, and feedback from, senior hospital administrators;

have an appropriate mix of members from rural and metropolitan hospitals, to ensure the purchasing needs and perspectives of both rural and metropolitan hospitals are properly taken into account; and

include nominees of the secretaries of the departments of Human Services and Treasury and Finance to ensure that HPV has knowledge and understanding of hospital financing and wider government procurement policies and processes.

However, experience with the operation of the current statutory provisions has shown that they are somewhat inflexible. By establishing very specific criteria for appointments, the act may operate to preclude the appointment of applicants or retention of members with impressive credentials and valuable skills and knowledge. For example, at present, when hospital appointees change their jobs, the act may make them ineligible to retain their positions on HPV, even if they have proven to be highly effective contributors.

The proposed amendments in this bill are designed to ensure that the government of the day has the capacity to appoint and retain the best available candidates.

The bill will enable the Governor in Council to appoint between 8 and 12 people with skills, knowledge or experience relevant to the functions of HPV. For the reasons outlined by the procurement reference group, it is considered vital to have a current metropolitan and a regional or rural hospital chief executive officer on HPV. It is also considered important to retain nominees of the secretaries of the departments of Treasury and Finance and Human Services on HPV. Therefore, these requirements will be retained in the act. The bill will potentially enable an increase in the maximum number of members of HPV from 10 to 12 people. This will enable the appointment of up to two additional people if there is a particularly strong field of candidates and this is considered desirable.

The bill will also amend the Health Services Act to:

ensure that the board members of a public health service do not become ineligible to remain on the board until they have served nine consecutive years on that board (the equivalent of three consecutive three-year terms);

resolve a current problem for public hospitals and health services relating to the timing of their annual meetings under the Health Services Act 1988. Under that act, a public hospital or health service is required to submit its annual report at its annual meeting, which must be held on or before 31 October each year. It is appropriate that public hospital annual reports be tabled in Parliament before they are publicly released at public hospital annual meetings. However, under the Financial Management Act 1994, annual reports may be tabled in Parliament after 31 October —

to remedy this problem, the bill amends the Health Services Act to extend the date by which public hospitals and health services must hold their annual meetings from 31 October to 31 December each year, unless the secretary, in writing, approves a later date. This amendment is designed to allow

sufficient time for public hospitals and health services to hold their annual meetings after their annual reports have been tabled in Parliament as required under the Financial Management Act — and

avoid unnecessary duplication in the preparation of accountability instruments under the act, by clarifying that where matters are to be covered in an annual statement of priorities for a public health service, any health service agreement that may also apply to that service need not address those same matters.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Mental Health Act 1986.

The intention of the amendments is to remove undesirable restrictions on the location at which a registered medical practitioner, or a mental health practitioner, can make an involuntary treatment order. The amended act will allow both types of practitioner to make an order in the community and the hospital setting. It will also enable practitioners, in consultation with the authorised psychiatrist, to release persons subject to involuntary treatment orders into the community pending their statutory review.

The bill amends the act to allow for members of a multidisciplinary treating team other than the authorised psychiatrist to discuss a patient’s treatment plan with the patient.

These amendments will allow for flexibility and a better use of resources.

The bill also amends the act to allow security patients to be granted up to a maximum of seven days special leave for medical treatment.

Currently the act provides that security patients (who have been transferred from prison requiring mental health treatment or are found guilty of an offence and ordered to be detained in a mental health service) can only be granted special leave from a mental health service for a maximum of 24 hours. The amendment will bring security patients in line with forensic patients under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 which allows a maximum of seven days special leave for medical treatment.

Special leave is often used to provide specialised medical treatment that is not available at the mental health service. Difficulties arise when the medical treatment cannot be completed within 24 hours, and multiple leave applications must be made to cover the period of treatment. This is considered onerous and unnecessary. This amendment will streamline paperwork by reducing the number of applications required to be made.

Part 5 of the bill contains amendments to the health practitioner registration acts referred to earlier.

There are currently 11 health practitioner registration acts regulating 15 health professions in Victoria. Only the Pharmacy Practice Act 2004 contains the up-to-date model provisions.

Broad structural reform to the current scheme of regulation for health practitioners is currently under consideration. A discussion paper has been released and 116 submissions received, including comments from registration boards operating under the existing legislation. The department has released an options paper and is conducting further

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


consultation with stakeholders before proposals for reform are finalised.

Stakeholders have indicated through the consultation process that there is strong support for introducing these reforms as soon as practicable. These amendments will provide consistency in health practitioner legislation without compromising the broader structural reforms under consideration.

The bill makes identical amendments to 10 health practitioner registration acts to provide consistent powers across the acts in relation to the identified areas.

The amendments in the bill allow boards to appoint persons to formal and informal hearing panels from a list of persons approved by the Governor in Council, rather than having to seek approval each time a panel is constituted.

They allow that, with ministerial consent, board members (including the president and deputy president) may continue to hold office, if required, for a period not exceeding three months beyond the date of expiration of their term of appointment.

The amendments allow the boards to grant specific registration to an applicant to meet an identified need for a practitioner.

The amendments allow boards to lift, vary or revoke the conditions on a practitioner’s registration with agreement from the practitioner without returning to a hearing.

The bill contains amendments allowing boards to issue guidelines about minimum terms and conditions of professional indemnity insurance for registered practitioners, and require that insurance as a condition of the grant or renewal of registration, and other consequential amendments. As registered practitioners who are employees of public sector health care agencies are covered by state insurance provided by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, it is anticipated that any guidelines will focus on appropriate insurance cover for private practitioners to ensure that their patients or clients are protected in the event of a claim.

The bill contains amendments to the Chinese Medicine Practice Act 2000 to reflect amendments to health practitioner registration acts referred to in that act.

In part 6 of the bill two of these amendments are made also to the Veterinary Practice Act 1997, which is modelled on health practitioner registration acts. The first is the amendment allowing a board to lift, vary or revoke the conditions on a practitioner’s registration with agreement from the practitioner without returning to a hearing. The other is the amendment allowing that, with ministerial consent, board members (including the president and deputy president) may continue to hold office for a period not exceeding three months beyond the date of expiration of their term of appointment.

Part 6 of the bill also makes some miscellaneous amendments to other legislation.

Section 75JB(b) of the Building Act contains a cross-reference to section 229 of the Building Act. An amendment to section 229 was passed in 2004, but the cross-reference in section 75JB(b) was not amended, and it retains wording that is no longer used in section 229.

The amendment in this bill corrects the reference in section 75JB(b) and provides for powers under section 75JB(b) that are more consistent with the general powers that were inserted into section 229 of the Building Act in 2004.

This bill also updates a department name used in the Health Act 1958 from ‘Natural Resources’ to ‘Sustainability’.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned for Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) on motion of Hon. Andrea Coote.

Debate adjourned until next day.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 15 June; motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation).

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — The Nationals are opposing this legislation. It is a bill that is dressed up simply as a housekeeping measure and therefore innocuous — that is what the government would have you believe. Indeed I acknowledge there are some useful changes included in the bill. But at the end of the day it really and truly has an obnoxious intent, and that is why The Nationals are opposing it.

This legislation is yet another chapter in this government’s very, very long book of attempts to stifle smaller parties, to stifle the voice of Independents, and to make it much more difficult indeed for other than the major parties in our political system here in Victoria to survive and to thrive.

Hon. P. R. Hall — Looking after their own interests.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Yes, Mr Hall, they are definitely looking after their own interests. One only has to have a look around at some of the changes this government has made and trumpeted as being in the interests of democracy and giving a chance for smaller parties and indeed Independents to be represented in this house.

In that vein one can look at a topical subject: the proposed changes that come into effect from the next election in 2006 in regard to this chamber. We saw the Constitutional Commission of Victoria set up by the government bring in a number of proposals. Which one did the government accept? Despite the Premier going



out, time and again, saying that he was interested in making this chamber much more representative, he and his government chose the proposal of eight regions, each electing five representatives, to be the one that is most likely to consolidate the Labor Party in this chamber. And yet he has the gall to be going around and saying that he is giving the scope for Independents to come into this place.

If you come up with a scheme that sets the quota at 16.67 per cent, I say you are not being serious. If that is your claim and you set the quota that high, who can believe that you are in fact genuine? I certainly do not believe this Premier is genuine in wishing to see Independents represented in this chamber. This bill is yet another example of the big bad Labor Party trying to stamp on any opposition and trample on the competition that it might meet along the way. As I say, it sits very oddly indeed with the rhetoric of this government that it is open, accountable and transparent and that it is enhancing democracy, because so many of the things it has done since it has been in office are in fact the direct opposite of enhancing democracy.

One has only to look at the sessional orders the government has introduced into this place and the time limits it has imposed on members in this place to know that it is not about enhancing democracy at all. It is about turning the Parliament into a sausage factory: you feed it in one end and you get it out the other end as quickly as you can, and you leave the least possible opportunity for anyone who has another view to express that view.

I find it very strange indeed that the Premier can go around the state, as he does so often, and be on the airwaves, spouting this nonsense about enhancing democracy when in fact he has been in charge of a government that is doing the exact opposite. I often think if George Orwell were alive today, he would certainly see that his predictions in Animal Farm have come to pass absolutely in this Labor government of Victoria.

Have a look at the Premier, for instance, in a couple of the comments he made last week when the Electoral Boundaries Commission announced the draft boundaries for the new regions for the upper house. Without commenting on the merit of those suggestions, except to say that I do have some concerns that they do not exactly match the requirements in section 9 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, what did the Premier have to say about it? Did he deal with the boundaries at all? Did he deal with the process? Did he discuss the issue at hand? No, he did not. We had him quoted in the Shepparton News on the Friday, the very

next day, saying that for the first time in 150 years we will have fair electoral boundaries in the Legislative Council. Let us think about the logic of that for a moment.

The current boundaries that we work on in this place, the provinces, are comprised of four contiguous Legislative Assembly districts. So if you follow the Premier’s logic that the boundaries in this place are currently unfair, it follows as a matter of logic that the boundaries in the other place are unfair. Is that what the Premier is contending?

Hon. P. R. Hall — Sounds like his logic.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — That is exactly the logic of the Premier. There is no indication he is intending to change the boundaries in the other place or that he thinks they should be changed, yet the spin he puts out around Victoria is that somehow the boundaries in this place are unfair. I say that if they are unfair here, they are unfair in the other place as well, because they are identical boundaries. What else did this Premier have to say about the announcement by the Electoral Boundaries Commission?

Again, the Premier did not address the issue at hand as to where the boundaries are proposed to be drawn. He said, ‘We have got rid of the rort of eight-year terms’, that is what he said. His parrot over here on the back bench says, ‘Hear, hear!’. Putting aside the fact that no-one in this place yet has ever had an eight-year term, what does he mean about the rort of eight-year terms? Why do we not have a look at who was responsible for members in this place to potentially serve an eight-year term? It was none other than the Premier’s own party — the Labor Party in Victoria — which amended the constitution of this state to provide for a fixed four-year term in the other place and for members of this place to serve two terms of the other place. It is an absolute disgrace that we have a Premier of this state who is so willing and ready to so often get on 3AW and come up to the Shepparton News and elsewhere and spin these stories, which are simply untrue, to the people of Victoria. They are absolutely untrue and it does the Premier no credit whatsoever that he is prepared to do that.

Looking at the bill itself, we need to acknowledge, as I did at the beginning, that it does have some worthy provisions. The Nationals would certainly be prepared to accept these changes if they were brought in separately to this bill today, because it makes it clear that any offer to profit under the Crown ceases when the person is elected to Parliament. We have all had our difficulties with those provisions over the years. I well



remember legislation earlier on had to be brought in to rescue a former member of this house, Mr Landeryou, and a former member of the other place, the then member for Benambra, Mr Lieberman, because they had inadvertently fallen foul of the office-of-profit provisions.

The legislation will entitle persons aged over 70 to register as general postal voters. That is a change that has a deal of merit. It will abolish the current list of eight reasons to obtain a postal vote and simply require a declaration that the voter is unable to attend a voting centre. That is an acknowledgment that the current list of eight reasons has become a bit outdated and a bit unnecessary. You are either available to vote on voting day or you are not. It does not really seem necessary that you have to conjure up a reason beyond that.

The legislation will simplify the how-to-vote registration process by the electoral commissioner. How-to-vote registration came in as a consequence of the actions of a former secretary of the Labor Party at the famous Nunawading by-election which we all remember. We have got how-to-vote card registration as a result of foul play by the Labor Party, yet again another example of its desire to muddy the waters in terms of democracy rather than enhancing them, as it so frequently claims. But I do not have any objection to the registration of how-to-vote cards and I certainly welcome any moves which will simplify the process to have them registered, bearing in mind the time pressure that everyone is under at that particular point in the election cycle, not only candidates but the electoral commission itself.

Another amendment included in the bill makes it clear that all candidates for the Legislative Council in a particular list will be entitled to the return of their deposit if the total first preference votes for the team is more than 4 per cent, and that is clearly a useful clarification in light of the fact that we are going to proportional representation and teams of candidates will be running together.

The election manager will be authorised to temporarily suspend voting in specified circumstances, and it is sad that the example I have got here in my notes is a bomb threat. What we have seen in London in the last few days of course is nothing that we might experience here on election day — hopefully nothing like that — but we have to make provision for that sort of activity. The bill specifies that a tied vote in the final vacancy in the Legislative Council region of five to be elected will be determined by lot. One would hope that that does not need to be exercised on many occasions but clearly it is a good idea to have a provision in the legislation to

enable such a circumstance to be dealt with and it makes similar provisions for local government elections. I will come back to the local government elections in a moment.

Let me deal more fully with what I have styled the obnoxious provisions in this bill. The provisions have been designed by the Labor Party, or the Labor government, to make it more difficult for smaller political groupings in our community to establish and moreover to survive. It will require the parties to seek re-registration at a specific time during the life of each Parliament. Now the house will be aware that currently the legislation provides for the registration of political parties. That was again an enactment of a Parliament some years ago to try to overcome some problems that were being seen at the time with all sorts of parties or alleged parties springing up willy-nilly and perhaps misleading the electors, so registration of parties in principle is quite a good idea. But I fail to see why we need specific provisions in the Electoral Act to require the parties to go through the process of re-registration during the life of each Parliament. More particularly I find it very strange indeed that the bill before the house makes it so difficult for that re-registration process to proceed in a proper manner, because it gives a very narrow window of opportunity for a political party to seek registration. I see no reason why that is necessary. I see no reason why we need a compulsory re-registration in the life of each Parliament.

Section 52 of the Electoral Act already provides for the electoral commission, if it so chooses, to inquire into a registered political party to establish whether or not it still meets all the criteria for registration — that is, 500 financial members et cetera. In fact the Victorian Electoral Commission is at this very moment undertaking under section 52 that process in regard to The Nationals because many members of The Nationals around the countryside have received a letter from the electoral commissioner in the last fortnight or so asking them to certify that they are indeed financial members of the party.

Again, I do not object to it; that provision is in the bill. I am sure that is the section the electoral commissioner is using at the moment. I am sure the electoral commissioner is not pre-empting Parliament and going off on this excursion on the basis of what is in the bill before the house; I do not think that for one moment. I think what he is doing is using section 52 — that power is there and it is being exercised. I think that is perfectly adequate. Why do we need to go further? Why do we need to put small parties through the hassle, the expense and the trauma of having to go through this very expensive re-registration process in the life of each



Parliament? And I say expensive because now a $5000 fee has to be lodged when you seek re-registration — and that fee, like a lot of actions of this government, is indexed and so will be jacked up on 1 July every year.

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva — Where does it go?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Where does it go, Mr Dalla-Riva? A good question. Presumably now it is not $5000; as there was a rise on the first of this month it will now be $5000 and something. I have to make a confession that the increase from $50 to $5000 was in fact enacted after the last time we had electoral legislation before the house. It was in one of the schedules to that bill and I missed it; if I had found it I would have been protesting loudly at the time. I admit that I did not do my homework sufficiently well on the last occasion. Be that as it may, the $5000 is now in the law, and that is a huge impost for a small organisation to meet. For what? What is the purpose of it? What advantage will it provide when, as I say, section 52 already provides a mechanism for if there is any doubt as to whether or not a particular registered party still meets the criteria?

I think it is just another attempt by big Labor to stamp out the little guy. That is what it is on about, and it is dressing it up here to make it look as if it is all above board. I say that it is simply not above board. The fact that it gives only the two-month window of opportunity for the re-registration process to proceed is again, I think, an attempt to hinder and to thwart. I do not know whether the electoral commissioner will write to all parties and give them forewarning of the two-month period each time it clicks around. I expect he will. I hope he will, because I think it is a bit much to expect some of the small parties to have a fully fledged administrative structure by which they would automatically be aware of this anyway.

The second obnoxious part that I do not like about the bill goes to the number of signatures required on the nomination form of an Independent candidate. The current Electoral Act says it is six both for the Assembly and for the Council. The bill introduced into the other place proposed there be 50. What happened in the other place? The Independents over there, to their credit, made representations to the government that that was too onerous a provision, and the government introduced amendments in the other place to leave it as six. But they did nothing about the Council; the requirement for here remains at 50 signatures. I say: why the discrepancy? Why the difference? If it was good enough for the goose, it is good enough for the gander. If it was going to accept the representations of the members for Gippsland East and for Mildura in

another place, why did the government not follow through and make the same provision for the Legislative Council? I know why: because it knows how difficult it will be for an Independent — time wise and otherwise — to get 50 electors signing their nomination form. It is not just a matter of marching up to 50 people in the street and asking them to sign; you have to check that the signers are properly registered on the electoral roll. It is quite a task, and this is an obstruction being put in the way of people offering themselves to stand for Parliament as Independents.

Now I am not in favour of Independents being in the Parliament by any means, but I want to give people in a vibrant democracy every chance to offer themselves for election if they so choose, and for the people to make a decision. The last thing I want to see are impediments put in the way that in the end simply advantage the big political organisations over the rest. I think that as a matter of principle The Nationals are quite right in opposing this legislation. There does not seem any advantage in it; it just seems to place obstacles and hurdles in the way of people who might have an intention or desire to stand for Parliament — to catch them out and to make it as difficult as possible. I think the house ought to reject the bill on that basis alone.

Let me turn to the local government elections and the recent imbroglio that we heard a bit about in question time today, because this bill also refers to elections in the local government sphere. Today we heard the minister announce somewhat of a backdown by the government. I do not criticise the government for backing down on an issue. What I do criticise the government for, though, is for not consulting properly in the first place and for trying to impose restrictions on local government and on local government elections without adequate consultation.

We know there was absolutely inadequate consultation on this issue. I have here a document from the Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA), which says:

… several significant new provisions have crept in without any discussion with councils or peak bodies …

Further on it says:

No sector consultation has taken place. No consultation has taken place with councils, councillors or peak bodies …

The regulations seriously undermine democratic principles in the name of trying to deal with ‘dummy candidates’.

The VLGA goes on to say:

… these issues are essentially about democratic representation and safeguarding community confidence that principles should be the key drivers for our understanding of



democratic processes. Communities need to be brought into discussions about electoral processes and democratic representation. It is the height of arrogance for one level of government to be tinkering with fundamental principles regarding the conduct of elections for another tier of government while claiming to have restored local democracy.

That paragraph from the VLGA is such a condemnation of this minister and this government. In question time today this Minister for Local Government stood in her place and talked about consultation and alleged that a previous government rode roughshod over local government, when her own hands are soiled by this document. Yes, it went out for consultation on some regulations which were going to sunset prior to the next scheduled elections, but it ought to be criticised for leaving it so late. Who is minding the shop if no-one woke up to the fact that those regulations were about to expire? So it rushed out a regulatory impact statement (RIS) with a return date of 7 July, and it did a modest amount of consultation on the issues that were being rolled over, but then it whipped in these other crazy ideas.

One crazy idea was not to allow candidates to comment on council policies in their statements that the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) sends out to electors. How on earth are the electors to make an informed judgment if the candidates cannot express their opinions in at least the one document that most electors would have the chance to peruse if they so choose before they make a decision about whom to vote for? What a joke it was to say, ‘Well, we are not going to allow you to include your preference distribution in the documents that go out from the VEC’.

I thought we were here to help people. I did not think we were here to make it as difficult as possible for the average citizen out there — many of whom do not take the day-to day interest in the political system that we do — or that we are here to leave them in the lurch or in the dark. I thought we were here to give them maximum information so that they could make an informed judgment — but apparently not according to this government. It wants to exclude people from having the maximum amount of information.

Although we saw a commendable backflip from the Minister for Local Government today, the government went out before it realised how hot it was going to get in the kitchen and was defending its stand. I refer to a letter written by the Minister for Sport and Recreation as the Acting Minister for Local Government, as published in the Wangaratta Chronicle of 8 July.

Hon. P. R. Hall interjected.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — Mr Hall, I could say from some experience to the minister, if he were here, that it is very risky to be putting your name as an acting minister to things that you do not know too much about — because it often comes back to bite you. His letter states:

I would like to clarify some misapprehension over a number of issues regarding proposed council electoral regulations.

The regulations will give effect to important electoral reforms introduced by the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act 2003 and are part of an ongoing process to strength democracy in Victorian councils.

Hon. P. R. Hall — Destroy or strengthen democracy?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — No, it says:

… strengthen democracy in Victorian councils.

How does that sit with what we heard from the minister today? When did she go down the road to Damascus and decide that what the government was doing was destroying, Mr Hall, not strengthening democracy. Minister Madden goes on to say:

The act was subject to a long and comprehensive consultation process including special briefings of stakeholders, councils and community representatives. Peak bodies were briefed on the draft regulations ahead of the period of public comment.

That is true as far as it goes. Yes, they were acting on the regulations that were being rolled over but as I have just read out from the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) document, they were not taken into the tent on these new radical proposals that I have just outlined, so again government spin is coming in. The average citizen reading this letter might be led to believe that everything is above board. Clearly, it is not.

Then, on Sunday, 17 July — only two days ago — the Minister for Local Government issued a press release headed ‘Consultation strengthens local government democracy’. The spin doctors have been at it again! The Premier’s influence extends across the government, because that is what he does. What a misleading headline! The first paragraph says:

The state government will add requirements for a disclaimer on candidate statements in local government elections that indicate the views are that of the candidate and not the authority running the election, the Minister for Local Government, Candy Broad, announced today.

I am not a journalist but I have written a few press releases in my day, and I have attended a few sessions run by journalists on how to write press releases — but this one would score 1 out of 10, because anyone reading that first paragraph would say, ‘What on earth



is she on about? It makes no sense at all’. I do not believe that is because of any carelessness amongst the spin doctors opposite; I say it was absolutely by design. This press release was to announce a backdown and the government wanted to hide the fact that it was backing down. It would have earned a lot more credibility if it had come out and said, ‘Yes, we have listened. We acknowledge there is widespread unease in the community about these proposals, and we are therefore not going to proceed with them’.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — And especially in its electorate offices.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — There is no doubt about the electorate offices, Mr Atkinson, because as we know that is where the Labor candidates are incubated.

Hon. R. G. Mitchell interjected.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER — We did not see Mr Mitchell at the Victorian Farmers Federation conference either. He claims to represent rural Victoria in the Labor Party, but he could not even bring himself to go to the VFF conference despite the fact that it lasted for 48 hours. All he wants to do is insult the farmers of this country by alleging that they were drinking in Collins Street.

The fact that the minister has put out such a peculiar press release is absolute evidence that she got this very wrong indeed. These decisions, actions and proposals were designed to impede opposition to Labor Party candidates and to Labor-run councils — many of whom have a heck of a lot to answer for if one simply reads the newspapers, particularly out in the north and north-west parts of the metropolitan area, where one can see the ratepayers money being squandered unmercifully. I think this proposal was simply designed to make it much more difficult for more Independent-minded candidates to highlight those deficiencies of the councils.

The government has been caught out. It knew it could not sustain these proposals, and it has given them up but I say that the government would have heaped much more credit on its head if it had been honest about it instead of trying to hide it in this very peculiar press release.

The government stands absolutely condemned for what it has attempted in terms of local government elections, and it stands condemned for what it is trying to achieve albeit by subterfuge in this bill to make it much more difficult for Independents and minor parties to get a foot in the door in terms of parliamentary representation in the state of Victoria. The bill ought to be rejected.

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — It is a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of this important Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. Victorian voters understand the importance of voting and the responsibilities that go with it, and they understand that fair and free elections are the measure of the strength of our democracy.

We in Victoria are fortunate that there is strong public confidence in our voting system. However, voters expect that from time to time there will be improvements to that system. The bill seeks to make improvements to voting procedures, registration processes for political parties, nomination criteria and other administrative amendments. The changes contained in the bill are sensible and practical amendments that are needed to ensure the electoral process in Victoria remains fair, accessible and efficient. It is important to remember that many of the amendments in the bill were proposed by the Victorian Electoral Commission whilst others are being introduced to improve voting and electoral procedures.

I want to quickly run through some of the key provisions in the bill, which makes a number of amendments to the Electoral Act. One amendment relates to permitting electors 70 years of age and over to apply to become general postal voters. This is an important amendment. We are all aware of the evolving demographics of our own electorates, and anything that makes it easier for senior Victorians to participate in elections must be supported. I am sure many of us would have heard stories that demonstrate the length that some of our older constituents will go to in order to cast their votes. I remember many cases of people coming along to polling booths in taxis, with relatives, in wheelchairs, with walking-sticks and walking frames — they were making a great deal of effort to exercise their democratic rights, and I commend them for those efforts — —

Hon. Andrea Coote — In aged care facilities!

Ms MIKAKOS — And in aged care facilities, that is right. The amendments also permit early and postal voting by electors who make a declaration that they are unable to attend a voting centre on election day. The bill will also expand the definition of ‘registered officer’ of a political party to include ‘deputy registered officer’ to enable the deputy registered officer to perform functions usually performed by a registered officer if that registered officer is unavailable. The bill also simplifies the process for registration of how-to-vote cards by requiring registered political parties to register all their how-to-vote cards with the



Victorian Electoral Commission rather than with election managers.

The bill establishes a procedure for the correction of errors in registered how-to-vote cards and allows alterations to be made to registered how-to-vote cards no later than noon on the fifth working day before the election. The electoral commission’s decisions in relation to these alterations to registered how-to-vote cards will be reviewable in the same way as decisions on the initial registration of how-to-vote cards. The bill provides that the commission must refuse to register a corrected version of a how-to-vote card if the commission is satisfied that the card is likely to mislead or deceive an elector in casting their vote or is likely to encourage informal voting, or if the card contains offensive or obscene material. These provisions are likely to prevent many potential abuses of the provisions permitting correction of registered how-to-vote cards.

The bill also permits the temporary suspension of voting at election day voting centres, so that in situations where voting is interrupted for a short time — for example, in the event of a false fire alarm — it can be resumed later in the day. This provision will ensure that voting does not cease for the remainder of the voting day and that voters are not unduly inconvenienced by having to go in search of another polling booth.

The bill improves the administration of the return of candidates’ nomination deposits; it exempts nomination deposits from being paid into the consolidated fund until after deposits have been refunded; and it repeals spent provisions in the Electoral Act.

Lastly, the amendments to the Electoral Act will require registered political parties to re-register every four years with the cycle to run mid-term and include the process for re-registration. I note that The Nationals have indicated their opposition to this provision. Their view is that this will disadvantage smaller parties. However, it is important that members note the Victorian Electoral Commission can currently review the registration of a political party from time to time. Like Mr Baxter, I am also aware of some of my ALP local branch members who have recently received correspondence from the commission; they, too, have been asked to certify their membership of the ALP.

As part of the review the commission can require a party to provide it with up-to-date information and documents, including a list of names and addresses of at least 500 members. The bill requires the information to be provided to the commission within two months

rather than the current 30 days, so it will make it easier for smaller parties to comply. I think these provisions are important if we cast our minds back only a few years ago to what happened with the One Nation party, when it failed to provide proper information to the electoral authorities.

The bill also seeks to amend the Constitution Act 1975 in that it clarifies the nomination and eligibility requirements for Crown office-of-profit holders. These office-holders will not be required to resign from office prior to nominating as a candidate in a state election, but upon their election will no longer hold that office or place of profit. I understand that as a result there will be no change to local government councillors being able to stand for election to state Parliament as they are not considered to be Crown office-of-profit holders.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 to simplify the registration of how-to-vote cards and to increase the number of nominations required for the nomination of an Independent candidate for election from the current 6 to 50. The bill also specifies that the process for determining a final vacancy in the Legislative Council will be that in the event of a tie for the final vacancy, the result will be determined by lot by the election manager. This provision is further replicated through a similar amendment to the Local Government Act in respect of a tied vote in local government elections.

I want to spend a little time discussing the new requirement that Independent candidates for election to the Legislative Council provide 50 signatures on each nomination form. I note at the outset that the current nomination requirement to have six signatures for election as an Independent to the Legislative Assembly will continue to apply. There was considerable debate in the other place regarding this issue and about the impact it would have on Independent candidates. I must say I was quite bemused by the level of concern raised about the most recent Independent member in this place. No doubt it is greatly reassuring to that honourable member to know that members opposite have her best interests at heart and are so concerned about her re-election prospects.

However, in respect of the specific clause, from the dissolution of Parliament in 2006 the size of the Legislative Council regions in Victoria will be greatly increased. As I am sure all members are acutely aware at this point in time, each region will be 11 times the size of a Legislative Assembly district and will have approximately 440 000 potential voters, so it is reasonable to require that greater support be shown to



Independent candidates seeking election for a region than would be required for a district.

In its report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election the commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that the number of signatures required for support of nomination by a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party be increased from 6 to 50. The basis for that recommendation was that a candidate who is unable to attract 50 signatures within a division at the commonwealth level, let alone within an entire state or territory in the case of the for the Senate, would have no hope of election. The joint standing committee recommended that potential candidates should be asked to demonstrate at least that modest level of support when preparing their nominations.

We believe that given the requirement that registered political parties must have a membership base of at least 500 members, it is not unreasonable to require demonstration of support by 50 eligible electors for Independent candidates seeking election to the Legislative Council. If they cannot garner even 50 supporters to sign each nomination form, what hope do they have of getting elected? This provision is not about hobbling Independent candidates; it is about placing the onus on an Independent candidate to demonstrate that they are not a one-song record, that they are up to the challenge of working hard to garner support and maintain that support over a four-year period, and that they represent a broad cross-section of Victorians.

Before I conclude my remarks I want to make a few comments about compulsory voting — an issue addressed by the Honourable Chris Strong in his contribution. I put on record that I agree with the Honourable Chris Strong in this respect — and he might be shocked at that! I, too, strongly support the retention of our compulsory voting system. I note that there have been some comments at the federal level about this issue, and that the Prime Minister has ruled out any change to the system at a federal level. I hope that he keeps to his word; we certainly know he has not done that in respect of other issues.

It is important that the Prime Minister takes on board the very strong support amongst Australian voters for the retention of compulsory voting. I refer members to an Australian election study conducted in 2004 by the Australian National University, Queensland University and the Queensland Institute of Technology; it found that 74.1 per cent of those surveyed supported compulsory voting. By contrast, only 27.2 per cent were in favour of people voting only if they wanted to

vote. A poll conducted by the market research company Ipsos-Mackay came up with similar results — that is, 74 per cent favoured compulsory voting.

Our system of compulsory voting has delivered stable and accountable government for over a century. Most importantly, it has done so in a manner which has provided unquestioned legitimacy to the government of the day, irrespective of who that government might be. We must never find ourselves in a situation similar to that which occurred in the US presidential elections of 2000, where questions remained for many years as to the legitimacy of the election results in a small number of states such as Florida. If the self-titled world’s greatest democracy can only encourage 57 per cent of the eligible voters to elect its President, what does that truly say about democracy and electoral process in that country?

Well over 90 per cent of eligible Australians voted at the last election, which we should be extremely proud of. We have a system that works well. Voters have confidence in it and we must work to maintain that system for the good of our democracy.

I note that the Attorney-General in the other place has recently put out a discussion paper encouraging the Victorian public to engage in discussion about human rights. I strongly welcome that. In particular that discussion paper poses issues to do with the right to vote. I think it is important that Victorians become aware that we do not actually have a right to vote as such and no constitutional guarantees at either a state or federal level. That needs to be addressed. Section 41 of the Australian constitution only provides a right to vote in federal elections if an adult person has the right to vote in state elections under state laws. In fact a person would need to be 123 years old today to actually have a constitutional right to vote. It is clear that this needs urgent attention.

In conclusion, this is a fair and appropriate bill which deserves support from every member of this place. We are lucky to have an independent, fair and impartial electoral system, but we must look at finetuning this electoral system at every opportunity to ensure that the Victorian public can maintain confidence in it. This bill strengthens democracy in Victoria.

I know The Nationals are still wracked with nerves, given the release of the draft boundaries a week ago and obviously the impact that would have on their representation in this chamber, but I urge them to take up the interests of all Victorians and support this bill.



Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) — I

am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to debate on the Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. Ms Mikakos talked about a political party that is wracked with uncertainty, but those on the other side are certainly also going to be wracked with intense anxiety as they come under the new regional boundaries. They will be in a very awkward position as a number of their people will be at a disadvantage.

This government also talks about the freedom of democracy and speech — it continually spins out such wonderful rhetoric to the marketplace. They see the people and the voters as a marketplace, as vehicles for building their own political apparatchiki and castles around the entire area. This bill extends the erosion of democracy and the rights of Victorians to have a freedom of speech and proper representation in Parliament. This bill will be the downfall of this government. I should put on record that we will not be opposing this bill although there is a raft of issues that we have some concerns with.

The bill amends the Electoral Act 2002 — another attack on our constitution; the Constitution Act 1975 — the government could not get it right the first time; the so-called Constitutional (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003; and the government is launching another attack on local government through its amendment of the Local Government Act 1989.

In the context of the Honourable Bill Baxter’s contribution about spin and rhetoric, I will read from the purpose clause of the bill, which talks about amending the various acts I have referred to. It says, in part:

… to improve the operation of the electoral system in Victoria.

I read that a couple of times and thought, ‘This is magnificent spin within a bill of Parliament’. The spin doctors just have to put it into an act of Parliament. People who are doing doctorates in marketing should study the Victorian government and the methodology of its marketing spin. It is not only in the billions it spends on blatant advertising across all its departments, but we could also look at the micro areas where the spin-speak and the Bracks-speak come in.

When this government loses office it will be renowned as a government that has done absolutely nothing for Victoria other than to again drive us into the red. It will be renowned as a government of spin and of failing to deliver for all Victorians in a democratic way. This bill again reflects how the government is going about that

and I thought it important to make that reference in the context of where we are heading.

Part 2 of the bill relates to changes to the Electoral Act. There have been discussions on all sides about its being appropriate for persons aged 70 or more to be able to enrol as general postal voters. In his contribution the Honourable Chris Strong discussed the merits or otherwise that we might see if we had a system that allowed for the discretion of voters. I understand, however, that Ms Mikakos expressed some concerns during her contribution about people who have difficulty in attending polling booths, so there is some merit on both sides in relation to the argument. On balance this is an appropriate change to the act that will allow people to make an informed decision when they reach that particular age.

I also take up the earlier interjection from the Honourable Andrea Coote that 70 years of age is perhaps too young. That is probably true when you consider the way society is moving; the average age is probably a bit higher than it was. I do not think there was any rational review undertaken resulting in the age of 70 being picked; I assume it was just a figure picked out of the air.

We have heard contributions from both sides of the house in respect of clause 5 in part 2 of the bill which inserts new sections 58A to 58D relating to the re-registration of registered political parties. In respect of re-registration the Honourable Bill Baxter asked why we have to pay $5000. What is the red-tape, bureaucratic reason for this? Of the 25 000 extra public servants employed by this government there will probably need to be a group of 100 who will now be employed to undertake this particular task. I am concerned about where the registration fee will go. I would say on balance — and I could probably take a bet on this — that it will go into consolidated revenue, but I might be old fashioned. It might be a view I share just with myself, but I think a few million other people in Victoria may also share my view.

I have looked at the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I would like some clarification from the government because I think it is a bit raw. I have said before that it is always an indication that the government is trying to hide something when the explanatory memorandum is scant in detail.

With respect to re-registration of a registered political party, proposed new section 58D on page 5 of the bill says:



(1) If the Commission determines that a registered political

party that has applied for re-registration may be re-registered, the Commission must —

and it goes through a series of steps that are required before it may be registered. I am concerned about subsection (2) of the same proposed new section which says:

(2) If the Commission determines that a registered political party that has applied for re-registration should not be re-registered, the Commission must give the political party written notice that its application has been refused, setting out the reasons for the refusal.

I have gone through the bill to try to find what it is that the commission determines. There is nothing in the bill that actually sets out the basis on which a commission determines that a political party should not be re-registered. I know government members would like to have a single political party system in this state. They would like to get rid of the Liberal Party, The Nationals, the Independents and the Greens. While they are at it they might rebadge it the Communist Party, but that is another discussion for another day. The question is: what are the determinations the commission makes? In other words we could have a situation, which I am not suggesting is happening now but which could occur down the track, because we know the Labor Party is very good at putting its mates into particular organisations; it is all mates and spin. I get confused some days with which is which.

Hon. Andrea Coote — The Melbourne Cricket Club.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — The MCC; I will be honest: Will Fowles ran for East Yarra and the outcome was that he failed to get in there as well, so I am sure he would be a pretty average contributor to the MCC. What happens if the commission determines down the track that it does not want to re-register the Liberal Party?

Hon. R. G. Mitchell — It would be a very wise decision.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — I take up Mr Mitchell’s interjection that it would be a very wise decision. He just confirmed exactly what I am saying: this is a government controlled by members who want a single-party system. They do not want to have other political parties involved because they would get in the way of their one-party system. The problem is that there is nothing in the bill — —

Hon. J. M. Madden interjected.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — The minister is asking me to speak to the bill. I am doing that. I look forward to the minister’s contribution because there is nothing outlined in the bill in respect of proposed new section 58D to determine what would make a commission re-register a political party. Victorians ought to be very scared of legislation that places that on the public record.

With respect to clause 7 of the bill, which deals with how-to-vote cards, this subject is discussed in more detail in clause 18, which I will refer to later.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — The Batchelor amendment.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — We will get to the Batchelor amendment later. Part 3 of the bill deals with the Constitution Act 1975. How many times has this government attacked the constitution of Victoria? How many times has it got its fingers into the constitution of this great state? Why does it continue to touch the poor old constitution? It is because it does not like it and is trying to build in its methodology of control and overarching. This clause has nothing to do with what is right for the good of Victoria. You could call this the Hastings electorate clause because, as we know, at the last election the member for Hastings in the other place was investigated in relation to her eligibility.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — It is all Rosy now.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — As the Honourable Bruce Atkinson says, it is all Rosy now though, and we are looking forward in a Rosy sort of way. That is what this is about.

The other question that was brought up in debate is how many people there are working for the Crown who are employed in ministerial or electorate offices and vying for a seat in Parliament. That is what it is about. As has been said before, electorate offices of the Labor party are breeding grounds for future MPs within the Labor Party. We know that; it is an irrefutable fact. As we are finding out more recently, they are also the breeding grounds for local government. The electorate officers slime and slither around the electorates to find every conceivable hole they can in local councils and in terms of seats. They slither around finding out where they are going. That is what part 3 is about if we break it down. It is about putting their Labor mates into positions that allow them to control it. It is about control; it is about their belief that they know best. Well done, to you all!

Part 4 is in relation to the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003. Again, this was put up to provide that 50 persons must sign nominations, but again they



fell over to the so-called Independents in the other place. They make it more difficult for the true Independents in this place — those who are prepared to stand up to the Labor Party as Independents. I note with some concern that the government purports to have democracy as part of its mantra, but we have heard the previous speaker, Jenny Mikakos, talking with a level of glee about the difficulties one Independent member is going to face in terms of getting the signatures of 50 persons. This is about obstruction. I believe the honourable Independent member will be moving an amendment, and we look forward to that coming on in due course.

I touched on clause 18 briefly in relation to clause 7. This again lacks clarity. It does not clarify my view, and the explanatory memorandum is again very light on. It does not provide clarification in terms of the how-to-vote cards, such as whether you can have how-to-vote cards that combine Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council members. There is no clarity on that. I look forward to the government giving some direction on that. If you go through the bill, you see it is not clear. I would like it to be clearer. It demonstrates the rush with this bill. There are spelling mistakes on page 3, and there are others that I have picked up in the bill. That again demonstrates the sloppy management of the bill. We will not oppose this bill, but I will feel sorry for all Victorians as it passes.

Hon. R. G. MITCHELL (Central Highlands) — I rise to speak in support of the Electorate Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. The bill will improve the voting procedures and registration processes for parties, the nomination criteria and other amendments.

This bill provides that voters who are over the age of 70 can apply to the Victorian Electoral Commission to enrol as general postal voters. We are aware that Australia has an ageing population, and because of this many people over the age of 70 find it very difficult to get to polling places to vote on election day. With this bill we are assisting the communities of people who experience difficulty in getting to voting centres to exercise their right to vote. The bill allows for early and postal voting for those who will be unable to attend voting centres during the voting hours on election day. What this does is modernise the voting procedures in Victoria to make it easier for all to cast their votes.

The bill also makes some appropriate improvements to the registration process of political parties. It increases the number of signatures required for an Independent to run in the Legislative Council from 6 to 50 and is in line with the current practice of the commonwealth.

In my very brief contribution I want to take up some points that Mr Baxter brought up. Those who were listening to Mr Baxter’s contribution noticed that for the first 8 minutes he whinged and complained about not getting eight-year terms. Making them accountable to every voter at each election is something that scares The Nationals. This is the party that professes to be the high moral keeper in this place. While there is a lot of rhetoric and garbage about a number of issues we know that when it comes to morality on election matters their hands are dirty; in fact they are probably dirtier than anyone’s in this place.

Hon. W. R. Baxter — Give us an example!

Hon. R. G. MITCHELL — I thank Mr Baxter: I have a fantastic example here. I have a letter addressed to all supporters of the Vic Nats Gippsland team from the Honourable Peter Hall. In the letter Mr Hall admits on paper that they actively support Independents running and giving them preferences and also running dummy candidates who are not genuinely trying to represent the people but are there to stack up the numbers to try and help a flailing party that is falling behind because its relevance to Victoria has gone. That was shown at the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) conference.

There are a few examples in the letter. It talks about how Ian Needham ran in Narracan. I am a bit concerned about the letter claiming that Ian Needham gets red toenails at beauty salons! But that is a different matter. I will quote the letter. It says:

We actively sought Independents to run and give us preferences.

This is further proof of what goes on. They talk about morality, they talk about rhetoric, but there is nothing to it.

We also noted The Nationals, particularly Mr Baxter with his remarks, attacking the Independents in the lower house. They complain that they made amendments in the lower house — to the government’s credit, it listened to the amendments, and they were taken on board — but that, as Mr Baxter said, the government failed to follow it up and do it for the Legislative Council. I ask Mr Baxter: if it is such a concern to The Nationals, why did not he or his colleagues do it? Why is he so lazy and incompetent that he cannot do it himself? The fact that they did not do it confirms that his party is a collection of whingers without any work ethics. Mr Baxter contends that because I did not attend the VFF conference I cannot represent the bush. While Mr Baxter was in Collins Street enjoying the free feeds, the free drinks and the



blah, blah of the very few farmers I was in a parliamentary committee looking into farm safety — something that he should take on board given he has done nothing about that in his 35 years of cushion warming. The next day he was up in Yea, Shepparton and Woodend trying to be the perfect example of someone running around representing electorates, like I am here to do.

We also heard Mr Dalla-Riva. Once again he provides the proof that the Liberal Party has a distaste for police, nurses and teachers. His attack on public servants is further proof that if ever Victoria makes the mistake of letting them into power, they will slash police numbers, they will cut nurse numbers and they will get rid of teachers. Is it any wonder that they are at their lowest ebb and continue to go down.

Our government is committed to the protection and integrity of the electoral system. It is giving everyone who is eligible an opportunity to vote. This government is committed to Victoria’s electoral system, and I commend this bill to the house.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — As has been indicated, the Liberal Party will not oppose this particular legislation, but we do have reservations about the legislation. Apart from anything else, we have reservations about the way it has come to this house. It is another example of the government’s incessant meddling with the political process to try to achieve the outcomes that are to its own advantage without having any proper consideration for the democratic principles of this state and this Parliament and the proper processes of this Parliament.

This legislation presumably represents the whims of the Attorney-General in the other house, Rob Hulls, and the Labor Party’s penchant for experimentation in the political processes to, as I said, try to achieve the outcomes that are desirable for it in terms of representation in this place rather than outcomes that are in the best interests of Victorians.

This has been a very protracted debate. The Honourable Chris Strong spoke to this much earlier in the piece. In a process on that occasion the government then decided to defer further debate on the legislation whilst it pursued its business program on other pieces of legislation. Indeed we will see it again this week, where Mr Viney, a member in this place, is to bring about a quite extraordinary motion in government time to revisit an issue that has already been canvassed in opposition business, simply to filibuster, simply to fill in time.

This government has been unable to manage its business program and its legislative program in this place. As a result this legislation, which could well have had a less protracted passage through this house, comes to us on this occasion some considerable weeks after the major position of the opposition was put to the house. Therefore it was I think important that the Honourable Richard Dalla-Riva reiterated what the Liberal Party’s opposition was, and I wish to take that a little further again today.

It is interesting to note that on many occasions the government is quick to the rhetoric. The Honourable Richard Dalla-Riva spoke of this government as being a government of very little substance, but rather of spin. I think there is quite a lot of truth to that. This is a government that simply quotes slogans. It gets someone to invent clever slogans and constantly quotes those slogans in the expectation that people will believe something if you say it often enough. As we see time and again so many of these slogans are simply hollow. In fact there is no substance to those slogans. Whilst the government continues to have all of its members sing from a hymn sheet in terms of comments that they ought to make there is absolutely no commitment to any of those things.

Perhaps there is no more hollow rhetoric in this place from this government than its supposed commitment to democracy. This is a party that said when it was in opposition in 1999 that it was committed to open and transparent government. Indeed this is a government that has been anything but that. This is a government that has constantly used the FOI system to frustrate scrutiny. This is a government that has tried to avoid the scrutiny of parliamentary committees. This is a government that in fact has put gags on speeches in this house. This is a government that has made sure that members in this house are less able to represent their constituents than at any other time in the history of this house by reducing the number of items they can raise in this house in the adjournment debate or in question time. This is a government that has made cutbacks to staffing levels. This is a government that has introduced government business programs to guillotine legislation and to pass legislation without proper scrutiny of this house, for the first time in its history.

This is a government that suggested it would have honesty and transparency in the answering of questions that were put to ministers, and yet we have ministers who fail to turn up at the adjournment debates, when in the history of the house ministers have always been at adjournment debates. This is a government where the ministers refuse to answer directly simple questions that are put to them but rather they prefer to dance around



and give clever, smart answers that try to ensure the government avoids the proper scrutiny of this place.

This is a government that fails to provide reports to members of Parliament, who do not seek those reports in their own right but on behalf of their constituents, so they can be better informed and so they can inform their constituents so they can have proper scrutiny of this government. Yet while the rhetoric is there about this government being open and accountable and committed to democracy, it is anything but. There is no more hollow claim than that which is made by this government in terms of democracy.

The Honourable Bill Baxter pointed out the issue concerning local government. I do not propose to dwell on that. I think he covered that matter adequately. But I point out that it is certainly my view that we should probably return to attendance voting in local government, just to put some honesty and integrity back into that system. I must say that personally I am attracted to first-past-the-post voting in local government as well because I believe that is the way to get rid of dummy candidates. You do not stand for election if there is absolutely no point in your standing for election because you do not have a quota of preferences to refer to somebody else, and therefore you put some integrity back into the system.

There is no doubt that local government elections have been severely diminished and tarnished by the actions of many people in developing dummy candidates, running mates in elections who have absolutely no intention of being elected but indeed are just there to actually damage the democratic process rather than to support it.

It is interesting that this government again, whilst it has talked about the importance of democracy, has conducted reviews of local government boundaries. Despite the fact that many local government authorities have resisted and have argued and put very logical and effective cases against boundary reviews, the government has overridden those and proceeded with boundary reviews that it thinks might be to the advantage of Labor candidates.

It is interesting for me to observe the Whitehorse City Council. If its members put as much time into considering some of the planning applications before the council as they put into considering their own re-election we would be a lot better off in that particular community. I notice that recently another office block development in the area of Blackburn has had to go through to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal because the council has failed to make a

determination on its position on that particular town planning application. The same thing happened with that 15-storey office block in Mitcham, when the council failed to reach a determination and the matter went to VCAT.

This council spends an extraordinary amount of time deciding what electoral system it might have that will advantage the mates in that council rather than getting on with the business of providing good governance to the City of Whitehorse. I am very concerned about this government’s incessant meddling with elections, both in terms of local government and certainly in terms of state government. It would have been much better for this government to actually consider the prospect of having perhaps a substantive review of electoral processes, perhaps by an all-party parliamentary committee or an independent review, to consider what we might do in terms of going forward with some electoral reforms rather than going on the whims of the Attorney-General.

Just as other members have indicated their concern, I am also concerned a little about why ‘registration process’ is defined as it is in this legislation. It may well be that the government has decided this is a method of dealing with sham political parties, those organisations that seem to come up from time to time, the intent of which seems to be more to damage the political process than to really add anything constructive, participate in the processes constructively or add to the public debate.

It occurs to me that instead of having the process that has been put in this bill, which imposes a financial penalty on parties in terms of having to constantly re-register, perhaps we could have a system that recognises that if parties have already achieved a certain level of representation in this Parliament they are clearly bona fide parties, and they might well have to register on one occasion over the electoral period rather than having to keep registering every year. I think there are better and less cumbersome processes that might well have been considered that would still protect the integrity of the system.

I am in favour of the office-of-profit provisions in this legislation. Personally I do not see a problem in that. I have been concerned for some time about the fact that many people have found it very difficult to stand for public office because of professions that they are involved in. In some cases they believe they are putting their careers at risk by trying to seek public office and then having to go back and hoping their job will still be available to them.



One of the areas that I think ought to have been clarified as part of this process, because I am not convinced at this point that it has been properly clarified, is the issue of somebody who is involved as a local government councillor at the time they are elected to Parliament. There has been quite a bit of conjecture and debate as to whether or not they are holding dual offices, and an office of profit under the Crown when they are elected members of local councils. Yet in the past we have certainly had a number of members who have continued to the expiration of their term as a councillor whilst they have been members of Parliament. That is a matter that we might well have clarified in legislation, and it might well have been addressed very competently had this been part of a more substantive and comprehensive review rather than something done at the whim of the Attorney-General.

I certainly am aware, going into this next election, that the changes made to the Legislative Council are very significant and sweeping. They are going to cause a great deal of confusion, and I am not sure in that context that the changes which are brought about in this legislation have effectively taken all of those into account and have considered them properly. From my perspective there is an inconsistency in the number of voters that one needs to secure a nomination to become a member of the Legislative Council going forward as distinct from being a candidate for the Legislative Assembly. I certainly find that there is some discrepancy in terms of the way in which those candidates will be able to participate in elections under this bill.

I support the fact that older Victorians ought to have the opportunity to register as general postal voters and that in fact there ought to be an opportunity to make sure that everybody does get a chance to exercise their vote in circumstances where they may not be able to attend a polling station on polling day. But I certainly do not fancy a circumstance where in fact people start to make a welter of pre-poll voting simply because it is seen as an easy way of doing it. It occurs to me that this may well be an area where the integrity of the voting is lost because of the circumstances in which some people may well seek to exploit the provisions of this legislation. I think it might well have been prudent to have had a much more thorough examination of this particular legislative change, apart from anything else in the bill.

I also indicate that the registration of how-to-vote cards is an important part of the integrity of the process. I am very mindful, as are a number of members in this place — particularly the Honourable Bill Baxter and the Honourable Graeme Stoney — of the days of the

Nunawading Province by-election and the behaviour of the now Minister for Transport in the other place, Peter Batchelor, in putting out false and misleading how-to-vote cards in an effort to sway the voters of Nunawading Province. I think we are very concerned about the integrity of this process; indeed, the Batchelor incident effectively led to the registration of how-to-vote cards.

The provisions that are made here are largely administrative but certainly they are matters that we ought to take due account of going forward because they go very much to the heart of the integrity of our elections. Many of us have seen guerrilla marketing by certain candidates at different elections, where they have produced how-to-vote cards that are not properly registered or that vary from the cards that have been properly registered with the electoral commission. We need to make sure that voters are not misled at elections; that they have an opportunity of making a fair and reasonable decision; and that wherever possible — particularly bearing in mind the sweeping changes that will occur to the Legislative Council — those people who are exercising a vote are fully informed and are not confused by the processes of the voting, as distinct from the policies that they might be presented with by various candidates.

As I have said, the Liberal Party will not oppose this bill, but we could have done so much better had this been the subject of a more thorough examination by an independent review or by an all-party parliamentary committee rather than something done at the whim of the Attorney-General.

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. The bill contains a number of sensible amendments, which, as members of all parties have outlined, will go some way to adding to the effectiveness and efficiency of the way the electoral system is conducted. Certainly some elements of the bill are contentious, but overall there is considerable broad agreement amongst members here today on what is proposed in this bill.

As a result of the passage of the bill section 24 of the Electoral Act 2002 will be amended to include electors who have attained 70 years of age in the categories of people eligible to apply to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) to be regarded as general postal voters. That is a great improvement on the categories that were designated as those that people had to belong to in order to qualify for a postal vote in the past. We are all well aware that voting is important to many seniors in our community. I am aware that many of



them, like my parents, proudly make their way to the polling booth on election day and are very pleased to take part in the democratic processes of electing members of Parliament and members of their local council. However, many older people have problems walking any distance or have other ailments that make it very difficult for them, and that actually can engender great anxiety for many of them. To provide that they can apply to generally have a postal vote automatically in the future will be of great comfort to many of them.

Section 44(2) of the Electoral Act will be amended to provide that a reference in the Electoral Act to the registered officer of a registered political party includes a reference to the deputy registered officer. This means that the deputy registered officer in the future will be able to perform the functions of the registered officer when that person is not available. Although part of the act has made that possible in the past, it will mean that that delegation extends to the full range of activities that are performed by registered officers of registered political parties.

The process for re-registration of registered political parties was discussed at some length by some members. I am aware that currently there are particular triggers that stimulate a review by the VEC of the registration of a political party, but this provision in the bill inserts a mandatory requirement to re-register mid-cycle between elections. This is put forward by the government to provide not only a check on what happens in the election period, when there is a qualification requiring the obtaining of a certain number of first preferences which would otherwise to a trigger a review, but also an additional safeguard to ensure that registered political parties meet the criteria for registration between elections. We have enshrined in the bill the requirement that this process should happen mid-cycle.

Given that we are moving to a four-year fixed-term election cycle, a very clear window of opportunity is designated — that is, the middle two months between election cycles — and it is very clear to all political parties when that will happen. Therefore, I do not agree with what Mr Baxter said about this being too short a period. Political parties will know for two years in advance that that period will be coming up and will have the opportunity within the two-month time frame to get their final documentation together to make sure that they complete that process within that two months.

The advent of a new voting system for the Legislative Council at the next state election of proportional representation and eight electorates of five members means that there will likely be an increased number of

candidates vying for those positions. In this country we have experience of the way the Senate voting system operates, and we know that sometimes there are some very unmanageable Senate voting papers. There is an issue about striking a balance between our democratic system and the encouragement of participation, and a proliferation of candidates which may make the system unworkable. Therefore it is intended, through the provision in the bill, to require Independent candidates to meet the same requirements that are in place at the commonwealth level and to require a minimum of 50 signatories prior to nomination.

There has been a lot of discussion in the house today about the pros and cons of that requirement in the bill. It does raise the bar; it does lift the threshold. It means that an Independent will need more than a group of friends around the dinner table on a Saturday night to sign the nomination form. But in the voting system we have in this state I am sure the people of Victoria would like to know that those who are putting themselves forward as candidates are likely to achieve at least a modest level of support for their efforts and their capacity as candidates with potential to represent the community at this state level of Parliament. So I do not think it is too burdensome a task to expect an Independent candidate to go around and find 50 signatories for a nomination form if that same candidate is looking to go to 500 000 voters in that electorate just a few weeks later to contest the election.

The bill streamlines the registration of how-to-vote cards. It makes sure that the system is simplified, with cards from political parties going directly to the Victorian Electoral Commission, but provides that Independents and groups may still lodge their cards with any election manager for registration by the VEC. A small window of opportunity is offered for correcting any errors in a registered how-to-vote card before the cards are published. There are other provisions that provide for a more efficient system for the VEC of administering the collection from and the return of deposits to candidates. I am sure that will be very helpful to the VEC and will save a lot of time and trouble.

One of the important changes made by part 3 of the bill to the Constitution Act 1975 is the clarification of the position of candidates who hold an office of profit under the Crown. Having been one of those people and having stood for election to this Parliament while holding an office under the Crown — I was an investigation officer with the commonwealth Ombudsman at the time I nominated for Parliament — I see this as a very sensible and useful improvement on the situation that is currently in place. I recall that I had



to have my resignation ready in advance with the commonwealth Ombudsman, to be activated the moment the writs were issued. So I had a period when I was a candidate but was not employed, on the understanding that if I was unsuccessful in my candidature for the Legislative Council I would get my job back.

I am sure that with a lot of people there is some degree of uncertainty about going through a process like that when they hold an office under the Crown or are employed by a state or commonwealth department, and that that uncertainty becomes quite a barrier for them. So it is very heartening to see amendments to sections 49 and 61, which will mean that no-one will be disqualified from standing for election to state Parliament by reason only of holding an office of profit under the Crown or by reason of being a public servant of Victoria or the commonwealth, and that the election of that person will automatically terminate his or her tenure of the office in question. So that legal issue, which we have seen cause difficulty for others in the past, will not arise in the future.

There are a few other important changes, such as those relating to a procedure for resolving a tie for the final vacancy and to making it possible for all those who declare that they are not able to attend a polling booth on the day of an election to cast a pre-poll or a postal vote. Those measures are popular. They are growing, and they need some further scrutiny to ensure that they are consistent with the administration and organisation of elections in the most democratic way possible. They have certainly become a growing feature of our electoral system, so to make them available for those who choose to take that option at this point in time is a useful way forward. With those words I commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Mr SCHEFFER (Monash) — This bill makes a number of adjustments to four acts that have bearing on the Victorian electoral system: the Electoral Act, the Constitution Act, the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act and the Local Government Act. Previous speakers on this side have welcomed the amendments to the Electoral Act, particularly those amendments that have a bearing on voters over the age of 70 years who in future will automatically be able to become general postal voters.

Monash Province contains part of the City of Glen Eira which is one of the oldest electorates in Victoria. I know that this amendment is therefore especially relevant. Many older voters face significant difficulty in accessing polling booths in person. This amendment will give them the peace of mind of knowing that as

registered postal voters they can still exercise their democratic rights like other citizens and that they will still have the right to choose their representatives.

The Electoral Act is also being amended to clarify the registration of political parties with the Victorian Electoral Commission. In the present parliamentary term registered political parties need to re-register by 30 June 2006 but in following terms they will be required to re-register much earlier. They will be given a two-month window to re-register between September and October in the second year of the term. Where a party fails to meet this requirement, it will need to wait six months before it can apply for re-registration — that is, until April of the third year of the term. In addition, political parties will be prevented from either registering or re-registering during the election period between when the writs are issued and when they are returned.

The electoral commission will now also be required to publish the date of the re-registration of an already registered political party in the register of political parties, and publish the fact of the party’s re-registration in the Government Gazette. On the other hand, where the commission resolves not to re-register a party it must provide its reasons in writing to the party in question and the party can then appeal that decision to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). I believe these measures give much greater transparency to the re-registration process.

An important amendment relates to the provisions regarding the registration of how-to-vote cards. Individuals or registered political parties may lodge how-to-vote cards with the election manager immediately or directly with the electoral commission after the close of nominations, but they must be lodged at least six working days before election day. The election manager must register the how-to-vote card with the Victorian Electoral Commission. It must decide by the following morning whether to approve the how-to-vote card and must let the individual or political party know of its decision. I believe these clarifications will improve transparency and clarify the obligations of candidates and political parties as well as those of the election manager and the electoral commission and avoid confusion during the heat of an election campaign.

Section 79 of the Electoral Act sets out the factors the commission must take careful account of in deciding whether or not to approve a how-to-vote card. These include clear identification of the body distributing the card as well as ensuring that the graphics shown on the card, including logos and emblems, are of a certain size



so as to be clearly visible to the voter. The how-to-vote card must also clearly show the numbered preference order of the candidates as well as other prescribed details. Importantly, the commission is required to refuse registration where the card can reasonably be said to mislead or deceive or to induce a voter to deface the ballot paper. Authorised individuals representing candidates have a day to correct any errors in their how-to-vote cards and the commission in turn has a further day to accept or reject the amendment and inform the applicant accordingly.

Clause 7 of the bill sets out the commission’s obligations to ensure that all candidates are treated in exactly the same way. These include the process of registration, the number of copies to be lodged and procedures for review of the commission’s decision by VCAT. The exacting detail of the provisions is critical to the fairness of our voting system and plays an essential role in maintaining the confidence that voters have in elections in this country. The debacle the world witnessed in Florida in the 2000 US elections would be impossible in Australia and other older democracies. It occurred because of a lack of detail and prescription in US state electoral law.

The substitution of a new section 98 into the principal act relating to early and postal voting is also important to many Jewish electors living in Monash Province whose Sabbath falls on Saturday — voting day. The new section enables people who are unable to come to a voting centre during the voting time to apply for approval to cast their vote at a voting centre at another time or to cast a postal vote. As I said, many members of the Orthodox Jewish community are in this position. This provision strengthens democracy by increasing procedural flexibility to accommodate a diversity of needs.

The bill increases the number of signatures required on an Independent candidate’s nomination form to 6 for the Assembly and 50 for the Council. There is always the question of how reasonable such measures are but it seems to me that an individual nominating for election to public office should be required to meet certain conditions that demonstrate that the decision is not mere whimsy. This measure requires a potential candidate to speak to a small number of electors prior to lodging a nomination form.

There are other amendments to the Electoral Act that relate to the counting of votes and the resolution in the event of a tie, and to the conditions under which deposits will be returned to candidates.

The Constitution Act contains provisions that prevent public servants and many others who ‘hold profit under the Crown’ from sitting in the Victorian Parliament — their election would be deemed to be null and void. The amendment made by this bill provides that such individuals may now stand for election without first relinquishing their positions but upon election they are required to resign from their position or relinquish any profit derived from a position they may hold. Up until now it has been demanded of such individuals that they resign from their position upon their nomination. As Ms Romanes outlined in her contribution, some have been able to make arrangements to return to their positions if they are unsuccessful and special arrangements have been made to ensure that benefits and entitlements are not lost. Standing for public office is something that democracy should encourage, not penalise. The new provisions will strengthen democracy by removing an obstacle for citizens thinking about nominating while at the same time protecting the public interest by ensuring that members of Parliament do not face a conflict of interest.

The amendments contained in this bill go to clarifying a range of electoral matters and will strengthen democracy in Victoria. I commend it to the house.

Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — I rise to make a contribution to the Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. It makes improvements to voting procedures, registration processes for political parties, nomination criteria and other administrative and technical amendments. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act 2002, the Constitution Act 1975, the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act 2003 and the Local Government Act 1989 to improve the operation of the electoral system in Victoria. This legislation is about simplifying the electoral process by which people exercise their vote either at polling booths or through postal or early voting. Any mechanism that improves access to voting is by its nature good.

The bill changes the criteria for general postal voters. Voters are presently eligible to make an application for a postal vote if they live more than 20 kilometres from the nearest polling booth, if they are ill or infirm, if they are a carer of someone who is seriously ill or infirm, if they are imprisoned, if they are a silent voter or if on religious grounds they are unable to attend a polling place. The first amendment in the bill provides that all people who are 70 years of age or older can make application to become a general postal voter if they choose — it is the voter’s choice. The bill abolishes the list of eight reasons for obtaining a postal vote I cited previously and simplifies the process by requiring a declaration that the voter is unable to attend a voting



centre. This is, by its nature, also a sensible amendment. With the implementation of this bill Victoria’s 442 000 people aged over 70 will be able to vote from their homes with postal votes. I emphasise once again that if they choose they will be able to register as general postal voters in next year’s state election.

Independent candidates will need 50 signatures on their nomination forms to stand for the Legislative Council and 6 for the Legislative Assembly. Originally the bill required 50 people to sign a nomination form for an Independent candidate seeking election to either house of Parliament. However, following a house amendment in the other place, this bill will now require that that applies only to people seeking election to this place — the Legislative Council. This is in keeping with the report from the commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which held an inquiry into the number of signatures required to support the nomination of a candidate; at the commonwealth level the number was increased from 6 to 50. Given what will be the size of each of the new Legislative Council provinces — about half a million electors each — after the next election, 50 signatures is representative of that number of electors.

The bill also simplifies the general requirements for early and postal voting. Any person who can declare that they are unable to attend a voting centre on election day during designated times of voting will be able to apply to vote early or by post and unlike some of the members on the other side, I do not have any problems with this. It also is a sensible amendment. Because of changed working hours and other circumstances, people need to be able to vote at different times.

The bill also sets out a new process for the registration of how-to-vote cards. This is a good initiative. In the past there has been confusion because of the separate provisions for the supply and inspection of registered how-to-vote cards depending on whether the cards were registered by an election manager or by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). With the introduction of proportional representation in this house at the next election there is an even greater need for a simple, one-stop registration procedure for how-to-vote cards.

Another change made by the bill is the clarification of eligibility requirements for people holding an office of profit under the Crown. State and commonwealth Crown holders of office or place of profit will not be required to resign from office prior to nominating as a candidate in a state election, but upon their election will cease to hold that office or place of profit. I find this amendment a good one because I personally faced difficulties when I stood as a federal candidate when I

was a councillor, so clarification at a state level for one’s standing for Parliament is good.

Finally, the bill also clarifies the method for determining final vacancies relating to the resolution of a tie in the Legislative Council or in local government election counts. If there are only two continuing candidates for the final vacancy, all surpluses from the elected candidates must be transferred and all preferences from excluded candidates must be distributed before the candidate with the larger number of votes is elected; or if there is a tie, the result will be decided by lot.

The government is absolutely committed to protecting the integrity of the electoral system by making it more understandable and easy to access for everyone. As a councillor in the City of Whitehorse, I supported amendments to electoral boundaries and the introduction of postal voting for council elections as I believed this improved access to voting enhanced the electoral process. This bill further modernises the Victorian electoral system and strengthens voters’ rights, thus enhancing the democratic process. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — At the outset I indicate that I am opposing the bill for a number of reasons, which I think are pretty obvious. It probably should have been called the Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment to Get Rid of Dianne Hadden) Bill had the Attorney-General been as honest, open, transparent and accountable as he keeps telling us ad nauseam — but he certainly does not act that out.

I have heard the platitudes from government members trotting out their prepared speeches from the hymn sheets. They are pretty pathetic. Most of them have been here since 1999; the new lot since 2002. I would have thought that by now they could at least have read the bill and prepared their own speeches, but it is obvious that they are not capable of doing even that.

This bill is not sensible; it is not fair; it is not appropriate; it is not in the interests of democracy, and it does not strengthen democracy — at least, not ‘democracy’ in the way I understand the meaning of the word in a dictionary. From my listening to the Premier on the radio in recent days, his version is somewhat different to how ‘democracy’ is defined by the dictionary.

This bill will work against the election of Independent members of Parliament in the proposed three massively huge country regions as proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The proposal by the



Constitution Commission of Victoria report in 2002 was that those massive regions would be preferred but its recommendation came with a number of qualifications in that the commission then said that its inclination was towards a lower rather than a higher election quota for the upper house to better provide for diversity of representation.

Any quota above the approximately 16.67 per cent required for models 3 and 4 — and my region, the Western Victoria one, will become model 3 — would exclude diversity of representation. Any quota below 12 per cent would allow for the election of candidates who represented interests which were not truly reflected in the community. The Constitution Commission went on to say that it is more important that governments are kept under scrutiny in the upper house and elected as in the Senate where a broader spread of opinion is achieved by a proportional representation voting system, thus ensuring fair consideration of a greater variety of views without endangering the stability of the government.

There has to be an appropriate quota. The 16.67 per cent is in fact the highest quota in Australia. The Senate’s quota is 14.3 per cent; South Australia’s upper house quota is 8.3 per cent; the New South Wales upper house quota is 4.5 per cent; and Western Australia with its two-tiered system has 12.5 per cent for 7-member regions and 16.7 per cent for 5-member regions. So members can see that Victoria’s 16.67 per cent is at the very highest that was ever envisaged and warned about by the Constitution Commission in its report. I have very real concerns for country Victorians at the next election and beyond, that what this legislation will do and what the electoral boundaries rejigging will do is entrench the two major parties. That is a fear expressed to me almost daily by constituents in my electorate.

It is all very well for government members to wax lyrical about their electorates, but most of them are in city electorates. Goodness me, look at the government members! How many of them are country members of Parliament? I can probably count about two. They have no committed interest in country Victoria; they do not know what it is like to have to travel to a polling booth, to live and pay for food in the country, and pay for water at $1 a kilolitre, as it is in my region, and have stage 3 or stage 9 water restrictions. Most of these government MPs on your right, Acting President, and on my left have simply no idea. They are clueless. Country people, wide and far, are saying, ‘Enough is enough’.

As I said, my fear is that the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s massive country electorates will

swallow up Independent representation, and I will probably come back here after the next election and say, ‘I told you so’. Country people will not be able to travel to their local MP’s office. You will get a conglomeration of Labor Party and perhaps Liberal Party candidates from around Melton and Lara in my electorate; those who live at Edenhope or Nelson or Portland or Murrayville will be whistling Dixie to see an upper house member. It is not fair at all, but this is what the Labor Party envisaged when it went down this path about four or five years ago.

Coming back to the bill, the explanatory memorandum says it is about amending the Electoral Act, the Constitution Act, the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act and the Local Government Act to improve the operation of the electoral system in Victoria. I say it is not going to do that; it simply will not do it unless you are a city MP and a member of one of the two major political parties in this state.

I have some grave concerns about the second-reading speech. We have yet another instance of the Attorney-General misleading the house and the Parliament, saying one thing and then introducing something quite different by way of house amendment. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee dealt with the first bill introduced into the Parliament back in April 2005, and it spoke about the proposal to amend section 69(3)B of the Electoral Act to increase from 6 to 50 the number of signatures required on the nomination form for an Independent candidate. As we know SARC is here to scrutinise bills and see that they do not infringe unduly on our rights and freedoms. Had the Attorney-General and the government left the bill as they submitted it to the other place it would not have been an issue, but unfortunately for the two Independents in the other house, the member for Gippsland East and the member for Mildura — and I have read their contributions and empathise with them — it will be difficult to get 50 signatories and to make sure that you do not just, as I think I heard Ms Romanes say, sit around the meal table and gather 50 signatures. For the record, I advise Ms Romanes that is not how country people operate. The signatories have to be registered on the electoral roll for a start, and this is going to be quite a feat.

Ms Romanes interjected.

Ms HADDEN — I sat here and listened to you, Ms Romanes. It was platitudes from a city MP.

There are rules for one and rules for others. It would have been an impost on Mr Savage and Mr Ingram in the other place to have gathered 50 signatures, so the



house amendment was made by the Attorney-General and the Premier to make them feel better and make it easier for them. I do not have an issue with that. However, the upper house was treated very differently. I was not asked. I was not approached by the Attorney-General or the Premier and asked for my view.

An honourable member interjected.

Ms HADDEN — No, they want to make it as hard as possible for country Victorians to be independently represented in this house. The whole idea of the Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) Act was to make it easier for independent representation in this house, to truly represent all Victorians, and not to have a Labor Party MP at Melton who is going to represent someone over at Nelson, because they simply will not do it. I know they will not do it, and the people in country Victoria know they will not do it.

Section 166 of the commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that not less than 50 persons entitled to vote in an election must sign the nomination form for both a member of the House of Representatives and a member the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate that section into Hansard.

Leave granted; see page 1736.

Ms HADDEN — I want everyone who reads Hansard to fully understand that the Attorney-General did mislead the Parliament in his second-reading speech, that this government proposes different rules for Independents in this state now compared with what is required by the federal legislation. I suppose I could say I really do not give a hoot whether the government wants 50 or 5000 signatures, and I am quite sure and satisfied I could get every one of them, but that is not the point. It is about equality and fairness and principle that the number of nominations required for an Independent candidate be exactly the same for this place as for the other place. It is clear that the two Independent members in the other place were not keen to have the requirement for 50 signatures, so if it was not good enough for them to have 50 signatures but 6, then it is equally not good enough for me or anyone else who wants to run as an Independent in this place to be under the same terms and conditions. But of course that is not what the part-time Attorney-General of this state has in mind.

As I said, I oppose the legislation. It is very important that democracy is democracy for country Victorians, not just for those members and constituents who live in city seats. That seems to be a stark difference now,

more than ever since the 2002 election. This government is out of touch with country Victoria. It has lost its empathy with country Victoria; it does not care about country Victoria; and it is complacent to the point of arrogance about country Victorians. It was appalling that there was no representation by the Bracks Labor government at the Victorian Farmers Federation conference. What a slight on country Victorians! Members of the government ought to hang their heads in shame; in fact they ought to send a letter of apology. The Premier ought to take the lead and apologise for his inadequate Minister for Agriculture.

There are some other matters which I wish to examine at short length in the committee stage, during which I will move an amendment. I oppose the bill.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 35 Argondizzo, Ms Lovell, Ms Atkinson, Mr McQuilten, Mr Bowden, Mr (Teller) Madden, Mr Brideson, Mr Mikakos, Ms Broad, Ms Mitchell, Mr Buckingham, Ms (Teller) Nguyen, Mr Carbines, Ms Olexander, Mr Coote, Mrs Pullen, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Darveniza, Ms Romanes, Ms Davis, Mr D. McL. Scheffer, Mr Davis, Mr P. R. Somyurek, Mr Eren, Mr Stoney, Mr Forwood, Mr Theophanous, Mr Hilton, Mr Thomson, Ms Hirsh, Ms Viney, Mr Jennings, Mr Vogels, Mr Koch, Mr

Noes, 4 Baxter, Mr (Teller) Hadden, Ms (Teller) Drum, Mr Hall, Mr

Pair Lenders, Mr Bishop, Mr Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — I move:

Clause 17, line 17, omit “6” and insert “50”.



My amendment is put on the basis that it is in accord with the bill that was introduced in the other place by the Attorney-General a couple of months ago. The number of nominees required, under that bill, to sign a candidate’s nomination form was 50. That number was required for candidates running for an upper house seat as well as those for a lower house seat at the next state election. That would have been consistent, as the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech, with section 166 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which requires the number of signatures for an Independent candidate running in both the Senate and House of Representatives to have a nomination form in an appropriate form be signed by not less than 50 persons entitled to vote at the election.

As the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech, that bill then provided that the number of signatories required to an Independent candidate’s nomination form be increased from 6 to 50. That would bring Victoria into line with current practice in the commonwealth. Indeed, it did at that point but then an amendment, instigated by the two Independent members there, was moved in the lower house. They said it would be too difficult to obtain 50 signatories to a nomination form, and they wanted the required number changed from 50 to 6. That was done by way of agreement to their amendment.

This means that an Independent member running for the lower house has a distinct advantage over an Independent member running for the upper house. If the same impost on one’s time is a complaint by an Independent candidate for the lower house, then that same argument is applicable to an Independent candidate running for the upper house. Clearly, the second-reading speech in this house did not explain why those amendments were different in the two houses. It does not bring it into line with the current practice in the commonwealth that requires 50 signatures on a nomination form for an Independent candidate for either the House of Representatives or the Senate. That should apply in this bill in the interests of consistency, fairness and democracy and so that all candidates are treated equally.


Ms HADDEN — I am having some difficulty here with laughter from the government benches.

The CHAIR — Order! Ms Hadden, to continue.

Ms HADDEN — No adequate explanation was given in the second-reading speech when it was incorporated in this place as to why the Attorney-General changed the magic number of

nomination signatories for the two Independent members in the lower house, thereby making it quite difficult for an upper house Independent candidate. This is quite apart from the fact that their electorates are going to be huge next time — something like 100 000 square kilometres for the three rural seats with a population of 500 000 to 1 million in each. It is not as simple as just getting 50 signatures or 6 signatures — the signatories must be people who are eligible to vote and enrolled on the electoral roll.

That is the difficulty and that is the finite matter that needs to be kept in mind. It is not a matter of a candidate standing in Bridge Mall in Ballarat and picking up 50 signatures. That is not the way it is done. But it will certainly discourage Independent candidates from running for election to the upper house if they have to conform to obtaining 50 signatories, whereas the Independent members in the lower house can just whip in their nominations with the blink of an eye — that is, just 6 signatories to each nomination form.

This bill is not fair. It is not just, equitable or democratic for people who want to run for Parliament but not be a nominee of a major party. I expect there will be quite a number of Independent candidates at the next election, and they should be treated fairly and equally by the two houses.

The original bill proposed a fair situation, with each candidate in each house requiring 50 signatures in their nomination form. Now, because the two Independent members in the other place apparently explained to the Premier and the Attorney-General that it would be difficult for them to run around and get 50 signatories during an election period, the Attorney-General agreed to slip it back to 6 signatures for them. Let us slip it back to six for the upper house, too. No, I am proposing that we have consistency, as the second-reading speech stated. The legislation should be consistent with section 166 of the commonwealth legislation with respect to elections. The number of signatories required to a nomination form should remain at 50 for Independent candidates for both the upper and lower houses.

My question to the minister is: what reasons has the government given — or is it going to give — for this discrepancy between the two houses in the number of nominations required for an Independent candidate?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I thank the member for her contribution and acknowledge the point of her request.

I think it is fairly well understood that there was an allowance made for the members in the other chamber



in relation to reducing the number from 50 to 6, but it was also recognised that given that in the upper house the regions will be substantially bigger and they will include approximately 10 seats — —


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Exactly — 11. I was working on averages, Mr Atkinson. I was working backwards from the averages.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — The average is per nomination or per signature per seat. It is in the order — in general terms again — of about 4.5 per seat. It was thought, given that the regions are substantially bigger, it would be appropriate to still rely on 50 as the number necessary be able to nominate.

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — I thank the minister, but the problem is that the Attorney-General in the other house said in his second-reading speech that he wanted to keep consistency with the commonwealth legislation and that this will bring Victoria in line with the current practice in the commonwealth. It states:

… the number of signatures required on an Independent candidate’s nomination form is increased from 6 to 50. This will bring Victoria in line with current practice in the commonwealth.

It would have done that except for the house amendments. I ask the minister for the reasoning behind making the required number of signatories for the two houses different. It will not bring this state in line with the commonwealth as the second-reading speech states.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I understand the amendments were made in the Legislative Assembly after the second-reading speech. Those amendments were accepted in the Legislative Assembly, hence the bill comes to this chamber in that form. Whilst that may in some way alter the original form of the bill, no doubt it was deemed appropriate for it to be in that form because, as I mentioned before in my previous answer, the regions are bigger and those seeking nomination should be required to seek a greater number of signatures in order to obtain that nomination.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I wonder what the rationale is. Is it just because they are bigger? I fail to understand what the rationale behind that is. Are members required to get more signatures on the basis that they need to get a greater geographic spread of supporters? Or is it because the government is trying to make it harder to stand for the upper house? Or is it

because the government believes the cost of standing for the upper house is not a sufficient disincentive to keep dummy candidates from running for upper house seats? What is the rationale, and whose rationale is it that has delivered this inconsistency?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I refer to the two answers I have given previously. The regions are bigger, and it was deemed to be acceptable to maintain the difference given the difference in the size of the regions in relation to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly electorates. Hence that is the form in which the bill was delivered to this chamber, and it has been left that way accordingly.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — That was deemed to be appropriate and acceptable according to whom?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I think it is fairly straightforward. If it has come in that form from the Legislative Assembly, it shows that accommodating the amendments was the determination of the Legislative Assembly at the time the bill passed through the chamber. Sometimes amendments are accepted and sometimes they are not accepted. That is way the process works. That is the call of the Attorney-General in the other place and the executive. No doubt that was deemed to be acceptable, hence the bill passed through the chamber in that form.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — Am I to understand that the Attorney-General has decided that the inconsistency is okay and that it meets an obligation of the government with the roster system that has been adopted for Independents in the lower house to ensure their continued support of the general thrust of government legislation? Is that the accommodation?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I cannot speak in relation to any discussion around any accommodation and whether that was the case or not. All I can say is that the bill has presented itself to this chamber in this form. It was accepted by the Legislative Assembly, it was obviously accepted by the government, and it was voted for with the support of the Independents in the other chamber. It has come to this chamber in that form, and that is why we are having the debate presently.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I am very pleased with that answer. As I understand it from the minister’s answer, there may well have been an accommodation to ensure the ongoing support of the Independents for the government’s policy.

ENERGY SAFE VICTORIA BILL


Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and

Recreation) — I prefer members of the chamber to not put words into my mouth. I have made my statements, and I do not accept that they reflect the statements of Mr Atkinson.

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — Apart from the consultation with the two Independent members in the lower house, the members for Gippsland and Mildura, what other consultation did the government undertake in relation to this change which puts Victoria out of line with the current practice in the commonwealth?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I am informed there was not a great deal of consultation in relation to any amendments other than in the form that took shape in the Legislative Assembly at the time. Those amendments were moved, accepted and accommodated in the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I have to advise the committee that The Nationals will be opposing Ms Hadden’s amendment. That might be a disappointment to Ms Hadden, and to some extent she might feel that I misled her in the corridors by advising her that I would be supporting the amendment, but at the time I misapprehended her intent.

I understood her desire to retain the consistency between the two houses as to the number of signatures required on the nomination form, but I was under the impression that her intention to maintain consistency was with the existing act, where it is six for both houses. I have now discovered that the effect of her amendment in fact achieves consistency, but at the higher level of 50. Honourable members who heard my second-reading contribution will be aware that I pinned a large amount of my logic on the fact that I believed going to 50 was impinging upon the ability of Independents to offer themselves for election. So on that basis I advise the committee that my colleagues and I will be opposing this amendment.

Committee divided on omission (members in favour vote no):

Ayes, 24 Argondizzo, Ms Lenders, Mr Baxter, Mr McQuilten, Mr Broad, Ms Madden, Mr Buckingham, Ms Mikakos, Ms Carbines, Ms Mitchell, Mr Darveniza, Ms Nguyen, Mr Drum, Mr Pullen, Mr Eren, Mr Scheffer, Mr Hall, Mr Somyurek, Mr Hilton, Mr Theophanous, Mr

Hirsh, Ms (Teller) Thomson, Ms Jennings, Mr Viney, Mr (Teller)

Noes, 14 Atkinson, Mr (Teller) Forwood, Mr Bowden, Mr Hadden, Ms Brideson, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Lovell, Ms Dalla-Riva, Mr Olexander, Mr Davis, Mr D. McL. Rich-Phillips, Mr (Teller) Davis, Mr P. R. Stoney, Mr

Pair Smith, Mr Strong, Mr Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third reading

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

That the bill be now read a third time.

