parliamentary debates (hansard) · wednesday, 1 april 2009 council 1671 wednesday, 1 april 2009 the...

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-SIXTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

(Extract from book 5)

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

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor Professor DAVID de KRETSER, AC

The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable Justice MARILYN WARREN, AC

The ministry

Premier, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Brumby, MP

Deputy Premier, Attorney-General and Minister for Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. R. J. Hulls, MP

Treasurer, Minister for Information and Communication Technology, and Minister for Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. Lenders, MLC

Minister for Regional and Rural Development, and Minister for Skills and Workforce Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. M. Allan, MP

Minister for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. D. M. Andrews, MP

Minister for Community Development and Minister for Energy and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. P. Batchelor, MP

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

The Hon. R. G. Cameron, MP

Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. Helper, MP

Minister for Finance, WorkCover and the Transport Accident Commission, Minister for Water and Minister for Tourism and Major Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. T. J. Holding, MP

Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and Minister for Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. G. W. Jennings, MLC

Minister for Public Transport and Minister for the Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. L. J. Kosky, MP

Minister for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. J. M. Madden, MLC

Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. J. A. Merlino, MP

Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development, and Minister for Women’s Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. M. V. Morand, MP

Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Senior Victorians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. L. M. Neville, MP

Minister for Industry and Trade, and Minister for Industrial Relations. . . . The Hon. M. P. Pakula, MLC

Minister for Roads and Ports, and Minister for Major Projects . . . . . . . . . . The Hon. T. H. Pallas, MP

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

Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier on Veterans’ Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. A. G. Robinson, MP

Minister for Housing, Minister for Local Government and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. R. W. Wynne, MP

Cabinet Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr A. G. Lupton, MP

Legislative Council committees

Legislation Committee — Mr Atkinson, Ms Broad, Mrs Coote, Mr Drum, Ms Mikakos, Ms Pennicuik and Ms Pulford.

Privileges Committee — Ms Darveniza, Mr D. Davis, Mr Drum, Mr Jennings, Ms Mikakos, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Rich-Phillips.

Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration — Mr Barber, Ms Broad, Mr Guy, Mr Hall, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Rich-Phillips and Mr Viney.

Standing Orders Committee — The President, Mr Dalla-Riva, Mr D. Davis, Mr Hall, Mr Lenders, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Viney.

Joint committees

Dispute Resolution Committee — (Council): Mr D. Davis, Mr Hall, Mr Jennings, Mr Lenders and Ms Pennicuik. (Assembly): Mr Batchelor, Mr Cameron, Mr Clark, Mr Holding, Mr Lupton, Mr McIntosh and Mr Walsh.

Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee — (Council): Mrs Coote, Mr Leane and Ms Mikakos. (Assembly): Ms Beattie, Mr Delahunty, Mrs Maddigan and Mr Morris.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee — (Council): Mr Atkinson, Mr D. Davis and Mr Tee. (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr Crisp and Ms Thomson.

Education and Training Committee — (Council): Mr Elasmar and Mr Hall. (Assembly): Mr Dixon, Dr Harkness, Mr Herbert, Mr Howard and Mr Kotsiras.

Electoral Matters Committee — (Council): Ms Broad, Mr P. Davis and Mr Somyurek. (Assembly): Ms Campbell, Mr O’Brien, Mr Scott and Mr Thompson.

Environment and Natural Resources Committee — (Council): Mrs Petrovich and Mr Viney. (Assembly): Ms Duncan, Mrs Fyffe, Mr Ingram, Ms Lobato, Mr Pandazopoulos and Mr Walsh.

Family and Community Development Committee — (Council): Mr Finn and Mr Scheffer. (Assembly): Ms Kairouz, Mr Noonan, Mr Perera, Mrs Powell and Ms Wooldridge.

House Committee — (Council): The President (ex officio), Mr Atkinson, Ms Darveniza, Mr Drum, Mr Eideh and Ms Hartland. (Assembly): The Speaker (ex officio), Ms Beattie, Mr Delahunty, Mr Howard, Mr Kotsiras, Mr Scott and Mr K. Smith.

Law Reform Committee — (Council): Mrs Kronberg, Mr O’Donohue and Mr Scheffer. (Assembly): Mr Brooks, Mr Clark, Mr Donnellan and Mr Foley.

Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee — (Council): Mr Elasmar, Mr Guy and Ms Hartland. (Assembly): Ms Green, Mr Hodgett, Mr Nardella, Mr Seitz and Mr K. Smith.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee — (Council): Mr Dalla-Riva, Ms Huppert, Ms Pennicuik and Mr Rich-Phillips. (Assembly): Ms Munt, Mr Noonan, Mr Scott, Mr Stensholt, Dr Sykes and Mr Wells.

Road Safety Committee — (Council): Mr Koch and Mr Leane. (Assembly): Mr Eren, Mr Langdon, Mr Mulder, Mr Trezise and Mr Weller.

Rural and Regional Committee — (Council): Ms Darveniza, Mr Drum, Ms Lovell, Ms Tierney and Mr Vogels. (Assembly): Ms Marshall and Mr Northe.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee — (Council): Mr Eideh, Mr O’Donohue, Mrs Peulich and Ms Pulford. (Assembly): Mr Brooks, Mr Carli, Mr Jasper, Mr Languiller and Mr R. Smith.

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-SIXTH PARLIAMENT — FIRST SESSION

President: The Hon. R. F. SMITH

Deputy President: Mr BRUCE ATKINSON

Acting Presidents: Mr Eideh, Mr Elasmar, Mr Finn, Mr Leane, Ms Pennicuik, Mrs Peulich, Ms Pulford, Mr Somyurek and Mr Vogels

Leader of the Government: Mr JOHN LENDERS

Deputy Leader of the Government: Mr GAVIN JENNINGS

Leader of the Opposition: Mr DAVID DAVIS

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Ms WENDY LOVELL

Leader of The Nationals: Mr PETER HALL

Deputy Leader of The Nationals: Mr DAMIAN DRUM

Member Region Party Member Region Party Atkinson, Mr Bruce Norman Eastern Metropolitan LP Leane, Mr Shaun Leo Eastern Metropolitan ALP Barber, Mr Gregory John Northern Metropolitan Greens Lenders, Mr John Southern Metropolitan ALP Broad, Ms Candy Celeste Northern Victoria ALP Lovell, Ms Wendy Ann Northern Victoria LP Coote, Mrs Andrea Southern Metropolitan LP Madden, Hon. Justin Mark Western Metropolitan ALP Dalla-Riva, Mr Richard Alex Gordon Eastern Metropolitan LP Mikakos, Ms Jenny Northern Metropolitan ALP Darveniza, Ms Kaye Mary Northern Victoria ALP O’Donohue, Mr Edward John Eastern Victoria LP Davis, Mr David McLean Southern Metropolitan LP Pakula, Hon. Martin Philip Western Metropolitan ALP Davis, Mr Philip Rivers Eastern Victoria LP Pennicuik, Ms Susan Margaret Southern Metropolitan GreensDrum, Mr Damian Kevin Northern Victoria Nats Petrovich, Mrs Donna-Lee Northern Victoria LP Eideh, Mr Khalil M. Western Metropolitan ALP Peulich, Mrs Inga South Eastern Metropolitan LP Elasmar, Mr Nazih Northern Metropolitan ALP Pulford, Ms Jaala Lee Western Victoria ALP Finn, Mr Bernard Thomas C. Western Metropolitan LP Rich-Phillips, Mr Gordon Kenneth South Eastern Metropolitan LP Guy, Mr Matthew Jason Northern Metropolitan LP Scheffer, Mr Johan Emiel Eastern Victoria ALP Hall, Mr Peter Ronald Eastern Victoria Nats Smith, Hon. Robert Frederick South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Hartland, Ms Colleen Mildred Western Metropolitan Greens Somyurek, Mr Adem South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Huppert, Ms Jennifer Sue1 Southern Metropolitan ALP Tee, Mr Brian Lennox Eastern Metropolitan ALP Jennings, Mr Gavin Wayne South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Theophanous, Hon. Theo Charles Northern Metropolitan ALP Kavanagh, Mr Peter Damian Western Victoria DLP Thornley, Mr Evan William2 Southern Metropolitan ALP Koch, Mr David Frank Western Victoria LP Tierney, Ms Gayle Anne Western Victoria ALP Kronberg, Mrs Janice Susan Eastern Metropolitan LP Viney, Mr Matthew Shaw Eastern Victoria ALP Vogels, Mr John Adrian Western Victoria LP 1 Appointed 3 February 2009 2 Resigned 9 January 2009

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 1 APRIL 2009

PAPERS..........................................................................1671 MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Drugs: Forest Hill electorate....................................1671 Government: privatisation policy ...................1671, 1672 City of Manningham: climate change policy ...........1672 City of Whitehorse: cycling infrastructure ...............1672 Bushfires: clean-up program ....................................1672 Apollo Bay Music Festival ........................................1672 Land: valuation .........................................................1673 St Kilda: Harmony Festival ......................................1673 Bushfires: country sheds ...........................................1673 Children: Caroline Springs hub ...............................1674 Autism: western suburbs programs ..........................1674 Water: Underbool treatment plant ...........................1674 Uniformed Services Expo..........................................1675 Heidelberg Primary School: student awards ...........1675 City of Hume: Australian Made campaign...............1675 Ambulance services: Bundoora station ....................1675 Cycling: Merri Creek bridge ....................................1675 Schools: trade training centres.................................1675 Antonio Park Primary School: facilities...................1675

NAMING OF MEMBER Mrs Peulich ...............................................................1671

CLEARWAYS: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.........1676 CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME:

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS..............................1683 PUBLIC TRANSPORT: PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS ............................................................1688 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Hospitals: data reporting................................1693, 1694 Planning: activity centres .........................................1695 Environment: container deposit legislation ...1695, 1696 Environment: resource recovery ..............................1696 Government: borrowing guarantee......1697, 1698, 1700 State Trustees: relocation .........................................1699 Information and communications technology:

government initiatives...........................................1701 Peninsula Link: construction ..........................1702, 1703 Economy: global financial crisis ....................1704, 1705

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL Introduction and first reading...................................1716

ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE Kororoit by-election ..................................................1716

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT...........................................................1723

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA................................................1736 BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT) BILL

Introduction and first reading...................................1752 ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT

BILL Second reading................................................1752, 1756 Third reading.............................................................1760

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS..........................................1756

MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND BILL Second reading ......................................................... 1760

ADJOURNMENT Housing: Parkside estate, Shepparton ..................... 1762 Melbourne Wholesale Fish Market: relocation ....... 1762 Northern Victoria Region: health services............... 1763 Rail: Freight Futures strategy .................................. 1763 Rail: public safety ..................................................... 1764 Bushfires: appeal fund .............................................. 1764 Penguins: St Kilda colony ........................................ 1765 Crime: Albert Park and Bentleigh electorates......... 1765 Remar Australia: Kinglake rehabilitation

facility.................................................................... 1766 Queenscliff: safe harbour ......................................... 1766 City of Kingston: waste disposal .............................. 1767 Gaming: poker machines.......................................... 1767 Police: licensing services division............................ 1768 Rail: Cardinia Road, Officer, station ....................... 1768 Responses .................................................................. 1769

PAPERS

Wednesday, 1 April 2009 COUNCIL 1671

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

The PRESIDENT (Hon. R. F Smith) took the chair at 9.34 a.m. and read the prayer.

PAPERS

Laid on table by Clerk:

Auditor-General —

Report on Access to Public Hospitals: Measuring Performance, April 2009.

Report on Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, April 2009.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Drugs: Forest Hill electorate

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — The ongoing saga in relation to drug abuse in Forest Hill continues. For the record, on Friday, 20 March 2009, a middle-aged gentleman who had taken a drug overdose was slumped in the middle of the street in the car park right out the front of my office. This was an offender who had just got out of jail. He had been driven to the location by his friend, had got a score around the corner, had taken the drugs and then collapsed. We had ambulances, paramedics and the fire brigade there — I think there were three units in total with about eight emergency services personnel.

This is not the first time this has happened. A drug offender using drugs at the rear of our office was caught by my staff in May of 2008. Earlier this year people from the Vermont South shopping centre came to my office absolutely up in arms about the fact that two drug users had been slumped in the disabled toilet at the shopping centre. They took a photo of those two persons slumped in that toilet.

There is a drug problem in Forest Hill, and it is a major concern because it exists near schools. Nothing is getting done. The member for Forest Hill in the Assembly is ignoring this issue, as are the police.

Government: privatisation policy

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — It has been said that Jeff Kennett was something of a privatiser, but given what we are currently seeing, I think the guy was a bit of a wimp! It will go down in history that this set of Labor governments were by far the greatest privatisers, and they will have done their privatisation in record time and with very little public

debate. Sure, Jeff Kennett flogged off a bunch of public assets that were built up and constructed over 50 years, but this mob are flogging off the air, the water — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! I remind Mrs Peulich that it is not appropriate to be reading newspapers that are — resume your seat, Madam — not connected with the business of the house.

Mrs Peulich — It is connected to the business of the house, because I intend to use it for my 90-second statement. Thank you very much for being so alert.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Mrs Peulich knows full well the process for raising a point of order. I remind her that she is not actually engaged in the business of the house at the moment, therefore her actions are inappropriate. If she wants to argue about it, I will not accept it. I am just telling her: it is inappropriate.

Mrs Peulich — On a point of order, President, I do not mean to reflect on the Chair, but you seem to have a penchant for persecuting women in this chamber by finding a victim you can target. You can throw me out if you like. It is called bullying.

Statements interrupted.

NAMING OF MEMBER

Mrs Peulich

The PRESIDENT — Order! For the member’s edification and that of the house, the reading of books and newspapers unconnected with the business before the Council detracts from the dignity of the debate and is considered inappropriate by the Chair. Mrs Peulich accuses me of bullying her and bringing this matter to the attention of the house simply because she is a woman. That is offensive to me and is totally inappropriate. My experience of her actions regarding these issues and matters forces me to take the second option — that is, to name her.

I now name Mrs Peulich under standing order 13.03 for wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I move:

That Mrs Peulich be suspended from the service of the Council for the remainder of the sitting.

House divided on motion:

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

1672 COUNCIL Wednesday, 1 April 2009

Ayes, 18 Broad, Ms (Teller) Mikakos, Ms Darveniza, Ms Pakula, Mr Eideh, Mr Pulford, Ms (Teller) Elasmar, Mr Scheffer, Mr Huppert, Ms Smith, Mr Jennings, Mr Tee, Mr Leane, Mr Theophanous, Mr Lenders, Mr Tierney, Ms Madden, Mr Viney, Mr

Noes, 21 Atkinson, Mr Kavanagh, Mr Barber, Mr Koch, Mr Coote, Mrs Kronberg, Mrs Dalla-Riva, Mr Lovell, Ms Davis, Mr D. O’Donohue, Mr Davis, Mr P. (Teller) Pennicuik, Ms Drum, Mr Petrovich, Mrs Finn, Mr (Teller) Peulich, Mrs Guy, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Hall, Mr Vogels, Mr Hartland, Ms

Motion negatived.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS

Government: privatisation policy

Statements resumed.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — What we now understand to be our most precious and scarce resource — the atmosphere — is going to be flogged off in great slabs to private enterprise. People are equally passionate about our water supply, which will be flogged off to a profiteering multinational. And who would have thought they would find a way to sell food? The copyright for canola has been issued, and we all know that wheat is next. When I hear the Prime Minister on the radio talking about how the balance between government and the private sector has to be redressed, I wonder whether it is not just two ends of the same rort.

City of Manningham: climate change policy

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I would like to congratulate the members of Manningham City Council who last night passed a climate change policy which commits the council to becoming carbon neutral by 2020. It is a policy which involves the purchase of green power, the adoption of minimum energy and water efficiency standards and programs to raise awareness in the community, as well as the usage of electric cars. Manningham has very much set the benchmark for local councils in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, and I call on all councils to

follow its example. It would be great to see a wave of change as, one by one, councils became carbon neutral. It is initiatives such as these that are affordable and essential if we are serious about improving the world that our children will inherit.

City of Whitehorse: cycling infrastructure

Mr TEE — On another matter, I congratulate Whitehorse City Council for taking action on cycling. In this place on 4 February I was critical of the lack of cycling expenditure by the City of Whitehorse, which according to Bicycle Victoria had spent a miserly $2.65 per person on cycling infrastructure. Whitehorse has now established an advisory committee to improve cycling infrastructure. The committee involves community members who are passionate about cycling. I welcome this initiative and look forward to improved outcomes for cyclists in Whitehorse.

Bushfires: clean-up program

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I draw the attention of the house to the fact that considerable confusion exists in the state’s bushfire areas over responsibility for clearing the remains of buildings from burnt-out properties. There is the question of who has responsibility for the clean-up and the impact of WorkSafe and Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regulations on the clean-up program, specifically related to demolition work and to work on properties where there is asbestos.

The government has appointed Grocon to manage the clean-up, and the company is moving quickly to engage licensed contractors. Where possible Grocon is also arranging for local contractors such as earthmoving companies that may not have WorkSafe or EPA licences to work with contractors who are licensed. The principle underlying this is to give work to local companies in the bushfire areas and create benefit within the local communities. But, as I have been informed, there is misinformation in the local communities about where people need to get authority to commence the clearing work and among local contractors about the prospect of gaining work through the program. Therefore I urge the government to take up the suggestion that it should act in association with WorkSafe and the EPA to ensure that property owners and contractors in affected areas are fully informed.

Apollo Bay Music Festival

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — Many of us in this chamber have a number of music festivals held in various communities in our electorates. In Western

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


Victoria Region we have along the coast the Port Fairy music festival, the Portarlington Celtic festival and the Apollo Bay Music Festival, just to name a few.

Last weekend was the 17th annual Apollo Bay Music Festival, and what a line-up of Australian and international musicians there was! Everything was perfect — the weather, the hospitality and the great interaction. The tourist dollar is important to communities such as Apollo Bay, and the festival provides a perfect excuse to showcase the natural beauty of the area. But it is also an opportunity for our grassroots talent to come to the fore. The local community street parade on Friday night was lively, colourful and engaging. On Saturday morning the Apollo Bay P–12 College choir drew tears of joy and pride down everyone’s cheeks with wonderful renditions of Nothing Sweet About Me and Flame Tree.

I would like to specifically congratulate president Peter Filmore, his team of David Capon, Chris Marriner, Anton Tibbits, Robyn Gray, Jayne Martin and Danielle Stevens, and the festival director, Caroline Moore, for once again pulling off a spectacular Apollo Bay event, an event this Brumby Labor government proudly supports.

Land: valuation

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — There is much disquiet in local government about this government’s discussion paper circulated by the valuer-general last December. Local councils’ concerns centre on the implications it may have for any council and its residents and ratepayers. In the Eastern Metropolitan Region the councils I have spoken with in recent weeks have predicted that the legislation likely to flow from this paper would be both significant and disruptive. Central to the arguments being mounted are the shortcomings, such as the transparency of the process, the question of a possible challenge to the independence of the valuer-general and the potential for conflict of interest. Also of concern would be the potential for Victorians who either own or seek to invest in properties to completely lose confidence in the system.

The cost of valuations is predicted to rise. When we look at the rise in centralised valuations in other jurisdictions, we see clear evidence underpinning that concern. There would be a reduction in service to ratepayers as this is offset. The quality of property data and valuations would be at risk. Councils would lose control of rating valuations. The Nillumbik shire believes a centralised rating process would never be in a position to appropriately value a municipality that is

as diverse and as special as Nillumbik, especially with the focus the council puts on maintaining environmental integrity, being a principal part of the green wedge. With its specialised residential precincts, such as the environmental living zone and districts such as St Andrews, Panton Hill and Kangaroo Ground — —

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

St Kilda: Harmony Festival

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — On Sunday, 15 March, I attended the Harmony Festival in Alma Park, St Kilda, in my electorate. The Harmony Festival, which marks the commencement of Cultural Diversity Week, is a multifaith, multicultural environmental festival organised by the Jewish-Christian-Muslim Association and Jewish Aid Australia. It is supported by Yarra Trams, the Port Phillip City Council, the Victorian Multicultural Commission and a federal Living in Harmony grant.

Highlights of the festival were performances by a number of different cultural groups, including indigenous dancers, a Burmese Karen dance group, a multicultural choir and an Israeli dance group. A variety of foods from different ethnic groups was available for purchase, and there were stalls organised by a variety of faith, cultural and environmental groups, offering activities such as hair braiding and henna tattoos. Teams from a number of different cultural and faith groups, including Islamic, Darfuri and Jewish communities, participated in a soccer tournament. The competition was won by a team whose members originate from the Nuba Mountains in Sudan.

Primary and secondary schoolchildren from around the area were invited to enter an art competition with an environmental theme. I was delighted to announce the winners: Daniel Marks, a grade 6 student from St Kilda Park Primary School, and Grace Warmuth, a year 11 student from Firbank Grammar School. The winning entries will appear on the face of a Yarra tram.

Despite the somewhat miserable weather and rain, the festival was attended by a large number of people and was a great success.

Bushfires: country sheds

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — The impact of the devastating bushfires will linger in country Victoria for a long time. The rallying of the communities continues to provide amazing support and comfort to those who are still recovering.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


For many, the rebuilding process has begun, but the toll of what was lost is still being counted. One of the silent losses that has not gained a lot of attention is the country shed. Thousands of sheds were lost in the fire, and for many this was as devastating as losing a house. In fact, last week someone actually said to me, ‘I wish I had lost my house, not my shed — at least I would have received some compensation’.

Those who know about life in the country will understand the significance of the country shed. Country sheds do not only contain whipper snippers, Victa lawnmowers and Roundup; for primary producers they hold their machinery, their tools and in many cases their future livestock — with the storage of artificial insemination stock and equipment. I have spoken to many constituents about this, and one in particular who lost genetic material for his belted Galloway cattle. The loss of their genetic pool has been a huge loss to a number of farmers.

Farmers have lost machinery and tools such as tractors and fencing equipment. They have lost thousands of dollars worth of tools collected over generations, and they can never be replaced.

Then there are the many country small businesses that are run out of the shed — all of it gone literally up in smoke. With the millions of dollars raised, there has been little compensation offered to those who lost their country shed. It is something that needs to be revisited. I hope that will be acknowledged in the process currently being undertaken.

Children: Caroline Springs hub

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — I recently had the pleasure of attending the opening of the new children’s hub in Caroline Springs with the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development. This new centre, funded in partnership between the Brumby Labor government and the Melton Shire Council, will be yet another facility to support families and boost services to the community in Melbourne’s outer west. The community is in one of Melbourne’s growth corridors and is one to which this government will continue to give all due attention in the years ahead.

This centre will provide additional services in the area of early childhood and so will benefit the local community considerably. It is a part of the Brumby Labor Government’s $100 million commitment announced in the last state budget. That commitment proves the high value this government places on helping families.

Where some areas of my municipality have a virtually stagnant birth rate, the shire of Melton has seen births grow by 128 per cent since 2001, hence the critical need for such services as this new children’s hub. In the years ahead we have a further 23 such hubs planned to complement the 46 opened since 2003.

As a member for the Western Metropolitan Region, it gave me pleasure to be in attendance with the minister as she opened this new facility in my electorate. But the real winners will be the families who will benefit from yet another Brumby Labor government promise being fulfilled.

Autism: western suburbs programs

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I was very pleased to hear Mr Leane last night speaking about his interest in children with autism in the eastern suburbs and the go that those children are receiving. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the western suburbs. Just a week or so ago I spoke at the first anniversary dinner of Autism Angels of Brimbank, which is a large group of parents of children with autism who have banded together to help each other through the various challenges they face. When I spoke at this dinner I was cheered when I said the Brumby government should hang its head in shame at the neglect that it is allowing these children to face.

As I have mentioned in this house, early intervention is a very important part of facing the challenges of autism. World best practice for early intervention is 20 hours a week. In the western suburbs of Victoria you are lucky to get 2 hours — and in many instances many hundreds of children do not get any early intervention at all. Of course there is no secondary school in the western suburbs for children with autism. A group called Autism Alliance is working very hard to try to rectify that. I hope the government will come to the party some time very soon. In the meantime I am hoping this state government will actually give children with autism and their families the fair go they deserve.

Water: Underbool treatment plant

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I was very pleased last Thursday to launch the $1.2 million Underbool water treatment plant, which gives Underbool residents access to drinking water. Underbool’s water supply was not potable and therefore not suitable for drinking. The town was identified as a priority town to receive a water upgrade as part of the Brumby government’s Our Water Our Future initiative.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS


The Underbool water upgrade project delivered by GWMWater included the design and documentation, site preparation, construction, equipment such as the feed pumps, piping, tanks and electrical instrumentation, and it was implemented in two phases. The Underbool water treatment plant will further add to the quality water infrastructure and sustainable development in our regions. The plant will create opportunities for growth in a small rural town. It will enhance the town’s livability and appeal and attract more visitors to the area. With drinking water now available, visitors to the surrounding national parks will be more inclined to stop and stay at Underbool. GWMWater is also engaged in one of Victoria’s largest water infrastructure renewal projects, the $688 million Wimmera–Mallee pipeline project, replacing 16 000 kilometres of inefficient open irrigation channels with a reticulated pipeline.

Uniformed Services Expo

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — On Sunday, 22 March, I attended the uniformed services community expo which was held at the Darebin sports stadium in Reservoir. Each of the emergency services divisions had a stall which provided interesting information booklets for the community. The member for Yan Yean in the Assembly, Ms Danielle Green, who is the Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services, was also present and addressed the expo, which was very well attended.

Heidelberg Primary School: student awards

Mr ELASMAR — On Monday, 23 March, I attended the success assembly of the Heidelberg Primary School in Cape Street. Along with the member for Ivanhoe in the other place, Craig Langdon, I was asked to hand out awards to the senior grade 6s of the school. More than 50 kids, with their proud parents looking on, then sang the national anthem and their own school song with much enthusiasm and gusto. It was a pleasure to see them.

City of Hume: Australian Made campaign

Mr ELASMAR — Hume City Council has joined the Australian Made campaign to increase the use of locally made products. The council will use the campaign logo and branding to increase the profile of its local companies. It will also promote local businesses to the wider community to encourage them to support local jobs by buying locally.

Ambulance services: Bundoora station

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — On 25 March I was pleased to attend with Colin Brooks, the member for Bundoora in the other place, the opening by the Minister for Health of the refurbished Bundoora mobile intensive care ambulance station on Plenty Road, Bundoora. The refurbished station is a welcome boost to local ambulance services around Bundoora and will operate 24 hours a day with 10 paramedics on site. A research team is also working from the branch and has eight paramedics. With new state-of-the-art facilities, paramedics are better equipped to respond to any critical medical emergencies. I congratulate the Brumby government on its commitment to delivering high-quality ambulance services to the Victorian community by announcing a $186 million boost to ambulance services in last year’s budget.

Cycling: Merri Creek bridge

Ms MIKAKOS — I would like to congratulate the Brumby government on the decision to construct a new cycling bridge to be built over Merri Creek between Westgarth and North Fitzroy. As part of its $115 million Victorian cycling strategy the government will provide $540 000 for the bridge, with Melbourne Water contributing a further $54 000 and in-kind support. The new bridge will complete an important missing link in sustainable transport infrastructure in the local area not only for cyclists but also as access for pedestrians. This is another example of the Brumby government’s commitment to implementing sustainable transport options to benefit Victorian communities.

Schools: trade training centres

Ms MIKAKOS — I would also like to welcome the Brumby government’s $70 million boost to schools, in particular trade training centres. Funding to Parade College, Northland Secondary College and Thornbury High School will address skills shortages in the trades industry and will enable students to obtain qualifications in hospitality, building and construction, engineering, carpentry and horticulture. These are just some of the ways that the Brumby government is delivering to the people of the northern suburbs.

Antonio Park Primary School: facilities

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) — I recently had the pleasure of attending the opening of the redevelopment of Antonio Park Primary School. I was not invited; I gatecrashed because the school had intended to invite me but on consulting the department

CLEARWAYS: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


was advised that it is the government’s protocol that only government members should be invited to school openings and opposition members should not be invited.

I take a very dim view of that. I believe once a member is elected to this place they represent the community and where there is the opening of something such as a school, a hospital, a police station or some other significant facility that has been funded by taxpayers, then all members for that local area ought to be invited, irrespective of their political colour.

It is an absolute travesty for this government to take that view — and I accept that it is a view that might well have been adopted by other governments in the past. I believe it is wrong for members to be excluded from events such as this in their local area.

Having said that, Antonio Park Primary School is to be congratulated on the work it put into ensuring a successful redevelopment, and the government is to be congratulated on the work it did in facilitating what is now an outstanding facility.


Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:

That in accordance with sessional order 21, there be tabled in the Council by 4.00 p.m. on 6 May 2009 a copy of all reports, briefings, impact statements, economic analyses and communications with ministers, departments, statutory authorities, municipalities and business groups that are held by the Department of Transport, the Minister for Public Transport, the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Department of Planning and Community Development, the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Premier, relating to the Victorian state government’s policy of extending clearway times.

The extension of clearway times has been a casebook study on how not to implement public policy and how not to ground public policy in proper community consultation. There is no doubt that traffic congestion faced by Melburnians is growing and becoming more severe and no doubt that solutions need to be found for it. The state government’s Melbourne 2030 policy planned explicitly for an expansion of the population by 1 million by 2030, and the targets it set have been well and truly exceeded. Now the state government is talking about Melbourne @ 5 Million. As part of that goal, we need a proper policy and a proper grounding in the processes and steps that need to be taken to keep traffic flowing and keep Victorians moving by rail, road, tram and bus — and this government has not done that.

We saw a ham-fisted attempt by the Minister for Roads and Ports to impose clearway times and restrictions on councils within a 10-kilometre radius of Melbourne. That is an arbitrary distance. It is a distance the minister has never explained. There has never been a public explanation as to why that distance was chosen. Equally — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — It is very unnerving; stop staring at me.

Mr D. DAVIS — The Minister for Industry and Trade is the only minister in the chamber and is the chamber duty minister, as I understand. Equally the Minister for Roads and Ports has not explained why certain roads have been chosen and certain decisions have been made about the particular times. Just a week ago the government did a remarkable backflip on the clearway decision and moved back the times when clearways on some roads would be imposed. Those times were moved back from 3 o’clock to 4 o’clock, which will no doubt assist some traders. The opposition, and I believe the chamber, would be interested to know why the government has made these decisions, the analyses behind these decisions, the economic analyses and the impact statements as to what will occur.

Let us understand what the government has proposed in various shopping centres across the inner ring of suburbs such as the cities of Boroondara, Stonnington and Yarra, in particular, and into the northern suburbs as well. The government proposes that these arbitrary clearways be imposed on these municipalities without discussion and without the proper consultation the minister is required by the act to undertake. The impact of that on small businesses and shopping centres will be extraordinary. Many of those small businesses and shopping centres rely on people being able to park in front of them. Parking is scarce, yet the state government proposes to massively reduce parking.