In doing so I thank members for their respective contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages

Passed remaining stages.


Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time for Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) on motion of Mr Lenders.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT


Bridges: Echuca–Moama

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (North Eastern) — I wish to raise a matter with the Minister for Transport in the other place regarding the Echuca–Moama bridge and the current stalemate that has prevented the construction of the bridge on the preferred western option.

As the minister is well aware, a second river crossing has been desperately needed by the Echuca-Moama community for many years. In fact the community has been actively lobbying for a second river crossing since the 1960s and Eddie Hann, the former member for Rodney in the other place, mentioned it as a priority for the electorate in his inaugural speech in 1973.

The current river crossing at Echuca–Moama was built prior to federation in 1879 and is the oldest remaining crossing on the Murray River. The bridge was built prior to the invention of motor vehicles in the days of the horse and cart and certainly at the time it was constructed no-one would have envisaged that in 2005 the same bridge would still be servicing the Echuca-Moama community, carrying up to 20 000 vehicles per day including B-doubles and milk tankers, the size and weight of which would not have even been dreamt about in 1879.

Construction of the second bridge should have begun years ago. It is ridiculous that a community the size of Echuca-Moama should be without a second river crossing. Currently when accidents occur on the bridge traffic can be backed up through the centre of Echuca and Moama for several kilometres. The local community is concerned that if a medical emergency occurs in Moama at a time when the bridge is impassable, the trip to reach the hospital in Echuca would involve a lengthy detour to cross the Murray River at either Barmah in the east or Barham in the west. The western option has been agreed upon as the preferred location by both the Campaspe shire and the Murray shire but it has unfortunately come to a standstill because one of the local indigenous groups, the Yorta Yorta, have identified the site as being of cultural heritage.

Recently Mr John Atkinson, an elder of the Bangerang Nation, who, together with the Yorta Yorta, are the traditional owners of much of the land along the Murray River, inspected the site of the western option. Mr John Atkinson, an official inspector under the commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and also chair of the north-east Regional Cultural Heritage Program, is of the opinion that there are few indigenous artefacts to be found in

the western option site and believes that the artefacts that do exist could be adequately preserved whilst still allowing for the construction of the bridge. The Moama local Aboriginal Land Council has also given the green light to the construction on the western option site.

The action I seek is for the minister to immediately convene a meeting of all key stakeholders including all local indigenous groups, particularly the Yorta Yorta, the Bangerang and the Moama local Aboriginal Land Council to further discuss options for the construction of the bridge on the western option whilst adequately preserving any artefacts that have been identified on the site.

Mitcham–Frankston project: EastLink

Mr VINEY (Chelsea) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport in the other place. The action I am seeking is for the minister to write to Frankston real estate agent Michael Crowder, congratulating him for his stunning change of heart on the EastLink project. I refer the minister to an article on the front page of the Frankston Standard Leader of 4 July, headed — —

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — On a point of order, President, as I understand it, the member’s request is that the minister write a letter. The member has gone on to discuss the fact that a private citizen happens to have had a change of position on a public issue and the member is asking the minister to write a letter to congratulate that person on changing their opinion. I would suggest to you, President, that that does not fall within your guidelines for a matter raised in the adjournment debate.

The PRESIDENT — Order! On the proposal that the honourable member has raised in his adjournment matter, I agree with the opposition member’s point of order. Unless the member changes his request in line with my guidance put out some time ago, I will have no option but to rule his matter out of order. The member has a minute or so to go and I give him the opportunity to rephrase.

Mr VINEY — I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that Mr Crowder has acknowledged the significant benefits that are coming to Frankston and in particular the Carrum Downs area through the investment into the EastLink project. I refer to the newspaper’s front page article, where Mr Crowder is quoted as having said:

‘The reality is that infrastructure is very important to industrialists …

ADJOURNMENT


‘Obviously, the tollway coming through is making a big difference …

The person concerned is vice-president of the Frankston Chamber of Commerce and led the protest — —

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — On a point of order, President, this member knows better. This member constantly rises to his feet raising points of order against other members and yet he is deliberately flouting your ruling on what an adjournment item ought to be.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I uphold the member’s point of order. The member for Chelsea Province has got 11 seconds or I will rule his matter out.

Mr VINEY — The action I seek is for the minister to investigate the significant increase in land values that are coming through from — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time has expired. The minister does not need to respond to that request as it does not fulfil the guideline requirements.

Liquor: Dartmoor licence

Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — I raise a very serious matter for the Minister for Consumer Affairs concerning her failure in responding to requests to review an application for a packaged liquor licence.

My constituent, Mrs Pamela Millard, a well-respected businesswoman and committed community person, lodged an application on 14 February 2005 to sell packaged liquor from her general store in Dartmoor. On 12 April 2005 Mrs Millard received a response from the office of the Director of Liquor Licensing stating that the minister is not satisfied that the above application meets the criteria of section 22(2) of the Liquor Control Reform Act, claiming that there are adequate existing facilities for the supply of liquor within the area. This rejection came as a complete surprise and shock to Mrs Millard and the local Dartmoor community. As a result, on 28 April I wrote to the minister on behalf of Mrs Millard seeking a review of the minister’s decision. To date I have not had the courtesy of a response from the minister.

Mrs Millard’s application was made only on the grounds that there are not adequate existing facilities for locals or tourists to buy packaged liquor in Dartmoor during normal business hours. It is well known locally that the licensed Dartmoor Hotel opens for limited hours at the discretion of the licensee. I am reliably informed, and have experienced these opening hours personally, that rarely is the hotel open before

midafternoon and that it closes later in the evening, principally to service the local timber mill work force.

With Dartmoor being the principal gateway to the Glenelg River and national park many visitors, including fishermen, recreational users and tourists, as well as locals, frequently stop at the Dartmoor general store trying to buy packaged liquor due to the hotel not being open for business. As a result, those wanting to buy liquor must travel the extra 51 kilometres west to Mount Gambier in South Australia, where it is acknowledged that Victoria loses its tourism dollars.

No objections were received against Mrs Millard’s application, not even from the licensee of the Dartmoor Hotel. Mrs Millard enjoys total support from the local community and the Glenelg Shire Council in her application for a packaged liquor licence at the Dartmoor general store.

Again this demonstrates the failure of the government’s principal position of supporting the economies of small rural communities.

My request to the minister is: when is it likely that she will respond to the earlier requests to reconsider her decision in relation to Mrs Millard’s application for a packaged liquor licence at the Dartmoor store?

Health: taxation

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health in the other place. It concerns input costs and taxation on the health industry and the health care sector.

We know that Labor has massively increased costs on small business of all types since it has been in power. Since 1999 there has been an increase in the size of the budget — from $19 billion to more than $31 billion. That is the tax take or the spending in round figures. We also know that there have been massive increases across almost every area of taxation, whether it be land tax or stamp duty. There have also been massive increases in police fines and in a whole series of areas.

My point is that all of these costs feed into the costs for small business, particularly those small businesses in the health sector — the doctors, the dentists, the pharmacists, the podiatrists and the physiotherapists, the whole series of professional groups. Even those who are not registered, I have to add, will be hit by the taxation increases that have been put forward by this government. The increases in land tax in particular hit many of those small practices that own a shop or small facility. These land tax increases are fuelling health costs in Victoria.

ADJOURNMENT


At the time of the Medicare agreement negotiations the minister complained bitterly about the increase in costs in the health sector and claimed that there was a growth of 8 per cent — 7.9 per cent I think was her actual figure — that was making the sector very difficult to run. In fact this government has fuelled those costs by feeding the costs into the health sector, and that can only force up costs in the health sector. So every time somebody goes to their physiotherapist or their dentist they should understand that many of the costs have been generated by the Premier, Steve Bracks; the Treasurer, John Brumby; and the Minister for Finance sitting over there who has had a key role in fuelling and pushing up costs across these small business sectors.

I note that the federal government has tried to deal with the financial problems of the health care system through a subsidy for private health insurance, and further through increased payments through the complex Medicare system and also directly to GPs through after-hours fee increases and through the safety net system. Strengthening Medicare is a very important innovation that is being undermined by this state government.

I seek from the minister an indication of whether she was consulted on these changes and what she intends to do with her colleagues. Will she intervene? Will she lobby? Will she intervene with her colleagues on behalf of the health care sector?

Spencer Street station: disabled access

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — Tonight I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Transport. It concerns an urgent matter of disability access at the Spencer Street station — or is it the Southern Cross now? I am not quite sure what the name is.

Mr Lenders — ‘Spencer Street’, until it is open.

Hon. P. R. HALL — Spencer Street until it is open; thank you. The matter has been raised by Mr John Hardie of Narre Warren, who wrote to me on 3 July. I know he has written to a few of my other colleagues in the National Party; perhaps he has written to other members of Parliament as well.

Mr Hardie is a vision-impaired person who uses a seeing-eye dog to go to work in the city each day. He told a story about leaving work one evening he left work to catch his Pakenham line train and finding that the lift to take him down to the platform was out of order. He asked an attendant whether there were some stairs that he could access. He was told that there were no stairs that he could access, and that he would be

required to take an escalator down to the platform. He cannot use an escalator because of the risk to his seeing-eye dog; it is not practical or safe for an animal like a seeing-eye dog to use a moving escalator. So he missed his train that night because of the fact that he could not get down to the platform. He also told the story of a week or so later when the lifts were again out of order and he was required to access the station from the Bourke Street end.

As a result of receiving this letter I went down to Spencer Street station this morning to see exactly what the problem was. I agree that there are platforms that cannot be accessed from the Collins Street end of that station unless by using the lift or the escalator — there are no stairs whatsoever. The only stair access I could find to some platforms was off the Bourke Street bridge end that goes across to the Telstra Dome. They are the only steps.

As Mr Hardie pointed out in his letter to me, in the case of an emergency, if the power went off or there were a form of accident or something, people would be required to get out of that place as quickly as possible. Without steps the many people with disabilities simply could not manage even a closed down escalator. They would not be able to take a wheelchair or, in his case, a seeing-eye dog up those escalators. He also made the point that he wonders if the fact that there are no stairs contravenes occupational health and safety regulations in respect to a new building.

I can see for myself, and I support what Mr Hardie suggested to me, that steps do need to be provided at the Collins Street end of Spencer Street station. There is still a large amount of construction going on there. It is not too late, and I ask the minister to urgently look at this matter to see if some steps can be provided.

Melbourne: car park levy

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I wish to raise a matter with the Treasurer in another place. I seek his review of the car park levy that has been imposed on Melbourne’s city car parks. I am most concerned about the impact of that levy on small businesses and people who are undertaking business activities within the city of Melbourne.

It has been raised with me by a number of industry groups that contractors — such as airconditioning contractors, maintenance workers and people involved in the construction industry — and indeed many people who come into the city to transact business are now facing an additional impost with this levy. It all adds to the costs of running small businesses, and those

ADJOURNMENT


involved in construction or maintenance activities that require them to have tools and so forth do not have an election of taking public transport.

This car park levy was introduced in the true style of this government — with limited consultation. Just days before the levy was announced the Premier knew nothing about its introduction — and I guess I am not surprised that he did not know much about it because he does not seem to know much about anything if you listen to him on radio 3AW each morning. Just days before its introduction was announced the Melbourne City Council and the Lord Mayor of Melbourne knew nothing about it. It is a punitive cost and it is likely to be a cost that will drive more businesses out of the city.

Some years ago Coles-Myer moved its entire head office operation out of the city to Tooronga purely and simply on the basis of the high cost of car parking for that organisation. A number of other major corporations are also looking at suburban locations on the basis of car parking costs. Shell is a significant corporate that has moved outside; Fosters is another company that has moved out to the suburbs. This is a real problem for the Melbourne City Council. I believe the Treasurer ought to reconsider this levy. It was an ill-advised and ill-considered levy. It is punitive on businesses and is all about revenue raising and not in the least about trying to achieve any sort of adequate transport solutions for the city of Melbourne.

Pest plants and animals: control

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment in another place. I request that the minister review and overturn a decision of his department in association with the Department of Primary Industries to remove pests and weeds officers from certain locations in regional Victoria. I understand that at least 13 officer positions are being declared redundant, and in fact the number may be higher than that.

I particularly want to express my dismay and concern with the removal of the pests and weeds officer from Nathalia because, as Mr Lenders may well know, the Nathalia area is one of considerable environmental and ecological significance. Much of the private land in the Nathalia district borders on Crown land, including the Barmah Forest and the Barmah State Park, and many of the infestations that are detected in the district originate on Crown land. As well there is the Lower Goulburn floodplain in the locality, which, after every major flood — we have not had one for a while but one is just around the corner I am sure — regularly introduces

new weeds to the district. I have a letter from Lanie Pearce who is the local area plan implementation coordinator who says:

Pest and weed control only works when there is an authorised person with skills and knowledge available locally. Land-holders need support for both economical and environmental reasons. Campaigns and programs need someone to run them. It is very short-sighted to assume that ‘local people’ will run them.

These are the telling words:

They have neither the time, expertise nor authority to perform the duties of an enforcement officer.

It is those last words which I think are significant. The locals are not in any way able to enforce the law. They need a pest and weeds control officer within the locality to continue the very good work that is being done. I refer to an advertisement in the Border Mail on Saturday in which the North East Catchment Management Authority details that it is undertaking a noxious weeds review. I certainly commend that review to determine if the current list is up to date and adequate or whether there are weeds that should be added or, hopefully, removed if we are controlling them. This seems absolutely at odds with the government’s action in removing the very people who have to implement the results of this review, so I make a plea to the minister that he have a good look at this issue. I understand the matter has been submitted to review because perhaps decisions were taken without the minister being entirely aware of the implications. I do not criticise him for that — I ask him to have another look at it.

Responses

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — Ms Lovell raised an issue for the Minister for Transport in the other place regarding the Echuca–Moama bridge, and I will certainly refer that to the minister.

Mr Koch raised an issue for the Minister for Consumer Affairs regarding a packaged liquor licence, and I will refer that to her.

Mr David Davis raised an issue for the Minister for Health in the other place regarding costs in the health care system. I will refer that to the minister.

Mr Hall raised an issue for the Minister for Transport in the other place regarding Spencer Street station and disability access. I will refer that to the minister for his attention.

Mr Atkinson raised an issue for the Treasurer regarding a review of the car park levy. I will certainly refer that to him.

ADJOURNMENT


Mr Baxter raised an issue for the Minister for Environment in the other place regarding field officers in pest and weed areas for the minister’s attention. I will certainly refer that to the minister for his attention.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.

INCORPORATION BY MS HADDEN (BALLARAT)



COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 –SECT 166 Mode of nomination

(1) Subject to subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C), a nomination may be in Form C, CA, CB, CC, D or DA in the Schedule, as the case requires, and shall:

(a) set out the name, place of residence and occupation of the candidate or each candidate; and

(b) be signed by:

(i) not less than 50 persons entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is, or the candidates are, nominated; or

(ii) the registered officer of the registered political party by which the candidate has, or the candidates have, been endorsed for that election.

(1A) Where:

(a) a candidate in a Senate election is:

(i) a Senator; or

(ii) in the case of an election following a dissolution of the Senate, a person who was, immediately before the dissolution, a Senator; and

(b) the candidate’s name is, under subsection 99(4), enrolled on the Roll for any Subdivision of a Division of the State or Territory that he or she represents or represented;

the candidate may set out in his or her nomination the address recorded in that enrolment rather than his or her place of residence.

(1B) Where:

(a) a candidate in an election for the House of Representatives was, immediately before the dissolution or expiration of the House of Representatives that preceded the election, a member of the House of Representatives; and

(b) the candidate’s name is, under subsection 99(4), enrolled on the Roll for any Subdivision of the Division that he or she represented;

the candidate may set out in his or her nomination the address recorded in that enrolment rather than his or her place of residence.

(1C) A nomination form need only be signed by at least one other person entitled to vote at the election (the new election) for which the candidate is, or the candidates are, nominated if the candidate or each candidate:

(a) is a sitting independent in relation to the new election; and



(b) is not endorsed by a registered political party in the new election at the close of nominations.

(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1C), a candidate for election to the Senate for a State or Territory is a sitting independent for the new election if:

(a) the candidate was elected as a Senator for that State or Territory in an election (the previous election); and

(b) the candidate was not endorsed by a registered political party in the previous election; and

(c) the candidate continues to be a Senator for that State or Territory as a result of the previous election until:

(i) the writ for the new election is issued; or

(ii) if the writ for the new election is issued in relation to a dissolution of the Senate— that dissolution of the Senate.

(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1C), a candidate for election to the House of Representatives for a Division (the seat being contested) is a sitting independent for the new election if:

(a) the candidate was elected as a member of the House of Representatives in an election (the previous election) for a particular Division (the existing seat); and

(b) the candidate was not endorsed by a registered political party in the previous election; and

(c) the candidate continues to be a member of the House of Representatives for the existing seat as a result of the previous election until:

(i) the writ for the new election is issued; or

(ii) if the writ for the new election is issued in relation to a dissolution of the House of Representatives— that dissolution of the House of Representatives; and

(d) the existing seat is either the same as, or has territory in common with, the seat being contested.

(2) A nomination may name a candidate only by specifying:

(a) the surname and the Christian or given name, or one or more of the Christian or given names, under which the candidate is enrolled; or

(b) in a case where the candidate is not enrolled— a surname and the Christian or given name, or one or more of the Christian or given names, under which the candidate is entitled to be enrolled.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a Christian or given name may be specified by specifying:

(a) an initial standing for that name; or

(b) a commonly accepted variation of that name (including an abbreviation or truncation of that name or an alternative form of that name).



(4) A nomination shall include a statement of the form in which the candidate’s name or candidates’ names, as the case may be, is or are to be printed on the ballot-papers for the election.

(5) Where:

(a) persons to be nominated as candidates in a Senate election wish to have their names grouped in the ballot-papers; and

(b) those persons have been endorsed for that election by different registered political parties;

the nominations of the candidates may be combined in such manner as the Electoral Commission approves.

(6) Nothing in this Act is to be taken as requiring a person:

(a) who is a candidate or the nominator of a candidate; and

(b) whose address is not shown on the Roll because of section 104;

to set out his or her address on a nomination paper.

(7) A candidate who does not set out his or her address on a nomination form must provide the Divisional Returning Officer or Australian Electoral Officer, as the case may be, with an address for correspondence.


PETITION

Wednesday, 20 July 2005 COUNCIL 1739

Wednesday, 20 July 2005

The PRESIDENT (Hon. M. M. Gould) took the chair at 9.33 a.m. and read the prayer.

PETITION

Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic control

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) presented petition from certain citizens of Victoria requesting that the Victorian government prevent the installation of traffic lights along the Western Port Highway at Lyndhurst (Dandenong-Hastings Road) (16 signatures).

Laid on table.

SUPREME COURT JUDGES

Report 2002–04

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) presented, by command of the Governor, report for 2002–04.

Laid on table.

Ordered to be printed.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Auditor-General — Report on East Gippsland Shire Council: Proposed sale of Lakes Entrance property, July 2005.

Auditor-General — Report on Managing intellectual property in government agencies, July 2005.

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

Banyule Planning Scheme — Amendment C47.

Cardinia Planning Scheme — Amendments C62 and C71.

Dandenong Planning Scheme — Amendments C31 Part 3 and C58.

Darebin Planning Scheme — Amendment C58 Part 2.

Gannawarra Planning Scheme — Amendment C11.

Geelong Planning Scheme — Amendment C9.

Glenelg Planning Scheme — Amendment C20.

Hepburn Planning Scheme — Amendment C26.

Kingston Planning Scheme — Amendment C32.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme — Amendment C66.

Pyrenees Planning Scheme — Amendment C13.

Yarra Planning Scheme — Amendment C91.

A Statutory Rule under the Fisheries Act 1995 — No. 86.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Pest plants and animals: control

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I draw the attention of the house to the ongoing problem of pest plant and pest animal control in country Victoria. Deservedly the state government has the reputation as the neighbour from hell in respect of its management of Crown land. Not only has it a blatant disregard for the impact of pest plants and animals being out of control on its own land, it would seem now that in regard to the management of private land and the role that the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Sustainability and Environment have in regard to stewardship, advice and compliance on private land, that with the announcement recently made that there will be significant cutback in the number of catchment management officers (CMOs) around the state we will be denuding our country areas of the important service which is provided to the community as a whole by CMO staff being involved in the management of our pest plants and animals on private land.

We are losing CMO positions at Ovens, Corryong, Whitfield, Euroa, Beechworth, Seymour, Orbost, Mirboo North and Yarram, and I understand that there have been representations from Landcare groups all around the state including from the Arawata Landcare group to me, and other groups in East Gippsland and Western Victoria.


Frankston-Cranbourne Road: duplication

Mr VINEY (Chelsea) — I am pleased to advise the house that on Friday, 8 July, along with the members for Hastings and Cranbourne in the other place, Rosy Buchanan and Jude Perera respectively, I attended with the Minister for Transport in the other place the announcement of the further duplication of the Frankston-Cranbourne Road as an addition to the existing $28 million project funded out of the

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1740 COUNCIL Wednesday, 20 July 2005

$97 million Outer Metropolitan Arterial Roads Program included in the 2005–06 budget. This new $21 million commitment from the Bracks government is in addition to the $13 million for duplication of Frankston-Cranbourne Road between McClelland Drive and Warrandyte Road and the $15 million for duplication between Warrandyte and Centre roads in Langwarrin; the works of that second stage are in fact about to commence.

This road carries about 20 000 vehicles per day, 10 per cent of which are heavy vehicles accessing local industries. It is a much-needed project and it is the Bracks government that has been delivering on the duplication of this road. Despite the fact that for seven years under the Kennett government the then member for Cranbourne, Mr Rowe, used to call for it regularly, it is in fact the Labor members who have been able to deliver the — —


Buses: Ringwood

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — The Bracks government has again rejected calls for much-needed upgrades to bus services in the outer east of Melbourne.

In October last year I, on behalf of the Public Transport Users Association in the east, asked for certain routes — namely, 364, 670 and 679 — to be designated under the principal public transport network (PPTN), which would mean that they would run for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, with intervals of 15 minutes or so. All these routes are in dire need of upgrades of that type to serve the local community.

This week the Minister for Transport in the other place has replied to that request by saying that it is inappropriate to increase the frequency of these services or designate them under the PPTN as the routes:

… do not provide direct links between activity centres. These routes largely provide local feeder services connecting low density and dispersed residential areas to activity centres.

If the minister would care to come out and look at these he would understand that Ringwood is actually an activity centre and a transit city, Doncaster East is an activity centre, Ringwood and Lilydale are both activity centres, and Ringwood and Chirnside Park are also the same. The minister has his facts wrong and has again rejected much-needed upgrades to services to people in the outer east with wrong information. He should ask his local Labor members who populate the area at the moment whether they consider these areas — —


Gordon Institute of TAFE: upgrade

Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — Geelong is now at the forefront of Victoria’s TAFE system thanks to a $16 million revamp of the Gordon Institute of TAFE in my electorate. I was most pleased to attend the opening of this fine establishment last week with the Minister for Education and Training, Lynne Kosky, in the other place to see the refurbishment of buildings G and H.

Since being elected the Bracks government has invested an extra $225 million for capital works across the training system. In the Geelong region alone $14.5 million, in addition to the $16 million works, has been invested to upgrade teaching equipment and infrastructure.

The refurbished buildings will provide an inspiration to local young people to take up vocational education and training. As the minister said, this multimillion-dollar redevelopment will enhance local facilities and make a valuable contribution to the community by providing the skills and training our work force needs to continue growing the local economy. Renovations have already won the praise of staff, students and industry representatives, and health sector employers are impressed by new nurse training facilities — —

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — On a point of order, President, I accept the use of copious notes, but the member is slavishly reading from a document.

Hon. J. H. EREN — Further on the point of order, President, like many other members in this place I am referring to the copious notes that I have, and this is a frivolous point of order.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Members know the rules of the house, and I refer them to the fact that they should not be reading slavishly. I do not uphold the point of order. The member was referring to copious notes. The member’s time has expired.

Hon. E. G. Stoney — Further on the point of order, President — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! Is it on a new point of order, since I have made a ruling?

Hon. E. G. Stoney — On a point of order, President, I think this incident demonstrates that we have to review the clock for members statements, because on any small point of order, which might or might not be frivolous, a member’s time has gone. I do ask you to

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


review that, because we could end up stopping each other from making statements.

The PRESIDENT — Order! That is right. As I indicated in the house yesterday when this matter was brought up during question time, it has been a matter that has been raised by members on both sides of the house, and I am considering making a statement to the house. I just want to have further discussions with the party leaders to get their views before I make such a statement.

Hon. B. N. Atkinson — I ask the house for the remaining time for Mr Eren be reinstated so he can complete his comments to the house, but I hope he does not slavishly read as a process.

Hon. J. H. EREN — I thank Mr Atkinson for that. As I was saying, renovations had already won the praise of staff, students and industry representatives. Health sector employers are impressed by the new nurse training facilities which include a fully equipped, four-bed hospital ward. Equally delighted are hairdressing and beauty operators with training salons for their apprentices designed to replicate conditions — —


Locksmiths: security laws

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I wish to bring to the attention of the house the concerns of the Master Locksmiths Association of Australasia who have been caught up in a legislative red tape mess by the Bracks government. The locksmiths were assured by the previous Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, André Haermeyer, that they would not be caught up in the legislation that was passed by both houses in regard to changes to security laws and the responsibilities of people involved in the security industry, when in fact those small businesses right across Victoria are now caught up in those regulations.

Despite the government’s own independent reports saying the locksmiths should not be included, assurances from the minister and actions by ministerial staff to try and create some exemptions for mechanical locks, the locksmiths’ association members right across Victoria are now required to be involved in a compliance regime at considerable cost to themselves and certainly with significant and cumbersome responsibilities in terms of the documentation they must provide to comply with legislation. They were assured

by the minister in this house and the then minister in the other house that they would not be required to comply. Ministers need to be far more responsible in the assurances they give in the house because people rely on those assurances.

John Byrne

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I would like to speak about a great Australian who died on 12 July. John Byrne was not a famous man, but for the people he dealt with he has left a lifelong memory of a caring, sharing man who gave of his life freely and without a hint of expecting anything in return.

John Byrne was born on 5 October 1949. He commenced teaching arts and ceramics at the then Maribyrnong Secondary School in 1977. His commitment went beyond his normal duties as a teacher. He had, over the years, developed an interest in refugee issues as many newly arrived young people from countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor and Central and South America attended his school. He established a position of student support worker at the school in order to assist these young people. Many students have memories of John helping them through difficult times in their lives, and many young people were put up at John’s own home while he helped them work through those difficult times. There are, among those young people, those who went on to become a dentist, an engineer, a doctor and an accountant.

John resigned from the education department in 1977 to work full time in the community sector. He became an expert in the field, consulting with government departments and agencies and establishing a wide range of projects. His work was recognised with a Victorian Achievers Award. Cancer may have taken John’s life but his memory will live on with the many young people he helped to get a start in life. The people talking about — —


Bendigo: Chum Street palliative care house

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — I wish to raise the issue of the Chum Street palliative care house in Chum Street, Bendigo. It is a palliative care unit which offers care for terminally ill patients using a non-medical model and certainly bringing about a true understanding and compassion for these people. An independent panel did a review of the program and prior to the 12-month cut-off date they called for an

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


extension so that the government could get its act together and decide which way this program was going.

After extreme public pressure, the government announced that the program would continue. Not surprisingly, the member for Bendigo West in the other place, the Minister for Agriculture, decided to materialise from nowhere. He had previously been totally silent on the issue, but started to take the credit for this decision to bring about the continuation of the Chum Street program.

Now the staff and volunteers, patients and carers are forced to wait again because they cannot find out how much is forthcoming with this program. They have no idea how much funding or what type of program is being made available. An unacceptable amount of time has passed without everyone finding out what is going forward. The last correspondence we received told us that negotiations were continuing between the Department of Human Services and the Bendigo Health Care Group. I urge those at DHS to hurry up, finalise the financial arrangements and allow the people delivering the service to the terminally ill in the Bendigo region to understand what type of program they will have in the future.

Koori court: Mildura

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — Last Tuesday, 12 July, I had the privilege of participating in the launch of the Mildura Koori court, together with the Attorney-General from the other place, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the member for Mildura, also from the other place. This is the fourth Koori court that the Bracks government has established since 2003, the other ones being in Broadmeadows, Shepparton and Warrnambool. In my role as chair of the Aboriginal justice forum I am proud to have seen the Mildura Koori court initiative develop from a Koori community resolution at the Aboriginal justice forum to the reality of a functioning court.

The Koori court program is one of the major initiatives established by the Victorian Aboriginal justice agreement, and it confirms this government’s continuing commitment to increasing the positive participation of Kooris in the justice system. An integral component of a Koori court is the participation of elders or respected persons, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed Aboriginal elders or respected persons in the Mildura court. They are Besley Murray, Kayleen Campbell, Beverly Peter, Peter Peterson, Rex Smith and Ronald Hill.

I also take this opportunity to thank all the members of the reference group and countless others who contributed to the establishment of the court for their commitment and dedication to this important project that, hopefully, over time, will see a decline in the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our criminal justice system.

Schools: pre-driver education

Hon. E. G. STONEY (Central Highlands) — I want to read part of a submission from John Birtchnell, chair of the Alexandra High School Cooperative Society:

Funding for the new technology wing at the Alexandra Secondary College was approved by our state government two and a half years ago at a cost of $1.2 million. Bureaucratic bungling delayed construction until late last year, resulting in an increase to $1.8 million …

The cost increase had an inevitable effect — reductions to the original plan. The auto prac department lost its provision for the car hoist and vehicle bay, which of course is essential … Historically the college cooperative has always … been empowered to borrow 100 per cent of the project cost. Not any longer. We are only empowered to secure a loan for 70 per cent of the project cost, and find 30 per cent from the community … The state government has always guaranteed the loan and has subsidised the interest, in varying amounts, but their latest directive is outrageous.

Mr Birtchnell goes on to explain that the program to suffer most from this policy is the school’s pre-driver education program:

Of the students in year 10 at the college in 1969, 25 were killed in road accidents during the following 10 years.

He goes on to say that Rotary helped the school; in 1962 it formed a local program. Since 1979 there has been only one fatality of a student. He continues:

For 12 years we educate our children to fit them for adult life and then turn them out on our roads untrained and inexperienced to, far too often, kill themselves and others and cause misery to countless more …

I ask the government to review its 30 per cent from the community policy and also to more strongly support driver education programs in our schools.


Mr SOMYUREK (Eumemmerring) — I rise to condemn in the strongest possible words the sheer act of bastardry that occurred in London a couple of weeks ago. I join with the rest of humanity in condemning the people who committed this atrocious crime — committed murder. There is absolutely no ideology, no religious justification for this. There is no political or military justification for killing tens of innocent people. These people might have been under the misguided

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL


apprehension that they were going to heaven; they thought they might be martyrs. Let me tell the house, Islam does not allow suicide bombers. As far as Islam is concerned, if you have killed yourself, if you have become a suicide bomber, you are going to hell! I guess we can be comforted a little bit by that fact. It goes to show that the evil people who committed this shocking crime did not fit the profile of past suicide bombers, so I think we have real problems — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Bridges: East Gippsland

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I want to bring to the house’s attention the financial difficulties being faced by many rural councils in replacing ageing infrastructure. By way of example I cite the case of East Gippsland Shire Council, which has a problem replacing many of the old timber bridges in its municipality. Over 200 bridges are spread across its area, many of which are in need of replacement. The shire finds it difficult, with its rate base restricted by the fact that over 70 per cent of the shire is Crown land and consequently insufficient.

The issue came to a head last week when the council came to a decision to close the Calulu bridge, a local bridge not far out of Bairnsdale. It is used by many people in their normal day-to-day activities, as well as by people in the agricultural sector. I understand this is a $1.5 million project, and it is likely that the bridge will be closed for a period of two years while the local government accumulates the funds to undertake the necessary work. This is a great inconvenience to many people residing in the shire of East Gippsland.

The Nationals have always believed the state government should play a more hands-on role in replacing ageing infrastructure in rural councils. We proposed a $1 billion infrastructure fund for this purpose at the last election. I call upon the state government to immediately assist the East Gippsland Shire Council in the replacement of the Calulu bridge.

Melbourne Juvenile Justice Centre: beds

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — Last week I was pleased to attend a very important event for young offenders in this state. It was the opening by the Minister for Community Services in the other place, Sherryl Garbutt, of the 26 new juvenile justice beds in a new modern facility at the juvenile justice remand centre in Parkville. This facility is a significant upgrade to juvenile justice facilities in Victoria, replacing very

old and outdated facilities. It provides young offenders with a more humane setting to support appropriate opportunities for their rehabilitation and integration back into the community.

The centre is named after Pauline Toner, who played a very special role in the state as the first female minister for community services and was a tireless worker for better conditions for prisoners and the separation of younger offenders within the corrections system. Coincidentally on the day, the Attorney-General was on hand to mark the extension of the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court to 17-year-olds to provide wider options for sentencing of young people within the corrections system. These were both very important events and very important improvements to the juvenile justice system within Victoria.



Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe), by leave, introduced a bill to amend the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and for other purposes.

Read first time.

Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated, by leave, on motion of Hon. BILL FORWOOD.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I move:



The contribution that unpaid volunteer carers make in our community is virtually immeasurable. Our society could not function as it does without the countless hours of dedicated commitment that they lovingly give, day after day, year after year. Some have been caring for their disabled children for upwards of 50 years. All deserve our thanks and our support.

This bill goes a very small way towards easing carer concerns about a recent trend by the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) to recover its costs from unpaid carers when an in-home worker is injured while working in their home.

There is a vast army of unpaid volunteer carers in Victoria, mostly families, caring for the frail aged, for the mentally ill, for disabled adults and disabled children, and for patients utilising hospital in the home services. They need to be reassured that they are not at personal risk of being sued by the VWA.



Virtually every one of these carer families receives some type of in-home care to assist them to look after their family members who need support. Home and community care services, the Royal District Nursing Service, and a significant array of not for profit agencies are among the organisations which, often funded by state and federal governments and local councils, provide in-home services to those in need.

In its recent budget, the federal government announced $374 million for older Australians and their carers, specifically to support older Australians to remain living at home and in their community. Further assistance was provided in partnership with the NSW government, Uniting Care and local disability providers to help older people with disabilities to remain in their local communities, rather than entering residential aged care prematurely.

This paradigm of families caring at home for their own family members, with some support from agencies funded by governments, is now the preferred model of service delivery. With this growth of in-home care comes the emergence of a different kind of workplace, a householder’s private non-business property, be it rented, or owned.

According to a Victorian government report Who gets HACC 2002-2003, over 200 000 Victorians received a service from the HACC program in 2002–03.

While some estimates put the number of carer families in Victoria as high as 900 000, the 2003 Australian Bureau of Statistics Disability, Ageing and Carers Survey puts the number of carers at 690 400.

This figure is expected to rise as our population ages in the years ahead. The Victorian government paper, A Fairer Victoria, states on page 26:

By 2021, the number of Victorians over the age of 70 will increase by 65 per cent.

A key part of the Victorian government’s strategy is to provide ‘… support for people to remain independent and living in their own homes’. The strategy also includes funding for an additional 2000 personal alert alarms to support independent living.

Obviously the Victorian government is committed to assisting people to live at home for as long as they can and want to, and in these circumstances the government must also ensure that no unforeseen impedients are placed in the way of families and carers.

Such an impedient is the over-zealous use of section 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, which enables the VWA to recover damages from a third party.

There is a legitimate and logical reason why the act contains the possibility for third-party recoveries under section 138. The principle of enabling third-party recoveries where negligence has occurred must be supported in the interests of providing safe workplaces. But the capacity to sue for third-party recoveries must be used judiciously.

While it may be appropriate for use where labour hire activities are common, in most cases it will be inappropriate where the ‘workplace’ is a third parties’ home, and the worker is employed by someone else.

In these circumstances, the worker is employed and WorkCover premiums paid by a service delivery organisation, but the place of actual delivery of the service is the homes of the various clients receiving the service.

In recent years the VWA has had a deliberate policy of seeking third-party recoveries whenever it possibly can. In a statement on 3 July 2000 the VWA stated, in part:

Under the Accident Compensation Act 1985, WorkCover can recover compensation and medical costs paid as the result of a workplace injury caused by a negligent third party.

Rod Marsden is manager of WorkCover’s recoveries unit.

‘There is a set formula to assist in the determination of negligence, but at the end of the day, if we pay compensation, we determine how much, in percentage terms, a third party has been negligent’, Mr Marsden said.

‘For example, if you have been assaulted by a third party — and if that third party was totally negligent — we will ask for 100 per cent, but if someone else also contributed towards the assault, percentages to the overall liability may vary’.

In 2000/2001, WorkCover has budgeted to recover several million dollars. However, the collection of money is not the ultimate aim.

‘It is not just to get the money’, said Mr Delaney. ‘There is a strong deterrence aspect. The money coming in is a bonus, a tangible benefit, but prevention — that’s really what it’s all about’.

So, how does it all work? Under section 138 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, WorkCover can take legal action against a third party, be it a person or entity (other than the employer or the injured worker), whose negligence has resulted in a workplace injury.

For example, if a contractor left a piece of wood lying on the footpath, causing a travelling salesman to fall over and break his leg, WorkCover could sue the contractor to recover the workers compensation costs.

Some other examples could include:

a delivery driver injured in a third party’s premises by a forklift driven without proper care and attention;

a contractor injured on the premises of another employer;

an inherent defect in goods supplied for further manufacturing causing an explosion resulting in a worker being injured.

‘We actually recover a lot of our money through companies using labour hire workers. Obviously, if a company is using someone else’s employee and negligence results in an injury, that company can be a negligent third party’, Mr Marsden said.

‘And that is really where the prevention message comes in. Most companies would be aware that we can charge



them under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to have a safe workplace.

‘But in addition to this, if your negligence leads to another employer’s worker being injured, we can also seek to recover from you the cost of compensation.’

While most companies are not forced to pay the cost themselves as it is covered by public liability insurance, individuals can be hit hard as they will be paying out of their own pockets.

‘The message for employers is that if someone else was responsible (or partially responsible) for your worker’s injury — other than yourself or the worker — you should advise your WorkCover agent, so that WorkCover’s recoveries unit can start looking into it.’

It is important to note the words: ‘… individuals can be hit hard as they will be paying out of their own pockets’.

Recent annual reports show the success of the VWA’s third-party recovery strategy:

VWA Recoveries 1999–2005 ($ million)

2000 14 229 000

2001 22 639 000

2002 30 408 000

2003 35 497 000

2004 64 736 000

(Source — VWA Annual Report, 1999-2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)

Despite the fact that most recoveries come from companies, section 138 can and has been used against individuals and, in fact, families receiving in-home care.

For example, in 4 May 2005, quite out of the blue, Mrs Lisa Krupjak received a letter from Wisewoulds Lawyers of Collins Street, acting on behalf of the VWA. Mrs Krupjak is the mother of two severely disabled boys, who receive in-home care from Australian Home Care Services. A workplace incident had allegedly occurred at the Krupjaks’s home on 23 February 2004, some 14 months prior to receipt of the Wisewoulds letter. As far as the Krupjaks knew, the matter was over.

Wisewoulds’s letter baldly said:

Dear Madam,

Victorian WorkCover Authority v. Stefan Krupjak and Lisa Krupjak

We enclose by way of service Magistrates Court complaint, together with two notices of defence.

Yours faithfully

Wisewoulds

Attached to this letter was a Form 4A compliant, seeking payment of $14 560 and costs of $678.50. It stated that if notice of defence was not given within 21 days the plaintiff

‘… may obtain an order against you for the amount of the claim and costs without further notice’.

Understandably, the Krupjaks were shocked to receive this letter. The VWA itself was unaware that this legal action had been commenced, as authority to take this action — and many others like it — has been contracted out to Wisewoulds.

Despite the VWA’s subsequent claim that these actions are directed at insurance companies, rather than people such as the Krupjaks, no attempt was made to ascertain whether the Krupjaks had any insurance, and the documents sent on behalf of the VWA are crystal clear that the responsibility for repayment rested with the carer family. It plainly says that the defendant (the Krupjaks) is sued in its own name.

The full text of the complaint is attached.

See attachment page 1823.

(The copy is poor and difficult to read because the VWA went out of its way to prevent an electronic copy of the documents from being made available. This is typical of the current behaviour of the WorkCover authority.)

The situation that the Krupjaks found themselves in was taken up vigorously by members of the unpaid volunteer carer network, in particular by Jean Tops of the Gippsland Carers Association and Margaret Ryan of the Disability Network, who successfully brought the issue to public notice. They sought, on behalf of all carers, exemption for volunteers from attack by the VWA under section 138.

Despite their efforts, the Victorian government continues to insist that no problem exists. This pig-headed stance does nothing to ease the concerns of unpaid volunteer carers.

There are currently around 1.8 million households in Victoria. All of them are potential users of in-home care, either now or in the years ahead. All deserve a level of certainty about their liability to provide a safe ‘workplace’ in their homes. All are potentially in the position that the Krupjaks found themselves in.

The bill before the house today preserves the principle of third-party recoveries where there has been negligence, but raises the bar in relation to the use of this action.

The bill proposes to amend Section 138 by adding the requirement that all third-party recovery actions be authorised by the minister for WorkCover, that this power cannot be delegated, and that the VWA report on the details of recoveries in its annual report each year.

In essence, the capacity remains for recoveries to take place, but the minister is accountable for its use.

While the VWA is an independent authority, section 20C states that the Authority is subject to the general direction and control of the minister, and also subject to specific written directions.

It is appropriate, therefore, that the minister takes the responsibility of ensuring that unpaid, voluntary carers are not inappropriately subjected to third-party recoveries by the authority.

All Victorian carers, both current and future, deserve this level of protection.

RACING: INDUSTRY POTENTIAL



Debate adjourned on motion of Mr LENDERS (Minister for WorkCover and the TAC).



Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — It is with pleasure that I move:

That this house condemns the state government for failing to effectively capitalise on the potential of the Victorian racing industry particularly in the areas of tourism and rural economic growth.

It should be noted especially by members of this place that it is not widely known just how big the racing industry is in Victoria and what effects it has on revenue generated, of which Victorian governments of either persuasion are always beneficiaries. In saying that, I assure the house that my colleagues from rural Victoria and The Nationals also have a very close affinity with the racing industry in their areas and are very aware of the industry’s magnitude. In fairness to the government I know that Mr Pullen certainly has a very good understanding of the racing industry. We see each other regularly, especially at metropolitan events, and I look forward to his contribution to this debate.

Importantly, the racing industry in rural Victoria continues to offer many untapped business and tourism opportunities that should be further explored. I firmly believe that those opportunities are yet to be realised in many cases. I wish to put on the record that the magnitude of racing in Victoria is colossal. Victorian racing is widely recognised and respected as a national and international leader in the industry. Victorian racing is ranked in the top five racing industries worldwide in its rate of return to owners. Australia is a major force in the world’s thoroughbred breeding and racing, producing over 16 per cent of the world’s foals, which ranks it second behind only the United States of America.

Australian racing rates third in the total number of races run, second in the number of active racehorses and third in the amount of prize money that is distributed to owners and trainers.

Our three codes are thoroughbreds, standard breeds — more commonly known as harness — and greyhound. They inject $3.3 billion into the Victorian economy annually. Importantly, over 300 000 bets are placed weekly in Victoria across those three codes. Each of those bets has an indicative average wager value of

something like $17.40. On-course attendances in Victoria exceed 3 million annually. Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys confirm that thoroughbred racing is the second most popular spectator sport behind Australian Football League matches with over 2 million people attending meetings in Victoria each year.

Patrons on course, especially in regional Victoria, represent all sections of the industry and all socioeconomic backgrounds. They include community and business leaders, sporting personalities and many who simply enjoy a great day out at the races. It is important to reflect on the fact that in regional Victoria many people have a common interest in racing and, as I said, they come from a variety of industries and socioeconomic backgrounds. They make themselves available and certainly enjoy the day out and use it as an opportunity for networking. It gives them an opportunity to discuss many things, not only from a racing perspective but from a business and sporting one as well. In the last couple of years this interest has continued to grow in line with the rates of attendance at on-course racing in regional Victoria. It has dominated on-course racing attendance across all codes and has been extremely well managed by Country Racing Victoria.

Racing Victoria Ltd surveys show that over 30 per cent of the adult population of Victoria definitely like going to the races and would go more often if time allowed. Racing clubs across the state are important social institutions and play an integral role in connecting our local communities.

In Victoria we have 106 licensed clubs across all codes. To break those figures down we have 67 thoroughbred clubs; 54 registered racecourses and 13 picnic race clubs. With respect to harness racing most of the activity is centred on regional Victoria with 25 regional clubs and 1 metropolitan club — Mooney Valley. The situation is similar in respect of greyhounds with the majority of activity taking place in regional Victoria where there are 12 regional clubs. There are also two metropolitan clubs and these are The Meadows and Sandown.

Club memberships exceed 50 000 statewide with 34 000 in the city and 18 000 in rural Victoria. This alone demonstrates the importance of racing on a per capita basis and the magnitude of interest in regional Victoria in what is seen as a vital industry.

In looking at the impact and the magnitude of racing in regional Victoria it is easy to see that the racing industry here is certainly not a small industry. That is demonstrated in some of the benefits to the state. The



total industry turnover, as I mentioned earlier, is approximately $3.3 billion. That is made up of thoroughbreds that produce $2.2 billion and standardbreds that produce approximately $580 million. The greyhound contribution is only a short way behind that at slightly under $485 million.

With respect to employment in the industry there are 64 000 full or part-time jobs with something in the order of 25 000 effective full-time positions being offered. We have 30 000 owners collectively and they spend an estimated $350 million annually on blood stock. Importantly, 70 per cent of all the activity across all three codes takes place in regional Victoria. As we can appreciate, this has a huge impact on our rural economies. An indication of that impact is the fact that horses in work, for instance, cost in the order of $1000 to $1200 a month to maintain. These costs pertain to their housing, training, feed, veterinary and other requirements in this industry.

Our benefits from the industry certainly flow through to the Victorian government through taxes, levies and fees as well as to the key Victorian growth industries, such as tourism. Racing, including gambling, makes a contribution of almost $1.5 billion annually to the state coffers, and this ranks only third in Brumby’s famous five big tax hits for the current 2005–06 year, falling in behind payroll tax, which makes a contribution — —

Mr Lenders — On a point of order, President, as a matter of courtesy he should refer to the Treasurer either by his portfolio or as Mr Brumby.

The PRESIDENT — Order! That point of order has been raised in the house previously. I remind honourable members of the need to use the correct titles of members of both this place and the other.

Hon. DAVID KOCH — I pick up on the point of order and indicate that racing revenue ranks third in Treasurer Brumby’s famous five big tax hits in the current year. This ranks behind payroll taxes at $3.179 billion and stamp duty at $2.176 billion. Running third it is in front of motor vehicle taxes at $1.3 billion, insurance levies at $1.06 billion and land tax, which is not far behind at $960 million.

Mr Lenders — Going down to $800 million!

Hon. DAVID KOCH — I pick up on the interjection by the minister. I assure him that we all look forward to the opportunity of seeing land taxes go well below the suggested $800 million in the near future! I am sure there is plenty of opportunity for both the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer to give consideration to other cuts to allow this to take place!

The economic growth potential for the government to capitalise on the opportunities in regional Victoria certainly indicate from our point of view that there is an opportunity to showcase regional racing to the provincial, interstate and metropolitan populations. We certainly have an opportunity to further grow oncourse attendances, which augurs well for future regional and state economies. We also have an opportunity to promote tourism investment by growing the accommodation occupancy rates from retailing weekends and multiple day events. This opportunity comes about from many of our country cups being run on Sundays, and many in the tourism industry look forward to this very favourably from the point of view of getting overnight stays; being able to showcase districts on Saturdays and then holding people over in very good bed and breakfasts, motels and other accommodation for Sunday cup promotions.

We see that retaining all our racing venues as viable entities is very important, because they make a contribution to local economies and will continue to do so either through the ongoing maintenance and development of training centres or through race day activities. The thing that we probably have not recognised to the degree we should have is the need for governments through tourism and racing bodies to gain greater use of partnership arrangements with local government business units and their tourism units. We appreciate very much the need to maximise these opportunities, more so through the districts and regions of local government than through any statewide organisation, and the growth in the racing industry offers the perfect vehicle for us to move down that track.

Importantly from a tourism point of view, we saw the launch by the minister of Victoria’s racing tourism plan on the second day of the Warrnambool May Racing Carnival this year. It was very good to have the minister down there not only for the launch of the racing tourism program but also, as many of us are aware, to mark the Warrnambool racecourse and racing club carnival as one of the icon Hallmark tourism events in the state, a status which it justly deserves.

Whilst doing the launch down there the minister certainly indicated that these opportunities promise to maximise benefits for racing and the local communities, with the key objectives being to increase tourism impacts from the Spring Racing Carnival and thoroughbred racing events throughout the year, and so get them out of that spring period, put them across the other 10 months of the year and grow that opportunity. Another objective is to increase the tourism impacts for harness and greyhound racing events during the same



period. We look at the opportunity to generate further tourism benefits from business events and racing attractions across those three codes, and also on the destination profiling using racing broadcasts.

There is quite a bit of opportunity to be realised. Some opportunities certainly will not be realised as early as others, and I reiterate that I believe very strongly that local government can certainly make a great contribution. At the same time a little flyer, which I have with me, was also released in Warrnambool. It is a summary of what is proposed in the racing tourism plan over the years 2005–07. One of the other objectives which I believe is probably more important than those earlier ones that I indicated and would be more achievable is increasing the destination profiling. Local government will make a marvellous contribution to that if it is recognised and has the resources to allow it the opportunity to fulfil that role. I will touch on that a little bit later.

The concerns the opposition has relate to what we would see as some missed opportunities and also what might be referred to as misleading opportunities. In saying that I take the opportunity to raise what was seen as an earlier commitment from the government towards the racing industry of an $8 million package over two years. In many ways the commitment to the racing industry doubled up on what could be seen as a lot of the earlier events. There were repeat launches, which is regrettably a common habit with the government in many cases. We have certainly seen repeat launches of the fast train project. In one case, the launch of the Ballarat–Melbourne service has occurred now between 15 and 20 times, and we are yet to see the train.

In this case with racing and the $8 million launch that took place on Thursday 13 January, under the media release heading of ‘$8 million gee up for Victorian racing’, we see some great initiatives there but I have to say that most of this is old money. I am happy to bring a little bit of it to the attention of the house. In putting this package together we see what I would term as some wonderful opportunities, especially, for instance, in the jockey welfare and research area. The consideration of the welfare and lifestyles of retired jockeys is long overdue and it is very credible, but this is in the 2005 launch even though it was initially launched in May 2003. So there is some old money.

If we keep going through we will find there is a juvenile justice program at harness racing for $60 000. I do not think there is any doubt in the world that it is a marvellous program and it has been very well received; not only that, it has been very well attended to by harness racing in that sphere of juvenile justice.

We have a Victorian breeders bonus scheme. We know our horse population is certainly under threat, so the availability of the bonus to the magnitude of $100 000 is most credible too. We have the greyhound adoption program. Again this is not a new program but it was included, at a cost of $100 000, in this same launch again. That was in fact put in place in 2003.

Funds have been made available to assist Greyhound Racing Victoria to undertake capital works at Kialla. As members of this house will appreciate, I have certainly labelled GRV’s activities at Kialla as an absolute fiasco. I will refer to that a little bit later as well.

The last one in the launch that I thought was very interesting was the purchase of five new horse ambulances for allocation to Caulfield, the Cranbourne Training Centre, Mornington, Geelong and Ballarat at a cost of some $200 000. I can assure the house that this is more spin because two of those clubs which I have been in touch with certainly do not know anything about these horse ambulances and would welcome the opportunity to get involved.

So out of the $8 million that has been announced on this occasion to profit the industry, we see that the majority of it is old money. Some of it has not been raised and will not be coming. The total amount is $1.2 million out of the $8 million, and I can assure the house the industry would very much like to know where the other $6.5 million is, which would be very well received by the racing industry.

It is important to note that to get these opportunities into regional Victoria we will need more than what Country Racing Victoria is doing under Michael Caveny and his directors, with the assistance of Mark O’Sullivan. What they have achieved in their marketing has been absolutely fantastic, but please remember that they are marketing their racing event, not necessarily promoting tourism or trying to grow the profile of country districts where they race. That is something that we certainly want to remind ourselves of, and there again I reiterate that the opportunity I see may be able to be redirected through local government to bring it to fruition. Importantly we should recognise that to date the minister has been happy to allow his statutory bodies to squander opportunities on some occasions. In saying that I refer back to Kialla.

As the house is aware Kialla is the exciting reserve where harness racing has been taking place, 6 miles south of the Shepparton central business district. Due to business arrangements in the Shepparton district greyhound racing had to be relocated from the showgrounds to this precinct. What a marvellous



opportunity it was for these two codes to become joint tenants at Kialla. It would have been a good opportunity for them to merge their activities. But regrettably we see that after a redevelopment of the harness racing centre there the greyhound industry, which could have used this opportunity to its owners’ and trainers’ stakes advantage, has elected to put an independent track down there.

We now have a duplication of lights, patrons facilities, race day equipment and the requirement for more car parking. If these clubs had used the one lot of facilities, patrons certainly would have benefited with better facilities. Regrettably we now see from the latest press release from the Shepparton district that the new greyhound facility is being developed, and I might add it is being put in place 25 metres away from the harness racing track. Mr Smith from Greyhound Racing Victoria indicates the new kennel will hold 96 dogs, which will be enough to stage 12 races, which I might say is highly unlikely to ever happen at that centre on any one occasion.

The article also indicates that they have put in a new pavilion with a seating capacity of 144 people, which also demonstrates that Greyhound Racing Victoria has little endeavour to grow race-day opportunity for patrons and get them on track. This is a major concern to many in the racing industry, particularly greyhound racing, from the point of view of where the ongoing succession is going to come from.

In a recent visit to Ireland I had the opportunity through the generosity of members of the Sandown racing track to attend at Harolds Cross stadium, one of the greyhound racing centres in Dublin. It was with stark disbelief that I saw the activities over there and what the Irish Greyhound Board is doing in relation to rejuvenating their on-track attendances. Just to give you some indication, Greyhound Racing Victoria’s figures are still in decline. At this stage it only has attendance in the order of 150 000 people per year on course. In Ireland, for instance, 10 years ago they saw their on-course attendances going down from 800 000 annually to 400 000, but under the leadership of Pascal Taggart, the board chairman, there was a move to change the board and try to grow the opportunity for greyhound racing in Ireland.

In that 10-year period not only have they gone from 400 000 back to the previous 800 000, but they now have 1.2 million people attending those activities and enjoying greyhound racing in Ireland. On a regular basis they have 1000 to 1200 people enjoying not only the entertainment of the day, but going to the food halls. Using every opportunity they can, they have set their

meetings accordingly so that they will pick up on those people. The big thing that they have had driving them all the way along is a strategy where they work on an opportunity of 80 per cent for entertainment and 20 per cent for wagering, which quite obviously has been very successful. They do not say, ‘We want only punters at the races’.

The second concern we have, and an opportunity missed in the greyhound racing industry, is the $1 million international race. It was an international proposal that would have Victoria competing with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Ireland on a one-in-four-year rotation. This plan was capably put up by many but certainly led by Rob Britton from Lara, and Geoff Collins. It was a fantastic tourism opportunity, probably one of the biggest events in greyhound racing in the last 10 and for the next 10 years, but regrettably Greyhound Racing Victoria ignored the opportunity or did not spend enough time to research it and put it in place. Now we find it has been exported to New South Wales where Dapto Greyhound Racing Club has picked it up and run with it. The areas Greyhound Racing Victoria found too difficult were certainly not found to be so in New South Wales, and sadly for the breeding industry — of which Australia is seen to be at the forefront — that opportunity has gone. For tourism that opportunity has slipped away, as has the opportunity for growth in regional Victoria for those who are trying to compete in those races that run up to the final activity. They are a couple of missed opportunities in the greyhound racing industry.

The next biggest opportunity we see missed is in relation to harness racing. We saw on 3 March, virtually under the cover of darkness in a guerrilla tactic, Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) striking at seven smaller country centres all at the one time at 10.00 a.m. under the guise of speaking to the directors of these clubs and indicating what strategies would be used to better their opportunities in the coming years. But when it met these people, all seven clubs were told that they would not be racing beyond 30 June this year.

The Vision Value Victoria (V3) statement which was produced to deliver this shocking message to those seven centres is in many ways unsustainable, unsubstantiated and it was introduced without any consultation. Regrettably there was very little consultation and not even a briefing with the minister’s office, who when briefed was of the understanding it was a discussion paper. Harness Racing Victoria had another agenda which was a fait accompli and which has not only upset those seven clubs but it has upset the minister to the extent that he met recently at St Arnaud



with those seven affected clubs in an endeavour to try to resolve this impasse that has taken place.

I read from V3 which says the document is:

To develop a vibrant harness racing industry which promotes participation …

If we spoke to the people at those seven clubs and many who are associated with the industry, they would not agree with the word ‘participation’. But they want to promote:

… participation, integrity and racing excellence …

Which is fine, and it sees itself doing that through two major programs: one that it calls Goal 10, which is to maximise industry income and return to the owners; and Goal 20, which would create racing centres of excellence in strategic locations around the state.

It goes on to say that:

HRV believes that V3 will facilitate prize money increases totalling 60 per cent over the next seven years with the bottom line that —

sees total prize money growing by $18.7 million to nearly $30 million. None of this is substantiated. It is a ‘trust me’ document.

Further on, after putting all these objectives down, Harness Racing Victoria goes on to say:

However, underlying growth in revenue has been partially based on unsustainable factors, including an increase in the number of race meetings —

which we cannot identify will happen —

escalating Sky Channel coverage and growth in gaming turnover from poker machines, in spite of the surprise $2 million deficit in revenue from Tabcorp —

in relation to smoking bans. Again Harness Racing Victoria has not substantiated to any of the surviving clubs, let alone those who have missed out or are likely to be missing out.

I can assure you that I, together with my colleague Mr Drum; the member for Lowan in the other place, Mr Delahunty; and certainly the member for Swan Hill in the other place, Mr Walsh, who are in the areas where most of these clubs which it has been suggested might close are found, are all very supportive of the clubs and of the minister in his endeavour to get racing back at these centres. We are very concerned that Harnesses Racing Victoria has gone down this track with little acknowledgement of the small communities where the clubs have been viable, in many cases for over a hundred years.

I might add that in some cases, contrary to what this document comes up with, these smaller clubs offer better returns to owners and trainers than some of the large provincial clubs. That is something which is not reflected in the document. Most of that comes about by the volunteer contribution we see from many of these communities, in the excitement of having the industry in their town. They offer training and breeding opportunities in their districts, and receive support from those industries which maintain these smaller communities and keep them viable.

In many cases we find that harness racing underwrites sporting complexes. St Arnaud is a very good example of that, where the harness racing track is at the same venue which also supports football, cricket, athletics, netball and hockey. So you can see what sort of impact pulling these clubs out of smaller centres has.

In the V3 document, the Vision Value Victoria document, Harness Racing Victoria has run a series of questions and answers at the back to tug people along a little bit. I think it is important to pick up on both questions 10 and 14. Question 10 is:

Will the V3 plan be perceived as an attack on the grassroots of harness racing?

HRV says:

Not at all … The majority of ‘grassroots’ participants will enjoy greater returns and will be better off as a result of the —

plan. Greater rubbish you could not write, let alone expect people to believe. Question 14 is:

Will attendances be affected by shifting meetings from ‘traditional’ venues?

The answer from HRV is:

There is no reason to suggest that less people would attend any of the meetings to be run at an ‘away’ venue.

Let us consider this. Hamilton is closed; the closest tracks to Hamilton will be at Horsham or Terang, so people who want to continue to enjoy the racing experience, especially owners and trainers, are looking at a 3-hour return trip to those two centres. It is highly likely that these people will not continue to travel those extra distances to race their horses. It has been indicated to me, and I am sure it has been indicated to my colleagues and members of The Nationals, that some of these trainers, regrettably, will elect not to race on in this industry. In fact, I have already noticed that some of these participants — longstanding participants — in the harness racing industry are now finding their way to thoroughbred race meetings and are indicating that, as those racing clubs are closer to their training centres,



they will be giving consideration to moving down that line.

In relation to the opportunities in regional Victoria we hope the minister will be able to convince Harness Racing Victoria of the value of maintaining these small rural communities and the viability of their racing centres. But I have to say at this stage that many public statements from Harness Racing Victoria are indicating that it is running with a dead bat. It certainly does not have an ear to what the minister or the government wish in relation to retaining some of these centres.

In closing, as I want to allow an opportunity for my colleagues, I make the important point that we should give back to local government the support that I see should properly be instigated through local government. I see that $20 000 could be allocated to the 50 local government districts in rural Victoria, bearing in mind that that may move around a little bit because not all local government districts in have any one of the racing codes within their boundaries. For instance, I know that the Surf Coast Shire Council and the Borough of Queenscliff do not. Any funds that would have gone to those local government districts which do not have any racing activities may top up areas where there are greater than two or three tracks or where three codes operate within the one municipality. If we looked at some dedicated funding for local government to assist with the promotion of their districts, the racing industry and tourism, along with the joint marketing opportunities that are being taken up now, particularly by Country Racing Victoria, there would be some great benefits realised right across Victoria — using the racing industry as that vehicle.

The other disappointment we have to recognise in our racing industry relates to the government of the day and the Treasurer, John Brumby, in the other place — again without any consultation — putting their hands in the pockets of punters and pulling another $45 million out of the racing industry via the health benefit levy and raising the licence fees on an increase on electronic gaming machines from $1533 to $3033. This is certainly having an impact on the racing industry. When that was introduced in 2001 the government saw fit to compensate the industry for that portion lost, which in that case was $4 million. That has stayed in place since its introduction.

Regrettably on this occasion the Treasurer has seen fit to return only $3.5 million of what is realistically seen as a $5.165 million deficit to the industry. Even after much dialogue between Racing Victoria Ltd and the other codes with Treasury to regain some of those lost funds, that opportunity would now appear to have been

lost forever for the industry. The punters of Victoria are again being asked to underwrite the health benefit levy. I believe it has much merit. I do not stand in the road of that, but if that is being removed from the racing industry, consideration should have been given for 2005, as it was for 2001, to offer reasonable compensation in order for the racing industry to do what it does best — that is, offer and grow the opportunity for the racing community, but more particularly, for the regional racing community.

I am sure my colleagues will pick up on some other areas where they see that racing could offer this government further growth opportunities, especially in regional Victoria and particularly with tourism. It is noticeable that there are areas here we could attend to and we should attend to. I can assure you that all those in regional Victoria would look forward to that opportunity. We know the tourism budget is $50 million a year. Putting some dedicated funding into local government would take only 2 per cent of that annual tourism budget — an amount of no greater than $1 million. I think the benefits — the yield — to government for the expenditure of 2 per cent of the tourism budget on regional Victoria to assist with growing its opportunities, local industries and the racing industry would make it a very worthwhile investment.

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) — I welcome the opportunity to join this debate this morning. I do not want to be unkind to Mr Koch, but obviously the opposition had nothing else to bring up. We have not been here for some weeks and a number of things have been going on, but the government must be performing pretty well. Two members of the opposition from this chamber are constantly in the newspapers. The Honourable David Davis has been running around with all sorts of stories about why hospitals do not have to produce annual reports and he had egg all over his face in relation to that issue. Mr Dalla-Riva gets in the paper every day but no-one knows what he is talking about because all he does is criticise the government while not putting anything forward. I would imagine that in the opposition rooms they went round with the bucket and whoever pulled out the shortest straw had to put up something for this debate because it was their turn.

It was quite a good contribution from Mr Koch. He outlined a good, clear case for tourism and the advantages of it to what the racing industry does. I want to concentrate on the racing industry. I was a little bit disappointed that the phrase ‘condemns the government’ was included in the motion, particularly when a lot of the issues raised by Mr Koch concerned the harness racing industry. He raised a reasonable



issue in relation to the harness racing industry and the closing of the seven tracks, but the Economic Development Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the breeding industry. Representatives of the harness racing industry will be coming before that committee and those are the sorts of questions we will be asking them, but it is not a government decision — it is a decision made by Harness Racing Victoria.

Hon. David Koch — A statutory body of the government.

Mr PULLEN — It is a statutory body and we do not want to start interfering in these things. Those sorts of questions will be asked by the committee so we will leave it at that for the moment.

I am also a bit disappointed that the opposition has made no mention of Betfair, which is a big issue at the moment in relation to the racing industry. The opposition has not even raised the TVN issue. These are the sorts of things we should be concerned about as far as the industry in this state is concerned. Obviously Mr Koch got the guernsey because no-one had any issues they could slap the government around the head with. At the end of the day it was like being hit with a wet lettuce leaf, because there was nothing much there about condemning the government. However, we will have to vote the motion down because that dreadful word ‘condemn’ is in there. This is similar to what was brought up last time by Mr Rich-Phillips in relation to condemning the minister but supporting the Commonwealth Games — we were not going to go down that path because we have a fantastic Minister for Commonwealth Games.

Since we came to power we have done so much for the racing industry that it is absolutely mind-boggling to say the least. Prior to the setting up of Racing Victoria, which we established in 1999, racing in this state was run by a private club — the Victoria Racing Club. Everyone will agree that the setting up of Racing Victoria — I will give some examples of this later on — has been a fantastic thing for the state. Organisations, particularly from country racing, and participant groups such as the breeders, the jockeys, the trainers and the owners now have an unprecedented voice in the management of racing. In today’s Herald Sun there is an article by Adrian Dunn which states:

Victorian racehorse owners booted home an unexpected winner yesterday with prize money for next season boosted by $11 million.

RVL —

that is, Racing Victoria Ltd —

chief executive, Robert Nason, revealed the windfall when he announced a new prize money deal.

Nason said owners would get $140.2 million, a rise of 8.5 per cent.

That is well in front of inflation. The article continues:

He said revenue was expected to grow 6 per cent to 8 per cent and that would go to owners.

‘All WorkCover costs and riding fees will be paid for by Racing Victoria on behalf of the clubs,’ Nason said.

‘There will be no more deductions from prize money to accommodate rider fees or WorkCover.

‘Prize money is prize money and will be paid to owners in full.’

Country Racing Victoria will be the first to release its new prize money projections when it meets tomorrow in Mildura.

I will talk about Mildura a bit later on in my contribution. The article goes on to say:

MVRC —

the Moonee Valley Racing Club —

chief executive, John Cameron, said the 2005–06 distribution model, which replaced the market share model, was much fairer.

I know Moonee Valley has had a lot of concerns about this in relation to its being unfairly dealt with because it runs night racing. Mr Cameron was quoted as saying:

The playing field has been levelled …

We always want to talk about levelling the playing field for all participants. The article continues:

‘We have been given an opportunity to grow our on-course turnover …

RVL chairman, Graham Duff, described the distribution model as the most momentous decision in RVL’s short, three-and-a-half year history.

Duff said he had thought the distribution review was tackling ‘mission impossible’.

But he said the metropolitan clubs and Country Racing Victoria had worked together for a good result.

That is the sort of positive thing that is coming out simply because Racing Victoria Ltd rather than a particular club is running the show now.

I see my colleague Mr Bowden is in the chamber at the moment. We have been lucky enough to visit a few racing countries this year. We had the pleasure of going to Ireland and France. Only last week I was in New Zealand. Mr Bowden did not go to New Zealand as he was not well, so it is good to see him back in the



chamber today looking very well. When we were in France and Ireland — I know I am not giving any secrets away here — everyone said our set-up with Racing Victoria Ltd was absolutely fantastic. A lot of them, particularly last week in New Zealand, are aiming to set up a similar sort of thing or would like to see a similar sort of thing set up in their country.

I had private discussions with the president of the racing club and the Thoroughbred Breeders Association at a cocktail party at the Australian High Commission in New Zealand last Thursday evening. They are really interested in the way we are running racing here. As Mr Koch said, Victorian racing is the leader in Australia. They say it is third or fourth in the world. I think it is up at the top, because everywhere we go we hear nothing but praise for it.

I want to refer to another item by Adrian Dunn in today’s Herald Sun which backs up how exciting all this is for us here in Victoria. The Bracks government has been leading the way in promoting Victoria overseas. Adrian Dunn writes:

The international assault on Melbourne’s spring carnival is only one month away.

Hideyuki Mori, one of Japan’s leading trainers, is scheduled to arrive in Melbourne in mid-August with a multipronged attack.

I will not read the next part, but this passage is very interesting:

It’s not only the spring that Mori has in mind. He’s committed to a satellite stable in Victoria.

People are now coming from overseas to do that sort of thing because they know how well racing is going in Victoria.

Mr Koch covered this pretty well. Victorian racing delivers significant economic and social benefits to the state. A series of industry studies have identified that thoroughbred racing alone generates an economic impact in excess of $2 billion per annum and creates employment for some 60 000 people. I have even heard it could be up to 80 000 people. I suppose if you want to include me as being employed there when I go along to the racetrack, you can do that but I usually do not get paid, I usually lose. That is the equivalent of around 25 000 full-time jobs.

The bulk of racing’s economic benefits are derived in rural and regional Victoria, including up to two-thirds of all racing-related jobs. Racing’s benefits flow to a number of diverse allied industries, including tourism — and that is why it is important that I discuss

that later on — hospitality, manufacturing and agriculture.

The opposition could take up with its federal counterparts an issue that does concern me greatly in the thoroughbred or horse-breeding industry and in the horse industry in general. Farmers in that industry do not get any drought subsidies for feed, and they also do not get any subsidies on interest rates, whereas if they were in other areas of primary production, they would. This is an issue which should be taken up with the federal government for assistance to our farmers who are involved in the horse industry.

Another discrepancy that occurs is in relation to the Export Market Development Grant. I refer to an article — and I will not read it all because it is quite a long one — written by David Higginbottom of Competitive Edge. He says in part:

Currently the Export Marketing Development Grant (EMDG) available via the federal government for exporters from Australia amounts to approximately $145 million per year. Last year around 10 000 companies received export grants from this fund.

That is very good. The article further states:

Under the EMDG scheme owners, trainers and breeders of thoroughbred racehorses can apply to receive export grants as a reimbursement of their export activities and expenditure if they sell thoroughbred racehorses overseas.

It is imperative that the horse must leave Australia and that foreign exchange is received for the horse.

…

The problem arises, however, where a number of thoroughbred owners, trainers and breeders are currently selling horses into the Asian market and beyond and yet the horses never leave Australia.

Members might think that is fair enough, but he gives a comparison here when he asks, ‘Is this fair?’ and then continues:

This current situation seems most unfair. A student can come to Australia and engage in education at a noted university or TAFE or private college.

They receive a degree or accreditation; they then return to their country overseas.

The learning takes place in Australia and yet the institution receives the right to claim Export Marketing Development Grant dollars when promoting their educational services to overseas students.

There is an anomaly there. I would urge members of the opposition to take it up with their federal colleagues to see if they can fix up that anomaly and assist our horse breeding and trainers industry.



The Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys confirm that racing is the second most popular spectator sport — once again that was covered by Mr Koch — behind Australian Rules Football. Over 5 million people attend race meetings every year in Australia, including 2 million people in Victoria alone. When we talk about AFL football we see that it needs a review. In 2050 it will be asked, ‘Which was that last Victorian club that won a flag?’. People will think back and say, ‘Essendon in 2000’. If we do not do something about levelling out this competition against the interstate clubs, people will not be going to the footy, they will be going to the races. That could be a good thing for the racing industry, but it will not be a good thing for me as a one-eyed Essendon supporter — but that is just an aside.

The 2004 Spring Racing Carnival alone had an economic impact of over $467 million and attracted attendances of 655 000, including 25 000 international and 75 000 interstate visitations. That is why it is such a great thing for the tourism industry. As has been pointed out in the Parliament before, when the Commonwealth Games are run it will be like having the Spring Racing Carnival, the Australian Open and the Grand Final every day of the week.

Hon. P. R. Hall — I will not know what to go and see!

Mr PULLEN — No, that is right — I would go to the races, I think; that will be the best place to be.

The Spring Racing Carnival is the biggest annual event in Australia. In spite of inclement weather, the 2004 carnival attendances were near records with 655 442 people attending — over 498 000 metropolitan and nearly 150 000 in country areas. These attendances included over 25 500 international visitors and 75 000 interstate people, as I mentioned. The racing industry estimates that 4268 full-time equivalent positions were created in Victoria to meet the excess demand created by the 2004 Spring Racing Carnival.

Racing clubs and race meetings are integral to Victoria’s social fabric for many country organisations and the industry. We have been delighted with the growth of country racing since we came to office in 1999. Under this government, investment in country racing over the last five years has exceeded $5.2 billion. There has been a 13 percent increase in attendances at country race meetings over the last three years — Mr Koch and I have been the two extra at many of them — with 600 000 spectators attending country racing each year. Seventy nine per cent of thoroughbred racehorses are trained in regional Victoria. Cranbourne

and Mornington, while they are getting very close to the city these days, have the highest number of horses in training in country Victoria. Fifty-eight per cent of owners live in regional Victoria as do 74 per cent of breeders and 91 per cent of trainers, and 75 per cent of all Victoria’s race meetings are at country racecourses. Even of a Sunday now up to two TAB rural meetings occur, which is great for country racing.

I understand that 65 per cent of jobs directly created in the thoroughbred racing industry in Victoria are in regional Victoria. In addition, country racing contributes $478 million in local off-course wagering, which is approximately 44 per cent of Victoria’s annual local off-course wagering revenue. Country racing provides an annual Victorian economic impact of $912 million and represents approximately 11 000 direct and indirect jobs throughout rural and regional Victoria.

The strength of Victorian country racing is reflected in country racing’s 2004–05 figures, which show an upward trend in wagering with local off-course betting — and these are very important figures — up by 4.7 per cent, on-course totes up by 9 per cent and bookmaker turnovers increasiing by nearly 8 per cent. Clubs have enjoyed the country racing resurgence with an increase in year-to-date attendances of over 4 per cent, and the marketing of strategic events days has been an overwhelming success, with total attendances up by 40 per cent compared with the same meetings last year.

My mail to home on Monday included a wonderful brochure from Country Racing Victoria, headed ‘Book your 2005 Christmas Party — ‘tis the season to be racing’. Inside it says:

Celebrate the great tradition of a country racing Christmas race day. There is a huge selection of party packages and locations to choose from. Whether it’s a restaurant luncheon for two or a private corporate marquee that caters for the entire workplace, there’s a country racing Christmas package to suit your festive needs.

Hon. Andrea Coote — I’ll come with you, Noel.

Mr PULLEN — It would just be the two of us! The good thing that I see about this is the section headed ‘Getting there’. It states:

While a flying sleigh is good for some this time of year, for a more comfortable trip to the races, V/Line is your best bet. With over 1800 weekly services, there is a train or coach heading towards your country racing Christmas party. Don’t wait for a sleigh, book —

and it gives you the phone numbers and stuff like that. The brochure outlines trackside and party marquee



packages including hire of mini marquees and umbrellas, and lists dates where these wonderful things are going to happen. If Mr Koch puts on one for his staff I might even turn up at the races on that particular day!

Venues include Yarra Valley, Wodonga, Terang, Donald — and Hamilton! That’s the one! On Friday, 2 December at Hamilton an umbrella package costs as little as $15 per person. What sort of entertainment can you get for that amount of money? That is a great tourist attraction and reflects what the government is putting into these events.

Other venues include Cranbourne, Swan Hill, Traralgon, Pakenham, Geelong, Stony Creek, Ballarat, Tatura, Stawell, Kilmore, Mornington, Colac, Horsham — —

Hon. David Koch — Is it a country racing document or a tourism document?

Mr PULLEN — This is a country racing document.

Hon. David Koch — That’s better.

Mr PULLEN — I am coming to why we are building it all in together. There is one at Horsham, so if I cannot go to Hamilton, I will go to Horsham. Then there is Sale, Wangaratta, Bendigo, Kyneton and Werribee. It is all good stuff.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bracks government is keen to acknowledge the importance of the Victorian breeding industry. The Economic Development Committee has been given a reference to look at the thoroughbred and standardbred breeding industries. I will not read through the terms of the inquiry, but it is a very good one. The thing that has really surprised me has been the strength of the standardbred industry in breeding in this state. It is leading Australia and is certainly one of the leaders in the world.

The committee visited Hamilton — Mr Koch may not have known that we were there, but I was disappointed he did not come to our meeting — and about 30 people came to the public hearing — —

An honourable member — And Mr Armitage?

Mr PULLEN — Yes, we visited him. I had better not give any secrets away, but Mr Atkinson and I saw a wonderful horse that we might be interested in if we can find a mare to breed it with. It is a Danehill colt and it is a ripper. We will talk about that privately, we cannot mention it here for Hansard.


Mr PULLEN — We will call it Coalition. That sounds like a good name for a horse, doesn’t it?

An honourable member — For a nag!

Mr PULLEN — Yes. In 2000 the government introduced the Living Country Racing program, which provides funding to country race clubs for minor capital works that improve local racing venues and encourages communities to view racecourses as community assets. Since its inception the program has injected more than $2 million into country racing. This money has been shared by 81 country racing clubs and has resulted in 145 minor capital work projects. It provides enormous benefits to the local clubs and communities. Successful projects funded last year include a range of irrigation projects to protect country racing from the effects of drought and improvements to facilities for women jockeys and families with children. Along with racing infrastructure projects, such as running rails, and more general projects, such as roads and fencing, I mention particularly the paths, roads and toilets because as members would know, I have a great interest in disability services. A lot of funding has gone towards improving access to racecourses by people with disabilities.

I have here a huge list of race funding, but I will not read it out because I want to give my colleagues a chance to contribute to debate on this poor motion. We can promote the government. We can tell members what we are all about and how we are so good for racing and tourism. In the list of grants is one for Casterton Racing Club. Where is that? In Western Province, I think.

Hon. David Koch — It is in my province.

Mr PULLEN — Grants are listed for the Coleraine Racing Club to upgrade toilet blocks. Other good ones include a grant for the Edenhope Race Club to construct and equip children’s playgrounds and install safety railing. One good one is for Mildura Racing Club. It is well out of Mr Koch’s electorate, but it would be in Mr Drum’s electorate. It got $41 500 to extend the trainer’s bar.

Then we have Avoca. I have seen Mr Koch at Avoca, and everyone knows how wonderful the Avoca race club is. Its former secretary, Bruce Field, was a good friend of mine. It only has three race meetings a year. I said, ‘Why wouldn’t you want to go on the TAB and have a tote meeting?’. They said, ‘Why would we worry about having a tote meeting?’. They said that simply because Avoca holds only three race meetings a



year — one on Anzac Day, one on Caulfield Cup day and one on Labour Day. The town of Avoca has a population of only about 1500 people at the most, but it builds to 7000 or 8000 people on those days. They are wonderful days, particularly when the tourism aspect comes in, because the wines and foods of the district are promoted and buses come from everywhere.

Colac Turf Club was granted $50 000 for the upgrading of its dining and kitchen facilities. Mortlake Racing Club — is that Mr Koch’s, too?

Hon. David Koch — They are all in Western Province.

Mr PULLEN — Yes, you have done very well, Mr Koch. Mortlake received a grant of $25 000 to enclose the betting ring. There are some huge grants listed here, but I will not take up much more time, because we would be here all afternoon singing the praises of the Bracks government on what it has done with those venues.

I want to mention a few other matters. Firstly, the Bracks government has taken a major step in maximising the protection of Victoria’s racing industry against equine disease — this is an issue that has come up a lot overseas — by developing Horse Alert Victoria. The study was commissioned by this government and jointly funded by the racing industry, Tabcorp and the state government. The report was prepared by the horse disease experts, and the plan was developed in consultation with all key players within the diverse Victorian horse racing and animal health professions. Horse Alert Victoria is designed to equip the whole of the Victorian horse racing industry with an effective strategy to prevent and control equine disease outbreaks. That is a concern overseas, but I know we will be looking after it here.

The Bracks government and the three racing codes worked collaboratively during 2004 to establish the Racing Community Development Fund. The purpose of the fund is to support a range of industry development and participant welfare projects and to maximise the outcome for Victoria and the Victorian racing industry from the government support package to ensure accountability for government funding.

Hon. David Koch — How much?

Mr PULLEN — You asked for it: the government has committed $20 million to the Racing Community Development Fund since 2000 to ensure that Victoria’s racing industry retains its pre-eminent position in Australian racing. The identified projects and other purposes across the three codes include significant

boosts to breeder incentive programs, veterinary research, increased drug testing, disease control programmes, the promotion of women in training, improved occupational health and safety in the racing industry, and support for education and training promotion, particularly for country and picnic racing and related participants.

I think Mr Koch mentioned he was in the meeting in Stawell recently — —

Hon. David Koch — St Arnaud.

Mr PULLEN — St Arnaud, sorry, where the Minister for Racing was, and I think he led the clapping. I have heard reports from people that he led the cheering and clapping. I hope I am not putting words into Mr Koch’s mouth, but that is what some of the participants I know told me. I thought that was a good sign — a good bipartisan relationship between the government and the opposition.

I turn to Victoria’s Racing Tourism Plan 2005–07. This is a new document.

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva interjected.

Mr PULLEN — Have you seen this one? I have already told Mr Dalla-Riva; he has been in the newspaper every week but nobody knows what he is on about because he keeps on saying stupid things.

This is a wonderful document. I will read a little of the background to it:

At the core of the racing tourism plan 2005–07 are strategies that when implemented will deliver increased tourism benefits to Victoria from the various events, attractions, niche products and broadcasts associated with Victoria’s racing industry.

Increasing communication and cooperation between Victoria’s racing and tourism industries is the foundation on which this plan is based. Communicating the value of tourism and integrating racing themes into tourism activity …

We already see that in a lot of places like Avoca:

… racing embraces Victoria’s … strengths by showcasing local food and wine and other tourism products in order to further profile the destination.

In developing the racing tourism plan … the governing bodies of Victoria’s three racing codes — thoroughbred racing, harness racing and greyhound racing — have been consulted to ensure that the plan is relevant and addresses the key issues and opportunities for racing tourism in the state.

A number of events are coming up. The Mildura winter racing event will be held on Friday. The government has put a lot of money — $10 000 — into the Yarra



Valley food, wine and racing weekend, and $15 000 into the Ararat Chinese racing festival — which is a ripper. I am a phenomenal lover of Chinese food. That race day provides Chinese activities for families, Chinese food and Grampians wine. That is a good event to attend. The Kyneton Cup event, run between the Melbourne Cup and Oaks Day meetings, got $7500 and the Echuca race cup carnival, with the riverboats and races, got $7500. The Kyneton country connoisseurs carnival was given $5000, and the list goes on.

New South Wales has Mick Young Day. The great man, Gough Whitlam, goes along and we have an absolutely fantastic day. I thought, ‘Why not have a similar sort of thing down here because there are some great people within the Labor Party?’. The Liberal Party of course does nothing for racing but this government does. Last Saturday I was very pleased to be at the Moonee Valley races with the member from Narre Warren North in the other place — —

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva — Name them!