I will put some figures on the record. There would have been 1450 spaces affected by the establishment of clearways in the city of Boroondara. I use that as an example, but it could apply to and have similar impacts on Yarra, Moreland or Stonnington. The state government’s modified arrangement will mean that just short of 400 spaces — around 390 spaces — will be impacted by clearways. In most cases these will apply from 4.00 p.m. until 7.00 p.m. and during the morning as well, and that will significantly impact shopping centres and traders.

But there is also a significant community impact, particularly on many of the small communities around



shopping centres. I am reminded of a discussion I had with a trader in Hawksburn and some of her customers. People living short distances from the village walk to it; others drive the short distance to the village. They are able to get their coffees, have a meal and do their basic shopping at the village. It is a small zone where people know each other and where community engagement is critical.

Let’s face it, the state government spends massive amounts of money trying to strengthen social capital. In many of these small community shopping centres we have, in effect, clear examples of strong social capital. The government’s idea is to arbitrarily impose restrictions around these centres which will stop people coming to the shopping centres where they congregate in a social environment.

I have to say this is one of the most arrogant and ham-fisted public policy decisions I have seen in a long while. Many of the traders I have spoken to and many of the community groups that have agitated against this issue have directly experienced the government’s arrogance in its lack of consultation and its approach to dismissing legitimate issues and legitimate concerns that have been raised. That arrogance was clearly shown when the minister and the department paid almost no heed to the submissions which were put in during the belated consultation process. It is only as a result of direct political pressure that the government has been forced to do a sort of half backflip on the clearway zones.

I want to nominate the work Mrs Coote has undertaken in ensuring that a fairer outcome is achieved. I particularly want to say to members of the chamber today that if we are to have sensible public policy and sensible decision making, the sort of data the opposition is seeking with this motion should be in the public domain. We should be able to see the grounds and the figure work behind the decisions the minister has made and the reasons he has made them. If there are legitimate reasons, the community will more than likely support the essence of those decisions; if there are not legitimate reasons, figure work and support behind the minister’s decision, the community is much less likely to support the government’s decisions. It is less likely to support government decisions when they are made in an arbitrary, capricious and secretive manner, as these clearway decisions have been. Therefore I ask the chamber to support this motion.

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — In relation to clearways, in September 2006 the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) released its report into managing traffic congestion. It

found that the economic cost of congestion in Melbourne ranged from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion per annum.

Melbourne is a major city with a growing population and a growing workforce. One of the side effects of a vibrant city such as Melbourne is that unfortunately there is a lot of traffic congestion. The VCEC report also found that because we are continuing to grow, there could be a doubling in the cost of road congestion if it is not addressed.

Our transport system is not just about economics; it is a mechanism that allows Victorians to get to and from work and gets food to our supermarkets, goods into retail stores and our children to and from school. Improving the efficiency of roads not just improves travel times for motorists, it also improves the efficiency of road-based public transport such as buses and trams. The Brumby government recognises the vital role our transport infrastructure plays in linking our communities.

In April 2008 the Brumby government announced a $112.7 million package of short-term initiatives designed to address congestion within 10 kilometres of the Melbourne central business district. This is not just an arbitrary line, as Mr David Davis has suggested, but an area that is most troubled by traffic congestion. The standardisation and extension of clearway times on approximately 80 declared arterial roads is one key short-term initiative among the government’s plans to keep Melbourne moving.

Following consultation with local traders and councils, the government has developed a two-phase proposal for the changes to afternoon clearway start times. It is based on a submission from the local council. It is a consistent approach to clearway times across Melbourne, allowing for more parking opportunities near local businesses and helping to improve traffic flow during the afternoon peak period.

The proposal provides that all afternoon clearways starting at 4.00 p.m. or later will now start at 4.00 p.m. At signalised intersections afternoon clearways will commence at 3.00 p.m. and extend for approximately 100 metres on either side of the intersection, recognising that this is one of the areas of greatest traffic congestion. Existing clearways that start earlier than 4.00 p.m. will all now start at 3.00 p.m. along the full length of the road. All clearways will end at the consistent time of 7.00 p.m.

The consistency of this approach allows for an extra hour of parking on key arterial roads in between



intersections compared with the previous plan, which was to standardise clearways to operate from 3.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. The increased parking will be of benefit to local traders, and it will better balance the interests of local traders with those of the users of roads and public transport. The government is taking action to deal with congestion in the short, medium and long terms, and this will further enhance Melbourne’s position as one of the most livable cities.

In relation to the production of the documents, the government will produce documents if appropriate and if they are not covered by executive privilege. I also want to point out that these documents could also be obtained by other means, such as freedom of information applications. In view of this I ask you to vote against this motion.

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — I have pleasure in rising to debate the motion brought to the chamber this morning by my colleague David Davis. Politics, we must remember, is about people and the needs of people. We as politicians ignore the people at our peril, but this is precisely what the Brumby government has done in relation to the clearways issue.

I have listened with interest to Ms Huppert’s address, and I would have to say that in her earnestness about the issue she has misread the entire situation. We are dealing here with businesses, the backbone of the Victorian economy, including small businesses in her own electorate. I know she is new and I know she does not understand it, but I suggest that she gets out there and does understand it so she can learn what the people, residents, traders and restaurateurs all think about this clearways issue — because clearly she has not got it right.

It is salutary to go back and have a look at how this situation arose. Clearly the member for Prahran in the Assembly, Mr Lupton, is in this up to his neck. He has been silent on this issue. It has been difficult to find out what his stance on this issue is. We know he was instrumental in the recommendations that brought these clearways about in the first place, and we know he has been silent ever since.

To remind the chamber what we are talking about, the original proposed clearway times were from 6.30 a.m. until 10.00 a.m. going into the city and from 3.00 p.m. until 7.00 p.m. going out of the city. There have been some significant studies by the City of Stonnington in relation to this issue and the economic impact it is going to have on businesses. It is interesting to note that in the vicinity of High Street, Armadale, the economic impact will be that weekday business trading will be

reduced by as much as 5 per cent. With average expenditure per visit currently estimated at $110, this equates to revenue losses of $17 600 daily and $4.5 million annually. Even this government, as heartless as it might be, cannot ignore the fact that these small businesses are haemorrhaging over this issue. The Treasurer, in whose electorate so many of these areas are, seems to be ignoring this issue.

The submission to the clearways implementation reference group, which was made in July 2008, also said that concerned businesses currently employ 1600 full-time employees and 1960 part-time employees, 35 to 50 per cent of whom are at risk of being made redundant as a direct consequence of this clearways impediment. This equates to 800 full-time employees and 980 part-time employees. We see on a daily basis the mismanagement by this government of the manufacturing industry and people losing jobs within the state. We saw that 54 people lost their jobs yesterday in Ballarat. The government is willing to let the businesses in these clearway zones lose 800 full-time jobs. It is on the government’s head. It is an absolute disgrace.

If you go back and look at the clearway times in my electorate and in that of Ms Huppert, Ms Pennicuik, Mr David Davis and the Treasurer, the Southern Metropolitan Region, you can see the areas that are going to be affected — the west side of Punt Road between the Yarra River and Wellington Parade and from St Kilda Road to High Street; the west side of St Kilda Street between Head Street and Bay Street; both sides of Ormond Esplanade; the east side of Punt Road from the Yarra River to High Street; the west side of Orrong Road from Dandenong Road to Toorak Road; the west side of St Kilda Road from Union Street to Lorne Street; the south side of High Street from Punt Road to St Kilda Road; the north side of Union Street from Queens Road to St Kilda Road; the south side of Beaconsfield Parade from Pier Road to Kerferd Road; the west side of Marine Parade from Glenhuntly Road to Cavell Street; both sides of Alexandra Avenue from St Kilda Road to Linlithgow Avenue; and the south side of Barkers Road between Burke Road and Victoria Street.

I put on the record here that Ms Pennicuik has been seriously active on this issue, as has Michael O’Brien, the member for Malvern in the Assembly, and David Davis, but members of the Labor Party have been nowhere to be found. It is salutary to have a good look and see what Mr Lupton, the member for Prahran in the Assembly, has had to say:

This plan —



which is the plan Ms Huppert alluded to, the Keeping Melbourne Moving plan —

will help reduce congestion now by improving traffic flow and providing greater priority for public transport services on busy roads such as a High Street, Malvern Road and Toorak Road.

How out of touch can he be? Mr Lupton continued:

This is about making it easier for people to move around by keeping our roads clearer for longer to improve public transport efficiency and reduce travelling times for everybody on the roads, whether they are in a tram, bus or car.

That might be the case if you live in Mount Waverley, but Mr Lupton is the member for Prahran; he is not the member for Mount Waverley. He should be looking after the residents, the traders and the restaurateurs in his own electorate, but no, he is more concerned about everybody else. He went on to say:

This plan is good for the community, good for business and good for the environment.

I do not know what log he is hiding under, because it is not good for business, as I indicated earlier. Mr Lupton continued:

It is designed to encourage greater public transport use to which the Brumby government has already committed $7.5 billion as part of the Meeting Our Transport Challenges policy.

I am quoting from Tony Lupton’s newsletter headed ‘Easing peak congestion: good for the community, business and environment’, which was put out in July 2008. Mr Lupton also said, and it is important to put this on the record:

Local business will also benefit as people are able to travel to shopping destinations with greater ease and less delays using road transport.

The Brumby government is providing quick action now to keep our city moving during peak times.

He also said:

Local residents will benefit from more efficient trams and buses with fewer delays during peak periods.

Clearly Mr Lupton is not talking to the people in his electorate. It is obvious he has not been talking to them, but the people in his electorate have been speaking to members for the Southern Metropolitan Region other than Labor representatives. I suggest that we remind ourselves of the petition with almost 30 000 signatures that was presented to this chamber. It talked about clearways not just in the city of Stonnington, the city of Port Phillip and the city of Boroondara but in the city of Yarra and around Moonee Ponds and Coburg as well.

These are Labor seats, and people in those seats are very concerned about these issues.

There has been a major outcry. We have had public meetings about this; we have presented petitions on the steps of Parliament; we have been speaking outside on the steps; and we have been marching in the streets. There has been a huge outcry from the people of these areas; they are unhappy. The government should not misunderstand this: they are unhappy. What have we got now?

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You are beating a 44-gallon drum.

Mrs COOTE — No, it is a megaphone I want. People, including local residents, traders, shop owners and restaurateurs — people old and young, male and female — signed that petition, nearly 30 000 of them in all. They told this government in no uncertain terms that they were not happy and that clearway time extensions were unacceptable. What did we hear then? We heard from the Premier. First of all I will remind people of what the Premier said in 2008. In a Herald Sun article on 23 May 2008 Mr Brumby is quoted as saying:

Whether it is possible to tweak a little, I do not know; whether half an hour would make a difference to traders, I do not know.

Mr Brumby should have known; he should have understood. We want to see the documents Mr Brumby looked at — or did not, as the case may be — to tell us exactly what he based his decision on. We do not know this; we have no idea. He does not even know, so he says himself. What are these documents? The documents that are going to have such a profound effect on all these people have not even convinced the Premier, who did not know what the impact was going to be. If that is the way this government operates and that is how it makes decisions such as this, it is no wonder we need to see the documents. This is supposed to be a government that is operating with transparency and openness. We hear that from the Treasurer every single question time in this place. And what happens? Now, in the very case where we want to find out why the Premier did not even know whether clearway times could be tweaked by half an hour to make a difference, we have not been able to see the documents. That is why this motion today is vitally important.

We now have an announcement from the Minister for Roads and Ports who, I remind members, is Mr Pallas, who said:

Having listened to the community and concerns of local traders, it is appropriate to act in the way we have —



in other words, to impose the clearways. I do not know who he was talking to, and neither do the traders, the restaurateurs, the residents and the people in the cities we are dealing with who are affected by these clearways. When we get these documents we will be able to see who he did speak to. We do not know, and the 30 000 people who put their signatures on that petition do not know either.

We have heard about the backflip. The government has made a big song and dance about it. The backflip will take an hour off clearway times in the afternoons, but — and this is a very big ‘but’, and once again when we get these documents I would like to see how the government made this arbitrary decision because, quite frankly, this arbitrary decision has produced a new system that is totally and utterly puzzling — there will be confusion. The confusion is that within 100 metres of an intersection we are going to see the original clearway times that were advertised and talked about in 2008. Between those areas the times will go back to being an hour later.

Mr D. Davis — This is just phase 1.

Mrs COOTE — As Mr Davis rightly says, this is just phase 1.

Mr D. Davis — And it will go outside the 10 kilometres.

Mrs COOTE — As Mr Davis also rightly says, outside the 10 kilometres it is going to be implemented further on. I reminded the chamber of how incensed the various councils are. Stonnington City Council, with Mayor Claude Ullin, has done a marvellous job in keeping this issue in focus. The traders in High Street, such as Eugene Notermans, have done an extraordinary job in making certain that this is kept at the forefront and that people understand what is going on. Jack Wegman, the mayor of the City of Boroondara, has also been very involved. The mayors of the areas involved have worked cooperatively and constructively, because everybody is affected and everybody is annoyed. We want to see the documents that government members have based these opinions on.

As I was saying before, we have a new system for where these clearways are going to be. I am not certain how many people in this chamber are familiar with Toorak Road, but I would just like to outline the situation with Toorak Road. Starting at Punt Road, 100 metres east towards the freeway along Toorak Road the initial system for clearways is going to be in place. Then you probably have 10 metres — maybe not quite 10 metres — until you hit the next 100-metre

clearway zone. What is going to happen? The people in that tiny little bit, that tiny window, are going to have — —

Ms Pennicuik interjected.

Mrs COOTE — Exactly. As Ms Pennicuik said, there will be two or three cars there. Then we will hit the next new 100-metre clearway. We then get to Chapel Street, where we will have 100 metres of clearway either side of that intersection, and just after Chapel Street there will be an issue with River Street, where there is another intersection. What we are talking about here is the same system of clearways as was initially proposed. It is going to be confusing at the outset and confusing to implement, and the reality is going to be that nothing will change.

I look at Mr Pakula, and I can see the perplexed look he has on his face. I encourage him to drive down Toorak Road in his spare time and measure things for himself. I am pleased to see that the Treasurer has finally come into the chamber, because he is also a member for Southern Metropolitan Region.

Mr Lenders interjected.

Mrs COOTE — He could come on the journey with us! We could do a day trip and visit all these areas and look at where these clearways are going to be implemented. I suggest this is going to be totally and utterly unworkable and that the government knows that, although it is spinning it as though it is some miraculous decision and a miraculous backdown. It was very encouraging to read what Minister Pallas said on 25 March in the Age:

We won’t get the full efficiency of the (road) network that we would otherwise have got. But this is a step in the right direction. I admit this is a compromise.

This is a compromise? It is an absolute mess, and I believe the people of Victoria will see this for what it is — an absolute disgrace.

The Treasurer was not here before, and I know he would like to hear — —

Mr Lenders — As one of your subjects I welcome your words of wisdom!

Mrs COOTE — You talk all the time about open and transparent government, Treasurer; if indeed you feel this, put your money where your mouth is! You should be in this chamber suggesting that we get a look at these documents to see how this ad hoc, half-baked decision has been made. It seems to have been one accident after another. It started with the incompetence



of Mr Lupton, the member for Prahran in the Assembly, and it has expanded with the incompetence of the minister himself.

We need to see these documents to see exactly how the decisions were made. I believe they have been made in an ad hoc manner, and I believe all the people will be affected by these clearways in the same way they would have been with the first proposal. It is incumbent upon the government and ministers to prove otherwise to us. As I said at the outset of my contribution, we should be listening to the people because we are in this job to represent the people. The government is not representing the people on this clearways issue. It would appear that all these decisions have been made in an ad hoc and arbitrary way, and the openness and transparency the Treasurer boasts of in this place is in fact a sham. Show us the documents! I rest my case.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am happy to speak today in support of Mr David Davis’s motion calling for the production of the documents regarding the state government’s policy of extending clearway times. Since this policy was first mooted early last year and since its implementation was commenced around eight months ago, there has been no presentation of evidence of how the government will achieve what it claims it will achieve or any credible rationale for its plan to extend clearways in the 10-kilometre zone. I note the original plan was to apply those in the same way everywhere.

In particular no rationale has been presented to the people who live in the areas that are going to be directly affected or to the traders in those areas. That has caused great concern to the traders and residents on and near these inner city arterial roads. On behalf of the Greens, Mr Barber and I have been campaigning in our areas against the extension of the clearways, and Mrs Coote has been very active, as has Mr Davis in the Southern Metropolitan Region, on this issue. In fact Mrs Coote still has a motion on the notice paper regarding the imposition of clearways in the cities of Yarra, Stonnington, Boroondara and Port Phillip. I am happy to support it.

On 29 August last year Mr Pallas started to repeat this mantra. He said:

… the clearway changes would improve the journeys for up to 300 000 tram and bus passengers and up to 250 000 private vehicle users travelling in Melbourne’s inner suburbs each day.

This was in a government announcement released by Mr Pallas. He went on to say that the four morning

clearway sites would be in Punt Road, Hoddle Street, St Kilda Street and Ormond Esplanade. He also said:

… standardised clearways would improve public transport travel times and reliability.

There is no evidence that that is the case.

On 1 October Mr Pallas was quoted in the Age as making the same assertion. On 21 October I wrote to the minister and asked him what evidence he had with regard to his statement, which appeared in the Age article, that the changes would improve journey times for about 250 000 car drivers and up to 300 000 public transport patrons. Since that time I have been engaged in discussions with the minister’s office about finding the evidence for that statement. At first I received a response from a member of Minister Pallas’s staff telling me how the figures were arrived at, and then small amendments regarding what is meant by vehicle journeys and whether it means the number of people in cars or the number of vehicles. We went to and fro on that for a while, and I kept going back to the minister and saying what I wanted was the evidence on which the government is basing its claims that the imposition of standardised clearways would improve journey times for private vehicle users and public transport patrons. My question was not about whether it was 250 000 or 240 000 private vehicles, or whether it was 350 000 or 330 000 public transport patrons. My question was: where is the evidence that this measure would improve journey times?

In the last week or so the minister’s office has become more active in trying to answer my question. I received a letter from VicRoads on behalf of the minister. Again it goes to some lengths to tell me that:

The figure of 250 000 private vehicle users arises from traffic counts carried out by VicRoads for vehicle use on arterial roads and was determined as follows:

identify each section of road to which clearway changes would apply and the duration of extended clearway times …

use traffic volumes collected from traffic signal … data on each section of road during the time that the clearways would be extended;

factor up (x 1.2) to account for average vehicle occupancy;

this provided the result of … 250 000 private vehicle road users.

The figure of 300 000 bus and tram passengers was provided by the Department of Transport as the number of patrons which travel during peak periods along routes within 10 km of the CBD.



That is great; that is how we get to the figures. But where is the evidence that the government relied on for its claim that journey times would be reduced by the imposition of clearways? No evidence has been produced. I still do not have a study. I asked the minister for studies or any other data that could provide the evidence for this claim, and I have only received assertions like:

The purpose of clearways during peak periods is to provide greater capacity along the road network by removing parked cars from arterial roads and allowing increased traffic flow and consequent reductions in travel time and congestion.

I quote another assertion:

The clearways benefit public transport for buses, which travel with the general traffic flow, and trams, which are delayed when traffic flow is restricted to the tram lane because of parked cars in the kerbside lane.

Where is the evidence that that actually occurs? The letter from VicRoads also says:

Clearways represent the only sustainable way of providing continuous road space for other traffic off tram lanes at both mid-block and intersections, without road widening.

Again there is no evidence; it is just an assertion. From the start I have questioned the assertion that clearways will reduce travel times or assist tram and bus passengers to get to their destinations more quickly or safely. Extended clearways will simply attract more cars, and while clearway times are in place cars will race beside trams in order to pass them and stop in front of them at traffic lights. This will hold up trams, and getting on and off them will become even more dangerous.

It is true that during peak hours tram times are somewhat reduced, mainly because trams need to stop at each tram stop to let passengers on and off. Having clearways will make no difference to whether people need to get on and off trams, hence requiring trams to stop. The same is true of buses. During peak times there are invariably people waiting at all bus stops and all tram stops.

Mr Barber — Get rid of passengers; that will speed it up!

Ms PENNICUIK — As Mr Barber said, fewer passengers on the trams would help! What we are saying is that we want more passengers on public transport and that this particular policy of extending clearways in inner city arterial roads is the government’s lazy answer to the question of how to improve public transport.

Yet another public transport plan has been issued — I think we are up to transport plan no. 5 — and it shows no sign of being implemented. I give the government some points for putting in money for bicycle paths, but the plan is again road heavy and skewed towards more road building. The answer to congestion is not to build roads and put more cars on them; the answer to peak-hour congestion is to get more people off the roads and encourage them to use public transport for their routine journeys in and out of the city. But the opposite is happening. The answer is not to get more people in cars clogging up arterial roads.

I support what Mr Davis and Mrs Coote have said about the strip shopping centres in terms of the traders but also in terms of amenity. People need only look at parts of Sydney, including Newtown, where permanent clearways run along the arterial roads running in and out of Sydney to see support for their argument. Those roads are referred to as traffic sewers. Traffic pours along those roads, day and night, because of those clearways. Those roads would not be like that if they had not been declared to be clearways.

There is an argument that having parked cars on arterial roads slows down the traffic and makes the roads safer for public transport users. I am not sure how many people who are sitting in the chamber use the trams in the inner city. I use trams often, and getting off them when a clearway is in place can be hazardous. Even though road rules give pedestrians the right of way when getting off trams and motorists are not supposed to speed past stationary trams on the left-hand side, they do. People have to be very wary when getting on and off trams.

I dispute the government’s claims that having clearways will assist public transport. The government is going the wrong way in terms of its whole policy. It should be looking at how to get more frequent trams and trains running and more people on them, not at how to increase the numbers of cars on the road in peak times. That is not the way to go, and there is plenty of evidence to show that. Many cities around the world have implemented well-thought-out policies which concentrate on public transport, particularly in peak times, and getting cars off the road in peak times. That is the way the government should be thinking.

It is good that the government has backed down a bit, but it has taken eight months of community campaigning for that to happen. As Mrs Coote mentioned, inner city local councils have been working together for the benefit of traders and residents and the amenity of their local areas. We must remember that these strip shopping centres where extended clearway

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS


times are being imposed are part of, as Ms Huppert said, the vibrancy of Melbourne. However, Ms Huppert is suggesting that the way to make these areas more vibrant is to have more cars whizzing through them at 60 or 70 kilometres per hour. I do not believe that is the way to make those areas more vibrant. It is very clear that the people who live and do their shopping in those areas do not believe it either. They do not agree with what Ms Huppert has said — that turning these roads into mini-highways makes the city more vibrant for 5 hours of the day.

The government has not presented any evidence and has only made claims that extending clearway hours will improve the situation. Since 21 October last year I have tried to get information from the minister, by writing to him and speaking to staff in his office to try and get the evidence, but I have seen no evidence that extending clearway times will improve the situation. The minister has not been able to provide me with one skerrick of evidence to back up the claims of the government. For those reasons I am very happy to support Mr Davis’s motion.

Motion agreed to.



That, in accordance with sessional order 21, there be tabled in the Council by 4.00 p.m. on 6 May 2009 a copy of all documents, studies, evaluations and briefing papers produced by the Victorian government or its agents concerning the impact of the commonwealth government’s proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme on the Victorian economy held by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries, including studies of the economic impact and the impact on Victoria’s climate change policies and/or on voluntary emission reduction activities.

This is an important motion, because the commonwealth pollution reduction scheme is going to have a massive impact on Victoria. It is in Victoria that the full impact of the federal government’s proposals, which have been outlined in its white paper but are yet to be put into legislation, will be felt. That impact will be felt for a number of key reasons. Victoria has a number of trade-exposed industries that will be particularly vulnerable in many respects. Equally Victoria has a significant reliance upon brown coal. Some 93 per cent of our electricity is generated from the brown coal power plants in the Latrobe Valley, which provide the state with its baseload power. Brown coal is one of the cheapest forms of power on the

planet, but in terms of carbon dioxide emission it is also one of the dirtiest. When carbon emission is priced there will be a significant impact upon the Victorian economy and the cost of electricity.

There is also the issue of Victoria’s reliance upon and long history of manufacturing. To a significant extent that will also be impacted by the power costs that will likely flow from the commonwealth government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS). The Victorian government would be derelict in its duty if it did not examine ways of ameliorating those impacts. The government should be constructively engaged with the federal government and advocating for Victoria. The Victoria government should be advocating in a sensible mode to ensure that Victoria gets an outcome that assists with the proper adjustment that will be required. Moving to clean and green industries will require resources and the deployment of sensible policies by the state government in tandem with the commonwealth. That has been very short on the ground in Victoria.

The commissioner for environmental sustainability’s Strategic Audit of Victorian Government Agencies’ Environmental Management Systems and Strategic Audit report for 2007–08 was tabled in this chamber yesterday. The report shows that the Victorian government had not shown leadership in its own purposes and activities. Some 15 per cent of Victoria’s economy is state government activity. It is a massive slice of the economy and an important slice of the economy in which the government could show leadership. The state government cannot wag its finger and point at businesses and communities and ask them to make costly reductions in their carbon emissions and move to a new economy unless the government itself is prepared to demonstrate that it will do the same for its own purposes and activities. Hospitals, schools and a whole range of state government activities are largely not in a leadership position, and the environmental commissioner said so in yesterday’s report. He also pointed that out last year in his report.

At the same time we have seen a significant leak from cabinet to the Age that laid out the issues with the carbon pollution reduction scheme and some of the perverse incentives that it may well set up. The perverse incentives include, in effect, not rewarding or penalising those who undertake voluntary emission reduction activities. Those could be individuals or indeed the state government. The state government has not been prepared to point out some of these inconsistencies to the federal government. I invite anyone who thinks the state government has advocated strongly for the Victorian position to go onto the



commonwealth government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme white paper website and to look at the Victorian government’s submission. It is a flimsy 16-page document. It is a disgrace, frankly. But it does point out some inconsistencies in the CPRS that have to be dealt with — for example, I give some credit to the state government for pointing out the inconsistencies on public transport. We have the perverse arrangement — —

Mr Lenders — There is a stranger in the house! You gave the government credit. Who are you? What have you done to David Davis?

Mr D. DAVIS — I am happy to be very reasonable, Mr Lenders. I have also quite strongly criticised and castigated the state government on some matters.

On the public transport point, what is clear is that if the price of electricity goes up, and the CPRS is calculated to increase the price of electricity — for example, for consumers and businesses by about 16 per cent — there will be a rise in the cost of public transport in metropolitan Melbourne on both trains and trams. In its white paper the commonwealth government has specifically rebuffed any compensation or any subsidy to take out that perverse incentive. At the same time it has said it will subsidise vehicle transport — petrol and diesel-driven vehicles. You have a situation where costs will be held down on one side, and that may well be arguable, but on the other side you will see an increase in the cost of public transport.

I am just scratching my head here. Is the idea not to help people to go onto public transport? Is it not a very greenhouse-friendly idea to put people onto public transport with proper infrastructure and timetables and so forth at a reasonable cost so they actually come off the roads, reduce the congestion and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions? Instead of that, with the CPRS as it is currently outlined, we are setting up a system where the cost of public transport will increase. We are putting a greater barrier in front of people who want to use public transport. It seems a bizarre point.

I would like to see the state government modelling of that. I would like to see detailed modelling of what the government thinks will happen as the price of public transport fares goes up 10 or 15 or 20 per cent and what that will do to patronage. Will that push people back onto the roads, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions and defeating the purpose and approach of the scheme? I use that by way of example. It is exactly these sorts of studies that we have to see to understand the impact of this scheme on the Victorian economy, on the state government and on the range of economic activities that are happening in Victoria.

I would seek these documents. I believe we are at a critical juncture. We need to see these documents. We need to understand the precise impacts, particularly the perverse impacts, on the voluntary emissions reduction sector and on areas like public transport and many others. I could go on and name a series of industries, but I will not. The general point is made. This is a major scheme at a federal level, and significant flaws are apparent when you look at the white paper. We are yet to see that manifested in legislation. The Victorian government would be derelict not to have done proper analyses, but in my view they should be in the public domain. We know the Victorian government has done some analyses, but these have not been put out for broader public discussion. They were not aired sufficiently in the state government’s submission to the CPRS process — to the white paper and green paper process. The provision of these documents to the chamber would improve our understanding of the position.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — The government’s position on these requests for documents has been consistent, and I will put it again just in case members have forgotten; I am not sure how they could have forgotten, because I do not know how many debates we have had on this. We respect the right of the house to put in place the sessional orders that provide for the calling for of documents, although we do not agree with them. We simply say there are many processes whereby members of the public, including members of the opposition and the crossbenches, can get access to documents. We have improved the principal mechanism for this since we came to government in 1999, and we have made further improvements to it under the leadership of the Premier, John Brumby. The principal mechanism is the freedom of information process.

Within all requests for information there are, I remind the house, some restrictions. The purpose of government is to govern, and the best practices of government, in the traditions of Westminster, are that ministers are the executive and come from the Parliament and are accountable to the Parliament, but the advice they receive needs to be protected and retained in confidence. Otherwise the business of government cannot function. There is a set of processes and documents that cannot be released. Presumably they would be released under the 30-year rule, but they cannot be released now because that would compromise the operational activity of government. This is not to hide things; it is not to be unaccountable. This government has been highly accountable. Ministers in this government have appeared before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I know



Mr Barber has just resigned as a member of PAEC, but he knows full well that in the period after a budget every minister from this government appears before PAEC. That did not occur under the Kennett government where ministers simply did not attend. The decision to not produce documents is only made on the grounds of executive privilege. That is the only legal entitlement for the government to claim, and it is the only basis on which the government has ever decided that it is unable to release particular documents the house has requested.

In relation to this new set of requests, Mr Davis ranged broadly into the areas of the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Mr D. Davis — I gave some examples, that is all.

Mr VINEY — You ranged broadly into the area, Mr Davis. I think Mr Davis has probably been a bit consistent in this. He has shown some interest in the climate change issue over time, and certainly a lot more interest than has been shown by his leader in the other place, who is completely silent on the matter. The sceptics from the coalition that was in government federally for 11 years were uninterested in climate change and greenhouse gases and carbon pollution. I guess we are pleased that Mr Davis has shown this interest. I will not reflect on the Chair. We have had enough of that for one day!

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr VINEY — We probably would have the numbers right now. I noticed when I was talking about climate change sceptics that there was a certain person in the chamber who had a wry smile on his face. I suspect there is still some healthy scepticism about climate change on the other side. The rest of us are noticing that summer is getting hotter and it is raining a lot less, but the sceptics in the opposition are still there. But not Mr Davis; it is probably fair to say not David Davis. I do not think he is a sceptic on this. He is a great conspiracy theorist, but he is not a sceptic on climate change.