Mr PULLEN — I will name them: I was very pleased to be at Moonee Valley with members of the other place for Eltham, Mitcham, and Narre Warren North — Mr Herbert, Mr Robinson and Mr Donnellan. Also there were the Minister for Racing in the other place and the Treasurer. I had the privilege of being there with stacks of other people who attended that meeting.

The people were all absolutely rapt in listening to the Treasurer talk about how Victoria is going from strength to strength, not only in relation to our economy. The Minister for Racing spoke about how well the racing industry is going. As I said at the start of my contribution, it is disappointing that Mr Koch got the short straw. This opposition motion is very ordinary, particularly when we have not been in this place for some weeks. I suggest that Mr Koch might even create history today by crossing the floor and voting against his own motion.

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion about the state of the three codes of racing in Victoria. The motion mentions the potential of the Victorian racing industry. I understand it to encompass the three different codes of racing: greyhound, harness racing and the thoroughbred industry.

The greyhound industry certainly is travelling well at this stage. There are several increases in its performance indicators. The off-course wagering has

increased in the last financial year. All three of the racing codes are certainly targeting that off-course market. The ability to have extensive coverage of their meetings beamed right across the hotel sector throughout Australia is obviously maximising this opportunity to entice the punters from all around Victoria and Australia to partake in the wagering industry.

Certainly an 8.4 per cent increase in the greyhound industry is very pleasing. It has increased its market share in the whole of the gaming industry, and it is now responsible for over 15 per cent of market share. That puts the greyhound industry in a strong position. It does not take an awful lot of infrastructure or setting up, and the owners and trainers do the vast majority of the work; it is a low output industry. There are not a lot of on-costs associated with the greyhound industry. In fact they are minimal, and therefore it is able to generate significant profits based on the strong gaming interest it attracts from around the nation. It takes a little over 2 hours to run the entire meeting and requires minimal output. For the last financial year the board reported an estimated surplus of $1.3 million for the 2003–04 period. The figures for the 2004–05 season have not been released but they are expected to show an increase.

It is good to be able to paint a positive picture of the industry at the moment but this does not diminish the effect of Mr Koch’s motion because the fact that something is in a positive state does not allow us to sit on our hands and become complacent. There is a growing interest in the greyhound industry and the sector itself is growing in strength. This should open up a whole range of opportunities for various governments to get behind the industry and further promote it to take advantage of the healthy state the industry has been able to achieve through its governance models.

We have also been talking about how the board of Greyhound Racing Victoria has adopted a whole range of policies, recognising that both travel and training costs for participants have been endorsed by the new budgetary guidelines to maintain current track maintenance in line with occupational health and safety requirements. In all three codes one of the biggest hurdles and challenges we have to face is keeping our tracks up to the standards set by occupational health and safety guidelines.

There is mention in its report that the board of Greyhound Racing Victoria is going to put aside $26 million over the next decade to spend on such things as the Sale grandstands and the Shepparton club. It was interesting to hear Mr Koch’s opinion of the race



club at Kialla building a separate synthetic track instead of locating it inside the harness racing track. We will have to look at that venture closely in the future to see whether or not it is successful. We need to be very careful about how we take the sport forward; if this venture is going to be a risk, we will have to monitor it closely to see how it pans out.

It is also interesting to note the attitude that emanates from behind the scenes. One of the highlights of the club business development report which is part of the annual report is the fact that it is going to assist seven provincial clubs in the development and implementation of an operational business plan. That is very sound governance, in contrast to the attitude emanating from the Harness Racing Board, which I will talk about at length later in my contribution.

It is good to see that the board of Greyhound Racing Victoria has identified some clubs that will need assistance in the development and implementation of a business plan, and it is going to offer that assistance. There is a background of strength and wellbeing in the greyhound industry at the moment and we need to build on that and identify areas and clubs that are going to continue to throw up challenges so that we can put in place the assistance those clubs need to meet those challenges.

As far as the industry finance report goes, Greyhound Racing Victoria has certainly put in place some strategies to deal with the fact that it now has an operating profit of $1.3 million. It has identified that that profit has been assisted by the increase in off-course wagering and a strong growth in market share. It is hoping that the long-term sustainability of the industry will be embedded by its establishment of a 10-year plan to sustain tracks and facilities.

The greyhound industry is reinvesting a lot of its profits back into facilities to ensure their long-term viability. That is certainly sound management. It is going to increase the prize money in line with the consumer price index to make the industry more attractive to participants, especially the owners and trainers. That will continue to attract people to the sport. There is not a soul in the world that would dare go into the greyhound racing industry for the money. It is certainly something people do because they have a genuine love for the animals in the first instance and a genuine love of the camaraderie and the industry itself. Owning and training greyhounds is something people do simply for the love of it, and in some instances the prize money makes it possible to continue by offsetting some of the costs associated with that industry.

It is an industry that needs to be continually examined. I was impressed with what Mr Koch had to say about what is happening in Ireland and other overseas locations. They have a different target group, and they have been successful in bringing people back to the greyhound industry as spectators, over and above the people who have an intimate love of the sport itself. They are making it an attractive pastime so that people go to watch without the need to be part of the gambling brigade. People go to the greyhounds not just to invest in wagering but to take on board the ambience of the night, the activity of the sport, and to then move onto other pastimes throughout the evening. That is a market we certainly have not captured in Australia.

We can learn from our friends overseas about how they have been successful in this field, and we owe it to ourselves and the many, many clubs around Australia to work out the various steps that we need to take to try to create that sort of interest in the sport.

I would like to touch on some of the issues to do with the thoroughbred industry. I will leave harness racing until my conclusion. Obviously the jewel in the crown of the thoroughbred industry is the Spring Racing Carnival here in Melbourne. Sometimes we get a bit complacent about the thoroughbred industry. The Spring Racing Carnival, as I understand it, is the only carnival in Victoria’s racing industry that actually makes money on its own credibility. It does not need to be subsidised by a Tabcorp injection or propped up by any other means. The Spring Racing Carnival is absolutely profitable and financially viable in its own right. Some of the figures surrounding the Spring Racing Carnival are quite amazing. The gross economic benefit to the state of $467 million is just astounding. It is something that we need to cherish and protect, and we have the opportunity to build on what we currently have.

There are some days, such as Derby Day, which nearly outstrip the cup in popularity, but there are still opportunities for further growth on other days during the Spring Racing Carnival. As I said, the economic benefit is quite astounding, and there are a whole range of factors involved in that, not least of which is what the Spring Racing Carnival does for our fashion houses. During the 2004 spring carnival $15.7 million was spent by visitors just on fashion. Not just visitors spend money on the cup; I am sure a number of Melburnians who make those two or three visits to the racetrack every year also dip into their pockets and lash out to make sure they are looking their best on Melbourne Cup Day, Derby Day, Oaks Day or at the stakes. It is certainly an amazing boost.



Some 217 000 bed nights are also picked up during the spring carnival. I did some quick calculations and figured that that is at minimum about a $30 million boost in accommodation. That does not allow for the high end of the accommodation market, so the figure could very easily be $30 million to $50 million being picked up in accommodation packages. It is certainly an amazing carnival.

Effectively visitors contribute an additional $17.5 million in tourism spending away from the racing carnival. Another $17 million or $18 million is spent in other areas away from the track. These visitors go away and spend more than $11 million in accommodation in other areas away from the track. So it is not just about what they are spending in Melbourne when they come to the carnival, it is also about what they spend when they go away to other tourism areas, such as on accommodation packages. On average they come for a week, and they go to other parts of Australia as well. So the benefits reach well beyond just Victoria. A lot of international visitors come out here for the carnival and then move on to enjoy other parts of Australia as well. It shows how much we have with the carnival. If it is only the spring carnival that is taking the opportunity to make money, we need to look at how we can engender a similar type of interest for some of the other carnivals. We need to create a situation where the spring carnival is not the only carnival that we have in Victoria that stands on its own financially.

It is also worth mentioning the situation that currently exists in country Victoria. In country Victoria the total economic impact of racing, taking on board gaming, is in the vicinity of $912 million per annum. It is an enormous industry that cuts across many of our communities in the cities and towns throughout regional Victoria. The race meetings generate spending by customers in the vicinity of $577 million. Back in 1999–2000 the owners of the racehorses spent a total of $350 million. The money has been recycled throughout the industry. It has been reinvested, which has generated other moneys that have been spent on it. We are talking about a total investment of $1.2 billion. Over 10 000 jobs are involved in this industry.

When you look at some of the major centres of employment in Cranbourne, Mornington, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Warrnambool, you realise that it is a huge industry, but we can find ways to improve and build on the industry through greater marketing and tourism links. Many of these areas have outstanding tourism icons that bring people into their regions. If we can link the industries to those tourism aspects of the regions we will be able to grow this amazing industry. It is certainly one that we can look to build on.

The betting turnover in country racing contributes $478 million in local offcourse wagering. That is approximately 44 per cent of Victoria’s annual local offcourse wagering revenue. Oncourse betting through the tote or through the bookmakers has now gone past the $100 million mark. We are certainly in a situation where country Victoria is generating an enormous amount of wagering, both offcourse and oncourse. But again when you go along to some of our race day meetings you find that with the exception of the country cups generally they are poorly attended. We certainly need to do more to try to lift the attendance rates by the people that are not intimately involved in the racing industry.

We need to get behind some of these racing clubs and create stronger links to the region. We just have to give people reasons to get out of Melbourne. We need to give people reasons to go to the regional centres, cities and towns and then link that in with some of the great race day meetings that we have throughout country Victoria. We need to offer more support. There are more than 700 volunteers that work tirelessly throughout country Victoria to assist with the running of race day meetings; they are racing committee members who do an enormous amount of work. Obviously these 700-odd committee volunteers throughout country Victoria are looking after over 15 000 people that have taken the time, made the effort and spent the money to become members of country racing tracks. It is an awful lot of people throughout country Victoria that are truly committed to their local racing clubs, and this is just in the thoroughbred racing industry.

The prize money that is currently being offered throughout country Victoria is adequate. But again, as the industry grows and if we are able to establish better links between tourism and tourism moneys that are available and the racing industry, then certainly the industry would continue to grow and obviously so would the prize money. They industry will then be able to attract better horses, employ better breeding practices, and attract more owners and more syndicates into the industry itself. The cycle just tends to feed on itself.

I would like also to mention that Racing Victoria Ltd (RVL) has shown some initiative in relation to education programs it is putting in place for some of its apprentices at Flemington. I congratulate those people on the work they are doing over there. Again it just goes to show this is a part of the racing industry that has been neglected for generations. We have taken things for granted. Whilst jockeys start at a very young age, with apprenticeships at 14, 15 and 16, a good number



of them find themselves growing physically to a stage where they can no longer ride on race day. They then have to be resigned to accepting a career of doing some track work in the mornings, mucking out the stables in the afternoon and probably sitting in the pub in the evenings.

It has been a very difficult side of the industry for RVL to combat. It has elected to combat it mainly through a more holistic education process for apprentices. I congratulate it for putting in place a greater academic learning process for the apprentices. They do not learn just about the racing industry and how to ride; they continue some of their academic learning throughout their apprenticeship. Also they learn about obvious benefits such as financial management so that they can hopefully give themselves a better shot at long-term stability once their racing days are finished. I certainly think we need to do that more in the racing industry. We need to encourage that. If there is any way that the government can get behind RVL to look after the long-term viability, long-term health and financial wellbeing of the jockeys, I believe that will be good money well spent.

We need also to understand that Tabcorp is contributing in the vicinity $261 million every year to the racing industry. This money obviously comes predominantly out of gaming itself, but also out of the electronic gaming machines (EGMs). It is an enormous industry subsidising itself; and the gaming industry is subsidising the racing industry. We need to be very conscious of that. When the government decides to increase its health levy on gaming machines by $45 million that effectively comes out of the industry itself. We have to be careful that we do not just see organisations like Tabcorp and Tattersalls as bottomless pits which we can just go and raid whenever we want to because by doing that we are effectively taking money out of the racing industry to put into our health system. That is very clearly and simply what we have done with that decision in the last few months to double the health levy that is charged on gaming machines.

I agree with Mr Pullen’s remark earlier that one of the real challenges we have with the industry concerns the TVN network and how the many subscribers to Austar throughout country Victoria in the last few months have had many of their major metropolitan races taken from Austar subscription. This is obviously the result of a spat that is going on between TVN, Austar, and Sky Channel and the fact that Sky Channel is claiming exclusivity in relation to major metropolitan races throughout metropolitan Melbourne and some of the other major metropolitan centres as well. Unless Sky Channel has the rights to show those races on Austar,

Sky Channel will insist that Austar cannot enlist the subscriptions of TVN. Those subscribers only go to Austar specifically so they can sit down of a Saturday, or maybe mid-week if there is a major meeting, and have a look at their favourite sport and perhaps have a bit of a gamble over the phone as well.

That issue has to be sorted out. It is no good. We have many people throughout regional Victoria who ring my office wanting to know why they used to be able to sit back of a Saturday afternoon and watch some of the major meetings but can no longer do that. The government really needs to step in and work something out. Whether this is a federal or state issue someone certainly needs to go out and broker a deal between TVN, Austar and Sky Channel so we can return the major city meetings throughout Australia back to regional viewers of pay television.

One of the other challenges that face the industry is that created by Betfair. The debate about Betfair is a very interesting one that needs to be brought to the fore and debated again. We need a resolution of this issue because an awful lot of damage is being caused to the industry and also to Betfair. These arguments against Betfair are based around integrity issues, but those who might know about the issue would be aware that to be a member and to open a Betfair account you need to give a bank account number, you need to have all the necessary identifications that go with that; you need to give Betfair a full disclosure of who you are to open up the accounts. So in a sense Betfair has a very strong identification process of anybody that is actually laying bets. The opportunity to lay bets to lose currently exists anyway.

It is very easy for an owner who knows the industry inside and out to do that. It has been going on for years. That is why we have all our race tracks surrounded by stewards, to ensure that jockeys and owners alike and horses and dogs are given every chance to win. There have always been integrity issues about certain people not wanting their horses and dogs to win particular races. The state is missing out on so much finance that is being channelled through Betfair.

The whisper is that Tasmania is about to open its arms to Betfair and let it in. Once that happens Victoria will be further behind the eight ball, but we need to flush out the system. There have been some really creditable people who have said that Betfair is the worst thing that can ever happen to our industry. If that is true, we need to have this debate, we need to bring this issue to completion, we need to bring it to a head and we need to move forward. We should move forward either with or without Betfair, but at the moment they are there,



they are in the industry. Through the state of the gaming industry they are sucking out millions of dollars from the industry; they are not contributing to the industry by a licensing fee or a licence registration fee. The industry is missing out on many millions of dollars.

One of the things that I have quite often pushed for in my region is the opportunity for a super weekend of sport. As we know, the people in areas such as Wangaratta, Wodonga, Shepparton, Ballarat and Bendigo are fanatical about sport and love every aspect of it. It is not just necessarily one sport over the other. I should add that the residents of Gippsland are also fanatical about sport. As a tourism attraction we should take the opportunity to mix up some of our major sports over a weekend, where you could have an Australian Football League practice match, a major race meeting, a cycling extravaganza such as the Bendigo International Madison and Criterium, and basketball exhibition matches maybe featuring some of the Australians or basketball teams that visit Australia and Victoria.

Some of the major regional centres could create a weekend of tremendous sports interest in country Victoria if we were able to coordinate and plan such a huge weekend of genuine sporting extravaganza featuring maybe the three codes of racing, each with a major meeting over a three or four-day weekend period, interspersed with some of these other sports putting their very best on show for the people of each region.

I am convinced that this would have an enormous impact on not just the financial wellbeing of the place but also the social wellbeing and the amount of social pride that would emanate out of such a weekend of sport. The three codes of racing could play a huge role in that. We need to take a leap of faith, put such experiments in place, sit back and judge the benefit or otherwise of putting on a weekend of extreme top-level sports.

I want to touch on Mr Pullen’s suggestion that we need to also see if there are horse industry farmers who are affected by exceptional circumstance (EC) conditions. It is a very good point, and I give Mr Pullen the assurance that I will look into this issue to see if any farmers, especially in my electorate of North Western Province, are affected by EC. I will put a call out and if I find any horse industry farmers affected and who fall within the criteria, I will make sure they are assisted; I will make a strong case for assistance to flow through. It is a good point as we so often overlook making available assistance packages for some of the non-mainstream farming activities.

I would also like to talk about the V3 proposal in relation to harness racing. Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) has created an enormous amount of bad will in the last few months against a backdrop of individual club prosperity. Again the country clubs throughout regional Victoria are leading the way in off-course and on-course turnovers. The profits in the last financial year from Harness Racing Victoria were budgeted to come in at around $200 000. Because wagering surpassed its budgeted estimates, it ended up announcing a profit in the vicinity of $950 000 for the financial year. So profits were up and well above expectation. Attendances were also on the increase from previous years and memberships of some of the affected clubs were on the increase. They were doing very well albeit memberships were not all that expensive in some of the clubs. Wedderburn, for instance, which has a population of less than 1000 had in excess of 1500 members. Some of these clubs draw their support from an amazing social strength.

Against a backdrop where an industry is working very hard, the country clubs are the jewel in the crown because they perform so well, the reason being that in effect they are run by volunteers; the clubs cost nothing to run. They have volunteers on the gate, volunteer stewards, volunteer starters and people volunteering in every aspect of the industry. In early March seven clubs received a call asking for a coffee meeting with the chairman or the general manager of the Victoria Harness Racing Club on the following day. They were pleased that these high-profile members and the general manager of the board were to pay them a visit, to continue the glowing praise that had been heaped on some of these clubs over the previous years, because that was the context of conversations that had taken place between the harness racing board and so many of our smaller clubs — they were having praise heaped on them for the work that they were doing for the industry.

But when the cup of coffee came the following morning there was no praise coming out of the board. It was cutthroat. They were being patted on their backs with one hand and having their heads lopped off with the other hand. It was an amazing course of action that was taken by the board of Harness Racing Victoria, to effectively end TAB meetings at the seven clubs, which include Wangaratta, Hamilton, Ouyen, Boort, Wedderburn, St Arnaud and Gunbower.

It has also created an absolutely intolerable situation at Ararat and Stawell, where it has said over a three-year period, ‘You guys can work out yourselves which one of your towns will miss out on TAB meetings in the future’. It will simply leave these two communities, both with a significant investment in the harness racing



industry and significant assets at their disposal, to fight each other about which one will go forward in the harness racing world and which one will have its facilities die off. It has also created a situation at Nyah, where there is uncertainty about whether it is going to rebuild at Nyah itself or whether it is going to relocate away from that small community and put the harness racing track at Swan Hill. That has also divided the community there, with various people taking each side of the argument, creating further bad blood.

We have the situation where these clubs have been threatened and ordered to simply hand over their race day meetings. This happened in early March. They were told, ‘By 30 June there will be no more racing at your clubs. You will have your last meetings between early March and 30 June, and post 30 June the races can still be in your name but you will have to race at a nearby neighbouring town or city’. In the case of Ouyen they will have to travel more than an hour to Mildura, and as Mr Koch said, in the case of Hamilton they are being forced to travel to both Terang and Horsham, trips which also take in excess of an hour.

If you look at the geographical map of Victoria before V3 and post V3 you will see that the exclusion of Hamilton from TAB meetings leaves a gigantic hole in that whole south-west corner of the state of Victoria. People involved in the harness racing industry do not have to travel just an extra hour. A lot of them have already been coming across the South Australian border and travelling for 2 or 21⁄2 hours; now they have to travel for 3 or 31⁄2 hours, race for the day, and turn around and go home.

The lack of commonsense associated with just the geographical planning associated with V3 beggars belief. A similar situation occurs with Ouyen, which is geographically located on the thoroughfare from Sydney through to the Adelaide transport route. It is an important location which caters for that north-western part of Victoria. That will also miss out, and that will certainly make it a lot harder for people in that region to continue their involvement in the sport of harness racing.

I turn to the justification. All the key performance indicators of harness racing were looking promising. Why would the board want to cut the heads off seven clubs that are doing very well and not causing any trouble? The justification came back from the board that the decision had been based around substandard track conditions and problems with occupational health and safety (OHS) issues surrounding the tracks. The simple fact is that there is some semblance of truth that we have OHS issues with some of these tracks. But we

have had that argument blown out of the water, because some of the clubs — particularly Ouyen and also Wangaratta, and to some extent Wedderburn — have simply said, ‘We will fix our tracks and do whatever it takes to get past OHS and any industry standard. We will fix them. We are not interested in getting money out of HRV if it means saving TAB meetings at our tracks’. Obviously the answer that came back from Harness Racing Victoria was, ‘We don’t care about what you do; you are no longer going to have TAB meetings’.

It is worth recounting the fact that initially the Minister for Racing was very loath to get involved. I have no problem saying that in those early three months we were fighting this battle alone. There was Mr Koch, and Mr Delahunty and Mr Walsh in the other place — a few of us on the opposition back benches were fighting very hard for this issue to be brought to the fore. The minister did not want to get involved for various reasons. But as critical as we were then of the minister’s actions, we are positive and would like to praise the minister for at least now taking this issue on board. Since the minister has become involved the issue now seems to be heading in a positive direction.

There is still a lot of water to go underneath the bridge if we are to bring TAB meetings back to these clubs, but we believe we have turned the corner and have finally got people in government to understand the importance of the whole racing industry — not just harness racing, but in this particular case harness racing — to the respective towns in regional Victoria. It has an enormous impact on their financial as well as social benefits. Many of our racing clubs in regional Victoria are linked to other sporting organisations, support groups, and service groups such as Lions and Rotary clubs, which make a fair amount of their income by the work they do at the races. Then they take that money and put it back into the community with a whole range of other community projects, and around and around it goes. But we need a strong racing industry to start the merry-go-round.

A justification fact sheet was sent out to various members in Victoria. This is the fact sheet that Harness Racing Victoria used to decide which of the seven clubs was to lose its TAB meetings. The amount of factual flaws that are in the fact sheet is absolutely staggering. It did not even have the populations of the respective towns correct. The chairman made comments such as, ‘St Arnaud will lose its races to Charlton because Charlton is a much bigger place’, and, ‘Half as many people again live in St Arnaud as those who live in Charlton’. It had the population of Shepparton being bigger than the population of Geelong. The whole fact



sheet is clearly flawed. If that is the type of information that Harness Racing Victoria has used to implement V3, then God help harness racing in Victoria. We really do have a problem.

The harness racing issue with V3 is now in the hands of the minister, and a lot of work needs to be done by the minister to bring harness racing back from the smaller clubs. We need the minister to be very clear in pointing out a way forward for those smaller clubs.

Mr SCHEFFER (Monash) — The performance of Victorian racing is second to none right across the country, and under the Bracks government this performance has strengthened enormously. Racing is not only of economic importance in the state; it is also of great historical and cultural significance and it has very firm links with the tourism industry.

The racing industry is a large employer in Melbourne and in regional Victoria. The transcript of the appearance of the Minister for Racing in the other place before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in June is very instructive. The Chair directly asked the minister:

Could you —

the minister —

give us some detail of what the economic impact of the racing industry over the last 12 months was …?

The minister replied that Victoria has one of the best racing products in the world. He said that Victoria ranked as one of the four best racing industries right across the globe. In his contribution earlier Mr Pullen referred to his recent trip to Ireland and France as a member of the Economic Development Committee; he said the racing industry in Victoria was widely acclaimed.

The minister said that racing is a $2 billion industry providing about 60 000 jobs and that the majority of these are in regional Victoria. At the PAEC Minister Pandazopoulos also said that after the Australian Football League, racing is the second-biggest sport and includes some 2 million Victorians out of a national participation of around 5 million. Minister Pandazopoulos also told the PAEC last month that the Spring Racing Carnival is at the centrepiece of the industry and that that event was very big for tourism.

How big is it? It is valued at $467 million — that is, just short of half a billion dollars; it attracts 25 000 international and 75 000 interstate visitors to Victoria. This makes it the biggest tourism event in the state. The Spring Racing Carnival involves more than

the metropolitan tracks. Finally, Minister Pandazopoulos said that the economic benefits extend to fashion spending, with the sale of some 49 000 hats, 42 000 pairs of shoes and nearly 27 000 handbags — totalling $16 million. That is astonishing!

There can be no mistake: the racing industry is buoyant and contributes hugely to the Victorian economy. How can the opposition assert — actually I do not think it argued it this morning — in its motion that the Bracks government has failed to capitalise on the potential of the racing industry? From a reading of the PAEC transcript I cannot see that the opposition members of the committee took the minister to task on matters raised by the opposition in this debate this morning.

The minister was not asked to explain why he is failing to capitalise on the potential of the racing industry, especially with regard to tourism and regional economic growth. The member for Box Hill in the other place asked whether the government supported Harness Racing Victoria’s V2 strategy and appeared to accept the minister’s answers, as there was no follow-up questioning. Mr Rich-Phillips asked the minister about the impact on the racing industry of the government’s new $3000 tax on gaming machines. He wanted to know whether the government would provide additional compensation to the racing industry to make up for the cost to the industry of the implementation of the new tax. He also did not pursue this line of questioning and did not raise matters that the opposition now says went to the government’s failure to capitalise on the potential of the racing industry in tourism and rural economic growth.

Earlier this month the Minister for Racing announced a new way forward for regional harness racing. He said he has met with clubs, representatives of local government, the Office of Racing, Regional Development Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria’s own process for implementing the V3 plan showing that there was a need for a better governance model, and that reflects the views of the industry. He said it importantly recognises regional interests. Minister Pandazopoulos says that he is looking at implementing a new governance structure which includes proper checks and balances to protect regional areas as well as the industry as a whole. The minister is clearly leading constructive changes that will strengthen the industry and build rural community involvement in the use of Harness Racing Victoria facilities for community benefit.

More broadly, the government and the Minister for Racing have been consistently and practically supportive of country racing. Late last year an



economic benefit study commissioned by Racing Victoria showed that country racing events had attracted increased attendances. The study instanced the Seymour Cup, which saw a 32 per cent increase on the previous year in people going through the gates. Mornington’s Spring Peninsula Cup Day had an increase of nearly 100 per cent in attendance and Geelong had an all-time record in wagering turnover. At that time last year, after the Spring Racing Carnival, the minister said that this increase in patronage had significant benefits for tourism with all the associated spending on accommodation, restaurants and activities for tourists visiting rural Victoria.

The 2004 Spring Racing Carnival generated some 700 jobs in regional Victoria. The minister said that last year country race meetings contributed more than $920 million to rural Victoria and attracted 600 000 spectators. Looking back to 2003, we see the same kind of data. Consequently it is very hard to see how the opposition can seriously claim that the government is failing to capitalise on the potential of the racing industry, particularly as it affects tourism and regional economic growth.

Over the last five years the government has invested over $5 million in country racing. There has been a 13 per cent increase in attendance over the past three years and as I just stated, over 600 000 spectators attend race meetings each year. I believe 65 per cent of the direct jobs created through thoroughbred racing in Victoria were in regional Victoria and country racing creates well over 10 000 jobs in breeding, race clubs and the wagering industry; 75 per cent of thoroughbred racehorses trained in Victoria are trained in rural Victoria — it is probably obvious that you would not be training them in Monash Province, I expect. The number of owners and breeders living in regional Victoria is higher than the number in Melbourne. This industry has heavily invested in regional Victoria but these benefits have their roots in the government’s policy commitments that were presented to voters during the election campaigns.

Under the government’s racing policy, Victorian Labor recognised the role the racing industry plays in both the Victorian economy and in the state’s social and cultural life. Heritage is also important both in the customs and traditions of generations of racegoers and in the buildings and gardens that make racetracks, such as the Caulfield racetrack in my electorate of Monash Province, such fantastically charged places.

My family on my partner’s side, the Cunninghams, have an historic and unbroken relationship with the Werribee racetrack, which they quite literally regard as

holy ground. Their ancestors built it with their own hands and right down to the present day it is a special place for them, where family reunions and major events are held. I am sure there are similar stories and relationships that people all over the state have with local racetracks and racecourses.

Returning to the government’s policy, after recognising the importance of the economic, social and cultural aspects of racing in Victoria, the policy places regional race clubs right up front as important community institutions that perform a much wider role than can be measured simply by looking at economics. The policy and the election commitments oblige the government in its second term to extend the Living Country Racing program, which it introduced in its first term. The program provides funding to country racing clubs for minor capital works that improve local racing venues and encourage communities to see their racecourses as communal assets.

Mr Pullen pulled out a few examples of that funding and how useful it has been across Victoria. A number of those grants went to Mr Koch’s electorate as well. The range of the grants range from a maximum of $50 000 down to about $600, and as with other small grants programs that the government has implemented in other portfolios, they show that even small grants can go a long way and make a big difference to local groups that have particular expenditure issues.

The Bracks government and the three racing codes have worked together to establish the Racing Community Development Fund. It supports a range of industry development and welfare projects to benefit participants in the industry. As Mr Pullen indicated earlier, since 2000 the government has invested some $20 million to make sure Victoria holds its pre-eminent position amongst the states.

The government also promised to amend the Racing Act to ensure that racing stakeholders in the harness and greyhound codes are adequately consulted by their governing bodies. This has been done, and Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria are currently finalising their internal consultation processes.

The government is committed to make sure that the industry is able to manage and deal with any outbreaks of equine disease. As mentioned earlier, the government has developed Horse Alert Victoria, a plan aimed at maximising the protection against equine disease. The plan was developed and is being implemented in conjunction with all key stakeholders. The state emergency coordination centre has developed Exercise Pegasus, a desktop simulation exercise to deal



with an emergency equine disease outbreak. Exercise Pegasus was run by Biosecurity Victoria, a division of the Department of Primary Industries in collaboration with the racing industry and the Department of Justice, and it was designed to test the plan.

Members of the house do not need reminding, but it is important to state on the record that the potential impact of an equine disease outbreak cannot be underestimated in terms of its risk to human beings and the health of horses. The impact of such a disease outbreak upon the economics of the racing and related industries would be very serious.

I have no hesitation in endorsing and supporting the fantastic work that the state government has done in the area of racing, tourism and regional economic development in Victoria. I certainly do not support the motion of the opposition.

Hon. W. A. LOVELL (North Eastern) — I would like to congratulate my colleague, David Koch, on bringing before the house this motion that condemns the state government for failing to effectively capitalise on the potential of the Victorian racing industry, particularly in the areas of tourism and rural economic growth.

I will restrict my comments to Harness Racing Victoria’s decision to shut down harness racing at seven rural and regional harness racing tracks in country Victoria — at Boort, Gunbower, Hamilton, Ouyen, St Arnaud, Wangaratta and Wedderburn — two of which are in my electorate, and six of which are in the new region, which representation I intend to contest at the 2006 state election. I will also make some comments about greyhound racing in Shepparton.

The Bracks government came to power on the back of country Victoria with a promise to support rural communities. All the government has done is attack rural communities. This was demonstrated recently at the country voice rally held on the steps of Parliament House, when country Victorians came in their thousands to protest against the Bracks government’s decision to ban alpine grazing. The government’s decision to dump Melbourne’s toxic waste in country Victoria, its policies with the white paper on water, the native vegetation laws, wind farms, the working-with-children laws, the locking up of land in country Victoria’s national parks that restricts economic development and recreational activities in country Victoria, and many other issues that the Bracks government has implemented, have impacted negatively on country communities.

Now we have this latest attack on seven small country communities. As I said, a decision has been made to close down harness racing tracks in Boort, Gunbower, Hamilton, Ouyen, St Arnaud, Wangaratta and Wedderburn, and there is to be a further closure in the next three years. It was a nice gesture by the government to allow Ararat and Stawell to work out between them which one of their tracks will close down. Not only will this decision close down tracks in country Victoria, it will also close down harness racing clubs. All of this has been done without any consultation by the Bracks Labor government with these local communities. This is an incredibly short-sighted decision that will cost jobs and damage local economies in rural and regional Victoria. In these communities harness racing provides jobs for trainers, feed suppliers, stable hands, veterinarians and track managers, as well as providing many opportunities for local charities to raise funds on race days. An example of this is in Gunbower, where the cricket club runs the bar and the angling club runs the catering. This generates important revenue, which will be lost to those two clubs in Gunbower.

Country communities will also suffer the loss of major sponsorship and tourism dollars. This will be a major blow to the already struggling rural communities in those regions. If the Bracks government actually cared about the seven rural communities and cared at all about jobs, economic development and quality of life in country Victoria, it would have immediately stepped in and put a halt to this decision, which is really a wholesale destruction of harness racing in country Victoria. Instead of using his powers to halt this decision, the Minister for Racing in the other place has used smoke and mirrors to appear to support the communities by announcing that he is looking at implementing a new governance structure for harness racing that will supposedly give clubs a greater say in the development of the sport.

The words ‘looking at’ do not give us any great hope that that will actually happen. At the same time Harness Racing Victoria is pushing ahead with the implementation of the V3 strategy that was the cause of these closures. So the seven clubs will almost certainly lose all of their home meetings for 2006 to larger regional centres, and there is also no guarantee that harness racing will ever return to these seven country Victorian tracks.

My colleague David Koch also spoke at length about the new greyhound racing track at Shepparton. This is to be a state-of-the-art facility, a showcase facility for greyhound racing in Victoria. But what has Greyhound Racing Victoria done? It has recently dealt a severe



blow to the Shepparton Greyhound Racing Club by announcing that it will strip Shepparton of its traditional Monday night timeslot. Instead it will be allocating the Shepparton club a twilight spot of a Monday night. Twilight meetings are widely considered the black hole of betting, because they start at 4.39 p.m. — a timeslot that prevents many people from attending the track, making it very difficult to attract crowds to those greyhound racing events. This move to twilight spots has raised concerns about the future of greyhound racing in central and north-east Victoria, with the area’s three clubs — at Shepparton, Wangaratta and Bendigo — all having race meetings scheduled in the twilight timeslot. There is real concern that this will restrict the ability for people to participate in greyhound racing in country Victoria, and we may lose greyhound racing in the region forever. This has been a city-centric decision that has denied Victorians the opportunity to participate in a night-time race slot for greyhound racing.

Again I would like to congratulate David Koch on his contribution, and for bringing this important motion before the house today. I condemn the Bracks government for failing to support country communities and failing to live up to its election platforms of 1999 and 2002 when it promised country Victoria the world. It has delivered nothing at all.

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — I welcome the opportunity to speak against the opposition’s motion and applaud the Minister for Racing, the Honourable John Pandazopoulos in the other place, for the very active and energetic way in which he has supported the racing industry across Victoria in the last few years.

I rise to speak with some sense of irony associated with this particular contribution to the debate. I grew up in a family in which my father and subsequently my brothers have been and still are very keen on racing. When I was very young and growing up, of a Saturday the radio was always blaring, and I learnt to switch off. In fact the only race I managed to follow from beginning to end was the Melbourne Cup. Ours was a working-class family with one wage, five children and a father who gambled heavily on the racehorses and greyhounds. Consequently we were in poverty for many years.

I remember my father taking me on different occasions — not very many — to the showgrounds at Flemington to watch what were then called ‘the trots’, which I assume was harness racing. He took me on one particular occasion to Sandown to watch the greyhounds. As a child I found it quite exciting. But the excitement would begin to pall as I watched my father

lose considerable amounts of money which were very precious to the family. At that point I vowed never to go to those sorts of places again. So I speak this morning as a person who does not have a particularly rosy view of the racing industry.

But as we know these things are not black and white. Views can change and be modified over the years. In more recent times I have enjoyed a more relaxed attitude towards these events. My husband and I have taken interstate friends to the Hanging Rock picnic races on New Year’s Day; we have taken my mother and father to the same event; and we have recently even been to the Melbourne Cup. Whereas the focus for me is on the spectacle — on the beauty of the horses and the jockeys as they race — and on the social side connected to these events where the gambling emphasis is out of it, I certainly appreciate what the industry means to many others. I understand that the racing industry plays a very significant role in the events calendar in Victoria and in tourism. Certainly other members today have outlined the significance of the racing industry and its various codes in the life of certain communities, especially in many small towns in country Victoria. It is obviously the focus for many events and activities that help hold a small-town community together.

I do not have a detailed and active knowledge of the industry, but I have listened with interest to the various contributions members have made this morning, and I am interested in the suggestions made by those who know so much about the industry and the different codes. I take the point Mr Koch made about the potential for a greater involvement by local councils to assist the industry in country Victoria, and Mr Drum’s comments about the importance of the recently improved programs for the education and training of apprentices. That has been championed by the Bracks Labor government.

From what I have read and heard, I see that the racing industry in Victoria is thriving and growing. That is particularly the case for country racing. It is thriving and growing with strong support from the Bracks government and the current Minister for Racing in the other place, the Honourable John Pandazopoulos. Along with the government’s support for the industry we must acknowledge the huge contributions made by those who love and participate in the industry. Those who have listened to the debate this morning will have gleaned some sense of how important that industry is to many people in Victoria. From previous contributions this morning I am aware of how integrally the industry is tied to growth in tourism.



It has been a strategic action by the Bracks government to inject major support and resources into promoting tourism in country Victoria over the last few years and to align that promotion with country racing events. Therefore the comprehensive racing tourism plan that the government has embarked upon and is using to promote the industry is a very important injection of ideas and resources. Mr Scheffer drew the attention of the house to the minister’s response to questions from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee about the position of the industry and the contribution it makes in Victoria. He covered that very well. Minister Pandazopoulos emphasised in his presentation the importance the government places on securing the success and pre-eminence of Victorian racing in the long term, at both the national and international levels. One of the primary objectives of the government is to ensure the probity and integrity of racing in order to maintain a fundamental public confidence in racing in Victoria, thereby ensuring its economic and community contribution.

The Minister for Racing in the other place, Mr Pandazopoulos, put forward a range of achievements that the Bracks government lists for racing in Victoria over the 2004–05 year. These included $8 million over two years for the racing community development fund. This is a rebate of gaming machine levies back to the industry and these funds can be used to target key initiatives in the racing industry. Mr Pandazopoulos cited the Living Country Racing program, and other members have mentioned the importance of that program in providing well-targeted grassroots funding for minor capital works across the various clubs in Victoria.

The minister also talked about the continuing work he is engaged in with other ministers at a national level to get a fair return for Victorian racing from interstate and corporate bookies. He also talked about the legislation introduced by the Bracks government to ensure that racing remains free from the influence of crime. At a national level he talked about the investigation of practical solutions to threats posed by the advent of betting exchanges, and the participation by the Victorian government in simulation exercises on equine disease management. Along with the comprehensive racing tourism plan, they are some of the key achievements outlined by the minister to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC).

The minister then went on to put forward priorities for the coming financial year, 2005–06. These were to monitor the efforts of harness racing and greyhound racing as they implement stakeholder consultation; to review governance structures in the harness racing

sector — and from what we have heard here this morning it seems they are certainly needed: it is obvious that the V3 proposal was done without adequate consultation. That has prompted the minister to put in place a major review of governance structures to find a better resolution for those clubs that have had TAB race meetings taken away from them and to acknowledge the importance of their work in their local communities.

The minister also outlined a priority of working at local and national levels to support the efforts of our racing industry to gain a fair share of return from interstate and overseas bookies — again, that is an ongoing problem; to work to protect Victoria’s interests in the merger between Tabcorp and the TAB and to work with the racing industry to ensure adequate support for less-advantaged workers.

As I said at the outset, Mr Pandazopoulos has been a very active and energetic minister who has been very supportive of the industry. I do not believe he deserves to have a motion before the house this morning condemning the good work he has been doing over the past few years.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I feel a bit sorry for the Minister for Racing because in many ways he is one of the hardest-working members of the Bracks government ministry. I go to a lot of functions in my capacity as shadow minister for small business and for sport and recreation, and I am surprised at the number of times I see the minister attending those functions when his contemporaries in the cabinet are unable to attend, despite the fact that their portfolio responsibilities are more closely aligned with those functions.

It is a pity that Mr Pandazopoulos has needed to spread himself so thin and has not, perhaps, been able to keep a keen and important focus on his own portfolio in the context of working with the various organisations that deliver our racing product in Victoria. I understand the minister was shocked at the decision that harness racing clubs would be closed in seven country areas and would not host race meetings in the future. That was done by the racing association rather than by the minister’s intervention.

The minister should really not have been shocked. It ought not have been a bombshell to the minister because he ought to have been in ongoing discussions with that organisation and with all racing organisations to enable him to understand where their product is, what their directions are, how they see their future, what their plans are and how they might be integrated



with some of the government’s policy imperatives. This is particularly important given the significance of the racing industry to regional and rural Victoria and its role as a feeder from many of those tracks throughout Victoria to metropolitan courses and some of the international standard racing we have in Melbourne.

I did not have a chance to listen to the contribution by the Honourable Noel Pullen this morning because I was involved in another meeting, but he may well have made reference to the fact that he and I are involved, with the Honourable Ron Bowden, through the Economic Development Committee in an inquiry into some aspects of the racing industry. Last week Mr Pullen and I, as he would have no doubt reported, were in New Zealand meeting with people from its racing industry to discuss their approach to racing in terms of the governance issues that were touched on by a previous speaker, particularly issues related to breeding. Of course, in the context of Victoria’s racing industry that is a particularly pertinent debate at this time.

There is a general recognition throughout Australasia — and probably further afield, given the global focus of racing today, especially with European and South-East Asian races — that the racing product of Australia generally, but certainly of Melbourne, is world class. It really has one of the most dynamic and effective products in racing in the world.

It has integrity. The governance systems that we have had in place in this country have delivered integrity. It has been a very important industry. It has been important to Melbourne, and more importantly, it has been an important industry for many rural and regional communities, but I think there is a need for a wake-up call. The minister needs to stop shoring up some of his lazier colleagues in the shadow cabinet — sorry, in the cabinet; I wish they were in the shadow cabinet! — and focus particularly on his own portfolio and some of the issues that are related to that.

Some years ago before I entered Parliament I used to do some consultancy work on retailing throughout Victoria. One of the communities I visited for one of those projects was at Moe. I was doing some work for the former City of Moe looking into a number of things it could do to generate greater economic activity in its area. There is a racecourse in that town. It is a significant, good-quality racecourse. I visited the racecourse to talk about how it might be integrated with some of the activities in the city and in the Latrobe Valley more broadly and how it could be a catalyst for economic activity in that area. I was flabbergasted when I sat down with the manager of that racing club at

the time and he said to me, ‘Bruce, I would not care if not a single person came to my racetrack. I do not run races for people to visit the racetrack. In fact they are a problem to me because they create a mess which I have to clean up, and I have to have kiosks open to feed them and provide them with drinks and so forth. I need other people on the course to look after them; I have to employ gatekeepers and so forth. I would be quite happy if none of them came, because all my money comes from electronic gaming anyway. The greater proportion of my money comes from the TAB, so really all I need to do is run horses around the track. If I could do that, I would be much better off’.

That was probably an exaggerated view in the Victorian context. It is also a view that must be put in a time context. I hasten to add that it was in the late 1980s. However, there is still at least a semblance of that attitude, and it varies from club to club and region to region. The position is that they believe they can be fairly laissez faire in the way they run their meetings and the approach they take to the racing product because Tabcorp will step in and provide the resources they need to maintain their clubs in the future. That is a very foolish approach to take. I hope the minister will be working with the industry to ensure that more clubs spend a lot more time looking at how they might work with their local communities to expand the economic development and tourism opportunities that are available to them. I am not sure that the minister has at this stage shown that degree of interest in this industry.

Other speakers have spoken about the economics of this industry and the number of people involved and have said it is substantial. This is a very important industry for Victoria, particularly for rural and regional Victoria. But what we need to do is make sure that we do better and that the public policy framework that we have to support this industry is a lot more dynamic so that the minister does not come to a point where he is shocked when one of the racing associations makes a decision. Frankly he ought to have been involved in a dialogue with them over an extended period of time. The clubs that were targeted by that association on this occasion ought to have been part of a consultation process, of a real dialogue process, rather than being hit with a decision that was made externally without any proper notice.

Others have mentioned participation rates and how successful the racing industry is, but the reality is that this industry is facing some significant challenges, and there is no doubt that the rate of people participating in racing is declining overall. However, it is being masked by our very successful Spring Racing Carnival. Every year the Spring Racing Carnival posts a record number



of people. It is very successful and is a showcase event for Melbourne internationally. But the problem with that event is that it is masking the situation of other race meetings throughout the year showing a fall in attendances. There are even some real issues about the age demographic of the people who are supporting racing at this point in time. Not enough young people are being attracted to racing.

Whilst I share the views of Ms Romanes about the need to be a little careful in promoting an industry in the context of heavy gambling, there is a lot more to recommend racing and the racing product that we have in Victoria than simply the wager. Other members in this debate have certainly alluded to that. What we need to do is work with people to recognise how these meetings can contribute much more to their local communities in economic development terms, and the government’s policy settings, particularly in terms of its tourism promotion, need to be improved to that extent.

If I were looking at running some of these events, the marketer in me would think it is crazy for all these people to turn up to the Spring Racing Carnival and go away afterwards and say, ‘Gee, we had a good time’ without there being an attempt by the racing codes to benefit from these feature events, be it the Spring Racing Carnival for the thoroughbred industry or some of the other major events in trotting — or harness racing, as we usually refer to it these days — by bringing the people back on other occasions. If I were running the Victoria Racing Club, I would be giving out vouchers particularly to those young people coming through the gates during the spring carnival to encourage them to come back in the autumn with offers of no charge to get into the racetrack or free drinks or by suggesting they can do this or that. We should encourage them to come back at other times and show a greater interest in the sport.

Indeed there are those involved in racing who are purists and stay away from some of the feature events of the Spring Racing Carnival because they do not believe the racing is as good as at other times of year. So there is every reason to bring people back for the experience at other times and to perhaps give people the incentive to go out to some of the rural and regional race meetings. No doubt many of us have been to picnic race meetings. The last one I attended was at Alexandria, and it was a fabulous day. The local Rotary club and so many other volunteers in the community got behind that meeting. It was a fabulous day. That is repeated week in and week out right throughout Victoria with the many race meetings in smaller towns.

We probably need to look at the facilities across Victoria; I am sure many of the racing clubs themselves recognise that as an imperative, but we do not need it to be happening from decisions on high. What we need to do is have a proper and thorough evaluation of the importance of racing in local communities. We need to have the minister very much involved with the associations delivering racing, including harness racing and greyhound racing. The minister needs to be involved in a direct dialogue with them to ascertain how they might be supported, encouraged and assisted to provide better product and, more importantly, how we can realise greater opportunities for Victoria, particularly for rural and regional communities.

This is a fabulous industry. It is an industry that is so rich in folklore. Last week the Honourable Noel Pullen and I heard a number of stories in New Zealand. It is exciting stuff. It is the sort of thing that really fires the imagination; it is full of the folklore about the shot of pure luck versus the science.

Hon. E. G. Stoney — The sport of kings!

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON — It is the sport of kings. It is an interesting aspect, not only at our racing carnival here but right around the world, that you can have everybody from royalty down to battlers at a racecourse, at the same venue and at the same time hoping for exactly the same outcome, backing the same horses. It is a sport that can unite communities. We go back to some of those famous photos of Phar Lap and the crowds that used to turn out to support that champion. Indeed there have been many champions since then that people have supported.

I think the Economic Development Committee’s report will be an important one. I hope it will make a strong contribution to public policy in terms of advancing the racing industry here in Victoria. I think the sort of evidence we have heard is certainly that the racing product is good and is world class. But to make sure we sustain that world-class racing product we need to do some work on the other side of the ledger, particularly in breeding and so forth. From my point of view we need to do a lot more to ensure the racing product that is provided in country areas and throughout rural and regional race tracks is also of a high standard and increasingly reaches out into the community and provides an opportunity to realise much greater economic benefits. To that extent I think the government has not at this point done enough and the minister needs to pay more attention to it.



The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J. G.

Hilton) — Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — In the few minutes that are left for this debate I would also like to say a few words on the potential of the Victorian racing industry. I shall particularly focus on the areas of tourism and real economic growth, where I think some opportunities have been missed.

I have listened to most of this debate this morning. I listened to Mr Koch very carefully. He said that the Victoria racing industry is ranked among the top five racing industries in the world. That is very high. We know there are a lot of racing countries in the world. No doubt I could name Ireland, England and the United States of America et cetera, and to be ranked in the top five in the world is fantastic.

Australia is a major force in world thoroughbred breeding and racing, producing over 16 per cent of the world’s foals. In this regard it is ranked second only to the United States of America. The racing codes bring $3.3 billion into the Victorian economy and oncourse attendances exceed 3 million people each year. That does not actually surprise me, because I go to lots of races, especially in rural Victoria. As has been mentioned attendances at Casterton, Hamilton, Edenhope and Avoca race meetings are fantastic places to be. A town may have a population of 300 or 400 people, but on racing day you get 4000, 5000 or 6000 people turning up. They are fantastic events and fantastic days for the community.

Patrons oncourse, especially in rural and regional Victoria, represent all sections of industry. We know that. As has been mentioned people come to races wearing their top hats and bow ties, and then you have the ordinary punter from just down the road — everybody mixes and they have a great day together. Especially on race days the ladies get dressed up and we have fashion on the field competitions, which are always interesting to watch. They are part of the highlights, I must admit. I have actually judged a few of these myself. I have been asked to judge fashions on the field — and I think I do a very good job of it actually!

There are 64 000 full or part-time jobs in the racing industry in Victoria. It involves 36 000 owners collectively, and they spend around $350 million per annum. Last year I was a part owner of a racehorse called Poltergeist. I reckon I would be one of the few people who had an interest in a racehorse for 12 months who actually came out in front after that period. I got out of ownership because I realised then — I did not

realise when I got into it — that it is an expensive hobby to have a racehorse. Having a racehorse costs about $1000 to $1200 per month for training, feed, veterinary bills and the like. I did not know racehorses needed to see a vet so often, but they do, and they are all very expensive. If you are part owner of a racehorse it is much more exciting to be at the race track. There is nothing like having your horse running in a race. As I said I was one of the lucky ones. It won twice in the one year that we had it, and both times at 22 to 1, so it was very exciting.

The racing industry of Victoria, especially south-western Victoria, is very important. A lot of horse breeding and so forth goes on there. I notice that next week cabinet will actually meet in Glenormiston, in the south-west. At the moment Glenormiston college is under threat of closure because the state government has decided to move its vet courses out of Glenormiston, Longerenong, et cetera. That means this college could be sitting there empty. It is on about 400 or 500 acres. It is a beautiful spot. It would be fantastic if in conjunction with the vet courses they could have a horse stud there. A couple of years ago I was in Ireland and visited the Irish horse stud, which the Irish government gets very involved in. It is a fantastic facility. The Glenormiston one could actually match that. It is on beautiful, fertile land. It is volcanic country. It has irrigation. It is a beautiful spot. The courses being taught at Glenormiston at the moment are mainly horse courses, so the potential is there to do something really fantastic for the whole of Victoria. I hope that when cabinet meets at Glenormiston next week they will have a good look at the potential of that facility because it should not be just lost to us all.

I conclude by saying I was disappointed with Harness Racing Victoria’s closure of rural Victorian race tracks in Hamilton, St Arnaud, Charlton, Wedderburn, Boort, Gunbower, Wangaratta, Ouyen and Warrnambool. I am pleased to see the minister has become involved, probably a bit too late, because they will be closed now for 12 months. I hope they will be reopened because these sorts of facilities are so important for rural towns and rural communities.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J. G. Hilton) — Order! The time for debate on the motion has expired. I ask Mr Koch if he wishes to exercise his right of reply.

Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — I would just like to thank Ms Lovell, Mr Atkinson, Mr Vogels, Mr Drum, Mr Pullen, Mr Scheffer and Ms Romanes for their contributions to the debate this morning. Interestingly, I actually think this motion has quite

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR


some value, but in saying that I must say I found some of Mr Pullen’s comments a little disconcerting. The fact that he was happy to gloat on the stand-still position worried me a little, because I think a lot of new initiatives could have been introduced. In regard to his comment that Harness Racing Victoria has not made too many errors, I think he must recognise HRV is a statutory body at the end of the day. It should be aligning itself with the government platform, which is in support of smaller rural communities. They are just a couple of areas in answer to Pullen’s comments.

Mr Drum certainly recognised the further opportunity of growing tourism and business in regional Victoria. I appreciate his contribution as a member of this house who is very close to is own community and to small rural communities.

I got the feeling from Mr Scheffer that the government, and the government alone, has built the racing industry. In actual fact the history of the racing industry is long, and it has been well managed over a good number of years. I think those at the forefront of the racing industry should be congratulated a little more for their efforts.

Ms Romanes backgrounded her situation and her time on the track at an earlier stage. Beyond the initiatives of the Living Country Racing program, our three codes should also have been acknowledged.

Ms Lovell demonstrated her concerns with race meeting times in the greyhound industry, especially at Shepparton, where rescheduling is not allowing patron participation. She also cited the obvious concern about the industry’s succession.

Mr Atkinson expressed his concerns about what had come to play over recent years, where there was a dependability of the racing industry on the screen, and he saw many other benefits through both local government supporting the growth of business in regional Victoria and the use of tourism advantages yet to be further extended. Mr Atkinson also indicated to us that he looked forward to the Economic Development Committee’s report when it is presented to see where that might also assist in growing business and tourism opportunities in regional Victoria.

Mr Vogels, in rounding out our debate this morning, expressed the excitement of being involved in ownership in the racing industry, and more importantly demonstrated the advantages that the racing industry and tourism could gain out of further developing the equine facilities at Glenormiston at this stage.

I thank everyone who made a contribution and, I look forward to members supporting this motion. Our racing and tourism industries make very big contributions to regional Victoria, which is why we are concerned that the government is not drawing on all the advantages that these opportunities offer. With those few words I look forward to members support of this motion.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 18 Atkinson, Mr Forwood, Mr (Teller) Baxter, Mr Hadden, Ms Bowden, Mr Hall, Mr Brideson, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Lovell, Ms Dalla-Riva, Mr Olexander, Mr Davis, Mr D. McL.(Teller) Rich-Phillips, Mr Davis, Mr P. R. Stoney, Mr Drum, Mr Vogels, Mr

Noes, 21 Argondizzo, Ms Mikakos, Ms Broad, Ms Mitchell, Mr Buckingham, Ms Nguyen, Mr Carbines, Ms Pullen, Mr Darveniza, Ms (Teller) Romanes, Ms Eren, Mr (Teller) Scheffer, Mr Hilton, Mr Somyurek, Mr Hirsh, Ms Theophanous, Mr Jennings, Mr Thomson, Ms Lenders, Mr Viney, Mr McQuilten, Mr

Pair Bishop, Mr Madden, Mr Motion negatived.

Sitting suspended 1.05 p.m. until 2.08 p.m.

RULINGS BY THE CHAIR

Members: speaking time

The PRESIDENT — Order! I wish to clarify to the house the position in relation to the effect of points of order, quorum calls and other interruptions on a member’s speaking time. Where a member’s speaking time prescribed under the standing or sessional orders is 5 minutes or less and a point of order is raised and is being determined or a quorum is called or other interruption occurs, the clock will be stopped to ensure that that member’s individual time is preserved.

However, where there are overall time limits for debates prescribed under standing or sessional orders, the clock will not be stopped and the overall time will continue to count down, irrespective of the time taken



for dealing with those points of order, quorum calls and other interruptions. An example is general business, which we had this morning and which we know is scheduled for 2 hours 55 minutes. This ruling also applies to questions without notice, supplementary questions, 90-second statements and adjournment debate speeches.

I hope that clarifies the situation for the house. If I believe members are abusing this ruling and if I believe it is necessary, I will direct the clerks to restart the clock.


Melbourne Health: financial responsibility

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, Mr Lenders. Melbourne Health, which contains Victoria’s second-largest hospital, the Royal Melbourne Hospital, has overspent $20 million of fictitious ‘accrued revenue’. What steps has the minister, as Minister for Finance, taken to investigate the associated fraud and to ensure that no other Victorian government authority makes such a devastating blunder?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I always welcome the Honourable David Davis rising to his feet in this place. As Mr Davis knows, specific responsibility for that medical institution is in the purview of the Minister for Health, and so the specifics of what Mr Davis asks would have more appropriately been put on notice for the Minister for Health.

In general terms of responsibility for these particular areas, as the Honourable David Davis would know, we have financial directions which are the responsibility of the Minister for Finance which set requirements for all government departments and agencies to follow on a range of these areas. In those directions are a large number of specific items that are requirements either for the chief executive officer, the organisation, the audit committee or a range of other parts in those organisations which are required to be done. There is also a responsibility, when the Auditor-General makes comments on any of these areas, upon me as the Minister for Finance at the end of a financial year to actually do a sweeping, all-encompassing report to this Parliament so that every recommendation of the Auditor-General is formally responded to by the Minister for Finance on behalf of the entire government.

In response to Mr Davis, the action that I will take is to ensure that we keep the financial directions up to date.

Hon. Bill Forwood — You condone this behaviour, don’t you?

Mr LENDERS — Mr Forwood scoffs at this, President.

Hon. Bill Forwood — At you!

Mr LENDERS — Something as large as the government of Victoria, with $30 billion in its budget, needs to have the most rigorous systems in place, unlike the Kennett government which nobbled the Auditor-General and had no care or worry about the role of this Parliament.


The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Forwood will stop interjecting.

Mr LENDERS — President, it is interesting that interjections are made by a former chairman of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, who was a tool of the executive government as parliamentary secretary to the Premier while chairing that watchdog body, which just goes to show — —


The PRESIDENT — Order!

Mr LENDERS — This government would not in a pink fit ask Ms Darveniza to chair this committee, because she is a parliamentary secretary — —


The PRESIDENT — Order! I am sure the minister would like his answer recorded in Hansard, but the interjections and noise in the chamber make it impossible. I ask members to desist and the minister to wind up his answer.

Mr LENDERS — As much as Ms Darveniza would absolutely outshine members opposite with her ability, we would never — —

Honourable members interjecting

The PRESIDENT — Order! I just sat down from asking members to stop interjecting. I particularly ask Mr Forwood to desist. If I hear him interjecting again, I will use sessional orders to remove him from the chamber. There is no innocent party here — all members have been interjecting. I ask members to stop interjecting and to behave themselves.



Mr LENDERS — This government, on a material

issue, has instituted changes to the Audit Act and has made sure that every report of the newly empowered Auditor-General is considered by government and by this Parliament. I, as Minister for Finance, have a responsibility to report to this Parliament on the outcomes. We have a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee chaired by an independent member of this Parliament who is not part of the executive. That committee deals with and listens to every individual minister. The Premier and all 19 of his ministers appear before that committee and are accountable.

The long and the short of it is: what are we doing? We have a far more vigorous regime in place. We have audit committees in all of these organisations which report. We have financial directions that deal with a whole lot of standards and obligations we expect of every single statutory authority, every single government department. Out of all of that we have a far better compliance regime. When things go bad in that, we have a far better regime to deal with them, and we will address them as they arise.


Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I take it from the minister’s answer that he has done nothing to deal with the accrued issues at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. A $20 million accounting fraud and the Minister for Finance has not responded! This is like the Cain and Kirner governments with their shonky, funny money approach to accountancy. I notice that the minister does say he will keep the financial directions up to date. I would have thought that keeping the financial directions up to date would have been the absolute minimum. However, the fact is that $20 million has not been properly accounted for, it has been maladministered. Given that the department receives monthly accounts from Melbourne Health, what systems does the minister require to be put in place, will he ensure that no such incidents ever occur again by changing the financial directions, and finally, when will the minister change the financial directions?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — As amusing as it for members on this side to watch the Honourable David Davis’s theatrics, members on this side and anyone who listened to my response to Mr Davis’s original question would know that I answered the question in full. This Parliament and this community can be absolutely confident that this government has, in a proactive fashion that would make the Kennett government blush with envy, put in place a sound regime that provides them with great confidence.

Hon. D. McL. Davis interjected.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mr Davis!

Mr LENDERS — The only person in this community who does not think so is Mr Davis, who likes listening to his own voice. He does not listen to the answers but huffs and puffs until he thinks he will blow the house down.

Energy: nuclear power

Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — My question is to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. Given recent statements by the federal government seeking to open a debate on the possible use of nuclear power in Australia, can the minister inform the house of what action the Bracks government is taking to advise the community of the implications of the use of nuclear energy in Victoria?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in this important area. Observers of federal politics will have noticed in recent times that nuclear energy has had a number of coalition ministers and backbenchers saying curious things like, ‘We need a debate’. That includes the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Ian Campbell, and even the Prime Minister. The federal government has gone to the extent of setting up a backbench committee to develop propositions or plans for nuclear energy in Australia.

The Victorian government does not support the development of nuclear energy for Victoria. It is important for people to understand why and for us to put the facts before the people. There is no community support for nuclear energy in Victoria, or I believe in Australia. That is because there are a few minor environmental issues that have been forgotten by the Liberal Party in its haste to support nuclear energy. They include the very serious problem of the disposal of nuclear waste, the question of how a nuclear power station would operate, where it would be located in Victoria if there were to be one, and what to do with the nuclear power stations once they have come to the end of their operating lives.

To take one of those, nuclear waste, I do not know whether people understand, but nuclear waste is currently stored in large pools in what is called wet storage. It has to stay in those pools and be monitored for many years before we can even consider how it can be stabilised and safely stored for potentially thousands of years. These are very serious issues. Even if one



were to go past those issues, let me point out two other problems. The first is that the current usage of nuclear power operates on the basis of about 2 per cent efficiency. That would mean that within 60 years the whole of the known uranium deposits in the world would have been depleted. There is a huge push to go to what is called breeder reactors, which produce weapons-grade waste in their operation, with all the dangers that involves, to increase that efficiency.

I will be releasing some figures today as to the costs of nuclear energy. According to the figures that have been provided to me, a new brown coal generator would cost in the vicinity of $35 a megawatt hour. It would cost up to $51 a megawatt hour to produce electricity from gas. The cost of nuclear power is up to $80 a megawatt hour. That means that, if the Liberal proposal to bring in nuclear power were to come into play, we could potentially have Victorian consumers paying double what they currently pay. I call on the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Robert Doyle, to reject the federal Liberal plan for nuclear energy and to instead push to have the federal government back Victoria’s vision for a clean coal future for the Latrobe Valley and this state.

Hume: councillor

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — I direct my question without notice to Ms Broad, the Minister for Local Government. In February of this year I lodged a complaint about the alleged activities of Cr Mohamad Abbouche of Hume City Council involving Cr Abbouche accepting a payment of $5000 from a developer in that municipality, not declaring said money and voting on a planning scheme amendment in favour of the same developer. Following the minister’s appointment of an inspector of municipal administration to investigate these allegations I ask: has this investigation been completed and made available to the minister or her department?

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — In response, the Bracks government believes that elected representatives at all levels of government should exhibit the highest standards of integrity. That is why, as the member well knows, I have appointed an inspector of municipal administration to investigate this matter. I have not as yet received the report from that inspector. I understand it is very close to being provided to me. As soon as I receive it I will deal with it as a matter of high priority.


Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — Will the minister be tabling that report in Parliament?

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — In response to the member’s question, it is my practice to seek advice from my department once I receive an inspector’s report as to the material covered in that report and whether on legal advice it warrants the protection of Parliament. If it does not warrant the protection of Parliament, it can be released without needing to go through the processes of tabling it in Parliament. If it does require, on legal advice through my department, to be tabled in Parliament in order to protect people who are simply doing their jobs in conducting these investigations, I will certainly table it in Parliament.

Environment: sustainable workplaces

Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — My question is for the Minister for Finance, Mr Lenders. With the recent release of office accommodation guidelines, can the minister outline how the Bracks government is leading the way in sustainable workplaces for Victoria?


Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I thank Mr Eren for his question and his interest in sustainable office accommodation. In doing so I cannot but take up the interjections from Mr Forwood and Mr Dalla-Riva who do not seem to be that interested in office accommodation that is sustainable.

Mr Eren asked a particular question about our office accommodation guidelines. Since the house last sat I have been delighted to put into place formal accommodation guidelines, which I did with the Minister for Environment in the other place, that deal with this important area of the built environment — the buildings that we as a state build and hire for our public sector accommodation.

I have previously advised this house about a couple of those buildings. In the last sitting I talked about some of the black water recycling and other things that we did in two of those government buildings. But these guidelines were not just for two particular buildings. They are guidelines for office accommodation across the whole public sector. They are a great guide. Members who wish to have a look at them would do well to look through them to see the state of the art and the sorts of things that are done with new offices which are leased or built by the Victorian government.



Victoria is leading the way in this particular area. The Bracks government is leading the way because it believes it is particularly important to have these design guides out for the types of buildings we have. We are all affected by the place we work in and how we work in it. Before airconditioning was installed in this building we all know how 40 degree days affected the environment and the behaviour in our workplace and how we functioned in that sort of environment. That alone is a very clear indication to this chamber of the importance of the environment.

Hon. Andrea Coote interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Good design of workplaces will cut energy, reduce and reuse water and produce less greenhouse pollution. To take up Mrs Coote’s interjection asking whether it will deal with IT, this will not particularly deal with Parliament’s IT. I can sadly inform Mrs Coote about that. What I can inform the house about is the idea of where these things are integrated and how we keep our energy use down. The good design of future workplaces is of critical importance to us.

In the future in Victoria the best practice that this guide is setting for us will include 4-star green ratings as well as 41⁄2-star energy ratings for the base buildings we have here in Victoria. The most important part of this is that we are not just making the environment we work in better for Victorians working in these areas, we are also setting a clear standard in the community for the sorts of environmentally sustainable buildings that we wish to build. Whether it be through these particular office accommodation guidelines or through the innovative work that VicUrban, for example, is doing in housing or the work my colleague the Minister for Housing is doing in housing areas, these things together set the standard for what we in Victoria think is important for sustainable houses and sustainable workplaces. By this government leading the way in this critical area we not only save money for our community and reduce emissions into our environment, but we also make Victoria a better place to work in, a safer place to work in and — dare I say it — a better place to bring up a family.

Insurance: fire services levy

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — My question without notice is also to the Minister for Finance in his capacity of overseeing insurance matters, especially the fallout from the HIH collapse. I am sure that the minister will be aware that recommendation 56 of the HIH royal commission recommended the abolition of fire service levies. Why then is the

government proposing to make these levies even more onerous on Victorian businesses?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — The specific issue of the fire services levy is a taxation matter which is the responsibility of my colleague the Treasurer, and I think that Mr Baxter has been long enough in this place to know that. As Mr Baxter knows, there was a review of the fire services levy reported on by the Treasurer last year. Mr Baxter also knows there has been debate across the entire community — all eight jurisdictions in Australia — which has presented different views and arguments on this.

This government has responded to the insurance crisis in a whole range of ways as outlined in this house. We have probably led the way in this country in responding, and I will give credit to The Nationals on this because they were at the forefront of identifying some of the public liability problems when they came out. I will give credit where credit is due on this. We as a government have worked on this in collaboration with federal minister Senator Helen Coonan. We think most of the agenda that was addressed by the report of Justice David Ipp has been addressed by all nine governments in Australia. The fire services levy issue was adequately dealt with in the Treasurer’s report. I suggest to Mr Baxter that he read the report that the Treasurer released last year, and if he has any further questions, that he put them on notice for the Treasurer.


Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — After the first question I said to my colleague Mr Hall that I expected the Leader of the Government to bat my question away as a matter for the Treasury, and I am very disappointed about that because the minister has claimed so often in this house, particularly in relation to HIH matters, that he has been leading the charge nationwide to fix up the mess. I am therefore disappointed that he has not responded. I ask the minister in his capacity as Minister for Finance, bearing in mind that more than 100 companies have already left the state since the Bracks government came into office because of the rising cost of doing business here, has his department done any work to estimate how many more will leave if fire service levies are increased in the corporate sector?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I certainly have not done any particular modelling on the effect of the fire services levy on businesses in this state. Mr Baxter just needs to read the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) report about what the actions of the government have



done to insurance premiums in public liability and professional indemnity. My colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs lets me know how many taxes this government has cut and led the way on. Dare I say it, federal Treasurer Peter Costello has given us a big tick for honouring our part of the intergovernmental agreement on removing taxes.

I know Mr Baxter is doing this as a bit of a try-on ; he gave it away by his earlier statement when he said that he expected this question to be batted off because naturally, under the rules of this place, a question like that is more appropriately dealt with by the relevant minister, which is the Treasurer. I will at any time welcome Mr Baxter bringing a general business motion on in this place to discuss any aspect of insurance, outside question time, and I will gladly join him in a debate on this government’s proud record.

Commonwealth Games: infrastructure

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — My question is to the Minister for Commonwealth Games. Could the minister outline to the house how the Bracks government is leading the way in delivering infrastructure projects for the long-term benefits of Victorians as part of the delivery of the 2006 Commonwealth Games?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s interest in the Commonwealth Games. Can I just say that there are 238 days until the games. It is a good chance to take stock of where we are in terms of progress in the delivery of our infrastructure needs. We engaged Deloittes to give us independent advice on the progress that has been made to date, and that report confirmed what we suspected but also knew, that everything is on track. It also confirmed that we are leading the way not only in terms of delivering that infrastructure but what it will do beyond the games.

I have mentioned on a number of occasions that what we will see is what Deloittes has confirmed — that is, we have adopted an approach of maximising not only the use of those venues, but we have avoided unnecessary capital works upgrades; we are improving the operations and viability of these venues, in particular in terms of major events into the future; and we are also providing first-class facilities that will be used most weekends by the Victorian public. One of the great attributes of this is that we will not have white elephants after the games. It is heartening to have this confirmed by independent advice.

As well as that what we are seeing in relation to all of these venues is that they are being delivered not only with incredible enthusiasm and skill, but we are also seeing them completed or nearing completion. At the Commonwealth Games village, 133 dwellings are currently at lockup stage or complete. The Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) is receiving the biggest upgrade in its 150-year history: 55 000 seats are being built into the new development. Members will appreciate that when most countries are building a stadium of this nature, that is basically the size of an entire new stadium. That 55 000 seats are being redeveloped in the northern stand while the venue has continued to operate shows not only that this is a tremendous development, but the expertise and skill that has been delivered to ensure the delivery of it.

We see the 6-kilometre elite competition course at Lysterfield Park completed ahead of schedule and budget, and this will complement the upgrade of those existing bike paths, networks and trails throughout the facility. It will become a mecca for biking enthusiasts.

Across the state, whether it be Geelong, Bendigo or Ballarat, we have seen improved venues and the completion of the facility at Traralgon. We have seen the surface preparation for the State Lawn Bowls Centre coming on line — —


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I know Mr Atkinson has expressed great interest in lawn bowls, so it is good to see he is interested in grassroots facilities.

At the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre we have seen the pool shell completed and the permanent roofing is being installed as we speak, which will also complement the wellness centre which will be built as part of the facility and marketed beyond the games.

The pedestrian bridge between the Yarra precinct and the MCG is being erected — we have seen the trusses in place — and artwork is integrated into the design as part of the overall works.

Basically, all the facilities are on track and they are going to give us substantial benefit well beyond the games. What is great is that we know that we have the support of the opposition in terms of the games — it is good to see its enthusiasm for it — but it is heartening that we know beyond the games we will have completed first-class facilities that will redefine Melbourne as an iconic sporting city well into the future.




Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I direct my question to the Minister for Commonwealth Games, the Honourable Justin Madden. Yesterday the minister stated that the Australian Football League (AFL) was receiving compensation for reduced access to the Melbourne Cricket Ground because it was contributing $150 million to the redevelopment of the MCG. Given that the $150 million is in fact $5 million each year over 30 years, is it not a fact that the AFL has received more in compensation from Victorian taxpayers than it has contributed to the MCG redevelopment?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I am pleased to see that Mr Bowden has done a little bit of homework. It is good to see that he has a bit of interest in the Commonwealth Games too. I am pleased to acknowledge what he has made available to the house today.

What we have seen in terms of the Australian Football League’s contribution and what we will see is $150 million contributed over the life of the MCG redevelopment for 30 years. That has been a fantastic contribution by the AFL in terms of the redevelopment. Without it the development would not have gone ahead. The contribution by the Melbourne Cricket Club is not dissimilar: it is over the life of the project to fund the debt that is incurred by the club in order to pay off the facility.

We have been very pleased to have been able to contribute $77 million to the project to complement the last piece of the equation — the Ponsford Stand — which would never have been built without the state government’s contribution.

It was disheartening to note that the people’s ground — the venue that has become iconic in relation to Melbourne, the gathering place of all Melburnians, where we celebrate what we love about Victoria — had the federal government trying to scuttle it by introducing a whole lot of elements into the equation after we had gone out and tendered the project.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I can understand its sensitivities about the project. For me as a minister, as a Victorian and a Melburnian, it was very disheartening to think that a federal Liberal government of such division would like to use the MCG as a political tool to reinforce its political ideology and the agenda that we

now know is being revealed to all of Australia now that it has control of the Senate.


Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I thank the minister for his answer, and I come back to the question that was asked of the minister. Yesterday the minister claimed that he personally negotiated the deal that I outlined earlier. Will the minister explain to the house how it is in the financial interest of Victorian taxpayers?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the question. I wish I had more chance to talk about it, but I only have a limited amount of time.

The opposition may not have realised that when we came into government the Australian Football League was sitting over here and the Melbourne Cricket Ground was sitting over there. They were locked. They were entrenched in positions in relation to any redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

What we were able to do, what this minister was able to do — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — This minister? You are talking about yourself in the third person now!

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Absolutely. We were able to bring them together, get them to negotiate a deal and leave behind all the baggage of so many years. It is good to see that they can put their baggage aside, but the opposition cannot. What we are seeing from that is the contribution of the Australian Football League, the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the state government; we will see a fantastic outcome because of that. That has to be in the interests of all Victorians. I am very proud of my role in the contribution.

Housing: tenants’ rights

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) — My question is for the Minister for Housing. Can the minister tell the house how the government is leading the way in improving tenancy security for low-income Victorians?

Ms BROAD (Minister for Housing) — I thank the member for his question and for his interest in improving the tenancy rights of low-income Victorians and families. The Bracks government believes that every Victorian deserves a decent place to live. The stability and security of a home is very important to all Victorians. I certainly believe that people on low incomes, who are sometimes living in very basic



accommodation, should have protection under the law just like anybody else who rents their home.

To deliver on that commitment the government is proposing amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that vulnerable tenants living in shared rooms in rooming houses as well as in caravan parks have protection under the act should a residency dispute arise. We are proposing amendments that are in step with the recommendations arising out of the Residential Tenancies Act review which was undertaken earlier in the life of this government. The Residential Tenancies Legislation Working Group at that time examined the balance of rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords and investigated how to increase security of tenure and establish fair rent mechanisms.

The proposed changes will ensure that the current rooming house provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act apply to residents of shared rooms. This will provide legal certainty and tenancy rights to people who previously had no rights under the act. We know that many residents of shared rooms in rooming houses have found themselves without any rights or safeguards under the Residential Tenancies Act and without the same statutory rights that are enjoyed by residents of other forms of accommodation. Just as importantly, at the same time rooming house owners have also had no recourse to the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to shared rooms. The new provisions will benefit rooming house providers by allowing rooming house owners to conduct their businesses in a properly regulated environment that will contribute to greater stability and certainty for all parties.

The Bracks government is also acting to ensure that people who use caravan parks as their sole or main residence have access to residency rights under the Residential Tenancies Act after 60 consecutive days instead of the current 90 days. The current 90-day rule provides caravan park owners and managers with a great deal of power over so-called probationary occupiers. We believe that reducing the 90-day period to 60 days will provide greater legal protection for this often vulnerable group. The government believes that together these proposed amendments strike the right balance between the interests of caravan park owners and their clients.

Together this package of amendments will help to strengthen the legal protection of vulnerable tenants and shows that Victoria is continuing to lead the way in ensuring that tenants have security and peace of mind in relation to their accommodation, in line with this government’s commitment to governing for all Victorians.

Gas: regional supply

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. Will the minister advise which towns in country Victoria promised national gas reticulation connections by Bracks government ministers, members and candidates prior to the 2002 state election have actually been reticulated and connected to date?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank the honourable member for his question because I really like to talk about our gas extension program. We are proud of the $70 million program because it is designed to deliver natural gas to regional Victoria in a way that was never contemplated by the previous government. The previous government was not interested in delivering gas to regional Victoria; in fact, it was not interested in many things in regional Victoria, of which gas was one. There are 29 towns that have been announced for connection to natural gas supplies and approved under this program. Let me make it clear to the honourable member that every single one of those 29 towns will be connected with natural gas.

The opposition hates it because there are 29 towns in regional Victoria with approximately 70 000 Victorians who are going to pay $600 a year less in their energy bills for evermore. It hates it because it knows regional Victorians understand who set about building and developing this program, making sure that it was going through a pristine process and ultimately delivering to these 29 towns. I repeat: every single one of the 29 towns will be connected with natural gas and as a consequence everyone in them will get the savings of between $600 and $1200 per residential consumer and business. That is what this government is delivering and we are proud to be delivering it.


Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I was fascinated by the minister’s answer that 29 towns have been promised connections and every one will be connected. It is clear that the minister cannot name one town in country Victoria which has yet been connected. On 1 June this year the minister announced that Victoria will supply gas to Mount Gambier and south-eastern South Australia. Will the minister explain to the house why the government has broken its promise, made on 13 November 2002, to the community of Wandong?



Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy

Industries and Resources) — The Leader of the Opposition continues to flop around in relation to this issue. First of all he does not like the answer that 29 towns have been announced. It has also been the case that in a number of those towns — —


Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS — If you do not want to hear the answer, that’s fine. I will just let the clock tick away.

In a number of towns works have commenced and are on track to be completed within the timeframes that have been announced by the government. That will continue to be the case. This program is being delivered according to the timetable set out at the beginning. Those particular towns — all 29 — come within that program and it will be delivered according to that program.

National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee Week

Mr SOMYUREK (Eumemmerring) — I refer my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Jennings. Can the minister advise the house of the Victorian government’s involvement in the NAIDOC — National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee — Week celebrations and how the response of Victoria’s indigenous community shows that the Bracks government has been successful?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) — I thank Mr Somyurek for his question and his interest in the wellbeing of Victorian Aboriginal people. I am pleased to say that the Victorian government did support the National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee in the creation of 120 community events right throughout Victoria during the course of NAIDOC Week held recently. I am pleased to say that the Bracks government recognises the need to support that community endeavour, and we provided $23 000 to support the coordinating committee in making those events happen.

I am pleased to say that up until now we have joined in a partnership with the commonwealth government, and a whole range of other local government and public institutions that have come together in the spirit of partnership and reconciliation to generate a greater degree of understanding about the wellbeing and the attributes of the Aboriginal people in the state.

I draw to the attention of the house the fantastic achievement in those community events in bringing

people together. Phil Cooper, the chair of the committee this year, and James Atkinson, the deputy chair, played a great role in bringing the community together and making those events happen. We are a bit concerned that the commonwealth money that has been an essential part of the support provided to communities in the past is at this moment in question. I call on the commonwealth government to play its role in providing ongoing partnership and support for NAIDOC Week events as they are the most important events on the Aboriginal calendar in the course of the year.

A terrific range of activities bring people together, from community-based events, grass-roots events such as the Parkies Inc. event held at the Collingwood estate, bringing homeless people and other people who were living in public housing together for a community-based barbecue event with bands, bringing people together from the local community, right through to more glamorous events such as the Premier’s reception held at Bunjilaka at the Melbourne Museum and the NAIDOC balls held at the San Remo ballroom in the western suburbs.

From the more glamorous high-profile events that bring together people from across the Victorian community right through to grassroots events, NAIDOC Week features a range of activities that build partnerships right through this state. They also create opportunities for us to showcase the great attributes and capacities of people within the Aboriginal community. I draw attention to two of those in particular. Firstly, there is Frayneworks, a new multimedia centre that was opened during the week. It is run by the Sisters of Mercy who provide support for this centre that will bring together young Aboriginal people and train them in multimedia so that they can develop their own stories and films, and develop their entree to the music industry through the programs run at this establishment. I was very pleased to join community members in opening this event.

I was also excited to see the results of some of this type of work at the Koori Heritage Trust where we launched the projects that have been created through an initiative known as First Hand, which I am pleased to say our government supported. It created opportunities for young people throughout the Aboriginal community in Western Victoria to come together, tell their stories and develop digital storytelling. Their stories were very inspiring and moving, and I congratulate the Koori Heritage Trust, and Chris Paterson in particular, for playing an important role in bringing those projects together. It was the hallmark of a great NAIDOC Week.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I have answers to the following questions on notice: 1806, 4101, 4146, 4200, 4284, 4288, 4290, 4421, 4786, 4789, 4796, 4799, 4867, 4869, 4870, 4890, 4898, 4899, 4911, 4913.


Standing and sessional orders


That standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to enable the notice of motion, general business, standing in the name of Mr Matt Viney relating to the Minister for Commonwealth Games to be moved and debated during the transaction of government business, and that such motion be called on at any time during a change in business.

Motion agreed to.


Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources).

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I move:



The Energy Safe Victoria Bill provides for the merger of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety into a new streamlined regulator, operating as Energy Safe Victoria.

Establishment of a single energy safety regulator for Victoria was a key recommendation arising from government’s recent review of energy safety regulators in Victoria.

The merger will improve efficiency and economies of scale, without compromising the high-quality safety outcomes already being achieved by Victoria’s energy regulators.

Energy Safe Victoria will provide an increasingly efficient and cost-effective operating environment. Alongside reduced on-site costs, the implementation of common systems, procedures and standards will provide greater consistency for industry and will streamline operational activities undertaken by the new regulator. Increased efficiencies will also occur

through increased integration with government planning, management and reporting requirements.

At the same time, the proposed organisational structure of the new regulator supports the retention of specialist expertise at appropriate levels.

This bill establishes the new regulator, Energy Safe Victoria, and provides for the transfer of the existing functions and powers of the Office of Chief Electrical Inspector and Office of Gas Safety to that body.

Part 1 of the bill sets out the purpose of the act and provides for its commencement. Part 2 provides for the establishment of the new regulator as a statutory body corporate, with objectives and functions as provided in the Electricity Safety Act 1998, the Gas Safety Act 1997 and other relevant acts.

Part 2 also provides that Energy Safe Victoria will comprise a director of energy safety, to be appointed by the Governor in Council, and provides for other appointments to the new body, delegation of powers, the establishment of committees, borrowing powers and corporate planning requirements.

Part 3 of the bill provides Energy Safe Victoria with an additional power to undertake and conduct inquiries by its own initiation or by ministerial direction. This power is consistent with the powers currently held by the Essential Services Commission.

The bill also provides for consequential amendments, including the abolition of the Office of Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety.


Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe).


HIGHER EDUCATION ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 19 May; motion of Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources).

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON (Waverley) — At long last I rise to make a contribution on the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill which has been on the notice paper for some weeks. From the outset I must say that the opposition certainly does not oppose this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to all of the university statutes that relate to the Australian government’s Higher Education Support Act 2003. National government protocols need to be adhered to for higher education providers to be eligible for grants under the commonwealth grants scheme. The relevant



section is 33-15(1)(a) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. There is also a deadline by which these requirements are to be met under section 33-15(1)(c) of the same act.

This bill is relevant to all of the eight Victorian universities, as well as the Victorian College of the Arts. I notice that the commencement date for the majority of the provisions in this bill is 31 August this year and that the provisions that do not come into operation on that date automatically come into operation on 30 June 2006.