In the tradition of Mr Davis running down his conspiracy theory paths yet again, he is asking for more documents. The government has a simple response to this request for documents. We do not agree that the house needs to use a sledgehammer to get documents. It can use the freedom of information process, or, if they like, members can pick up the telephone, call a minister’s office and ask if the minister would mind releasing the documents. We could go down that path, but members opposite do not even try that. They come

in and waste the time of the house. We are going to spend another whole Wednesday debating the release of documents. I am sure that is what the people of Victoria elected 40 members of the upper house on salaries of over $100 000 to do — to spend day after day after day debating the issue of documents. The great, grave issues of public life are whether or not particular documents on a whole range of issues should be released. I guess we are going to waste another Wednesday debating that. But the government’s answer to this request is the same as it was for the previous motion, and it is the same as it will be for any future motion seeking documents. If it is appropriate for the government to release the documents, they will be released. However, if the release of the documents could lead to a compromise of the processes of the government, commercial in confidence or executive privilege — all of the grounds that have been repeatedly listed for the house in letters from the Attorney-General — or if the release of the documents could lead to a breach of any of those things, then frankly they will not be released.

Therefore there is probably not a lot of value in me wasting any more of the house’s time. I suggest there is not a lot of value in the opposition continuing to waste the house’s time on Wednesdays with these sorts of requests when there are other avenues it can use to get these documents. I do not believe it should be the business of this house to be spending endless hours debating the release of documents so that the opposition can finally find a policy. That is really what this is about. The opposition has not been able to develop any policies of any substance in any area, and so now it is making yet another attempt to develop a set of policies by using the briefings and advice that come from the public service to the government. It is as crude as that.

I do not agree with the proposition that Mr David Davis is a conspiracy theorist. I do not think there is any great, grand conspiracy concept on the other side, that it is conspiring to actually expose the government’s weaknesses in a particular area. It is as base as the fact that the opposition is unable to come up with its own policies, so it is going to ask for all advice which is given to ministers and for all ministerial notes so that it has some chance of getting a policy.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Perhaps I should save some of what I want to say for the debate on the motion that is about to come after this one, but I should note that Mr Viney’s basic proposition, which he stated in fairly generalist terms, was that government cannot function unless it is able to function in secrecy.



The two of us are ships in the night, passing on different historical trends. I agree it is not necessary for us to know that in a particular cabinet meeting this minister argued this way and another minister argued another way, they had a fight about it, a third minister piled on and eventually a decision was reached. I am not really interested in knowing about that. But of course it is of crucial importance and of great public interest to know what matters ministers are taking into consideration when they decide to take a particular course of action.

While almost all material is now being attached to cabinet submissions and therefore being called cabinet in confidence, that is not to say we are not seeing that material. We are seeing those documents when ministers who do not get their way in cabinet start leaking them. We are seeing them when the government puts out a vast variety of requests for information where some of that information, conflicting as it may appear, makes its way into the public domain from other people. I, for one, simply do not believe that the government would not be better off releasing all the information it takes into account when it makes a particular decision, and then letting us be the judge of the considerations and how they may have finally come to be weighted. That, after all, is the essence of public debate. I think it is the essence of public confidence.

We do not yet know whether the documents requested are cabinet documents, so that is enough on the issue of cabinet documents. It will not have any bearing on our next debate either. It could be that the documents Mr Davis is requesting prove to be voluminous, but that will be in contrast with the amount of information that the government has been prepared to release publicly on this key issue to date — as Mr Davis pointed out, it has been a single 16-page submission. One is really merely balancing the other: what the government, on a good day, is willing to share with the public versus the material it actually has on hand when it is making these decisions.

The documents the government has commissioned on the impact on the economy of these measures are important. However, they will be only one part of a large debate on the possible, likely, expected or intended effects. What is more interesting to us is the latter part of the motion, which refers to documents that talk about the impact on state voluntary measures as they relate to the CPRS (carbon pollution reduction scheme).

The state government is a significant emitter across its entire range of activities. Most departments, entities or business units, or whatever you want to call them, have

had programs under way to reduce emissions. In fact, Melbourne Water has a target of zero emissions. If all that investment is to be unwound, undone or rendered ineffectual by the way this particular CPRS has been designed, we want to know about it. The question has already been asked; and internally the government has already begun to answer the question. It should tell Parliament and the public what is going on there.

Equally important, though, is the state government’s — any state government’s — access to some major policy levers. All the other levers outside the issue of an emission trading scheme are in large part in the hands of the state government: design of transport systems, building regulations, land use planning, control over the natural environment, carbon sinks and the very ownership of the coal and other land-based resources that form the basis of the emissions. Why it is seen as a federal problem when in fact the biggest slice appears to be under the direct control of state government has always been a mystery to me.

We need to understand not only the impact of the CPRS on the Victorian economy and the Victorian government’s own emissions but also how it will interact with policies that the state government may, may not or should have been contemplating. The public transport example that Mr Davis brought up was better than any of the April Fools jokes I have heard today. The cost impost on petrol is to be neutralised in the early years of the scheme; trains and trams that have the misfortune to be powered by electricity get an extra cost because all coal-powered electricity is going to become more expensive. I could not imagine a more contradictory or perverse set of incentives. The whole discussion on the CPRS has been about how it will work, not just internally within its trading mechanism, but when it gets out there in the real world.

I have to say I have found the greatest secrecy around documents that are about state-federal relations and the interaction of policies, and particularly documents that track back and forth from state to federal government. When we had a federal Liberal government and a state Labor government, you could usually rely on both the Liberal and Labor parties to have access to those documents — although not the Greens or others out there in the community. Now that we have matching state and federal Labor governments, there has been a complete shutdown on the dialogue between those two levels, and a motion like this is in fact the only way to bring them out.

Mr Viney said we should use the FOI act. I imagine — I think I am right — Mr Viney was never an opposition politician. I think he actually entered the Parliament



after a by-election in 1999, during the Bracks government. So he has never had any experience as a opposition politician. He has never made an FOI application against a state government. He has literally never typed the letter and sent off the cheque for $22.50. I can understand why Mr Viney would labour under the misconception that FOI is an effective mechanism. It simply is not. That is not because of small changes that have been made to the act; it is because of the overwhelming culture. I could go on about that forever, and I have in earlier debates.

For all those reasons, the Greens will support the motion. We think it is extremely timely that the government’s own work and the efforts it is no doubt putting in to assess the impact of the carbon pollution reduction scheme on Victoria broadly become public. After all, that work was put together by bureaucrats and consultants who were paid from the public purse. The government does not own the information or the output. The people of Victoria paid for it. Where there is not some dramatic and well-demonstrated need for secrecy, there is no reason why all such documents should not be put on a website automatically. That would certainly reduce the need for motions such as this.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan) — I want to comment briefly on this motion. It is interesting that, as far as the release of documents goes, it is similar to motions that we debate in Parliament time and time again on Wednesdays. Of the government MPs, Mr Viney speaks on these particular motions. I have suggested to him previously that maybe he should just put his speech on a loop, replay it and conserve his energy on these days, because the government is always consistent. It is always consistent in that it is happy to pass over documents that are not commercially sensitive or under the privilege of the executive government.

That leads me to think about visiting old Parliament House in Canberra, where they have a number of tours. They are visited by a lot of primary school children, especially from around grades 5 and 6. There are a lot of signs in the different areas of interest. When you come to the cabinet room there is a big sign about the executive documents of the federal government. It explains quite clearly, so that primary school children can understand, that executive documents are held in the privilege of the executive government and that they can be released 30 years after that government was in office. It explains that that is the way it is done so the government of the time can actually function.

One day when I was at old Parliament House I came across a group of schoolchildren from grades 5 and 6

who were stopped in front of that sign. The attendant who was taking them around gave a quite fulsome but easy-to-understand explanation of the privilege of executive documents. They understood it; they got it.

Mr Viney — The primary school kids understood it?

Mr LEANE — The primary school kids in grades 5 and 6 got it. That leads me to ask a type of question that Rove McManus asks quite frequently on a Sunday night: is Mr David Davis smarter than a fifth grader? Fifth graders get executive privilege quite easily. I have witnessed firsthand fifth graders understanding it.

The problem with this motion is that it leads to the next motion, which is no. 3 on the notice paper. It refers to a government minister, the Leader of the House, who has to put first what is right for the people of Victoria that the government represents. If he protects executive privilege, which is a time-honoured right of every government, he faces being expelled from the house for a day. This is a trend for things that are going to happen time and time again.

Far be it from me to try to assist the opposition, but for the life of me I cannot believe that opposition members would be supporting the next motion. The person they are going to expel from the house on the Thursday of the next sitting week is the Treasurer. He is the person who will be handing down the budget on the Tuesday, and they will be denying themselves the opportunity to ask him questions during question time on the Thursday because they will be kicking him out!

I know that last year opposition members did very badly in trying to pick holes in last year’s budget. Maybe last year’s experience was quite harrowing for them and they do not want to go through another day of that again, but it is absolutely bizarre that an opposition would even entertain that motion. We will wait for the debate on the next motion to see how Liberal Party members actually vote. To me, they will be holding up the white flag. They will not want to ask the Treasurer questions at question time on the Thursday of budget week. It is absolutely amazing!

We are resigned to debating more and more of these motions. I will be suggesting that Mr Viney put his speech on a loop and conserve his energy in the future. We will wait until the Wednesday of the next sitting week to see which executive privilege documents members of the opposition and those on the crossbenches ask for.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS



Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I move:

That this house:

(1) expresses its concerns at the persistent refusal of the government and the Leader of the Government on behalf of the government to fully comply with resolutions of the Council of 10 September 2008, 15 October 2008 and 4 February 2009 to provide certain public transport tender documents specified in those resolutions;

(2) expresses its disappointment that the government has failed to make any attempt to find any resolution to this issue;

(3) believes that the actions of the government amount to a serious attack against the powers, privileges and immunities of the Council and demonstrate again the government’s lack of accountability to the Parliament and the people of Victoria;

(4) notes that the Leader of the Government on behalf of the government has now, on three occasions, failed to fully comply with resolutions of the Council requiring him, on behalf of the government, to produce the said documents;

(5) regards its capacity to obtain information on any matter affecting the public interest as being fundamental to the reasonable exercise of its role and powers to scrutinise all aspects of executive behaviour;

(6) regards it as essential that the rightful powers and principles of the Council be protected and that appropriate sanctions be imposed for any obstruction to the proper performance of its important functions;

(7) accordingly adjudges the Leader of the Government guilty of a contempt of the Council for his failure to fully comply, on behalf of the government, with resolutions of the Council on 10 September 2008, 15 October 2008 and 4 February 2009 to table or lodge with the Clerk the public transport tender documents specified in the resolution of the Council of 4 February 2009; and

(8) (a) orders the Leader of the Government on behalf of the government to lodge the documents specified in the resolution of 4 February 2009 with the Clerk by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday, 7 May 2009;

(b) suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of the sitting on Thursday, 7 May 2009, if the documents are not lodged with the Clerk by 4.00 p.m. that day. Provided that if the documents are subsequently lodged with the Clerk at any time during the period of suspension on Thursday, 7 May 2009, the suspension will immediately cease to have effect; and

(c) in the event that the documents are not produced or tabled with the Clerk, foreshadows that further

sanctions will be imposed upon the Leader of the Government, representing the government, for his persistent obstruction of the business of the Council.

In relation to the particular documents we are dealing with here — and I will come back in a moment to describe them — there have been a series of resolutions on 10 September 2008, 15 October 2008 and 4 February 2009, all of them requests to provide the documents and all of them refused. This is now the final motion. Today we are judging whether that behaviour represents a contempt of the Council. Should this motion be agreed to, it will lead to an automatic expulsion of the Leader of the Government for the remainder of the sitting day on Thursday, 7 May. I can assure Mr Leane that that will be after question time, so we will be okay there.

I would have thought that the documents were rather uncontroversial compared to other documents that have been the subject of FOI applications, debates here or Auditor-General’s reports. The documents are, quite simply, the material that has been assembled by the government and provided to all the short-listed bidders seeking to take over and run Melbourne’s trams and trains.

In previous versions of this motion I have talked about why that is an issue of crucial public interest. I think the government knows that it is particularly weak on this ground. Protection of commercial-in-confidence information is in no way an element of executive privilege; they are two totally different concepts, and the government in this case is claiming commercial-in-confidence protection as well as the existence of some national security matters. I have said earlier that if there are specific matters of national security, the government could easily delete those and make an explanation to the house, and we would receive the rest of the documents. None of those small, side issues should in any way prevent it from providing the material.

If this motion fails, then the Parliament has been seriously weakened, and with it the democracy. My understanding is that the coalition will support this motion. Mr Kavanagh is yet to speak; he may have his own amendments, and I am not going to foreshadow the situation for him, but I ask him to consider that the ‘D’ in DLP is quite important and that the Democratic Labor Party has a long historical thread. Mr Kavanagh likes to educate us about its history, and he is still making that history, and protecting and enhancing the democracy is the ultimate responsibility of every person elected to Parliament regardless of the party from which they are elected.



We are all here to push our own particular issue concerns and maybe those that many of our voters have put us into Parliament to pursue, but we all have an overarching responsibility to protect the democracy. The government, as I said, is probably on quite shaky ground with these documents, because its core claim is protection of commercial-in-confidence information. Its core claim has to be that there is information about the functioning of the rail and tram systems that it is prepared to share with the three bidding consortiums but it cannot bring the Victorian public into its confidence on the state of that information.

Given that we have now established, with the support of Mr Kavanagh and the coalition, a select committee inquiring into why the trains stopped working so catastrophically, it becomes even more crucial that we understand what it is the government is serving up to private bidders and what system we will be getting as a result. It is because the grounds are so poor that the government is so desperate to have this one knocked on the head. I do not know whether, if this motion is successful, the government has any serious intention of having it tested in a court.

Despite the comments from Mr Leane about fifth graders and so forth, we are not doing anything particularly novel here; it is only novel for the Victorian Parliament. It is actually easy to understand, because the concept is well established in other Australian parliaments. It is just a new, new thing for the Victorian government. The effect of the suspension will be that the Leader of the Government will be suspended from 4.00 p.m. on Thursday, 7 May, for the remainder of the sitting day, which in some ways looks like a bit of a symbolic thing but at another level shows the determination of the house to keep bringing forward the information it needs in order to make proper deliberations on behalf of the people who elect its members.

If this motion is unsuccessful in part or in whole, it will not be the end, because it is an issue that simply needs to be resolved. Whether the government is keen to resolve it through some sort of judicial ruling, I honestly cannot say, but if it chooses to fight it on this particular ground, it will do badly.

Mr VINEY (Eastern Victoria) — As we went through the last sitting week and the weeks before that we talked about the fact that these debates are becoming fairly repetitious. My contribution on this motion today will be reasonably short, not only because I have said these things many times before but because there is a singularly simple issue for this house to consider.

In November 2006 the people of Victoria went to the polls and did something that in Australia we should completely and totally celebrate: they voted to have their representatives elected into both houses of Parliament. I will give the reason for saying we should celebrate it, and Mr Leane started the theme by talking about fifth graders. Whenever I am in this place and there is a visiting school group, if I happen to walk past I always stop and have a talk to the children. Many of them have seen the bad behaviour that occurs in parliaments, and I ask them whether they have seen some of that on television. One of the things I say to them is that in this place, in Australia, this is how we settle our differences. Everyone has different views about how our society should be run, how our schools should be run and how police, roads and public transport should be run and operated. In our society we resolve those differences of opinion by having an election; and we put people into Parliament. Other societies attempt to resolve their differences in different and far less palatable ways. That gets through to these kids. They realise what this is about; they realise the solemness of that process of exercising a vote and the importance of electing people into this place to represent our communities.