As I said earlier, this bill is relevant to the eight Victorian universities plus the College of the Arts. For the record, those universities are Deakin, La Trobe, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, Swinburne University of Technology, the University of Ballarat and Victoria University, as well as the Victorian College of the Arts.

The acts amended by this bill are those which correspond with each of the listed universities. They are the Deakin University Act 1974, the La Trobe University Act 1964, the Melbourne University Act 1958, the Monash University Act 1958, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 1992, the Swinburne University of Technology Act 1992, the University of Ballarat Act 1993, the Victorian College of the Arts Act 1981 and the Victoria University of Technology Act 1990. The bill is set out in serial form. The same changes, which are very clearly set out in the bill, apply to each university. One needs only to talk about the clause for one university because the same clause applies to each of the universities I have mentioned.

The national government protocols deal generally with the operational duties of the governing bodies of the higher education providers. This includes performance evaluations of the vice-chancellors of the governing bodies and the higher education providers themselves. It also includes identifying objectives in business plans as well as annual budgets and risk management strategies, and it even provides for the professional development of a relevant governing body. The protocols are very clearly set out in the second-reading speech, but I will go through some of them.

According to the protocols the governing body of a university must not exceed 22 members, with at least 2 of those members having a finance background and at least 1 member having commercial expertise, unless there are less than 10 members on that governing body, in which case only 1 member with a financial background is sufficient. The protocols also allow the governing body to remove a council member by a

two-thirds majority vote. Also the governing body must adopt a statement of its primary responsibility, the higher education provider must adopt systematic procedures for the nomination of prospective non-elected members and the annual report must be used for reporting high-level outcomes. As well, the governing body must oversee controlled entities and assess the risk from its part ownership of any entity, partnership or joint venture.

Many of these protocols have already been introduced not only by this government but also during the Kennett years. Many of the changes that are required for Victorian universities to comply are minimal in comparison to what has to occur in other states. When looking at the annual reports of all of the universities it easy to find statements by their chancellors or vice-chancellors that the universities are in fact complying with these protocols. For example, the University of Melbourne annual report — of which I do not have a copy, but I will refer to my notes — states in reference to governance that the University of Melbourne is accountable to all stakeholders for the values it upholds, the mission it pursues and the goals and priorities that it sets. It must also account for the quality of its policies, programs and academic performance, as well as for the financial wellbeing of the institution as a whole, and for maintaining the highest levels of probity in the conduct of its affairs. The mission statement of the University of Melbourne is simple, straightforward and easy to understand — that is, to make the University of Melbourne one of the finest universities in the world.

I also refer to the Monash University 2004 annual report. I must add that it is the university which is in the electorate of Waverley Province. I had the privilege of serving on that university’s council with the Honourable Peter Hall when members of Parliament were eligible to be representatives of those institutions. Under the heading ‘Strategic planning’, the annual report states:

A significant feature of the year entailed analysing the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to ensure the university was well placed to respond to the consequent changes in the sector.

A review of university-wide performance indicators resulted in the retention of sector-wide indicators to enable benchmarking against other relevant universities and development of a separate set of internal measures.

It is important to understand that compliance with these protocols as described in section 33 of the Higher Education Support Act will mean that the basic grant for the university is going to be boosted by 2.5 per cent. It should be noted that this funding has already been allocated on the presumption that this legislation will be



passed, and I have no reason to say that this legislation will not be passed.

In 2006 there is going to be a further financial increase of 5 per cent, and in years after that there will be a further 7.5 per cent increase. The protocols are set up to keep these higher education providers functioning in a manner that is in keeping with large professional institutions and business. The nature of higher education requires this, given the various business ventures that universities are involved in and the sizes of the campuses that they manage. Just for the record it is worth noting that sometimes things do go wrong, and unfortunately at RMIT University things did go terribly wrong. It culminated in 2003 with Don Mercer, who was the chancellor at the time, resigning following a dispute. In fact a third of the governing body ended up resigning when that university faced a $4.5 million deficit.

The university had previously predicted a $21 million profit 12 months earlier. Its financial trouble was blamed on the failed implementation of the academic management computer system which crashed and corrupted shortly after it was turned on. One can go to many newspaper reports for the detail of that. This ended up costing the university around $50 million to implement and repair. It also had difficulties with the Vietnam campus, and property sales were also cited as pressures on the finances of the university. This eventually led to the university applying for an advance of $7.5 million on its federal government operating grant. There was an Auditor-General’s report into that institution. His report revealed serious mismanagement and a culture of blame, and that actually held back the university’s ability to recover. Despite improvements that have been implemented RMIT is not completely out of the woods yet, but it is certainly heading in the right direction.

I needed to cite that example as it brings attention to the role of the state government in the governance of universities. It is supposed to be a regulating entity and it serves the role of overseeing universities. Universities are less and less reliant on federal government funding and generating money is of much higher importance. We find that universities are now real players in the marketplace and we would expect that universities would have to face the same realities as those experienced by private enterprise. We have had previous debates in this place about measures which really tighten up the accountability of universities and I guess in a way this bill is further promoting that. In fact this higher education bill reiterates the demands that must be placed on the management and governing bodies of these universities.

Perhaps one of the more significant changes in this bill is the provision for the Victoria University of Technology (VUT) to have a name change. It will drop the use of the term ‘of Technology’ and that institution will be known as just Victoria University. The change has been pushed by the university as it sees the use of the word ‘technology’ as no longer relevant. Unlike at RMIT or Swinburne, technology is no longer the focus at the VUT. I have had a think about whether this will pose any major problem. I do not see that it will. When I entered ‘Victoria University’ into the Google search engine I noted that other institutions with the name ‘Victoria University’ exist in Wellington, New Zealand, and in British Columbia, Canada, but I am sure there will be some way that each can distinguish itself from the others.

I also noted from the briefing that members had on this bill that the VUT had unofficially dropped the term ‘technology’ in most of its signage and had done for some time. I do not think there was any question as to the outcomes of that practice. In fact it seems to be fairly universally accepted.

Hon. P. R. Hall — The words ‘.com.au’ will probably distinguish ours from the other Victoria universities.

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON — I guess it will. I thank Mr Hall. The name ‘Victoria University of Technology’ is perhaps a misnomer. A 2004 discussion paper presented by the vice-chancellor at VUT states:

… it is not representative of what we do at present. Nor, it will be argued, is it an appropriate label for our future, given the economic and labour market trends for our region.

That is, the western region, which that university services. Further, a June 2004 submission to the minister titled What’s in a Name? showed that 70 per cent of students from the western suburbs of Melbourne allocated their first preferences to education in society and culture, management and commerce, and health and education. So there has been a real move away from the technology subjects indicated by student applicants.

At page 2 the mission statement of the VUT states:

The mission of Victoria University is to: transform the lives of individuals and develop the capacities of industry and communities within the western Melbourne region and beyond through the power of vocational and higher education.

There is certainly no use of the word ‘technology’ in that. The VUT’s annual report of 2004 at page 11 includes in its objectives the:



… development of an institution with excellence in teaching, training, research and scholarship, with particular emphasis on technological development and applications of knowledge …

I note it has used the word ‘technology’ there. It will be interesting to see if there is in fact a slight change to that statement in next year’s annual report. I am sure there will be.

I would just like to make some reference to the VUT’s annual report. I note that it has more than 50 000 course enrolments. It is a relatively large institution. It has more than 2450 full-time equivalent staff, as well as 8000 international students. It also has 11 campuses. These are listed in the annual report, and for the record they are: City Flinders, City King, City South Melbourne, Footscray Nicholson, Footscray Park, Melton, Newport, St Albans, Sunbury, Sunshine and Werribee. As well the VUT runs programs at school and industry sites. It has 100 overseas partners, including China and Hong Kong as well as Malaysia and Bangladesh. I think somewhere in the report I read that VUT is one of the five largest Australian universities, so it is not at all to be scoffed at.

I also note that a former member of this chamber, the Honourable Jean McLean, was a member of the council of that university until she retired recently.

Hon. P. R. Hall — As was David Evans.

Hon. ANDREW BRIDESON — As was the Honourable David Evans, a former member of The Nationals in this place. From memory, I think David was a member of the inaugural council.

As well, this bill will allow universities to amalgamate their academic and TAFE boards. Again this is most relevant for the VUT, Swinburne, Ballarat and RMIT. I think we were advised at our briefing that VUT is the only institution that has requested this change and it is anticipated it will be the only institution that will implement this aspect.

The bill also provides that universities will prepare a statute which will enable this amalgamation to occur. I guess some subsequent legislation will come into this chamber for that to occur. It is also expected the change will not translate to any kind of degradation of quality of education in two different sectors. There is often ongoing debate between institutions at various levels as to what will happen to the standards when amalgamations occur, but I am pretty confident there will be no diminution of standards. In fact, I think it will go the other way. There is always angst, and I am told there is some angst among staff at the VUT that

that may happen. I am sure the university will put in place appropriate structures to ensure that will not happen. When you look at the annual report and the strategy, I think the university’s plans and the way it wants to implement its strategic directions and education services all bode well for the future of VUT.

There is one small aspect of the bill which is worthy of note. In 1997 university acts were amended to require universities to obtain ministerial approval before they could dispose of any land worth more than $1.5 million. In light of the fact that property prices have increased since that time and to ensure the practical operation of this provision the limit, I think quite sensibly, has been raised to $3 million. There has been no disagreement with that aspect of the bill from any of the universities that the opposition contacted.

This bill is relatively simple. It will mean better education outcomes for universities when it is passed, and it continues a series of other higher education bills for improving that sector that have come into this Parliament in recent times. It is a relatively non-controversial bill, and with my few comments I wish it a speedy passage.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I indicate to the house today that The Nationals will be supporting this piece of legislation. When one first looks at the bill one sees it is quite a big bill. It has 99 pages and 129 clauses, but when you read through it you see that many of them are repeated clauses because the bill makes amendments to eight university acts and also to the act that establishes the Victorian College of the Arts, and consequently many of those changes to the acts are common across those nine institutions. They are not exactly the same, because each of those institutions in its own right has its own differences, and that is reflected to some degree in the acts establishing each of those higher education providers, but there is a lot of commonality in the changes across each of those nine statutes.

The reason for that commonality is that basically the changes are derived from the new national governance protocols which have been required by the federal government under the commonwealth Higher Education Support Act 2003. That act requires all higher education providers in Australia to meet some minimum conditions expressed in the form of protocols so that they will be eligible to receive funding from the federal government. It seems that there has been no great controversy in the formation of those protocols, and universities across Australia have accepted them.



We are here today to amend eight university acts and the act for the Victorian College of the Arts to ensure that those establishment acts conform to the national protocols, and as I said, there is a degree of commonality across all of those. By way of example I refer the house to part 2 of this bill and in particular clause 5, which looks at some changes to Deakin University that are typical of the changes for each of the other university acts as well. To give the house the flavour of the sorts of things that are required to be changed under the protocol, I mention that clause 5 inserts into the Deakin University Act 1974 an expression of the functions of the university council itself. The new section 6 to be inserted into the original act reads:

(1) The Council is the governing body of the University and has the entire direction and superintendence of the University.

(2) The primary responsibilities of the Council include —

(a) appointing and monitoring the performance of the Vice Chancellor as chief executive officer of the University;

(b) approving the mission and strategic direction of the University and its annual budget and business plan;

I will not go through the others, but there is also a requirement and a stipulation in the act that the university council now will have jurisdiction over some of the financial affairs of that university and they were expressed in terms of the function of the council.

Clause 6 talks about the composition of the council. Once again composition is changed in some of the universities’ acts to fit with the criteria specified in the protocols in the agreed national governance protocols, and if my memory is correct I think those protocols require that there be not more than 22 members on a university council, which is pretty much the case in Victorian universities as well.

Clause 8 spells out the council’s power of removal of members of the council, and that can occur under certain circumstances. It goes on further to talk about some administrative matters like conduct of elections, filling of vacancies, the election or appointment of the chancellor, and items of that nature. They are typical changes which apply to the Deakin University Act and are fairly common across each of the acts which this bill amends.

There are some other changes in this bill we are looking at. There are changes to the dual sector providers that we have in this state, in particular to Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Ballarat University and Victoria

University of Technology — and that is still its name until this bill passes. What will happen for each of those dual sector universities is that each act will be amended to allow it to establish its dual sector arrangements by its statute. The Honourable Andrew Brideson explained the wish of Victoria University in respect of the administrative structure it seeks to have. It will be able to do that now by statute rather than by changing legislation.

There is also an important requirement about the disposal of land, and there is an increase here. This bill will increase the ceiling for the disposal of land requiring ministerial approval from $1.5 million to $3 million. There are a number of other small miscellaneous amendments, mainly relating to Corporations Law, and I do not intend to talk about each of those.

I want to come back to the Victoria University and the name change, because that is a significant item in this bill. The name changes from Victoria University of Technology to Victoria University. Before I go into that matter I want to say that The Nationals, through me, wrote to each of the higher education providers involved in this bill to seek their views about this legislation to make sure they were happy, and I am pleased to say I received responses from Swinburne University of Technology, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne University and Victoria University of Technology. Each of those was more than happy with these changes and was able to advise me that it had been consulted and had worked with the state government to ensure that the changes suited its needs. To my knowledge there is no objection from any of the higher education providers to this legislation going through in its current form.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about Victoria University, one of Victoria’s new universities. One of the things that I am impressed about with Victoria University is the vigour with which it has participated generally in inquiries in which the Parliament has been involved, particularly through the Education and Training Committee of the Parliament. Being a member of that committee myself I know — and the Honourable Helen Buckingham, being another member, I am sure will testify — that Victoria University has been one of the keenest universities to come forward to our committee and respond to the inquiries that we are undertaking.

Indeed it has usually been the vice-chancellor herself, Professor Elizabeth Harmon, who has appeared before the committee, and she has represented her university well. I must admit that I cannot help but be impressed



with the dedication of Victoria University to servicing the people in the western part of Melbourne, that being its constituency. The structures it has set up and the innovation it has shown in a whole range of areas is admirable.

That being said, what this bill does for Victoria University is to change its formal name by statute, being Victoria University of Technology, to simply Victoria University. For some time it has marketed itself as and has been fairly well known as Victoria University, so I do not think this is a dramatic change in terms of public perception.

I noticed at one of the country towns I visited recently — Echuca it was — which has a branch of Victoria University, a label on top of the shop window stating ‘Victoria University’. It did not have ‘Victoria University of Technology’, but just the simpler name of ‘Victoria University’. As I said, I think it has been pretty well accepted by the public now.

This is a preference for the university. We have other dual-sector universities in Victoria. We have RMIT which, because of the history of its name, has sought to retain ‘Institute of Technology’ as part of its name; and also Swinburne University, which is officially Swinburne University of Technology, although I would concede that for marketing purposes many of us would now simply know it as Swinburne. Ballarat University is also a dual-sector university, but does not have the ‘institute of technology’ label to its name. So we have four dual-sector higher education providers in Victoria, two of which for official purposes are choosing to retain the name ‘institute of technology’, while the other two will now simply be universities.

The Honourable Andrew Brideson also referred to the discussion paper put out by Victoria University in June 2004 entitled What’s in a Name?, which discusses this issue fairly well. Part of the executive summary says:

We are not a specialist university of technology, but rather a fully comprehensive, dual sector institution offering a wider scope of awards and fields of study than a specialist institution.

The discussion paper argues well the case for name change, particularly when it looks at the profile of its university. I quote from page 6 of this discussion paper:

The areas traditionally identified as ‘technology’ — Natural/Physical Sciences and Agriculture/Environment, Information Technology, and Engineering and Architecture and Building — together form only 25.44 per cent of our course profile.

It also makes some comparisons of the course profile with Swinburne and with RMIT. For example, at RMIT

40 per cent of its profile is technology; in the case of Swinburne, 44 per cent of its profile is technology. So each of those other two bodies, RMIT and Swinburne, has a much higher technology profile in the courses they deliver.

As I said, I think Victoria University makes a sound case for a name change, and I have not received any objections from other universities in Victoria suggesting that they would be opposed to Victoria University being granted that name change.

I am pleased that Victoria University’s wishes will have been met with the passage of this bill through the Victorian Parliament, and I wish the university well. As I said, I am most impressed with the direction in which it is travelling and serving people living in the western part of Melbourne. I am sure it will continue to do so well into the future with its enthusiastic administration and competent people involved in delivering programs in the west of Melbourne.

It is a long but not complicated bill. It encompasses a whole range of issues, but most of those are common across each of Victoria’s eight universities and the Victorian College of the Arts. They are sensible changes, supported I think wholeheartedly by the sector, and I am pleased this afternoon to add The Nationals’ support.

Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — Around 150 000 domestic students and over 40 000 international students attend Victorian universities. Universities directly employ 20 000 Victorians and generate revenue of $2.5 billion, thereby making an enormous contribution to the state economy. There is therefore an expectation that university governance arrangements ensure public accountability and allow flexibility to respond to a changing environment.

The Victorian government has constitutional responsibility for the legislation under which Victorian universities operate and has funded — and I was interested in this figure — more than $300 million to universities since 1999, despite the commonwealth being responsible for funding universities since 1974.

The Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill 2005 will amend the enabling legislation for the eight Victorian universities and the Victorian College of the Arts to make the legislative changes necessary for the institutions to comply with the new national governance protocols and thereby be eligible to receive funding as provided in the commonwealth’s Higher Education Support Act 2003 and to make additional amendments requested by the institutions that will improve their



operational efficiency and correct anomalies, without affecting common provisions across the university acts that now exist.

The bill will amend the university enabling acts to provide for the inclusion of the primary responsibilities of a university council and put in place sanctions for council members who breach their duties and responsibilities. It provides for a council to remove a council member by a two-thirds majority. The commonwealth is insistent that institutions must comply with this requirement to receive additional funding. The bill sets out the grounds for removal and a clear process that must be followed before a council can remove a member. Therefore natural justice takes place.

The bill also has a requirement that a council member act in good faith, honestly and for a proper purpose, and that they exercise appropriate care and diligence. I believe that would meet community expectations. The bill ensures an automatic vacancy on a council if a council member becomes disqualified from managing corporations under the Corporations Act. It includes a requirement that a council is to have at least two members with senior financial expertise and at least one member with senior commercial expertise, and provides for a maximum of a 12-year tenure for council members unless otherwise agreed to by a council. I believe the community would accept and indeed require all of these provisions.

The protocols that I have referred to are largely based on an outcome of the Victorian government’s review of university governance in 2002, and as a result many of the required changes are already in place. The primary change made by this bill in order to comply with the protocols is the insertion of the primary responsibility of the university council into each act. These include the appointing and monitoring of the vice-chancellor as chief executive officer; and approving the mission and strategic direction of the university, its annual budget and business plan.

The bill ensures that a university management performance will be overseen and reviewed. It establishes policy and procedural principles consistent with legal requirements and, importantly, community expectations, and it approves the monitoring systems of control and accountability, and overseeing and monitoring of assessment and management of risk. The bill also ensures that the council is overseeing and monitoring academic activities and approving any significant commercial activities. I believe that is enormously important, given the recent history of private universities and the University of Melbourne.

The protocols also set out the duties of the members of the governing bodies of a university, who must always act in the best interests of the institution, act in good faith, and exercise appropriate care and diligence. The protocols ensure that each governing body must make available a program of induction of professional development for members of the council to ensure that all members are aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities. This legislation provides that at regular intervals the governing body must assess both its performance and conformance with these protocols and identify needed skills and expertise for the future. Not only do the protocols put in place what is necessary but they require universities to constantly reassess whether they are meeting those protocols. Other protocols establish the size of the governing body and establish procedures for appointment and for codifying internal grievances — once again, very important. They cover the publishing and the content of the annual report, which is often the only way that the public or we here in Parliament are able to find out what is going on at the universities.

In December 2001 the Bracks government announced a review of university governance to examine the accountability of Victoria’s public universities. The review was chaired by Mr Stuart Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Training. Because university governance is more than just accountability for financial management the review was also asked to consider governance issues generally.

The review reported to the minister in May 2002 and made key recommendations in regard to strengthening the control of university councils over their own commercial operations, strengthening student grievance procedures and making these more readily available to all who are affected by them, and removal of any doubt about the ability of the Auditor-General to audit Victorian universities’ overseas commercial operations. The government endorsed the overall approach recommended by the review that the responsibility of university governance rests firmly with university councils, which must accept that responsibility; they must also be equipped and assisted to shoulder this responsibility.

The commonwealth government’s decision to improve governance in Australian universities through its national governance protocols comes in the wake of the Victorian government’s earlier review. The commonwealth protocols recognise the key components of corporate governance in the public sector: business planning, internal controls, including risk management, performance monitoring and



accountability, and sound relationships with stakeholders. This bill ensures improvements to public accountability of Victorian universities and provides for greater public confidence in these institutions.

The bill makes a number of other amendments, some of which have been spoken about by previous speakers. These are to do with governance of dual-sector universities — that is, those that offer both a higher education and a TAFE sector. These institutions will have a choice as to whether to continue with two governing bodies or amalgamate into one. The institutions themselves will establish their own dual-sector arrangements by their own statutes, which must be in place by 30 June, 2006 and, like all university statutes, these are subject to ministerial oversight and approval.

As already mentioned by the Honourable Andrew Brideson, the bill also raises the value of land which universities can dispose of without ministerial approval from $1.5 million, which was established in 1997, to $3 million, reflecting the increase in property prices over the past eight years. Victoria University of Technology will become Victoria University — the Honourable Peter Hall has already spoken about this and I endorse everything he said. The change is made in response to a request from the university, which believed that this may better reflect the contemporary breadth of education, teaching, training, and scholarly, sporting and cultural services offered by that university.

The bill provides for improvements to the public accountability of Victorian universities, thereby providing greater public confidence which will enhance the already excellent reputation of Victorian universities nationally and internationally. I congratulate the minister and her department and I commend the legislation to the house.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill — a bill that the opposition does not oppose. Higher education is certainly in the news at the moment, and there are a number of important issues I know that my colleague the Honourable Andrew Brideson has referred to at length. His experience in this area is significant, having been a teacher and very close to this portfolio for a long period.

The federal government has, of course, sought to implement national governance protocols, and I have to say that improvements in university governance are important and the opposition understands the importance of them. In many respects Victoria has led

the field here, and my predecessor in the seat of East Yarra Province, the Honourable Haddon Storey, undertook a review of university governance in the late 1990s for the then Minister for Tertiary Education and Training, the Honourable Phil Honeywood. Those changes substantially improved the issues of governance surrounding our universities in Victoria, streamlined the administration of university councils and improved the focus of those universities on their core strengths, and I pay tribute to Haddon Storey’s contribution then and the good sense that flowed from that.

In many respects these changes at a national level head in that general direction, and in that sense I support the general direction. For example, the idea of a more modestly proportioned governing body is one that sticks out very clearly in my mind and the limiting of governance size to not more than 22 members seems to me to be a very modest streamlining of these sorts of issues, given that most university councils are not so great in size in Victoria. Traditionally we have seen universities with enormous governing councils that can be unmanageable and very unfocused.

In not opposing this bill I want to indicate some issues surrounding dual-sector universities. Contrary to some discussion that has taken place publicly, I support the concept of a dual-sector university. There is great scope for linkages in both directions between TAFE divisions and the higher education divisions and vice versa. There have been some very successful dual-sector universities created in Victoria, and most were created in the 1990s under the Honourable Phil Honeywood of the other place, a former Minister for Tertiary Education and Training. Swinburne, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Ballarat and Victoria universities are the obvious ones, and they have each in their own way built strengths by taking the dual-sector approach.

I am pleased to say that I support the section of the bill that changes the name of Victoria University of Technology to Victoria University. It will strengthen the identification of Victoria University internationally. It will enable the university to more cleanly market its future. In some senses I regret the passing of the ‘university of technology’ tag. It is an honourable and important description in many ways. Many of the great institutes around the world use the ‘technology’ description in their title, and I do not think it should be seen in any sense that the use of an ‘institute’ or ‘university of technology’ title makes an institute in any way secondary or inferior to what are commonly called the sandstone universities.



I hope that we are well past the point where that elitism drives the decision-making and the respect accorded to universities and their individual departments. To me the most important thing is that individual departments and faculties are able to excel in their particular areas. It is very much a specific and an individual task to become an expert and a leader in a given area. It is a task that is separate from the title of the university. In the final analysis it is driven by the quality of the individuals and the quality of their focus. It is true that inputs, capital and resources are important, but the final determinant of these things is the quality of individuals and their commitment and ability to innovate and lead in their speciality area.

I note the debate at the moment about higher education contributions. I think the federal minister is in many respects leading sensibly and well in this area. It has been controversial to see the increase in fees for many students across the tertiary system in Australia, including in Victoria. It is true that the size of the tertiary sector is much greater now than it has ever been, and it continues to grow significantly. Going back to the period of the Hawke and Keating governments, I point out that the community recognised that the goods — and I mean in both the economic and social senses — that come out of education are enjoyed by both the community and the individuals who undertake that education. For that reason there is a belief, and I think it is held broadly across the community, that contribution should come from both sides.

Leading forward from that period in the 1980s under the Hawke and Keating governments there was an imposition at first of a $250 administration charge and later of a higher education contribution scheme (HECS) payment. I support the HECS system because it has become a fairer system and has allowed great expansion of the university sector over the last 20 years. In a sense those higher education contributions that are now required by many universities are a further step in apportioning the cost contribution made by individuals and the community to that education, the benefits of which are enjoyed both by the individual who receives the education and by the community.

I note the concerns expressed by some about that contribution approach, and I find it interesting that on the other hand when it comes to, for example, voluntary student unionism (VSU), there is not an equal concern by those in that situation for the required contributions that exist in the system now when students study.

I can say very freely to the house that I, for example, was a student for 14 years, most of that part-time. I was a student from 1980 to 1984 in my initial degree and

then part-time from thereon until 1994. In that time I and everyone else had to make those contributions to student unions. Many people were concerned about the value that students received for those contributions. Whilst some services were provided, there was a great deal of waste.

I notice the recent production of work by Michael Josem, the president of the student union organisation at Monash University Caulfield campus, and his support of voluntary student unionism, which is an important one. He talks about the union giving you choice, giving you voice, saving you money and providing better campus services. It is worth quoting this in the light of the aims of the bill and the federal government’s governance changes nationally.

I note that I have a document here dated Thursday, 12 May, from the Caulfield student union, MONSU Caulfield. It is titled Six Key Reasons to Support the Abolition of High, Compulsory Up-front and Unfair Amenities Fees. I quote from the document:

1. Students support the idea

Overwhelmingly, students support the abolition of high, compulsory up-front and unfair amenities fees. This is revealed by the National Union of Students’ own research — in Western Australia, around 70 per cent of students chose to not join a student union when given the choice.

2. Students will be better off

The key difference that most students will notice will be several hundred extra dollars in their pocket. That’s a massive step forward and eliminates the last remaining compulsory fee of the Australian university system for commonwealth-supported students.

Mr Viney — Weren’t you a member of the Chiropractors Association of Australia?

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Yes, but in a voluntary capacity, Mr Viney. I return to the third reason:

3. It’s fairer — no up-front fees

Until now, only students who were able to afford the high, compulsory up-front and unfair amenities fee were able to study at university. This equitable and progressive move … will allow all Australians, regardless of personal wealth, to study at university without being slugged by upfront fees.

4. Campus services will be better

Many people have claimed that under VSU, student services will be ‘under threat’. Student services will only be under threat in the same sense that a baker is ‘under threat’ to bake good bread. If a baker produces bread that his customers want, he’ll succeed and prosper. Alternatively, if [he] produces unwanted bread, he’s not going to sell it and will quickly be in trouble.



According to the MONSU document, the same principle should be applied to student unions.

The fifth reason — and I am shortening this significantly — is:

5. Universities will be forced to recognise student association services as core university services

If a particular service is a core university function (such [as] careers and employment, for example), then it should be funded out of core university revenue.

that is not a bad point —

If a particular service is not a core university function, students should not be slugged with high up-front fees to fund it.

that is a powerful argument —

One key argument against VSU is that the services provided by student associations are essential to university life, and that they should be part of a university’s offering in the competition for students. The proposed bill recognises this —

he is referring to the federal bill —

by allowing universities to fund such services as they want from core university revenue.

…

6. Enabling students to make their own choices

The bill —

the federal bill —

will allow students to make their own decisions about which services are best for them…

I think that is an important point —

This is the core issue of this debate: who is better placed to spend students’ money — students or a university bureaucracy?

That is a very fair point indeed. I compliment Mr Josem on his advocacy. I know that he gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into the federal legislation, and that students nationally are actually against being compelled to take out membership of an association that they do not wish to support. I also know that the interests of students — especially poorer students — will be served by having greater choice in this matter. I compliment that student union for being prepared to make that point.

In terms of the governance aims of this bill and the national principles laid out, I think they are very important. The tertiary sector needs that focus. The

Victorian tertiary sector has led the country in this regard.


Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Over a number of governments, indeed. I take that point grudgingly. Victoria’s core strength in education — the number of overseas students we have — is a very important aspect of our economy. This bill will take another step towards strengthening that.

Ms CARBINES (Geelong) — I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill, which seeks to further strengthen the governance arrangements of each of Victoria’s universities. We are very lucky in our state to have a very strong university sector, one we can all be extremely proud of and confident in.

Many members of this place will have had their own experience of university life. I certainly remember fondly my studies as an undergraduate student at Monash University in the 1970s.

An honourable member — That was a good time.

Ms CARBINES — It was a great time! I later returned to study as a mature-age student at La Trobe University. I do not think I had quite as good a time as I did in my undergraduate days, but I can still attest to La Trobe being an absolutely fabulous institution. Certainly Monash in the mid to late 1970s was a very exciting place. I benefited from my time there enormously.

I take exception to the comments that the Honourable David Davis had to make about student unionism. As a member of the student union I was the beneficiary of many services offered to students at Monash University. I remember being reliant on the medical services that were offered and given in a non-discriminatory way at a time when young women were discriminated against and felt a degree of alienation from general practitioners. I found that the medical services offered at Monash University were very good and welcoming to all young people.

Those services were provided through the union fee that was collected, and I know that students then, as with students today, had no problems paying that fee. They benefit from all sorts of services and activities provided by student unions. Certainly I strongly reject the push by the federal government to introduce voluntary student unionism, and I think that it will pay the price in relation to that when the students come to vote at the next election



As a member of Parliament and a resident of the Geelong community, I have a professional association with Deakin University. I live very close to the Deakin University’s Waurn Ponds campus and I can attest to how much progress has been made at Deakin University in the about 13 years I have lived there. I know that it is a university of choice for most of Geelong’s young people. I would like to congratulate Sally Walker, the vice-chancellor of Deakin University. It has become one of Victoria’s premier universities.

Today we are discussing the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill. This bill is necessary because it will facilitate funding arrangements through the commonwealth government. The commonwealth has announced new funding arrangements for higher education institutions across our nation. Funding, though, is going to be dependent on the adoption of a set of governance arrangements called the national governance protocols. Therefore it is important that we pass this bill so that each of Victoria’s eight universities becomes a recipient of the new funding that the commonwealth government is making available. It is therefore important that the changes outlined in this bill be passed so our universities can receive the funding.

The funding will be phased in over a number of years and will progressively increase. The increase in funding for this year is 2.5 per cent. For next year it increases to 5 percent, and beyond that it increases to 7.5 per cent.

Probably most university students do not spend much time thinking about the governance arrangements of their university. When I was at university I probably gave no thought to it, but it is clear that it is important. There are stringent protocols in place in relation to the governance arrangements at each of our higher education institutions. Each institution has an obligation to ensure that the universities have very strong protocols in place to ensure good governance of the institutions that they lead. Each of our Victorian universities already does that. The arrangements we are introducing in the bill will further strengthen those protocols.

In 2002 the Bracks government, under the Minister for Education and Training in the other place, undertook a review of the university governance. The new national governance protocols largely reflect the outcome of the review that Minister Kosky initiated. We have heard other members go through the 11 protocols that are to be adopted. I do not intend to read them again into Hansard but clearly they are aimed at strengthening governance of our critical higher education institutions across the nation, and we as a government are pleased

to play our part in bringing this bill before the house today.

The bill amends each of the separate acts which pertain to Victoria’s eight universities plus the Victorian College of the Arts. It has been a subject of very wide consultation with all of our universities and with the VCA. The commonwealth government has announced that all of these institutions must comply with the protocols in order to receive the new funding arrangements. It is therefore important that we debate this bill today to ensure that Victoria’s universities are appropriately compliant with those protocols so that they may receive the increased funding that is on offer. With that small contribution, I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — My contribution will be brief; it has been pretty well covered by many other members in this place. Victoria is known across Australia as a state of great learning and the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill 2005 before the house will improve that standing by creating further efficiencies and performances at our great universities. Each of the eight public universities in Victoria, as well as the Victorian College of the Arts, is governed by its own act of Parliament. Many provisions are common across all acts while other provisions reflect the particular history of each institution and the community it serves. The changes in this bill provide for greater commonality across the acts, where possible.

There are two main objectives of the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill before us today. One is to make the legislative changes necessary for the institutions to comply with the new national governance protocols and thereby be eligible to receive the funding provided for in the commonwealth’s Higher Education Support Act 2003. The other is to make additional amendments requested by the institutions to improve the efficiency of their operations and correct anomalies, without affecting common provisions across the university acts.

The bill before the house makes further changes which will enable the institutions to be eligible for additional funding under the commonwealth’s Higher Education Support Act 2003.

The 11 national governance protocols are set out in the explanatory memorandum as follows:

the higher education provider must have its objectives and/or functions specified in its enabling legislation;

the governing body must adopt a statement of its primary responsibilities (including the eight which are listed);



the duties of the members of the governing body and sanctions for the breach of those duties must be specified in the enabling legislation;

each governing body must make available a program of induction and professional development for its members;

the size of governing body must not exceed 22 members and must include members with certain expertise;

the higher education provider must adopt systematic procedures for the nomination of prospective non-elected members;

the higher education provider is to codify and publish its internal grievance procedures;

the annual report must be used for reporting on high level outcomes;

the annual report must include a report on risk management;

the governing body is required to oversee controlled entities;

the higher education provider must assess the risk arising from its part ownership of any entity, partnership or joint venture.

The protocols in the bill are largely based on the outcome of the Victorian government’s 2002 review of university governance. This was recognised by the commonwealth when the national governance protocols were announced. All Victorian public universities have requested that the necessary legislative changes be made by 31 August 2005 so that they are eligible to receive this funding. Once these legislative changes occur the increase will be phased in by the commonwealth government from 2005. In the 2005 grant year the increase will be 2.5 per cent, in 2006 it will be 5 per cent and in a later year the increase will be 7.5 per cent.

As I said earlier, the protocols outlined in the bill are largely based on the outcome of the Victorian government’s 2002 review of university governance and as a result many of the required changes are already in place. Some protocols can also be met by the institutions without further legislative changes. Our universities want this funding boost and they cannot get it unless we pass the important legislative changes contained in this bill. It is time we allowed our institutions of higher learning to become efficient so that they are able to provide the services we expect for our young people.

There are other things this act will achieve but I will only outline one of them here — that is, the name change for the Victoria University of Technology, which is attended by a lot of students from my electorate, to Victoria University. The Victoria University of Technology has built a strong case for the

name change and I commend it for looking forward and seeing what possibilities the future holds.

It is important for our Parliament to back the changes before us today because there has been much consultation with all Victorian universities, the Victorian College of the Arts, the commonwealth Minister for Education, Science and Training and the commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. I therefore support the bill before the house.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I am delighted to speak on the Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill. This is a very important bill for Victoria because we are going to make changes to the 11 national governance protocols.

Our universities across Victoria are doing a good job to help Victoria in many ways. As a member of Parliament I work closely with the Victoria University of Technology (VUT) which is based in Footscray and which has many campuses around the western suburbs, as well as looking after its TAFE divisions in St Albans, Sunshine and Footscray. The VUT board has done a lot of things for the community by providing not only education but also being involved in many projects at a local level. It has programs to help migrants settle in the western suburbs as well as providing high-level education to Australian and overseas students.

The university attracts a lot of overseas students, especially from Asian countries, who wish to study in Australia. I am delighted to see the university expand and open its programs to attract overseas students. I know the university runs some courses overseas and works with overseas universities to attract students to study its courses overseas. Later on these students can complete their course in Australia.

Today universities not only teach theory but also provide a lot of work experience for students. Sometimes at my office we work with the technical and further education (TAFE) institutions, and some of the students enrolled in TAFE courses come to my office for work experience. There are a lot of good students who are committed to finishing their courses, and they work very well to obtain their certificates.

The state government ensures that the people who are on the boards of universities have a lot of experience with a range of issues and understand a lot of things, and the boards are getting better every day. In the past under the legislation members of Parliament were allowed to be on the boards of universities, but they are no longer able to be appointed to the school councils.

COMMONWEALTH GAMES ARRANGEMENTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL


There is a good reason for that. Most members of Parliament are busy, and they cannot go to every meeting. The universities cannot have members of Parliament on their school councils, but members of Parliament can meet with the representatives of the universities so they can understand what they are doing and make suggestions to them. The universities are prepared to listen to the members of Parliament, councillors or the mayor about issues of concern to the community. As a member of Parliament I welcome hearing their approach.

The government has addressed 11 protocols with this bill, which other members have mentioned, and I would also like to mention some of them. The annual report must include a report on risk management. That is very important in making sure that the university does not do something which could involve a lot of cost for the university. In the past we have seen some of the universities undertaking business projects outside Australia and have invested in other countries. Sometimes the returns have taken longer than expected, and in some countries the returns are low. The universities have to be patient to get a return because in some countries the process is slow and the returns do not come as quickly as they do in Australia. The development of schools outside Australia has helped Australian education a lot by taking it overseas. I would like to think the protocols set out in the bill are strongly supported by members of Parliament on both sides. I strongly support the bill and commend it to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — By leave, I move:


In doing so I wish to thank honourable members for their respective contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages


COMMONWEALTH GAMES ARRANGEMENTS (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 19 May; motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games).

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — The Commonwealth Games will be held in 238 days time. All of Victoria is becoming very exciting about the prospect of hosting the games next March. As I have said in this chamber before, the Liberal Party supports the Commonwealth Games very strongly. It looks forward to the event next March when 4500 athletes, 1500 visiting officials and around 90 000 tourists from interstate and overseas will descend on Victoria for the event. It was interesting to read the KPMG report on the expected economic impact of the Commonwealth Games, which was released by the government. Some truly amazing figures relating to the benefits to the state from hosting the games have been recorded in that report.

In the spirit of supporting the Commonwealth Games the Liberal Party will not oppose the legislation that is before the house this afternoon. The Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is the fourth and, I am informed, final tranche of amendments to the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2001. The principal legislation was passed by this Parliament to set up an all-inclusive framework under which the Commonwealth Games could be managed, including the establishment of the venues, the running of the organising committee and the operational aspects of the games, with a single piece of legislation which will sunset at the conclusion of the games rather than its being dependent upon individual pieces of legislation elsewhere on the statute book. To that extent it does in some instances duplicate other legislation already on the statute book, but given its intent to be an all-inclusive, stand-alone framework for the games it is something that we believe is acceptable in this instance.

The bill before the house expands on a number of the existing regimes in the principal legislation. The first key aspect of the bill is the changes to the provisions dealing with advertising. One of the key objectives of this legislation is to protect Commonwealth Games sponsors from ambush marketing — that is, the government’s view is that someone who has signed up as a Commonwealth Games sponsor should have their brand on the venues and merchandise and that other



non-sponsors should not be able to come in and hijack that sponsorship, as we saw Qantas do so effectively with the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 when Ansett was the official sponsor. A very strong — some would say draconian — regime has been put in place to protect official Commonwealth Games sponsors. You could mount an argument as to whether this legislation should do that and whether a sponsor of the Commonwealth Games should accept the prospect of ambush marketing as simply a commercial risk.

Any other company that sponsors any other event does not have legislative protection of its sponsorship. I do not know that the government has made a case for Commonwealth Games sponsors having that type of protection. However the principal legislation provides that and the amending legislation we are dealing with today extends that protection by imposing restrictions on waterborne advertising within a 1 kilometre radius of a games management area during March 2006. This is similar to the provisions that were put in place I think two amendments ago with respect to aerial advertising. On that point I do mention that to date no accommodation and no arrangement has been reached, to my knowledge, between M2006 and the aerial advertising industry that would accommodate their needs during March 2006, despite some undertakings being given last year. I look forward to those negotiations between the aerial advertising industry and M2006 taking place and a satisfactory resolution being reached. This is not something that should be left until March 2006 to resolve.

The second key provision of the bill is that it prohibits and allows for the removal of advertising larger than 5 square metres within a 1 kilometre radius of a games management area during the games period. This basically is to prevent somebody unfurling a banner on a building within sight of the Commonwealth Games venue. It does not prevent authorised advertising, that is to say advertising that is of a permanent nature and has planning approval or a local government permit, but it does stop someone coming along and draping a banner off a bridge as a means of ambushing a Commonwealth Games sponsor.

The third provision of the bill has a fairly powerful impact on local government. It prevents councils from making local laws and exempts the games from existing local laws under the Local Government Act which would apply to the games or a games management area. This again gets back to the philosophy that the Commonwealth Games will be regulated by one piece of legislation only, being the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act. While I can understand the sentiment of this — it makes it very

clear that it simplifies the regulatory regime for the games — again you can ask why the games should be treated differently in this regard. I can think of numerous projects, major events and infrastructure projects in this state, both private and public sector, that would love to have this blanket exemption from other regulation and legislation that applies in this state.

The fact that the government has seen it as being necessary to provide this provision with respect to the games perhaps suggests there should be a rethink of our existing planning and regulatory framework. If it is necessary to provide exemption for the games, it may well be the case that it needs to be reviewed with respect to other projects and major events as well. But that provision is consistent with the philosophy that this piece of legislation will be the single piece of legislation which regulates the games.

In a similar vein the bill exempts the games from the noise and light requirements of the Health Act and also the Local Government Act. That will apply for a period longer than the games, but again it is to facilitate the completion of games infrastructure and the actual running of the games. It provides the games organisers with the power to enter any land, notwithstanding the provisions of the Land Act 1958 or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 — again it follows the same philosophy of regulating the games under the one piece of legislation, and not having them subjected to other legislative or regulatory restrictions.

The sixth key provision of the legislation is to exempt the games from the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003. That legislation, which the house put in place two years ago, was a framework to regulate and control the behaviour and conduct of patrons at predominantly major sporting events. It is a fairly extensive regime. On the face of it, it seemed to me to be an appropriate regime for the Commonwealth Games. However, the briefing obtained from government indicated the government’s view that it was not acceptable as a regime for the Commonwealth Games because the major events legislation was designed for enclosed venues only and a number of Commonwealth Games events will be at open venues — that is again getting back to the philosophy of the games being regulated solely by this legislation. It was deemed appropriate to have the crowd control regime in the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act.

The bill provides an exemption from the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act and puts in place a separate and in some respects more extensive regime of crowd control covering matters such as access to venues by



pedestrians and vehicles, prohibited items, alcohol, pitch invasion, selling goods and soliciting money, running surveys, removal of offenders and the issuing of penalty notices, et cetera, and all the relevant follow-on provisions to give those issues effect.

Under the crowd control regime the bill allows for the appointment of authorised officers. This requires the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Police, so it should be a fairly tightly controlled exercise. That was one of the issues canvassed in the departmental briefing and it is something that we would expect the government to treat with the seriousness it deserves. The authorised officers under this bill will have extensive police-like powers and as such the making of those appointments should be controlled on a similar basis, and a similar character assessment should be made of the individuals who will be given those delegations or authorisations.

The final key provision of the bill is proposed section 57AL, which removes the right to compensation for any loss or damage that is not of a nature of a personal injury or death arising from an act or omission performed in good faith under the provisions of the principal legislation. This is a provision that I have some difficulty with. The explanation provided by the government was that it is to prevent and avoid vexatious claims against government during the organisation of the Commonwealth Games. But obviously the language used here goes far beyond preventing vexatious claims; in fact it prevents any claim against the government other than for personal injury or death arising from an act or omission by Commonwealth Games organisers. I believe that is a very broad provision. I do not believe the government has really made a case for that. Having said that, it is similar to the legislation that was put in place for the Sydney Olympics. It is also similar to the legislation that has been put in place for other major events, including the grand prix, the Mitcham–Frankston project and the CityLink act.

One of the key issues, however, with this particular clause is that the second-reading speech does not include a section 85 statement under the Constitution Act. The government in its briefing to the opposition correctly indicated that proposed section 57AL to be inserted into the principal act is very similar in its operation and wording to the clauses in the Australian Grands Prix Act, the Melbourne City Link Act and the Mitcham-Frankston Project Act. I point out that when those pieces of legislation were introduced their second-reading speeches included a section 85 statement as is required under the constitution. The government has not included a section 85 in the

second-reading speech for this legislation. Having sought legal advice, it is the view of the opposition that the constitution requires a section 85 by virtue of that clause. During the committee stage that is one of the issues on which we will be seeking from the minister an explanation of the government’s position with respect to the lack of a section 85 in this legislation.

The other area on which I will seek some clarification from the minister in the committee stage is the acknowledgment in the second-reading speech that this legislation will impact on business. The second-reading speech acknowledges:

… that there may be some impact on the businesses in the areas that are to be declared as Commonwealth Games venues. The aim of the organising committee and the government is to cause the minimum disruption to the businesses in the Commonwealth Games venues. Accordingly the bill contains a mechanism that will enable the secretary to negotiate an appropriate outcome.

It is unclear from the second-reading speech, and indeed the bill, exactly what the government means by a mechanism that will enable the secretary to negotiate an appropriate outcome. It is also unclear what the government means by an appropriate outcome. Those are matters the opposition seeks to have clarified by the minister during the committee stage.

In considering this legislation the opposition sought comment from a number of key stakeholders, the first of which was the Royal Park Protection Group, and I know that the convenor of that group, Julianne Bell, has taken a great deal of interest in this legislation and in the principal legislation, and is taking considerable interest in this debate as well. I have to place on record that the Royal Park Protection Group has briefed me extensively on its concerns with both this bill and the operation of the principal legislation and has raised an extensive number of concerns regarding the way in which the principal legislation is being used in relation to the development of the Commonwealth Games village at Parkville. The group has also raised some very serious matters as to whether the government and the developer are operating outside the scope of the existing legislation with respect to the activities being undertaken on the Parkville site.

Those are matters that the opposition — indeed this Parliament — expects the government to take seriously when such specific matters are raised with it. They are obviously very serious matters to suggest that the government is operating beyond the scope and power it has under this legislation with some of its activities. Without going into detail on the specific matters in the time available to me, I place on record that we would expect the government to take that seriously.



The opposition also sought comment from M2006, and I note that I have received a letter from the chairman, Ron Walker, endorsing the legislation, and also from the City of Melbourne, which is a major stakeholder affected by the local government provisions. Cr Gary Singer, as Acting Lord Mayor of Melbourne, expressed no concerns about the legislation. We also sought but did not receive comment from the municipal association.

The final agency that I sought comment from was the Chief Commissioner of Police, because the section of the bill relating to a crowd control regime imposes a number of requirements on Victoria Police. With respect to the appointment of authorised officers it imposes a number of requirements on the chief commissioner. I wrote to the chief commissioner on 9 May seeking her comments on the impact of the legislation on Victoria Police from an operational point of view. I was therefore disappointed in the response I received three days after my letter to the chief commissioner. In a letter dated 12 May Andrew Allen, acting superintendent and acting chief of staff to the chief commissioner, wrote to me as follows:

I write in response to your recent letter seeking comment from the chief commissioner in relation to the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

The inter-office protocol between the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Police stipulates that all correspondence from members of Parliament (except those written as a private citizen on a private matter) raising policing issues with the chief commissioner should be sent in the first instance to the minister.

In keeping with this protocol, your letter has been referred to the minister’s office.

I find that response from the chief commissioner’s office completely unacceptable. The chief commissioner was approached in her capacity as a statutory office-holder to provide comment or express an opinion on the operational impact of this legislation on the operation of her organisation. For the chief commissioner to simply flick this to the minister’s office for the minister’s consideration indicates that there is a significant lack of independence on the part of the chief commissioner in the way she carries out her office. That does not give me much confidence in the chief commissioner at all if in matters of an operational nature that have an operational impact on her organisation she is referring to the police minister.

The chief commissioner is a statutory office-holder under the relevant act for Victoria Police and she should be exercising that role independently of the

Minister for Police and Emergency Services and should not be referring correspondence of this nature to that minister for his response when it is clearly a matter that impacts upon the operational aspects of Victoria Police.

I add that on 3 June I received a second letter from Acting Superintendent Allen stating:

The chief commissioner has asked me to acknowledge your recent correspondence seeking her advice in relation to the … bill.

Victoria Police has no particular concerns with the proposed legislation, and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has been provided with advice to that effect.

In the event that you require more specific advice on any aspect of the bill, the chief commissioner will endeavour to oblige in the event that you identify the relevant passages.

I was happy to receive that second response from the chief commissioner’s office. That is the response I should have received in the first place. This is not a matter that should have been flicked by the chief commissioner to the minister, and the fact that it was demonstrates a distinct lack of independence on the chief commissioner’s part.

As I said, in the spirit of supporting the Commonwealth Games the opposition will not oppose this legislation. There are two matters on which I will be seeking further information from the minister at the committee stage. I look forward to the minister providing the relevant clarifications at that time.

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — I compliment my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips on the work he has done on the bill before the house, the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, and take great pleasure in rising on behalf of The Nationals to state our case on the bill.

The Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is one of many bills that have come before the house to enable the government to bring the Commonwealth Games to the people of Victoria. We have previously had the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Bill, the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Further Amendment) Bill, the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Governance) Bill, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Amendment) Bill, and a few others. I am not sure whether or not there will be one more.

We are certainly looking forward to the games. We have been clear in our support for the Commonwealth Games and certainly hope that everyone’s expectations will be met when the games roll around next year from 15 March through to 26 March, when we will see



71 countries bringing their best and most acclaimed athletes to Melbourne and Victoria, accompanied by some 1500 officials. It will certainly be a fantastic sight. Goodness knows how many thousands of journalists and reporters from the media will accompany the games; they will probably outnumber the athletes and officials combined.

The expectation with the games has drawn some very strong comparisons — namely, to the 1956 Olympic Games, which to this date is probably the biggest event this city has held, and also to the 2000 Olympic Games held in Sydney, because they were so recent and were the greatest games that this country has ever hosted.

The infrastructure that went into those events, especially the event in Sydney, and I would also think the event in Athens in 2004, were certainly in a different league to the infrastructure developments we have had to put in place for the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. The reason for that is quite simple. Melbourne, through a tremendously proud and rich history in sport and sporting infrastructure and facilities, has most of the facilities necessary to host a Commonwealth Games.

Some tremendous work has been done with the Melbourne Cricket Ground redevelopment, and that work is ongoing. The extension and redevelopment at the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre will certainly leave us with an amazing world-class aquatic centre, and Victorians will be the beneficiaries of the works that have gone on there. There is also the redevelopment at Spencer Street. While it is lagging 18 months behind schedule and the budget may have been blown, we still expect it to be finished in time for the games, and the works carried out to cater for the crowds who are expected to use public transport throughout the games will also be a lasting legacy.

A number of smaller projects have also been worked on by the minister and his group for 2006. There will be upgrades, redevelopments and fit-outs, such as for the new mountain bike facility at Lysterfield and the new basketball stadium at Traralgon, hockey pitches having their surfaces re-laid, and so on. This city will have minimal trouble in preparing and presenting itself as a country with outstanding facilities to host a world-class event.

The bill introduces a range of changes to the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act. We support the changes which will enable the government to put in place the necessary powers for M2006 to manage the games. I will work through a couple of the other changes as I go through the bill.

I would like to start by incorporating a flow chart that the minister’s office was good enough to prepare for The Nationals for our briefing. I would like to thank both the minister’s staff and also the departmental staff. We had a bit of confusion about new section 28AA, which talks about the Secretary of the Department for Victorian Communities and the delegation of prescribed powers and functions. Clause 8, which inserts the new section, states:

The Secretary, in writing, must delegate to the Corporation any prescribed powers or functions or any prescribed class of powers or functions under this Act or the regulations.”.

We simply asked who that secretary was. The answer was that that secretary is the Secretary of the Department for Victorian Communities in the role of representing a body corporate, not in the role that Yehudi Blacher would normally fill. So while it was quite confusing to us, we thought the best way to make it clear for all Victorians was to incorporate a flow chart into Hansard. With the blessing of the minister, the opposition and the Hansard office, we seek permission to do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! Mr Drum has indicated that he has taken the appropriate steps and he is seeking leave to have that incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted; see chart page 1822.

Hon. D. K. DRUM — Clearly the Secretary of the Department for Victorian Communities is incorporated in the flow chart. Effectively he is prescribed powers by the minister and he delegates secretarial powers. Because the secretary is not really an individual and in fact represents a body corporate which does not have any other members, it is effectively a way for the minister to delegate powers and responsibilities to M2006. We would like to have that there so it will be a little less confusing. People will be able to follow that a bit more closely in the future.

Another aspect of the bill that needs to be spoken about is the fact that this bill will specify a games period. The games period will not be the same for each of the venues. Some venues will need a much greater lead time for preparation and other venues may need a much greater clean-up and restoration period. Each of the venues will be able to classified as a ‘games venue’ for a specific amount of time. This is a commonsense provision which hopefully will minimise the disruption to each of the venues. We have no hesitation in supporting this aspect of the bill.



The bill clearly sets out mechanisms to restrict those people who will have access to the various games venues. An awful lot of importance will be placed on this issue given the security troubles we have had recently. The people who will be granted permission to be around the athletes and the venues, including the village, will need to be very clearly identified. The people who will have this restricted access will also have to be very clearly defined. These powers have been given to the secretary, who will be able to authorise a class of person who can enter and remain in these restricted areas. This will become more important and we will have to get the restrictions right for the peace of mind of the athletes and officials, those organising the games and Victorians in general.

I would like to touch on the crowd control measures. This issue was touched on by a previous bill debated in this house. The bill will put in place different penalties for similar acts. For instance, merely invading the pitch or arena will be an offence, but it will be classified in a different light and given a different weight to invading the arena and/or disrupting the event. A very clear differentiation has to be made here. Some people can wander onto a badminton or basketball court without having any intention at all of disrupting the game. They could be in the surrounds and going to get a drink or go to the toilet and just get too close to the arena. However, people who enter an arena with the express aim of disrupting the event, making some political point or making a nuisance of themselves need to be dealt with in a very harsh manner.

During our briefing with the minister’s staff and departmental people we expressed concern that this provision might not go quite far enough. We had an example of this in the last Olympics where in the dying moments of the marathon a runner was tackled by a maniac and taken out of the contest. We suggest this is a third category where not only has a person invaded the arena and interrupted the event but he has done it in an event where the play cannot simply be stopped and the point replayed. This person has interrupted the event and changed the result and you can never take that moment back. You cannot stop a marathon, get everyone back in position and start the event again. I would like to see Victoria lead the way here. This is possibly a criminal offence.

These athletes have trained and committed themselves to these events for a number of years. As we know, some athletes commit 8 and 10 years of their lives to their chosen sport in the hope of winning a gold medal or even just standing on the dais at the Olympic Games and we could take this a little bit further. The minister is well aware of this philosophy — I have put it forward

before. We are more or less staying in tune with the rest of the world, but I think we are coming up a fraction short of where we should be. However, these new crowd control measures mean we will be able to differentiate between those people who just invade the pitch and those who disrupt the event.

Another area which will be very difficult for the managers of the games is controlling the advertising groups which want to come along and ambush the venues. We need to give genuine value for money to the legitimate companies which are putting their weight and financial resources behind the games and give them the best opportunity to get value for money for their advertising dollars. This means we need to do all we can to minimise the possibility of ambush marketing. At some events such as the sailing, the road bike events or the marathons it will be very hard to stop a B-double with a full advertising banner on the canvas being parked in a strategic location, so there is only so much we can do. At least we are putting in some more onerous restrictions and penalties. People will have to clear certain airspaces and certain waters in the vicinity of the events. We think this is a good way of giving the genuine supporters and sponsors of the games better value for money and protecting them against the ambush marketers who come up with many ingenious schemes to capture the attention of the television cameras and the huge crowds we hope will be watching the games.

The Nationals have some concerns about the financial details regarding security not being made public. It is not good enough that the government is going to keep the security figures under wraps until after the games. We have said many times in this place that the Premier has on many occasions highlighted specific amounts and the specific issues he believes are important when it comes to heightening security measures in this state. This issue is no different. The federal government has no problem in detailing where it sees its security funding being spent and stipulating the amounts. We believe the government is hiding behind the secrecy associated with the security measures. While the government is not going to include the security funding in the games budget, we would like it to come out and say how it intends to pay for the security in the first instance. This will be a boost not just for Melbourne but also for regional Victoria. Bendigo is looking forward to hosting some basketball events, as I am sure Ballarat, Geelong and Traralgon are.

There is still strong disappointment out there in the community in relation to the ticketing fiasco. Larger families were not able to be seated together at many of the events. Some families missed out on tickets



altogether because they would have been unable to attend the few events for which tickets were still available. Although there are concerns, The Nationals remain truly committed to the games and hope they are well supported by both the athletes’ world-class efforts in their events and by the many thousands of supporters who will hopefully come from around the world to watch the games.

Of equal importance, we also hope that the legacy that is left to the people of Victoria with the infrastructure that has been put in place will also be recognised as a great boon for the people of Victoria. I would like to put in an early bid to have some of the portable residences that are co-located with the existing permanent residences out at the athletes village placed in some of the small towns that happen to dot the north-west of the state and which genuinely need some low-cost housing. Many of those bungalows or portable housing units would make ideal residences in the north-west of the state after the games. I am sure that 10, 15 or 20 of those residences could find their way into the north-west; and if they do, those communities would be eternally grateful.

Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) — I am very pleased to make a brief contribution to debate on the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. As has been indicated, neither The Nationals nor the Liberal Party oppose this bill. I thank Mr Rich-Phillips and Mr Drum for their contributions and support of the bill. However, it is my view that Mr Rich-Phillips’s contribution was tarnished by what I believe was a totally unnecessary and unjustified attack on the Chief Commissioner of Police who is making such a significant, ongoing contribution to the state of Victoria.

The Commonwealth Games will be a wonderful opportunity to showcase Victoria to the world, as we see on the clock in the foyer of Parliament House that the games will commence in 238 days. At that time 4500 athletes, 1500 officials from 71 commonwealth countries will be in Melbourne. The Commonwealth Games will be the biggest sporting event held in Victoria — it will be bigger than the 1956 Olympic Games and second only in Australia to the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Without doubt, Melbourne is the sporting capital of Australia. It is the home of the Australian Tennis Open, which is acknowledged by many as the best grand slam event, the Spring Racing Carnival, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix and the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix. All these events are very well managed, and I am sure the Commonwealth Games will be no exception.

The five local councils which are wholly or in part contained within Western Port are all making their individual plans to celebrate the games in a variety of ways, and I believe the government should be commended on making the funds available, enabling these local councils to involve their communities in the games and make it truly a community event. The baton relay will take the baton through all Victorian local government municipalities, and I know from my local municipalities that the residents are looking forward keenly to the opportunity to become part of the baton event.

I would like to comment on what is going to make these games so successful as summarised by the former Olympic Games supremo, Juan Antonio Samaranch, when he described the Sydney Olympic Games as ‘the best ever’. Those games were the best ever due to the contribution of the volunteers. Members of this house will be aware that volunteers are an absolutely essential part of our community; they are the glue which binds our societies together, and it is anticipated that 16 000 volunteers will be involved in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I am sure all of those volunteers will perform their roles with great commitment and also have a great experience which they will be able to look back on with immense personal pride.

Mr Rich-Phillips was quite comprehensive in his description of the bill. He took the house through the various clauses and their purposes. He said he wished to discuss a couple of minor points with the minister during the committee stage, and I am sure he will receive satisfactory answers. Consequently, I will only briefly describe the arrangements made in the bill. They include measures to stop inappropriate advertising whereby organisations seek to gain benefit from the games without becoming sponsors. For example, there will be restrictions on water-borne advertising and the removal of unauthorised billboards larger than 5 square metres within 1 kilometre of the games venues will be sanctioned, councils will not be able to implement local laws which have an impact on the games, and the games will be exempted from local laws.

The bill also exempts the games from certain noise and light regulations. In relation to that last point, some people may be affected but they have been given plenty of notice; this is a one-off event and I am sure that the vast majority of people who are going to be affected will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience. There are also provisions in this bill relating to exemptions to the Land Act and the Crown Land Reserve Act, which will allow entry onto land for purposes in relation to the games.



As has been previously indicated, this bill is one of a number which has been brought before the house to facilitate the games and ensure these are the best Commonwealth Games ever. I am sure they will be. I would like to commend the work of the minister, the Honourable Justin Madden; his team; Ron Walker, and everyone involved in the games. We are all looking forward to the games as being a terrific event. I am sure it will be a fantastic experience for everybody concerned. I wish the bill a speedy passage and the Commonwealth Games every success.

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I, too, wish to restate the opposition’s position that we do not oppose this legislation. However, contrary to the previous speaker I want to congratulate the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips on his stewardship of this bill for the opposition. We want to facilitate and support the Commonwealth Games in every way that we possibly can for the sake of all Victorians and Australians and those who will be participating from commonwealth countries around the world. We understand that this chamber does have a role as a house of review, and that role is not suspended merely because of the goodwill of our party or the state opposition towards the games themselves. There are some questions about this legislation which are legitimately raised in this place, and I will concentrate my comments to those.

The three major types of provisions which this legislation includes relate to advertising, planning issues and crowd control, and there are some important issues relating to the prohibition of items in Commonwealth Games-designated areas for the period of the games. There are also some very important issues relating to the right of compensation of individuals for loss and damage that is not personal injury or death as a result of Commonwealth Games arrangements or activities. That is probably the most serious concern that the opposition has, and we are not alone in that concern and we will be asking those questions.

I am glad the minister is here to follow this debate, because to date he has not adequately answered the questions about the prohibition of items or compensation he was asked by the relevant parliamentary committee — that is, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — and by members of this chamber. His second-reading speech is certainly inadequate in making that explanation, as my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips pointed out.

The opposition is very supportive of the advertising provisions on the basis that it understands that sponsors of the Commonwealth Games are not only making a significant financial contribution to the games, but they

are making an enormous contribution in terms of products and/or services that their organisations provide to the Commonwealth Games team in the effort of organising the games themselves. We understand that their staff — and some of these organisations have many hundreds, even thousands, of members of staff — are also making large voluntary contributions of time to Commonwealth Games activities and assisting in the organisation. These firms and companies are making very significant contributions to the Commonwealth Games not only in a financial manner but in many other ways. That contribution needs to be recognised and protected.

We in the opposition understand that ambush marketing is a danger. Slipstream marketing is also a danger. My understanding of ambush marketing is that, for example, if there is a telecommunications provider that is an official sponsor providing time, effort and money to help the organisation of the games, there might be another telecommunications provider that tries with its advertising and use of imagery and words to associate itself with the Commonwealth Games in an effort to convince its consumers and the marketplace that it is actually just as involved with the games as the official sponsor.

Another type of marketing which is also dangerous in this circumstance is something known as slipstream marketing. If Commonwealth Games sponsorship by a particular company or a provider of a product or service increases interest in that product or service, which is likely to be the case because of the heavy saturation of advertising during the games period, there might be other players in the marketplace providing a similar product or service that come in and advertise in order to get some of the cake. They do not try to associate themselves with the games, they do not try to convince consumers that they are the Commonwealth Games sponsor, but they advertise heavily during that period of peak interest in that product or service and in a very real way they diminish the value of the sponsorship to the official sponsor.

Both of these types of marketing have been used for events ranging from rock concerts, to the Sydney 2000 games, to road races, to a whole range of other events, and both of those types of marketing have to be guarded against. The opposition supports the provisions in the bill relating to advertising. We also understand the need to suspend certain planning provisions and the involvement of some councils in making local laws during the period of the games, because there does need to be a very centralised tight control over those issues.



The opposition also understands the issues concerning crowd control and that the provision of police-like powers and police supervision over authorised delegated officers is very necessary, particularly given the insecure situation of safety and security that we see in many countries. We support that provision too.

There are, however, powers conferred upon the minister that relate to the prohibition of items during the games period. New section 3D will allow the minister to declare any item to be a prohibited item for the purposes of the act, and the minister will have to consult with the minister administering the Control of Weapons Act, who I understand to be the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, and with the minister administering the Fair Trading Act before declaring any item a prohibited item for the duration of the games. That declaration is to be published in the Government Gazette.

Clause 4 inserts definitions in section 3 of the principal act, and prohibited items are listed from (a) through to (k). A catch-all item under (l) provides that ‘prohibited item’ means:

…any item which the Minister declares under section 3D to be a prohibited item;

That could be virtually anything. The minister has total discretion over what that might be. We can completely understand that the Control of Weapons Act does just that and it is very justified that the minister might have the power to declare an item a weapon and to prohibit it.

However, we cannot quite understand why the Fair Trading Act would need to be invoked in this circumstance, unless the minister wanted to use his discretion to ban the presence of a product or service from particular games precincts. We may be wrong about that, but it has not been adequately explained, either to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) or to the Parliament. We seek that clarification from the minister: why exactly would the Fair Trading Act need to be invoked in this circumstance?

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee made the point pursuant to its terms of reference that it felt that provision inappropriately delegated legislative power to the minister and insufficiently subjected the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. While it drew attention to the provision, it did not make an official objection on the understanding that the minister would be explaining to it what he meant when he inserted this prohibition clause. I note that he has not

explained it to the committee or to this Parliament; we would like that explanation.

Probably more significant, though, is the removal of Victorians’ rights to compensation. Proposed section 57AL in clause 24 specifies, as Mr Rich-Phillips outlined, that:

No compensation is payable in respect of any loss, damage or injury, other than the death of, or personal or bodily injury to, a person, resulting from or arising out of any act or omission done in good faith by any person in the administration or purported administration of this act or the regulations …

That relates to the management and conduct of the Commonwealth Games or any associated event, activity or program generally.

The committee noted that the second-reading speech acknowledged that there may be an impact on business in the areas that are to be declared as Commonwealth Games venues, and that the aim of the organising committee and the government is to cause minimum disruption to businesses in the area of Commonwealth Games venues. Accordingly the bill contains a mechanism that will enable the secretary to negotiate an appropriate outcome. SARC questioned the government and minister as to what that mechanism would be. It is not explained in the bill; it is not explained in the second-reading speech, which I have just quoted from; and it is a legitimate question, because that mechanism could be a very powerful one that suspends the rights of businesses and would impact very negatively on them. We obviously would not want to see that happen. We would want that mechanism and power to be exercised extremely judiciously by the minister, and we would like an explanation of what that mechanism is likely to be.

We also note that there is a suspension of the right to sue for compensation. In May the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee reported to this chamber, in Alert Digest 5, that pursuant to its term of reference provided in section 17(b)(iii) of the Parliamentary Committees Act, it was to report to Parliament:

if a Bill does not repeal, alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975, but an issue is raised as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as to the full implications of that issue …

The committee sought further advice from the minister on why in these particular circumstances a declaratory provision under section 85 of the Constitution Act was not deemed appropriate or included in this legislation. That is a very important test, because where the rights of individuals in society to seek legitimate compensation for damage are overridden by the Parliament, it has been the tradition — and it is a



constitutional requirement — that a section 85 clause be inserted in the legislation. As honourable members know, there are very specific provisions about how a section 85 clause is passed through this chamber. For example, there is a different test in terms of the majority required and the procedure to be used, because all members must be aware that they are suspending the rights of individuals to claim legitimate compensation. It is a very serious issue.

The minister has not deemed it appropriate to put a section 85 clause in the bill. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — which is an all-party committee; it is not a politically-controlled body officially — asked him to explain the omission. To date the minister has not done this. I looked at Alert Digest 8, which was tabled in this place for the benefit of honourable members yesterday. I understand and note that the minister has not responded in any way to those questions of that all-party committee, so this is a perfect opportunity for the minister, or members of the government representing the minister in this chamber on this bill, to explain why that has not occurred. It could be a seriously limiting issue to the effectiveness of this legislation, and there might be legal questions about the validity of it where compensation claims are denied. We do not know whether that is the case, because the minister has not explained it adequately either to SARC or to Parliament. This does need to be explained.

We strongly support the main thrust of this legislation. As the spokesperson for the Commonwealth Games, my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips, explained, the Liberal Party is extremely supportive of and excited by the staging of the games. We realise the enormous economic and social benefits that will accrue to Victoria. We recognise that the celebration of commonwealth brotherhood and of sport could be an enormously valuable experience for us all. But this is a house of review, this is a piece of legislation and there are rules and conventions which this Parliament has always followed. We ask for those clarifications in a spirit of goodwill towards the games and wish the bill in its final outcome a speedy passage.

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) — I will not take a great deal of time on this bill because it is supported by the opposition and The Nationals. The overall objective of the bill is to make provision for the management of areas in the public domain that will be declared Commonwealth Games venues for the purpose of the games, to ensure the timely delivery of the Commonwealth Games by limiting the application of local laws to the games management areas, and to restrict the compensation that can be claimed arising

from acts or omissions done in good faith associated with the Commonwealth Games by limiting such claims to those arising out of personal injury and death.

Mr Olexander raised the issue of section 85. I have no doubt that the parliamentary counsel that drew up these bills would be well aware of whether it would be necessary or not necessary.

Mention has been made of compensation. Questions have been asked of the minister in relation to a number of different claims. I do not want to comment on compensation but I it is important that organisations take a positive view or attitude towards the Commonwealth Games. This is the sort of message that I have been giving out in my electorate. For example, the Kingston City Council has a relationship with Sri Lanka and I had said to them, ‘The cricket finals are on then; imagine how you can sell your cricket finals’. Let us take a positive attitude to that sort of thing. The City of Bayside has a relationship with Wales, and you could look at things from the sporting angle in relation to Wales. The other three cities I have listed in my notes also have relationships with particular organisations.

As has been mentioned, this is a third amendment to the original act and while it should be the last, we must be ever vigilant to ensure that everything is correct. After all, this is the largest event that Victoria has ever staged.

I can remember the Olympic Games in 1956. I remember going to the Melbourne Cricket Ground as a little boy and having a look at the Olympic Games. I even went out to the Olympic Games village in Heidelberg. I will never forget that I wanted to get some autographs. In those days there were no worries about terrorists or anything like that, you could walk around and get autographs. This absolutely huge fellow came out of the village. I said, ‘Can I have an autograph?’, and he was actually handing them out. He happened to be a weightlifter from Poland. That is something that has stuck in my mind, and I will never forget it.

I would like to congratulate the previous government, the Kennett government, for getting the games for Victoria. I believe that most members of the opposition are supportive of the games, although I think some of them secretly hope the games will be a flop so they can build on that in the lead-up to the election in November 2006. A number of questions have been asked of the minister here from both Mr Rich-Phillips and the Leader of the Opposition particularly about sponsorship. We are getting new sponsors coming on



board virtually daily. They are all jumping on board now so there are no worries — —

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva — Name them!

Mr PULLEN — There are so many of them I do not have long enough to name them all.

The bill prohibits unauthorised advertising within a kilometre of the games venues, including on mobile billboards, the Yarra River and planes flying over venues. This will encourage further sponsors to jump on board because they know that they will be protected. I will be interested to see how it works in areas where the marathon and cycling events are held as we would have to be very vigilant about that particular aspect.

I am a little concerned. I told Mr Atkinson that I would spend about 10 minutes of my speech time in bagging the opposition. I will let him off by cutting about 10 minutes from my speech. I am being kind today!


Mr PULLEN — No, I had a bit of fun earlier, so I will be kind now. Victoria does not want to be like the feds. A very good editorial in the Herald Sun of 10 June said federal MPs were making sure they were on every platform and stage at some stage or other, saying, ‘We are good blokes’. They have not put that much money into it anyway. Other than funding anti-terrorism measures, all they are doing is sponsoring the baton relay.

I want to refer briefly to proposed section 28F in clause 9, headed ‘Noise and light’. That overrules the Health Act 1958 and the Local Government Act in respect to noise and light emanating from games management areas. Those provisions are very good. In my electorate a night football game is sometimes held at Elsternwick Park, and the lights have to be switched off at 8.30 p.m. That is a bit unreasonable. I would like to see councils take up this particular clause from the Commonwealth Games bill and expand on it so that local sporting authorities can operate at least until 9.30 p.m. because not many people go to bed at 8.30 p.m.

There are only 238 days to go until the Commonwealth Games. It will be the largest event ever staged in Melbourne with 4500 athletes and 1500 officials from 71 countries, and thousands of volunteers. I noticed last weekend that we need 5000 people for the opening and closing ceremonies. I would not mind seeing Mr Rich-Phillips joining in the opening ceremony. He could dance around and that would get a few more people into the venue wanting to see that take place!

The Queen’s baton travels through every commonwealth country and every state in Australia. It comes through my electorate and I am hopeful some other events can be held in my electorate. The games are going to be absolutely fantastic, not only for the state but for Australia and the rest of the world. It is good to see the minister come back into the house. We are very fortunate to have a Minister for Commonwealth Games such as the Honourable Justin Madden who will make sure we can deliver this world-class event.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I am pleased to speak on this bill because it gives me an opportunity to make a couple of points about some issues that are of concern to me in respect of my sport and recreation portfolio responsibilities within the Liberal Party. Within the portfolio I have a very strong liaison with the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips because of his involvement as the party’s spokesperson on the Commonwealth Games.

I am very supportive of his remarks, particularly the remarks he made about the role of the Chief Commissioner of Police. The Honourable Jeff Hilton expressed some concern about those remarks, but the point we are making is simply that this office-bearer is supposed to be an independent officer. The position is supposed to be separate from government policy and direction. Sadly, given a number of incidents over a period — particularly with respect to the previous police minister in the other place, André Haermeyer — there is every reason to believe that the office of the chief commissioner is far too close to the office of the minister. I would have thought that the police commissioner had ample jurisdiction and a responsibility to participate properly in a consultation process on this legislation, but she has declined to do so, certainly in the early stages. I share the concern expressed on that matter.

I also take the opportunity, somewhat sadly, to support the Minister for Sport and Recreation in the remarks he made yesterday in his 90-second statement in respect of the accident in Germany involving the Australian women’s road cycling team. Like all Australians, no doubt, and certainly on behalf of members of this side of the house, I express my condolences to the family of Amy Gillett. We acknowledge that this was a life lost way too young. It was a life lost in the pursuit of the golden achievement of sport, and sadly it has fallen short in the goals that young lady set herself. We are very saddened by this loss and also by the serious injuries suffered by some other members of the team, particularly Louise Yaxley, Alexis Rhodes and Lorian Graham. Two other team-mates, Katie Brown and Kate



Nichols, also did not escape unscathed from that dreadful accident in Germany, and our hearts and prayers are with the families of those girls who, without a doubt, would have been a significant part of the Commonwealth Games event as members of the women’s road cycling team.

Hopefully some of those girls will be able to regain their fitness and recover from their injuries to go on and participate at the Commonwealth Games or later on at other international meets. They are girls who are brimming full of talent and this has been a tragic episode in their sports careers, and one that we all share as Australians with our love of sport and appreciation of the effort, the energy and the enthusiasm they put into the pursuit of their goals.

I have no major concerns with this legislation. For the most part this bill could be referred to as a machinery bill. The aspects of the bill that are of interest to the opposition in respect of the conduct of the games have been adequately covered by the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips and to a large extent by the Honourable Damian Drum in his contribution to the debate. My concerns relate more to some of the other aspects of the Commonwealth Games that are not being handled as well as they might be. I have some reservations at the moment about the government’s intentions in terms of some of the protocols for the games.

It is interesting and important to note that the Liberal Party in this state is offering bipartisan support for the Commonwealth Games. From day one the games have been acknowledged as being a significant event for Victoria and Australia. The games are worthy of bipartisan support because they will be a tremendous economic boon to this state and will give us an opportunity to showcase a state of which we are all very proud. What is important is that that bipartisanship be recognised all the way through the process. It should not be taken for granted. It should not be used for the convenience of the government. There have been times when that bipartisanship has been abused by the government — perhaps naively; I hope naively — but I suspect there are those who might want to use it in a mischievous sense.

I think there is a major issue with the level of briefings in terms of the difficulty the opposition has experienced from time to time in getting briefings on some of the matters associated with the Commonwealth Games and the sort of information that is made available to us at those briefings. Some weeks ago Robert Doyle, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, and I attended a briefing given by the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games organising committee, and

some concerns were raised about the adequacy of some of the information that was provided to us. Let me hasten to say that by and large we appreciated the fact that that briefing was given. We certainly found it worth while being given quite a bit of information in terms of our understanding of the government’s preparedness for the games. Certainly there was no attempt on our part in terms of that briefing to use the information for any sort of public ridicule of the efforts of the government in conducting the Commonwealth Games. Rather I would suggest that our being better informed about this event and indeed about many other areas of government policy might well lead to a greater spirit of bipartisanship on a much wider range of issues. I dare say that would be in the best interests of all Victorians.

What I do have some concerns about in terms of protocols going forward is who is going to be doing what associated with the games. There seems to be a real question mark over the role the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Cr John So, will have during the games. There is also a question mark over what roles the Prime Minister and the federal sports minister might have during the games. I just hope that this state government recognises that in the spirit of bipartisanship and in recognition of the importance of the offices held by each of those individuals they should be accorded the proper protocol in this process and not simply shunted aside so that the Bracks government can use the Commonwealth Games as a showcase event leading into an election campaign later next year. We as Victorians and as members of Parliament have invested too much in this bipartisan approach to the Commonwealth Games to see it sidetracked by petty politics.

I note that when I raised matters with the minister yesterday he continued to fail to give a proper account of some of the issues associated with the conduct of the games. When I talk to sports associations I hear a great deal of concern about the costs of the Commonwealth Games for those organisations which are being dislocated by the games arrangements at certain Commonwealth Games venues. As the minister rightly said, they include the State Netball and Hockey Centre and the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre particularly but also a number of other venues throughout the state. The minister said quite categorically that he will not entertain any form of compensation for sports like hockey, table tennis, badminton or netball; for Swimming Victoria; or for any of the other minor sports. In fact the minister in his answer yesterday suggested that there would be no compensation payable at all associated with the Commonwealth Games.



But then he had hardly drawn breath when we heard him say in the same answer, ‘But we are giving money to the Australian Football League (AFL)’. In fact the Auditor-General has said that money has been allocated in the budget to the AFL, Cricket Victoria and the Melbourne Cricket Club. The minister has failed to acknowledged those other two organisations. There seems to be a real dichotomy between the minister’s attitude to the AFL and other sports. I said by way of interjection yesterday that it is perhaps a pity that the minister had not played table tennis, netball or hockey. Had he played those sports, they might have received the compensation that the AFL has received for the dislocation of its sport, for the changing of its fixtures and for having to move out.

The minister was adamant yesterday that the period of time that those sports would be dislocated would be very short. He suggested it would be a week or two, but that is simply not the case. Apart from anything else, the Commonwealth Games runs for two weeks. There will be a period of setting up beforehand, and there will be a period of bumping out at the end of the games, which is likely to be a week given that there are temporary stands in many of the venues — the government has invested in temporary stands rather than permanent facilities at most of the venues. For instance, I am told by Swimming Victoria that it expects to be locked out of its venue and prevented from running its events for eight to nine weeks, and that includes closing its shop for eight to nine weeks.

Whilst it is true that Victoria is going to receive a great deal of economic benefit from the Commonwealth Games, it is a very big ask for us to say to Swimming Victoria that it should forego the revenue from its shop for eight to nine weeks and that it should have its activities disrupted for that period of time without its receiving any compensation at all — there is not a penny of compensation or support from the government for that period. Whilst as a sport it recognises the importance of the Commonwealth Games to Victoria and is working as strenuously as anybody, including the minister, towards the success of these games, I think it is too much of a sacrifice for a smaller sport to have to bear, particularly when the AFL — presumably because of its higher profile and perhaps because it has an ear to the minister — has been able to obtain a compensation package for the disruption of its fixtures.

I am also concerned about the funding of the games and the minister’s failure to advise this house of what the real funding profile of the Commonwealth Games is in terms of budget finances. In the last sitting week of this Parliament the minister was all over the place in his answers to very specific questions on the funding of the

Commonwealth Games and when those budget allocations would be made. Just as he seemed to take issue with my question yesterday relating to the Auditor-General’s view of the budget allocations made for compensation to Cricket Victoria, the Melbourne Cricket Club and the AFL, in that last week of sitting he took issue with the Auditor-General in relation to a number of other funding issues relating to the Commonwealth Games.

I think it is worth saying in the house at this time that one of the reasons I have concerns about the minister’s answers on that occasion and the veracity of those answers is the fact that several months ago, in June, I actually attended a Labor Party fundraising business breakfast at the York on Lilydale.

Ms Mikakos interjected.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON — It was not my money you got.

A business organisation in the eastern suburbs had booked a table. They were finding it fairly difficult to entice people to attend, I think, so they rang me up and said, ‘Bruce, would you like to come along and listen to what the Treasurer has to say?’. At first I declined and then I thought, ‘It would be interesting to hear what he says to a business group when he does not really think he has a political opponent sitting in the audience’. So, sure enough, I went along and there was sufficient camouflage — I think they had about 30 ALP members sitting there, backsides on seats, and each of them brought their relatives, so there were a fair few there.

Mr Pullen — You’re being unkind.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON — I am being unkind. Indeed there were a lot of business people who were obviously interested, and I dare say many of them share my position — that is, being concerned about the state’s financial direction. They were there to listen to the Treasurer. The interesting thing is that he said at that breakfast implicitly that there would be major funding for the Commonwealth Games in the year 2006–07, which in fact is after the Commonwealth Games are over. I was concerned about that because clearly the Commonwealth Games finish within that 2006 financial year. I do not think that position of the Treasurer or indeed the minister in his comments in this house has been satisfactorily explained to this day.

Mr SOMYUREK (Eumemmerring) — My contribution tonight will be brief but succinct nevertheless. I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The main purpose of this bill is to



amend the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2001. The main objective of the bill is to make provision for the management of areas in the public domain that will be declared Commonwealth Games venues for the purpose of the games. Another objective of the bill is to ensure the timely delivery of the Commonwealth Games by limiting the application of local laws to the games management areas. Another objective is to restrict the compensation that can be claimed arising from acts or omissions done in good faith associated with the Commonwealth Games by limiting such claims to those for personal injury and death.

I listened to previous speakers from both sides of the house. I think they have gone through the bill forensically. I was most impressed with the calibre of the contributions, as I said, from members on both sides of the house. I will not take up the time of the house tonight in recounting some of the details of the bill. The Commonwealth Games will be one of the largest multisport events that has ever come to Melbourne. They will be an economic boom for the state. I know that has support from all parties in this place.

Hon. J. H. Eren — How much roughly?

Mr SOMYUREK — I do not quite know the latest figure but the multiplier effect will be tremendous. I can tell you that the state economy will benefit immensely from that, including jobs, infrastructure development and potential future tourism.

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva — How much?

Hon. J. H. Eren — About $3 billion.

Mr SOMYUREK — Mr Eren says $3 billion, but I think it is probably about $3.6 billion, but nevertheless the multiplier effect — —

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva interjected.

Mr SOMYUREK — No, Mr Dalla-Riva, the multiplier effect is substantial, and if you come and see me after my speech tonight I will give you some calculations.

Hon. Richard Dalla-Riva — You have come in unprepared.

Mr SOMYUREK — There is no doubt the Commonwealth Games will be great for Victoria. The opposition supports the event. Except for Mr Dalla-Riva I think the opposition supports it. The Nationals also support this bill.

This is a great bill, and the Commonwealth Games will be great. We will put on a great show because I know this state knows how to put on a show. We will showcase Victoria, notwithstanding the negative attitude of Mr Dick Dalla-Riva. With those remarks I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) — You always know you have got under their skin when they resort to personal insult. It is important to put on record that personal insults apply when this government cannot come up with the facts. The fact is that Mr Somyurek made some very wide-ranging points about investment and the multiplier effects, and yet when I asked him across the chamber he had no figures. He indicated he would actually provide those figures after the debate. The reality is that this is again a demonstration that the government apparently can only provide spin and rhetoric. When it comes to actual concrete figures and demonstrating what the outcomes will be in terms of tourism, in terms of the multiplier effect and in terms of the outcomes that Mr Somyurek spoke about it is a nil-all result. In fact the member opposite really demonstrated his lack of capacity and depth as a member of Parliament representing his area. It is beholden upon him in future, if he is going to speak on a bill and talk on particular issues, to provide more relevant information than just the rhetoric. He should do more than just read from the hymn sheet. He needs to provide further examples rather than just providing spin and rhetoric. I have said before in relation to the Commonwealth Games arrangements — —

Mr Somyurek — On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Dalla-Riva has been speaking for 2 minutes now and he has not touched on the bill. He has made a couple of accusations. He claims that his name is not Dick Dalla-Riva. I do not see how that is an insult.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — On a point of order, Mr Acting President, he is debating a point.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! Mr Somyurek will finish raising his point of order — succinctly.

Mr Somyurek — I did make the point and stressed that my contribution to the debate was going to be succinct. I would encourage Mr Dalla-Riva to also be succinct and get onto the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! Mr Somyurek actually did not raise a point of order.



Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — On a point of

order, Acting President, we do need some level of decorum in this chamber. If members are allowed to call people by nicknames, everyone would be called by their nicknames, and I ask you that you direct the member to call people by their proper names and not by names that are not appropriate to members. I have never been known by that name, and it seems inappropriate if he wants to use it. I ask that he either withdraw or that there be a ruling to acknowledged that members’ names are as they are, not what members opposite wish to call people.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! I uphold the point of order, and I remind all members of the President’s ruling earlier this day to address members in the appropriate form. I ask the honourable member to continue on the bill.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — Thank you, Acting President. I was referring to Commonwealth Games arrangements when the point of order was raised, so it is clear that wax needs to be cleared from the ears of certain members opposite. It would be good if they understood the bill we are debating today.

I am also pleased at the wholehearted support of the opposition for the Commonwealth Games and the bill. We look forward to the games proceeding in a very cohesive and prosperous manner so that all Victorians, and indeed all Australians, share in the glamour in 2006.

I would also like to put on record, as the Honourable Bruce Atkinson expressed, my condolences to the women’s road cycling team and I particularly express my sorrow to her family on the death of Amy Gillett. I am sure that all of us share the hope that the three team members who are seriously injured recover and return to the team so that we see them compete and win gold medals at the Commonwealth Games next year.

In relation to the bill, I understand it is the fourth and final tranche of the amendments. The government always says these things, but if we look at previous attempts, we see that it took seven bills before the government got it right. I hope we end up having some sort of finality with this legislation. I suspect issues will raised by the opposition spokesman, the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips, who also expressed some level of concern about an exclusion that had not been included in the bill. That relates to section 85 amendments that allow for protection of police officers and those who are conducting some level of control. In essence this bill is a machinery measure that gives no protection. It is probably a demonstration of the

slackness of the government in getting to the finer detail. Yesterday we picked up some spelling mistakes in a piece of legislation; today we find that this legislation fails to deliver in terms of protection.

We support the notion about the management of the games. Relevant provisions in part 4, which is headed ‘Management of events and crowd control’ are appropriate in terms of the issues associated with ensuring effective management of the event. It is interesting to note that clause 19 inserts proposed section 56KJD, which is headed ‘Offence to display advertising on boats’. The penalty for an offence will be 400 penalty units in the case of a natural person and 2400 penalty units in the case of a body corporate.

However, clause 21 deals with ‘disrupting events’. Also, clause 22 inserts proposed section 56ZE, which is concerned with and headed ‘Entry to playing fields’. It provides that if, during a games period or test event, a person enters a playing field, track, pool or arena — I hope it does not happen but as we have seen at previous sporting events, it can cause much upheaval and disruption for athletes who receive the medals — the penalty will be 10 penalty units.

Woe betide anyone who puts an advertising sign on a boat — they will be up for 2400 penalty units, and that is fine, but if you run out onto a playing field and disrupt a game or event in front of millions of people watching and thousands of people at the event, you will be fined only 10 penalty units! It makes no sense, and I hope the government looks seriously at what it intends to do to correct the discrepancy between somebody advertising as opposed to someone disrupting an event.

Mr Pullen — You’ve got it all wrong, mate.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — Mr Pullen says I have got it all wrong ‘mate’. That is interesting. This is where the facts get in the way of the spin. I was not going to put it on the record, but Mr Pullen indicated that I have ‘got it all wrong, mate’. Well, let’s put it on the record, mate!

I will speak clearly and slowly so that Mr Pullen can digest it, because he may otherwise struggle. At page 29 of the bill clause 22 is headed ‘New section 56ZE and Divisions 2 to 6 of Part 5B inserted’. It states:

After section 56ZD of the Principal Act insert —

‘56ZE. Entry to playing fields

I will read it because clearly I may have got it wrong, ‘mate’, but I do not think I have got it wrong, Acting President:



During a Games period or a test event — —

Mr Pullen — Withdraw.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — The member now admits he got it wrong? I go back to it:

During a Games period or a test event a person must not enter a playing field, track, pool or arena in a Commonwealth Games venue unless the person —

(a) is a participant in a Commonwealth Games event; or

(b) is engaged in the control or management of a Commonwealth Games event; or

(c) is, or is a member of a class of person that is, otherwise authorised to go onto the playing field, track or arena or into the pool.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

But 10 penalty units equals $1000, because I understood that each penalty unit equalled $100.

Mr Pullen — It must be a misprint. Run onto the Melbourne Cricket Ground this weekend and see what the penalty is.

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — The interjections are wrong and it needs to be put on the record that it is the government’s bill. If the government cannot get its bill right, if it does not know its own bills, its members should not interject with silly, erroneous statements. I have just demonstrated that the bill’s provisions are wrong. It needs to be put on the record that every time a member of the government makes a statement, it needs to be backed up. It is like the argument I raised before about Mr Somyurek, who raised issues about the multiplier effect and all those other issues — —

Mr Somyurek — The what?

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — You do not even remember what you said. That is amazing; he does not even remember what he said in his speech! I suggest that tomorrow the honourable member looks at Hansard to see what he said. He only said it about a dozen times, and now he cannot even remember saying it. Amazing. I think short-term memory loss is what he is suffering from.

I draw back to the bill. In relation to the issues I referred to earlier in respect of section 85, it is important to put that in part 4 of the bill there are requirements for some level of control. I will not read any specific area, because I know that government members will interject and I will again have to demonstrate that they are

wrong. But the reality is that if we expect the Victorian police, or those who are authorised persons, to uphold the responsibility of crowd control and other event management, there needs to be some level of protection. If no level of protection is provided by section 85, then who is going to enforce the legislation we have before the house? We look forward at the committee stage, when that point may be raised, to getting some clarification from the minister.

I look forward to and am very supportive of the Commonwealth Games. I am very supportive of the bill before the house, which hopefully has the last tranche of amendments. Let us get on with the games, but let us correct again some of the mistakes that the government made.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — At the outset I point out that I do not intend to prolong this committee stage, but I pick up on a matter that was raised in the second-reading debate. The minister’s second-reading speech indicates an acknowledgement of the impact on businesses of this legislation by virtue of their being declared Commonwealth Games venues and indicates that it is the aim of the committee and the government:

…to cause the minimum disruption to the businesses in the Commonwealth Games venues.

It then goes on to say:

Accordingly the bill contains a mechanism that will enable the secretary to negotiate an appropriate outcome.

I wonder if the minister can elaborate for the committee exactly what he means by ‘a mechanism that will enable the secretary to negotiate’ and ‘an appropriate outcome’.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — There are a number of issues in relation to the question. Basically the secretary has the authority to delegate any responsibilities, but he is also in a sense the legal entity to enter into any arrangements on behalf of the government in a number of areas.



In relation to the matter raised in the second-reading speech, where the secretary has available to him the ability to resolve some of these matters, it is really about entering into any arrangements that are deemed suitable to offset or minimise any arrangements that might cause disruption or hardship to any of those organisations, whether they be businesses or other organisations. Basically it is not specifying any way in which the secretary might resolve those issues, but there might be a range of ways in which those issues can be resolved. It might be about minimising the disruption to those organisations, given that there will be a number of priorities in relation to the delivery of the games. Of course those delivering the games may wish to have as much access to any particular venues or locations and for as long a time as possible. But it may be with the direction of the secretary that we will be able to organise a resolution of this in a way which satisfies all parties — those delivering the games, those managing aspects of the games, and those who may be impacted upon by the games — and to minimise it in a way which is suitable to all parties. Really this allows for the secretary to seek to have any disruption minimised in order to not only assist in delivering the games, but to minimise the disruption or disadvantage caused to any of the parties at any time in relation to any of the venues.

‘Venue’ is a fairly broad term, but the venues could be, as we have mentioned on a number of occasions, not only the specific venues that have been designated before but also — given the free events, the road events, that will take place across the games and also the cultural programs — where there may be activities in and around any of those venues that impact on either organisations or businesses at the time of the games. Really this highlights that the secretary is able to delegate or manage in a way which ensures that we minimise the disruption to all parties involved in the delivery of the games.

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — By way of clarification, can I take it from the minister’s answer that the legislation provides the secretary with the power to reach some sort of agreement with an aggrieved party, rather than actually providing a mechanism for that? Is it merely empowering the secretary to reach some sort of separate agreement with an aggrieved party?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — Yes, I understand that to be the case. No doubt if it were of a substantial magnitude, it would have to come back to the minister accordingly, I would expect, but if they were minor matters, administrative-type matters or machinery matters,

which allowed for the games delivery but needed swift decisions on a smaller scale, then the secretary would have the authority to enter into those. But it does not necessarily specify a mechanism, as you have suggested. Really this is just a way to ensure that the machinery works in the way it needs to work.

Clause 1 agreed to; clauses 2 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) — Under clause 22 and new section 56ZE, which relates to entry to playing fields, the penalty is 10 penalty units, as was raised in the debate. Could the minister explain to the house the difference between the 10 penalty units for entry to playing fields under this bill and what was provided in the bill that was recently passed, under which there are fines of up to $6000 for the invasion of a Commonwealth Games facility?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I thank Mr Pullen, and I appreciate his interest in these clauses in particular. There has been some discussion about this during the debate but it is worth appreciating that entry into the playing fields is somewhat less definitive in a sense than disruption to a particular event. Hence I think Mr Pullen is seeking clarification on that.

Entry into the playing field might be just stepping onto the track in a road event or it might be just stepping onto an arena where you should not be as opposed to actually disrupting the events in some magnitude. It is worth appreciating that we certainly frown upon that, hence these appropriate penalties in relation to that in a number of areas, and the act reinforces that in a number of ways. It is also reinforced in relation to the issues that have been highlighted in the previous legislation that has come to the chamber.

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — On that point, does the minister know if consideration has been given to the difference, as mentioned in the second-reading speech, between individuals who do not just disrupt an event but disrupt an event that cannot be restarted or have a point replayed and where the event is simply delayed while the person gets off the arena? In the event of the marathon, the bike races or a rowing final which cannot be replayed, is there a warranted need for a different classification of a person invading an arena?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I note Mr Drum’s comments in the debate in relation to this issue. It is certainly appreciated that the consequences of the



disruption caused during the Athens Olympic Games marathon race has meant we have ramped up clauses in relation to the legislation and other elements of our preparation for the games to make sure that we minimise any potential for any disruption of that sort.

That cannot guarantee that it cannot be the case but we will do everything practically possible to make sure that it is not the case even to the point of trying to identify individuals who might be serial pests when it comes to these sorts of events. There is certainly an enormous amount of work going into that, and it is part of the overall management as well as of the elements raised in the legislation itself. It is also about managing issues around the games, and we are conscious that there are some individuals who are serial pests and who make a great point of travelling long distances to be serial pests. We are confident that we have mechanisms in place to identify those sorts of individuals before they cause any disruption of the sort the member identifies and which we saw in Athens.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — Clause 23, division 4, inserts in the principal act proposed section 57AL, which is the no compensation provision. This provides that no compensation is payable except in the case where there is bodily injury or death to a person. This is clearly a restriction on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution Act, and the advice I have received is that it should be subject to a section 85 statement in the second-reading speech.

The briefing from the minister’s department indicated that this clause is similar to that contained in the grand prix legislation, and the passage of that clause was subject to a section 85 statement made in the second-reading speech, so can the minister explain to the committee why no section 85 statement was given in the second-reading speech in respect of clause 23?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — My understanding is that it is fairly self-explanatory and the advice that I have is that a section 85 statement is not needed because there is still the possibility for claims of compensation as highlighted there for death or injury and as such it does not have the depth or breadth of a section 85. Whilst there are some limits on some elements of compensation, it defines where compensation can be claimed rather than limiting the actions of the Supreme Court; basically it is the ability to make claims in

relation to personal injury or death resulting or arising from acts or omissions done in good faith but it does not limit the Supreme Court other than through those clauses that are highlighted there within proposed section 57AL.

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — I note in the minister’s response he uses the phrase ‘there are limits in the scope of compensation payable under that clause’ and he referred to the exceptions to that limit but nonetheless there are limits and therefore the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited by this clause. This clause is consistent with the clause in the grand prix act and that parallel was drawn by the minister’s own department. In that example a section 85 statement was provided. In this example a section 85 has not been provided. Can the minister perhaps explain the difference between the grand prix act which is worded in the same way and this particular example?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I am informed that there is no limit on the right to go to the Supreme Court but that the remedy of compensation in those instances is not available. It is not to stop the proof of it — that is, the remedy of compensation is not available, so you are not actually stopping the ability of the court to have a hearing or to make a decision, but it is in a sense limiting the degree of compensation. That is the information that is provided to me from the legal advice within my department.

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — Could I get some clarification on the advice the minister is relying on? Has the department received external advice either from the Solicitor-General or outside counsel, and is he able to make that advice available to the Parliament?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I am informed that we have had legal advice, and it is not normally the case that we would release that legal advice unless we had the permission of the person who had provided it. If it will assist the member I am happy though to have a briefing provided in relation to the details of these matters, everything in relation to the provision of that information being okayed by the person who has provided that information. If that is still a difficulty, although I would not expect it to be so, I am happy to have some limited briefing provided in relation to the matter. It is not a matter that I am trying to dissuade the member from pursuing, but I am happy to provide any additional legal information, if that is available, in a briefing to the member at an appropriate time.

NATIONAL PARKS (POINT NEPEAN) BILL


Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) —

I would welcome the opportunity to take up the minister’s offer of a further briefing from the department on that matter, and I place on record that it is not clear from the minister’s answers what the distinction is between the provisions of clause 23 and the similar provisions of the grand prix act, which had the section 85 statement, and therefore why this is different. I also place on record that the opposition has sought and received legal advice on this matter, which indicates that a section 85 statement is required under the Constitution Act. The opposition believes that despite the minister’s answer that continues to be the situation. It therefore also believes that the operation of certain aspects of this clause may be invalid by virtue of the absence of that section 85 statement. I also note that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee sought clarification from the minister with respect to this provision, and I understand that that clarification was not provided to the committee. I place on record that at this point in time the opposition is not satisfied that this matter has been adequately addressed.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — If I remember rightly, but I will have to cross-check this, a response in relation to those queries was provided to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. I cannot recall that off the top of my head, but the advice from my department is that there has been a response. If that is not the case, then we will provide it to SARC. I also note the concerns of the opposition in relation to the clause. It is worth noting that this government is trying to avoid section 85 provisions wherever that is practically possible, but there are instances where they are mandatory, and we have always introduced them where that has been the case. In this instance, whilst the opposition might itself have sought to implement a section 85 provision, we believe that if it is not absolutely necessary we would prefer not to introduce one. As I mentioned before to the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips, I am happy to seek further information for him on that and provide that in any way we can. If we are able to brief him it would be good to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. But again, the advice I have is that the legal advice that has been received by the department suggests there is not a need for a section 85 provision.

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — I note the minister’s comments that his government does not want to have section 85 provisions, but I also make the point that it cannot simply leave them out because it does not like them. Obviously the opposition’s view of this matter is as I have stated, and I do not think we can pursue the matter further on this occasion.



Report adopted.

Third reading

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I move:


In doing so, I wish to thank honourable members for their respective contributions. I am pleased to see so many members in the chamber wanting to make contributions regarding the Commonwealth Games at this time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages





Read first time for Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) on motion of Hon. J. M. Madden.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 24 May; motion of Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government).

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — The purpose of this bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1989 with respect to the appointment of chief executive officers (CEOs). The chief executive officer of a council holds a very important position. Under section 95A(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 a CEO must be employed under a contract of not more than five years duration. Before they can appoint persons as CEOs, councils are required to advertise in a Victoria-wide newspaper seeking applicants for the CEO positions, and they must consider all applications received. Especially in rural councils, but even in regional or metropolitan councils, I believe this



requirement should also include local newspapers circulated in that municipality. How many ratepayers in rural municipalities like Towong or West Wimmera read the Age, for example? I doubt if many do.

The second-reading speech describes how the Bracks government amended the original act in 2003. The speech states:

Where a council decides it is happy with its current CEO and does not need or want to test the market or find a new CEO … the council may pass a resolution within the final six months of the CEO’s contract to reappoint the CEO. The council must give 14 days prior public notice of the resolution and make the details of the CEO’s total remuneration available for public inspection.

Another exception to the requirement to advertise the position is where the CEO is appointed in an acting position for no more than 12 months.

A CEO’s employment contract is void if it is made contrary to section 94 of the Local Government Act 1989 or if the council makes a new employment contract with the CEO any earlier than six months before the expiry of the current employment contract.

That did not stop councils talking and negotiating with their CEOs about whether they wanted to stay in the municipality, but they could not get a signature on the contract until the last six months. The second-reading speech continues:

There have been several recent incidents where councils have varied their employment contracts with their CEOs, thus shortening the contract’s duration so that the six months during which the councils could reappoint without advertisement commenced within the term of the current council.

This meant that the CEO could be reappointed prior to the general election, for a period of up to five years.

There are arguments for and against this. A council which has an excellent CEO would want to retain them. They would want to keep the CEO in the municipality rather than risk losing them. There were concerns about not having a binding contract with the council elections coming up. It also works the other way. Councils have reappointed a CEO who probably should have got the flick because they wanted to make sure the incoming council had to deal with the CEO as well. It depends on the CEO and whether they want to reappoint them before a council election or get rid of them. The issue here is as was discussed yesterday during question time — that is, that this government does not trust councils to make their own decisions. We have seen that time and again. The minister talks the talk about a genuine third tier of government et cetera, but the government keeps bringing in legislation which takes

more and more decision-making powers away from councillors.

Following approaches to 79 councils, CEOs and the Local Government Professionals (LGPro) to ascertain their views on this legislation, it was discovered that councils were in the main unaware of this legislation until contacted by the opposition. As I said, the minister comes here and talks the talk about having consulted, about working in partnership, about being open and transparent, and talking about local government being an essential tier of government. We have heard it all before. Then she does the opposite.

The common theme from local government is that this approach of not communicating with local government reflects an underlying attitude which is completely inconsistent with what the minister preaches. I am pleased to say that after about five years local government has finally started to wake up to this government and see that it is good at spin and all that sort of stuff, but that it actually does not carry out its words or promises with actions.

The concept of legislation to control and restrict the autonomy of local government makes a strong and clear statement about the relationship between state and local government. It is interesting to note that this bill was supposed to be debated about two months ago. Just as they had found about candidates statements for election campaigns, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and LGPro found out from the opposition at the last minute that this bill was going to be passed, after it had already gone through the lower house. They started ringing me and I said, ‘I am sorry, it has already gone through the lower house and is due to be debated today in the upper house’.


Hon. J. A. VOGELS — Before the dinner break we were debating the Local Government (Amendment) Bill. I will just reiterate what we were on about. The purpose of this piece of legislation is to prevent early termination and reappointment of chief executive officers beyond the next council election. Councils are upset because, as is usual with the Bracks government, there was no consultation before the bill passed through the lower house. They are also angry because this sort of legislation erodes local democracy. Councils are elected and are therefore accountable to their constituents for their decisions, and they believe that they were not properly consulted.



This legislation passed through the lower house two months ago. On 23 May the minister received an urgent email from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). I will quote from the email because it probably explains why a bill that was on the notice paper and which was to be debated in this house on that very day suddenly disappeared and has not been heard of for two months. I assume that means the minister will now say, ‘We have consulted with local government and the MAV’, but as we will see it was all fruitless because nothing has actually changed. The eastern metropolitan mayors group wrote in an email to Cr Geoff Lake, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria:

I am contacting you on behalf of the eastern metropolitan mayors group regarding the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, which we understand has passed the lower house and is now in the Legislative Council …

… I understand that the MAV was not consulted on the legislation despite previous objections by local governments to the state passing legislation affecting local government without consultation …

I have attached advice from Maddocks concerning the bill.

These are the local government electoral regulations that we have just seen withdrawn; and on which once again councils were not consulted. The email continues:

This unilateral approach to legislation affecting local governments is totally contrary to the Bracks government’s stated commitment to the democratic autonomy of local governments … Prescriptive legislation erodes local democracy and will result in an impenetrable Local Government Act if the state tries to outlaw every conceivable controversial decision. A prescriptive compliance-based approach to legislation constrains responsible decision making.

Consultation in this matter would have revealed potential downsides. There are situations where an earlier termination by agreement and reappointment have been beneficial for the next elected council …

The email goes on to give examples, but I will not mention them here. Further on it states:

This legislation seems to be based on a failure to recognise that local governments are publicly accountable for their decisions …

We are particularly concerned by the failure to engage the sector on this matter regardless of the perceived merits of the legislation. This lack of consultation repeats the approach that was adopted with the much more substantial Local Government (Democratic Reform) Act. You will recall that the MAV advocated to the state government at the time of the unsatisfactory consultations on the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Bill that local government impact statements be introduced as a requirement for all legislation affecting local governments …

The email continues by quoting an MAV state council resolution dated 14 May 2003:

‘Local governments expect:

consultation with local governments in detail on all proposals for legislation affecting local governments,

no legislation affecting local governments to be introduced to Parliament without consultation having been completed, and

the Parliament to be advised of the position of the statutory peak body for local governments with respect to each proposal.’

…

The state government has also passed on 23 May 2005, without prior exposure of the legislation to local governments, the Planning and Environment (General Amendment) Act 2004 which includes a number of significant resourcing implications. A major proposed change will allow applicants to apply for significant amendments to approved developments without having to lodge a new application. Further, although a statutory fee for this new process is provided, a fee of zero has been set by statute.

As mentioned above, the Local Government (Amendment) Bill is now in the Legislative Council which resumes next week on 24 May, so time is of the essence.

It is now 19 July, two months later.

Eastern metropolitan mayors request that the MAV immediately seek meetings with the Premier and the Minister for Local Government to:

1. express the concern of local governments in the strongest terms

2. seek deferral of consideration of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill in the Legislative Council pending proper consultation

3. seek assurance that local government impact statements will be developed for all future state legislation affecting local governments and that a provision to this effect be included in legislation.

We would be grateful if you would pursue this matter urgently. We are of the view that the opposition’s support should also be sought on this matter.

The MAV and local government have the support of the opposition on this matter but obviously not the support of the Bracks government.

The second-reading speech mentions the caretaker provisions introduced into local government by this minister in the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Bill. This amendment we are about to pass today shows the hypocrisy of that legislation, as was pointed out by the opposition at the time. It is called the Local Government (Democratic Reform) Bill but democracy does not come into it.



Here we have democratically elected councillors who are not allowed to make major policy decisions unless they get an exemption from the minister during the caretaker period, which will be 57 days or approximately two months. They are not allowed to make political comments, attend or run mayoral balls or functions et cetera, and they have to remove their names from council web sites. They cannot make decisions if it will cost more than $100 000 or 1 per cent of the rate base. If a chief executive officer’s appointment runs out during the six months prior to a council election, that period of time must be taken off, so the time lines are eaten into by another two months leaving only four months in which to sign a contract.

There is no doubt that if the Minister for Local Government had bothered to involve councils and LGPro et cetera, and she was still determined to introduce this legislation, she would have heard about these concerns. She would then have realised that within the human resources industry it is well known that a senior executive who could lose his position needs at least six months — and I would say at least 12 months — to renegotiate a contract or find a comparable position.

With respect to the issue of uncertainty about renewal during the last 12 months, if a municipality has a CEO who is doing a great job, leaving it until the last six months of a five-year contract before renegotiating is ludicrous. If the minister had consulted the MAV and LGPro on this issue she would probably have worked out that the six-month period could have been extended to 12 months. This would have provided a 12-month window of opportunity for councils to say to their CEOs, ‘We need to part’, or, ‘We want to keep you here’.

As shadow opposition spokesperson for local government I have met with 79 CEOs across Victoria over the last couple of years. I thank them very much for being accessible whenever issues have arisen in their municipalities or in respect of local government as a whole. Obviously it is not possible to name them all in my speech tonight.

In the electorate of Western Province there are 15 councils. That means I deal regularly with 15 CEOs. However, as I said earlier, being shadow spokesperson for local government I deal with CEOs right across the state. Theirs is not an easy job; it is difficult one, but on the whole they do an excellent job.

It is important that we have a strong local government sector in Victoria, and I believe the best way of achieving that is to have trust in councillors making the

decisions they have been elected to make. I heard the minister saying today that a state or federal government cannot make any decisions during caretaker periods. I do not agree with that. I am 100 per cent sure that two months before the state election the Bracks government will be making many decisions, putting out many media releases and spending an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars to try to get re-elected right up to the day of the election. I wonder whether the minister really meant it when she said state and federal governments do not make decisions in caretaker periods, because we know that is rubbish.

We do not oppose this bill, but it would have been much better if the minister had bothered to consult with local government. The bill will go through the house because we do not have the numbers, but I would have liked to have seen an amendment to increase from 6 to 12 months the window of opportunity for councillors or chief executive officers to get together to sign a contract.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — One could describe the Local Government (Amendment) Bill as being a very small bill. In fact I think its size is the minimum for any piece of legislation going through this chamber. The bill contains just three clauses, and given the fact that each piece of legislation is required to have a purpose clause and a commencement clause, that leaves just the third clause, which deals with the only substantial matter in this piece of legislation. As I said, it is a very small bill; the minimum size of any piece of legislation going through the house, and I can inform the house that my comments with respect to this bill will be commensurate with its size.

As I said it contains a purpose clause and a commencement clause, and the substantial issue is contained in clause 3. Clause 3 inserts a new paragraph into section 94(7) of the Local Government Act. The context of that clause is best explained by the explanatory memorandum, which is as long as, if not longer than, the bill itself. The explanatory memorandum tells us about this new paragraph (c) of section 94(7), which deals with the contract of employment of a chief executive officer of a council and particularly describes the circumstances in which that contract will be void. The explanatory memorandum states that new section 94(7)(c):

… provides that the contract will be void where it is made before a general election for a term that continues after the general election and the contract of employment was entered into following a variation made to the CEO’s current contract of employment that reduced its term.



That is a rather verbose explanation of that particular clause, but in my own words it means that an existing council cannot shorten the term of the chief executive officer’s employment so as to enable an early reappointment. The Nationals support that proposition, and therefore we will not be opposing the bill.

As we do with all legislation that comes before the house, we consulted on this bill; in this case with the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association. They raised with us no real objections to this bill, so we are happy to not oppose the bill on that basis.

I want to mention one point before I sit down. This bill is about a governance matter concerning local government. Another issue about governance in local government was raised by the Auditor-General in his report on the East Gippsland Shire Council’s proposed sale of its Lakes Entrance property. I found the report to be interesting reading. In particular I noted that a response to the findings and suggestions made by the Auditor-General was given by the chief executive officer of the East Gippsland Shire Council, Mr Steve Kozlowski. I know Steve well, and I think he is doing an excellent job as the chief executive officer of the East Gippsland council. I was surprised when reading the Auditor-General’s report that there was no government response to any of the findings. I thought section 9 of the report, which is headed ‘Lessons learned and opportunities for further guidance for the local government sector’ made some very good suggestions as to how matters associated with the governance of councils could be improved.

As described by the Auditor-General, these are matters of a general nature that could well be adopted by government as further guidelines on how local government could better operate in Victoria. The report is probably deficient in some respects because there is no government response to those particular provisions. It is a bit unusual, because usually the Auditor-General’s reports contain government responses to the findings and recommendations. When I ask about this during the lunchtime briefing that was given by the Auditor-General today the explanation given was that the East Gippsland Shire Council was in this case the primary body being investigated and therefore it was more appropriate to have a response by that council. As I said, I think the report would have been enhanced with at least some comment by the state government, particularly with respect to section 9. However, I am advised that the government will respond to that Auditor-General’s report in due course, and I will await that response with interest. Perhaps during the course of the minister’s response to the

debate he will advise the house when the government will respond to the Auditor-General’s report on this local government governance issue as a date would be very handy.

Before the President calls me back to order I will not stray further on that report, because this is a very narrow bill which relates to the employment contracts of chief executive officers of local councils. As I have said, we have no objections to it and are happy to indicate to the house that there will be no opposition to it from The Nationals.

Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — I rise to speak in support of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1989 with respect to the appointment of chief executive officers (CEOs) by councils. The bill prevents councils from varying CEO contracts to bring forward the expiry dates of contracts to before election dates thereby allowing them to appoint incumbent CEOs.

I am very passionate about good governance and accountability in local government. I was a member of the first elected council of the City of Whitehorse. I was elected in 1997 and served as a councillor and a mayor up until my election to this place in 2002. During this time I worked with two exceptional CEOs, Mr Peter Seamer and Ms Noelene Duff, who is presently the CEO of the City of Whitehorse. The role of the CEO in local government is enormously important. As well as having the responsibility for the daily administration of the city and for appointing and managing staff and finances, a CEO has the much greater responsibility, along with council, of setting the vision for the longer-term development of the city. Therefore it is absolutely imperative for a council to have a successful working relationship with its CEO. Councils set the policy direction and CEOs carry it out.


Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM — That is what I believe, and that is how it worked when I was a councillor. If the relationship between a CEO and the council breaks down, the ramifications for good governance and community representation become very fragile. This bill will amend the Local Government Act 1989 to prevent councils from varying CEO contracts to bring forward expiry dates to before election dates, thereby allowing them to appoint incumbent CEOs. It is totally undesirable for a council to be able to do that, as that is a decision that should be in the hands of a new council.



Presently councils are required by section 94 of the act to advertise for applications before they appoint a CEO unless they wish to reappoint the incumbent to the position, in which case the council must give prior public notice of the intention to put forward a resolution to reappoint within six months of the expiry of the CEO’s contract.

The amendment prevents the shortening of contracts to bring forward expiry dates to before elections, allowing the reappointment of incumbent CEOs. Appointing a CEO is probably one of the most important things that a council has to do. I have been through the process once, and I took the matter really seriously. It is most important that state government sets the guidelines and parameters for the way this should be done.

As I have stated I have worked closely with two excellent CEOs, Mr Peter Seamer and Ms Noelene Duff, in my time as a councillor of the City of Whitehorse. Peter Seamer taught me the importance of a council having a good working relationship with a CEO and a willingness to have a shared vision for the future of the municipality. He made council cognisant of the importance of sound financial management. As a result the City of Whitehorse today continues to be one of only a few debt-free municipalities in Victoria whilst also having one of the lowest rates per assessment in metropolitan Melbourne. Peter Seamer left Whitehorse to manage Federation Square. Some would say he went on to bigger and better things, but he could not stay away from local government. His expertise in this area was recognised in his recent appointment as CEO of the City of Sydney.

I was a member of the council that appointed Noelene Duff, who has been CEO of the City of Whitehorse for five years. Noelene has outstanding management skills and is recognised professionally within the local government industry by her appointment first as president of LGPro, the peak body for local government professionals in Victoria, from 2001–03, and now as vice-president of the same organisation from 2003 until the present day. She is also currently the national president of the National Local Government Managers Australia. Koonung Province also covers the City of Knox and a small part of Monash. Both these cities have excellent CEOs also: Graeme Emonson who was appointed to Knox in 2002, shortly after I was elected to this place; and David Conran, who has been the CEO of Monash for 10 years. I have been fortunate to have worked with and continue to work with exceptional local government CEOs and I look forward to a productive and ongoing relationship with them and their councils.

This bill also addresses caretaker provisions. Section 93A of the Local Government Act 1989 states that councils must not make a major policy decision during the election period for a general council election. I have been through two of these periods and I absolutely agree with this legislation and its intent. Whilst the council I served on in no way tried to do anything that would have had ramifications for a new council, I can see that there could be circumstances where this situation could be taken advantage of. A major policy decision includes any decision relating to the appointment or remuneration of a CEO, including the termination of the appointment of a CEO. However, it does not include putting an acting CEO in place.

The purpose of section 93A is to extend to local government the concept of a caretaker period prior to an election, reflecting public policy considerations. The main purpose of a caretaker arrangement is to enable local governments to avoid the controversy that may accompany decisions made immediately prior to an election, particularly where those decisions would limit the options available to an incoming council. This bill prevents the manipulation of contract terms to enable reappointment to CEO before councils go into the caretaker period.

This is sensible legislation. The role of a local government CEO is enormously important. CEOs manage what are effectively financially large organisations. When I was a councillor the budget of the City of Whitehorse was $96 million, and it is probably larger now. That is bigger than the budgets of most businesses, so CEOs have an enormously important role. The organisations they manage impact daily on the lives and indeed on the quality of the lives of the residents who live in their cities.

The provisions of the Local Government Act give councils autonomy in appointing their CEOs — and that is as it should be — in what must be a transparent process. This bill guarantees that transparency. This bill ensures this process is not unduly manipulated by an outgoing council at election time and is consistent with the caretaker provisions of the existing act. The minister consulted with the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Local Governance Association, the Local Government Professionals and the Australian Services Union in the formulation of this legislation, before it came to this place and the other place. I believe these amendments preserve the integrity of section 94 of the Local Government Act 1989. I commend the bill to the house.

Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — In my contribution to the debate on the Local Government



(Amendment) Bill I stress that the purpose of the bill is to prevent councils from varying chief executive officer (CEO) contracts prior to forthcoming council elections. It amends section 94(7) of the principal act by inserting a new paragraph (c), which ensures the renewal of employment contracts in the closing months prior to council general elections will be made void. It also locks councils out of shortening the terms of CEO employment contracts in order that new contracts may be entered into prior to new councils being elected. This is not a rampant concern across our councils, but there was a possibility for abuse under existing processes.

Again this legislation is a rats-and-mice type amendment. It is something that is being seen on a more and more regular basis in this house. It is a sure sign that the government has lost its way and again has run out of initiative. This is not something lost on the opposition and the people of Victoria.

We expect CEOs to play essential and important roles in the functioning and success of local government and within the communities where they work. Not only would we expect CEOs to implement policies as set by their councils but it is also recognised that they are responsible for the day-to-day running of council business while at the same time using their experience and initiative to further the opportunities of their ratepayer and community members.

Again with this bill we see a lack of consultation. Councils were not even aware of this forthcoming legislation. When contacted most councils said ‘What bill? What are you talking about?’ as their general response. I know this is contrary to what the previous speaker, Ms Buckingham, said but the Municipal Association of Victoria has certainly been very strong on the point that regrettably consultation did not take place. It was quite offended that these sorts of amendments got into the house without it having some input into the process.

Regrettably our Minister for Local Government, Ms Broad, takes local government for granted, and sadly that arrogant attitude seems to have crept into her department also. Local government, out of all three tiers of government, most reflects the wishes and values of those on the ground. It is the nearest to the grassroots and it is usually across most of the community concerns first hand, usually having policies in place that support ratepayer aspirations. Of 14 councils that vary greatly in the demands of their ratepayers Glenelg, Warrnambool, Corangamite, Moyne, Colac Otway and the Surf Coast have coastal climates and environments that have seen a real sea change over the past 10 years. That has

increased demands for infrastructure to accommodate the needs of more retirees.

Whereas the Southern Grampians, Horsham Rural City, West Wimmera, Hindmarsh, Northern Grampians, Ararat Rural City, Golden Plains and Pyrenees councils have been diligent in running their affairs tightly whilst at the same time being very successful in their efforts at attracting further development and business to their communities. The creation of greater employment opportunities has also necessitated the provision of improved infrastructure to attract professionals away from metropolitan employment. We now recognise the importance of making sure we have excellent, high-quality infrastructure, such as education facilities, health and aged care accommodation, sporting and aquatic complexes, and policing and security services, along with planning procedures that will ensure housing and business developments are not stifled.

I, like many in the house, have been fortunate enough to have spent some time in local government. Having been a councillor and shire president in the former Shire of Wannon, and later having been involved in the restructure of local government, I certainly recognise the value in finding the most suitable person to administer council business. Having mostly been involved with smaller shires, I know it is always a bit frustrating to secure the services of an excellent chief executive officer only to then see him or her move on to bigger and better things, as smaller shires are seen as stepping stones for rookies. One thing that usually takes place on these occasions is that incumbents want to break or not renew existing contracts if other opportunities are available. Although at the time this hurts many councils, it is good that local government is strengthened as those CEOs move forward in their careers.

We are fortunate in Western Province that we have strong local councils supported by capable CEOs. Unlike many regions, we can boast that 25 per cent of our CEOs are experienced ladies who have come across from private enterprise. We have Tracey Slatter at Colac Otway shire, Gina Lyons at Northern Grampians shire and Jennifer Tod at Glenelg shire, and prior to Glenelg she was at either Warracknabeal or Yarriambiack shire. They, along with the men at our other councils, have made a great contribution to their respective communities and have attracted many regional developments to rural Victoria that 10 years ago would have been seen as impossible. We now see being introduced businesses that have moved away from the industries that have existed historically. We have woodchips and private forestry in the Glenelg shire, viticulture in the Northern Grampians and



Pyrenees shires, private grain storage in the Rural City of Horsham, mineral sands in Southern Grampians and the growth of the dairy industry in Corangamite shire. In West Wimmera shire there is irrigation, and small seed production is now a big industry. In the city of Warrnambool there is the growth of the dairy and other industries, along with retail.

With tourism growth in all councils taking off, especially with the Great Ocean Road and Halls Gap underpinning increased short and longer term traffic, these councils are pulling together and offering a regional focus to what used to be a smaller fragmented industry. Most of this has been due to the efforts of very professional CEOs who have the confidence of the councils they work with and whose employment contracts reflect their efforts. The duration of contracts is also picked up in this amendment with a maximum of 5 years. This is sensible, but it is not new. Irrespective of whether contracts are written for 3, 4 or 5 years, there will always be times when contracts will expire close to election cycles. This amendment further ensures that given the proper circumstances new councils will have the right to participate in the administration of the new contracts. Experience tells me that CEOs would always like these things bedded down by the devils they know versus new councils. It is preferable that the new councils have the capacity to renew or advertise CEO positions, as it is the councillors who work with the CEOs over the life of their contracts and over the term for which they are elected. The Liberals support the amendments, and I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I rise to speak in support of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill. The bill is important for the staff, management, councillors and mayors of local councils. When we talk about appointment of a chief executive officer (CEO), we understand that it is a very important role in a council — this is the person who runs the city. CEOs have long-term experience and qualifications and normally run the day-to-day business of councils, with the councillors and mayors attending meetings after hours and not being involved in the management of councils. The CEO is the person who understands everything that happens in the city and in the offices of a council. When we talk about the appointment of the CEO we are talking about long-term contracts and about how a city approves the appointment of a new CEO or the renewal of an existing contract. This bill clarifies the situation and adds a few important points. I have heard the comments of other members, and we all know that the councillors put their trust in the CEOs to run day-to-day business. The ratepayers expect councillors and the mayor to carry out their promises.

The person who takes action to fulfil the wishes of councillors and mayors, organises meetings and carries out the tasks is the CEO.

With regard to the five-year renewal of contracts for CEOs, the proposed amendments will not allow councillors and mayors to manipulate contracts into the next election period.

The bill also talks about caretaker provisions. That is important, because a council will not be allowed to make any major decisions during general council elections. For example, council elections will be held in November 2005, and during the election time big decisions will not be able to be made. That is fair enough, because the newly elected councillors and mayors want to make their own new decisions; they do not want to carry decisions made by councillors or mayors before their term finished. The newly elected councillors want to bring all their promises and views on things to council. The bill sets out very clearly that the caretaker council should not be allowed to make major policy decisions that may affect the council in the future.

The Local Government (Amendment) Bill 2005 amends section 94 of the Local Government Act 1989 to provide that a contract with a chief executive officer is void if it is made before the general election for a term that continues after the general election, and the contract of employment was entered into following a variation made to the chief executive officer’s current contract of employment that reduced its term. The bill will also prevent councils from varying CEO contracts to bring forward expiry dates to before election dates, thus allowing them to reappoint incumbent CEOs.

The amendment which is outlined in the bill is a small but important one which will affect the employment contracts of the CEOs. I am sure the CEOs will have a fairer go and the councils will be more responsible in appointing new CEOs.

In conclusion, the minister has recognised the important role of the CEO, who in the past could be employed under a contract for up to 5 years. This new change will allow the councillors and the mayors to have a clear vision of what they can or cannot do during or before elections. I seek the support of the other members of this chamber on this amendment bill.

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — Although this is a small bill it is an important bill which will go a long way in making a positive contribution to assisting with some of the administrative concerns that have been raised from time to time about the administration



of the position of chief executive officer (CEO) and the relationship between that position and councillors.

Like other honourable members here I have a large electorate, of 4600 square kilometres with more than 150 000 electors. I also have eight councils, and some of the largest and most varied councils in the state are within the borders of the South Eastern Province. I have some very small councils, but I have some very large ones.

I have never served on council; I have never been a councillor. Prior to coming to Parliament I was a typical ratepayer; I used to love to hate my council. I do not really hate councils at all. Essentially councils provide a very important function in our economy. They are responsible for an increasing level of services and in providing those services they fulfil a governmental role that is closest to the citizens and the constituents. So the role of councils is extremely important, as is their ability to ensure the administration, appointments, and handling of the process where senior people are involved.

From time to time I have seen, even though I have not said anything, circumstances where a CEO may have been a little bit too overbearing with some of the councillors. I would think it would be a very brave newly elected councillor indeed who would quarrel and have a major difference of policy with a long-established CEO.

Just as we, through our democratic checks and balances, over a period of time have a change of members and representatives on the parliamentary scene, I happen to feel that it is a good thing that over a period of time CEOs move on and change. That is a good thing. Because if there is entrenchment of CEOs — it was possible under the past arrangements and it is even possible under existing arrangements for CEOs to be constantly reappointed — there are questions about whether we are getting a fresh injection and a turnover of these people relative to the democratically elected representatives in the council, the councillors.

The purpose of the bill is a wholesome one, and we in the opposition support it. It has the very clear provision that elected councillors have the ability to review and reappoint or not reappoint a CEO. The bill provides for that mechanism. It is regrettable that the bill is even necessary. I would have hoped that practice in the last decade or so would have made this bill unnecessary, but the bill is certainly required now. Regrettably in the past there have been occasions where changes have

been made to CEO contracts, and that has led to an impression that this bill is needed.

I have never been comfortable when a CEO has come out with a policy statement but has had only limited, or in some cases nil, contact with councillors. I think we are approaching a situation with some councils in this state where the CEO is so entrenched and some of the councillors are so dependent on that CEO that an unhealthy situation is almost arising. The provisions of this bill will go some way towards removing some of the entrenchment of the CEOs in some cases. In fairness I must say that the overwhelming number of CEOs serving our councils in the state of Victoria are highly professional, hardworking, dedicated and very competent. But from time to time there are a few who, as well as having the training, qualities and capabilities, may not be as understanding of their support role to the councillors and indeed want to be both a councillor and the CEO.

This bill allows the incoming council, the change of administration, the new councillors, to have a say in whether they want to retain or change the CEO. That is part of a documented, public process. It is intended to be widely advertised should there be a cause to look at the appointment or retention of a CEO. All that is public and transparent, as it should be.

Of all the positions in councils it is vital that the role of the chief executive officer be done professionally and well. Under our constitution councils have a great amount of power. For instance, the planning approvals arrangements in this state give councils an enormous amount of power. They can grant permits, they can withhold permits, they can do all sorts of things. I have always expected that councils are and will continue to be accountable to the state government. Several years ago one of the newly elected councillors in one of the eight councils in my area said to me in a friendly way, ‘Gee, what do you think of your new council?’. I did not answer that but I said to him in a nice, friendly way, ‘That is great, good luck and I hope everything goes very well but don’t forget if something goes wrong with your council, we are going to come looking for the councillors, not the CEO’.

I have been very supportive of the concept of the councillors being in charge. It is the councillors who are responsible to the state government for the welfare of their constituents and the services of the council. The CEO is the chief administrative officer, the chief executive officer and the provider of resources and support to the councillors and the council. Therefore, it is essential that that transparency, cooperative spirit and

ADJOURNMENT


the understanding the CEO has of his or her role is indelibly written and understood by the CEO.

I am pleased to add my support to the bill. I think it is timely, I think it is good. I think it can do no harm and it further enhances the checks and balances in our council arrangements. For that reason I am pleased to lend my support to the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — By leave, I move:


I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages


ADJOURNMENT

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I move:


Housing: advocacy funding

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — My question on the adjournment tonight is to the Minister for Housing. It follows some correspondence from Robert Clark, the member for Box Hill in another place, that was forwarded to me. It concerns the Housing for the Aged Action Group. This is a group I know quite well. It has been a very important advocate and lobbyist for the aged care sector. Housing for aged care in our community is a very important and concerning issue.

In 2004 the Office of Housing commenced a review of the public housing advocacy program. While I encourage reviews and I think it is important to make certain that we continuously analyse what is best practice, it is concerning to see that the Housing for the Aged Action Group may not be guaranteed of funding into the future. I am particularly concerned about this, as indeed is a constituent of the member for Box Hill in

the other place who passed this correspondence on to me. The member for Box Hill wrote to the Minister for Housing in June and received a reply. The issue I wish to raise with the minister is what the ongoing funding for this group will be as it looks as if it is in jeopardy. The minister said in her reply to Robert Clark that she would extend the funding for only three months in 2005. However, this group has been going for a considerable period of time and, as I mentioned earlier, is a very successful lobby group and very good at working on behalf of senior Victorians who are disadvantaged in housing in our state. Let me remind this chamber that we have an ageing population. We will have these housing pressures into the future and we have to deal with them adequately. This group has a proven track record. My request of the minister is for her to please outline the funding program for the Housing for the Aged Action Group for 2005 and 2006.

Diabetes: multilingual advertising

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I would like to ask a question of the Minister for Health in the other place, the Honourable Bronwyn Pike. My question is about diabetes. The minister put out a media release about a television campaign to highlight the devastation of diabetes. It is important to see that the minister is committed to campaigning for prevention. I have seen the advertisements in the newspapers and other places and I know a lot of people in the community are not aware of Diabetes Awareness Week. I have spoken to a few people in other ethnic communities and they are interested in knowing what sort of things could help them to avoid diabetes and to understand more about the disease. There is no multilingual information or advertising in ethnic newspapers. I ask the minister to consider a major multilingual campaign to target other cultural groups.

Electricity: prices

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I wish to raise an issue with the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. It concerns a matter brought to my attention by Mr Smyth from Shepparton. On a day when the minister talked about a possible increase in electricity prices through a move to nuclear power, which gobsmacked everybody in the room, I want to address the issue of rising electricity prices.

This government rabbits on long and hard about what a good job it does for consumers. We have heard the Minister for Finance, who is a former Minister for Consumer Affairs, and the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, Mr Theophanous, on this issue from time to time. We know about the four-year

ADJOURNMENT


price path Mr Theophanous has put in place. However, I note from Mr Smyth’s correspondence that the peak rate for his electricity has gone from 14.26 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003 down to 14.11 cents per kilowatt hour in 2004 but that over the same period his off-peak rate has gone from 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour to 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour. Given that his consumption is 10 times higher in the off peak than the peak periods, which one would think would be relatively logical, you do not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that he is a long way behind despite the promises of the Bracks government.

I do wish to put on the record that the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources is not shy about dealing with these issues — —

Mr Lenders — He is a good minister.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I would not go that far — —

Hon. D. K. Drum — I would not go anywhere near that far.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Thank you. Mr Drum would not go anywhere near that far.

Mr Lenders — He is a superb minister.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I wonder if the minister could get the superb Minister for Energy Industries and Resources to explain to Mr Smyth how it is that the government can claim to be lowering electricity prices when in his case he is obviously paying a darn sight more for his power than he was two years ago.

Disability services: accommodation

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) — I wish to raise a query for the Minister for Community Services in the other place. The matter relates to a local resident in my electorate of East Yarra Province. whom I understand has made a representation to me in respect of a friend of his whose name has been raised many times in this house by various members on both sides of the chamber. This relates to a gentleman by the name of Chris Nolan, a person in his 30s who has an acquired brain injury as a result of an incident and who has been in an aged care facility since that injury.

In earlier times it would have been fair to say that the number of such persons placed in aged care facilities would have been small. However, as we know, given the way acquired brain injuries are occurring there is now a large number. My understanding from the

information I received from Matt Hannebery, Mr Nolan’s friend, is that there are an estimated 1500 young people who are now inappropriately housed in aged care facilities. I believe this is a disaster, and we are not adequately dealing with the issue.

Chris Nolan is obviously the main person involved and I understand representations have been made to many politicians. The issue raised with me is that Chris is currently in Harold McCracken House in Fitzroy but that the upgrading of that facility will require him to be moved to another aged care facility on the outskirts of Melbourne. This will mean further anxiety not only for Chris but also for his family and friends. I believe both government and opposition members would agree that this issue crosses the boundaries of state and commonwealth responsibilities. Ultimately it is the Minister for Community Services who has that responsibility. My query therefore is: will the minister take action to see that a program is set up to ensure that disabled young people who are now in nursing homes are adequately dealt with and that she comes up with a program to work through this problem not only with Chris but also with state agencies and with the commonwealth government in particular?

Disability services: after-school care

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — My adjournment question is for the Minister for Education Services in the other place. I recently met with a family who have an autistic son who attends the Bendigo Special Developmental School each day. Every morning the bus picks up their son and takes him from the family home to this school in Havlin Street, Bendigo. As both parents work they have a need to have their son attend an after-school care program, and as the Bendigo Special Developmental School does not have after-school care they are forced to send their son into one of approximately 10 primary schools throughout Bendigo that offer such care. The problem is, and I need to point this out to the minister, that although those responsible for transportation are quite happy to take their son home again in the afternoon from the special developmental school to their place of residence, no parent will be there to look after him.

Whether the parents want their child taken to a location 500 metres away or 5 kilometres away at a primary school, the buses refuse to take any of the children from the special developmental school to after-school care. This creates a situation where the only way parents can get their children from the special developmental school to after-school care is to sneak away from work at around 3.15 or 3.30 p.m. and, use car pooling, put a group of disabled children, some in wheelchairs, into a

ADJOURNMENT


family car and drop them off at various primary schools around Bendigo. There is a limit to the number of disabled children who can go to each after-school care facility — two or three children is the full quota, as they can sometimes be hard to handle — and they cannot all be taken to the nearest centre. These children have to be dispersed around the town in numbers no greater than two or three per after-school care centre.

We have the situation where parents are car pooling, going to the school, dropping the children off at the various locations and then ducking back to work for a couple of hours, finishing their day’s work, collecting their children and then taking them home for the day. The process that these parents have been through is that they have contacted the Department of Education and Training to find out what can be done and have been told that it is a Department of Infrastructure matter. They have then contacted the Department of Infrastructure only to be told that it is a matter for the Department of Education and Training. They have been given the total run-around. I have also contacted the regional office of the department of education, and it has also pushed this onto the Department of Infrastructure.

I call on the minister to investigate whose responsibility this is. Is it the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training, and in turn her responsibility as Minister for Education Services, or is it the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure? The minister is also the local member and hopefully she can get to the bottom of this issue.

Responses

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — Mrs Coote raised an issue for the Minister for Housing regarding a matter concerning a constituent of Mr Robert Clark, the member for Box Hill in the other place, about the Housing for the Aged Action Group. I will certainly pass that query on to the minister.

Mr Nguyen raised an issue for the Minister for Health in the other place regarding a diabetes campaign, and I will raise that with the minister on his behalf.

Mr Forwood raised a matter for the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. Certainly I will raise the issue with the minister regarding the billing of the gentleman in Shepparton. I will strip out the editorial about nuclear power and prices and spreadsheets and a range of other things and pass the substance of the matter on to the minister for his attention.

Mr Dalla-Riva raised an issue for the Minister for Community Services in the other place regarding young people in aged care facilities. I will certainly pass that issue on to the minister for her attention.

Mr Drum raised an issue for the Minister for Education Services in the other place regarding the Bendigo Special Developmental School and some issues about after-school care and transport. I will pass that on to the minister on Mr Drum’s behalf.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 9.08 p.m.

INCORPORATION BY HON. D. K. DRUM (NORTH WESTERN)


INCORPORATION BY HON. D. K. DRUM (NORTH WESTERN)

Minister for Commonwealth Games

Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth

Games Corporation Incorporated

Secretary delegates powers

Minister prescribes

Powers

Board of Directors

Secretary of the Department

for Victorian Communities Incorporated

Minister may direct to Board

Board may provide information to

Minister

ATTACHMENT TO SECOND-READING SPEECH ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) BILL



CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES

Thursday, 21 July 2005 COUNCIL 1829

Thursday, 21 July 2005

The PRESIDENT (Hon. M. M. Gould) took the chair at 9.33 a.m. and read the prayer.

CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES

Publications, films and computer games

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation), by leave, presented guidelines for the classification of films and computer games, and guidelines for the classification of publications 2005.

Laid on table.


Adjournment


That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 9 August.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Melbourne Victory Football Club

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — Last night I attended the launch of Melbourne Victory Football Club, a new soccer club in the A-league, which is the national league, which will establish soccer as one of Australia’s strong sports. There is no doubt that there is a great following for soccer. In fact, soccer has a very large participation base in Australia. However, unfortunately administration at the elite level of soccer has tended to hold back the progress of the sport in Australia, which has had an impact on our opportunities internationally, particularly in major events such as the World Cup.

This new base for soccer at the elite level is a very exciting development. Without a doubt it will take Australian soccer forward. It gives us a real opportunity as we look towards the prospect of moving into the Asia division of the World Cup, and it will present tremendous opportunities for many outstanding young soccer players to move forward and have opportunities to play in one of the national franchises of the A-league.

The roster that has been assembled by Melbourne Victory is an impressive one. I notice that Kevin

Muscat, who is a well-credentialled player, has come back. Indeed most of the players associated with the Melbourne Victory team have had international experience and are well credentialled. I am sure the house wishes them well.


Industrial relations: federal legislation

Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — Over the past three weeks we have seen a whirlwind of opposition to the federal government’s proposed draconian industrial relations laws. In my electorate around 10 000 people marched through the streets of Geelong, saying no to the Prime Minister’s unfair industrial relations scheme.


Hon. J. H. EREN — I advise Mr Drum that part of this scheme is to take us back to the Dark Ages by removing unfair dismissal protection from more than 3.6 million Australian workers employed in companies with less than 100 staff.


The PRESIDENT — Order! There has been enough badgering across the chamber. I ask all members on both sides to stop interjecting.

Hon. J. H. EREN — The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, would allow employers to put workers onto individual contracts that have only five minimum conditions and remove entitlements like overtime pay, penalty rates, shift allowances, redundancy pay and family-friendly arrangements without compensation.

Australians have worked to build this country from the ground up. They are not going to sit idly by while a power-hungry Prime Minister strips away their conditions. These intended changes, as expressed by John Howard, will do nothing but harm Australian workers and damage Australia’s credibility. For many years Australia has enjoyed industrial harmony between unions and employers. For the sake of this great country, we should not ruin the good working relationship that workers have with their employers.


Kew Residential Services: site development

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I compliment the Boroondara City Council on its

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1830 COUNCIL Thursday, 21 July 2005

launching of an appeal against the state government’s controversial plans regarding the Kew cottages. As people in this chamber will know, the Bracks government’s Melbourne 2030 plan was to see the erection of towers and high-intensity, high-density development on 27 hectares of prime land contiguous with Studley Park, land that ought to have been protected. Under this government’s recently announced plan the open space requirement would be reduced to 27 per cent, despite the Premier promising me and other local members that it would be held at 50 per cent.

The council has the courage of its convictions and is prepared to launch a legal action to seek an injunction to halt this plan,, which may see up to 1100 dwellings erected on this site — an outrageous and monstrous overrunning of the site that is completely out of character with the area and with the will and concerns of people in that area. The people of Boroondara made their views clear at the last council election: they voted against the overrun of the 27 hectares, and I believe the council has done the right thing by standing up to the Bracks government.

Refugees: government assistance

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — I wish to inform the house that over the past month I have been involved in a series of forums across the state, both in metropolitan Melbourne and in rural and regional areas, with the Victorian Multicultural Commission and the Office of Women’s Policy. We have been conducting forums to talk to migrant and refugee women about their circumstances and the sorts of policies, programs and services that the government funds and provides, and how they are meeting their needs and what sort of changes might be necessary to improve access to the services as well as ensuring that the services and programs are sensitive to and appropriate for the needs of women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

We want to ensure that people know where services are and how to access services. We want to ensure that when people have successfully accessed a service or a program, it meets any particular cultural or religious needs they might have. The services that we fund and provide are for all Victorians, and it is particularly important that women who have migrated here and are refugees are able to access these services.

Banyule: council elections

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — Anthony Carbines, a close family member of one of our colleagues and also currently senior adviser to the

Minister for Health in the other place, has recently written to members of the Labor Party in Heidelberg under the letterhead of ‘Anthony Carbines. Member of the Australian Labor Party. Candidate for Olympia ward’.

Mr Smith — Good man!

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — Good man? Thank you! He joins a number of people standing for council out there who have close Labor Party connections including Scott Crawford, who works for Craig Langdon, the member for Ivanhoe in the other place, and Amal Ayoub, who works for Jacinta Allen. They join Colin Brooks, who works for Sherryl Garbutt, the Minister for Community Services in the other place, and of course Sherriff, Peters and Rawson, who have also worked for Haermeyer or Craig Langdon.

At least Mr Carbines gets it partly right in his letter where he says:

I look forward to working with you to restore the community’s respect for the ALP at Banyule City Council.

There is no respect for the ALP in Banyule because this is such an awful council. He also says in his letter:

… I have worked with many of you to advance Labor values in our community at a local … level by working with candidates who can best represent the ALP.

I thought local government was about representing constituents, about representing ratepayers but no, it is about representing the Labor Party! So what we know is Banyule council — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time has expired. I remind honourable members — as I know was done by the Acting President and me yesterday — that when members refer to members of this place or another place they will use their correct titles. Mr Forwood referred to Minister Haermeyer in the other place just by his surname. I ask him and other members to be mindful of the fact that they will use members’ correct titles and correct names.

Hon. Bill Forwood — Sorry, President.

Immigration: Palmer report

Hon. H. E. BUCKINGHAM (Koonung) — Last week the report by Mick Palmer, instigated at the request of the federal government to investigate the wrongful detention of Cornelia Rau, was released. It has 34 main findings which hopefully, if addressed by the federal government, may prevent a tragic case like Cornelia Rau’s incorrect incarceration happening again.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


In his report Mr Palmer stated that there was a serious cultural problem within the compliance and detention areas of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and that urgent reform was necessary. Mr Palmer found that DIMIA officers have extraordinary powers that they are permitted to use without adequate training, proper management and oversight; poor information systems and no genuine quality assurance and constraints on the exercise of these powers. He went on to say that the problem stemmed from deep-seated cultural and attitudinal problems within DIMIA and a failure of executive leadership in the immigration compliance and detention areas. Mr Palmer said that reform will need to come from the top and external professional assistance would be necessary.

Who headed this department? William John Farmer, who two days before the release of this report was announced as the new Australian ambassador to Indonesia, one of our most important diplomatic postings. Given the Palmer report findings and recommendations, his appointment must stand as one of the most outstandingly cynical political appointments by this federal government — unless, of course, anyone does not believe that ultimately the secretary of a department is responsible and accountable for the efficient running of their department.

Commonwealth Games: economic impact

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — Last week the government released extracts from a KPMG report into the estimated economic impact of the Commonwealth Games. These extracts variously reported figures of up to $3 billion in spending on the games and a contribution to gross state product (GSP) of up to $1.5 billion.

Prior to the release of this report the government had trotted out widely varying figures. The Minister for Tourism in the other place estimated the impact at $800 million, while the Minister for Commonwealth Games initially quoted a net impact to Victoria of $2 billion, before later claiming that figure was a national figure. The government has not released the full KPMG report, citing commercial-in-confidence considerations.

In the absence of the full report the headline figures are meaningless. Victorians must know what assumptions were made and what methodology was used. The government claims to be open, transparent and accountable and therefore it must release the full KPMG report. Victorians are entitled to know the true

benefits of the Commonwealth Games, not merely the government’s sanitised version.

Industrial relations: federal legislation

Mr SCHEFFER (Monash) — On Thursday, 30 June I joined 100 000 other Victorians who marched in support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Fair for All rally. I congratulate the ACTU on the rally and on the high-impact campaign it is leading to inform the Australian public about the threat to working conditions contained in the Howard government’s proposed rewriting of Australian workplace laws.

The abolition of protections from unfair dismissal for 99 per cent of workers, the compulsion, in effect, upon workers to sign individual contracts, the downward pressure on minimum wages, the replacement of existing and comprehensive minimum employment conditions with just five conditions, keeping unions out of workplaces and reducing the capacity of workers to bargain collectively all represent an attack on working people right across this country.

The opposition to the Howard government’s proposals is coming from people from every walk of life, and the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, knows he is in trouble. The churches, including Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell, and the new Anglican Primate Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, have voiced their deep concern over the weakening of human rights entailed in the workplace proposals. Experts in industrial relations, employment policy and economists have cautioned the Howard government against this ideologically driven folly.

People in Monash Province want to see workplaces where employees negotiate their working conditions in a fair and balanced industrial environment. The federal minister Kevin Andrews is looking increasingly beleaguered as opposition to his reforms grows.

Rail: Bendigo service

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — I would like to talk about how people in central Victoria are well aware that this government is ripping up the second train line between Kyneton and Bendigo as part of what it calls the fast rail project. We know that only half the services are going to be faster, while half the services are actually going to be slower. This has prompted some people in Bendigo to name the project the ‘half fast rail project’. It is now planned to build waiting times into the timetables to enable trains to make up time lost at stations and on passing loops. If trains are running late, as per the new timetable, these built-in

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


waiting times will enable them to catch up. This means these waiting times are going to be built into the timetables forever. Train journeys in that region will always take longer than would have been needed had this government done this project properly in the first place.

This government has learnt of this negative publicity, but what has done about it? It has taken out advertising. There are double-page ads in the daily papers nearly every day. They do not tell the people anything about the project; they just tell them how good it is going to be. Big, glossy pamphlets are being delivered to households, with the government again spending tens of thousands of dollars. I had no idea about the millions of dollars that this government is spending on advertising to try to win back people’s confidence in this project. It had an opportunity to do the project properly, but it has elected to do the job half right.


Barwon Heads: multipurpose facility

Ms CARBINES (Geelong) — Last month I was delighted to accompany the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Deputy Premier in the other place, who is also the Minister for the Environment, to the official opening of the new multipurpose facility in the Barwon Heads Caravan Park.

This state-of-the-art facility will be jointly used by Barwon Coast and the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club. Its completion is the culmination of five years of commitment by the Bracks government in partnership with Barwon Coast, the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club, the City of Greater Geelong, the Wathaurong people and the wider Barwon Heads community to both determine the location of a long-term home for the club and construct an appropriate multipurpose facility.

The construction of this new facility also fulfils a 2002 election commitment by the Bracks government, with $1 million worth of funding allocated. As chair of the two separate consultative committees which have achieved this outstanding result for the Barwon Heads community, I would like to place on record my thanks to all those who have participated, particularly Danny Keating of the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club and Doug Miller from the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

This outcome is once again a demonstration of the Bracks government’s commitment to the people of regional Victoria. I know it is greatly appreciated by

both the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club and the wider Barwon Heads community.

Won Wron prison: residential diversion program

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I draw the attention of the house to a real issue for the community of the Yarram district — the future of what was formerly the Won Wron prison. The prison was closed by the Bracks government earlier this year. Subsequently an announcement was made by the Minister for Corrections in the other place that there would be new indigenous residential diversion program located at the former prison site. The community was not consulted and feel that it has been left in the dark on the issue ever since.

The residents who live adjacent to the prison, particularly the farmers who live directly next door to it, have had a strong view that after nearly 40 years they would finally not have prisoners living next door to them, but now in effect they are about to have prisoners relocated to the prison they were looking forward to seeing closed. They are a little distressed about this change in government policy. There is a real concern about the arrangements for this diversion program because, unlike in a conventional corrections facility, the rules for the inmates are not clear and, therefore, the community is feeling intimidated about the nature of the access and egress to the — —


Mornington Peninsula: aged care facility

Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) — During the break I was pleased to accompany the Minister for Aged Care, Gavin Jennings, when he inspected the site of the new aged care facility at Mornington, which will eventually provide 180 beds for the Mornington Peninsula’s rapidly ageing population. The Mornington centre will replace and expand on the outdated aged care facilities at the Mount Eliza Centre and provide general community health care. The staff at the Mount Eliza Centre are extremely dedicated, but the facilities are totally inadequate. The new complex will be built on a greenfield site on the Nepean Highway and operated by Peninsula Health, which provides a range of health and aged care facilities for the region.

The May state budget allocated $20 million for the construction of the first stage of the building, which will house the centre’s first 60 geriatric evaluation and management beds. The project will provide new aged

STATEMENTS ON REPORTS AND PAPERS


care and subacute facilities for the Mornington Peninsula. The new centre will provide specialised care and rehabilitation programs for the peninsula’s growing population, which includes an increasing number of older Victorians. The $20 million allocated in the state budget will fund the centres first 60 geriatric evaluation and management beds, and when completed the total development will have 90 geriatric evaluation and management beds, 60 beds for aged persons, mental health residential care, 30 residential aged care beds for clients with complex needs, a community rehabilitation centre and hydrotherapy pool and community services. This is an excellent project for the Mornington Peninsula, and I am pleased to have played my part in getting the project delivered.

Hepburn: management

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — Today I grieve for the ratepayers of Hepburn shire who continue to suffer under their lacklustre council. Not only was the council shamed by the Phillips Fox probity investigation report handed down last October, which supposedly was to clear the air of allegations of improper handling in the reassignment of the Hepburn spa bathhouse lease, but then the council reported at an ordinary meeting that such debacle had actually cost more than $600 000 in architects’ fees and over $40 000 in legal costs and other unidentified costs. Then the council had the audacity to pass a resolution that it write to the Treasurer, the Honourable John Brumby, seeking full reimbursement of council’s costs.

Now, to add further to the insult to its undeserving ratepayers, Hepburn Shire Council in its recently passed annual budget committed to spending a mere $40 000 on footpath maintenance across the entire shire. The council also budgeted to spend $25 000 for one new footpath on the eastern side of Main Road, Hepburn Springs that will run past vacant land and end outside Mooltan Guest House. Many ratepayers have been raising their concerns that this particular guesthouse appears to be benefiting from a very generous sum of ratepayers money, indeed even special treatment, given that this budgeted new footpath does not serve the local primary school, which is off to the other side of Main Road, and neither will it service any residents, tourists or visitors walking to the Hepburn Mineral Springs reserve.

Mooltan Guest House is owned by Jennifer and Eddie Beacham, who are Daylesford Australian Labor Party branch members and associates of Cr Warren Maloney, who is another Daylesford ALP branch member, the immediate past mayor of Daylesford and a past mayor

of Brunswick. The ratepayers have been continually conned and dudded by this scandalous action — —



Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — The recent bombings in London are a stark reminder that terrorism can occur anywhere and at any time. These bombs were set at busy locations at a time when they would do the most harm. This was a cynical and heartless action by people who neither respect the rights of others nor answer to their own consciences. I wish to extend my most sincere sympathy to the families of the people who died in the bombings, and I would like to wish the casualties a speedy recovery. A number of Australians suffered injuries. I wish them and their families all the best in overcoming the injuries and the trauma they are going through right now. One Australian, Sam Ly, a 28-year old former refugee from Vietnam who lived in Richmond, was killed in the explosion on bus no. 30. I offer my deepest condolences to Sam Ly’s friends and family.

In Australia, we have so far been spared the agony and anguish of terrorist attacks like the people in Madrid and London have suffered. We should, however, continue to keep up our guard against the thugs who want to drag us down to their level, where killing innocent people is supposed to solve their problems. I send this clear message to these terrorists: these actions in London and Madrid will only make us more determined to eliminate terrorism from communities across the world.


Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes Entrance property sale

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I would like to make a statement on the Auditor-General’s report on the East Gippsland Shire Council’s proposed sale of a Lakes Entrance property. This is an interesting report, and I congratulate the Auditor-General on the thorough and comprehensive investigation which was undertaken at the instigation of the East Gippsland shire and, I have to say, quite clearly driven by the interests associated with the East Gippsland Ratepayers Association. It is interesting to note that the proposed sale of the Palmers Road office at Lakes Entrance goes back now some seven years. It is clear that this has been a difficult issue



for the shire, and there has been a great cost to ratepayers.

It is evident to me that the Auditor-General has found that no councillor or officer of the East Gippsland shire stood to gain from any action on their part in relation to the transactions which have been investigated. It is important to note, however, that the Auditor-General also found that there was a significant failure in process and probity and that the integrity of the sale process was significantly undermined by the failures of process. The sale in relation to this property is important because there have been a lot of costs accrued to the ratepayers in East Gippsland not only as a result of the settlement of the court action but also the delinquent costs incurred from the commissioning of a real estate agent to sell the property, the marketing costs therefore associated with that and, of course, the extraordinary amount of officer time that was invested over a number of years into the sale process.

I take issue with one particular comment of the Auditor-General, and I quote from page 12 of the report, which states:

In January 1998, the council resolved ‘that the East Gippsland shire head office be based in Bairnsdale’. We saw no evidence of any community consultation prior to that decision being made.

It is important for the Parliament to know that, while the Auditor-General has investigated issues raised by the East Gippsland ratepayers and the shire council, clearly the sale of the property was a policy decision made by council reflecting two things. The first is a strong community view that the head office of the East Gippsland shire should be based at Bairnsdale rather than at Lakes Entrance where the commissioners had located it initially. The commissioners, I understood, did that quite deliberately so as to change the culture within the amalgamated shire and to ensure a better transition of the five previous former rural municipalities into the one amalgamated shire. It was quite strongly felt in the community, and as a member of Parliament I received representations and strong views were put to me consistently, that the headquarters should be in Bairnsdale. Secondly, it is important to note that there was in fact an investigation of the financial performance of the shire commencing in August 1997 when a municipal administration inspector was appointed by the then Office of Local Government to undertake a financial review.

The recommendation of the review was that there be a consolidation of the two centres, Lakes Entrance and Bairnsdale, to one site to save costs. I do not think there was any policy doubt about the need for the sale of the

property. What is at issue here is the process, and I concur with the Auditor-General that the process failed, obviously at great expense to the ratepayers of East Gippsland.

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: violence associated with motor vehicle use

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a statement on the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s recent report into the inquiry into violence associated with motor vehicle use. I know that all members of the chamber would be interested in this topic. It is a very substantial and comprehensive report, and it is well worth members taking some time out to have a look at it. The amount of road rage or road violence that occurs every day on our roads is a concern within the community, as it would be a concern for everybody in this chamber. We have all come up against it. We have witnessed it as a matter occurring between other vehicles and other drivers; we may have been a recipient of other drivers making rude gestures, tooting at us or cutting across us as we drove; or some of us may have even been perpetrators after losing our tempers or becoming frustrated and perhaps behaving in ways we would not normally behave.

That situation is well recognised by all members of this chamber and is certainly well recognised out in the community. We only have to look at some of the extremes of road rage which have been reported in the media, where an incident on the road has led to a frustrated driver or a very angry and violent person to follow somebody home and attack them, or to stop at the lights and stab or assault them in other ways. These are dreadful incidents.

This is a very worthwhile report and as I said before, it is quite a weighty and extensive report put together by the committee. I congratulate the members of the Drug and Crime Prevention Committee for this comprehensive report — they are Mr Scheffer, who chairs the committee, the member for Mornington in the other place, Robin Cooper, who was the deputy chair; also, the members for Forest Hill, Narracan, Benalla and Scoresby in the other place — Kirstie Marshall, Ian Maxfield, Bill Sykes and Kim Wells respectively; and the Honourable Sang Nguyen.

This report has attempted to break down the elements of road rage that occur more frequently and take a look at and investigate the incidents as well as the prevalence, severity, cost and the impact of violence that is associated with motor vehicle use and to report



on some effective strategies and initiatives that would relate to this type of violence.

The inquiry has identified vast international research literature on road violence and associated behaviour, including examination of violence and aggressive driving behaviour, human violence, driving psychology, masculinity and gender driving culture, alcohol and drug behaviour modification, stress and anger management, road safety strategies and campaigns, driving laws and sentencing as well as media and advertising.

The committee also investigated road infrastructure, speed, traffic management, road congestion, licensing and motor vehicle design. It is indeed a very comprehensive report. It contains some excellent recommendations, and I urge all members to take the time to read this report and take on board the analysis that has been done, and to take note of the careful work done in looking at this important incidence.

Office of Police Integrity: witness protection program

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) — I rise to talk on two reports. One is the review of the Victoria Police witness protection program, and the second is the Department of Justice report into asset confiscation operations.

I turn to the report into the witness protection program. Whilst I commend any organisation that makes an attempt to deal with protection of witnesses, I have some concern about how this document has been prepared. If anything, it is a good piece of literature which would go well in a library; but in terms of delivering a real outcome, I am disappointed that the director, police integrity, has not seen fit to produce any evidence.

The director, police integrity, talks about issues relating to the 1995 window shutters issue — this is mentioned in today’s Age and Herald Sun — where he talks about the large-scale corruption within the police force. The director, police integrity, said in respect of the matters before him that 35 police are being investigated. However, he also said he receives 15 000 complaints a year. I did a brief calculation to see exactly what the percentage of allegedly corrupt police is against complaints received. It is 0.2 per cent, so it is not widespread as the director, police integrity, reports.

The director, police integrity, was at the Melbourne Press Club yesterday. That is always a good place to talk about police corruption — let us go to the

Melbourne Press Club and talk about police corruption and use the media as part of that because that is about solving the problem. He said all the police have been helpful and he has not had to use his coercive powers.

I find the references in this document in front of us amazing. The director, police integrity, has used 35 references from Australian publications but he has also used 21 references from the US and 14 from UK or European publications. Of those 35 Australian references, probably about 10 are from the newspapers. In my view this is not about demonstrating concerns about the witness protection program. This document lends no more weight in terms of providing additional information to the broader public about the merits or otherwise of the witness protection program in Victoria. In my view this document is very light on. It relies on evidence from the Herald Sun and the Age to justify whether the witness protection program is working or failing. It relies on evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom to demonstrate that the witness program in Victoria may or may not be operating effectively.

I am sadly disappointed in this report. I am particularly disappointed with the reference to a 1991 article by T. J. English titled ‘The wise guy next door — the witness protection program has a remarkable purpose: to hide hardened criminals among the general public’. This article appeared in Playboy volume 38(4). The director, police integrity, is referencing Playboy as the doctrine of the problems in our witness protection program. The director, police integrity, should get out of the Melbourne Press Club and start dealing with corruption as he sees fit.

In my view, 35 cases from 15 000 complaints fails to demonstrate a problem. It is no use the director, police integrity, talking about all the problems. He is charged with the responsibility of investigating corruption. If he cannot do it, get him out of it and, as we have always supported, get in a royal commission and use the other opportunities.

Justice: asset confiscation operations — activities summary 2003–04

Hon. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA (East Yarra) —

The second report I would like to comment on very briefly is the asset confiscation report. I am very thankful for the opportunity to comment on this report. Those who read Hansard or know my background would know that I was part of the first team in the asset confiscation office, or section as it was then known. I am very pleased that the funding has gone up. However, on page 5 the report shows that the office received $4.286 — I assume that is millions — —



The PRESIDENT — Order! The member’s time

has expired.

Economic Development Committee: labour hire

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) — I would like to comment on the final report of the Economic Development Committee’s inquiry into labour hire employment in Victoria. I am a member of the Economic Development Committee along with the Honourables Bruce Atkinson and Ron Bowden from this chamber. The members of the committee from the other place are the chair, Tony Robinson, the member for Mitcham; Brendan Jenkins, the member for Morwell; and Maxine Morand, the member for Mount Waverley. I want to particularly thank the staff because they did a tremendous job with this difficult report: Dr Russell Solomon, the executive officer; Kirsten Newitt, the research officer; Frances Essaber, the editor; and our wonderful office manager, Andrea Agosta.

This was an inquiry into labour hire and it could have been a divisive report because, let us be realistic, we have four Labor members, two Liberals and one from The Nationals — I left out Hugh Delahunty, the member for Lowan in the other place, but he is also a member of the committee.

It was great that the committee could come together to produce a bipartisan report, which could have been quite divisive because of its political line-up. In the short time I have I will make a couple of comments on the report. The interim report included 16 recommendations, many of which focused on occupational health and safety. This report broadens the interim report and considers further implications of the growth of the labour hire industry in Victoria. The final report contains 11 recommendations, and I want to touch on a couple of them:

The committee recommends that the Victorian government, directly and in conjunction with the federal government, encourage the finance industry to develop improved opportunities for non-standard workers, such as labour hire workers and casual employees, to obtain finance for loans, especially home loans.

We even had some groups come along to us and say that it was not a problem. As someone who came from the finance industry I straightened them out and told them that people who are casual workers or labour hire workers have greater difficulty in obtaining finance. The finance industry has to have a good look at its ability to help these people. Sometimes people lose their jobs and they get casual work, and they can be on casual work in the same job for about four years, but

they are given tougher restrictions in relation to obtaining loans from finance institutions.

The committee also recommended that:

… the Victorian government make representations to the federal government to conduct an inquiry into casual employment, with particular reference to the terms and conditions of casual employment.

I feel there are far too many workers going into casual employment when they could easily be employed in full-time employment. I trust that the federal government will take up that recommendation if it is put forward to it by the Victorian government. The committee also recommended that:

… the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s guidance material for labour hire agencies should include reference to the agency’s obligation to ensure that workers:

do not work for inappropriately long hours each day; and

take appropriate daily breaks as well as periods of annual recreational leave.

It goes on to say in another recommendation that:

… the Victorian government, together with the labour hire industry, examine models that make it easier for non-standard workers to budget for unpaid leave.

Leave is a big issue at the moment with the federal government looking at changing conditions for employment and so on. However, in my opinion it is important that workers have the opportunity to always have four weeks leave. Even if people are casual workers and receive a little bit more money, as is also the case with labour hire workers, they miss out on a lot of conditions. It is most important that people have their recreational leave, as the committee emphasised that:

… where group training companies carry out labour hire activities, these activities should be regulated …

I stress the word ‘regulated’. We are not looking at a licensing scheme but a regulations scheme, in the same way that labour hire agencies are regulated. The recommendation continues:

However, any government response should recognise the important contribution that group training makes to vocational education and training and should aim to avoid any detrimental impact on the group training system.

Group training companies do a tremendous job, and I know a lot of young people who have gone ahead and found very good jobs from working with group training companies.



Auditor-General: managing intellectual

property in government agencies

Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Eumemmerring) — I wish to make a statement on the Auditor-General’s report on managing intellectual property in government agencies. I say at the outset that I welcome this report by the Auditor-General. This is the first significant review of the issue of intellectual property management in the state of Victoria. It is a field which has not received a great deal of attention from government, as the Auditor-General’s report demonstrates, and to that extent the work he has undertaken is pioneering and sets a framework that the government can pursue in developing a coherent whole-of-government policy on the management of intellectual property. The Auditor-General has undertaken a fairly extensive review of the issue and nature of intellectual property and it is worth looking at exactly what he has concluded in terms of the framework for intellectual property.

The Auditor-General has identified seven separate forms of intellectual property (IP), some of which come within the scope of state government and some of which are outside that. In his chapter on the nature of intellectual property the Auditor-General has identified: copyright, which is a fairly conventional recognised form of IP; trademarks; patents; plant breeder’s rights, which is not ordinarily considered within the scope of IP; confidential information; registered designs; and circuit layout rights, for example, integrated circuit designs.

He has examined the reasons why the protection and management of IP is important. He has identified five key benefits arising from its management including: the revenue or royalties from commercialisation; expansion of business opportunities arising to the holders of IP; improved competitiveness; economic growth and job creation in the jurisdiction where the IP is held; and social and environmental benefits from the broader uptake of IP. Some of those benefits clearly arise when the IP is held and exploited by a single IP holder, and some of them arise where the IP is made available to a broader group of the community beyond the IP holder.

The Auditor-General has also identified the legislative framework for IP management in Australia noting that it operates as far as Victoria is concerned on four separate levels. The first is the individual agency level. Some government agencies do have IP policies to varying extents. There is the whole-of-government IP policy level, which the Auditor-General has found to be fairly limited. There is a legislative level put in place by the commonwealth, which consists of no less than

seven separate acts of the commonwealth Parliament as well as standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board. There are a number of international conventions on the fourth level arising through Australia’s international treaty obligations. So there are four distinct levels on which IP policy impacts on the operation of Victorian agencies.

The Auditor-General has outlined a plan for the government to move forward in the development of a whole-of-government IP policy. One of the areas that was not explicitly touched upon in this report relates to IP arising through the giving of state government grants, and this is a matter that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee touched on briefly in its latest budget estimates report, where it noted that the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development provides industry grants to companies for various research development and business development activities. However, there is no policy as to the ownership and exploitation of IP arising from those grants. That is something that is not explicitly picked up in this report, but it is something that the government can address in its whole-of-government IP policy.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Auditor-General: managing stormwater flooding risks

Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) — I would like to make a brief comment on the Auditor-General’s report Managing Stormwater Flooding Risks in Melbourne.