In the Southern Metropolitan Region 110 877 votes were cast for John Lenders to represent them in this place. This house is now deciding whether to suspend a member — even for a short time, whether it is half an hour, a day or whatever — from the services of this house and from representing his constituents in this place. For a short period that will overturn their solemn election decision. This house has that power and needs to have it. It is a sanction that needs to exist for the proper functioning of Parliament — —

Mr Barber — Like this morning!

Mr VINEY — Mr Barber has made an interesting point, but in response to him I say there is an interesting difference. The difference is that this house is proposing to suspend a member for upholding the law and upholding his sworn oath of office. That is what this house is proposing to do.

Earlier in the day the house voted to not suspend a member on a matter concerning the authority of the Chair. That is a different issue. The house is responsible for exercising control over its members. If it chooses not to exercise control, it might suffer some consequences. That is a different matter. We do not question the rights, role and power of the house to suspend a member. We simply say it needs to be exercised with appropriate caution and for good reason.



The decision to exercise its own self-discipline and control is a matter for the house.

The house is now deciding whether or not that election result in November 2006 should be overturned because the minister, who is the Leader of the Government, has followed his duties in protecting executive privilege and upholding his sworn oath of office. We do not question the right of the house, but we do not agree with that right being exercised on this issue. We have not questioned the right of the house to provide documents. We have provided documents; we have provided a significant number of documents that have been requested under this motion. But a number of documents that we have gone over and over in this place and that relate to executive privilege cannot be released. To do so undermines the fundamental structures of the Westminster system where ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament and the executive, essentially come from the Parliament.

Ministers get advice, and where that advice assists ministers to determine their position at a cabinet meeting, it needs to be confidential.

Mr Leane interjected.

Mr VINEY — As Mr Leane pointed out in a previous debate, it is as clear as day. The fifth graders he was watching at the old Parliament House got it. But the point of this is extremely serious, because what is proposed is a suspension of a member, whether it be for a short period or not. It proposes to overturn the decision of 110 877 electors from the Southern Metropolitan Region. That should only be done when it is an extremely serious matter.

I put it to the house that a minister who is upholding his sworn oath of office and his responsibilities to protect executive privilege and the good functioning of government are not proper grounds for overturning the decision of those voters.

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — It is a duty that I rise to comment on this motion and indicate that the opposition will support it. It is a duty because it is not something I do with pleasure. I am disappointed that the government has chosen — despite the house’s repeated requests on 10 September, 15 October and 4 February — to not provide key transport documents. I will not go over the details of them; Mr Barber has eloquently outlined them in the chamber and they have been referred to in all of those previous debates. They are important documents.

Mr Barber is correct in stating that the essence of the government’s objection is claimed to be

commercial-in-confidence matters; I am not persuaded by that. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity for the government to hide behind that excuse. From my reading of the legal opinions on the powers of this house, May and other books of parliamentary practice, including those applicable in the Senate, it is not open to the government to refuse documents of this nature.

These are not documents that attract executive privilege. The government may in certain situations have reasonable grounds for claiming executive privilege and it may not in others, but that is not an issue in this case.

Additionally I make the point that Mr Viney seeks again and again to talk about the electors in my region of Southern Metropolitan Region. I want to make the point very clear that I do not believe my large vote and Mr Lenders’s large vote are personal votes entirely; they are party votes. Mr Viney stands up and says, ‘X number of hundreds of thousands of people’.

Mr Viney — That is something we absolutely agree on.

Mr D. DAVIS — I am humble enough to admit it. You may not be, but I certainly am. I make the point very strongly that the electors have a right to have their representative here, but it is not an absolute right. Members of this chamber are required to retain a certain level of performance. If for some reason a member does not do so, we regularly see the President suspend somebody for 30 minutes — in the cooler, as it were — and that is an appropriate position on some occasions. I am not in any way diminishing that role on certain occasions but, on Mr Viney’s understanding, that would be denying the electors of that region their representation during that period. It is clearly an absurd proposition to say that there are no reasons and no grounds on which a member can be asked to leave the chamber.

What this motion seeks to do is to say the Leader of the Government — and this is not a personal motion in the sense — —

Mr Viney — That is not what I said. Were you in here?

Mr D. DAVIS — Yes, I was here.

Mr Viney — You didn’t have your listening ears on.

Mr D. DAVIS — I did have my listening ears on. I make the point that here today we are looking at a motion that seeks to impose a sanction on the Leader of the Government for failing to provide documents. The



government has wilfully chosen not to provide documents. The government has decided that it is going to obstruct and to stonewall on these documents. The house needs to find a mechanism to indicate its displeasure.

Motions have already passed pointing to its displeasure. It needs to go one step further. In my view it is a reasonable step to give the minister another opportunity to provide these documents. If the Leader of the Government does not provide those documents by the reasonable point nominated in the motion, a sanction will be applied; in this case the sanction will be the suspension of the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of the sitting day on 7 May 2009. In the end the chamber has to have some opportunity and capacity to indicate where it clearly instructs a member of the government to undertake a particular step, and the government stonewalls. If the minister, the Leader of the Government in this case, wilfully decides not to comply with those instructions from the chamber, I think there is a need to put some clear sanction in position.

Mr Viney interjected.

Mr D. DAVIS — It is wilful, Mr Viney. There is no question that the government has taken a course of action here. Mr Viney claims the minister is only carrying out his duty and upholding his oath of office. His oath of office also includes obligations to this chamber. He has an obligation as an elected member of this chamber to obey the wishes and decisions of the chamber and in this case the request for documents. You might argue that this is one of the great clashes of our democratic system, our Westminster system, as parliaments have sought to rein in the executive and to keep it in check.

One of the most powerful ways of keeping the executive in check is by requesting information and finding out exactly what the government is doing and why. Without information, without access to the facts, without access to detailed background information, the house is not able to perform its scrutiny role, its role as a house of review, its role as a watchdog on the executive government. For executive government to claim that the government has not got that role is outrageous.

I have to say I think this is a timely motion. Mr Barber brought this motion after a great deal of patience, as I said. Motions were moved on 10 September, 15 October and 4 February and still the government refuses to comply. I say give the Leader of the Government one more chance and then we should act.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — I move:

In paragraph (8), omit subparagraph (b).

Mr Barber’s motion not only demands the production of documents in question but also mandates an automatic suspension of the Leader of the Government, Mr Lenders, in the event that those documents are not made available to this house.

The purpose of my amendment is to delete that part of the motion automatically suspending Mr Lenders in the event of non-compliance with the rest of the motion. The documents in question should of course have been made available to this house in accordance with demands made by this house over an extended period. It is entirely proper that the house restates its demand for those documents. In my opinion, however, suspending any member is a dramatic step with important implications for our representative democracy, particularly if that suspension can involve taking away that member’s right to vote.

It is a measure by which certain members of Parliament would overturn the decision of voters, as Mr Viney has said, and however temporarily, remove an elected member of this Parliament. It leaves those voters without their elected representative. If such an action is to be taken by this house, then it seems to me that it should be done by its members slowly, deliberately and with careful consideration. It is not a decision, in my opinion, to be put on autopilot or on set-and-forget mode.

In the movie Dr Strangelove, which was about nuclear war in the early 1960s, the Soviet Union revealed after a nuclear accident that it had installed a ‘doomsday device’. This device was set up so that it would automatically unleash nuclear Armageddon on the entire world if the Soviet computers detected a threat. The unleashing of nuclear holocaust was automatic and could not be interfered with once the threat was detected. It seems to me that paragraph 8(b) is a modest legislative version of a doomsday device — that is, it removes our ability to intervene to respond to circumstances as they arise and to take appropriate action.

If we are to overturn the democratic decision of voters in Victoria, I think we should do so in the full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances that apply to the situation at that particular time, and not five weeks earlier, which this motion proposes. My amendment is aimed at achieving precisely that objective.



Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — In speaking in opposition to the motion before the chamber I would like to outline from a first-principle perspective why the government does not agree with either the tenor of the motion or the specific sanction against the Leader of the Government that is being foreshadowed.

Going back to first principles, there have been a number of people in this debate who have tried to get to the high moral ground in relation to accountability, good governance and the role of the Legislative Council in providing scrutiny of the executive and confidence to the people of Victoria that there are appropriate checks and balances on government decision making both within the Parliament and within the appropriate accountability framework.

I am part of a government that during its term in office has consistently undertaken a range of measures to try to improve the accountability framework. That goes to the heart of the way we reformed this chamber to be more representative of the political diversity of the Victorian community and to allow for a higher degree of scrutiny than we had previously. In the last term of the Labor government when this government had the majority of members in this chamber we took action to amend the constitution, even though we knew that, almost by design, we would never again have a majority in this chamber except in very rare political circumstances. We provided for additional scrutiny in the name of a better democratic institution. That is consistent with our approach.

We made sure, in one of the very first pieces of legislation we introduced into this Parliament on being elected back in 1999, that we made amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. We also restored the powers of the Auditor-General and we made amendments to the Financial Management Act to ensure that we were subject to scrutiny and accountability frameworks that the previous administration was not prepared to be subjected to. I argue that in terms of providing the building blocks of government preparedness to make itself accountable and to make sure it acts in a way that provides confidence that there are a combination of parliamentary and statutory mechanisms by which the Victorian community can maintain confidence that the government is accountable, our government is as committed as any I have seen on the Australian landscape.

Within the context of the motion before the chamber today, we are now in a contested space about the role of this chamber as it applies to executive scrutiny. Beyond

the mechanisms that are available, beyond the Auditor-General, beyond the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, beyond the probity considerations of a tendering arrangement that may apply to public transport to try to ensure that there can be confidence in good governance and good decision making within government, this chamber believes it has the additional prerogative of being able to call on documentary evidence that is in the middle of a public tender process. It believes it can have unfettered access to material of its choosing, regardless of the consequences for the probity considerations and the successful conclusion of that tender. At the end of the day that is why the government, on the basis of its legal advice and its probity considerations in relation to the validity of the tender, is withholding documents that the Legislative Council is calling for.

Not only is the opposition calling for those documents despite the potential of contaminating that process, it is ignoring the fact that accountability frameworks are in place during and following the process to provide confidence to the Victorian community that decisions are made within an appropriate range and with the appropriate consideration. Those frameworks exist and will continue to exist regardless of the outcome of this motion. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, those frameworks will still be available to members of this chamber, to members of this Parliament and to the Victorian community to pursue over time to make sure that appropriate scrutiny is brought to bear. This motion flies in the face of the government’s legal advice, probity advice and accountability advice about the appropriate availability of documents.

So what does this resolution then do? It says, ‘Regardless of all that, regardless of this framework, regardless of the legal advice the government is operating on, regardless of the fact that the Leader of the Government is acting totally in accordance with those frameworks and that legal advice, we will impose a sanction on him if we do not get our way in relation to the release of documents we think we have the right to obtain’.

As has already been suggested by government members in this debate, the Leader of the Government could be subject to sanctions on an issue beyond the scope of his ministerial responsibility and beyond the scope of the legal advice on which the government and he has relied on. Regardless of that he will still have a sanction imposed upon him which will remove him from the chamber and his responsibilities as Leader of the Government, diminishing the capacity of those who elected him to have representation in the Parliament.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE


The cumulative effect of all of that is that the government has no option, no legal advice and no framework enabling it to do anything but oppose this motion. In conclusion I congratulate Mr Kavanagh for two things. Firstly, I congratulate him for at least having the good grace and the good sense to propose the removal of the sanction, even though he may not have been able to go the full distance in terms of further amending or varying the resolution; there are still any number of unpalatable elements of this motion intact. However, he had the good sense to do that. I also thank him for his calling upon what will ultimately be remembered as one of the greatest films of the 20th century, Dr Strangelove, in advocating his position. It is a point well made and a reference that resonates very well with those who are culturally well versed, referring to some of the lessons of history we should learn. He has called upon them quite appropriately in his amendment.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise in support of the motion moved by Mr Barber this morning with respect to the issue of the public transport tender documents. Regrettably this is a matter this house has had to deal with on far too many occasions with respect to various documents the house has legitimately sought under the powers that were granted to it by the constitution of Victoria, which the government is yet to recognise as a legitimate function of this Parliament.

As we saw in 2007 and 2008 with respect to certain matters surrounding gaming, we are seeing today a reluctance on the part of the government to comply with legitimate orders made by the Legislative Council. The government simply does not accept that it should be accountable to this house. I listened with interest to Mr Viney’s contribution this morning on this debate and his argument that essentially this is a waste of the house’s time, that the house is wasting its time with these types of debates which it has been having on an ongoing basis simply because the government — —

Mr Viney — Part of my contribution.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS — That part of your contribution, Mr Viney. The house has been having these debates simply because the government is choosing not to comply with the order that was legitimately made on no less than three occasions by this house, in September and October last year and in February this year.

It is regrettable that we again have to go over the old ground of asserting the Legislative Council’s legitimate capacity to seek from the government and in this

instance from the minister responsible for the government in this house, where the relevant minister for the public transport portfolio is in the other place, compliance with a fourth motion on what should be a straightforward matter — —

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.


Hospitals: data reporting

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer refused to demand an audit of data submitted under the Australian health-care agreements, and given federal health minister Nicola Roxon’s comment that deliberate manipulation of hospital data would ‘result in the federal government adjusting performance bonuses so as to reflect the true and accurate performance’, I ask: in order to avoid reduction of commonwealth payments to Victoria, will the Treasurer now order a complete audit into health data submitted to the commonwealth government, given the Brumby government’s proven corrupt waiting list practices?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Again I find it interesting, in a parliamentary chamber where we have long debates over accountability and where there is a minister who represents the health portfolio, that the Leader of the Opposition is either too fearful to ask Mr Jennings a question — and I can understand that, because Mr Jennings is a very good debater — or is unfamiliar with the procedures of the house. I find either scenario disappointing, but in the interests of transparency I will certainly again seek to answer Mr David Davis’s question.

In opening I will say that I know Mr Davis is a thespian and into theatre, but I find extraordinary his use of highly emotive language. I understand he has an opinion, but if he is serious about the process of public debate, about the process of auditing figures and about assisting in public policy, I think he needs to review his strategy. The Auditor-General reported — —

Mr D. Davis — Today.

Mr LENDERS — I thank Mr David Davis for his help. I can mention the word ‘today’; I do have the faculties to string a sentence together. Mr Davis’s assistance — I guess he is being gracious — is welcomed. That may be how the parliamentary Liberal Party generally works — by putting words into



people’s mouths — but I think I have the ability to speak to the house and answer the question.

The Auditor-General has presented a report. I have not read the whole report yet, but I do have the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office brief. It is interesting to note that in the report the Auditor-General makes a series of recommendations.

Mr D. Davis interjected.

Mr LENDERS — The Auditor-General makes 15 recommendations. Perhaps, President, we should amend the sessional orders so that Mr Davis can ask the question and answer the question. That might make it easier for him. If he asks a question, he should have the courtesy to let me answer it in my own words.

The Auditor-General makes 15 very strong recommendations about auditing, accountability and the actions that the government should take on this data. Let us not skirt around the fact that the Auditor-General has made strong recommendations. I endorse having an Auditor-General, I endorse the Auditor-General making recommendations and I endorse the process whereby the independent Auditor-General makes strong recommendations and the government is obligated to respond to them.