Members would be aware that how we treat stormwater is becoming a very interesting issue, because we are increasingly recognising that water is a finite and precious resource that we have to conserve and manage sensibly.

Stormwater is water that comes from roofs, roads and buildings and is then carried by gutters, drains and channels, then through rivers and creeks to eventually end up in Western Port and Port Phillip bays.

There is some debate at the present time whether we should have a new dam to enable us to conserve more stormwater. Personally I doubt whether the $1 billion it would cost to build a new dam would be an effective way of managing our water resources, and it may be that the $1 billion could be spent in other ways.



The government’s approach is to encourage people to install rainwater tanks and to use the water saved on their gardens. My family and I have lived on a property where our sole source of water is tank water, and as far as I am concerned we have not suffered any negative consequences. Indeed, a health study was done some years ago which suggested that children brought up on properties where the source of water is tank water have a greater resistance and better general health than children raised in the city. I am not sure whether that conclusion is based on the fact that they are using stormwater rather than just enjoying a healthier lifestyle, but certainly there are no negative health effects if you rely on stormwater for your drinking water.

The Auditor-General’s report essentially addressed two key questions: had the stormwater flood investigation strategies adopted by the agencies charged with managing the Melbourne metropolitan drainage system — that is, Melbourne Water and the local councils — diminished exposure to flood damage; and were the drainage infrastructure asset management practices adopted by Melbourne Water and the councils optimising the useful life and service capability of these assets. I quote directly from the report:

The capacity of drainage systems across metropolitan Melbourne to cope with stormwater varies, generally according to the age of the system. Before the late 1970s, most drainage systems were designed to contain stormwater from a five-year storm event.

Properties developed where no provision was made for the overland flow of stormwater are subject to flooding when the capacity of the underground drainage system is exceeded.

After major flooding in 1973, 1974 and 1975, the Victorian government introduced the Drainage of Land Act in 1975, which enabled authorities to control development on flood-prone land by the end of that decade. Subdivisions developed after that date under the new standards incorporated drainage systems that could safely accommodate overland flows from a 100-year storm event.

Today, the 100-year storm event is still the basis for identifying land subject to flooding and determining appropriate controls under the Water Act 1989 and for setting minimum building requirements under the Building Act 1993.

The conclusions of the report were essentially that a lot of work still needs to be done to ensure that Melbourne is able to deal with the standard 1-in-100-year event. I again quote from the executive summary of the report, which says:

Melbourne Water demonstrated some progress, but its aims were very limited. Over the four years to 2003–04 it had undertaken work to prevent 323 properties from being flooded above floor level from a 100-year storm event. Over the next 10 years it plans to mitigate the risks for only 500 of

the remaining 37 000 most vulnerable properties at a cost of approximately $2 million per year. A further 2500 properties are expected to be protected by conforming to more stringent planning requirements when these properties are redeveloped.

Obviously what the report is saying is that far more work needs to be done to protect properties, but obviously this work comes at a cost. To make sure that all properties could withstand a 1-in-100-year event would be very expensive. However, I believe the Auditor-General has, in his usual, competent way, issued a very useful report highlighting a very important issue. I commend it to the house.

Victorian WorkCover Authority: report 2003–04

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) — I wish to make a statement on the Victorian WorkCover Authority 2003–04 annual report. Pages 17 to 34 of the report deal with the issue of occupational health and safety, a matter which is gaining considerable currency with the coming into operation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, which commenced on the first of this month. I am sure that the forthcoming report from the WorkCover authority will deal at some length with the preparations the authority is making for the implementation of the provisions of the new act. I note in passing how pleasing it was to hear at the presentation from WorkCover at the Victorian Farmers Federation conference that there have been no farm fatalities in the first six months of 2005. That is very encouraging and well worthy of note.

This morning I want to particularly go to the issue of what the act means for owners of properties that are leased out. It has come to my notice that some managing agents are sending letters to their clients, those who are landlords. I quote from a particular letter:

The new legislation now transfers the ‘duty of care’ from the occupiers of a workplace to ‘persons who manage or control workplaces’, to include property owners.

I think that is a misinterpretation of what the act actually does. If one has regard to part 3 of the act entitled ‘General duties relating to health and safety’, and particularly to sections 21 on, it makes it very clear that the duty of maintaining a safe workplace will remain primarily with the employer. If it is a rented out property, the employer will not be the landlord but the occupant of the property. Subsection (1) of section 26 of the act entitled ‘Duties of persons who manage or control workplaces’, says:

A person who (whether an owner or otherwise) has, to any extent, the management or control of a workplace must ensure so far as is reasonably possible that the workplace and the means of entering and leaving it are safe and without risks to health.



Subsection (2) says:

The duties of a person under sub-section (1) apply only in relation to matters over which the person has management or control.

Clearly the owner of the building would have management or control if asbestos had been used in its construction, for example, but it is hard to see how the owner of a property that is occupied by a tenant has day-to-day control or management over any other aspects. Yet this particular firm of management agents has suggested to its landlords that they need to get an occupational health and safety audit done. The initial audit would cost $1350 plus GST. It would cost a further $390 plus GST for an annual inspection, and a charge of $150 plus GST would be incurred for the managing agents to take the responsibility of organising the inspection. I am not sure whether this particular firm or managing agent is misinterpreting the act, whether it is playing absolutely safe or whether it sees here an opportunity to generate a large volume of fees beyond what is reasonable.

I have had regard to the information sheets put out by WorkSafe. One is headed ‘Information for occupiers and those who manage or control workplaces’. It is the first edition dated May 2005. There is nothing in this information sheet which suggests for one moment the sort of charges I have just outlined or the inspections it is suggesting are required of the owners of workplaces generally across the board. I think some clarification is certainly needed out there. Many of these landlords are widows or self-funded retirees. If they are getting this sort of letter from their managing agents they are likely to believe that these are charges they are up for, and that they cannot do anything about it. I say they can.

I invite the minister and also WorkCover to clarify exactly what responsibilities the new act does impose on landlords, particularly those who own relatively new buildings that have been constructed in recent years according to modern technology.

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: violence associated with motor vehicle use

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I would like to make a statement on the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee’s inquiry into violence associated with motor vehicle use. The report was completed sometime this year. As a member of this committee, together with the other members, I was very committed to completing the report. It contains very many important recommendations and a lot of the information provided by people we met. We had open public meetings and invited people to make

submissions. The committee received about 31 written submissions from individuals, government departments, relevant authorities, researchers, academics, professional organisations and committee organisations. Those submissions showed people’s interest in taking part. We also received evidence from 17 witnesses from 10 organisations during the public hearing in Victoria. We met about 35 representatives from 16 interstate organisations and heard from 35 representatives from 12 overseas organisations. The committee also received about 86 responses from its Web survey. The hearings and discussions provided the committee with much knowledge.

The report is well documented and contains a lot of information and research, reflecting the work put in by committee members and staff. I would like to thank the executive officer, Sandy Cook; Sandy Jensen; Emma White; Chantel Churchus; Michelle Summerhill; and the senior legal officer, Peter Johnston. This report was the result of the media raising the issue of concern about road rage. A lot of people get injured or killed because of the irresponsibility of other drivers. The committee was asked by the Road Safety Committee to investigate because a lot of issues the two committees deal with are connected. We had to take responsibility for investigating road rage in Victoria. It is difficult to identify how road rage is connected to violence because sometimes people drive irresponsibly or they are bad tempered when they are driving. They are selfish drivers. We had to bring all the evidence together to make recommendations. There are many important recommendations. We would like to ask the police and VicRoads to make responsibility for implementing the report — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! The member’s time has expired.

Melbourne Health: report 2003–04

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I wish to make a contribution today to the debate on reports in particular dealing with the Department of Human Services annual report 2003–04 and the acute health reporting mechanism there, and secondly, the Melbourne Health report for 2003–04, which you, Acting President, put on the notice paper yesterday.

In particular I draw the house’s attention to the financial issues that are developing at Melbourne Health. There have been significant but media reports about those issues. We now know that there is a just under $20 million issue with the Melbourne Health network. It is a very important network that contains Victoria’s second-largest hospital, the Royal Melbourne Hospital.



It is an important hospital because of the specialist and statewide services it provides, and it is an important lead hospital for Victoria nationally and internationally.

I place on record my concern at the issues that have developed in terms of the financial problems at Melbourne Health and I intend to go into some detail about those and their impact on both mental health services, acute services and other services provided by that important network.

I note that $20 million of fictitious accrued revenue has appeared on the books of Melbourne Health — that is, $20 million of overstated accrued revenue appearing on those books over a period of two years, both in the financial year just concluded and the previous year. For that reason I intend to focus on the annual report 2003–04 and to look at its genesis. I seek leave of the house to incorporate a table into Hansard that lays out the financial position of the Melbourne Health network. I have spoken to Hansard, the President and the Deputy Leader of the Government about its incorporation.

Leave granted; see table page 1893.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — This table looks particularly at that financial deterioration — and it is important to place these figures on record — with the source of the figures being the annual reports. There is a deterioration from a positive figure of $11.983 million down to a positive figure of $3.555 million in 2001–02 to a negative figure of $34.521 million in 2002–03 to an accumulated deficit in 2003–04 of $41.864 million, in line with information in the report to which I refer. I point out that that deterioration is very serious when one throws on top of that the fact that $20 million has been spent when there is no revenue source for that money.

The annual report mentions the audit committee, the board’s finance committee and their approach to these issues. At pages 76, 77 and 78 the report also looks at the identification and management of risks. I refer firstly to page 78, under ‘Identification and management of risks’:

Financial reporting

Monthly actual results for each division are reported against budget and monitored by management, with monthly reporting to the finance committee and to the board.

It is:

… also monitored through divisional directors and each division’s financial representative under the control of the executive director, finance.

Extensive key financial performance indicators relating to all approved goal areas have been set and are reported on a balanced scorecard approach to both the finance committee and monthly to the board.

I have to say the balanced scorecard approach does not appear to be a very successful one.

At page 78, under ‘Internal audit’, the report also says:

The audit committee is responsible for reviewing the role and effectiveness of the internal audit function.

These monthly meetings have clearly been ineffective. At page 76 of the report we read that the finance committee is to evaluate Melbourne Health’s exposure to fraud and they have clearly failed in that important role. But most importantly it is not just about the network, not just the board, not just the chief executive officer — it is also the Minister for Health in the other place and the Department of Human Services. The director of metropolitan and aged care has to take some responsibility and the minister must come clean on what she knew, when she knew it and why she ignored the monthly reports.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. Andrew Brideson) — Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Auditor-General: managing stormwater flooding risks

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — I wish to make a statement on the Auditor-General’s report Managing Stormwater Flooding Risks in Melbourne. Although some people may consider this a very dry topic, it is obviously anything but dry. My colleague Mr Hilton also spoke about this report and about a number of issues related to it.

Unlike most other cities, Melbourne has a two-tiered system for managing its major drainage system. Melbourne Water takes prime responsibility for managing the major drainage system in large stormwater catchments, but councils in this dual system are responsible for land-use planning and managing drainage systems in smaller local stormwater catchments.

Before the late 1970s most drainage systems were designed to contain stormwater from a one-in-five-year storm event. Following major flooding in 1973, 1974 and 1975 legislation was introduced to lift the standard and provide for the incorporation of drainage systems that could safely accommodate overland flows from a 1-in-100-year storm event. This lifted the bar and made the requirements more difficult. It did that not only with



respect to building requirements but also with respect to changes in the design and use of streets and open spaces to provide for the flow of water over land when there is a flood so that it does not flow into houses.

The two different standards the Auditor-General has drawn attention to have provided some challenges for Melbourne Water and the councils that have to deal with these problems. There is increasing high-density development and there has been a reduction over the years in the area of porous surfaces that soak up storm water. Some councils, such as Moreland, the one I sat on before coming into Parliament, were cognisant of the concern about the increasing reduction in permeable surfaces and we used to try and maximise permeable surfaces in planning approvals by using appropriate design features and materials.

As well as this, some urban development has occurred without full knowledge of the location of flood risk areas. Flood mitigation work such as increasing drainage capacity or constructing retarding basins is often too difficult and expensive because of the existing pattern of urban development. On top of that we have issues involving climate change, further urban consolidation and development and an ageing drainage asset base.

The Auditor-General looked at the performance of Melbourne Water and six councils in managing their drainage systems to effectively mitigate the risk of overland flooding and found that Melbourne Water was the most advanced and nearest to undertaking best practice in the way it tackled these problems through its strategies and asset management practices. The councils’ performances were more mixed and have some way to go in doing more in conjunction with Melbourne Water to mitigate the vulnerability of 37 000 properties in Melbourne to stormwater penetrating the interiors of houses from a 1-in-100-year storm event.

The councils involved in the performance audit, Bayside, Boroondara, Darebin, Glen Eira and Stonnington, were very positive in responding to the Auditor-General and saw the audit as an opportunity to look further into their strategies and ways of addressing drainage issues in the future. But they drew attention to their limited powers and obligations under the Water Act and the Local Government Act.

Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes Entrance property sale

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — This is a sad and sorry saga, which has brought into question the internal

operations of the East Gippsland Shire Council. It is interesting to note that this shire was held up as a role model when council amalgamations took place. I remember when I was elected to the Corangamite Shire Council I was told that East Gippsland was the model to follow because it sold off everything it could lay its hands on and also tendered out everything it could. It is now proved that it was not very smart in doing that. The property we are talking about is situated at 55 Palmers Road, Lakes Entrance. It is owned by the council and covers some 14.9 hectares. It is situated on a hill overlooking the Tasman Sea.

The former Shire of Tambo had purchased this land for some $150 000 in the 1980s and built shire offices on it at a cost of $2.5 million. Later it refurbished them at a cost of $600 000. So the property has had about $3 million spent on it. As the council got into financial difficulties in the late 1990s the municipal inspector had a look at its financial viability, and it was decided that it did not need two council offices and that the one at Palmers Road, Lakes Entrance, should be sold. It tried to sell it by private treaty. It got an offer of about $1.5 million, which is only half of what had been spent on it. However, the local ratepayers association got involved because it was not very happy about private sales, and the property was called in again and put to tender. Once again the highest tender was not much more than $1.5 million. An interested party later took Supreme Court action to prevent the sale. That is how the whole sorry saga began, and in one way it is still not over.

The council hired the Auditor-General, and, as I said, Supreme Court action was taken, so it has cost the ratepayers of East Gippsland about $1 million in legal fees and about $140 000 for the Auditor-General. Luckily, as I said earlier, the sale has not gone through, and I have been told that the property of about 15 hectares overlooking the Tasman Sea has now been valued as between $4 million and $5 million. So in one way, luckily, the ratepayers will still have this property at the end of the day. I am sure if it gets sold the next time around, they will recoup their money. If the sale had gone through a couple of years ago for $1.5 million, it would have meant an enormous loss.

The Auditor-General has made some recommendations in section 9 of the report as to how the state should respond. We will have to wait and see what the responses will be. I hope the minister takes on board some of the recommendations. The council has already taken steps to address some of the concerns and issues raised. It appointed an internal auditor a couple of years ago, which I think is a good move. Probably one should have been appointed long before then. It has also taken



some action to identify and avoid conflicts of interest and reviewed its contract management processes. I do not think councils should sell council land by private treaty; land sales should be made by way of public tender so that all ratepayers in the community know what is happening and can understand the process.

While the rhetoric of the Local Government Act emphasises transparency, accountability and the need for open meetings except in special circumstances, there is broad scope for interpretation. With many councils the so-called briefing sessions are when most of the deliberations take place. There is a danger that with little debate occurring during the open council meetings the public will get only selective information. Codes of conduct are meaningless unless they have teeth.

I think the Auditor-General has come up with a good report, and I am sure the East Gippsland Shire Council has learnt a big lesson from all this. Hopefully, as I said before, the minister will also have a good read of this report and take up some of the recommendations in section 9 of this report so that in the next 12 months or so we might see some further updating of the Local Government Act.

Justice: asset confiscation operations — activities summary 2003–04

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — It is with great pleasure that I rise to make a brief contribution this morning on the asset confiscation operations activity summary for 2003–04, which is a report to the Attorney-General pursuant to the Confiscation Act 1997. As members are aware, asset confiscation is a crucial tool in the fight against organised crime, and when used effectively forfeiture laws can undermine the profit motive that lies behind criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, robbery and extortion. Members would recall that during 2004 a package of four major crime bills were passed by this house and this Parliament.

Together these laws provide the powers required to effectively tackle organised crime and police corruption in Victoria. They send the strongest possible message to criminals and corrupt police that crime in this state does not pay.

Through the Major Crime Legislation (Seizure of Assets) Act 2004 the government made significant reforms to Victoria’s automatic forfeiture scheme, which applies in situations where a person is convicted of certain serious offences. But under the new scheme forfeiture can occur even if a person is not convicted of

an offence. The act removes the previous requirement that a person be charged with an offence.

If authorities suspect on reasonable grounds that particular property such as a car, boat, house or share portfolio was derived from criminal activity or used in relevant criminal activity, they will be able to apply to the Supreme Court to restrain the property. Any person claiming an interest in the property will be given an opportunity to explain the source of the property and to argue why it should not be forfeited. If the person is not successful in excluding the property, it will be forfeited.

The new scheme will apply to a much wider range of offences than the current civil forfeiture scheme. While data from this new forfeiture scheme is not yet published, I am sure that when it is those results will in fact be very surprising.

However, I want to highlight this morning the details of revenue realised under the operation of the confiscation scheme that applied for 2003–04. In 2003–04 the scheme realised a total of $4.286 million derived from selling two pieces of real estate, a penalty payment order receipts and interest, selling approximately 11 000 items of forfeited property and sale catalogues, interest on restrained funds, and cash seized totalling $1.785 million.

I want to highlight that it is not always cash that is forfeited. In many instances it is actually goods or tools used for the commission of criminal offences that are forfeited. A few years ago I had the great privilege of handing over to the local Northcote state emergency service (SES) a grinder which was seized when some criminals were using it to cut through a steel roller door in a factory, and I am pleased that that grinder is now being put to good use by the local SES to save people’s lives.

We have seen a significant increase in revenue since the Bracks government came to office. Revenue has increased from $0.768 million 1988-89 to $4.286 million in 2003-04. The total realised under this government has now risen to more than $13 million. We are seeing very good asset confiscation put to very good use, taking out the profit incentive from criminals, and ensuring that the community does derive those proceeds of crime. I commend the report to the house.




Second reading

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated on motion of Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government).

Ms BROAD (Minister for Local Government) — I move:



The National Parks (Point Nepean) Bill will protect significant parts of Victoria’s natural and cultural heritage and implements one of the government’s key environment policy commitments — to protect Point Nepean in an integrated national park.

More specifically the bill will establish a new Point Nepean National Park incorporating former Department of Defence land to be transferred from the commonwealth as well as parts of the existing Mornington Peninsula National Park. It will also add areas of coastal land to Mornington Peninsula National Park.

A new Point Nepean National Park

Point Nepean National Park will be an outstanding new addition to Victoria’s parks system. Point Nepean is renowned for its long history of quarantine and military use. Its defence fortifications, which were strategically located at the entrance to Port Phillip Bay, were first constructed in 1882 and were enlarged and updated over the two world wars.

Part of Point Nepean is contained in the existing Mornington Peninsula National Park and is visited by more than 180 000 people annually. The historic defence installations at the tip of the point, the panoramic coastal views of The Rip, Port Phillip Bay and Bass Strait and its significant natural values are the special features of this area that the public has come to treasure.

Two significant areas of commonwealth land at Point Nepean are to be transferred to the state for addition to the national park estate, in two separate stages.

In recognition of the outstanding natural and cultural heritage values of these areas as well as the area protected in the existing park, the government has decided to create a new Point Nepean National Park.

The new national park will initially incorporate the former defence weapons range site of 205 hectares, existing parts of Mornington Peninsula National Park at Point Nepean and South Channel Fort within Port Phillip Bay. The new park will be complemented by the surrounding Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park.

I have mentioned that the commonwealth land will be transferred to Victoria in two stages. The government has recently reached agreement with the commonwealth for the transfer of the weapons range.

This land will become part of Point Nepean National Park when it is transferred within the next few months. The government is pleased that the commonwealth has agreed to transfer this land, as it fills a major gap in the park estate on the Nepean Peninsula, being situated between the former quarantine station and Bass Strait.

Nonetheless, a major gap will remain in this park. Point Nepean National Park will not be complete until the remaining area of commonwealth land containing the former quarantine station is transferred to Victoria. This area is of great historical significance, being the first permanent quarantine station in Victoria and one of the earliest and most intact in Australia. Its heritage buildings date back to the 1860s and include former hospitals, accommodation, disinfecting precinct, bathhouse and kitchens, many constructed from stone quarried on the site. There are also extensive areas of native coastal vegetation, and there are high landscape and scenic values.

While this bill adds significantly to the national park estate on the Nepean Peninsula, the park will not be complete until the quarantine station land is incorporated.

The government has secured agreement from the commonwealth that this gap in the park will be filled and that the remaining 90 hectares will be transferred to Victoria by 2009 at the latest. The government calls on the commonwealth to fill this gap in the park and hand over the remaining 90 hectares now. As soon as it is transferred it will be protected in Point Nepean National Park.

In the meantime the Point Nepean Community Trust is undertaking the planning for this land and its heritage buildings on behalf of the commonwealth. The Victorian government will maintain a watchful eye on the uses proposed for the land and buildings and will seek to ensure that any proposals are compatible with the principles of the National Parks Act 1975.

The Victorian government’s Point Nepean Advisory Committee (consisting of community and government representatives), Parks Victoria and the Point Nepean Community Trust are undertaking a joint planning exercise to prepare a management plan for an integrated national park at Point Nepean. The resulting plan will cover both the new national park and the commonwealth’s quarantine station site that will become part of the national park at a later date.

Management of the former weapons range

The 205-hectare former defence weapons range that will form part of the new park has been used by the Australian Army from the early 1900s as a weapons range and for supporting training exercises undertaken by the Portsea Officer Cadet School. Given its history, parts of the land are contaminated with the remains of unexploded ordnance, consisting of small arms projectiles, grenades and mortars.

The commonwealth Department of Defence will undertake the clearance of unexploded ordnance on this land. This will occur progressively over a period of 10 years, as part of a program of controlled burning to be conducted by Parks Victoria.



Controlled burning will achieve a number of objectives:

it will aim to expose ground that can be then inspected for unexploded ordnance and cleared of ordnance as required;

it will enhance flora and fauna habitats; and

it will also achieve fire protection goals.

The commonwealth will provide a grant of $2 million for controlled burning and associated land management activities.

Public safety is paramount. Access to the former weapons range will be restricted until it has established that the area is safe to enter. However, it can be expected that public access will be along well-defined walking tracks and that certain areas may be fenced to ensure public safety.

There are significant nature conservation and heritage values in the former weapons range. The area supports the coastal moonah woodland, which is a threatened community; the southern brown bandicoot, which is of national significance; and two significant bird species — the sooty oystercatcher and hooded plover. A number of Aboriginal heritage sites are found on the land.

Enhancing Mornington Peninsula National Park

As mentioned earlier, part of Mornington Peninsula National Park will be included in Point Nepean National Park. However, the bill will also add four small but important areas to Mornington Peninsula National Park.

One of these parcels includes coastal land at St Andrews Beach, which is to be added to the park following its transfer from Melbourne Water. The land is surplus to Melbourne Water’s requirements and was recommended for addition to the park by the former Land Conservation Council in 1994. It includes valuable beach access.

Other small areas are to be added to the park near Cape Schanck.


Debate adjourned for Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) on motion of Hon. Bill Forwood.



Second reading

Debate resumed from 20 July; motion of Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources ).

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I rise to make a contribution on the Energy Safe Victoria Bill. People in their daily lives expect there to be safe electricity and safe gas. It is incumbent on all of us in our daily lives, but particularly on us as legislators, to ensure that the safety regimes put in place are robust,

efficient and effective. There is no doubt that we have been successful in these aims, particularly, I might say — although the former State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) was very good — since privatisation. Despite the scares run at the time about privatisation leading to all sorts of diminution of the infrastructure and therefore an increase in accidents and deaths, quite the opposite has occurred. I will make more comment about that later in my contribution.

Let me state at the outset that the Liberal Party completely supports the legislation before the house, which simply combines the Office of Gas Safety and the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector into an organisation called Energy Safe Victoria. The bill before the house therefore is straightforward.

Let me divert briefly to deal with the only thing in the legislation that has nothing to do with energy safety, and that, of course, is clause 59 dealing with the Electricity Industry (Wind Energy Development) Act 2004. If members go to that particular clause, they will discover that yet again in this Parliament we are repairing a piece of faulty legislation. The clause asks us to substitute proposed subsection (1A) for subsection (1), and I refer honourable members to the Electricity Industry Act 2000, section 15A, which deals with relevant augmentation in the new tariff orders. Without the ‘A’ this clause is completely meaningless. Again we find ourselves in the situation where we are repairing serious damage done last year, and I make the point that on this occasion, too, this clause is being backdated, in effect, to the day that the previous bill was passed. Normally, on this side of the house we do not believe that legislation should be backdated, but in these circumstances it makes a nonsense if it is not. Therefore, in the interests of being good fellows, we agree that this is an appropriate course of action for the government to take.

Let me now return to the substance of the legislation before the house. There were some interesting exchanges in this place last year between myself and the minister when it became apparent that the government had decided that it wished to replace Ian Graham as the chief electrical inspector.

At the time there were various indications of who the minister thought he might appoint to the position, but in the end the course of action that was decided on was to institute a review of safety issues in Victoria. In a media release dated 12 May last year the minister announced:

… the review, to be tendered shortly by the Department of Infrastructure, would examine the roles played by the Office of Gas Safety (OGS), the Office of the Chief Electrical



Inspector (OCEI) and the Department of Primary Industries (which regulates safety for gas transmission pipelines).

At the bottom of that press release the minister announced that Mr Graham would not be reappointed for a further five years upon the expiry of his term at the end of May and that the OCEI would continue to monitor Victoria’s electricity safety as the search for a new inspector began. The minister thanked Mr Graham for his many years of service in the electrical safety sector. His contribution to the OCEI covered more than 10 years and spanned the privatisation process. The minister went on to say that Victoria had a great energy safety record. He said that the government was determined that that continue and announced that Bill Greenland would be the acting director of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector in the meantime. The government let a contract for the review to Impaq which Phil Perry undertook.

We on this side of the house are disappointed that the government will not make the report available to us. This is relatively non-contentious legislation, and as the minister comes into the house I reiterate that we fully support the legislation and believe the minister is on the right track in ensuring that we have the best systems available for safety in the energy sector. We are disappointed that the report has not been publicly released. We understand that it contains recommendations which have not been considered and determined by government — in other words, the pipelines bit of the Department of Primary Industries has not been added to this particular piece of legislation. We do not know why that is, and we are inviting someone on behalf of the government to tell us why it has not dropped the DPI gas transmission stuff into the legislation now, so it is being done in two bits rather than one. No explanation has been given to the opposition as to why that would be the case, but we believe that bringing all three organisations together is a sensible approach. We look forward to receiving the additional legislation that will enable all three to be put together at some time in the future.

I want to briefly touch on issues of safety. I do so by referring to the Office of the Chief Electoral Inspector’s annual report which contains some salutary information. In particular I refer to the graph on page two which shows that electrical fatalities in Victoria per million population from 1995 to 2003–04 fell from a high in 1996 of 2 per million down to none in 2001–02, and in 2002–03 — I understand there was one death in 2002–03 — to just above 0.0 per cent. By any measure that is a very good record. The annual report says that:

Serious accidents dropped by 78 per cent from 1999–2000 to 2002–03 while electrocutions decreased from eight to nil. It was disappointing… that there was one… in 2003–04.

The report gives credit to the safety conscious people in the industry, including electrical contractors, electricians and inspectors. We can be very satisfied with the work that has been done by these agencies recently. Also, of course, there have been the public advertising campaigns, such as ‘Safety Switches Save Lives’ — and of course there is a program of safety switch installations — ‘Look up and Live’, and ‘Always Demand a Certificate of Electrical Safety’. The annual report for the year 2003–04 is signed by the chief electrical inspector, Ken Gardner.

In passing I make the statement that for 11 months of the 12-month period that this report covers, the office was in the charge of Ian Graham. Mr Gardner, who had very successfully run the Office of Gas Safety prior to being appointed the chief electrical inspector, did not start his role with the OCEI until 1 September, some three months after the end of the financial period for which the report reports, so for the whole year the OCEI was run either by Ian Graham for 11 months or Bill Greenland for one month. I am disappointed that the only reference in this whole document, despite the good electrical safety record, that I can find regarding Mr Graham is at page 31 in note 18 under the heading ‘Ministers and accountable officers’, which says that Ian Graham was the chief electrical inspector from 1 July 2003 to 31 May 2004. I would have thought that it would have been possible for some acknowledgment to be made that he had done, as the minister said in his press release, a good job. Despite that, under note 21 under the heading ‘Events subsequent to balance date’, it shows that Ken Gardner was appointed as the chief electrical inspector effective 1 September 2004.

It is grossly misleading for Ken Gardner to sign the annual report, on page three, without any mention of the fact that he started work three months after the period for which he was signing. The chief executive’s report on the year is the subject of the annual report, and he was not at any stage the chief executive officer for the organisation.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — He has a statutory requirement to sign it off.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — That is not my point, Minister. My point is that somewhere here it should have said, ‘We thank Mr Graham for his work in the organisation for the 11 months that covers most of the period under which we report’. I note that the first sentence of the report does not say, ‘I am pleased to report’, it says, ‘The Office of the Chief Electrical



Inspector is pleased to report’. That is appropriate because he was not running it for any of the time for which the report is relevant.

I turn now to some comments about the legislation itself. Mr Perry conducted his inquiry into whether there should be a merging of the Office of Gas Safety, the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the pipelines division of the DPI. He sought comments from various people. The Australian Gas Association, said by letter to him signed by Dr Fong that it supported the formation of an energy regulator. I spoke to the National Electrical Contractors Association, which also supported the legislation, and I know from speaking with many members of both the Office of Gas Safety and the OCEI that they believe this is an appropriate step to take forward.

Let me make a few comments about the legislation itself. It basically picks up the requirements that currently exist in the Electrical Safety Act and the Gas Safety Act, and I think that is logical and sensible. There are a few things I wish to comment on, even though they exist in existing acts. For example, the committee situation is important, and the bill says that Energy Safe Victoria may establish such committees as it determines. The committees that I know the electricity industry has are the electric line clearance consultative committee, electrical fire review committee, electrical licensing and registration advisory committee, electrical safety committee, emergency incident response committee, line worker inspection standards committee, line worker registration committee, rural advisory committee, safe working electrical installations committee, urban reference group committee. They were all established under section 10 of the existing act, which becomes section 8 in the new act. Others which have also been established and which I understand will continue are the electric line clearance consultative committee, the equipment advisory committee and the Victorian electrolysis committee. There are a number of committees that contribute to the safety of electricity and energy in this state through using stakeholders who have a detailed technical knowledge together with regulators and others who understand the importance of getting this situation completely right in the interests of safety for all.

In the Legislative Assembly my colleague Mr Clark asked a number of questions about sections 9 and 10 concerning powers to delegate — in section 9 it was in relation to a power to appoint persons — and I am very grateful to the minister for providing the Liberal Party with the answers to the various questions that Mr Clark raised in the other place while the bill was between houses. It is a pleasure to do business with a minister,

who takes his responsibilities to the Parliament seriously and provides the information when requested by the opposition. I know that this is not standard among ministers in the Bracks government, but I have had nothing but cooperation in my dealings with Mr Theophanous and his staff, one of whom leaves his staff tomorrow. Mr Gibbons is leaving Mr Theophanous’s staff to head up the Energy Retailers Association of Australia. I am not sure whether that is a case of the gamekeeper becoming the poacher or the other way around. Either way, I look forward to the retailers association having a very close in with the minister. One would expect that if the retailers want to speak to the minister all they need to do is pick up the telephone. We need to make sure that when they do the minister at least listens. I wish Mr Gibbons all the best, and I thank him for his contribution to the easy flow of work in this place.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — I will introduce the member to my new adviser at the end of this contribution.

Hon. BILL FORWOOD — I thank the minister, that would be good. I thank the minister for the responses that were provided to the opposition.

I remain slightly concerned that there are no reporting provisions about the corporate plan — if there is a corporate plan to be prepared, and if the minister is to give instructions about what should be in it — because under clause 19(9):

The Minister may, from time to time, by written notice to Energy Safe Victoria, direct it to include in, or omit …

My strong view is that if the minister writes and directs an authority such as Energy Safe Victoria to do something or not to do something, that must be made public. If you take the WorkCover authority, about which I know a little, there is a specific clause that says instructions given to the authority must be in writing and must be published. My view is that this act would be greatly strengthened if the use of this clause was required to be reported to the people of Victoria, preferably through Parliament.

There is another requirement in relation to inquiries and reports. Neither the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector nor the Office of Gas Safety currently have this capacity, but it does exist in part 3 of the Essential Services Act. It is that Energy Safe Victoria can conduct an inquiry or the minister may refer a matter for inquiry — and these of course must be public inquiries and the terms of reference must be notified. It does say in respect of the conduct of the inquiry that Energy Safe Victoria must hold at least one public



meeting, but it goes on to say it has a discretion as to whether any person may appear before Energy Safe Victoria in person or be represented by another person. This is of concern. If there is to be an inquiry and someone is to be called before that inquiry — and this would be an inquiry that would not be bound by the rules of evidence, so it could do whatever it liked — my personal view is that in those circumstances a person ought to be allowed to have legal representation.

I understand that in some cases it may be an informal inquiry, and it would not be necessary to make things too legalistic, but the discretion would apply. I have been assured in advice from the minister’s staff that the intention of Energy Safe Victoria would be that if a person did ask for legal representation because they were concerned about the terms of reference of the inquiry, it is more likely than not to be granted in the interests of natural justice. We raised the issue of clause 29(4)(b), which says that Energy Safe Victoria:

… has a discretion as to whether any person may appear before Energy Safe Victoria in person or be represented by another person.

We think that on occasions there will be a requirement for lawyers to be available for people, and we wish to ensure that in the interests of natural justice if representation were required, Energy Safe Victoria would not stand in the way of someone being properly represented before any inquiry. It retains the normal protections against self-incrimination, which of course is a very important safeguard for people appearing before inquiries.

Staff currently employed by the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety are being transferred in the normal way and their terms and conditions are being protected. However, it is possible for new people to be appointed from outside. It is interesting to note in clause 10 that all powers except for the power of delegation can be delegated to employees, a member of a committee or, with the consent of the minister, another person. This is an odd provision although it does exist already. It exists because there are some cases where specific expertise rests elsewhere and on those occasions it can be appropriate that some powers of this legislation be delegated with the minister’s consent.

We fully support the legislation before the house. We look forward to its speedy implementation. We look forward to a director of Energy Safe Victoria being chosen, as I know he or she will be, on merit. If I was to make a prediction, I would reckon any bloke who had some form in heading up the Office of Gas Safety and the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector should have

a good opportunity to put his name forward. I would encourage Mr Gardner to do so; I have high respect for his abilities. Of course it is a matter for the government to choose who will take the job.

Let me put on the record that we have strong safety regimes in both gas and electricity in Victoria. My belief is this step will enhance that capacity. We look forward to the bill’s speedy implementation. I congratulate the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources for bringing this piece of legislation before the house.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I am pleased to indicate to the house this morning that The Nationals will also be supporting this legislation — I think that makes the support across the chamber unanimous, which is a pleasing thing. The bill essentially provides for the merger of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety. They will come together to form a new body called Energy Safe Victoria.

I want to start by saying that throughout my time of representing the good people of Gippsland I have had very little occasion to refer matters to the chief electrical inspector or the director of gas safety. I cannot recall an incident where I have had to refer matters directly to those people. I say that is a good thing because whether or not you have to refer matters to it is usually a barometer of how effective an organisation is. The fact that I have had occasion to refer very few, if any, matters to those two positions is a sign that things are working pretty well. I am pleased that I have not had occasion to refer matters to them.

As the Honourable Bill Forwood said, Victoria’s safety record in gas and electricity is one we can be pretty proud of. Some of the innovations undertaken by the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety over the years have been very effective and worthwhile. I particularly note the issue of compliance certificates in those industries. That has been a very effective measure. I know that consumers are now well aware that when work is done by certified electricians or plumbers there is a need for that particular tradesperson to provide a compliance certificate. I think that has been very helpful in terms of the issue of safety. I commend both of these bodies for their initiatives in educating the community on the importance of safety. Electricity and gas can be very dangerous commodities but some of the education programs that have been undertaken have eliminated the risks associated with their use.



I want to make this observation, and again agree with comments made by the Honourable Bill Forwood, in respect of the predictions made by the then opposition about the privatisation of electricity and gas: those doomsday predictions have not materialised. If anything, the record has been improved and strengthened given the safety programs associated with electricity and gas. We should commend the previous and current governments for advances in terms of safety in those industries. As I said, I think our record in Victoria is one we can be proud of, and I hope the measures contained in this bill will enable a further strengthening of those safety measures.

I want to make some comments about the structure of the bill. Part 2 of the bill provides a legislative framework which establishes Energy Safe Victoria. I particular refer the house to clause 5 of the bill which talks about the objectives of Energy Safe Victoria. It is important to comment on the way these have been expressed in this legislation. The objectives of Energy Safe Victoria are to perform its functions and exercise its powers as already stated in the Electricity Safety Act and the Gas Safety Act. It is important for us to understand that we are not abolishing those acts — we are simply making some changes to them to reflect the new Energy Safe Victoria body which will have jurisdictional power over the functions and purposes of those acts. If you want to look at the objectives of Energy Safe Victoria, you need to refer to clause 45 of the bill. Clause 45 sets out the objectives and functions of Energy Safe Victoria under the Electricity Safety Act. In clause 50 a similar process is repeated for the Gas Safety Act. This new legislation, the Energy Safe Victoria Bill, needs to be read in conjunction with the Electricity Safety Act and the Gas Safety Act.

Part 3 of this bill talks about inquiries and reports. I am pleased to note that clauses 26 and 27 provide the ability for the new director of Energy Safe Victoria and the minister in charge of the legislation to initiate inquiries into certain matters. I think it is important that the director of Energy Safe Victoria has the ability to initiate an inquiry if he or she deems it necessary. I note that there is a requirement to table the report resulting from any such inquiry in the Parliament of Victoria. That is provided for in clause 31, and is a positive measure. I note that commercial or confidential information can be deleted from a report to be tabled in the Parliament but reference to any such deletion is required in that report.

Part 5 of the bill provides for transitional provisions. The Nationals have had a look through those transitional provisions and believe them to be quite adequate in the circumstances. Part 6 of the bill relates

to amendments to the Electricity Safety Act and the Gas Safety Act. As I said a couple of minutes ago, those amendments are essentially reflected in the new purposes, functions and objectives of Energy Safe Victoria so those acts need to be read in conjunction with this legislation.

I want to make a general comment before finishing. I believe combining the functions of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety into one new organisation called Energy Safe Victoria is a sensible step. While each of those energy sectors is quite technically different in its nature, we have been given some assurances by the minister that the expertise required to deal with the separate technicalities involved with electricity and gas will be retained. We are pleased by that. Nevertheless, overall those energy sectors have some common elements about at least the administration of safety programs, so the concept of merging the administration of safety functions into this new body called Energy Safe Victoria is a sensible one.

There are some commonalities between the two energy sectors also because some retailers now deal in both of those energy commodities. We are seeing organisations like Origin Energy, for example, which are both electricity and gas retailers now, and the former TXU, now called TRUenergy, also deals in the supply of both electricity and gas. What we are seeing is very sensible and helpful for consumers with some retailers dealing in both of those commodities, and that is another reason for putting both the safety regimes under the control of the director of Energy Safe Victoria; it is a sensible measure.

I do not need to comment further. This is a piece of legislation which makes good sense and which I am sure will be a further step in terms of maintaining the excellent safety record we have in Victoria with respect to electricity and gas. From The Nationals point of view, we wish it well in the future as the new body, Energy Safe Victoria.

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Energy Safe Victoria Bill. As previous speakers have said, it is a sensible bill and a sensible reform which streamlines the functions of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety into one body — Energy Safe Victoria. It reflects the changing directions of a maturing energy industry in this state. I want to say that I was very glad to hear the opposition — Mr Hall from The Nationals and Mr Forwood from the Liberal Party — strongly supporting the legislation before the house today. In fact I note that Mr Forwood went further and drew attention to clause 59 and the



retrospective amendment of the Electrical Industry (Wind Energy Development) Act and also gave his support for that retrospective amendment. I am not sure whether that stems from his magnanimity or from his expressed strong admiration for the very good job done by the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, the Honourable Theo Theophanous.

The bill to establish Energy Safe Victoria is the outcome of a review which was instigated by the government of Victoria’s energy safety regulators last year. Following consultation through stakeholder forums, formal submissions and extensive discussions across the state, the review considered the organisational effectiveness and efficiency of Victoria’s existing energy safety regulators and options to move towards amalgamating those functions and establishing one single streamlined regulator — Energy Safe Victoria.

This merger of the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and Officer of Gas Safety will improve economies of scale with some forecast savings of up to $1.5 million per annum. It will support the implementation of common system procedures and standards. Whilst retaining specialist technical expertise it will at the same time provide for harmonisation of the operational and regulatory aspects of the work of the previous two regulatory bodies, and Energy Safe Victoria is likely to be structured along strategic functional lines common to both fuels and include foci around infrastructure safety, installation safety, appliance safety, investigations and prosecutions, licensing and professional development. It will be these strong, strategic and management competencies which will drive the new organisation.

The merger and the new Energy Safe Victoria will also increase integration with government planning, management and reporting requirements and establish a more prominent platform for regulatory compliance initiatives and education campaigns. The good work done by the two previous regulators has already drawn attention and comment from previous speakers.

This consolidation of the two energy regulators into one is consistent with the maturing industry and prevailing trends, both nationally and in other state jurisdictions. As a result of legislation passed by this Parliament and all the other state and territory and commonwealth parliaments, we have a new national Australian energy regulator which is based in Melbourne, and it will regulate both electricity and gas. We have industry bodies now representing electricity and gas that have also merged — for example, the Energy Supply Association of Australia — and we have the emergence

of dual-fuel energy companies which are retailers or distributors across both the gas and electricity sectors.

It is appropriate that the bill establishes the single streamlined regulator recommended by the review — that is Energy Safe Victoria — and provides the new regulator with all the current objectives, functions, powers and funding arrangements of the Office of Chief Electrical Inspector and Office of Gas Safety, and provides similar corporate planning obligations and appointments processes. As well it provides an extra power, and that is the power to conduct inquiries either at the initiation of Energy Safe Victoria or by ministerial direction, and this power will be consistent with the current powers of inquiry of the Essential Services Commission. The question has of course been raised, ‘Why not merge the two and have a further amalgamation of the Essential Services Commission with the new Energy Safe Victoria?’.

However, it is the government’s preference to keep these economic and safety functions separate and to not compromise any safety in the areas of electricity and gas and these vital utilities through considerations of economic efficiencies and to therefore make sure that the safety of the operation and the regulation of energy use — of electricity and gas — in this state is pre-eminent.

As Mr Forwood said, there will be a new director of energy safety to head up the new organisation, and there will be a provision for the transfer of all employees of the previous two regulators to Energy Safe Victoria on the same terms and conditions of employment while not obviating the opportunities for taking on board new employees who may have the sort of expertise required to take this new organisation forward.

The bill is about organisational change, but it does not change the safety obligations of gas and electricity industry participants. It is important that we understand that what we are dealing with here today is setting up the new organisation and its functions and structure to do and carry on the good work that has been done by the previous regulators.

I note that Mr Forwood was very glowing, as I said earlier, in his praise of the minister. He made it very clear that he supported the bill and saw that the minister is on track to not only continue the excellent safety systems in the energy sector that we have in Victoria but to enhance them through the provisions of the bill. With those few words, I commend the bill to the house.



Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — I am pleased to

speak on the Energy Safe Victoria Bill. This is a commonsense piece of legislation, which streamlines into one body the functions currently carried out by the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety. This reflects the direction the industry is taking.

The government is glad that the opposition has decided to support the bill. It must go against the grain to support government initiatives because oppositions usually oppose anything that governments propose. However, this piece of legislation makes sense, so I am glad to see that commonsense has prevailed; this is the right thing to do.

But the government is not surprised. The opposition’s energy spokesperson is the Honourable Bill Forwood, and he is the smart one on that bench. He should be the leader. I say, ‘Bring back Bill; don’t retire, Bill; come back!’.

This legislation is yet another piece of sensible reform initiated by the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, Theo Theophanous. Obviously all the ministers of the government are very capable and very good, but the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources has done a great job, and I want to highlight some of the things that have happened.

Over the last two and a half years we have seen a number of important and sensible reforms introduced by the minister, including the groundbreaking four-year price path agreement with energy retailers that will see Victorian energy bills reduced by up to 5.6 per cent in real terms — that is a fall in energy prices. The $106 million Victorian emissions technology innovation strategy will ensure a long-term future for the Latrobe Valley based on clean coal, yet all the opposition can do is talk about nuclear power. The $110 million network tariff rebate means that regional and outer urban energy consumers will pay no more on average than comparable consumers in the city, and that is a good sign for particularly my electorate in regional Victoria, and it is a good initiative introduced by this good minister.

The Bracks government has spent over $320 million fixing up the mess left by the previous government when it privatised the electricity system in a way that meant country consumers would always pay more. That is how it ended up. There was a monopoly of certain companies having control of certain sections which meant that consumers could not go to another provider because they belonged to the block controlled by that company; consumers could not apply to be serviced by

a company that controlled an adjoining section and provided cheaper electricity.

The $5 million wind energy support package will contribute to the development of this clean energy source in regional Victoria and will lead to investment and jobs in country Victoria. The groundbreaking energy consumer reforms include $250 compensation for illegal disconnection, bans on late-payment fees, regulated early exit fees, continuation of the safety net and the establishment of a landmark inquiry into energy consumer hardship.

Lastly, but not least, the $70 million natural gas extension program — —

Hon. Bill Forwood interjected.

Hon. J. H. EREN — Mr Forwood may laugh, but the government already has 29 towns — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — We’re looking for just one to be connected — and any one will do!

Hon. J. H. EREN — They will. The government has a proven track record of coming good with its commitments to regional and country Victoria. Twenty-nine towns have already been approved for connection, and that represents thousands of consumers in regional Victoria who will enjoy cuts to their energy bills of up to $1200 per year. And doesn’t the opposition hate that!

This government has a proud track record of sensible reform to the energy sector. Under this minister, Victoria has led the nation in terms of protecting consumers while delivering full retail competition that provides low-cost energy. At the same time the government has been working with industry to ensure that environmental concerns are dealt with in a balanced way. This is an impressive record, and I congratulate the minister. The Energy Safe Victoria Bill continues that work, therefore I support the bill.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank all members for their contributions to this important debate. The government believes this legislation will ultimately make a difference to an important value that we all share in this house — that is, the value of ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that we maintain safety as the number 1 priority in this state. There are inherent aspects of using energy which can mean that people are put in danger. This bill is designed to improve that situation.



When I considered this issue upon becoming minister it became clear to me as a result of the reforms that were taking place at the national level — and members will recall that Victoria played a significant role in pushing forward those national reforms — in terms of national regulation, the establishment of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, that at a national level the one regulator would regulate both electricity and gas. It therefore made a great deal of sense to also line up the safety regulators we have in this state.

I pay tribute to all the men and women who have worked in those safety regulators — both at the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector and at the Office of Gas Safety — for the work they have done to keep Victorians safe in their use of energy. But we thought, and I thought, that it was appropriate to line them up, given the move to national regulation in the one body of both gas and electricity— a project that is not complete, but has certainly gone a long way down the track in the approximately two years that I have been minister.

I am pleased to say I have received a great deal of support from the industry regarding this initiative. There were obviously going to be some people whose job descriptions would change, and other factors would come into play, but I want to thank all the people at both organisations who have cooperated with the government in ensuring a smooth transition into the one body, which we believe will be better able to use and coordinate its resources to ensure that safety is maintained in both those areas.

I do not want to go into specific examples, but obviously if you have an inspector who is able to deal with both electricity and gas, in many instances they will be able to pick up things that might be a problem in gas as well as electricity, and vice versa. We believe this is a positive initiative.

I am also pleased with the support I have received from the opposition, and in particular the opposition spokesperson, the Honourable Bill Forwood, in relation to this matter. He has worked with my office, and he understood that this was an important initiative or reform. I am pleased to have the support of the opposition. I do not know whether this is the appropriate time, as I am sure I will have another opportunity to comment on Mr Forwood’s contribution to this house, but I do want to say something in relation to Mr Forwood’s contribution on the energy sector. Although, as I expect from a competent person on the opposition side, he makes vigorous criticisms of me and the government when he does not believe that we

are on the right track, he is also prepared to say when he thinks that we are a doing a good job. In this instance he has said so, and I thank him for it.

I want to address the two issues that Mr Forwood raised just to clarify the reasons behind them. One was in relation to not putting the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) functions into this particular legislation, which was part of the recommendation of the Perry report. These responsibilities will be a part of the Pipelines Act and will be transferred to Energy Safe Victoria through that act. There are some technical reasons why we could not do it and because of some other changes that are required in the Pipelines Act that are also required. I am happy to make that information available to the member if he is further interested.

The pipelines bill has been released as an exposure draft and it will replace the Pipelines Act 1967. It is really a complete rewrite of the Pipelines Act. Given the replacement, it was considered appropriate that the relevant functions be transferred from DPI. That will occur following the commencement of that act. I might add it is a relatively small function within the overall Office of Chief Electrical Inspector and the Office of Gas Safety. It does not involve a lot of people, but it is an important function and one which will be transferred over.

The other issue the member raised was about appearance before an inquiry. Clause 29(4)(b) provides that ESV will have the discretion to allow a person appearing before an inquiry to be represented. That mirrors the current discretion granted to the Essential Services Commission in its inquiry powers. It is not a blanket right of people to have representation. Experience tells us that if you give a blanket right of that sort everyone turns up, virtually in all cases, with lawyers. That is not what we want in an inquiry of this sort. We want to avoid that, but we could see that in certain circumstances it would be appropriate to have legal representation. In those circumstances the persons who want legal representation would have to convince the inquiry chair that it was a good idea. In those circumstances that would be granted. That is a measured and appropriate way for us to proceed.

I thank The Nationals for their support of this legislation. I am pleased to have that support and to have the support of all members in this house. I thank the members who have spoken and supported this bill. I am confident that it will allow us to have a safer Victoria.

Motion agreed to.



Read second time.

Remaining stages



Second reading

Debate resumed from 19 July; motion of Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care).

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I am pleased to make a contribution to the Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The opposition will not oppose this bill but thinks that significant sections are deeply flawed. We certainly support aspects of the bill — for example, we are very supportive of some changes the government proposes to make to issues around mental health. But we recoil strongly from other aspects of the bill. I guess that is the nature of these sorts of omnibus bills where a series of changes to different acts are cobbled together in no apparent logical manner. It is almost certain that you will have to deal with changes, some of which may be to your liking and others which may not.

I make the point that the bill amends not just the Mental Health Act 1986, the Health Services Act 1988, the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003, part C of the Building Act 1993, but it also amends 10 health practitioner acts and indeed the Veterinary Practice Act 1997.

I note the changes listed with respect to cemeteries and crematoria. The opposition does not oppose these changes, although I have to say the government has not handled much in the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act very well, and I am increasingly concerned about the implementation of the set of regulations with the 2003 act that came into force on 1 July this year. The consultation process the government went through was flawed in a number of ways, and I do not believe there has been sufficient input from many of the smaller cemeteries. Although the government did have a road show on this set of regulations, it has not consulted deeply enough. I know that groups like the stonemasons and others feel they have not been listened to.

I sought to obtain copies of the regulations ahead of the 1 July date, and that was a very difficult task. They were published in the Government Gazette only days before they came into operation. It is very hard for an

opposition to undertake its legitimate role of scrutiny and holding the government accountable when it is unable to get information on which it can consult. In the very short period we had access to those regulations we were unable to undertake the broad consultation I would have preferred. The government has a deep obligation to undertake that sort of consultation process, and it has not done so.

The opposition has no concern with the interment fee or approvals, the orders about deceased poor persons, the application for exhumation licence and the new procedures related to making false statements. But I must say I am curious as to what evidence there is that false statements are made on exhumation applications. I am not sure if Mr Bowden is aware of any such false statements, but I have certainly never heard of it happening. If it did occur it would be a bad thing and quite wrong.

I want to make a point about the changes to fees relating to cemetery trusts. This is the first sign of the government getting itself into trouble with issues surrounding its omnibus approach to fees and charges. There is a regular and incremental ratcheting up of charges going on under the government’s general sweep legislation that enables the Treasurer to push them up across the board in line with the Victorian consumer price index (CPI). That process, which was instituted by the current Treasurer and which applies to all fees and charges levied by this government, is flawed. The opposition thinks it is very unfair, and this bill seems to be the first step in a retreat by the government from a whacky policy that was bad in application and bad in principle.

The Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, Mr Theophanous, is erudite and responsible enough to understand the Westminster principle that when taxes are proposed to be increased those changes should come before the Parliament, the people’s representatives. The Treasurer, Mr Brumby, has sought to remove that nexus between taxation increases and an opportunity — —

Hon. E. G. Stoney — Acting President, I direct your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Before the quorum was called I was explaining to the chamber the important Westminster principle that taxation should not be increased without recourse to Parliament. It is a very important principle, and I am pleased that there are plenty of members in the house to hear it.



I point out that the Treasurer, John Brumby, has chosen to break that nexus in principle, and that is a very bad step. The amendments relating to cemeteries and crematoria included in this bill represent the government’s first retreat. You can well imagine why the government might want to retreat from a system that ratchets up cemetery charges every quarter or half year in line with the CPI. When you think about it, it would be quite ridiculous to have small rural cemeteries that might only undertake one or two burials a year — a very modest amount of activity — forced to ratchet up their charges by a CPI-linked escalator every regular period, given of course that there is no necessary nexus between the charges and costs incurred by small rural cemeteries and the Victorian CPI.

If you think about it, you realise there is a small number of inputs into the costs that small rural cemeteries might need to take account of in setting fair and reasonable charges for burials. Why that should be linked to a broad sweep of regular escalation put in place by the Treasurer for his own revenue-type purposes elsewhere in government is beyond me, so I am pleased that the government has retreated, has backed down, on this ridiculous impost on people across Victoria. It is an impost that would have struck hard at poorer people in the first instance. These sorts of charges are of their nature regressive, because they hit those people who often have the least capacity to pay. I am very pleased that the government has backed down on this outrageous escalator. It was going to strike in the first instance at rural people, in the second instance at poor people and in the third instance at almost everyone else who would have had to bury a loved one.

I also want to talk about the changes that have occurred. There has been significant press discussion on the changes to the Health Services Act which the government has instituted here. It is not too late at this point for government members in this chamber to thoughtfully reflect on whether they want to make some of the changes that will be made particularly by clauses 8, 10 and 12 in part 3 at pages 6 and 7 of the bill. The opposition will seek to amend those clauses. I will explain to the house what is actually going on here.

I will deal with clauses 10 and 12 first. There is an extension to the time in which hospitals and health services must present their annual general meeting reports to their local communities to 31 December. I understand why the government has done that, and I understand its track record, but we need to think about the practical implications of what is occurring here. For a significant period — I cannot tell you exactly how long; the minister might give me a date shortly — health services have reported to their communities and

to the Parliament by the end of October. That is perfectly in order and proper. The date of 31 October gives those health services four months to finalise their accounts, advise the government, seek the Auditor-General’s input and do whatever is necessary to get their annual reports into order for tabling in Parliament and putting before their local communities. I cannot see that there is any justification for this.

I note that there have been a series of justifications provided by the government for these changes. We heard about how hard it was for the health services to get their reports in order in that four-month period. We also heard the nonsensical complaint that it was an affront to the Parliament for health services to report to their communities before the Parliament had received its report. That is utter bunkum. How can it be an affront to the Parliament for a health service to follow the letter of the law and communicate its annual report to its community in accordance with the law laid down by the Parliament? How can it be an affront to the Parliament in any respect for a health service to undertake its full and proper reporting process in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament? I believe the Parliament should expect community health services to obey the laws laid down in this place. The concept that there would be any affront to Parliament is utter nonsense.

The concept that the Auditor-General could not in some way cope is also nonsense. It is true that there are mendicant health services which are slow in tabling their annual reports in Parliament or in reporting to the community. And it is true that the Auditor-General over the last few years has sought to sharpen their footwork. I encourage him in that process; they ought to comply with the law. Of course there will be the occasional instance when a health service or hospital has a legitimate explanation for why it is unable to comply with the law, but that will be an extreme rarity. The Auditor-General has been vigilant in ensuring that health services undertake their annual reporting to Parliament and indeed to their communities in the proper cycle as required. I compliment him on the steps he has taken, and there has been an improvement.

I will rewind history a little bit and look back at the period in the lead-up to the last state election to give the house some understanding as to what is really going on here. In the lead-up to the last election the Bracks government refused to table a series of annual reports — it is my recollection that the number was 102 — in the health portfolio. I wrote to the Premier on 25 September 2002 providing him with a list of all the outstanding annual reports that were required by law to be tabled in this Parliament by 31 October. I indicated



to him that because the statutory date after which an election could be called was approaching I wanted to be sure that the Parliament and the people of Victoria had the full information to enable them to make such judgments as they would be able to make at an election if it were called at the earliest statutory opportunity.

The Premier ignored that correspondence. In fact his government, a government elected on a promise of openness, transparency and accountability, hid these reports ahead of the election. Key health reports for big swathes of Victoria, hospital reports that revealed massive deficits and massive mismanagement in that period — —

Mr Viney interjected.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Mr Viney’s health service in Frankston, Peninsula Health, was one of them. It had a big deficit. Southern Health, which is also down his way, also had a massive deficit in that period, but that deficit was covered up and hidden from Victorians, particularly the voters in the southern electorates of Melbourne. It is an absolute disgrace that his government hid those reports and deliberately obfuscated to prevent the community from understanding the mismanagement and financial incompetence with which it had managed those health services. Why was the government not prepared to submit those reports to the people and the Parliament ahead of the state election?

This is the sort of behaviour that in the end will get this government into a lot of trouble. I was very disappointed by the behaviour of the Premier and his ministry at that time, yet it appears that this step — clauses 10 and 12 of this bill — is an attempt to institutionalise that process. Changing the date for reporting to the community from 31 October to 31 December will mean that if the Parliament does not sit in the last week of October, the government will legitimately be able to claim that it is complying with the law by not providing those reports. That is what this is about, pure and simple.

In Ms Lovell’s area, the Goulburn Valley Health report should be available to the people of Shepparton and the surrounding districts to enable them to make decisions. In Mr Koch’s electorate, the reports for Portland, Horsham, Hamilton, Warrnambool, Geelong, Ballarat, Stawell and Ararat ought to be available to the community ahead of time.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — What about Mr Stoney — —

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I intend to talk about Mr Stoney’s electorate, although he has indicated that he will not be running in the next election. I compliment him on the enormous work he has done in his time in this Parliament. I make the point that the health services in Mr Stoney’s electorate, such as the Seymour hospital, should provide their annual reports to the Parliament and to the people before the next state election, as should the Mansfield hospital. I have a strong view that many hospitals would seek to do so. Country hospitals in particular see holding annual general meetings as a very important means of communicating with their communities and invite key stakeholders and the rest of the community. They invite all who want to attend, including the local journalists. Annual general meetings provide opportunities for the boards of the hospitals and health services to be accountable to their communities and bring their communities with them in the aim of developing and strengthening their health services. I compliment many of those country hospitals, and I note the comments by a number of country health services to me, both in writing and verbally, about the importance of that process.

The government has badly misjudged what country communities want and seek from their health services. They want openness and accountability, a partnership in ensuring that health services are available, and that those that are available are reported on properly and in time. The government could back down from this unfortunate change even at this late point. It could accept the amendment that the opposition proposes to move in the committee stage. We will seek the government’s support there. I cannot understand why it would not want to seek early and proper reporting, and why its local members would not legitimately want to see that level of reporting.

I know that some members of this chamber would, in their heart of hearts, believe that this change is wrong. I do not believe that the members representing Ballarat and Geelong would in any way believe this is satisfactory. I believe Mr Hilton, who has just moved across the chamber, would think that his health services should report in a proper and timely way.


Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — They have not in certain points in the past, but many of them are now much better at it, although in this bill the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources seeks to extend the reporting date to 31 December. That is a disgrace. Members like Mr Hilton would believe, in their heart of hearts, that — —



Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — In actual fact I did worry about annual reports when I was in government, and I did encourage governments to undertake these open and transparent processes. Unless I am mistaken, I was the first member to speak on a statement on reports in this chamber whilst we were in government. I am trying to remember the date, and perhaps the member can help me with that. It was about the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. I was the first to speak on the new form of debate in this chamber where annual reports are tabled and members have the opportunity to reflect on them.

So I reject the point that this is some newfound concern with annual reports; and as I laid out earlier, in the last period of this government, up to 2002, I was very active in attempting to hold the government accountable for its failure to properly report in time.

Let us be clear what will occur here: the government will hide as many of the unfavourable annual reports as it can. It is unlikely that Parliament will sit in the last couple of days of October. That will thereby give the government the excuse that it has not broken any tabling rules in Parliament.

The shifting out of 31 October to 31 December for the date of reporting to the community will mean the government can hold on to those unfavourable annual reports ahead of the state election. The reports will either be tabled and released to the community in December, or perhaps like last time they will be tabled in February. It was in February that all those whopping deficits came in one after another as the reports were tabled. The government had carefully hidden them from the electorate in the lead-up to the 2002 state election.

Clause 8 seeks to remove the health service agreement from its centrepiece as the agreement approach between each health service and the Department of Human Services. I will read the clause for the house so that we understand precisely what we are talking about here. Proposed section 26(4A) states:

A health service agreement entered into by a denominational hospital or a public health service is not required to specify particulars of any matters that are, or are to be, specified in a statement of priorities that has been, or will be, agreed to or made in relation to the hospital or health service under this Act for the financial year that the health service agreement is made in respect of.

The government says it has introduced this new system, the so-called statement of priorities. There are some good aspects of the statement of priorities, and I place

that on record, but this is as yet an untried and untested regime of regulation in this way, and reporting. The statement of priorities comes out of the Health Services (Governance and Accountability) Act that Parliament passed in June last year.

I make the point that the governance and accountability act laid out the system of statement of priorities and did a whole series of other things. It increased the power of the Department of Human Services, the minister and the secretary vis-a-vis the health services. It pulled in the power to 555 Collins Street, and it sought to keep every health service in the state directly accountable to the minister and the department in a way that hitherto had been unusual in Victoria. We have always had a balanced system where local communities and boards have been able to act within broad and proper parameters in the interests of their communities and their health services. That governance and accountability act wound back the ability of community boards to achieve the aims that their communities sought. It increased the power of the minister to direct, it increased the power of the minister to appoint spies to the board and it increased the power of the minister to intervene in a whole series of different ways.

The statement of priorities, as I have said, contains some good ideas, and I am not prepared to indicate that we are opposed to the concept of a statement of priorities and some of the ideas contained within them as a longer-term approach, but I indicate that they are untried and untested; and at this point it would be foolhardy to remove the long-established health service agreement requirements. I do want to say, in indicating my concern at removing the health service agreement requirements in a premature way, that this is a prudent financial course for the Parliament to follow.

It is not as though this government has a good record on financial management in the health sector. Increasingly over the last six months we have seen a series of governance and financial scandals develop in the health portfolio. I almost do not need to recount these because members are aware of them, but it is important for the record to ensure that they are listed here, and that they are counter-posed against this government’s attempt to weaken the importance of health service agreements and the detail that is in them, in favour of its new, untested and untried statement of priorities.

The list of governance and financial issues that have developed in the recent period is significant. We have seen the sacking of the Sale hospital board. There are, in truth, a number of questions to be answered still from that process that the minister undertook of sacking that board.



I am not here to defend the actions of every board member at Sale, and I am not here to defend expensive flights, but I make the point that the regional director in the Gippsland region, Val Callister — a former Labor member of this Parliament — is very close to the Department of Human Services; and I would have thought that there are two scenarios here: either that regional director was in touch with and had her finger on the pulse of the Sale hospital board and was aware that flights had been authorised or she was not. My information is that she knew. I do not have a document to prove that, but I have reports from people very close to the action.

Mr Viney — Your evidence is hearsay!

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — My evidence is more than hearsay. My evidence is actual reports — —


Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I do not have a document; hearsay is different from that. I could explain some laws of evidence to Mr Viney if he would like, but I think that is probably straying a little bit. What I will explain is that people who were present at the hospital and were aware of significant meetings and can report first hand — as they have done to me off the record because they are worried about their careers and their future — indicate that the regional office was aware of these flights. As I said, I do not have a document to prove that but I have had reports. This is important. The regional director either knew or did not know. If she did not know that the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars was being authorised in her region for flights from the Middle East to Victoria, then she should have known. If she knew, then she is complicit — and the information I have is that there was a wink and a nod — but either way she should be held to account.

Mr Viney — On a point of order, Acting President, I am reasonably across the bill before the house. I frankly fail to see how these completely unsubstantiated allegations being made by Mr Davis, using parliamentary privilege to smear a public servant’s reputation, have any relationship whatsoever to the bill before the house. I ask you to order him to come back to the bill.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — On the point of order, Acting President, clause 8 is about health services, and proposed section 26(4A) states:

A health service agreement entered into by a denominational hospital or a public health service is not required to specify particulars of any matters that are, or are to be, specified in a statement of priorities that has been, or will be, agreed to or made in relation to the hospital or health service under this

Act for the financial year that the health service agreement is made in respect of.

My point is that this goes directly to financial accountability. I am using some recent examples in my lead speech that relate to financial governance failures in Victoria under this system.

Mr Viney — Further on the point of order, Acting President, it is an incredibly long bow to suggest that because there are provisions about annual reports in this legislation this relates to quite specific and, as I said, unsubstantiated allegations intended to smear a public servant. If the member wants to raise it, then there are other ways he can raise those matters in this chamber. It is not appropriate for him to be raising those matters — I do not think you should raise them at all if they are unsubstantiated — in the context of the legislation before the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. H. E. Buckingham) — Order! The lead speaker normally has an amount of latitude as the lead speaker, but I ask him to come back to the legislation.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I thank you for your ruling, Acting President. I intend to lay out other examples where this issue of the health service agreement and the new statement of priorities by hospitals and health services have not been up to scratch. I need to make it clear that the minister and the department have not managed this well. My concern is that the deleting of the central role of the health service agreement will put in place a weakened system, a system that is untried and untested.

I make the point that there have been other examples of financial governance failures. I draw another example to the attention of the house — Peninsula Health. Mr Viney will be well aware of that, and he may have had close contact with a number of the people who were on that health service board who fell on their sword before the minister pushed them. Many of those people were very closely connected with the Labor Party. My point is that agreements are signed between health services and the department. Those agreements are very important; they are the major financial instruments. We are now introducing a statement of priorities which is untried and untested. That statement of priorities is, in my view, not yet at a point where we can rely on it as the primary, or indeed the only, instrument of accountability by these health services.

For that reason I believe the house should not delete the health service agreement from that central role as this clause seeks to do. At Peninsula Health a certain employee of that health service appears to have been



involved with issues around theft. I do not want to go into great detail because this is a matter before the courts. I believe the case needs to go forward in a proper way without an input from this chamber, but I make the point that in that case the financial controls were not satisfactory.

Mr Viney — On a point of order, Acting President, I do not know that it is technically before the courts, but I am certainly aware — —

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I believe it is.

Mr Viney — You may be across it a little more than me, Mr Davis, but I believe there are very clear processes in this chamber where issues that pertain to matters that will come before the courts are not appropriate to be raised in this chamber. There is plenty of precedent in the standing orders, and I cannot recall a specific ruling, but Mr Davis is now going down a path that could well relate to the evidence that might go before a court. It is absolutely inappropriate that it should be raised in the context of this legislation.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — On the point of order, Acting President, I am well aware of the conventions of the house and the sensible conventions that apply to discussion of cases before the courts. Those conventions in no way mean that you cannot mention established public facts about those cases. It is a fact that the money was stolen, it is a fact that the board resigned and it is a fact that money disappeared. They are facts. It is a matter for the court to establish responsibility for those.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — On the point of order, Acting President, it is absolutely appropriate for you to rule in favour of this point of order because my understanding of this particular case is that charges have been laid, and in the context that charges have been laid it is absolutely inappropriate for this matter to be canvassed in any way whatsoever in this house. It is contrary to the custom and practice of this house. Indeed, if Mr Davis was charged with an offence, he would find it absolutely offensive if somebody came into this house and sought to canvass issues surrounding him being charged in any way, shape or form. I urge you, Acting President, to ask Mr Davis to refrain from making comment about a matter that is likely to come before the courts.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Further on the point of order, Acting President, it is important to understand that I am well aware of these conventions and that I have restricted my comments to those matters of public and press record, so there is no question about anything

further than that. I have been very careful on that matter.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Further on the point of order, Acting President, it does not matter whether comments have been made in public. That does not make any difference whatsoever. A member cannot come in here and canvass those issues when the matter is before the court without breaking the custom and practice of this house.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — On the point of order, President, I want to make the point that one can put on the record basic statements that are out there in the public and one can indeed draw general points from the facts of the matter that are established publicly.

The PRESIDENT — Order! I have been listening to the points being raised, both in my office and at the chamber door. According to May, 22nd edition, at pages 383 and 384, during a debate or in raising a question it is not in order for a member to raise matters which are sub judice. In Parliament matters relating to criminal charges cannot be raised if a charge has actually been laid.

My understanding in this particular case is that a charge has been laid, therefore the matter is sub judice. I direct the honourable member not to comment in this house about the matter that is before the courts.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Thank you, President, I plan to continue my discussion of this clause which relates to health service agreements. I make the point that a key aspect of these health service agreements is their ability to guarantee that public money which is spent on important health services in this state is indeed spent appropriately and is spent with the highest standards of probity and appropriateness.

I want to point out that there have been other cases in Victoria in recent periods where public standards have not been maintained with respect to the moneys that the Department of Human Services has direct or indirect responsibility for, and I point to the Cheltenham and district cemetery trust where again the annual reporting process is a very important one — not directly relating in this case to a health service agreement — but the annual reporting process is a very important process for ensuring public accountability and probity at many of our cemetery trusts around the state.

The health minister in the other place has responsibility for the issues that surround the cemetery trusts and for ensuring that public faith and confidence is retained in those facilities. The recent case of related party transactions at the Cheltenham and district cemetery



trust points again to a pattern of lack of oversight and accountability by this department and by this minister. I, for one, am very concerned that that process occurred there despite us knowing that in earlier years there were reports tabled in this Parliament about related party transactions and that the department was slow to respond to those reports swiftly enough to ensure that resources were put in place to follow up those concerns and to ensure that these matters were addressed. In my view the department did not act with the speed that the community would expect. The community very much expects high standards, but they were not met in this case.

I also want to point to the recent examples at Melbourne Health where in round figures almost $20 million of money was brought forward as accrued revenue incorrectly. This sort of maladministration is precisely the sort of issues that need to be dealt with by the health service agreements and the statements of priorities. The statement of priorities signed between Melbourne Health and the Department of Human Services was not a sufficient instrument to prevent the loss or the spending of more than $20 million of revenue that the health service had not received.

I turn to the Melbourne Health annual report and make some points about what I believe are matters of concern. The house will be concerned when members read the annual report at pages 76, 77 and 78, which look at the activities of the audit committee and the finance committee of Melbourne Health, and the financial reporting arrangements that relate to internal audit and management of risks and financial reporting; one can only conclude that these things have not been up to scratch.

The finance committee, according to the report, meets every month. The primary function of the finance committee is to assist the audit committee and the board in fulfilling their respective responsibilities relating to accounting and reporting practices at Melbourne Health. I note that a key task of the finance committee is to evaluate Melbourne Health’s exposure to fraud. We know that a fraud was perpetrated, that a resignation has occurred, and that others at Melbourne Health are still under a cloud. I and many others are very concerned that our second-largest network and second-largest hospital would be in the position where its finances are under this sort of a cloud.

The finance committee also reviews the annual financial statements with the financial officer and the external auditors and recommend acceptance to the audit committee.

Hon. J. G. Hilton — On a point of order, Acting President, you have given Mr Davis fair leeway in his capacity as lead speaker but in a previous ruling you did ask him to return to the bill. I would suggest to you, Acting President, that Mr Davis has totally disregarded that instruction and is not speaking on the bill in any way.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — On the point of order, Acting President, I am speaking about the clause that relates to health service agreements. I have already read that out and explained the importance of that as a key instrument in guaranteeing the financial arrangements between the department and the individual health services. I am using an individual health service in this state, one of our major health services that has a health service agreement with the department, and I am pointing to an example of where that has gone wrong.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. H. E. Buckingham) — Order! The member should cease debating the point of order. I rule the point of order out of order, and I ask the member to return to the debate.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Thank you, Acting President. Page 78 of the report looks at the identification of risks and the management of risks, and there are monthly actual results for each division recorded against budget and monitored by management, with monthly reporting to the finance committee and to the board. All of these committees — the finance committee, the audit committee, the board itself and the risk management process in the network — are directly linked to the performance of this major health network and to the $20 million of accrued additional revenue that the board has allowed to be expended.

I have to say that those monthly figures are also reported to the department. They are reported right up the tree and you have to ask the question: given where the greater weight is sitting in terms of the statement of priorities, how has that system worked in the last 12 months at Melbourne Health? You would have to say that it has not been satisfactory. Mr Hilton is an accountant and he will understand some of these issues. The internal audit committee says it is responsible for reviewing the role and effectiveness of the internal audit function. According to Melbourne Health’s annual report:

Melbourne Health appointed Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, now in their second financial year, to assist the executive director finance in the performance of the internal audit function.

Those internal audit functions have not worked. The report states:



Extensive key financial performance indicators relating to all approved goal areas have been set and are reported on a ‘balanced scorecard approach’ —

whatever that means —

to both the finance committee and monthly to the board.

You would have to say that this approach has not been satisfactory. Melbourne Health’s strategies include the monitoring and review of risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. Those risk mitigation strategies have clearly totally failed given they have allowed a system to develop where a $20 million fraud has occurred. Services have been threatened. I know from talking to people from operating theatre level up that you almost have to apply to the board to buy a scalpel at the Royal Melbourne Hospital at the moment because it is so tight after the mistakes that occurred. The financial screws have been put on to chase down and work out what went wrong at Melbourne Health.

What went wrong is serious. It is something we do not want to see again. It is something we as a community are concerned about, and people in this house should be very concerned about it. Twenty million dollars is a lot of money which could have been spent in different ways. It is a lot of money that should have gone through proper processes. I am very concerned that there will now be cuts at Melbourne Health despite the promises to the contrary of Minister Jennings in this place recently in the absence of the Minister for Health in the other place. I am concerned that there will be cuts and the winding back of services in the mental health area and elsewhere in the network. I am concerned that the government will need to deal with that.

Earlier today I put on record the declining net financial position of the network, the balance sheet position. I am concerned that there may have been misreporting to the department. That might be the explanation for the department failing to pick up on these issues — perhaps there was misreporting to the department. Nonetheless, there was clearly a failure at departmental level to marry up the amounts of money being put across the health services with the reporting coming back on the other side. I have to say that not only the board but the minister and the director of the department for metropolitan and aged care have to explain what has occurred here and why they failed to pick up the problems.

My point is it is clear that the financial arrangements under these statements of priorities are not yet sufficiently robust that we can rely on them alone. For that reason I believe the health service agreement provided for in clause 8 of the bill should be retained.

We ought to ensure that the financial strength of our networks is guaranteed. We ought to ensure that there are no unsatisfactory slip-ups as have occurred recently, that there is no mismanagement or maladministration of the type we have seen recently.

Moving to other sections of the bill in the relatively small amount of time that remains, I want to say that the opposition is supportive of the changes to the Mental Health Act 1986. We have indicated our support there. Part 5 of this act seeks to amend a series of health practitioner registration acts — 10 of the 11 such acts. These boards will now be able to appoint from a Governor in Council-approved list. I have no problem with that, although I have to say that in a sense it is putting the cart before the horse. The government has a review of health practitioner registration under way at present — a review that was meant to be finished some time in 2003 or early 2004 but has trundled on endlessly as the government has botched the process of it. To make these changes to the registration acts ahead of that review and more comprehensive decisions by the government on health practitioner registration seems to me to be going the wrong way around.

I make the point that it appears the government has backed off from its intention to introduce a health super board — an overarching regulatory point for all of the health practitioner registration boards. From my communication with health practitioners representing almost all of the different categories registered in this state I have yet to find a group that supports this overarching concept. There may be one or two individuals who do but I do not see that there is a strong argument for this super board. I am pleased that the government appears to have backed off from its proposals there.

The idea that better economies can be achieved is a fair one, but much of that can be done in any event. As I am aware and as has been put to me by a number of boards and various practitioner associations, boards have cooperated on a series of things whether they be computer courses, the purchasing of equipment or a whole range of other things where sensible cooperation between relevant boards for backroom office functions can achieve some economies. I welcome that process, I think it is sensible and a process that will be important in reducing the costs of registration and therefore costs to the community. At the same time, in my view, that is not an argument for an overarching board that would seek to impose its broader will across those practitioner groups which are able to regulate with proper arrangement under their registration acts. There is a broad range of people on those boards including



representatives of consumers and lawyers. By and large I think the health practitioner registration boards do a good job. That is not to say there is no capacity to improve that process, because there is. Most of them work closely with the health services commissioner and her office. That is a sensible process — —

Mr Viney — You never concede anything we do.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — No, I have indicated — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. H. E. Buckingham) — Order! Through the Chair, Mr Davis.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — I have been very modest. I have indicated that I support parts of this bill. I have been quite open about my support for the changes to the Mental Health Act. If members talked to the member for Benambra in the other place about the cross-border issues and the need to ensure that health services on the border are properly registered and accredited, he would indicate that this is a useful step. Indeed, I support this step. I think Mr Viney is quite wrong. However, I make the point that the government’s health practitioner registration review is continuing, it has not yet reached its conclusion. I know many await with interest the government’s proposals in this area; I originally thought we were going to see them 18 months or more ago. When those proposals come forward they will be assessed on their merits.

In conclusion — I note just a couple of minutes remain — I want again to indicate that in the committee stage we will move two amendments to test the points around clauses 8, 10 and 12. There is capacity for the Labor Party, The Nationals and Independents to support those amendments, and we would welcome support for those amendments. We believe they would improve the situation and prevent a loss of transparency and accountability that is inherent in the winding back of timely reporting as listed in clauses 10 and 12.

The statements of priorities are not yet tried, true and tested; they need further refinement. They have not been publicly available in the way that the government claimed. I now have copies of them but that was a slow process. I know that many people tried to get copies of the statements of priorities, but the government was very slow in providing those. We heard every excuse known to man as to why the parliamentary library or our office could not have copies of those statements of priorities. We heard, ‘The man in the department who handles that is away this week’ — there was a series of excuses that we began to find quite amusing. They had

the flavour of the old excuse, ‘The dog ate my homework’.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous — Did you use that when you were at school?

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS — Never, but I heard it used, Mr Theophanous. I make the point that we now have copies of the statements of priorities, but they ought to be more easily available publicly, and the failure of the government to make those properly publicly available is reprehensible. I believe that will be remedied, and I would welcome that, but it is important if you are going to use these statements of priorities in this way that they be publicly available and that the government is held to account.


Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Commonwealth Games: community participation

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Commonwealth Games and ask: who is to be the chief citizen for the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the question. It is a particularly interesting question, because of course members would appreciate that at the opening and closing ceremonies a number of official roles are necessary and there are a number of protocols in the arrangements for the Commonwealth Games. Whilst the opening ceremony is still being developed — there is a lot of work being undertaken, and it will no doubt be a closely kept secret — there will be an enormous amount of surprise in it for the general community.

Whilst there are a range of official protocols that there is a need to ensure are delivered as part of the formalities of the Commonwealth Games opening and closing ceremonies, I am very conscious that those ceremonies can be interpreted very traditionally or in a contemporary way. I anticipate that, given the dynamism and excitement of the opening ceremony and given that we are a young country and want to reflect that when we take Victoria and Australia to the rest of the world, it is likely to be interpreted in a very contemporary way. Whilst that has not been finalised and there is still an enormous amount of work being



undertaken, no doubt there will be plenty of surprises on the night.


Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — I thank the minister for his wide-ranging response, which did not tell us very much at all. I ask: since the minister will not confirm the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, John So, as the chief citizen, what role will the Lord Mayor have in the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s question. I understand that many, many people will be involved in the delivery of the opening and closing ceremonies — many official dignitaries — and I also appreciate there was a wide-ranging discussion before the opening of the Olympic Games about the appropriate official to open or officiate in those respective — —

Hon. Philip Davis — Are you avoiding the question?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — No, I will get to the answer. There is an array of people who would like to be involved and who we anticipate should and will be involved. No doubt a lot of discussions are taking place and will continue to take place on those formalities. We will be eager that every level of government be reflected in the representation on the opening ceremony night.

Home and community care program: funding

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) — My question is to the Minister for Aged Care, Mr Jennings. Can the minister advise the house of any recent initiatives by the Bracks government to further improve the delivery of home and community care services, an important part of making Victoria a great place to raise a family?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I thank Ms Mikakos for her question and for her concern about the wellbeing of, in particular, older members of our community who receive home and community care each and every day throughout a range of agencies and providers. Five hundred agencies, whether they be local government or non-government agencies, perform a great role every day in providing a level of care primarily but not exclusively to older members of the community — there are younger people with disabilities who are receiving home and community care services every day — and I appreciate their contribution.

The state of Victoria, through the Bracks government, has recognised the level of support required for this important sector. Members of this chamber would have previously heard me speak about our commitment to the program. Indeed in the most recent budget the government contributed $47 million beyond our matching component. In most states around the country it is a 60-40 program, with the commonwealth contributing 60 per cent and the states 40 per cent. In Victoria it is almost a 50-50 program, because we recognise the value of investing in this important program. Adding to that effort are local councils.

Hon. Andrea Coote interjected.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — Indeed. Somewhere in the order of $70 million to $80 million worth of additional effort and resources are allocated by local government. We are singularly blessed in Australia that local government plays that important role.

To provide support for innovation within this program, earlier this year I opened the expressions of interest for agencies that are interested in trying to drive new reforms into their service delivery, and in particular those agencies which are interested in providing a more active level of service provision. Rather than encouraging people to become passive recipients of the service and perhaps disempowering them and undermining their capacities, this would focus on ways in which the service could be delivered to assist them to maintain their homes and independence and also their confidence in the way they live independently. This is an important aspect of the innovation.

How have we done this? I recently announced $605 000 of funding for new programs designed to support that innovation. First of all it is to provide new information technology that will enable 31 agencies across Victoria, through councils, to more effectively deal with case management and referrals of the needs of their clients. So 31 councils right throughout the breadth of Victoria will be using this money to introduce that technology. Six providers — Barwon Health, West Gippsland Healthcare Group, Central Goldfields shire, Mecwa Community Care, Peninsula community health service and Central Bayside Community Health Services — will be implementing new active models of service delivery along the lines of a number of examples that I will demonstrate.

For instance, in Baw Baw shire $50 000 has been allocated to a home maintenance program. The shire will not necessarily come in and do all the work but will provide the equipment, wherewithal and support for older members of the community to maintain their



own gardens. It an innovative approach that makes sense, because what we are talking about is trying to maintain the independence and capacities of older members of the communities. But Baw Baw is not alone, because in this first round money for projects is going to Moreland, Alpine shire and the Ovens and King Health Service, and to the Shire of Yarra Ranges for the aptly named More than just Coping program.

Through the range of these service provisions throughout Victoria we are encouraging innovation and the independent capacity of older members of the community, in particular, to live happy, independent lives.


Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Commonwealth Games, the Honourable Justin Madden. I advise him that Ben did very well in his place at Melbourne Victory last night, but I did not think much of Ben’s date, Brent — they are both Labor advisers, by the way!

On Tuesday the minister stated that the only entity to receive compensation for loss of access to sporting facilities due to the Commonwealth Games was the Australian Football League. I note that in reference to the Melbourne Cricket Ground redevelopment, paragraph 5.94 of the Auditor-General’s report on the finances of the state of Victoria 2001–02 states:

To date, the state’s direct and indirect financial support for the project includes:

…

provision of compensation to … the Victorian Cricket Association/Australian Cricket Board for lost events during the periods when the temporary athletics track works are undertaken and the 2006 games are held …

Why was the minister’s statement on Tuesday yet again at odds with the findings of the Auditor-General?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s question. To clarify that, if Mr Atkinson was not clear on my answer the other day and on what is printed in these documents, we have only made compensation payments to the Australian Football League (AFL). There may be allowances within the budget for compensation to other groups if need be, but we have not paid any compensation to any parties other than the AFL.

As I said, any other parties that may or may not be seeking entitlements to any compensation need to do

that with the appropriate venue managers. Whether it be the Melbourne Cricket Ground itself, the State Netball and Hockey Centre or the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre through the State Sports Centre Trust, any of those organisations that rely on those venues and feel they may have been affected by the Commonwealth Games need to discuss and negotiate that with those respective venue managers.

As I said before, the agreement with the Australian Football League was significant and was for a $150 million contribution to the Melbourne Cricket Ground redevelopment. That, with the contribution from the state government of $77 million and a contribution from the Melbourne Cricket Club itself, has brought together a package which will deliver to the MCG a fantastic benefit and legacy beyond the games, one of the great aspects of the economic benefits of the games. The $77 million investment by the state government in the MCG redevelopment will deliver a venue in the order of a $430 million project. That is part of the economic benefit we are seeing right across the games delivery. A little bit of investment by the state government is generating enormous economic impact on and growth in gross state product.

But if there are any community groups — and we have articulated this to many groups — that cannot reach a resolution with any of the venue operators, whether it be cricket, basketball, badminton, table tennis, squash, hockey, netball or any other user group, then the first port of call is with the venue operators. If there is difficulty, we are happy to come to the party and help get these groups to the table to negotiate with the operators and to facilitate that. But there is no anticipated compensation payment to any group other than the one we have entered into with the AFL.


Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) — The Auditor-General’s report indicates that the Victorian Cricket Association and the Australian Cricket Board will be entitled to compensation for reduced access to the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Indeed the minister has now conceded that there may be compensation provided in the budget for other parties beyond what he has admitted for the Australian Football League. I therefore ask the minister what allowances exactly have been made in the budget and why has the government decided to limit the compensation to the VCA, ACB and the AFL, denying compensation to smaller sporting bodies?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Commonwealth Games) — I welcome the member’s



question again and his interest in this particular issue, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, the critical aspect of the compensation arrangements with the Australian Football League was to get it to the table on the $150 million. It was not, nor was the Melbourne Cricket Club, prepared to enter into an agreement unless it had a tick in that box when it came to negotiation. At the end of the day that was probably one of the main and last sticking points to bring the AFL to the table with $150 million. Without that tick in the box it would probably not have brought the contribution to the table — a contribution which we are particularly proud of and which will get the Melbourne Cricket Ground built for the Commonwealth Games. But, as I have said, if any of the other parties feel aggrieved in any fashion and cannot reach a resolution or negotiate an outcome with the venue operators, we are happy to come to the table and help facilitate negotiations and try to find a resolution to these matters with the venue operators.

Consumer affairs: credit

Ms ARGONDIZZO (Templestowe) — My question is for the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The minister has previously advised the house that the government is undertaking a review of consumer credit. Could the minister advise the house of any current consumer credit issues that may be of concern to Victorian families?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Consumer Affairs) — I thank the honourable member for her question. As members are aware, and as I have mentioned in the house, the Bracks government is undertaking a review on consumer credit. This review comes from the social policy statement A Fairer Victoria and is looking at ways the government can deal with issues of credit, consumer access to credit and affordable credit. The review is looking at the sorts of practices that may be harming Victorian families such as irresponsible advertising and unethical lending practices. James Merlino, the member for Monbulk in another place, is currently undertaking consultations around Victoria, talking to people about their experiences of getting credit and ensuring that we address the policy issues that arise from that review.

There are some emerging new credit arrangements that are of some concern. New credit line products are coming onto the market all the time which consumers need to be careful of and be aware of, in areas such as credit for school fees and for medical and dental services. Victorian families need to be very careful that they understand the full effects and implications of any loans that they may undertake to finance these

arrangements, and they need to be careful in areas of credit where they are inexperienced. This type of credit can be risky for families. They can find themselves in debt that they did not expect and are unable to pay.

Only two weeks ago the largest private child-care provider in the country, ABC Learning Centres, announced a new offer to parents — the opportunity to borrow up to $4000 for each child in child care. This could be recouped when the parents received their child-care rebate with their tax return. ABC Learning Centres calls this loan a deferred payment plan and markets it by telling families, ‘Don’t wait for the child-care rebate’. When the family takes out one of these loans, the lender — a company called DPPA Pty Ltd — pays 30 per cent of their child-care fees up to a maximum of $4000 per child per financial year. This marketing makes the loan seem simple and just an advance on the money that the family will get back through the child-care rebate. It does not seem as if you could get into difficulties, but people do need to look more deeply. In fact, the fine print suggests that the family has only until 30 September each year to repay the loan. Often families do not even lodge their tax returns by that time so they will not have received the child-care rebate in time to repay their loans. They will get themselves into difficulties and will then have to pay the 8 per cent interest on that loan.

It is important that people be aware of the credit that is available out in the marketplace. Credit can be a very useful tool if you are aware of what you are doing and how to use it, but there are a whole lot of different offers in the credit marketplace now, and consumers need to be aware. They need to be careful not to be conned by advertising. They need to look at the fine print and make sure they can afford to repay that credit.

Rural and regional Victoria: sports facilities

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — My question is to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Honourable Justin Madden. Last year the government announced it would spend approximately $1.8 million on country football and netball facilities via a whole range of granting schemes throughout regional Victoria. I ask the minister whether regional councils and country football and netball leagues and clubs can be assured that a similar amount will be made available through the same means this year, and whether the $2.3 million announced by the minister in his response to the inquiry into country football will be over and above the existing funding level.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I welcome the member’s question



because the government is very proud of what it has been able to do in regional Victoria for football and netball, as well as for all the other community sporting facilities we have been able to invest in over the term of the Bracks government.

There has been a huge growth in expectation in regional Victoria in particular — and I have mentioned this on a number of occasions — because when we came into government we changed the funding ratios to free up the funding available for smaller community groups and bring more government money to each of those areas. That is great because it means a lot of communities now know that by raising some funds and putting in an application they can not only get funds through their local council but can also get a lot more funds through the state government. Because of this we have seen an enormous growth in facilities right across regional Victoria.

As Mr Drum would know, country Victorians love their sport, and that is reflected in the enthusiasm with which they embrace participation. It is reflected not only by the fact that they love their sport so much but by the fact that it means so much more to them, because sometimes rural communities do not have a great deal of choice of recreation or entertainment and that is why things like country football and netball are so important. They are important not only because they are about participation but because they provide social functions where people of all ages come together. Often when you go to a country football or netball game of a Saturday or Sunday afternoon you will see people who may not necessarily be associated with the club as members or participants but who have gone along to watch with their local community. It is a great way to bring people together.

We have been very excited about the money we have been able to provide not only for community facilities but also the funding we have provided to assist in the upgrading of country football grounds that have deteriorated because of the conditions forced on them as a result of the drought. That funding assists them in considering ways to improve their facilities by investing in water saving or by using different sorts of grasses on their grounds. The government’s most recent announcement, in conjunction with the Australian Football League, has been to bring together a pool of funds that will be injected into facilities, whether they be facilities for netball, umpires, officials or clubs themselves. That little bit of money can make a world of difference, whether it be used for showers, and I know that the Honourable Damian Drum has probably had a few cold showers at football clubs over the years; whether it be used for the umpires’ changing rooms,

because sometimes they are not the first priority when it comes to facilities at a country football club; or whether it be used for the changing rooms for netballers, who are often the poor cousins when it comes to facilities.

The government is very pleased to continue funding these projects. Country Victoria is always a priority when it comes to sporting facilities in particular, but there is also a huge demand from the growth suburbs. Too much money is never enough, but we will continue to invest substantially in those facilities for communities in regional and country Victoria, whilst at the same time making a substantial investment in the suburbs of inner Melbourne.


Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — That is very disappointing. With respect to the minister’s response that this new money is going to be used for things like shower blocks and standard facilities, I note that they are projects that are already being funded under current arrangements. Surely the will and the spirit behind the inquiry and its findings, and the purpose of the government’s response, was to give us the opportunity to fund other projects. Was the minister more or less saying in the answer he has just given the house that all the government is going to do is simply bring forward projects that are already on the table and use the Australian Football League’s money to pay for half of them?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I welcome the member’s question, and the passion he displayed in asking it. We do not often see that kind of passion when it comes to questions in this place.

I am very pleased to say that we will continue to invest the money we have always invested in country Victoria through our facilities funding grants. This money we are referring to that involves the Australian Football League in partnership with the state government is being provided on top of those grants, so this is a great opportunity to invest more money in more projects across country and regional Victoria. This is an added extra at a time when there is a great demand for those facilities, because we are seeing great increases in participation in country football and netball. What a great opportunity this is to invest more money in facilities for communities that need them to increase rates of participation when they are in such great demand. All of this makes Victoria a better place to raise a family.



Goldmining: Fosterville

Mr SMITH (Chelsea) — My question is directed to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, the Honourable Theo Theophanous. Can the minister advise the house of any recent developments in the goldmining industry in Victoria, and in particular in the Bendigo region?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I am very pleased to answer the question from the Mr Smith, because, as I have indicated to the house previously, Victoria’s goldmining industry is going ahead in leaps and bounds. I am pleased to advise the house that on 6 July the Premier officially opened the $100 million Fosterville goldmine in the Bendigo region.

The opening of this particular mine meant that we saw a doubling of Victoria’s output of gold overnight. It is another indication of how much this industry is going ahead. This mine is owned and operated by the Perseverance Corporation, and its opening will provide an enormous boost to this particular region through job creation and related economic activity.

One of the best things about the opening is that the mine will add to Bendigo’s already booming economy. The Fosterville mine is just beginning to realise its potential and is appointed to the broader scope for investment in gold in Victoria. It is another massive vote of confidence in the Victorian economy by a significant investor. The Fosterville mine means more jobs and investment, not only in Bendigo but also in the surrounding areas. It will create 150 new long-term jobs in that region, with all the support that that means for the families involved as well. It is expected to inject $35 million per year into the local economy through salaries, services and supplies. That is a huge boost in that area. All this translates to a significant economic boost to the Bendigo region.

The mine is a surface and underground gold mining operation, and it is located about 20 kilometres east of Bendigo. It is expected to produce 135 000 ounces of gold annually at a market value of approximately $74 million at current rates, which will more than double the state’s annual gold production. It is a fantastic new addition.

The Bracks government has worked very closely with the Perseverance Corporation over the past three years to get this mine going, and the Minister for State and Regional Development in another place, John Brumby, recently announced a $250 000 grant to boost workers’ skills in using new technology at this mining operation.

This gold mining operation is using some innovative new technology. It is technology that has not been used before in Victoria; it uses a bacterial-type of treatment to separate gold from the ore, which is much more environmentally appropriate than the other ways that have been used in the past to do the same thing.

This mine is a boost to the area. It creates jobs in the region, it is using the latest technology, it is developing skills for that particular region, and it is helping Bendigo to develop its economy even further. Gold production in Victoria reached its peak during the gold rush, but by the way we are going in this state we will have a second gold rush which will be every bit as big as the first one.

Environment: greenhouse gas emissions

Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — My question is also to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, the Honourable Theo Theophanous. In June the New Zealand government admitted that it had made a huge miscalculation of the cost involved with the Kyoto protocol. The New Zealand climate change minister, Peter Hodgson, said that it was projected that New Zealand would overshoot its greenhouse targets by more than 30 million tonnes at a cost of between NZ$500 million and NZ$2 billion, depending on the price of carbon. Given this monumental stuff-up in New Zealand, which only last year projected a positive result of $450 million from signing the Kyoto protocol, will the minister admit that the government’s headlong drive to emissions trading is a folly of the first order which can only damage Victorian and Australian industries and consumers?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I thank the honourable member for the dorothy dixer. It is in keeping with the way he has been very supportive of the portfolio that I have been running for the energy sector. The fact of the matter is that the single most important thing that is holding back investment in the energy sector in this state is the lack of certainty about the cost of carbon and emissions trading in the future. That is what is holding back investment.

I will give examples. Origin Energy wants to build a billion dollar enterprise: a base-load gas station in the Mortlake region. It wants to do that, President, but do you know what is holding back the final decision going forward in relation to that business involving an investment of more than a billion dollars? It is because it will get absolutely no advantage whatsoever at the present moment from building a base-load power station — a power station that will produce energy with



one-third of the emissions that are produced by a brown coal power station. That is because this current federal government is not prepared to make any concession whatsoever to the need for an emissions trading scheme in this country.

The second aspect I point out is that the Prime Minister says that we are going to reach the targets under the Kyoto protocol even if we do not sign it. That is not because we are going to make any real effort to achieve those targets; it is purely and simply as a result of chance. It is partly because we got such a good deal that we have to achieve only 108 per cent, which is better than that of any other country in the world. But in addition to that deal on the Kyoto protocol which was negotiated for Australia, there is a whole lot of land clearing that is not going to take place in Queensland which will result in our being able to achieve those targets. How stupid can you be when you know you are going to achieve the targets yet you do not want to sign the protocol which would bring in additional investment and capacity to the country?

Let me advise Mr Forwood that there are companies that are going over to New Zealand from Australia and gearing off companies in New Zealand to make investments in Third World countries and other places to get the benefit that the Kyoto protocol and emissions trading gives them because they cannot do that here. What you have is a circumstance where this state and the rest of this nation is being held back by the Prime Minister in this region. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made a valiant effort at the G8 conference to try to get the Americans across the line, but our Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that the only time he will do that is if President Bush does it.

So, that’s that! That’s the very clear policy. It has been made clear to me at the federal level by federal ministers. The bottom line is that we will not do it unless the Americans do it. It is the same old policy. At least in New Zealand they have the courage to stand up and say, ‘We will sign on to Kyoto, and we will live up to our responsibilities’. Here in Australia we have far less to lose from signing on to the Kyoto protocol, yet we are not prepared to live up to our convictions, and we should be.


Hon. BILL FORWOOD (Templestowe) — I am glad the minister mentioned Tony Blair. At the recent G8 meeting Tony Blair said:

Kyoto is a failed experiment and it will not reach its targets.

Given that, does the minister still insist that Victoria would be better suited by taking on an emissions trading role when even Tony Blair admits that Kyoto is a failed experiment?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — Next thing you will be asking me about the Elgin Marbles!

This is a serious subject. The fact of the matter is that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wanted an emissions trading scheme; he wanted the Americans to sign on to Kyoto and to introduce emissions trading in that country; and he tried desperately for that to occur.

The Americans said, ‘No, we don’t care. We don’t care if you are with us in Iraq; we don’t care about all these other things. We will stick with the big interests in America, the big energy companies and so forth, the multinationals who don’t want it; and even though you forced them to do it in Europe and in 56 per cent of the world, we will let them off scot-free in America’.

That is what took place at the G8 meeting, and we do not agree with that position. We think that America and Australia should play their role in helping to try and secure a future which is — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! The minister’s time has expired.

Information and communications technology: trade mission

Mr SCHEFFER (Monash) — My question is to the Minister for Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister advise the house of how her recent ICT trade mission to Japan and China has helped lead the way in opening up international markets for Victorian ICT companies?

Hon. M. R. THOMSON (Minister for Information and Communication Technology) — I advised the house that we were in fact taking 50 individuals, representing 32 organisations, across to Japan, and I am pleased to say that it was a successful mission. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Japanese companies that assisted us before we departed and during our trip, and also by opening up their senior executives to our companies. I extend to them our great appreciation on the way we were treated while in Japan. I thank companies such as Toyota, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Panasonic, Nintendo, Hitachi, and Fuji Xerox for giving us an opportunity to meet with some of their most senior executives and for other support we received on the visit.



I also want to congratulate the delegates who went along on the mission, for they truly were great ambassadors of the Victorian information and communications technology (ICT) industry. We took a unique initiative this time around by actually taking four individual clusters with their own itineraries across to Japan, which was a pretty difficult logistical exercise, but it was very successful. My own itinerary had me following varying clusters at varying stages, to be there with them for strategic meetings along the way.

We are expecting some really good outcomes from this trade mission. I am confident that the companies who have made contacts with potential businesses will follow those through. In fact, already one e-learning company has signed a deal with the Japanese Waseda University Etech group, which has undertaken a joint e-learning research and development project within Tokyo’s primary and secondary schools.

This is an ambitious international project that will deploy Etech’s cutting edge e-learning platform, Studywiz, into one of the world’s largest markets. It is a key opportunity for this company and demonstrates how well we believe the ICT industry can be integrated into the global market. This is the aim of the Bracks governments ICT agenda — to actually participate in the global market and show our innovation, and demonstrate the opportunity for Victorian companies to compete on the global stage.

Whilst I was in China we were able to meet with the Jiangsu government and also representatives of the Beijing government in the area of ICT. We are looking at forging opportunities for greater ties in the area of ICT. We took the time to meet with a few companies while we were there, to look at opportunities for our ICT companies as well as their opportunities here in Victoria. We are looking to ensure that there are closer ties between the Jiangsu government and our ICT industry here in Victoria, and we are looking forward to that relationship developing into real business opportunities for our companies within China. There is no doubt that this is one industry that is truly global, and the Bracks government is working with the industry to ensure it is ready to compete.

Gas: Creswick supply

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — My question is to the Minister for Energy Industries and Resources. As the minister is aware, the government’s natural gas extension program is now getting slowly — very slowly! — under way at Creswick, when it was promised by the Premier three winters ago. The government and TXU’s jointly published glossy

brochure entitled ‘We’re bringing natural gas to Creswick’ was sent out to all residents in April and shows that the gas rollout will go to less than 60 per cent of Creswick families. Will the minister explain why the government’s promised natural gas extension program to Creswick will discriminate against more than 40 per cent of Creswick’s families?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — Let me first of all say that this gas extension program is one of which the government is very proud. As part of our social responsibilities and as part of the goals of this government to grow the whole of the state, we recognised that there was a need to try to get natural gas into regional Victoria in so far as that was possible.

We therefore set aside $70 million for a significant program, one of the biggest infrastructure programs that had occurred for regional Victoria in decades, and we set about a pristine process in order to identify the best value for money that could be achieved in terms of that particular program. We have identified 29 towns that will be connected as a result of the program, and of course Creswick is one of those towns that has been identified. In fact I can indicate that about 3 kilometres of reticulation mains have already been constructed in Creswick and that the first connections are expected in mid 2006, with stage 1 of the rollout to be completed in December 2006.

Some 1300 residential and commercial customers will benefit as a result of the rollout. I would think this has received a great deal of support and encouragement from the local council and Labor Party members representing that area. All of these people have supported the government in this program. This is a question of ensuring that we get the best value for money and reach the most residents we can in regional Victoria. Those areas of Creswick that have been identified will receive those connections during the course of next year. In other areas of regional Victoria where we have not been able to achieve coverage through this program, Regional Development Victoria has looked at other alternatives to natural gas, such as liquefied natural gas, that might be appropriate to those particular areas.

I again emphasise to honourable members that we are talking about savings to people in regional Victoria of up to $1200 for residents and businesses. If you do the sums on 1300 residents in the Creswick region, it is a significant number of residents who will have a lot of dollars in their pockets as a result of the actions of this government.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — I thank the minister for that answer, but I must say that his sums are not right. I would like to brief him on it, perhaps at a later stage, given that I have had intimate involvement with this project since February 2000. I am well aware of how many households will not be connected. Given the minister’s answer, will he explain why natural gas will be provided to 100 per cent of families at Woodend but to less than 60 per cent of families at Creswick?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources) — I object to members who come in here and try to pit one country Victorian against another country Victorian. The fact of the matter is that we treat all country Victorians equally by identifying the maximum number of country Victorians we can reach through this program. We identify alternative programs that can be used. If you want to add a bit more than that, over the life of this government we have spent $320 million in subsidising electricity prices in country Victoria because of the mess that was left to us by the previous government.

Sport and recreation: participation

Mr VINEY (Chelsea) — My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I ask the minister to highlight to the house how the Bracks government is making Victoria a great place to raise a family with initiatives aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of Victorian families and groups that are currently underrepresented in terms of physical active participation?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — I welcome the member’s question and his particular interest in this area of getting more Victorians more active. Recently I had the good fortune to be in Ballarat and Bendigo to make a number of announcements on programs related to the Go for Your Life campaign. In Ballarat I announced $400 000 for the Active Families project, an investment that will get sole parents with young children more active. Research indicates single parents and their children often find it difficult to engage in physical or community activities due to the lack of support or lack of transport, or due to cost or social isolation.

In conjunction with the Victorian YMCA this project will be rolled out in Ballarat, and in the member’s local area at Frankston. It is pleasing to note that this project will get parents and children more active in a number of ways: by providing access to child care so that parents can take part in regular physical activity; by

encouraging family activities that allow joint play, such as cycling; and by encouraging events with other families to help participating families get involved with their communities. All up it will help not only the physical activity and wellbeing of the families but also the wellbeing of the community.

In Bendigo I announced 15 Go for Your Life physical activity grants, the first phase of these sports participation grants. By way of example, the programs and projects funded include Tai Chi for deaf people, seated exercise and strength training for older people and introducing cricket to ethnic communities. This is a great way to target communities that are underrepresented in terms of physical activity and participation. They run alongside a number of other programs that we have previously announced, such as the $400 000 to support the Fun ‘n Healthy in Moreland project, which is a groundbreaking study into the health and wellbeing of primary school students; $540 000 to RecLink Australia to increase involvement in physical activity of people of all ages experiencing disadvantage in Victoria; as well as $300 000 in community walking grants and $1.2 million in funding to Kinect Australia, formerly VicFit, to continue and expand the physical activity infoline and disseminate best practice information to physical activity providers. All round this is a great set of programs that are being rolled out in the Go for Your Life initiative. This is about improving the health and wellbeing of all Victorians and in particular making Victoria a great place to raise a family.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Answers

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I have answers to the following questions on notice: 1722, 1723, 1755, 1866, 1871, 3677, 3678, 4080, 4145, 4170, 4289, 4291, 4293, 4294, 4350, 4654, 4868, 4892–95.

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) — Since November last year I have been asking the Minister for the Arts in another place for answers to questions on notice. I have written to her on several occasions asking her to answer my questions. I still have not had one answer — not one. I have asked more than 50 questions and have not received any answers. I am pleased to get answers back from the Minister for Aged Care, but I certainly have had absolutely none from the Minister for the Arts. Could the minister follow it up as a matter of course?



Mr LENDERS (Minister for Finance) — I will pass

on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s request to the Minister for Commonwealth Games, who represents the Minister for the Arts in this place.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Hon. D. K. DRUM (North Western) — I take great pleasure in rising on behalf of The Nationals to contribute to the Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. From the outset we are happy to acknowledge that we will not be opposing this bill and eagerly look forward to the proposed amendment in the committee stage to see how we will adjudicate on that amendment. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act, the Health Services Act, the Mental Health Act and the Veterinary Practice Act. The second-reading speech of this bill points out a whole range of different acts that will effectively be amended by this legislation, and I will not bother to read their titles into the record because they are in the speech.

Clause 3 of the bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Human Services to declare that some cemetery trusts will be able to exempt their fees from the statutory universal consumer price index (CPI) increase brought in by the government. When the government introduced this legislation into the house last year it did not envisage that there were going to be so many statutory organisations caught up in the lack of flexibility in the legislation, and some cemetery trusts have been caught up in it. The universal CPI increase rules are less than 12 months old and have already proved unworkable in a practical sense. Quite a few cemetery trusts may not have made pricing adjustments for 5 to 10 years but were in the process of increasing their prices to a more financially feasible level when they were hit by the universal CPI increase rules. They had to freeze their fees and were only allowed CPI increases from then onwards. Obviously that left them so far behind the eight ball they never had a chance to catch up and operate on a financially viable basis.

Now that there is a review in progress these cemetery trusts will be able to look at their pricing structures and at their various charges and fees and set them at a more competitive, even and fair pricing structure. Once the cemetery trust fees have been set at the right level, they can lock back into having no greater than CPI increases

in the foreseeable future. It did not take long for this aspect of the government’s universal CPI increases to force legislative changes, and hopefully there are not too many other bodies that will be caught up in a similar situation.

Clause 4 will allow the coroner to make orders for interments and cremations, and we think that is a sensible amendment. Also the coroner can order a cemetery trust to pay for the burial of a poor person, commonly known as a pauper. This again is an area that is causing some grief in some regional areas with some of the smaller cemetery trusts that possibly only do two, three or four interments for the year. If they are forced by a coroner to provide a burial free of cost or charge, that could effectively cause a crisis for them. They are simply not going to be able to afford the financial impost of having to pay for one, let alone two or three poor persons’ burials.

The Nationals believe that there should be a state government fund put aside to cater for the burial of people who have no means of paying for their own burial, or people who have no support, no relatives and nobody within their estate or close structure who could pay for the burials for them. That throws the responsibility on the Crown instead of the Crown throwing that responsibility back on the cemetery trusts. Many of them are simply unable to meet that cost.

One of the other aspects of the bill will add a requirement for an exhumation licence to be accompanied by special documentation. That documentation will be identical to the documentation that is already required when making an application to inter a body and bodily remains. We agree with that aspect of the bill.

This bill amends the Health Services Act as it relates to the composition of Health Purchasing Victoria. HPV is currently made up of 10 persons. Clause 14 points to a whole set of changes that have been made to the composition of HPV. We are not happy that currently there are two people, each of whom is employed by a rural public health hospital, and one of them must be a chief executive officer (CEO). In moving away from that it will simply be a CEO of either a rural public hospital or of a regional public health service who will be the mandatory regional representative on HPV.

We do not understand why this aspect of the bill is needed. It was working quite well w+ith two people representing rural Victoria. We do not understand why there needs to be a change in this regard, especially when this aspect of the bill will increase the number of representatives on HPV from 10 to 12. It is not as



though HPV is facing a reduction in its numbers, so why will we lose one of our regional representatives? There is to be an increase in numbers and yet rural Victoria is losing its representation in this area. We have some concerns about that.

Health Purchasing Victoria is responsible for the bulk ordering of many of the items and goods that are needed to enable hospitals right around Victoria to operate effectively and in a financially viable manner. We need to make sure that a certain percentage of those goods, if possible, can be ordered and obtained through regional Victoria. We also need to know that regional Victoria’s needs are going to be fully represented when it comes to that purchasing body. We hope this move does not diminish the importance that HPV places on dealing with regional Victoria.

There will be an increase in the maximum number of people with the skills, knowledge and experience relevant to the functions of HPV from 10 to 12. We acknowledge that that is a good thing. It will create a little bit more flexibility in the composition of HPV and will enable it to seek people with the skills and knowledge that will best suit its needs.

Board members of a public health service will be able to remain on the board until they have served nine consecutive years, which will work out to be three three-year terms. This is an extension of the time board members are allowed to serve. With the exception of a few who were pointed out in the debate before lunch, we think the vast majority of people serving on public health service boards are well credentialled and have integrity within the industry and the community. However, I have some concerns about the moneys that are paid to board members. It has only recently come to my attention that board members at some of the major hospitals in regional Victoria are being paid fees commensurate with those of city councillors. When you compare the work loads and the responsibilities — —

Mr Viney — Come on!

Hon. D. K. DRUM — I am serious, Mr Viney. Being a member of the board of a major regional hospital is nowhere near the commitment necessary to be a councillor of a major regional city and yet the fees paid are not that dissimilar. We have a concern there. However, the vast majority — I would say all in my experience — of the people involved in the boards in the regional areas I deal with are people of tremendous integrity. They work hard and cooperatively and deserve the opportunity to stay on those boards for an extended period of time.

The issue causing The Nationals the most concern is the extension of the reporting dates. We expect all of the major health services and some of the smaller health services to get their books in order by the present deadline. They currently have four months from when the financial year finishes on 30 June to tidy up their books and get them done by their internal accounting people. They may need to take the books off and get them audited by a local accounting firm or bring people in to go over them so they can then be presented to the Auditor-General who has to process their applications. I know the Auditor-General has been blamed for taking extended periods of time to process these accounts but they have four months to get this done. Each of the health services has four months to do its bookwork, get it audited and have it before Parliament and its own committee, in that order. It is seen as a courtesy to the Parliament that these health services — which are funded by the Parliament — make their financial accounts available to the Parliament before they present them to their respective communities at their annual general meetings. That is the way it has always been and the way it should continue into the future.

The government says there is a strong push from within the industry for a two-month extension. This means we will be allowing these health services six months to get their books in order. This will create a problem for many of the communities. Smaller communities in particular have very strong ownership of their local hospitals. They have a genuine interest in the financial status of each of their health services and they look forward to going along to the annual general meetings. They have most likely been involved in some form of fundraising throughout the course of the year. That is the way it works in regional Victoria and some of the smaller communities — so many of the people within the towns and rural cities of Victoria play a huge role in the fundraising aspects of their local hospitals. They therefore look forward to going along to the annual general meeting in about October once the books have been signed off by the Auditor-General and presented to Parliament.

Many communities will not be happy about a two-month extension on the existing time frame and this process being extended well and truly past Christmas. To back these statements up I refer to a letter we have received from the chief executive of the Western District Health Service at Hamilton, Jim Fletcher. The letter was obtained by the Age. It states:

I do not support the extension of annual meetings from the current 31 October to 31 December as, in my view, the annual meeting is about reporting back to your community in a timely manner.



Annual meetings held after October, and particularly towards the end of November and December, become irrelevant due to the passage of time and I believe community interest would wane.

We certainly agree with that chief executive. We believe that will be the case right around country Victoria and in some of the major city hospitals around Melbourne. People’s interest will wane and there will be a certain sense of irrelevance if what is being announced in January or February happened some 12 or 18 months ago.

Hon. E. G. Stoney — Acting President, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

Quorum formed.

Hon. D. K. DRUM — Our genuine concerns have been backed up by the industry. This change is totally unnecessary. It will create an opportunity for the government to hide. There is very little doubt about that in the minds of The Nationals members. The government will be in a position to hide unsavoury hospital financial situations in the lead-up to an election. Prior to the last election we had an enormous amount of trouble getting the facts and figures about the financial situations of hospitals out to the public so the people of Victoria could make an informed decision when heading to the polling booths.

Certainly this legislative change is also going to create that situation. The same issue is going arise every four years. Whenever we have an election this is going to be a problem because for that particular year it is going to be very easy for a government to make sure that the figures for the whole health system throughout Victoria do not go before the people of Victoria. This will happen in each of the election years, with elections being held in or around late November. This part of the legislation is embedding a problem that will create secrecy and a lack of transparency. There will be a lot of confusion for the people of Victoria every four years when these reporting procedures coincide with the general election and the proroguing of Parliament.

Clause 16 of the bill will enable a registered medical practitioner or a mental health practitioner to make an involuntary treatment order. Obviously this is quite an interesting aspect of the bill. The guidelines around that give us comfort because as is stated in new section 12(1)(b), which is substituted by clause 16, for that to happen a registered medical practitioner employed by an approved mental health service or a mental health practitioner will have assessed the person in accordance with the request and recommendation. New section 12(2) provides that the medical

practitioner must take the person, or arrange for the person to be taken, to an appropriate approved mental health service. It again gives us comfort that that is laid out in the bill along with new section 12(5), which provides that the practitioner must notify the authorised psychiatrist of the appropriate approved mental health service as soon as practicable. We think that gives us a genuine amount of comfort with that medical practitioner being able to make an involuntary treatment order.

There are also aspects of the bill that will allow a team of multidisciplined medical practitioners to act as a treating team. They will be able to discuss a patient’s treatment plan laid out in front of them with the patient, effectively giving patients a certain amount of comfort. It will not be a piecemeal approach. The whole treatment plan will be laid out as a collective to the patients, and we support that part of the legislation.

A provision in the bill will also allow deputy board members to continue to hold office if required for a period not exceeding three months beyond the date of expiration of their term of appointment. We also think that that is a commonsense provision because many chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of boards have duties on various investigative and standing committees which run on past their contracted term of appointment. We think it is only commonsense to enable those inquiries to reach their natural conclusion before a board member has to step down due to the termination of their appointment period, and we support that part of the legislation. We certainly have a few concerns about it, and we have made those very clear.

We also have some very strong concerns about the aspect that was spoken about earlier in the debate, where a public health service or a denominational hospital will not have to include any matters that are part of the statement of priorities when it is entering into a new health service agreement. This has been put forward by the government as a way of stopping duplication. The Nationals are all for ceasing the duplication of the workplace forms and the red tape which tend to cripple private enterprise in this state, and which I am sure are clogging up our public services as well. We all support the cessation of duplication wherever it can be proven that it is pointless and needless. This process, however, has only been in place for approximately 12 months. There is no way we can say that the statement of priorities system that is operating throughout the public health system is working well or otherwise. It has not been running long enough; it has not been in place long enough for us to prove its worth or its non-worth.



We have some serious concerns about now saying that if something is in the statement of priorities of the public health service it no longer needs to be added into the health service agreement. We think that it is hasty and not necessary as yet. If after two or three years at a minimum it has been working in a fashion that has proven that each of the elements or key performance indicators listed in the statement of priorities have been achieved, it has been able to work on a financial basis and has delivered the services to the people, all of the aspects that are attempted to be covered in a statement of priorities have been covered, and the government is happy with the way it is working, then and only then — after all that has been proven to be working well — should we look at taking these items and these issues out of the health service agreement. That cannot be argued to be happening after only 12 months.

One of the other aspects I would like to take the liberty of speaking on as lead speaker for The Nationals is the financial situation in some of our smaller hospitals, and in particular in our bush nursing centres. These centres operate in over a dozen areas of regional Victoria, and they really work on a shoestring budget and do tremendously good work for the small communities they represent.

More importantly, they save the government tens of thousands of dollars in keeping people out of the major hospitals by allowing them to go home early because they are able to call around and visit them, offering a service no other health service in regional areas will be able to offer. The prevention programs that the bush nursing centres offer are also certainly keeping people out of hospital. The bush nurses also go to schools and offer education programs. It is amazing. They are saving the state an enormous amount of money, yet we find that nearly each and every one of our bush nursing centres around regional Victoria is literally struggling to pay its way. They are underfunded to a large extent.

There are things that we in the public service and as parliamentarians take for granted, such as the changeover of our cars, and yet this is a cause for enormous concern for the bush nursing service. The government has made no provision for any of the bush nursing centres to change over their cars. We consider it to be a mandatory expense that is obviously factored in somewhere in the financial arrangements, but that is not the case with bush nursing centres throughout this state. Bush nursing centres do an enormous amount of good for the community through assisting with social wellbeing and through the financial savings they make for the health system in general. We should be making it a priority to fund bush nursing centres in an appropriate manner that will enable them to do such

mundane things as change their cars over at the appropriate stage. That certainly is not being done at the moment. The Department of Human Services has to take a serious look at it. It has to go out and work closely with our smaller hospitals and bush nursing centres to ensure that some of their more basic needs are met so that they can continue to service the needs of rural and regional Victorians.

The Nationals do not oppose this legislation. We find that many aspects of it make commonsense. We have some issues with the ability now of the major health services to hide their financial situations in the run-up to the election. We find that to be totally against the promises made by this government when it was in opposition — that is, that it was going to create a transparent government if it was given the opportunity. We also have serious concerns about leaving out matters that are listed in the statement of priorities when formulating a new health service agreement.

Mr VINEY (Chelsea) — I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to support the Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It will help to ensure the effectiveness of recent legislative changes made to the Mental Health Act and the regulation of cemeteries and crematoria. It is an omnibus bill. It proposes to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003, the Health Services Act 1988 and the Mental Health Act 1986. It also makes some changes to a number of the health practitioner regulation acts and the Veterinary Practice Act 1997.

In rising after members of the opposition have spoken on this bill, I take the opportunity to pick up a couple of the issues they raised. Firstly, I pick up on some of the issues raised by the Honourable David Davis in the debate prior to lunch. It has become something of a habit in this chamber for Mr Davis, as I have pointed out before on a number of occasions, to be the lead conspiracy theorist of the Victorian Parliament. In his contribution today members heard unsubstantiated allegations of mismanagement in our hospital system and allegations of conspiracy theories about cover-ups, with no substance to the allegations other than the member’s own views.

Members heard his continuous and absolutely appalling smear of public servants in relation to the Sale hospital. He made allegations about a particular public servant that have never been supported by the local members of Parliament for that region. The allegations have never been put forward by Mr Ryan, the member for Gippsland South in the other place, or by Mr Hall or the Honourable Philip Davis. The allegations smearing this particular public servant have never been supported by



others in the opposition. It is the Honourable David Davis’s speciality to come in here and use parliamentary privilege — cowards’ castle — to attack public servants. When you also consider his great conspiracy theories, I feel sorry for any public servant who at any time in the future might be working under an administration that he is a minister of, given that he is a shadow minister. God help Victoria as well!

Let us understand the kind of person who comes into this place and runs out these theories. It is a person who makes smears and allegations and promotes conspiracy theories without any substance — and who admits in the chamber that there is nothing to substantiate them. He then moves on to raise matters in this chamber that are sub judice in relation to charges that have been laid against a particular person. As a person who has been here since 1996 — nearly 10 years — he knows well that that is a completely inappropriate thing to do. It took the President, who was listening to the debate in her rooms, to come in here and pull him back to order on that disgraceful display. Every member of this place knows that you do not use this chamber to raise matters for your own political benefit that are sub judice, and in particular criminal matters.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — You are just very sensitive.

Mr VINEY — I have no sensitivity about it, Mr Davis. I tell you that it is you and your side who have never demonstrated any respect for these processes — —

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! Members should address their comments through the Chair.

Mr VINEY — It is Mr Davis who has been completely embarrassed by his appalling presentation of the debate here today.

Hon. Andrea Coote — On a point of order, Acting President, I believe this is not even close to the bill. It is a personal attack on Mr Davis and his approach in this place. I ask you to call the member back to the bill.

Mr VINEY — On the point of order, Acting President, I am responding to matters directly raised by Mr Davis in this debate. I have outlined to the house the issues in relation to the bill. Mr Davis raised matters in this debate. As the lead speaker he was given latitude to raise some matters, and I am taking the opportunity, as the first government speaker in response, to respond to the matters he raised.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! It is a wide-ranging

debate and Mr Viney is commenting on comments that have already been made by a previous member. However, I think he is labouring the point. I suggest that he return to the main thrust of the debate. There is no point of order.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — On a point of order, Acting President, I find it interesting in this case that the President would rule that I was unable to raise certain matters. I was criticised by Mr Viney as he raised his point of order, yet he seeks to — I presume in rebuttal and out of sensitivity — raise the same matters. I ask you to rule those issues out of order as a matter of consistency.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R. H. Bowden) — Order! I have listened carefully to the point raised by Mr Davis, but on balance I think he is debating the matter at this stage. I have already ruled that there is no point of order. Mr Viney to continue.

Mr VINEY — In relation to a number of matters raised by Mr Davis about the particular clause that deals with annual financial reports — —

Hon. Bill Forwood — Clause 8.

Mr VINEY — Clause 8, thank you. In relation to the clause, which deals with hospital annual reports, I wish to assure Mr Davis that his conspiracy theories are again completely unfounded. These provisions about ensuring that there is adequate time for Parliament to receive the annual reports of hospitals are important and give a courtesy to the Parliament by ensuring it receives them before they are made publicly available. There is no conspiracy in relation to trying to cover up or in any way hide the reporting processes of hospitals.

I appreciate the indication of support for the legislation by Mr Drum on behalf of The Nationals, but I feel it is important to pick up the very important point that Mr Drum raised in relation to the payment of chairs and members of hospital boards. On coming to government — and I am aware of this as I was the parliamentary secretary at the time — this government halved the amount of money received by board chairs and members of committees for their services. As a person who encouraged people to apply for and fielded questions about hospital board positions, I had to assure people that while there would be a reduction in the amount they were paid, the government believed that there was a degree of community service involved and appreciated the willingness of people to demonstrate that level of community service.



I reiterate the government’s view that we are very grateful for the considerable work that both paid and unpaid members of hospital boards put in because in many of the hospital boards around the state there is no payment either for the chair or the board members. Certainly that is so for small country hospitals, and even in metropolitan hospitals the figures are really quite modest.

Whilst Mr Drum made some comparisons to local councils, that is less than local councillors receive, and members should remember that the work these people do in managing hospital boards is enormous. They are involved in regular meetings of hospital boards and of numerous subcommittees, in representing the boards, in listening to concerns and in dealing with government departments. And in many cases they are managing huge budgets — much larger than a local council budget, in some cases half a billion dollars; and in many cases, well over $100 million.

Hon. D. K. Drum interjected.

Mr VINEY — Councillors have paid staff, too, Mr Drum. I do not think your comparison was reasonable, and I do not think you intended it that way, but it is important to demonstrate in this debate that from our perspective we have absolute respect for the work that people on hospital boards do, whether they are in a paid or an unpaid position.

I am running short of time, after dealing with rebuttals and points of order, to actually deal with the important points. But I wanted to raise some issues in regard to the Mental Health Act. Whilst there are some important changes in this legislation to the Mental Health Act, I wanted to emphasise that this government under the Fairer Victoria social policy has injected $180.3 million extra into our mental health system. This is typical of the kind of massive reinvestment into the hospital system that this government has made since it was elected in 1999, putting $2.4 billion into rebuilding the hospital system in Victoria, employing over 5000 additional nurses and putting in the current budget a massive boost to hospital emergency departments with a $30 million blitz on elective surgery.

That is on top of some of the exceptional things we have done on a case-by-case basis — Melbourne’s first new suburban public hospital in over 20 years at Casey; saving the Austin from privatisation and then completely rebuilding it and adding the Mercy into the mix; and rebuilding country hospitals in Kyneton, Stawell, Ararat, Geelong and Ballarat. This government has rebuilt suburban hospitals at Maroondah, Angliss, Northern, Sunshine and Dandenong. And I will proudly

say that it put a $20 million 100-bed redevelopment into Frankston as part of Peninsula Health services. That was at a time when the Kennett government was denying any problem with the number of beds at Frankston Hospital.

This government has not only done that but reinvested in our ambulance services. We have put in hundreds of paramedics and rebuilt or provided new ambulance stations at 15 different locations. We have put two-officer crewing across Victoria. We have put in advanced life support skills training. This is a government that has massively reinvested in our health system. At the same time we have put in place arrangements for the management of our hospital system, reduced the large networks and put in place community-based and community-focused local hospital boards. At the same time we have put in place the appropriate financial management systems to make sure that our hospital system is managed well.

It is no good Mr Davis coming in here and making the kinds of allegations that he did today — attacking public servants, attacking the Royal Melbourne Hospital, attacking other people who may have matters before the courts; he came here with a whole series of conspiracy theories about this government. The people of Victoria remember that when the other side was in office it sacked nurses, closed hospitals and tried to privatise the system; it very nearly destroyed the ambulance system. This government has reinvested in it. We have employed nurses and have rebuilt the health system. I commend the legislation.

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to this debate and to support the bill. I must too say how disappointing it is to have a debate like this and have to listen to the Honourable David Davis bringing his grubby tactics into the house.

Mr Lenders — McCarthyist!

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA — I think you’re right, Mr Lenders. Mr Davis has made unsubstantiated allegations. He is using the privilege of being a parliamentarian to make those allegations in Parliament. He is not going outside and making these allegations. He is bringing allegations against public servants as well as putting forward a range of conspiracy theories. It is very disappointing to have debate on a bill like this, which deals with very important issues in our health services — whether they be mental health services, health boards, the Health Services Act or the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act.



This bill covers quite a lot of areas and it amends a number of pieces of legislation, including the Mental Health Act as it relates to involuntary treatment orders (ITOs), treatment plans and leave for security patients. This is an area I want to talk about in my contribution, given my background in mental health services and work as a mental health nurse for many years.

The bill makes some minor housekeeping amendments to the Health Services Act to improve the administration of the act. It also makes minor amendments to 11 acts dealing with the registration of health practitioners to improve the functioning of the registration boards. Again, this an area I want to speak about, given that I was a representative for many years on what is now the Nurses Board of Victoria. The bill also makes minor amendments to the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act to improve its efficiency, and these come into effect on 1 July 2005.

The amendments in this bill are really about improving our mental health services. I am proud to say that the Bracks Labor government has invested a lot of effort into putting funds and policies in place to improve mental health services. I know what our mental health services were like when those on the other side of the house — like Mr Davis — were in government, and the kinds of changes they made to our mental health services. Their changes were about ripping the guts out of our mental health services. It was all about closing beds, sacking nurses and giving them departure packages. It was about making our community sector smaller and ensuring that not only the jobs of nurses but also of other allied health professionals who worked in the mental health area were done away with, and it was about beds and services being significantly reduced. Instead of coming in here and being critical of the amendments in this bill, Mr Davis should be wholeheartedly supporting them, because they will bring about real improvements to our mental health services and build on many of the achievements the government has already managed.

These amendments really will make life much easier in a practical sense for practitioners who work in the mental health area — for instance, one of the amendments will allow security patients to be granted up to a maximum of seven days special leave for medical treatment. There are security patients under the care of mental health services who are not able to have the seven days leave for medical treatment that is granted to forensic patients under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act. At present patients who are deemed to be security patients only get 24 hours leave, so if a patient needs specialist medical treatment, the paperwork has to be done again every

24 hours. If the paperwork is not done, the result is a security patient who is away from a mental health facility and in a public or private facility. This creates all sorts of difficulties in respect of a patient who needs special leave to receive specialist medical treatment that would not ordinarily be available within our mental health services. The amendments in this bill will result in that paperwork being reduced. It will reduce the complexities involved in having nurses and doctors, who are responsible for security patients, filling in applications every 24 hours.

The amendments within this bill will enable mental health practitioners and registered medical practitioners to make involuntary treatment orders in either a community or a hospital setting, and life will be made much easier and treatment more streamlined when practitioners do that. The amendments to the Mental Health Act in 2003 inadvertently restricted the existing clinical practice of mental health practitioners — that is, registered nurses, registered psychologists, social workers, occupational therapist and medical practitioners — by linking the powers to make an ITO to the location where it was made, whether it was made in a hospital setting or in the community.

These amendments before us today will ensure that operations are improved so that practitioners will be able, in consultation with an authorised psychiatrist, to release a person subject to an ITO into the community pending a statutory review of their status. This will improve the operation of hospital emergency departments in particular by reducing the unnecessary detention of patients in a treatment setting rather than in the community, where we would like to see them treated. It will enable each member of the patient’s treating team to deliver and discuss treatment plans with the patient. At the moment that is restricted to the authorised psychiatrist. Given that there is only a small number of authorised psychiatrists relative to the other treatment staff who make up the team, whether they be nurses, case managers or other mental health professionals, this amendment means that this unnecessary restriction is removed.

On the ground I know these sorts of amendments will make for much smoother and much easier treatment of patients in our mental health services, and that is what we really want to see. We want to see our health professionals delivering health care to our clients — our patients — rather than being tied up in unnecessary and restrictive paperwork. We want to see beds available for those patients who need to be treated in a hospital setting. We want to see that those who do not need that sort of setting are able to be treated by a treating team in



the community so they do not take up important hospital services when they are not needed.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the achievements in mental health which I am particularly proud of. Having worked in the health sector, particularly in the mental health sector, for many years and having seen the destruction that was brought upon our mental health service in particular and our health sector generally, it has been very pleasing to see the enormous injection of funds for restructuring and the employment of staff that the Bracks Labor government has been prepared to undertake to counter the dreadful situation that we found our hospitals in when we took government in 1999. In fact many of our networks were technically insolvent and bankrupt.

We have injected an enormous amount of funding into mental health — $180.3 million is going to be injected over the next four years, making it the largest ever investment in Victoria’s mental health services. This includes not only strengthening our hospital settings and those services that are available for inpatients but also, importantly, strengthening our community-based services. We are seeing more and more patients in the mental health sector being treated and cared for adequately in the community without their having to avail themselves of inpatient treatment. The investment includes the strengthening of community-based clinical services with $23 million, the building of a sustainable living support service system with $20.8 million, and increased resources for hospital and step-down mental health care with $49 million. A major boost in capital funding of $55.5 million includes funding for a 50-bed adult unit at Maroondah Hospital, a new child and adolescent unit at Box Hill Hospital, the relocation of Bunjil House to the Austin Hospital and the rebuilding of the West Gippsland community health and community mental health service. We have seen an extra 5700 nurses and an additional 1100 doctors being employed in Victoria. As the previous speaker, Mr Viney, pointed out, we have increased our ambulance services considerably and employed an additional 450 paramedics. So there has been a significant boost to our mental health services, and the provisions in the bill before us today will help to build on the improvements that we have already made.

As the previous government speaker, Mr Viney, pointed out, the investment in rural and regional health services has been considerable. When you think about the 12 hospitals that the previous coalition government closed during its time in government and you consider the rebuilding of the hospitals that the Bracks Labor government has initiated, you realise it is a terrific result. There have been terrific investments made to

refurbish hospitals in Kyneton, Stawell, Ararat, Geelong and Ballarat as well as the emergency departments in Geelong, Bairnsdale and Shepparton.

This is a very good bill. It amends a number of pieces of legislation. It deserves the support of all members of this chamber, and it certainly does not deserve the kind of grubby tactics that were used by Mr David Davis in his contribution to this debate, which I can only describe as disappointing but not out of character. I commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — This clause is essentially about fees for cemetery trusts. As the minister would be aware, the government introduced legislation which allowed automatic increases in line with the consumer price index (CPI) to a whole series of charges, including charges for cemeteries and crematoriums. This clause, as I understand it, will allow the secretary to declare that some of these fees will not automatically go up. I wonder whether the minister could explain which cemeteries this will apply to. Will it apply to all cemetery and cemetery trust fees?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — The provision has been inserted in the bill to enable the secretary to apply a discretion over a range of fees of the cemeteries that may be affected by the bill. The reason why that flexibility is in place is that a major review of fees, charges, cost structures and asset bases of cemeteries is going to be undertaken within the next 12 months — as Mr Davis may or may not be aware. Whilst the government’s general policy is that CPI is the building block of our approach to amending fees and charges across all sections of the public sector, the public authorities and other bodies, we are in the circumstance of making new baseline financial arrangements for cemeteries, and their fees and charges will be thoroughly evaluated and assessed within the course of the next 12 months.

We believe it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for the increases not to be of the level of CPI or beyond, and therefore we have used these



provisions to try to ensure that there is an equitable and reasonable fees and charges regime for the clients and communities that use the services of cemeteries, and to provide that degree of flexibility in determining the ongoing financial viability of all cemetery trusts across Victoria.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Can the minister outline for the committee which of these fees and charges in relation to cemeteries and crematoria the government has in mind exempting for this period? Can the minister list them or give me the actual charges?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — The reason I did not provide them in my first answer is that they could apply to any fees and charges.

Clause agreed to; clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I thank the minister for his last set of answers. Can the minister explain how this clause, which deals with exhumation licenses, will operate?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — The provisions of clause 6 in the explanation that is currently available to me would mean that any application for an exhumation licence made under section 158 of the act must be accompanied by the specified documents that are contained within the clause, which are the same documents required on application for an authorisation to inter bodily remains.

Clause agreed to; clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Before I move to the amendment, I wish to ask some pertinent questions. The clause relates to health service agreements and, as the committee will be aware, the health service agreement between hospitals and health services has been the major instrument between the department and the individual service as to what they deliver and how it is delivered and for the public funds that are sent in their direction. This clause seeks to amend the Health Services Act 1988 and it says:

A health service agreement entered into by a denominational hospital or a public health service is not required to specify particulars of any matters that are, or are to be, specified in a statement of priorities that has been, or will be, agreed to or made in relation to the hospital or health service under this Act for the financial year that the health service agreement is made in respect of.

One of the opposition’s concerns about this clause is that it is far from certain about the action and the functionality of these statements of priorities. I wonder if the minister might explain to me how the statement of priorities currently is intended to work, and how he sees this clause operating in the sense that there will be two instruments there, but a deletion from the health service agreement? Am I correct in assuming that? I intend to then ask some further questions.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I think this is a totally appropriate question, so I am comfortable in working through it. Mr Davis would be aware that in recent amendments to the government’s arrangements of the public health services throughout Victoria — a substantial piece of work that was the culmination of a lot of deliberate effort across the public health sector — we introduced a hierarchy of public health services that are listed in schedule 5 of the act. These are the major health service providers — the major public hospitals and the major regional services. They have moved to a new governance arrangement which includes the overall statement or the virtual memorandum of understanding or operating principles that those services enter into and provide to the Minister for Health for endorsement, and which relate to the overall strategic business and clinical outcomes being pursued by the health service as a statement of priorities.

In fact, when I read this provision in the bill I thought to myself that if a statement of priorities was in parenthesis or in bold or in capitals, then it may give some visual representation of its significance, because it is a major document that forms the understanding of the direction of those health services. In the cases of those major public health services that are listed under the act, these have effectively superseded what had been, as the member quite correctly says, the previous level of the health services agreement — what had previously been the major business and clinical objectives of those services. It is superseded as the major instrument of the relationship between those services and the minister as described under the act. That means for those services the government formed the view that it would be a duplication of effort to have health service agreements to repeat the substantive directions.

For smaller services, the health services agreement will continue to be the instrument because those bodies do not operate under the regime of a statement of priorities. That is the difference and the thinking that underpins this clear delineation within clause 8 of the bill.



Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I thank the

minister for that explanation, which substantially confirms my understanding. I note that the statement of priorities will, in effect, functionally replace the health service agreement for those larger services, and it is for that reason that the opposition is concerned about this clause. We are still far from convinced about the reliability of the statement of priorities between the department and the individual health services as an instrument. We think we are, in a sense, holding our judgment for another period until we are certain that it will operate in the way the government intends it to operate.

In that context, I wonder if the minister might look at a statement of priorities — and I have one here from Melbourne Health on which I want to ask a question or two. The reason I ask him is because during the second-reading speech I outlined a number of concerns we had about the financial reliability of these instruments. In particular I discussed at length some of the issues for Melbourne Health in the recent period, where there has been accrued revenue accounting errors, and those errors, it seems to me, ought to have been picked up by the department.

Given that there are enormous amounts of public money going into a service like Melbourne Health and the other major organisations, I thought the minister might explain to me a number of these issues.

Page 1 of the document headed ‘Part A: strategic overview’ says:

The statement of priorities is a key accountability instrument between Melbourne Health and the Minister for Health and so to the wider public. It is an annual agreement covering the shared objectives of access, finance, quality and investment for the future.

That would largely cover the ground the minister and I have just covered in our earlier discussion. Further on that page lists ‘financial sustainability of public hospitals’ at the top of the last run of dot points. I take that to be one of the key policy objectives in the statement on priorities.

Given Melbourne Health has turned in a very bad financial result with the accrued revenue blunders to the tune of just under $20 million, can the minister explain how this instrument operates in the case of Melbourne Health and similar health services to prevent such accounting and financial mistakes?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — Without necessarily wanting to give the committee too much information or to spend a lot of time on the financial arrangements of Melbourne

Health, from my understanding as Acting Minister for Health at a crucial time, this issue might have bubbled along in the public domain — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — I thank the minister for that commitment.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — I was happy to make commitments on behalf of the government that the levels of service be maintained, notwithstanding the financial irregularities that were discovered.

I indicate that there are two prevailing issues, the most important being that the financial irregularities have a history going back a number of years in the case of this program, and the financial statements that had been audited by Melbourne Health had subsequently been audited by the Auditor-General.

The interesting circumstance that we find ourselves in is that the financial irregularities were of a very unusual formulation and were very difficult to detect, and the Auditor-General’s office had not detected them in the two previous budget periods. That is the substantive point I would like to make in terms of the auditing process. It was not because there was an absence of an auditing program either by Melbourne Health or the Auditor-General. Those accounts had been signed off.

The convergence with the issue of the health services agreement is that the government, through reforms to the health system — the legislative reforms that led to the establishment of the agreements, such as the statement of priorities — also included a range of other reforms to deal with governance and accountability arrangements of public health services. It was within that regime that the auditing requirements that have been introduced since the last passage of legislation created the accountability arrangements within Melbourne Health that flushed out these irregularities.

While Mr David Davis and other members of the community may be quite right in saying that there might be an historical convergence between the creation of the first statement of priorities and the discovery of these financial irregularities, on the evidence provided to me up to this point the governance arrangements have assisted in the identification of the accounting problems and will assist in the final resolution of those particular matters and, hopefully, the statement — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — Except a larger part of the accrued revenue errors occur during this financial period.



Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — What I am indicating

is that it was within this period covered by this statement of priorities, which you passed to me, that these irregularities were identified and were begun to be dealt with and resolved by Melbourne Health in a collaborative way with the government.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I thank the minister for that explanation and make the point that the overwhelming part of the financial irregularities appeared in the period covered by this statement of priorities. Page 8 of the document is headed ‘Financial performance’ and under the column headed ‘System-wide’ it talks about achieving an operating result sufficient to ensure financial sustainability/viability and operating surplus/deficit. Can the minister explain how that measure would apply in the case of Melbourne Health where there has been this sort of error?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — We are some time away from receiving the final financial performance of Melbourne Health for that reporting period. Obviously this is an issue that will draw attention to itself when annual reports are produced and tabled in Parliament. Obviously this is a matter of great concern to Melbourne Health, as indeed it is to the government, to meet our undertakings, particularly in relation to service provision, but also to address the ongoing financial arrangements of Melbourne Health so that it is not burdened by accumulated deficit arrangements and that it gets its financial position in order, and as much as possible in accord with what had been the agreement and the intention when this statement of priorities and the financial performance measures that are contained within them were made.

Clearly it was the intention of Melbourne Health to deliver. You do not have to be Einstein or a financial whiz kid to know that you would anticipate having a great deal of difficulties meeting projected targets, but the government continues to work with Melbourne Health in the name of ensuring that its financial position is solid and sustainable into the future.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Further to those questions, the minister might also want to comment on the system-wide indicator listed as a liquidity indicator, which has three subsections — cash balance, creditors over 60 days, and net cash flow from operating activities. My point about this financial performance matrix on this page, and a point further about this statement-of-priority document, is whether that document is intended to be applied in its current form under the clause that we are talking about — that

is, clause 8. Is this the clause that will be used next year and into the future, or will this statement of priorities be modified in any manner? We have a document that lists certain parameters; are they the parameters that are intended to form part of this financial year’s statement of priorities we are discussing and into the future?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — My assumption, and I think it is likely to ring true, is that in accordance with any annual report that we table in this Parliament produced by the health service in question, including Melbourne Health, there will be an appropriate reporting of what had been the estimate and that will be compared with the actual outcome. The basis of moving forward, just as this one had been constructed, is on the basis of the actual outcome for 2003–04 and then a projected target for 2004–05. My clear assumption would be that when the financial position of Melbourne Health is determined and when it is preparing its next statement of priorities, it will include the actual 2004–05 outcome and then proceed to produce a target for 2005–06.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Part C of attachment 1 of the document is headed ‘Melbourne Health risk management: framework 2004–05’. It forms part of the statement of priorities for that year. It talks about Melbourne Health, accreditation, objectives and the context of risk management, the Australian and New Zealand standards and a number of issues including, and I am now referring to the bottom couple of paragraphs on page 13:

The process described above is supported by the use of database known as a Risk Register.

The risk register is a management tool used to document, evaluate and compare risks identified, the actions taken to reduce the level of risk and manage the ongoing monitoring of all identified risks. It enables comparison of each risk against evaluated priorities established due to the likelihood and consequence of the risk if it occurred. Scoring of each risk using an objective ‘risk assessment tool’ is key as all risks are stratified in a consistent manner enabling a balanced and non-biased review process ensuring objectivity and transparency of decision making and resource allocation.

Page 14 contains details of risk management processes and talks about risk identification. It states:

Risk identification seeks to recognise situations or issues that may lead to losses or harm. It should be systematic or ongoing to ensure all risks are identified and managed so that harm does not occur.

Mechanisms are used to identify risk assessments and processes and tasks for areas of concern include environmental …

It goes on with a long list.



Page 15 has a chart, which has the heading ‘Diagram — comprehensive risk management framework’. I am curious to know with respect to Melbourne Health how this financial risk issue was dealt with. Financial risk was one of the key boxes to be seen in the centre of the chart on page 15. Could the minister explain the mechanisms that operate to prevent that financial risk under the comprehensive risk management framework and indicate where it went wrong?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I do not mean to trivialise this matter by saying one of the arrows broke down, but clearly that may have been the case. I think Mr Davis and most members of the committee would appreciate that I try to be as helpful as possible and probably go through as much detail as I possibly can.

Hon. D. McL. Davis — That is true.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — I am very happy to try to make a connection between the risk management process and the provisions of the statement of priorities, which is the link in this committee stage between the document we are discussing, the process and the financial irregularities, and the clause we are actually discussing.

In terms of providing the specific answer about what aspect of what is a very elaborate risk management process that is outlined within this document — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — Barry Jones would be proud of this.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — Well, it is in the early stages of the development of the statement of priorities. I think in his preamble Mr Davis expressed some degree of scepticism for his party in relation to whether it is an appropriate instrument, whether it is actually described in the best way and whether it is the best accountability mechanism. He acknowledges that these are the formative ones, these are the first cabs off the rank to develop what the appropriate level of detail and arrangements may be within the statement of priorities.

It may well be that whilst Melbourne Health has actually provided perhaps an elaborate level of detail about risk management within its statement of priorities, perhaps the minister and the public health body should have a discussion about what is the appropriate level of detail to be provided or the appropriate degree of coverage for these types of frameworks.

Unfortunately Melbourne Health has gone into great detail about a matter that it is now currently somewhat embarrassed about, and we all acknowledge from our various vantage points that we are supportive of Melbourne Health restoring confidence in not only its financial management but also its clinical services, most importantly to its community. I would be adding salt to a very large wound if I was to speculate in any great detail the individual failings of the system because in fact I would only be speculating.

The CHAIR — Order! At this juncture I make the comment that we have moved from talking about clause 8 to considering the statement of priorities of one particular health service in some level of detail. As an example that is okay, but I draw the attention of Mr Davis to the fact that the Chair has been completely excluded from this exchange and from following the arrows and the boxes and whatever is in the document being considered by the minister and Mr Davis.

It would be some measure of courtesy in the future to make sure that, if the member is going to look in more depth at a particular document, there should also be a copy available for the Chair or perhaps the Chair should have been alerted to the possibility of this discussion before the committee stage began.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I accept those comments and say that a copy has now been provided to the Chair, which will assist.

The CHAIR — Order! Are we still on clause 8?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I would like to add my apologies to the Chair before we move on with the discussion.

The CHAIR — Order! I accept the apologies all round. Does Mr Davis have anything further on clause 8?

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Indeed. I want to ask the minister about the measures that are in the statement of priorities. Does the government have any intention of reducing the number of measures, increasing the number of measures or changing the measures and reporting mechanisms? I accept that there is variation between health services because they have their own peculiarities, their own needs and their own situations. I am curious to know if there is some standard list of inclusions for a statement of priorities. I am looking for some guidance in respect to clause 8, in effect, and to what will be incorporated in a statement of priorities as a matter of course.



Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged

Care) — I have been encouraged to read from the Health Services Act. I will not do that, but section 65ZFB, headed ‘Content of statement of priorities’, outlines what areas are mandatory within the statement of priorities. They are the minimum requirements by statute. In practice, levels of understanding will be reached between the Department of Human Services, the minister and those health services about the appropriate scope of those documents over time. Obviously those health services will be responsive to the aspirations of the communities they serve. From time to time they will add items that may be of particular interest to their client base and their community, so they will go beyond the minimum requirements as set out in the act. It is our intention that not only will these statements be an important accountability instrument between the health service and the minister but they will also be an accountability instrument for the community. As members would understand, these documents are available for scrutiny by the public. The government hopes that over time these documents will be more deeply scrutinised in the communities served by these health services and be more a public accountability instrument than has been the case in the past.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I thank the minister for that explanation. Just to clarify that, there are at least two sets of things in the statement of priorities — the things that are required by the act and the individual and peculiar things. Have any requirements been set by the minister or the secretary that are general and are not specified in the act? If so, what are they?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I think my answer to this question is substantially my answer to the last one. The guiding principles which will form the basis of the statement of priorities are what are outlined in the act, what are the key performance measures that may be appropriate for individual services and may be identified by the minister and the department, and what may reflect the aspirations of the local community. While there will be a standard template based on what is in the act, individual agreements will be reached based on the individual needs and capacities of those organisations.

The CHAIR — Order! In relation to the Honourable David Davis’s foreshadowed amendment, which invites the committee to vote against clause 8, the question is that clause 8 stand part of the bill.

Committee divided on clause:

Ayes, 21 Argondizzo, Ms Madden, Mr Broad, Ms Mikakos, Ms Buckingham, Ms Mitchell, Mr (Teller) Carbines, Ms Nguyen, Mr Darveniza, Ms (Teller) Pullen, Mr Eren, Mr Scheffer, Mr Hilton, Mr Somyurek, Mr Hirsh, Ms Theophanous, Mr Jennings, Mr Thomson, Ms Lenders, Mr Viney, Mr McQuilten, Mr

Noes, 17 Atkinson, Mr Hadden, Ms Baxter, Mr Hall, Mr Bowden, Mr (Teller) Koch, Mr Brideson, Mr (Teller) Lovell, Ms Coote, Mrs Olexander, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Davis, Mr D. McL. Stoney, Mr Davis, Mr P. R. Vogels, Mr Drum, Mr

Pair Smith, Mr Bishop, Mr Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Sitting continued on motion of Hon. GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care).


Committee

Resumed from earlier this day.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — On the matter of clause 10 regarding annual meetings at government hospitals and the government’s plan to extend the required date from 31 October to 31 December, this has been well canvassed. I simply appeal to Labor Party members and Independents, like one of the members for Silvan Province, to indicate that they believe in transparency and openness. Any member of Parliament who is truly in favour of an open and accountable system with a proper reporting to the



community will support this amendment and the retention of the 31 October date.

The government is doing this, as we know, for purely sinister purposes. It is doing it to hide and obfuscate, and to prevent the community receiving proper information ahead of the state election in November 2006. If Parliament does not sit in the last week of October we can expect that any controversial hospital or health services reports will be held over until December or perhaps to February the year after. The community, as at the 2002 election, will not have access to this information before they vote. It is for that reason that I have sought to move this amendment to prevent the government changing the date and to retain 31 October as the reporting date for health services. In that context I appeal to the Labor Party, The Nationals and Independent members to support this proposal.

I do not believe it is necessary to hold two votes to test this matter. Clauses 10 and 12 essentially relate to the same point that I am trying to make. In that respect clause 10 can be regarded as a test of both of those points. Before we proceed to a vote I ask the Minister for Aged Care for an undertaking that if this change were to be implemented so that 31 December became the reporting date to communities for health services and hospitals all reports would be provided to the community before the state election in 2006.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — First of all, the government is proceeding with the amendment in the bill and will not agree to the proposition put by Mr Davis because it is trying to overcome what is in practice an inconsistency between the Financial Management Act and the Health Services Act. Purely and simply we are trying to ensure that when an annual report is produced by a health service and is provided to the people of Victoria by its being tabled in the Parliament, that occurs prior to any public disclosure of this matter to an annual general meeting. The government is of the view, on the basis of advice it has received, that that sequence is the appropriate one, that the report should first be tabled in Parliament and then be available to communities through the public annual general meeting of their health service. This amendment enables that sequence to be right so that all our health services can be respectful of the parliamentary precedents of the Financial Management Act, and that the reports are published and presented here before they are actually subjected to scrutiny in the broader community. They should be exposed to scrutiny at the earliest opportunity. The provision of this amendment will allow for that to occur.

In relation to the undertaking that Mr Davis is seeking from me, I can say on behalf of the government and the minister that it is our absolute intention that these reports be tabled and made available to the communities at the earliest opportunity, and it would be our desire that they be made available in a timely fashion prior to the election next year. That would clearly be our preference, and there is no possible construction that can be placed upon the timing of these reports about which Mr Davis and others in the community may currently have a degree of scepticism. The government would clearly prefer this issue not to be one that draws attention to itself in the lead up to the election, but that accountability has been established and maintained. That is the government’s clear intention; that is my hope and that is what I will work to try to deliver in my areas of responsibility.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I am disappointed with the minister’s response. It is clear that the government has no intention of ensuring that all reports are available before the state election, and the minister’s commitment is a weak one.

It is also simply nonsense to argue that there is some inconsistency between the Financial Management Act and the Health Services Act. There is no reason why the report cannot go to the community first — that is, before its tabling in Parliament. There is no disrespect to the Parliament in a health service lawfully providing a report to the community under instruction of Parliament through statute. The idea that there is some inconsistency is just nonsense.

Last year Ms Lovell went to the meeting at Goulburn Valley Health and saw the report delivered to the community in Shepparton before the Goulburn Valley Health annual report was tabled in Parliament. Is there any harm or concern about that? I do not know of any member of this chamber who took any affront at that. I do not know any member of this chamber who was in any manner concerned about the fact that Ms Lovell saw the report of Goulburn Valley Health at the general meeting, in Shepparton, before it was tabled in Parliament. In many respects it is of no concern to the community, and I think the community would ask for timely and earlier reporting.

Some health services have said that to me privately, some have said it in writing, others have been prepared to be more public about their issues on that and see the early reporting as an opportunity. In election years where these reports are embarrassing they will be covered by this government; in non-election years where the reports are embarrassing they will be dumped publicly in and around Christmas amongst the



Christmas parties, the Santa Claus hats and the media festivities that will occur at that time.

I am very concerned that the government has taken this approach, and I am disappointed in the minister. He has certainly shown a great deal of forbearance this afternoon, but on this issue I indicate that he is not up to his usual standard.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — What damning with faint praise! The government relied upon a view that was expressed out of the office of the Auditor-General, and indeed supported by officers of this Parliament, that suggested to the government that the appropriate sequence should be tabling in Parliament and the subsequent consideration by the community through the annual general meetings of public health services. That is the sequence, and that is the advice that the government has operated on.

I do not want to make this overtly political, but Mr Davis is part of a party that probably in the last decade has not been thought of too kindly for taking advice from Auditors-General. Probably that is the only political message that I will give during the course of my contribution, because the government has acted in accordance with advice it has received from the office of the Auditor-General and officers of the Parliament.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I am certainly not satisfied with the minister’s explanation and will go forward.

The CHAIR — Order! In relation to Mr David Davis’s amendment 2, he has invited the committee to vote against clause 10.

Committee divided on clause:

Ayes, 20 Argondizzo, Ms McQuilten, Mr Broad, Ms Madden, Mr Buckingham, Ms Mikakos, Ms Carbines, Ms Mitchell, Mr Darveniza, Ms Nguyen, Mr Eren, Mr Pullen, Mr Hilton, Mr (Teller) Scheffer, Mr Hirsh, Ms Somyurek, Mr Jennings, Mr Thomson, Ms Lenders, Mr Viney, Mr (Teller)

Noes, 17 Atkinson, Mr Hadden, Ms Baxter, Mr Hall, Mr (Teller) Bowden, Mr Koch, Mr Brideson, Mr Lovell, Ms Coote, Mrs Olexander, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr

Davis, Mr D. McL. (Teller) Stoney, Mr Davis, Mr P. R. Vogels, Mr Drum, Mr

Pair Smith, Mr Bishop, Mr Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — This clause deals with the membership of Health Purchasing Victoria, a body that the opposition supports and an approach that we think has much to commend it. Health Purchasing Victoria has a very broad role across the system in purchasing items for use in health services across the state. This clause makes changes to the membership criteria of Health Purchasing Victoria’s board. We support many of those changes. We are in favour of having people with knowledge and life experience in purchasing, logistics and supply-chain management, for example. But one thing that concerns me is the issue of the presence on the board of somebody from a rural health service as opposed to a regional or metropolitan health service. I am curious to know what mechanisms the government will have in place to ensure that there are representatives not just from the larger metropolitan health services or from the big regional health services but also from smaller rural health services.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — Clause 14(2)(a) of the bill says the minister must ensure that Health Purchasing Victoria has adequate knowledge of a number of things, including the:

… perspectives of rural and metropolitan public health services and hospitals …

Under the provisions of the bill the minister is obliged to be able to demonstrate how, in the making of appointments to the body, that mandated knowledge and understanding has been included as an essential criterion in the selection of the board’s membership.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — I thank the minister. Can I take it from that that the house can feel guaranteed as it were, assured, that there will be representatives from metropolitan health services, regional health services and rural health services on the board of HPV?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — That is a slight variation on the question, but

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (WILLIAMSTOWN SHIPYARD) BILL


my substantive point is the same. The minister is obliged to be able to demonstrate under the act — it is a mandated requirement — that the appointments to the board cover the bases which include the knowledge and understanding of the operations and perspectives of rural public health services and hospitals. Now the test of this act and a range of other acts in terms of the ministerial responsibility is for the ministers of the day to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their obligation under various acts, including this one. This is a test that would have to be undertaken each and every time a new constellation of Health Purchasing Victoria was constituted. The minister is obliged to do it. Who the individuals are who make that up, whether there are categories that come from various sections of the community on the basis of their involvement in particular health services, I cannot say. That may be overly prescriptive in terms of the way in which the minister may choose to make those appointments, but the current minister — —

Hon. D. McL. Davis — Or a future minister.

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS — Any minister is obliged to comply with the provisions of the act.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Strangely I am not fully reassured by this. Let me tease this out a little bit further. I want to understand this definition. Would it be the case that an individual from a Bendigo or Ballarat or Warrnambool health service would satisfy the requirement for a rural representation or would that not satisfy the requirement for a rural representation?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — Mr Davis knows the internal logic of his question says that it may or may not, depending on their knowledge and understanding of the operations of rural health services, which will be the critical test. Regardless of where you live or work that essential knowledge and understanding is a mandated requirement under the act, and the minister is obliged to be able to demonstrate that the criteria have been met when establishing the board.

Hon. D. McL. DAVIS (East Yarra) — Let me just ask one final question. It seems to me there is some woolliness in the definition of somebody with knowledge and skills of rural issues. I wonder if you might lay out those skills and the criteria that the minister would use in judging those rural skills. Would that include, finally, a person who has a position on the board of a small rural health service?

Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care) — I do not have the luxury of creating a new

schedule to the bill during the course of our discussion in committee, and I am not likely to do so. I continue to remind Mr Davis and the committee that there is a requirement of the act that the minister of the day has to ensure and be able to demonstrate by the appointments that adequate knowledge and understanding of the practices and perspectives of rural hospitals and health services have been essential mandated criteria by which the board has been constituted.



Report adopted.

Third reading



I thank all members, particularly the committee, for their consideration of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

Remaining stages


PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (WILLIAMSTOWN SHIPYARD) BILL



Read first time on motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation).

TOBACCO (AMENDMENT) BILL



Read first time on motion of Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care).

OWNER DRIVERS AND FORESTRY CONTRACTORS BILL


OWNER DRIVERS AND FORESTRY

CONTRACTORS BILL



Read first time on motion of Mr GAVIN JENNINGS (Minister for Aged Care).

ADJOURNMENT



Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic control

Hon. R. H. BOWDEN (South Eastern) — I seek the assistance of the Minister for Transport in relation to a section of the Western Port Highway at Lyndhurst in and near my electorate. I have been known to speak on this in the house previously, and I might be able to inject an interesting new component into it, but my concern is to retain the safety and efficiency of this stretch of road for the tens of thousands of constituents and residents of the Mornington Peninsula and the Cranbourne area who need to use that Lyndhurst section of the Western Port Highway.

I was very pleased to receive two letters from the chief executive officer of VicRoads, one dated 7 July and the other one, 13 July. In this adjournment debate I will mention a few of the quite pleasing aspects of those two letters so as to help the minister, in the hope that he will help my constituents.

On 27 July last year I had a very pleasant meeting at VicRoads headquarters with the chief executive officer of VicRoads, when I expressed in a constructive way my concerns on this issue, which I have from time to time been known to speak about in this place.

The chief executive officer of VicRoads was quite interested and there were other gentlemen present at that meeting.

I have had confirmation, through the correspondence I have just mentioned, that VicRoads is undertaking a management strategy evaluation of this section of road which is due to be completed by the end of this year. It seems from reading this correspondence that the concept of protecting the efficiency and safety of this important section of highway is to the forefront of the

thinking on the access management strategy that is being undertaken by VicRoads and I was very pleased to receive that information.

I was not quite so pleased to be informed in a letter dated 7 July that my regular request for the removal of the dangerous set of lights that was relatively recently installed at the Moreton Bay Boulevard intersection with the Western Port Highway will not be granted. I repeat my request in a firm way and, if I may, I insist that the lights are removed. The police believe they are dangerous. There is a realignment of that section and on many occasions five lanes of traffic come to a halt quite suddenly to let one vehicle enter the Western Port Highway.

My request to the minister is to encourage VicRoads to protect the efficiency and safety of this road and not — —



Hon. R. H. BOWDEN — I will do it again next week.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The member would be aware that once a matter has been raised on the adjournment and dealt with it cannot be raised again. I think the member changed it slightly from the last time he raised something about traffic lights so we will just squeeze that one in.

Mitcham–Frankston project: EastLink

Mr VINEY (Chelsea) — I wish to raise a matter for the Treasurer in the other place. In doing so I alert the Treasurer to an article in the Frankston Standard Leader of Monday, 4 July, referring to the EastLink project. The article extensively quotes a local real estate agent and is headed, ‘It’s the road to riches’. The action I am seeking from the Treasurer is in the light of this article to investigate the economic benefits of the EastLink project for the residents and business community in Frankston, in particular the Carrum Downs area, which is the subject of this article.

It is interesting that the person quoted extensively in this article as talking about the great economic benefits of this road to the Carrum Downs and Frankston area is a Mr Michael Crowder, a local real estate agent and, I might inform the house, also the vice-president of the local chamber of commerce and the leader of all the protests against the Premier when he came down on the tolling issue.

ADJOURNMENT


Here we have on the front page of the local newspaper a headline saying ‘road to riches’. This is a massive backflip by a local real estate agent, a Liberal Party luminary and advocate for the Liberal Party campaign on the tolls. I remember him being there at the protests with the hard hats and his ‘no tolls’ sign and here he is extensively quoted in this article as saying things like:

… the sale of raw industrial land for more than $8.5 million last month showed buyer focus on Carrum Downs.

He is reported as going on to say:

The land was well positioned for the $2.5 billion Seaford-to-Mitcham tollway and investors saw the benefits.

Further on in the article he is quoted as saying:

The reality is that infrastructure is very important to industrialists.

A couple of paragraphs further on he is reported to have said:

Obviously, the tollway coming through is making a big difference …

Later the newspaper article reports Mr Crowder as saying:

An industrial subdivision ‘coming on line’ late this year would offer lots ranging from 980 to 5370 square metres …

The paper goes on to report him saying there is enormous interest in this project.

I congratulate Mr Crowder on his change of heart. I have always advocated that there were significant economic benefits from the EastLink project coming to Frankston and I welcome his sudden change of heart. All I can say is that there is nothing like the hip-pocket nerve to drive an epiphany!

Hon. Philip Davis — On a point of order, President, it seems unclear to the house what issue the member was going to raise in his vehement manner. He has not actually asked for an action to be taken.

The PRESIDENT — Order! On the point of order, the honourable member raised the matter for the Treasurer. He asked the Treasurer to investigate the economic impact of the EastLink project in regard to Frankston and then advise him. He did that earlier. The Leader of the Opposition may not have been in the chamber at the time. The matter is in order. There is no problem with it; it meets the guidelines.

State Emergency Service: horse units

Hon. E. G. STONEY (Central Highlands) — I have a matter for the Minister for Police and Emergency

Services in the other place. The recent search for the missing plane around Mount Hotham exposed some flaws in the State Emergency Service (SES) search structure. As many of us have known for some years, it was discovered that in some circumstances, especially when there is fog or blizzard conditions, horses are by far the best option in difficult search conditions. During the Mount Hotham search individual mountain cattlemen and other horseriders donated their skills looking for the lost people. It was a time when helicopters were grounded. There were blizzard conditions which were very bad. Time was running out for any hope of finding the people in the aeroplane that was lost. The people on horses and the people on foot and on skis were the only ones who could operate.

I would like to point out that the SES has quite a few horse units around Victoria. These units have all been stood down for up to two years. This originally happened because of concerns about public liability insurance. That was sorted out, but these units are still down. I suspect one of the reasons they were and are stood down is that the bureaucrats do not quite understand the value of horse units or how they fit into the SES structure. These horse units are on hold but ready to go.

I understand a report has been made about the value of these units and how they can operate, but the report has been held up. I think it is probably gathering dust somewhere. I understand the report recommends that the horse units be reinstated. The government needs to explain why the report has been gathering dust. As an aside, I was a member of one of these units years ago. It was probably one of the first in Victoria. Horses can go virtually anywhere under any conditions and can be very valuable when helicopters and other search units cannot operate.

I think it is a slight on all the volunteers that have been waiting to get the go-ahead. They are still talking to each other. They are ready to start training again. They are ready to go, but they have just been ignored. Those units should have been used in the search at Mount Hotham.

I ask the minister to investigate why the report on the SES horse units is gathering dust. I ask him to investigate why it has not been announced and why it has not been acted on.

Dental services: waiting lists

Hon. J. H. EREN (Geelong) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health in the other place concerning dental health. I am regularly

ADJOURNMENT


approached by people in my electorate who tell me that dental health is an issue that governments need to act on now. They also tell me they do not go to the dentist because they cannot afford it. This is backed up by a recent national survey which found that one-third of Australians in the $30 000 to $50 000 household income bracket have not been to a dentist for two years due to an inability to pay. Poor dental health means pain, inconvenience, poor general health, embarrassment and discrimination.