What I find interesting is that Mr David Davis has completely overshot again. He has not dealt with the public policy recommendations we have in front of us here — 15 recommendations from the Auditor-General calling for strong action from the government on a problem in the health system — which no-one is shirking. In fact the minister has put an audit in place; he has intervened in the Latrobe hospital, which was the central issue to which the Auditor-General referred; yesterday he announced spot audits across the board in hospitals; and yesterday he announced a series of funding changes. Rather than dealing with those serious public policy issues, Mr Davis overshoots — he is in orbit somewhere between Saturn and Uranus! — by calling the Brumby government corrupt.

What I say to Mr Davis and to the house is that this is a serious policy issue and it is one that should be debated in the houses of Parliament, but if Mr Davis wants a serious debate, he should talk about the Auditor-General’s 15 recommendations in the terms that are available. It is fine to have an opinion on everything, but I would rather look at the policies the Auditor-General suggests in far more measured language with his constructive solutions to deal with the problem — not listen to the hyperbole of someone up beyond the stratosphere.

Supplementary question

Mr D. DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his answers and his concession that there are serious waiting list issues in Victoria. Given those serious issues and the certainty that Victorian waiting list data submitted to the commonwealth is inaccurate, what steps will the Treasurer take to ensure that the Brumby government is not forced to repay moneys falsely or incorrectly claimed from the commonwealth?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Mr David Davis is persistent. His questions committee has obviously decided again today that we will have a question on health — and possibly two, three, four or five, if it is that coordinated. He is obviously going to continue running a line today implying that somehow or other this is going to affect the delivery of health services in Victoria.

What this government will be focused on and will remain absolutely focused on is boosting the throughput of people through hospitals in this state. We are treating 400 000 more patients, we are building hospitals like the Latrobe hospital, to which the Auditor-General referred, rather than privatising them, which is what Mr David Davis voted for in government, we have increased our nursing workforce, our doctors workforce and our allied health workforce, and we have increased the throughput in hospitals, built super-clinics and supported community health systems because, firstly, we believe in it and have put the resources into it and, secondly, we administer the health system more efficiently. We administer it more efficiently than those opposite because this government actually believes public hospitals and public health are worth investing in. Public hospitals are worth supporting, not privatising like the botched effort with the Latrobe hospital and the botched efforts across the board. We are not about closing country hospitals and country ambulance services and devastating the community like the opposition did.

If Mr David Davis wants a debate on health and wants to talk about investing resources, bring on the debate. If Mr David Davis wants to discuss the issue of how we can best deal with the commonwealth on monitoring grants, that is fine, but when it comes to public health, the one Liberal Party person with an opinion I will listen to is Russell Hannan, the former Victorian state president of the Liberal Party, who said Mr David Davis was lazy and had spent 5 hours on it in four years.



Planning: activity centres

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Northern Metropolitan) — I have a question for the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, about the government’s designated activity centres, a Brumby Labor government initiative that has supported new development, new infrastructure and jobs for local communities. Can the minister update the house on the government’s activity centre policies?

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I thank Mr Theophanous for his interest in these matters, because I know that — —

Mr Viney — Unlike the opposition.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Unlike the opposition, absolutely. Mr Theophanous has an interest in activity centre policy, particularly because the activity centres are a critical component of what we are doing in terms of our plan to make Melbourne a great place to live, work and raise a family.

In terms of retail strip shopping, it is worth bearing in mind that from time to time over the last 20 or 30 years they have ebbed and flowed and sometimes lost their economic vitality. What we have seen is some of those smaller retailers and smaller shops move to some of the larger shopping centres. Whilst there is nothing wrong with those larger shopping centres, what we see from time to time is those traditional, main street type strip shopping centres lose their gravitas and panache, and as a result people have to travel a lot further to do their shopping, to have access to the services they need or to get the jobs or the like that they need in those centres. It is very heartening to see a main street centre renewed through good planning policy and good development practice via the private sector.

I make the point that only some weeks ago I was in Puckle Street. Those on the other side of the chamber may not get to Puckle Street very often. It is a very famous street. I look across to a couple of members on the other side of the chamber. I am sure that some of the members opposite have been to Puckle Street from time to time.


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I am pleased to hear that Mr Finn shops in Puckle Street. Regardless of that, it is a good shopping centre with very good products and retailers. As a local in the area I have watched the redevelopment of Moonee Ponds Central over some time. For those in the chamber who are not acquainted with Puckle Street, what you have is the main street and

on either side there has been some development, but what has been missing has been development on the old market site. For some time it has languished, but I know the council has worked closely with a developer to see the new Moonee Ponds Central development connected and integrated with what have been fragmented components of this main street — Puckle Street — backdrop.

We have a new shopping complex, known as Moonee Ponds Central, which connects three shopping precincts together. I would encourage members to go there. At the opening the other day what was particularly impressive was that Kmart, which is probably one of the linchpin tenants in this development, has employed a significant number of young people in the store. It is heartening that they are locals, so it is a great result for the local community and for young people. It provides services locally for people so they will not have to travel nearly as far as they might have had to have done previously.

I also compliment the work the council has done. With those three connected precincts there is somewhere in the order of 55 new shops that are currently being tenanted. As well as that, the development created 450 jobs during construction but, most importantly, there are 300 permanent jobs at the centre, which is great news for the surrounding suburbs. I congratulate everybody involved in that. This is a great testament to the work of complementary planning.

Mr Atkinson interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Mr Atkinson has highlighted that it has taken a long time, because the market precinct sat there vacant. Some of it still sits there vacant because of landowners currently sitting on that land. We are seeing a revitalisation of the whole centre and the revitalisation of Puckle Street, which is an iconic retail strip in Melbourne. This reinforces more than ever that we are doing the work and complementing the private sector and local government to make sure that we continue to make Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Environment: container deposit legislation

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Jennings. I released a report yesterday on the financial, environmental and social benefits of a drink container deposit system. I am wondering whether he has been able to read it and consider the information.



Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — The clerks are scratching their heads over whether this comes under the anticipation rule. There is an item listed on the notice paper which relates to the legislation and which indicates that the question might fall foul of the anticipation rule in the chamber. I am giving the clerks some time to work out how they advise the President about whether this question is in or out.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — I think it is in.

Mr JENNINGS — Okay, it is in. Good luck to us all!

I congratulate Ms Hartland for doing some policy work. If this question had not come my way, Ms Hartland would have got some credit during the course of my contribution today for doing some policy work. It is not necessarily policy work and policy conclusions that I am agreeing with at this time; however, she has done some work, put in some effort and done some economic modelling and some projections about what the resource recovery stream is now and what it may be in the future. She has had a look at the strengths and weaknesses of kerbside collection and the strengths and weaknesses of the current recycling rates in Australia and Victoria, and she has had a dip at having some policy. I congratulate Ms Hartland on all of those things.

Using my own form of anticipation, I might be talking about resource recovery issues during the course of the day — I have a sneaking suspicion it might be before the hour is out. In that context I will be talking about some of the policy frameworks and the commitment of our government to try to make sure that it finds a way of driving investment and innovation and achieving better outcomes in resource recovery and recycling within the Victorian community — something that our government is acutely determined to achieve. We are going to be embarking upon continuing efforts to achieve that in cooperation with our community, waste management groups and the involvement of local government and industry into the future.

Within that context I am happy that we consider the utility of the proposals Ms Hartland has put into her research report and the bill that the notice paper foreshadows. Without necessarily giving the full answer of how we will be responding, I am acutely alive — as I have always been — to listening to the best advice about how we can achieve these outcomes. If on balance we are persuaded as a state and a nation to adopt the policy prescriptions, then that may make Ms Hartland very happy in terms of correlation

between her policy prescriptions and the outcome. At this time I continue to have some serious reservations about whether the net contribution will achieve the outcome that is purported. I am happy to appropriately evaluate the merits of Ms Hartland’s proposal and the proposals of the government, and to consider the national framework and to take that work further, but that is probably as far as I am able to contribute to that debate at this moment.


Mr Viney — Are you going to ask him if he has read the appendices?

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — Thank you, Mr Viney. In that case has the minister been misquoted in the press when he said he would be voting against the bill without having seen the bill or having seen the report yesterday? I am aware of at least three occasions on which the minister has been quoted as saying that he and the government would vote against the bill. Has the minister been inaccurately reported?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — That would be a one-off if that has ever happened to me. The important element of my contribution is what I have outlined in terms of the government’s position — and my position — on the relative merits of Ms Hartland’s legislation. Let us wait and see. Personally, I have a better track record of voting for pieces of legislation that Ms Hartland has brought to the chamber than many others, but that does not necessarily mean that Ms Hartland is a walk-up start for everything.

Environment: resource recovery

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is also for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. Can the minister inform the house how the Brumby Labor government is helping drive innovation, investment and job creation in Victoria’s resource recovery industry?

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — It seems I am a prophet, because I had some degree of expectation that I might have an opportunity to talk about this important issue today, and I thank Mr Tee for providing me with the opportunity, as indeed I thanked Ms Hartland for the opportunity to talk about this. This is a great community in terms of our commitment to recycling. In fact our community will recycle 300 per cent more material this year than it did in 1995.



We have a great track record in dealing with the waste stream. Our government has made major commitments in terms of moving towards zero waste in our landfills. We have set ambitious targets in the municipal, the commercial and industrial, and the construction and demolition waste streams, and we are projecting very well in terms of meeting those ambitious targets. However, it is pretty clear that a disproportionate amount of material still ends up in landfill, and that is a major concern to parts of the community. When organic matter decomposes it becomes methane gas, and methane gas is a very serious contributor to greenhouse gases. It is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so any volume of methane gas contributes significantly to our global warming problem.

We are determined to try to reduce the volume going into landfill. Members of the chamber would be acutely aware that in last year’s budget, as part of the innovation statement, the government made a significant investment of $10 million to support the Victorian Advanced Resource Recovery Initiative, or VARRI, which will be supporting our sector in making wise investment decisions about the way we can move to advanced waste technologies that will be able to handle on an industrial scale large volumes of organic matter than may otherwise end up in landfill. These technologies will preprocess this organic matter appropriately and create products that are more environmentally friendly and more sustainable in terms of outcomes by diverting this material from landfill.

We are determined through programs like the Hazardous Waste Fund to drive better resource recovery in industrial waste. We have hypothecated moneys that have come through the prescribed industrial waste stream to try to make sure we get better outcomes and better resource recovery. More than $11 million has also been used from other funds.

Mrs Coote — That is a dangerous term, ‘hypothecated’.

Mr JENNINGS — It is very rare in public policy terms that money is hypothecated from these sources of revenue. Mrs Coote is astute; she is on the ball there. And this is not the only occasion she has been on the ball — I will give her a bit of credit for something in a second.

Hypothecation is very important in this field to try to make sure that we get better outcomes and industry compliance and participation in reducing the waste stream. We want industry to be partners with us. In the next few years we will be investing $30 million from

that fund to try to support industry in investing in a greater resource recovery and recycling effort on an industrial scale. This is a very important investment, particularly as it relates to reducing the amount of hazardous waste.

A few minutes ago I gave Ms Hartland credit when she asked me a question about the container deposit legislation proposal, and that was my intention. I am very happy for that policy work to be undertaken by people beyond the government. It is useful for us to have a community of interest in relation to resource recovery, so I congratulate the member for that work. I also congratulate Mrs Coote for her one moment in terms of public relations glory on this subject when she raised a most esoteric question about hybrid batteries which ended up on the front page of the Australian. She did a very good job of raising what might be a very limited element of the waste stream. There are only a few thousand hybrid cars in Victoria, and the technology in question is redundant technology that will be replaced by other forms of batteries in the very near future. However, she did get a front page out of it, so I congratulate her.

In the last month the Victorian government has released the metropolitan waste management and resource recovery strategic plan to provide the framework for dealing with the entire municipal waste stream. We are determined to drive investment.


Mr JENNINGS — Mr Davis knows I am going to end by saying I have congratulated those who have put in the hard yards — one front page and a bit of policy work from the Greens — but where is the policy work coming from the opposition? We are waiting for it. We are happy for that debate to continue. We are very happy for any grunt work to come. We are happy for a contest of ideas for partnering in driving investment in resource recovery. It is something we are determined to do. We will create better outcomes in terms of resource recovery and better environmental outcomes, and we look forward to a policy contest of ideas. If any policy is created, it will not be a waste. It is not a waste of time to embark on good policy. We are determined to deliver it. We invite other people in this chamber to join us.

Government: borrowing guarantee

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer. Was the decision by the commonwealth to offer a guarantee for state borrowings unanimously supported by all states, as claimed by Andrew Fraser?



Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question. He is fascinated by Andrew Fraser. Andrew Fraser is probably the youngest Treasurer in the history of the country other than Red Ted Theodore, another Queensland Treasurer. I know Andrew Fraser has been used as a benchmark, because I have been criticised by Mr Rich-Phillips for not travelling enough or as much as Andrew Fraser has. Andrew Fraser has noted Mr Rich-Phillips’s comments about his sufficient travel, and I think it is only fair to say that it is now a defence used by Mr Fraser in the Queensland Parliament when the Liberal National Party says he travels too much. The only thing he has got wrong is that he said Mr Rich-Phillips is the shadow Treasurer in Victoria, which we all know he should be — he would do a better job than Mr Wells, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly.

Mr Rich-Phillips asked me if the states were unanimous. I can feel a motion about disclosing Australian Loan Council documents coming on, just as we have cabinet document motions and issues of confidentiality. I am not about to start disclosing discussions in the loan council and who voted for what and who was supportive of them. However, what I can say is that Victoria did not seek the guarantee. Victoria was meeting its borrowing requirements. I know that the states of Queensland and Western Australia were certainly very actively and publicly seeking the commonwealth guarantee. Victoria is a team player in these matters. Victoria will always be a team player. We have been one of the leaders in the federation under governments of all persuasions for the last 109 years in being a team player. However, we did not seek the guarantee. As I said, the states of Queensland and Western Australia were vocally seeking that guarantee, and the commonwealth has responded, as it responsibly has in most areas during the global financial crisis, to try to find solutions that will take the country forward and enable jobs to be created. In this particular instance it has come forward with a guarantee solution at the request of those two states, and Victoria supports the commonwealth’s action.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his answer. For someone who was not going to say much about the meeting, I think he told us volumes. Why has the Treasurer agreed to a fee structure for the guarantee which will advantage the AA-rated states like Queensland to the disadvantage of AAA-rated states like Victoria?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Firstly I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question.


Mr LENDERS — I am contemplating Mr Rich-Phillips’s supplementary question. I take his point — I think it was said tongue in cheek — about giving away the secrets of the Australian Loan Council. But I will say to Mr Rich-Phillips that everything I repeated in my answer to his question was something he would have read in the Australian or the Australian Financial Review. I am serious about — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — He would make a AAA shadow Treasurer.

Mr LENDERS — He would; that is correct. Mr Rich-Phillips would be a AAA shadow Treasurer. I think Mr Wells, the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, is probably a BB-minus, and the jury is out on some others.

On the issue of the particular ratings Mr Rich-Phillips is asking about, in the end this is a commonwealth decision. The federal government will go to the commonwealth Parliament to seek appropriation authority for the loan guarantee, as it did for banks, so this is not a decision of any state government.

Let us just state it for the record. The commonwealth is seeking the appropriation authority to do the guarantee. I guess if Mr Rich-Phillips has an interest in this matter and he believes it is important, he should probably speak to the Victorian coalition senators about it, as I am sure his Western Australian colleagues will be speaking to the Western Australian coalition senators. The commonwealth is proposing a fee of 30 basis points for AAA-rated states to be able to access its guarantee. It is proposing a fee of 35 basis points for AA-plus-rated states and territories to seek its guarantee.