I am further informed that oral disease equates to an estimated loss of 1 million days off work each year and costs the economy around $2 billion. When the Howard government came into office in 1996 it dumped the commonwealth dental health program and to this day continues to ignore its responsibility to provide dental care for low-income earners. I understand the Australian Health Ministers Conference will be held in Alice Springs next week, from 27 to 28 July. I ask the minister to raise this matter in that forum of Australian ministers and to lobby the Howard government to reinstate the commonwealth dental health program.

I would also like to point to section 51 of the commonwealth constitution, which clearly states that the commonwealth has responsibility to make laws for the provision of hospital benefits and medical and dental services. The federal government is failing to uphold the commonwealth constitution. The federal Liberal-National coalition is failing Australians by not living up to its part of the bargain.

This dental crisis is having an effect on the whole community. Therefore I ask the minister: what is being done to combat the federal government’s inaction and lack of concern regarding public dental health?

Roads: Manningham

Hon. A. P. OLEXANDER (Silvan) — I seek the attention of the Minister for Transport in the other place. The issue I raise on the adjournment debate this evening is what the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria describes as the ‘crumbling’ state of roads infrastructure in the city of Manningham.

The RACV chief engineer of traffic and roads, Mr Peter Daly, has said that 434 casualty accidents were recorded on six arterial roads in Manningham between 1999 and 2002 and that this has cost taxpayers about $59 million. There are only three other municipalities in Victoria that have recorded higher rates of accidents than Manningham. The RACV has reported that Manningham’s arterial east-west roads are having to cope with growing traffic volumes, are structurally

unsound and are not coping with those volumes, and significant safety issues are the result.

Manningham director of city development, Mr Claude Cullino, has said that ratepayers in the area have had to put up with what he describes as ‘a Third World road system’. Many of these roads are really not up to the job they were built for decades ago and are not coping structurally or in a safety sense with the traffic today. Mr Cullino has said that he is finding it difficult to believe the state government is satisfied with leaving the situation as it is when Manningham is a municipality just 12 kilometres from the central business district. He said that none of these roads has the structural integrity to cope with the traffic which they are now carrying and that in the future it will become much worse.

We are talking about Springvale Road, Templestowe Road, King Street and Andersons Creek Road. I am very pleased to say that during a recent visit to the municipality for a Liberal shadow cabinet meeting the shadow transport spokesperson in the other place, Terry Mulder, committed a Liberal government to conducting immediate feasibility studies for the upgrades of these four roads in Manningham at a cost of about $100 000 a piece. Unfortunately the Bracks government has not matched that funding to date. In fact the local Labor member has said it is a waste of taxpayers money because the government has no intention of funding the upgrades. I urge the minister to match the Liberal commitment and to start the process of the upgrades of these roads by funding the feasibility studies.

Bicycles: city parking

Ms ROMANES (Melbourne) — I would like to raise a matter with the Minister for Transport in the other place. I have been alerted to an issue about bicycle parking by my good friend and former Moreland council colleague Mike Hill, who is also a fellow cyclist.

During his visits to the Department of Sustainability and Environment Mr Hill discovered that there is no bicycle parking available at the AXA building at 8 Nicholson Street, Melbourne. He alerted the Department of Sustainability and Environment, which drew his attention to the availability of visitor bicycle parking in the underground car park. However, there is an elaborate procedure that a cyclist must go through to access the underground car park which involves going through security, and not everyone would be aware of that procedure and what they need to do. I agree with Mr Hill that that is the wrong message and that there should be external bicycle racks, which would make it

ADJOURNMENT


easy and straightforward to visit the Department of Sustainability and Environment by bike.

Mr Hill also drew the attention of the Department of Infrastructure to this situation, which elicited a speedy response from the City of Melbourne, which has committed to installing racks outside the DSE building as part of its ongoing program of installing bicycle racks across the central business district. Members are aware that congestion is a big issue, cyclists contribute markedly to alleviating congestion and cycling is good for the environment.

At the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing just a few weeks ago the Minister for Transport in the other place commented that, on anyone’s observation, there is an increase in the number of people who are using bikes to get around, so we need to encourage more cycling, and bicycle parking is one way to do that. I ask the minister to arrange an audit of bicycle parking at all government buildings in the central business district and to develop a strategy with the City of Melbourne to expedite bicycle parking outside all government buildings.

Melbourne University: Glenormiston campus

Hon. J. A. VOGELS (Western) — I raise an issue for the Premier. A number of community cabinet events are being held in south-west Victoria next week. On 27 July the state cabinet will be meeting at Glenormiston. This provides a perfect opportunity for the government — the ministers, their advisers and minders — to check out this wonderful facility and the tremendous potential of this site.

At present Melbourne University is trying to distance itself from Glenormiston by walking away from its responsibility to provide agricultural education. There are some excellent proposals on the table for Glenormiston, including the maintaining of the 118 000 student contact hours for the campus and the siting of a rural learning campus where students from the city can spend a few weeks out in country Victoria and learn all about rural Victoria. An excellent and successful pilot project, run by the Corangamite Shire Council, was held at Glenormiston a couple of years ago

South-west Victoria is also the capital of the horse industry, with many courses on horses presently being run from the Glenormiston campus. The action I seek from the Premier is to make sure that his Minister for Local Government, and the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Education and Training in the other place are well briefed on what is happening at Glenormiston. They should know that the facility is in

danger of being closed. When they meet the people from Corangamite Shire Council, from Glenormiston and from the local community they should be able to actually give some answers rather than saying, ‘We will take all this on board’.

I ask the Premier to make sure that they have briefcases full of good notes and all the briefs that have been sent to them. I ask him not fob it off and say, ‘We will have a look at it’. We do not want a white elephant at Glenormiston.

Chewton: dingo farm

Ms CARBINES (Geelong) — I wish to raise a matter with the Minister for Environment in the other place, the Honourable John Thwaites. It concerns an issue raised with me by a constituent, Ms Tehree Gordon. Ms Gordon is well known in Geelong as the owner of the Jirrahlinga Koala and Wildlife Sanctuary in Barwon Heads. Indeed she is a tireless saviour of injured wildlife throughout the Geelong region and is extremely highly regarded by our community. In recognition of that fact, last year she was awarded by the Prime Minister the status of Australian Senior Citizen of the Year.

Ms Gordon has been chosen as the preferred tenderer for the purchase of the Chewton dingo farm near Castlemaine; however, it has been revealed as part of this process that the former owner of the dingo farm had extended the property beyond the private land boundary, and indeed part of the farm has now encroached onto the Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park. Ms Gordon has been unsuccessfully attempting to resolve this boundary issue so that she may proceed with the purchase of the farm and commence the appropriate care of its dingos.

Out of frustration she contacted me for assistance at the end of last week, and yesterday I convened a meeting between Ms Gordon, the trustee of the dingo farm and representatives of both the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries in an attempt to resolve this issue. It was a very positive meeting, and a way forward has now been agreed to by all parties, including Ms Gordon, which will see the dingo farm consolidate appropriately on its former private boundaries. But as a consequence of this some of the farm infrastructure will need to be relocated back onto the private land. This relocation, however, will need to be staged over a period of time to ensure the health and welfare of the dingoes.

In a spirit of goodwill and agreement expressed by all parties at yesterday’s meeting I am seeking the

ADJOURNMENT


minister’s support for this very positive outcome, particularly in relation to the allocation of an appropriate amount of time by the Department of Sustainability and Environment under the retention notice system, to allow for the relocation to successfully occur.

Roads: funding

Hon. DAVID KOCH (Western) — I direct to the attention of the Minister for Transport in another place the worsening condition of many country roads, which the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) recently declared required drastic safety upgrades.

Road funding is a sensitive political issue right across rural Victoria. Local councils tackle ever-increasing budgets with ever-decreasing funds. Rate increases are at unsustainable levels, and yet there is never enough money to address much-needed road maintenance and upgrades. One of the key issues constantly raised by country people in Western Province is the poor state of rural roads. Despite constant requests from road users, ratepayers, councillors, the Victorian Farmers Federation and the RACV, this government ignores pleas to fix deteriorating rural roads. This means rural councils have to allocate funds to only those roads which pose the greatest risk to road safety, including school bus routes, or those which have the greatest traffic counts. The users of lesser priority roads and bridges have to put up with poor and in many cases unsafe roads. The government must increase funding to help rural councils upgrade dangerous and inferior country roads, on which rural motorists often put themselves and their families at risk when they venture out.

Funding for country roads is not only a priority for farmers and their families. Visitors to country Victoria continually express their dismay at the condition of rural roads once they leave the national highway grid. Local councils desperately need additional state funding to improve road safety on many local and major roads across the state. The RACV correctly warns that without upgrades to local roads and the more heavily used country highways, accidents will continue to occur. At a time when the overall road toll is declining we are seeing an alarming increase in serious injuries and fatalities on country roads. I implore the government to listen to the calls of country Victorians and to the wisdom of Victoria’s peak motoring body when it says that improving the poor state of our country roads now will save lives and reduce the road trauma that is all too frequently visited upon country families.

Country Victoria desperately needs the government to increase investment in our local road infrastructure. Motorists and their families — whether they be on farms or in towns or whether they are visitors — demand a fairer share of road funding so they can feel safe when using our rural roads. My request is: will the minister listen and not ignore the calls from country Victorians, visitors, tourism operators and the RACV and provide increased funding to make country roads safer for all users?

Tourism: south-eastern suburbs

Mr SOMYUREK (Eumemmerring) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Tourism in the other place. Tourism Research Australia recently released a report which showed that international visitor expenditure in Victoria was growing at a faster rate than the national average. The report showed that in 2004, $2.6 billion was spent by international visitors in Victoria — an average increase of 12 per cent since 1999. Our key competitors with respect to tourism are New South Wales and Queensland, and they recorded annual average growth in international tourist expenditure of 7 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.

That is, international visitors spent an average of $7.3 million in Victoria each day, thereby substantially adding to the state’s economy. These figures of course will increase by tens of thousands leading up to and immediately after the Commonwealth Games. I know members will agree with me that once international viewers, in the comfort of their lounge rooms, get a sight of Melbourne they will not be able to resist the temptation to come to see our magnificent city.

Ms Hadden interjected.

Mr SOMYUREK — I am glad you ask about country Victoria, Ms Hadden, because it is important that visitors see more than metropolitan Melbourne. The minister made the statement the other day that the buck should not stop in Melbourne, that regional Victorians should also benefit from this. I have got to say that international visitors spent $237 million in regional Victoria in 2004 — up by 40 per cent since 1999. It is also important that the outer suburbs benefit from this tourist boom.

I therefore ask that the minister take action to implement strategies to increase the number of visitors to the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and my electorate in particular.

ADJOURNMENT


Orbost Exhibition Centre: funding

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) — I raise an issue for the attention of the Minister for the Arts in the other place. It concerns operational funding for the Orbost Exhibition Centre. I was in Orbost last week and took the opportunity to visit the newly opened Orbost Exhibition Centre. It is a $2 million facility that was opened in December last year. I have got to say it is a must see for people visiting East Gippsland — and if some of Mr Somyurek’s tourists get out of Melbourne and come through East Gippsland they would be well-advised to visit the Orbost Exhibition Centre.

As described in the brochure promoting the exhibition centre, the building itself is a work of art. It is a $2 million facility supported by 54 ironbark posts, and it is clad in silvertop ash. A lot of the flooring et cetera throughout the building is made from local timbers from the East Gippsland area, and they are very impressive. There are two very good exhibition spaces within the gallery and it also has an excellent retail outlet where you can purchase work produced by some of the timber artisans in East Gippsland, and they are very impressive indeed.

The facility also houses the Australian national collection of wood design, and that in itself provides some excellent examples of fine work by artists and woodworkers in Gippsland — and the wider region, I might add, because the annual wood exhibition attracts artisans from all over Australia to exhibit.

The thing that I found surprising was that this exhibition centre does not receive recurrent funding from the state government for the gallery itself. Whereas most regional galleries receive some sort of operational funding under the regional galleries program, this one does not. This facility in Orbost is a remarkable new gallery space that is the equal of many other galleries that we have in regional Victoria. When I visited the National Gallery of Victoria here in Melbourne just recently it cost me nothing to get in, but the people in Orbost have to pay a fee of $4 to enter. I do not see why people in the country should have to pay to go to their galleries when people in Melbourne can go to places like the national gallery free of charge.

I make an urgent plea to the Minister for the Arts to consider providing operational funding to the Orbost Exhibition Centre through the regional galleries program, because this is a fine facility created by the hard work of a lot of local people, and they need the support of state government.

Occupational health and safety: health care workers

Hon. KAYE DARVENIZA (Melbourne West) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for WorkCover and TAC, John Lenders. The matter I wish to raise concerns an occupational health and safety issue regarding the safety of health care workers who are exposed to the risks of violence and aggressive behaviour while at work.

Having worked for many years as a nurse in a number of different clinical settings I know first hand the risks that health workers can face every day of being assaulted while caring for their patients and carrying out their duties. Health care workers often work in emotionally-charged environments that can be quite volatile at times. It is particularly important that the managers of health facilities, along with all of the direct care staff, are equipped with the skills as well as the procedures and training to reduce the risk of being exposed to violent behaviour. I understand that in the past three years there have been some 500 health care workers who have made claims resulting from workplace violence in the health sector. While this indeed is a large number of claims, I am sure there are many incidents of aggressive and threatening behaviour that do not result in a claim being made.

The specific information I would like from the minister is the action he and his department are taking to ensure that health facilities are equipped with the necessary understanding of the impact of occupational violence and that the appropriate occupational health and safety strategies, training and procedures are in place so that health care workers are able to carry out their duties and responsibilities — that is, caring for their patients — without the risk of assault and without the risk of having to be on the receiving end of violent and aggressive behaviour.

Melbourne Markets: relocation

Hon. PHILIP DAVIS (Gippsland) — What a delight it is to join in the adjournment debate this evening. I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Major Projects who I am incredibly disappointed is not present in the chamber, but I am looking forward to him hearing my dulcet tones and removing himself from whence he is and arriving here forthwith, because the issue I wish to raise with him this evening is the relocation of the Melbourne Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market.

I am raising with him some concerns expressed to me by representatives of occupiers and stakeholders of the

ADJOURNMENT


market, being the Victorian Chamber of Fresh Produce Wholesalers; the Victorian Retail Fruiterers Association; the Vegetable Growers Association of Victoria; Flower Growers and Florists Advisory Committee, and the representatives of the unload.

This is a very important project. It is a fact that that market has a turnover in excess of $3 billion per annum. The principals of the businesses have a great deal of expertise which they have built up over many years and have expressed concern that the government has not properly informed them about what the government’s proposals are — that is to say, other than a media stunt by way of an announcement at the Epping site some months ago that the market would relocate.

Effectively the stakeholders in the market have heard little else. These market operators have very significant investments — many of whom have investments in excess of $1 million in fixed assets on site. These fixtures cannot be relocated in a practical sense, and the market authority has now indicated that leases will not be extended beyond 2008, although there are some existing leases that were entered into before the relocation was announced that exceed this timeframe.

What is of concern to the tenants is that it is not clear to them even now what the benefits of the relocation of the market will be, but they can see for their individual businesses that there will be a major liability. The government representatives have thus far failed to meet with them, and therefore I ask: will the Minister for Major Projects urgently meet with a deputation from the stakeholders of the Melbourne Markets?

Indonesia and Malaysia: Vietnamese monuments

Hon. S. M. NGUYEN (Melbourne West) — I want to raise a matter tonight with the Minister for Multicultural Affairs in the other place. I have been approached by many members of the Vietnamese-Australian community living in Melbourne who have asked me to raise this issue with the Australian government and the Victorian government.

I want to quote an article from the Age of 26 June 2005, entitled ‘Boat people condemn loss of monument’ regarding a destroyed monument to former Vietnamese refugees at Galang on Batam Island, Indonesia:

Leaders of the Vietnamese community in Melbourne have expressed anger and disbelief that a monument erected in March on an Indonesian island once home to hundreds of Vietnamese refugees has been removed … Another

monument, erected on the Malaysian island of Bidong, is under threat after a similar request to local authorities.

The monuments were erected as a symbol of the refugees’ gratitude to their rescuers in the two countries. The Vietnamese community in Melbourne said the monument on Bidong ‘honours the humanity and the compassion of the Malaysian people towards their fellow human beings in time of need’.

The monuments were erected at the site of the former Galang refugee camp on the Indonesian island of Batam near Singapore, and at Bidong off the Asian mainland, after a visit in March by 142 former Vietnamese refugees to pay tribute to the thousands who died trying to escape the communists in the 1970s and 80s.

The visit was part of the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon when tens of thousands of Vietnamese escaped the new regime in boats. In its first year as a refugee camp Bidong received more than 52 000 refugees from 453 boats. They lived in squalid conditions in one tiny corner of the island.

I ask the Minister for Multicultural Affairs to raise the concerns of the Vietnamese-Australian community in Victoria with the Australian government to seek its involvement in ensuring that the Indonesian and Malaysian governments restore the monument in Galang and maintain the monument at Bidong working with the Vietnamese-Australian community if it wants to change it.

Rural Ambulance Victoria: vehicle safety

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) — I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Premier in the other place. The matter concerns the important occupational health and safety issue of the safety of Rural Ambulance Victoria (RAV) vehicles, ambulance officers and their patient passengers. The action which I seek from the Premier is that he appoint an independent inquiry into the safety of the GMC vehicles operated by Rural Ambulance Victoria, the occupational health and safety management systems and the subsequent organisational culture that impedes the resolution of health and safety matters within Rural Ambulance Victoria.

Victoria’s ageing fleet of 150 GMC ambulance vehicles in country Victoria have been referred to as death traps and deadly weapons by various newspaper articles as well as by senior officers of RAV. There were at least 13 serious incidents relating to GMC mechanical breakdowns and engine failures between December of last year and April of this year. To have such vehicles on Victorian roads, and especially on country Victorian roads, places at great risk ambulance staff, patients, road users and the community at large. This situation is clearly unacceptable.

ADJOURNMENT


Rural Ambulance Victoria members are concerned about the risks to themselves, their staff, patients and the community as well as their own obligations to meet the requirements placed on them under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Sick leave is another issue which illustrates the need for further investigation. The RAV has found there is a syndrome called sick organisation syndrome that is prevalent amongst ambulance officers. It places the effectiveness of the organisation, its staff and the community of course at great risk. Just as other Victorians are entitled to a safe work environment, so are RAV officers and their staff. I ask the Premier to give serious consideration to my request for action. Representations have been made to me by both the Health Services Union and by senior officers of the RAV in my electorate.

Responses

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation) — Mr Bowden raised a matter about road safety in relation to the Western Port Highway at Lyndhurst, and I will refer it to the Minister for Transport in the other place.

Mr Viney raised the matter of EastLink and the economic benefits, in particular in relation to Carrum Downs, and I will refer this matter to the Treasurer in the other place.

Mr Stoney raised the matter of State Emergency Service horse units, particularly regarding the recent air crash on Mount Hotham. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place.

Mr Eren raised the matter of dental health, which I will refer to the Minister for Health in the other place.

Mr Olexander raised the matter of road maintenance in the Manningham municipality, and I will refer this to the Minister for Transport in the other place.

Ms Romanes raised the matter of bicycle parking outside government department buildings, particularly the Department of Sustainability and Environment. I will refer that to the Minister for Environment in the other place.

Mr Vogels raised the matter of the community cabinet and the Glenormiston campus issue. I will refer that to the Premier.

Ms Carbines raised the matter of Ms Gordon’s purchase of a dingo farm and the restrictive boundary

issues. I will refer this to the Minister for Environment in the other place.

Mr Koch raised the matter of rural road maintenance, which I will refer to the Minister for Transport in the other place.

Mr Somyurek raised the matter of tourism in Victoria particularly in relation to his province of Eumemmerring. I will refer it to the Minister for Tourism in the other place.

Mr Hall — it is good to see Mr Hall is obviously a man of great taste and is out there in his community taking in the finer arts — raised the matter of the Orbost exhibition centre and ongoing operational funding. I will refer that issue to the Minister for the Arts in the other place.

Ms Darveniza raised the matter of occupational health for health care workers, and I will refer this matter to the Minister for WorkCover and the TAC.

Mr Philip Davis raised the matter of the Melbourne Markets relocation, and I will refer this matter to the Minister for Major Projects.

The Honourable Sang Nguyen raised the matter of destroyed monuments on the respective islands that are dedicated to Vietnamese refugees. I will refer this to the Premier in his capacity as Minister for Multicultural Affairs.

Ms Hadden raised the matter of occupational health issues for Rural Ambulance Victoria workers and their respective vehicles on rural roads, and I will refer this to the Premier.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned 5.48 p.m. until Tuesday, 9 August.

INCORPORATION BY HON. D. McL. DAVIS (EAST YARRA)


INCORPORATION BY HON. D. McL. DAVIS (EAST YARRA)

Melbourne Health - Summary

Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Net Result From Ordinary Activities ($’000)

13,356 (2,175) (37,352) (1,909)

Total Equity 223,265 220,892 238,329 260, 739

Accumulated surpluses/(deficits)

11,983 3,555 (34,521) (41,864)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities Contributed Capital from Government ($’000)

8,300 0 18,107 24,164

Source: Melbourne Health Annual Reports


INCORPORATION BY HON. D. MCL. DAVIS (EAST YARRA)d

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, 19 July 2005

Corrections: GPS tracking equipment

1694. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): In relation to the investigation of tamper-resistant steel, electronic monitoring and global positioning system (GPS) tracking equipment:

(a) What is tamper-resistant steel, electronic monitoring and GPS tracking equipment.

(b) How far has the government investigated the tamper-resistant steel, electronic monitoring and GPS tracking equipment.

(c) When will the government decide to use the tamper-resistant steel, electronic monitoring and GPS tracking equipment.

(d) On which prisoners will the tamper-resistant steel, electronic monitoring and GPS tracking equipment be used.

ANSWER:

I am advised that:

(a) A number of electronic systems use GPS tracking to monitor the movement of offenders. All have tamper-proof features.

(b) The Government has been monitoring and will continue to monitor the latest developments in tracking technology.

(c) The Government has legislated to permit the Adult Parole Board to order electronic monitoring under the Serious Sex Offender Monitoring Act 2005.

(d) The Serious Sex Offender Monitoring Act 2005 permits electronic monitoring to be used in respect of child sex offenders.

Corrections: minister’s office — alcohol purchases

4077. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): In relation to alcohol purchased by the Minister’s Office since 1 January 2002, what was the —

(a) date of each purchase;

(b) value of each purchase; and

(c) items purchased.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am informed as follows:

The research required to provide a response would place an unreasonable burden on the time and resources of my office.

However, since becoming Minister for Corrections in January 2005, no alcohol has been purchased by the Ministerial Office.

Transport: Melbourne Port Corporation — entertainment expenses

4285. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the Melbourne Port Corporation’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;

(c) number of guests;

(d) purpose; and

(e) name of service provider.

ANSWER:

As at the date the question was raised, the answer is :

The Melbourne Port Corporation ceased to exist on 30 June 2003, and therefore no expenses were incurred by it during 2003-04.

Transport: Haystac Public Affairs Pty Ltd — payments

4380. THE HON. GRAEME STONEY — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport):

(1) What payments have been made to Haystac Public Affairs Pty Ltd by the Minister’s department or private office or agency or statutory body under the Minister’s administration since 26 August 2003.

(2) On what dates were the payments made.

(3) What are the details of the project for which payment was made.

ANSWER:


(1) The Department of Infrastructure made 2 payments to this company, for $8,062.50 each plus GST. Neither my office nor any of the Statutory Authorities made any payment to the Company.

(2) 3 April 2004 and 12 May 2004

(3) Payments were in relation to “Victoria Online”, the Victorian Government Internet access point for the public.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Social Shift Pty Ltd — payments


(1) What payments have been made to Social Shift Pty Ltd by the Minister’s department or private office or agency or statutory body under the Minister’s administration since 26 August 2003.



ANSWER:


No payments have been made in this period by the Department, private office or agency or Statutory Authority under my administration.

Transport: VicRoads — Access to Parks program

4588. THE HON. GRAEME STONEY — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): What was the total amount allocated by VicRoads to Parks Victoria for the VicRoads Access to Parks Program for 2003-04 and 2004-05.

ANSWER:

As at the date the question was raised, the answer is:

Total amount allocated in 2003-04 was zero. Total amount allocated in 2004-05 is zero.

Environment: Strathbogie and Mansfield — land clearance

4596. THE HON. C.A. STRONG — To ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation (for the Minister for Environment): In relation to land clearance alongside creeks and waterways in the Shire of Strathbogie and Mansfield over the last twelve months and also to recent rains in the area:

(1) How many trees have been removed.

(2) What prior assessment was undertaken in relation to bank erosion.

(3) What assessment has been made of bank erosion following recent rains.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(1) Over the last 12 months in excess of 15 kilometres of streamside frontage has been treated for exotic vegetation in the Mansfield and Strathbogie area. There has been no native vegetation removed.

(2) All sites are assessed prior to any works being undertaken. The assessment takes into account the quality of vegetation and any stream health issues including bank stability. No works are undertaken unless they align with the Catchment Management Authority's Regional River Health and Willow Management Strategy.

(3) A monitoring program is always established as part of the works. Other complementary works such as fencing and revegetation activities also occur at these sites.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: Infrastructure — interstate trips

4631. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport):

(1) How many interstate trips were undertaken by executive level staff and base line staff of the Department of Infrastructure in 2003-04.

(2) What were the destinations.

(3) What was the purpose of visiting each destination.

(4) What costs were associated with the travel.

ANSWER:


On advice from the Department it has been determined that the time and resources necessary to obtain and process the information requested cannot be justified as the request in its current form would take a staff member approximately four weeks to answer. This is because:

- There were numerous interstate trips taken within the 2003-04 year; and

- Each Division of the Department would need to:

1. ensure that all interstate trips and expenditure had been captured;

2. provide details of destinations of interstate trips which in some cases cannot be ascertained from the Department’s financial systems; and.

3. advise of the purpose of each interstate trip which in most cases cannot be ascertained from the Department’s financial systems.

The Department’s overall cost of interstate travel for the 2003-04 year was $351,507.59

The Member is invited to submit a different question.

Police and emergency services: Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme — advertising and credit card expenditure

4787. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme:

(1) What was the advertising expenditure in 2003-04.

(2) What was the credit card expenditure in 2003-04.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The Minister for Finance is the responsible Minister for the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme. Accordingly, you should refer your question to that Minister.

Police and emergency services: Victoria Police — advertising and credit card expenditure

4788. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to Victoria Police:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE




ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to Victoria Police:

(1) The advertising expenditure in 2003-04 was $959,551.77 as per the Victorian Government Advertising-Master Agency Media Service Contract.

(2) The credit card expenditure in 2003-04 was $753,580.73. The Victoria Police Purchasing card is used for ad-hoc type purchases where it is not feasible to create a purchase order and/or supplier. This is normally for small purchases between $10.00 and $200.00 from small-to-medium companies where the purchase is considered to be a one-off event. The card is not used for travel and entertainment expenses and is also not used for payment of regular invoices.

Police and emergency services: Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board — advertising and credit card expenditure

4790. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board:



ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board:

(1) The advertising expenditure in 2003-04 was $344,000 as per the Victorian Government Advertising-Master Agency Media Service Contract.

(2) The credit card expenditure of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board is included as part of the Board’s total expenditure in its financial record system and cannot be easily determined. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that to answer the question would be an unreasonable diversion of my Department's resources.

Police and emergency services: Country Fire Authority — advertising and credit card expenditure

4791. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to the Country Fire Authority:



ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the Country Fire Authority:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(1) The advertising expenditure in 2003-04 was $513,308 as per the Victorian Government Advertising-Master

Agency Media Service Contract.

(2) The credit card expenditure in 2003-04 was $911,066. Credit cards are used for purchasing as they represent an efficient, transparent and accountable means of acquiring goods and services.

Corrections: prisons — education program

4794. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): What is the 2004-05 budget for education programs at HM Prison Ararat, HM Prison Barwon, HM Prison Bendigo, HM Prison Dhurringile, HM Prison Langi Kal Kal, HM Prison Loddon, HM Melbourne Assessment Prison, HM Prison Tarrengower, Fulham Correctional Centre, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre and Port Phillip Prison, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am advised that:

The funding of education programs in prisons is not the responsibility of Corrections Victoria. The funding is sourced from the Office of Training and Tertiary Education (OTTE). In public prisons, education is provided by way of a funding arrangement between the OTTE and a number of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) providers who deliver the education service.

Education in private prisons is provided by way of contractual arrangements between OTTE and the individual prisons, who then subcontract education providers.

Corrections: prisons — illicit drugs

4798. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): With reference to HM Prison Ararat, HM Prison Barwon, HM Prison Bendigo, HM Prison Dhurringile, HM Prison Langi Kal Kal, HM Prison Loddon, HM Melbourne Assessment Prison, HM Prison Tarrengower, Fulham Correctional Centre, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre and Port Phillip Prison:

(1) What was total number of prisoners at each facility that tested positive for illicit drug use between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(2) What percentage of the total prison population at each facility that tested positive for illicit drug use between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(3) What was the performance benchmark as a percentage of total prison population allowable for illicit drug use as agreed in the Service Agreement for Public Prisons and the Contract Agreement for Private Prisons at each facility between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(4) What was the total cost of drug treatment at each facility between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(5) What was the total number of prisoners treated for illicit drug use at each facility between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(6) What was the maximum number of prisoners at each facility who could access drug treatment programs between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(7) How many prisoners were unable to access drug treatment programs due to resource constraints at

each facility between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

(8) What was total number of prisoners who accessed drug awareness programs at each facility between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005, respectively.

ANSWER:

I am advised that:

The percentage of positive results from random urine tests, for the period 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 was 4.86%. This is based upon a random general figure, whereby a sample of the prison population is tested, and this figure is used to indicate the positive rate for the entire prison population.

The 2003/2004 figure uses a new calculation method, broadening the positive result to include test ‘refusals’ and ‘unables’ - both of which were previously excluded.

This is a new calculation method introduced from 1 July 2003, and therefore the 2003/2004 figure is not comparable to figures released for previous periods.

The period 1 July 2004 and 28 February 2005 is not a standard reporting period. Figures for this period are not comparable to full financial year figures, due to reasons including seasonal fluctuations in prison population.

Sufficiently detailed information to answer other parts of this question, and to provide a breakdown of these figures for each prison, is not readily available without substantially and unreasonably diverting the resources of Corrections Victoria.

Environment: carbon tender program

4831. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Environment): In relation to stage one of the Carbon Tender program:

(1) How many farmers have entered into contracts.

(2) Was all $900,000 allocated to farmers; if not, how were the funds allocated.

(3) Were all contracts offered to best value bidders (based on $ per tonne of CO2 offered to DSE).

(4) What was the highest value per tonne.

(5) What was the lowest value per tonne.

(6) How many hectares will be revegetated in stage one.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(1) Contracts have been offered to 23 land-holders for 26 sites. As at 4 May 2005 contracts had been entered into for 16 of the 26 sites.

(2) A total of $807,518 has been allocated. Contracts were not offered beyond this as the reserve price (the ceiling price the Government is prepared to pay to land-holders for CO2 sequestered) was exceeded and subsequent bids would not represent good value in terms of $ per tonne of CO2. All of the $807,518 will go to land-holders as they meet the performance requirements of the contract. The balance of the $900,000 allocation will be carried forward to the next Carbon Tender auction scheduled for June 2005, as will any funds for contracts not taken up by land-holders.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(3) Contracts were only offered to the 26 best value bids out of 33 eligible bids that were received. These 26 bids

were below the reserve price. The seven bidders above the reserve price were advised of the median price and are all eligible to bid again in Stage 2. They were also provided advice by DSE officers about other land use options apart from Carbon Tender.

(4) The highest price offered was $47.34 per tonne of CO2.

(5) The lowest price offered was $2.95 per tonne of CO2. The median price was $16.19 per tonne of CO2.

(6) If all contracts that were offered are taken up by land-holders there will be 167 hectares of revegetation. If there are land-holders who withdraw from the process this number will decrease. As noted above, should this be the case, residual funds will be carried forward to the next Carbon Tender auction round.

Transport: roadside noise barriers

4879. THE HON. GORDON RICH-PHILLIPS — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the installation of roadside noise barriers on existing roads:

(1) Does VicRoads have a list of sites where it proposes to erect barriers.

(2) How many sites are on VicRoads’ list.

(3) What criteria are applied in determining which sites will receive barriers.

(4) How many roads have had barriers erected in 2004-05 (to date), and what was the cost of this work.

(5) How much funding is available in the 2005-06 budget for the installation of roadside noise barriers on existing roads.

(6) Is the section of the Monash Freeway between the Clyde Road overpass and the Princes Highway on VicRoads’ list to have roadside noise barriers installed; if so, will this be within the 2005-06 financial year and what is the estimated cost of that installation.

ANSWER:

As at the date the question was raised, the answers are :

(1) VicRoads has a list of sites for which proposals for noise attenuation have been developed, as they meet the criteria for the retrofitting of noise attenuation on existing roads.

(2) There are currently 19 sites across the State on VicRoads’ list.

(3) The factors taken into account in determining which sites will receive barriers are measured noise levels, the number of properties that would benefit and the estimated cost. Any proposal for noise barriers is considered for funding on the basis of its relative priority when compared with other road improvement proposals across the State.

(4) Aside from roads where noise barriers have been funded by developers, no existing roads have been retrofitted with noise barriers in 2004/05.

(5) A total of $660 million has been allocated to improve roads and transport in the 2005/06 Budget. The amount for noise barriers is yet to be announced.

(6) Three of the sites on VicRoads’ list are on the section of the Princes Freeway between the Clyde Road overpass and the Princes Highway, east of the overpass. The estimated cost for installing noise barriers at these three sites is in excess of $4 million. The details of funding for noise attenuation in the 2005/06 Program have not yet been announced. There are no sites on VicRoads’ list on the section of the Princes

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Freeway between the Clyde Road overpass and the Princes Highway west of the overpass. A 450-metre-long developer-funded noise barrier has recently been erected along the southern section of the Princes Freeway west of the Clyde Road overpass.

Community services: Human Services — disability services division budget

4885. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Disability Services Division 2005-06 budget, under which output group are each of the following activities:

(a) Case management;

(b) Aids and equipment;

(c) Independent living training;

(d) Respite;

(e) Therapy;

(f) Building inclusive communities;

(g) Community options;

(h) Day Programs;

(i) Futures for Young Adults;

(j) Moving Ahead;

(k) Recreation;

(l) HomeFirst;

(m) Outreach;

(n) Family options;

(o) Flexible Support Packages;

(p) Individual Support;

(q) Shared Supported Accommodation;

(r) Transitional Accommodation;

(s) Congregate Care;

(t) Behaviour intervention;

(u) Criminal justice;

(v) Services quality;

(w) System support and innovation;

(x) Training and development;

(y) Advocacy;

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(z) Information;

(aa) Peak organisations; and

(bb) Intake and response.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The following activities come under the following 2005-06 output groups.

Activity Output Group

a) Case Management Information, Assessment and Planning

b) Aids and Equipment Primary Support

c) Independent Living Training Primary Support

d) Respite Primary Support

e) Therapy Primary Support

f) Building Inclusive Communities Community Participation and Inclusion

g) Community Options Community Participation and Inclusion

h) Day Programs Community Participation and Inclusion

i) Futures for Young Adults Community Participation and Inclusion

j) Moving Ahead Community Participation and Inclusion

k) Recreation Community Participation and Inclusion

l) HomeFirst Individual Support

m) Outreach Individual Support

n) Family Options – This activity has merged with the activity Flexible Support Packages that comes under the Individual Support output group

Individual Support

o) Flexible Support Packages Individual Support

p) Individual Support Individual Support

q) Shared Supported Accommodation Residential Accommodation Support

r) Transitional Accommodation Residential Accommodation Support

s) Congregate Care Residential Accommodation Support

t) Behaviour Intervention Primary Support

u) Criminal Justice Primary Support

v) Service Quality Information, Assessment and Planning

w) System Support and Innovation Information, Assessment and Planning

x) Training and Development) Information, Assessment and Planning

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Activity Output Group

y) Advocacy Community Participation and Inclusion

z) Information Information, Assessment and Planning

aa) Peak Organisations Information, Assessment and Planning

bb) Intake and Response Information, Assessment and Planning

Community services: Signposts packages — funding

4886. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Signposts packages for 2004-05:

(1) How many Signposts packages were funded.

(2) How much funding was allocated to the Signposts packages.

(3) How many Signposts packages are being transferred from the Individual Support output group to the Early Childhood Intervention Services output and what amount of funding will be transferred.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the Signposts packages for 2004-05.

1) 550 Signposts packages were funded.

2) $0.8m of state funding was allocated in the 2004-05 Budget for the Signpost program.

3) 550 Signpost packages have been transferred from the Individual Support output to the Early Childhood Intervention Services output with funding of $2.5m inclusive of Commonwealth funding for 2004-05.

Community services: disability services — southern region

4887. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to people with disabilities in the Southern Region as at 30 June 2004:

(1) What was the total funding allocated to Shared Supported Accommodation.

(2) How much of the funding was for Department managed accommodation.

(3) How many beds were provided in Department managed accommodation.

(4) How much of the funding was for non-government managed accommodation.

(5) How many beds were provided in non-government managed accommodation.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

As at 30 June 2004:

1) Total funding allocated to Shared Supported Accommodation activity was $54.9m.

2) Funding allocated to Department managed accommodation was $24.3m.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


3) Information for Shared Supported Accommodation usage and capacity is reported through counts of people

accessing the service. The number of people in Department managed accommodation was 302.

4) Funding allocated to non-government accommodation was $30.6m.

5) Information for Shared Supported Accommodation usage and capacity is reported through counts of people accessing the service. The number of people in non-government managed accommodation was 515.


4888. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services):

(1) How many individuals on the Disability Services Needs Register as at December 2004 were people in the Southern Region waiting for —

(a) shared supported accommodation; (b) in-home accommodation support; and (c) day programs.

(2) For each category, how many were classified as —

(a) urgent priority; (b) high priority; and (c) low priority.

(3) For each category, how many were aged —

(a) under 18 years; (b) 18 to 24 years; (c) 25 to 29 years; and (d) 30 or more years.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In December 2004: (1) The number of individuals on the Disability Service Needs Register in the Southern region waiting for:

a) shared supported accommodation was 588;

b) HomeFirst was 266 (noting that in-home accommodation support and home first were merged into the activity HomeFirst in 2002-2003); and

c) day programs was 148.

(2) For each category, the number of individuals classified as:

a) urgent priority were;

Priority Shared Supported Accommodation

Home First Day programs

Urgent 203 179 112

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


b) high priority;



High 174 71 34

c) low priority



Low 211 16 2

(3) For each category the number of individuals aged:

Age Shared Supported Accommodation

Home First Day Programs

a) under 18 years 36 15 0 b) 18 to 24 years 94 33 3 c) 25 to 29 years 92 20 12 d) 30 or more years 366 198 133

It should be noted that most individuals on the service needs register classified as urgent, and other individuals receive interim and other supports whilst waiting for the nominated and/or assessed support service.


4889. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services):

(1) How many people in the Southern Region on the Service Needs Register —

(a) have a carer; (b) do not have a carer; (c) have their carer’s age recorded; and (d) do not have their carer’s age recorded.

(2) How many of the carers with their age recorded are —

(a) under 55 years of age; (b) 55 to 64 years; (c) 65 to 69 years; and (d) 70 or more years.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(1) In the Southern Region on the Service Needs Register –

(a) The number of people recorded as having a carer was 225.

(b) The number of people who did not have a carer or who did not have a carer recorded was 777.

(c) The number of people that had their carer’s age recorded was 214.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(d) The number of people that did not have their carer’s age recorded was 11.

(2) The ages of carers with their age recorded are:

(a) under 55 years of age – 94;

(b) 55 to 64 years – 57;

(c) 65 to 69 years – 20; and

(d) 70 or more years – 43.


4891. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the redevelopment of Kew Residential Services, how many of the residents will move to the Southern Region.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the redevelopment of Kew Residential Services, it is planned that 61 residents will move from Kew Residential Services to the Southern Region.

Community services: support and choice — individualised planning and support initiative

4896. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): Further to the answer to Question on Notice No 4166 given in this House on 15 December 2004 in relation to the Support and Choice-Individualised Planning and Support initiative in each region as at 30 June 2004:

(1) Of the approximately 16 per cent of packages with a value in excess of $20,000, how many were between —

(a) $20,001 and $40,000; (b) $40,001 and $65,000; and (c) $65,001 plus.

(2) Of the approximately 84 per cent of packages with a value less than $20,000 how many were —

(a) under $10,000; and (b) between $10,001 and $19,999.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

(1) As at 30 June 2004 – of the 16% of Individual Packages provided through Support and Choice with a value in excess of $20,000

(a) 11% were between $20,001 and $40,000 (b) 4.5% were between $40,001 and $65,000 (c) 0.5% were in excess of $65,001

(2) Of the 84% of packages with a value less than $20,000

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) 68% were less than $10,000 (b) 16% were between $10,001 and $20,000

Community services: disability services — flexible care packages

4897. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to flexible care packages for people with disabilities as at 30 June 2004:

(1) How many people were in receipt of —

(a) short-term assistance package; and (b) an ongoing assistance package.

(2) What was the Disability Services expenditure for —

(a) short-term assistance packages; and (b) ongoing assistance packages.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1) The number of people with a disability receiving a flexible care package as at 30 June 2004 was 3,258. The current data collection system does not support reporting specifically for a short-term assistance package or for an ongoing package.

2) Disability Services expenditure for flexible care packages as at 30 June 2004 was $25.1M. The financial management system does not record expenditure specifically for a short-term assistance package or for an ongoing package.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

1910 COUNCIL

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



Wednesday, 20 July 2005

Corrections: private prisons contract review notice

1806. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): In relation to HM Prison Barwon, HM Prison Beechworth, HM Prison Bendigo, HM Prison Dhurringile, HM Prison Langi Kal Kal, HM Prison Loddon, HM Melbourne Assessment Prison, HM Prison Tarrengower, HM Prison Won Wron, Fulham Correctional Centre, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre and Port Phillip Prison:

(a) When the Private Prisons Contract Review Notice was negotiated, what processes has the Government put in place to determine the security of the public prison system.

(b) When the Notice was negotiated, how did the review compare to the processes undertaken by the Government to secure the Public Prison system.

(c) What were the outcomes of the Notice and how did they benefit the Public Prison System.

(d) Under what time frame will the outcomes of the Notice be implemented.

ANSWER:

I am advised as follows:

(a) Security arrangements at the publicly operated prisons are constantly monitored by the Corrections Inspectorate, irrespective of whether or not a Private Prisons Contract Review process is being undertaken.

(b) The review process resulted in changes to the Correctional Standards, Healthcare Standards and Service Delivery Outcomes for the private prisons. In the private prison contracts the changes were contractually enforced, then, in order to ensure uniformity across the system, subsequently implemented across all publicly operated prisons. Prison security requirements are specifically outlined within the Correctional Standards and Service Delivery Outcomes, which form Annexures Q and T to the private prison contracts.

The same Service Delivery Outcomes apply across the publicly operated prisons.

(c) As above, the changes implemented by the Private Prison Contract Review process were replicated across the public system, to ensure that Standards and service delivery requirements continued to be consistently applied across the system.

(d) The outcomes of the Notice were implemented at the private prisons in September 2002 and adopted across the public prison system on 1 July 2003. They are monitored on a monthly basis across all public and private prisons.

Transport: Spencer Street Station Authority — interstate and overseas travel

4101. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to interstate and overseas travel by the members and staff of the Spencer Street Station Authority in 2003-04:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(1) How many trips were undertaken.

(2) What costs were associated with the travel.

ANSWER:


Trip number Interstate/Overseas Costs associated with trip One Interstate $456.58 Two Interstate $987.75 Three Interstate $783.95 Four Interstate $677.44 Five Interstate $297.16

Transport: V/Line — revenue and passenger journeys

4146. THE HON. DAVID KOCH — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport):

(1) What was been the cash farebox revenue received by V/Line between 1 January to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 30 September 2004.

(2) What amount was received for each of the same periods a year earlier.

(3) How many individual passenger journeys were made on V/Line in each of the periods in (1) and (2) above.

ANSWER:


(1) & (2): V/Line Cash Farebox

Year 1 January to

30 June 1 July to

30 September 2003 $20,138,460 $9,745,070 2004* $18,887,313 $10,614,758

(3): Passenger Journeys on V/Line

Year 1 January to

30 June 1 July to

30 September 2003 3,666,229 1,893,207 2004* 3,324,140 1,874,796

* RFR occupations commenced in January 2004 and continued to affect the delivery of rail services until 7 July 2004.

Transport: Victorian Rail Freight Advisory Council — entertainment expenses

4200. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the Victorian Rail Freight Advisory Council’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


There were no entertainment expenses incurred in excess of $500 in 2003-2004 by the Victorian Rail Freight Advisory Council.

Transport: Marine Safety Victoria — entertainment expenses

4284. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to Marine Safety Victoria’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


Marine Safety Victoria did not incur any entertainment expenses which exceeded $500 during the 2003-04 financial year.

Transport: Spencer Street Station Authority — entertainment expenses

4288. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the Spencer Street Station Authority’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:


Date: 19 May 2003 Cost: $522.27 Number of guests: 9 Purpose: Board luncheon Service provider: Victoria Club

Date: 25 September 2003 Cost: $1014.00 Number of guests: 60 Purpose: Farewell lunch for staff taking voluntary departure packages Service provider: Aussie Fingerfood Catering

Date: 30 September 2003 Cost: $3950.00 Number of guests: 10 Purpose: Table sponsorship for Committee for Melbourne annual dinner Service provider: Committee for Melbourne

Date: 19 November 2003 Cost: $566.82 Number of guests: 8 Purpose: Board luncheon Service provider: Victoria Club

Date: 20 October 2003 Cost: $1100 Number of guests: 10 Purpose: Property Council of Australia Christmas luncheon Service provider: Property Council of Australia

Date: 11 December 2003 Cost: $3713.63 (Note: Staff contributed $1890 to this event. While the Authority was

invoiced $3713.63 the amount minus staff contributions was $2195) Number of guests: 43 Purpose: Staff Christmas party Service provider: Cruise Victoria

Date: 19 February 2004 Cost: $1500.00 Number of guests: 10 Purpose: IPAA Victoria, International Women's Day dinner Service provider: Institute of Public Administration Australia

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Transport: VicRoads — entertainment expenses

4290. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to VicRoads’ entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


Entertainment expenses incurred by VicRoads in excess of $500 during 2003-04 consist of the following:-

Date incurred Cost Number of guests

Purpose Name of service provider

12-12-2003 $1,800 65 Recognition of staff contributions

Kent Hotel

18-12-2003 $1,000 29 Recognition of staff contributions

Churches Restaurant

Transport: Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd — payments


(1) What payments have been made to Shannon’s Way Pty Ltd by the Minister’s department or private office or agency or statutory body under the Minister’s administration since 28 October 2003.



ANSWER:


(1) One payment of $13,300 plus GST was made by the Department of Infrastructure. There have been no payments made to the Company by the Minister's Office or by any Agency or Statutory Body under the Minister’s administration.

(2) 27 December 2003.

(3) The payment related to the provision of strategic advice on the Multi Purpose Taxi Programme.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Police and emergency services: Police Appeals Board — advertising and credit card expenditure

4786. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to the Police Appeals Board:



ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the Police Appeals Board:

(1) The advertising expenditure in 2003-04 was nil.

(2) The credit card expenditure in 2003-04 was $8,492. Credit cards are used by the Police Appeals Board for ad-hoc type purchases where it is not feasible to create a purchase order and/or supplier. This is normally for small purchases between $10.00 and $200.00 from small-to-medium companies where the purchase is considered to be a one-off event. The card is not used for travel and entertainment expenses and is also not used for payment of regular invoices.

Police and emergency services: State Emergency Services — advertising and credit card expenditure

4789. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to the State Emergency Service (SES):



ANSWER:

I am informed that:

In relation to the State Emergency Service (SES):

(1) The advertising expenditure in 2003-04 was $8,831.20, consisting of mandatory notices and general advertising as per the Victorian Government Advertising-Master Agency Media Service Contract.

(2) The credit card expenditure in 2003-04 was $301,950.38. The VICSES credit card expenditure includes the payment of various utility accounts such as telephone, electricity, gas and rates incurred within the State Headquarters and Central Regional building located in Southbank, the five Regional Headquarters and the three supporting offices. It will also include training exercises and emergency management activities that involve accommodation and meals.

ANSWER:

Corrections: home detention program

4796. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): In relation to HM Prison Ararat, HM Prison Barwon, HM Prison Bendigo, HM Prison Dhurringile, HM Prison Langi Kal Kal, HM Prison Loddon, HM Prison Tarrengower, Fulham Correctional Centre, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre and Port Phillip Prison for the period 1 April 2004 to 28 February 2005 inclusive:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(1) What was the total number of prisoners undertaking the Home Detention Program.

(2) What was the total number of female prisoners undertaking the Program.

(3) What was the total number of male prisoners undertaking the Program.

(4) What was the total number of breaches of those prisoners undertaking the Program.

(5) What was the breach for that prisoner causing him or her returning to jail.

ANSWER:

I am advised that:

The following table provides a breakdown of the total number of prisoners undertaking the Home Detention Program for the prisons requested from 1 April 2004 to 28 February 2005, in accordance with parts one to five of the question.

Home Detention Program: 1 April 2004 to 28 February 2005

Prison (1) Prisoner Numbers

(2) Female

Prisoner Numbers

(3) Male

Prisoner Numbers

(4) Number of Breaches

(5) Type of Breach

HMP Tarrengower 4 4

Dame Phyllis Frost Centre 7 7 1 Positive Drug Test

HMP Ararat 1 1

HMP Barwon

HMP Bendigo

HMP Dhurringile 17 17

HMP Langi Kal Kal 5 5

Fulham Correctional Centre 10 10

Port Phillip Prison 0

HMP Loddon 13 13

Total 57 11 46 1

Please note that whilst there have been three Breaches, only one breach was in relation to a prisoner undertaking the Home Detention Program; the remaining two breaches relate to court imposed Home Detention orders.

Corrections: prisoners — unemployed

4799. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Corrections): In relation to the over-representation of the unemployed adult population of Victorian jails:

(1) What programs linked within the prison system is specifically tailored for unemployed adult prisoners.

(2) How did the level of funding determine the availability for such programs between 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July 2004 to 28 February 2005, respectively.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:

I am advised that:

1. The Correctional Services Employment Pilot Program (CSEPP) provides direct intensive employment assistance to prisoners of; Dhurringile, Loddon, Tarrengower, Barwon, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, and Fulham Correctional Centre.

CSEPP was established under the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy (CLTMS) and the Reducing Re-offending Framework and is an initiative of the Victorian Government. Originally established as a two year pilot (July 2002 – June 2004) the initiative was further extended for a 12 month period (July 2004 – June 2005).

The program was developed in response to an identified need for employment assistance for prisoners as unemployment is considered as a risk factor for re-offending.

2. The program is funded through the Corrections Long Term Management Strategy which determined that the pilot program would be delivered to seven prison locations, this number reduced to six prisons after the closure of Won Wron prison.

The level of funding has not altered since the inception of the program in June 2002 as it is in a pilot phase.

Transport: mobile traffic safety cameras — siting

4867. THE HON. ANDREW BRIDESON — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): What is the general criteria for the siting of mobile traffic safety cameras.

ANSWER:


This question does not fall within my portfolio responsibility and would be more appropriately answered by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

Transport: Waverley Road — mean speed

4869. THE HON. ANDREW BRIDESON — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): What is the mean speed of motor vehicles in Waverley Road between Warrigal Road, Chadstone and Jells Road, Wheelers Hill for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively.

ANSWER:


VicRoads has no mean speed data for this section of Waverley Road.

Transport: Waverley Road — accidents

4870. THE HON. ANDREW BRIDESON — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): How many casualty accidents have occurred in Waverley Road between Warrigal Road, Chadstone and Jells Road, Wheelers Hill during the past five years and at what locations.

ANSWER:


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


In the five-year period ending 31 December 2004, the following reported crashes occurred on Waverley Road between Warrigal Road, Chadstone and Jells Road, Wheelers Hill.

LOCATION CASUALTY CRASHES Warrigal Road 19 Huntingdale Road 13 Stephensons Road 20 Forster Road 6 Blackburn Road 12 Springvale Road 14 Gallaghers Road 3 Jells Road 0 Mid-block and other minor intersections 103 TOTAL 190


4890. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Southern Region:

(1) How many persons with disabilities waiting for shared supported accommodation obtained a place in a community residential unit for the year ended 30 June 2004.

(2) On average, for how many days had those people been waiting for a place.

ANSWER:

I am informed that in relation to the Southern region:

For the year ended 30 June 2004:

(1) The number of persons with disabilities that waited for a shared supported accommodation place and obtained a place in a community residential unit was 29.

(2) On average the people that waited for a shared supported accommodation place and obtained a place in a community residential unit had waited for 194 weeks, however these people have been receiving a range of supports and services.

Community services: disability services — Kew Residential Services

4898. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): Further to the answer to Question on Notice No 4684 given in this House on 21 April 2005 which states that as at 30 June 2004 there were 326 people in residence at Kew Residential Services, and the answer to Question on Notice No 4162 given in this House on 8 December 2004 which gives a total of 244 residents by unit of residence and the ages of 332 residents, how many residents were at Kew Residential Services as at 30 June 2004 —

(a) under 45 years of age;

(b) aged 45 to 55 years;

(c) aged 56 to 65 years;

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(d) aged 66 to 75 years; and

(e) over 75 years of age.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The answer to Question on Notice 4162 contained a transcription error. The list of units given was incomplete with corresponding numbers of residents in those units not listed. The total number of residents in residence as at 30 June 2004 (as was provided to the House in response to Question on Notice 4684) was 326. (The ages were given for 326 residents plus 6 residents who were then in transition).

To reiterate, there were 326 residents in Kew Residential Services as at 30 June 2004. Age categories for these 326 residents were:

Age Category Number of Residents under 45 years of age 129 aged 45 to 55 years 157 aged 56 to 65 years 32 aged 66 to 75 years 7 over 75 years of age 1

Community services: Disability Services Act — eligibility for services

4899. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): Further to the answer to Question on Notice No 4186 given in this House on 15 December 2004 which states that information is not collected on how many people were assessed as eligible to receive services under the Disability Services Act 1991 and their ages, why is this information not collected.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

Until recently only clients assessed under the Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (IDPSA 1986) were recorded in the information system. The information system holds information about clients that have been assessed under the Disability Services Act 1991 (DSA 1991) in the past 18 months. However, this data field is not mandatory and to date the responses to this question have not shown representative numbers of services being provided.

Victorian communities: Victorian Communities — budget 2005–06

4911. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Victorian Communities):

(1) Why is the total output cost of $10.2M in 2005-06 for Community Strengthening less than half the expected outcome of $21.3M for 2004-05 (Budget Paper No. 3, p.239), and if this is due to a change in reporting, will the Minister provide data showing the true comparables.

(2) Why has Employee Benefits budgeted to increase to $53.32M for 2005-06, which is $4.5M higher than the revised amount of $48.8M for 2004-05 (Budget Paper No. 4, p.133, Table 2.10.1 Operating Statement).

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(3) What component of the increase in Employee Benefits is made up of executive salary increases

compared with increases for other ordinary employees.

(4) Why is Grants and Other Payments for 2005-06 $450.9M, which is $53.55M higher than the revised amount for 2004-05 of $397.4M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.133, Table 2.10.1 Operating Statement).

(5) What component of the increase will be directed to community groups rather than directed to projects of other Government departments.

(6) Why was the revised amount for Grants and Other Payments for 2004-05 only $397.4M, which is $57.7M less than the 2004-05 budget amount of $435.7M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.287, Table C.10.1 Statement of Financial Performance).

(7) As the amount for Supplies and Services for 2005-06 of $146.4M, is $96M higher than the revised amount for 2004-05 of $50.4M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.133, Table 2.10.1 Operating Statement), why is there such an increase when the revised amount was $9.6M less than the budgeted amount for 2004-05 of $60.0M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.287, Table C.10.1 Statement of Financial Performance).

(8) As the amount for Output Appropriations for 2005-06 of $559.6M is $181.5M higher than the revised amount for 2004-05 of $378.1M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.133, Table 2.10.1 Operating Statement), why was there such an increase when the revised amount was $45.3M less than the budgeted amount for 2004-05 of $423.4M (Budget Paper No. 4, p.287, Table C.10.1 Statement of Financial Performance).

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

With regard to questions 1-3, I refer the Honourable Member to the transcript from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on May 13 for the Department for Victorian Communities where these questions were answered. Please refer to http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/paec/ for the transcript.

(4) The increase in “grants and other payments” in 2005-06 is the result of new initiatives in the 2005-06 budgets as well as the cost of running the Commonwealth Games in 2005-06.

(5) The major increase in grant expenditure is related to the Office of Commonwealth Games payments to M2006 associated with running the Commonwealth Games in 2006 and not community groups.

(6) Grant payments in the 2004-05 revised budgets were reduced due to the early payment of a Commonwealth grant in late 2003-04, whereas the 2004-05 Budget was based on the payment occurring in 2004-05. The payment relates to the Commonwealth Government’s contribution to the Commonwealth Games.

(7) The increase in supplies and services is as a result of new initiatives in the 2005-06 Budget and the running of the Commonwealth Games in 2005-06.

(8) The increase in the appropriation from the revised budget in 2004-05 to 2005-06 is as a result of new initiatives in the 2005-06 Budget and the funding of the Commonwealth Games in 2005-06. The latter is reflected in the increase in the Output cost for the Commonwealth Games reflected in Budget Paper No 3.

Victorian communities: Victorian Communities — performance measures

4913. THE HON. ANDREA COOTE — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Victorian Communities): In relation to the Minister’s ‘Welcome’ on the website www.communitybuilding.vic.gov.au:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(1) How successful has the Department for Victorian Communities been in building on the lessons.

(2) What Key Performance Indicators or other performance measures, monitoring and evaluation does the Department employ to carry out its role.

(3) Since its inception, has the Department itself, excluding specific projects funded from the Community Support Fund, markedly changed community building and strengthening in Victoria and how is this measured.

ANSWER:


(1) The Department for Victorian Communities and indeed the Victorian Government has successfully put a range of processes into place to build on these lessons. This is demonstrated in the Victorian Government’s social policy statement A Fairer Victoria which outlines interventions designed to improve opportunities and outcomes for the most disadvantaged people and places in Victoria, using the lessons of community strengthening as a foundation for a whole of government approach.

(2) The performance measures for the Department for Victorian Communities are reported each year in Budget Paper 3. In addition to the estimated results presented in this document, actual results as at 30 June are published in the Department’s annual report each year.

(3) Since its inception the Department for Victorian Communities has established a Departmental structure and key strategies that have markedly changed community building and strengthening in Victoria, as outlined in DVC’s Corporate Plan, Annual Report and the Victorian Government’s social policy statement A Fairer Victoria. Changes in the delivery of community building/strengthening activities are evidenced by key changes in government such as the streamlining of DVC grants, the establishment of DVC local teams and the adoption, wherever possible, of a joined up approach.

In terms of measuring the effect of changes in community strengthening: At its broadest, the Department for Victorian Communities has developed a community strengthening Outcomes Framework and populated it with a set of indicators to monitor the combined effect of the actions of the community, government and business on key aspects of community strength. These are reported in three reports:

- Indicators of Community Strength Victoria 2004; - Report Card on Measuring Community Strength in Victoria 2004; and, - Indicators of Community Strength at the Local Government Area Level in Victoria 2005.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE



Thursday, 21 July 2005

Transport: Connex — punctuality and reliability reporting

1722. THE HON. DAVID KOCH — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): When will Connex commence publicly reporting its punctuality and reliability statistics on a line-by-line basis rather than on a system-wide basis.

ANSWER:

As the date the question was raised, the answer is:

The Bracks Government publishes monthly train performance data on a line by line basis every year in Track Record. There are no plans to alter these arrangements.

Track Record is available online at www.doi.vic.gov.au.

Transport: Yarra Trams — punctuality and reliability reporting


(a) Are there are plans for Yarra Trams to report its punctuality and reliability statistics on a line-by-line basis similar to the previous practice of the now defunct M>Train; if so, from what month will this occur.

(b) What was the punctuality and reliability percentage performance for each tram route between 18 April and 30 April 2004.

ANSWER:


Line-by-line operational results are published in Track Record, a Department of Infrastructure publication available online at www.doi.vic.gov.au.

Transport: M>Train Siemens cars


(a) How many of the Siemens three car sets had been accepted by M>Train following testing as at — (i) 1 March 2004; and (ii) 12 May 2004.

(b) How many further three car sets are expected to be delivered by — (i) 31 May 2004; (ii) 31 August 2004; (iii) 30 November 2004; and (iv) 28 February 2005.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


ANSWER:


Information on new trains is available online at www.doi.vic.gov.au/transport.

Transport: City Circle Tram Promotion Committee — stress-related leave

1866. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to staff members of the City Circle Tram Promotion Committee on stress related leave in 2002-03, what was the — (i) number of days taken; (ii) estimated cost; and (iii) total number of staff involved.

ANSWER:

As at the date the Question was raised, the answer is:

During 2002-03 no member of the Committee took stress leave and thus no related costs were incurred.

Transport: Victorian Bicycle Advisory Committee — stress-related leave

1871. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to staff members of the Victorian Bicycle Advisory Committee on stress related leave in 2002-03, what was the — (i) number of days taken; (ii) estimated cost; and (iii) total number of staff involved.

ANSWER:

As at the date the Question was raised the answer is:

The Victorian Bicycle Advisory Council has no staff members.

Transport: public transport zones — revenue

3677. THE HON. PHILIP DAVIS — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): For each year since 2002, what is the annual revenue collected in zones 3, 2 and 1, respectively.

ANSWER:


Track Record, a publication of the Department of Infrastructure, contains information on farebox revenue. It is available online at www.doi.vic.gov.au.

Transport: City Saver tickets — revenue

3678. THE HON. PHILIP DAVIS — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): What has been the revenue generated from the sale of the new ‘City Saver’ public transport tickets for each month since it was introduced.

ANSWER:


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Track Record, a publication of the Department of Infrastructure, contains information on farebox revenue. It is available online at www.doi.vic.gov.au.

Police and emergency services: minister’s office — alcohol purchases

4080. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Energy Industries (for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services): In relation to alcohol purchased by the Minister’s Office since 1 January 2002, what was the —

(a) date of each purchase;

(b) value of each purchase; and

(c) items purchased.

ANSWER:


The research required to provide a response would place an unreasonable burden on the time and resources of my office.

However, since becoming Minister for Police and Emergency Services in January 2005, no alcohol has been purchased by the Ministerial Office.

Transport: Infrastructure — freedom of information requests

4145. THE HON. DAVID KOCH — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the 349 Freedom of Information (FOI) applications received in 2003-04 by the Department of Infrastructure:

(1) How many were —

(a) granted access to in full;

(b) granted access to in part;

(c) denied access to; and

(d) treated as withdrawn.

(2) What was the result of each FOI appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2003-04.

(3) How many FOI applications were processed within 45 days in 2003-04.

(4) Why does the information regarding these applications not appear in the Department of Infrastructure’s Annual Report for 2003-04.

ANSWER:


(1)(a) – (c) This data has been reported in the FOI Annual Report published by the Attorney General, tabled in Parliament on 9 December 2004.

(1)(d) 9.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(2) This data has been reported in the FOI Annual Report published by the Attorney General, tabled in

Parliament on 9 December 2004.

(3) 259.

(4) There is no requirement to do so. Information of this sort is detailed in the FOI Annual report published by the Attorney General.

State and regional development: Docklands Film and Television Studios complex project

4170. THE HON. GRAEME STONEY — To ask the Minister for Small Business (for the Minister for State and Regional Development): Further to the answer to Question No. 1675, given in this House on 5 October 2004, concerning the film and television studios at Docklands:

(1) For what purpose was the document released to the Opposition under Freedom of Information entitled ‘Minister for State and Regional Development. Subject — Film and Television Studio: Update and information for your meeting (tbc) with Peter Bartels and [name deleted] on the project’ compiled.

(2) Was a meeting ever scheduled (not just during the tender process) between the Minister for State and Regional Development and Mr Peter Bartels.

(3) Did a meeting ever take place (not just during the tender process) between the Minister for State and Regional Development and Mr Peter Bartels.

ANSWER:


I did not meet with Mr Peter Bartels in relation to the Docklands Film and Television Studios Project during the tender process.

The document released under the FOI was a draft, with no formal status which was held within the Department. There was never any such meeting scheduled or held during the tender process

Transport: Urban and Regional Land Corporation — entertainment expenses

4289. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the Urban and Regional Land Corporation’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


The Urban and Regional land Corporation does not fall within the Minister for Transport’s portfolio. Your question should be directed to the Minister for Major Projects.

Transport: Victorian Channels Authority — entertainment expenses

4291. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the Victorian Channels Authority’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


The following expenses were incurred by the Victorian Channels Authority (VCA) for the period 2003 until the VCA ceased to exist on 31 March 2004.

Date Cost No Guest Purpose Provider

13-Aug-03 $1,321.89 25 Channel Deepening Project – transfer from VCA to Port of Melbourne Corporation

Luscious Affairs

02-Mar-04 $2,375.00 60 Function to mark end of VCA Victorian Club

Transport: VicTrack — entertainment expenses

4293. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to VicTracks’ entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Date Incurred

Cost Number of Guests

Purpose Name of Service Provider

28/8/03 $2,583.50 57 Function held in recognition of a staff member accumulating more than 50 years service.

Grand Hotel, Spencer Street, Melbourne.

10/12/03 $4,635.00 88 Function for VicTrack Board and staff.

Holiday Inn, Spencer Street, Melbourne.

19/12/03 $1,427.16 58 Informal barbeque for VicTrack customers.

IGA North Melbourne.

Transport: City Circle Tram Promotion Committee — entertainment expenses

4294. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the City Circle Tram Promotion Committee’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:


The City Circle Tram Promotional Committee incurred no such entertainment expenses.

Multicultural affairs: VITS Language Link — entertainment expenses

4350. THE HON. RICHARD DALLA-RIVA — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Multicultural Affairs): In relation to VITS Language Link’s entertainment expenses incurred in 2003-04, what are the details, in relation to expenses in excess of $500, including the —

(a) date incurred;

(b) cost;


(d) purpose; and


ANSWER:

I am informed that the response is:

(a) 15 December 2003 (b) $3,110.50 (inclusive of GST) (c) 298

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(d) Networking function held once every two to three years. (e) The Apartments Restaurant, Little Bourke Street Melbourne

Transport: V/Line — services

4654. THE HON. WENDY LOVELL — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport):

(1) Did the Bendigo–Echuca–Bendigo V/Line passenger rail service last operate on 19 December 2004; if not, when.

(2) Are Pacific National freight trains still operating on that line.

(3) Was the maximum speed for V/Line ‘Sprinter’ railcars 80 kilometres an hour when passenger trains were running; if not, what was the maximum speed.

(4) Will V/Line passenger services return to this route through Rochester; if so, when.

(5) What date did the Rail Safety Regulator declare that the line was unsafe for passenger trains operating at a maximum speed of 80 kilometres an hour.

(6) What is the estimated cost of repairs to the North Bendigo Junction–Echuca line to allow passenger trains to again operate at 80 kilometres an hour.

(7) How many kilometres of track between North Bendigo Junction and Echuca have to be repaired to prepare the line for passenger trains again.

(8) Will the line from Echuca to Kyabram and Toolamba reopen for Pacific National freight trains; if so, when, and what is the estimated cost based on a maximum speed of 10 kilometres an hour and 40 kilometres an hour.

(9) Will the line from Echuca to Kyabram and Toolamba reopen for the V/Line ‘Sprinter’ railcars; if so, when, and what is the estimated cost based on a maximum speed of 80 kilometres an hour.

(10) If passenger trains returned to the Echuca–Kyabram–Toolamba line, would the V/Line co-ordinated coach service between Echuca–Rushworth–Murchison East cease.

ANSWER:

As at the date the question was raised, the answers are:

(1) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes.

(4) Yes, when the Director Public Transport Safety is satisfied that the track is fit for purpose and the Bendigo Line Corridor, currently closed for Regional Fast Rail works, is available for use by passenger trains.

(5) 19 December 2004.

(6)&(7) Details regarding costs and scope of work are not yet available.

(8) The restarting of services is ultimately a matter for consideration by Pacific National, the track infrastructure manager and freight operator.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


(9) V/Line has no proposals to operate passenger train services over this section of railway.

(10) Not applicable; refer to (9) above.

Transport: mobile traffic safety cameras — siting

4868. THE HON. ANDREW BRIDESON — To ask the Minister for Local Government (for the Minister for Transport): In relation to the siting of mobile traffic safety cameras on Waverley Road between Warrigal Road, Chadstone and Jells Road, Wheelers Hill:

(1) What are the precise locations of such cameras.

(2) What are the criteria for placing the cameras at each location.

(3) How many traffic infringement notices have been issued for each site.

(4) What amount of fines have been collected from each site, for each quarter, for each of the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

ANSWER:


The question does not fall within my portfolio responsibility and would be more appropriately answered by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.


4892. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): As at 30 June 2004, how many people with disabilities in the Southern Region were in receipt of —

(a) accommodation outreach support;

(b) family options support;

(c) Flexible Support Packages;

(d) HomeFirst;

(e) individualised support packages;

(f) Shared Supported Accommodation; and

(g) Transitional Accommodation support.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

As at 30 June 2004 the number of people with disabilities in the Southern region in receipt of the following was:

a) Accommodation Outreach Support – 194 b) Family Options – 37 c) Flexible Support Packages – 795 d) HomeFirst – 138 e) Individualised Support Packages – 204

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


f) Shared Supported Accommodation – 816 g) Transitional Accommodation Support – 1


4893. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): In relation to the Southern Region:

(1) How many people were assessed as eligible to receive services under the Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 as at 30 June 2004.

(2) How many of these were aged under 18 years and 18 or more years, respectively.

(3) How many people were assessed as eligible to receive services under the Disability Services Act 1991, and how many of these were aged under 18 years.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

1) The number of people in the Southern region that were assessed as eligible to receive services under the Intellectually Disable Persons’ Services Act 1986 as at 30 June 2004 was 3,239.

2) The number of these people aged under 18 years was 517 and 18 or more years was 2,722.

3) This information is not available (see response to Question No. 4899).

Community services: disability services — needs register

4894. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): For each category on the Disability Services Needs Register as at December 2004, how many individuals were aged —

(a) under 18 years;

(b) 18 to 24 years;

(c) 25 to 29 years; and

(d) 30 or more years.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The number of individuals on the SNR as at 21 December 2004 (the date final SNR numbers for 2004 were extracted) for each category in the following age groups were:

Age group Shared Supported Accommodation

Day Programs HomeFirst

under 18 years 238 6 125

18 to 24 years 645 42 276

25 to 29 years 406 39 147

30 years or more 1729 448 980

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE


Community services: support and choice — individualised planning and support initiative

4895. THE HON. BILL FORWOOD — To ask the Minister for Aged Care (for the Minister for Community Services): Further to the answer to Question on Notice No 4165 given in this House on 15 December 2004 which informs of a central allocation of 12 people for the Support and Choice-Individualised Planning and Support initiative, what amount of funding is allocated for this central allocation.

ANSWER:

I am informed that:

The amount of funding identified in Question 4165, as being allocated centrally to 12 people was $640,000.

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 July 2005 COUNCIL i

MEMBERS INDEX

ARGONDIZZO, Ms (Templestowe)

Members statements

Family violence court: establishment, 1700

Questions without notice

Consumer affairs: credit, 1863

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

Alert Digest No. 8, 1704

ATKINSON, Hon. B. N. (Koonung)

Adjournment

Melbourne: car park levy, 1733

Bills

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1802

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1719, 1729

Economic Development Committee

Labour hire, 1703

Members statements

Locksmiths: security laws, 1741 Melbourne Victory Football Club, 1829

Points of order, 1693, 1731, 1732, 1740


Commonwealth Games: compensation, 1696, 1697, 1862

Racing: industry potential, 1767

BAXTER, Hon. W. R. (North Eastern)

Adjournment

Pest plants and animals: control, 1734

Bills

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1708, 1730

Members statements

Victorian Farmers Federation: annual conference, 1700


Insurance: fire services levy, 1775

Statements on reports and papers

Victorian WorkCover Authority: report 2003–04, 1838

BOWDEN, Hon. R. H. (South Eastern)

Adjournment

Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic control, 1885

Bills

Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1817

Members statements

Taiwan Trade Mission, 1701

Petitions

Western Port Highway, Lyndhurst: traffic control, 1739


Commonwealth Games: compensation, 1777

Rulings, 1873

BRIDESON, Hon. Andrew (Waverley)

Bills

Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1780

Rulings, 1805, 1806

BROAD, Ms (Melbourne North) (Minister for Local Government and Minister for Housing)

Bills

National Parks (Point Nepean) Bill, 1843


Housing: tenants’ rights, 1777 Hume: councillor, 1774 Local government: elections, 1690, 1695

BUCKINGHAM, Hon. H. E. (Koonung)

Bills

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1724 Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1785 Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1814

Members statements

Immigration: Palmer report, 1830 Terrorism: London bombings, 1702


Energy: nuclear power, 1773

Rulings, 1856, 1858

MEMBERS INDEX

ii COUNCIL 19, 20 and 21 July 2005

CARBINES, Ms (Geelong)

Adjournment

Chewton: dingo farm, 1888

Bills


Members statements

Barwon Heads: multipurpose facility, 1832 Terrorism: London bombings, 1701


Consumer affairs: advisory services, 1696

COOTE, Hon. Andrea (Monash)

Adjournment

Housing: advocacy funding, 1819

Members statements

Member for Central Highlands Province: Bashing the Bush, 1698

Points of order, 1873

Questions on notice

Answers, 1868

DALLA-RIVA, Hon. Richard (East Yarra)

Adjournment

Disability services: accommodation, 1820

Bills


Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1716

Members statements

HM Prison Langi Kal Kal: management, 1702

Points of order, 1805, 1806


Justice: asset confiscation operations — activities summary 2004–04, 1835

Office of Police Integrity: witness protection program, 1835

DARVENIZA, Hon. Kaye (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

Occupational health and safety: health care workers, 1890

Bills

Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1874

Members statements

Refugees: government assistance, 1830


Local government: elections, 1690


Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: violence associated with motor vehicle use, 1834

DAVIS, Hon. D. McL. (East Yarra)

Adjournment

Health: taxation, 1732

Bills

Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1852, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884


Members statements

Kew Residential Services: site development, 1829

Points of order, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1873


Melbourne Health: financial responsibility, 1772, 1773


Melbourne Health: report 2003–04, 1839

DAVIS, Hon. Philip (Gippsland)

Adjournment

Melbourne Markets: relocation, 1890

Members statements

Pest plants and animals: control, 1739 Won Wron prison: residential diversion program, 1832



Commonwealth Games: community participation, 1860, 1861 Gas: regional supply, 1778


Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes Entrance property sale, 1833

DRUM, Hon. D. K. (North Western)

Adjournment

Disability services: after-school care, 1820

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 July 2005 COUNCIL iii

Bills

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1795, 1808


Members statements

Bendigo: Chum Street palliative care house, 1741 Rail: Bendigo service, 1831


Rural and regional Victoria: sports facilities, 1863, 1864


EREN, Hon. J. H. (Geelong)

Adjournment

Dental services: waiting lists, 1886

Bills

Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1850 Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1790

Members statements

Gordon Institute of TAFE: upgrade, 1740 Industrial relations: federal legislation, 1829



Environment: sustainable workplaces, 1774

FORWOOD, Hon. Bill (Templestowe)

Adjournment

Electricity: prices, 1819

Bills

Accident Compensation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1743 Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1844

Members statements

Banyule: council elections, 1830



Electricity: Hazelwood power station, 1689, 1690 Environment: greenhouse gas emissions, 1865, 1866 WorkCover: workplace access, 1691

HADDEN, Ms (Ballarat)

Adjournment

Rural Ambulance Victoria: vehicle safety, 1891

Bills

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1725, 1727, 1729, 1730

Members statements

Hepburn: management, 1833


Gas: Creswick supply, 1867, 1868

HALL, Hon. P. R. (Gippsland)

Adjournment

Orbost Exhibition Centre: funding, 1890 Spencer Street station: disabled access, 1733

Bills

Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1847 Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1783 Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1813

Members statements

Bridges: East Gippsland, 1743


Consumer affairs: food labelling, 1692, 1693

HILTON, Hon. J. G. (Western Port)

Bills


Members statements

Mornington Peninsula: aged care facility, 1832 Terrorism: London bombings, 1702



WorkCover: third-party compensation, 1692


Auditor-General: managing stormwater flooding risks, 1837

HIRSH, Hon. C. D. (Silvan)

Members statements

Marie Wallace, 1702

MEMBERS INDEX

iv COUNCIL 19, 20 and 21 July 2005

JENNINGS, Mr Gavin (Melbourne) (Minister for Aged Care and

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)

Bills

Health Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884

Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1819 Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Bill, 1885 Tobacco (Amendment) Bill, 1884


Home and community care program: funding, 1861 National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee

Week, 1779 Stolen Generations Organisation: establishment, 1697

KOCH, Hon. David (Western)

Adjournment

Liquor: Dartmoor licence, 1732 Roads: funding, 1889

Bills


Members statements

Harness racing: country meetings, 1699

Racing: industry potential, 1746, 1770

LENDERS, Mr (Waverley) (Minister for Finance, Minister for Major Projects and Minister for WorkCover and the TAC)

Adjournment

Responses, 1734, 1821

Bills

Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1730

Business of the house

Sessional orders, 1705 Standing and sessional orders, 1780

National classification code

Films and computer games, 1703


Questions on notice

Answers, 1698, 1780, 1868, 1869


Environment: sustainable workplaces, 1774 Insurance: fire services levy, 1775 Melbourne Health: financial responsibility, 1772, 1773 WorkCover

third-party compensation, 1692 workplace access, 1691

LOVELL, Hon. W. A. (North Eastern)

Adjournment

Bridges: Echuca–Moama, 1731

Members statements

Sustainability and Environment: web site, 1699

Petitions

Police: schools program, 1703


MADDEN, Hon. J. M. (Doutta Galla) (Minister for Sport and Recreation and Minister for Commonwealth Games)

Adjournment

Responses, 1892

Bills

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1728, 1729, 1730 Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1792 National Parks (Point Nepean) Bill, 1810 Planning and Environment (Williamstown Shipyard) Bill, 1884

Classification guidelines

Publications, films and computer games, 1829

Members statements

Amy Gillett, 1699


Commonwealth Games community participation, 1860, 1861 compensation, 1696, 1697, 1777, 1862 infrastructure, 1776

Rural and regional Victoria: sports facilities, 1863, 1864 Sport and recreation: participation, 1868

Supreme Court judges

Report 2002–04, 1739

MIKAKOS, Ms (Jika Jika)

Bills


Members statements

Koori court: Mildura, 1742 Tertiary education and training: student unions, 1699

MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 July 2005 COUNCIL v


Home and community care program: funding, 1861


Justice: asset confiscation operations — activities summary 2003–04, 1842

MITCHELL, Hon. R. G. (Central Highlands)

Bills



Occupational health and safety: workplace accidents, 1693

NGUYEN, Hon. S. M. (Melbourne West)

Adjournment

Diabetes: multilingual advertising, 1819 Indonesia and Malaysia: Vietnamese monuments, 1891

Bills

Higher Education Acts (Amendment) Bill, 1791 Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1817

Members statements

John Byrne, 1741 Terrorism: London bombings, 1833


Commonwealth Games: infrastructure, 1776


Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee: violence associated with motor vehicle use, 1839

OLEXANDER, Hon. A. P. (Silvan)

Adjournment

Roads: Manningham, 1887

Bills


Members statements

Buses: Ringwood, 1740

PRESIDENT, The (Hon. M. M. Gould)

Rulings, 1693, 1694, 1731, 1732, 1740, 1741, 1747, 1857, 1886

Rulings by the Chair

Members: speaking time, 1771

Terrorism: London bombings, 1689

PULLEN, Mr (Higinbotham)

Bills

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1801, 1808


Housing: tenants’ rights, 1777



Economic Development Committee: labour hire, 1836

RICH-PHILLIPS, Hon. G. K. (Eumemmerring)

Bills

Commonwealth Games Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 1792, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810

Members statements

Commonwealth Games: economic impact, 1831


Auditor-General: managing intellectual property in government agencies, 1837

ROMANES, Ms (Melbourne) (See also DEPUTY PRESIDENT and CHAIR OF COMMITTEES, The)

Adjournment

Bicycles: city parking, 1887

Bills

Electoral Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill, 1721 Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1848

Members statements

Medical research: achievements, 1701 Melbourne Juvenile Justice Centre: beds, 1743


Stolen Generations Organisation: establishment, 1697



Auditor-General: managing stormwater flooding risks, 1840

SCHEFFER, Mr (Monash)

Bills


MEMBERS INDEX

vi COUNCIL 19, 20 and 21 July 2005

Members statements

Industrial relations: federal legislation, 1831


Information and communications technology: trade mission, 1866


SMITH, Mr (Chelsea)


Goldmining: Fosterville, 1865

SOMYUREK, Mr (Eumemmerring)

Adjournment

Tourism: south-eastern suburbs, 1889

Bills


Members statements

Terrorism: London bombings, 1742



National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee Week, 1779

STONEY, Hon. E. G. (Central Highlands)

Adjournment

State Emergency Service: horse units, 1886

Members statements

Schools: pre-driver education, 1742


THEOPHANOUS, Hon. T. C. (Jika Jika) (Minister for Energy Industries and Resources)

Bills

Energy Safe Victoria Bill, 1780, 1850



Electricity: Hazelwood power station, 1689, 1690 Energy: nuclear power, 1773 Environment: greenhouse gas emissions, 1865, 1866

Gas Creswick supply, 1867, 1868 regional supply, 1778, 1779

Goldmining: Fosterville, 1865 Occupational health and safety: workplace accidents, 1693

THOMSON, Hon. M. R. (Melbourne North) (Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Information and Communication Technology)

Bills



Consumer affairs advisory services, 1696 credit, 1863 food labelling, 1693

Information and communications technology: trade mission, 1866

VINEY, Mr (Chelsea)

Adjournment

Mitcham–Frankston project: EastLink, 1731, 1885

Bills


Members statements

Frankston-Cranbourne Road: duplication, 1739

Points of order, 1856, 1857, 1873


Sport and recreation: participation, 1868

VOGELS, Hon. J. A. (Western)

Adjournment

Melbourne University: Glenormiston campus, 1888

Bills


Members statements

Consumer affairs: food labelling, 1700


Hume: councillor, 1774 Local government: elections, 1695


MEMBERS INDEX

19, 20 and 21 July 2005 COUNCIL vii


Auditor-General: East Gippsland — Lakes Entrance property sale,1841

parliamentary debates (hansard) · 2005-12-09 · legislative council committees privileges...

Documents