If we go through all of the Australian states, Queensland now has a AA-plus rating from Standard and Poor’s; the Northern Territory has a AA-plus rating; and Tasmania has a AA-plus from one agency and a AAA rating from the other, as does Queensland. That is what the commonwealth is proposing. As Mr Rich-Phillips would have seen in the Australian Financial Review, the Australian and the Business Age, the 5 basis points has been a historical average for the last 10 years for the difference between a AA-plus and a AAA. What the commonwealth has done is actually put a cost on this, in much the same way as these things are differentiated by banks, where there is a 70-basis-point cost for the AA-rated four majors and a



higher rate of about 150 basis points, I think, for the regional banks. The commonwealth has done the commercial scaling as it thinks appropriate for the value of its guarantee. The guarantee is only part of this.

The other part, of course, is that if the Treasury Corporation of Victoria or the Queensland Treasury Corporation or any other borrowing authorities for the states and territories or the commonwealth go out there, they have to go to the market and also convince it of their creditworthiness, their ability to service debts and a whole range of things before they get the money. The fact that the commonwealth charges a fee to the four AA-rated banks of 70 basis points does not mean that that is the sole cost for the banks. There are also spreads that go beyond that to the various lenders. We have recently seen a number of countries, regardless of what their credit ratings are, having difficulty borrowing.

The commonwealth has proposed a schedule, as it did for the banks, of 70 basis points for the AA-rated majors and 150 basis points for the regional banks — —


Mr LENDERS — Again Mr David Davis is seeking to be helpful. I think he would be a CCC-minus-rated shadow Treasurer, given the unhelpfulness of his comments. Mr Rich-Phillips has asked a series of questions. I am giving a fulsome answer in response to his questions. I thank him for his interest. I thank the commonwealth for being proactive and not just having opinions on things, but actually putting policies into place to try to deal with some of the global problems of the commonwealth. I thank him for his question.

State Trustees: relocation

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Treasurer, John Lenders. Recently Premier John Brumby opened the new Transport Accident Commission building in Geelong which marks the successful relocation of another Victorian agency and indeed more jobs for Victorians away from the centre of Melbourne. I ask the Treasurer to update the house on any recent developments of other government agencies considering relocating outside of Melbourne.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Somyurek for his question and his interest in Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 Million, which are policies of the state government to seek to place workforces and services where populations live. I thank him particularly for drawing the analogy with the

Transport Accident Commission as a singularly successful move by the state government to deal with these issues, in that case in moving jobs to the great city of Geelong.

What I can say to Mr Somyurek in the house is that the board of State Trustees Ltd met yesterday and considered an interim report about where State Trustees should be located. It has commissioned a further report, to be completed by midyear, on the whole model for how the State Trustees as an organisation works. This is of great significance. State Trustees Ltd is a government enterprise that employs more than 500 people, who are overwhelmingly concentrated in the centre of the Melbourne central business district.

While this is a report done by State Trustees, we need to see what the outcome of the report is. The board would need to receive that, and it would need to test a range of issues. State Trustees is proposing to do work on whether it is a more appropriate model to locate its offices where its staff and clients are and more in accord with the general Melbourne 2030 or Melbourne @ 5 Million proposals in dealing with this. I congratulate the board of State Trustees on doing this. This morning State Trustees engaged its workforce in the first stage of what this might mean.

I will outline the opportunities here. If we look at Victoria and at recent government policy on Melbourne 2030, we talk of places like the central activity districts of Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong — which Mr Somyurek would have a great interest in — Footscray, Frankston — which he would also have an interest in — and Ringwood. The location of such a government entity in those districts would fit in well with both the policy of the government, which my colleague Justin Madden is overseeing so well, and with the needs of an organisation.

In the end, as we saw with the Victorian transport plan and the discussion that went around it, Melbourne as a part of Victoria has become an area where the number of people commuting to the centre of the city every day — whether it be for jobs, recreation, entertainment or services — is significant. Part of the findings of the whole Victorian transport plan has been about what policies governments can put in place to try to spread workforces and services throughout the metropolitan area and throughout regional Victoria.

What I can say to Mr Somyurek is that the board of State Trustees is commissioning this feasibility study to report back. They are the general terms of what it is doing. It is engaging its workforce today. While I am a shareholder, these are decisions for the board and I



cannot pre-empt what any of them would be. I am delighted that the organisation is engaging in this process and looking at opportunities for service delivery and a location that will enhance its service operation and the operation of the city.

These are issues where government bodies and governments can act and work. We saw it work very successfully for the Transport Accident Commission. What a boost to a regional economy that was. There are opportunities here to boost subregional economies while enhancing the service delivery of an organisation in locating it closer to its clients. I look forward to the feasibility study reporting and congratulate the board on the decision it has taken.

Government: borrowing guarantee

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — My question is again to the Treasurer. Notwithstanding that Victoria did not seek the borrowing guarantee, given that it is now on the table from the commonwealth, will the government sign up to the guarantee with respect to existing debt or for planned borrowings?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question. I am puzzled. I thought the questions committee was going to go on about health today, but clearly it is moving around. Notwithstanding that, I am delighted to have the discussion with Mr Rich-Phillips, through the President and through the chamber.

Firstly, we need to understand that this is a proposal from the commonwealth that will require legislation to be passed by both houses of the commonwealth Parliament. It would require appropriation for it to happen, and that would require 39 votes in the Senate. Again if Mr Rich-Phillips thinks this is a good opportunity for Victoria, I can give him the telephone numbers and contact details of six coalition senators who may think it is a good idea to vote for this if Mr Rich-Phillips thinks it is a good thing for Victoria.

But what I say to Mr Rich-Phillips on this is that fundamentally the role of this government and the Treasury Corporation of Victoria when seeking financial outcomes is what is in the best interests of the state and what is value for money for Victoria. The underpinning question for us on any of this will be: does the form of borrowing that the Treasury Corporation of Victoria takes represent value for money for the state of Victoria? That is the underpinning of this. We do not have any ideological baggage. It has to be sound, prudent financial management that is in the

interests of Victoria. The test of how that goes is obviously the findings of the independent board of the Treasury Corporation of Victoria or experts who are appointed and ultimately the oversight of the Auditor-General and the Parliament.

I am not in the business of speculating on what advice TCV will give me. On the issue of existing government debt, there was a 28-day period put in place, and it is an issue when the time starts running for that. Then there is the issue of future borrowings for Victoria, which are done on a case-by-case basis. We do them without any ideological baggage. The starting point for us is that they are prudent and that they meet the tests of responsible management. We pride ourselves on our AAA credit rating, and that is the test we look at. But we look at it on a case-by-case basis; we do not come to the table with any baggage.


Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I thank the Treasurer for his answer. Can the Treasurer confirm that accepting the guarantee to cover existing TCV borrowings will cost of the order of $21 million per annum?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — What I can say to Mr Rich-Phillips — and I can see he, or Mr Wells, the member for Scoresby in the other place, probably has the press release written already — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Mr Rich-Phillips wrote it; Mr Wells will read it out.

Mr LENDERS — No, Mr Pakula, I disagree. I do not believe Mr Rich-Phillips would write some of the twaddle that Mr Wells reads out, so I disagree with Mr Pakula on that.

What we have here is a choice. It is an interesting use of Parliament. I know what is going to happen today. There are two press releases there. One says, ‘Treasurer wastes $21 million’; the other will say, ‘Treasurer irresponsibly doesn’t take up the guarantee and jeopardises Victorian government debt’. I may be a bit naive and wet behind the ears, but I am just wondering which release Mr Wells has and which one he actually wants to put out. I think that question is all about — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — The second one.

Mr LENDERS — It is all about the second one. Mr Wells will be rubbing his hands with great excitement, saying that they have us taken in, hook, line and sinker. I am not in the business of helping Mr Wells decide which press release to put out. I am in



the business of trying, at a time of global financial recession, to oversee prudent financial management for the state of Victoria. I know Mr Rich-Phillips has been instructed to ask this question, because I cannot believe he would ask it himself. I know what Mr Wells wants is an answer that will allow him to say that either we are wasting money or we are being irresponsible.

What I will say is this: Victoria is in a position that most states and territories would like to be in. We invested in our infrastructure program before it was fashionable, when those opposite said we were going into irresponsible debt and how dare we do that. The rest of the country is trying to catch up. We invested in prudent financial management and good governance around this before it was fashionable anywhere else in the country to do so. We will continue to operate within those parameters. We will seek the best value for the state of Victoria. When the state needs to borrow we will borrow through the Treasury Corporation of Victoria. It will make judgements on what is the most prudent way to do that. I think I would rather trust the Treasury Corporation of Victoria for an answer than meet Mr Wells’s need for another press release that nobody will read.

Information and communications technology: government initiatives

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — My question is also for Mr Lenders, but in his role as Minister for Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister inform the house about how the Brumby Labor government is creating information and communications technology (ICT) jobs and building ICT precincts throughout regional Victoria?

Mr LENDERS (Minister for Information and Communication Technology) — I thank Ms Pulford for her question. Ms Pulford represents an electorate which is increasingly becoming a hub for ICT jobs in Victoria. The electorate of Western Victoria Region has seen great investment in the ICT cluster over time with the state government, the private sector and the University of Ballarat. It has seen extraordinary leveraging by companies — whether they be international companies coming into that area, domestic companies or small businesses or even government bodies like the State Revenue Office and others up there — off the great ICT capacity of Ballarat. We have seen extraordinary growth in that area. That has been through a combination of government investment and government facilitation along with great cooperation from the university, from the City of Ballarat and from those who like jobs in Victoria, who wish them well,

who have more than an opinion that jobs are a good idea and who actually have a policy to deliver them.

Why I say it is great to hear from Ms Pulford on this area and her electorate is because it is not just Ballarat but now also Geelong that is showing great leadership. Deakin University, the City of Greater Geelong and the community generally are showing great leadership in seeking — —

Mr Koch interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I am delighted that Mr Koch says, ‘And further west’. He has an opinion that it should be further west, but I would like to actually see some Liberal Party policies that try to create jobs in Victoria and do things other than trash the state of Victoria.

Ms Pulford is not one of those prophets of gloom, like many opposite, who just rub their hands together with glee whenever there is bad news and say, ‘What can we make out of it in Parliament?’. She is one of the people who have their shoulders to the wheel, saying, ‘What can we do in our electorate to move forward?’.

What I am delighted to say is that the state government has invested more money in the city of Greater Geelong in working towards having more ICT clusters and in assisting with jobs in the area.


Mr LENDERS — I was waiting for Mr David Davis to utter the name ‘Satyam’. Mr David Davis never mentioned the name ‘Satyam’ when the company was talking about coming here and investing in 2000 jobs in Australia. He avoided it like the plague — because it was good news. Despite the fact that it currently employs hundreds of people here in Melbourne, he does not mind trashing it now. While the international board of Satyam appointed by the Indian government is actually reviewing its activities, he does not care about trashing it and those jobs in Melbourne today. He does not care about the fact that the state of Victoria is in active negotiation with the company to keep jobs in Australia, to create jobs in Geelong and to work in partnership. Mr David Davis does not care. What matters to him is that he can score a political point.

Prime Minister Singh in India invested effort in putting a new board into Satyam because he wants it to keep jobs going and to create jobs, not just in India but also in the Asia-Pacific region. I have met with the leadership of Satyam, because I and this government want to create jobs. Isn’t today just a classic? Members



of the opposition will never mention a company when there is anything good. If they think there is bad news, like carrion crows they will try to rip it to bits. While we are talking about existing jobs here in Melbourne and future jobs in Geelong, what do opposition members do? They talk down the show. It is hardly surprising that Mr Davis’s president, Russell Hannan, thought his policy efforts were a joke and that his former leader said so on television in November 2006, because — —

Mr Atkinson — On a point of order, President, the minister is now reflecting on a member of the opposition, is debating and is moving into areas to discuss the opposition, rather than responding to the question. That contravenes the standing orders and the rulings of the house.

The PRESIDENT — Order! In response to the point of order raised by Mr Atkinson, arguably the Treasurer is going on a little bit, but he is certainly not overtly criticising. I think he is still relevant to the actual question that was asked.


An honourable member — Someone’s found a voice!

Mr LENDERS — The voice from the deep.

An honourable member — Every time the President gets to his feet, you find your voice!

Mr LENDERS — It is very Pavlovian. What I will say is this: in Geelong last week the state government, in conjunction with the City of Greater Geelong, Deakin University, NC Cable Pty Ltd, the G21 regional alliance, Fox Digital Web, Radiant Systems Asia-Pacific, the Surf Coast Shire Council, the Gordon Institute of TAFE and Express Promotions Australia, put its shoulder to the wheel to actually build ICT jobs in Geelong. It invested money and resources and sought to facilitate that.

We did that to create jobs in the state. That was a policy to grow jobs in Geelong. That was not an opinion bagging companies trying to create jobs; that was a policy to create jobs in Geelong. This government has a policy to grow information and communications technology jobs in this state. This government has a policy to grow financial services sector jobs in this state. This government has a policy to grow infrastructure in this state. This government has a policy — —

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr LENDERS — The voice from the past — —

Mrs Petrovich — You’ve had 10 years!

Mr LENDERS — The voice of doom from the past and others have an opinion on everything, and if we talk of 10 years of inaction, the 10 years of inaction — —

Mrs Petrovich interjected.

Mr LENDERS — And presumably Mrs Petrovich and I share a view that the last six months of the Kennett government was a time of total inaction; at least she could get her history right. If we are talking of 10 years of inaction, there has been a policy vacuum for a decade and an opinion on everything, including opinions from the member for Scoresby in the Assembly, Kim Wells, that caused a run on the Members Equity Bank. The opposition has a policy on nothing. I rest my case. This government is for jobs.

Peninsula Link: construction

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — My question without notice is to the Treasurer. I refer to a recent announcement that the government has called for expressions of interest to begin construction of the Frankston bypass under a PPP (public-private partnership) model. As required under this model, has a public sector comparator report been undertaken, and if so, when will it be publicly released?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I thank Mr Dalla-Riva for his question. Expressions of interest certainly went out yesterday. I will take on notice the technical aspects of timing for what he particularly asks because I am not about to get up in the house and inadvertently breach any commercial confidence — —

Mr Vogels — So no tolls?

Mr LENDERS — Mr Vogels says no tolls. I will say to Mr Vogels that if he actually reads the Premier’s press release from yesterday, he will find the Premier has been quite unequivocal, quite explicit, on that.


Mr LENDERS — Yes, the voice from the deep once again. Mr Dalla-Riva asked a serious question about a piece of infrastructure. What I say to Mr Dalla-Riva is this: this government is investing in infrastructure. We announced the Victorian transport plan last year — a $38 billion, 12-year plan.




Mr LENDERS — It is actually a cacophony of Pavlovian comments, which is quite interesting. A sociologist could write a master thesis on the interjections made during this question time. It is quite interesting. I think I might resign as Treasurer and write a master thesis, because I can tell you what — —


Mr LENDERS — Opposition members might read that, but they do not listen to much else. The $38 billion transport plan was all about creating a plan to balance between the urban planning issues that Mr Madden so succinctly espouses in this place, Melbourne @ 5 Million and Melbourne 2030. It is all about the correct balance.


Mr LENDERS — My Pavlovian response mechanism is interesting. I have a few key words and I could make money — —


Mr LENDERS — Yes, that is right. It is an interesting sociological experiment to stand on my feet here. I have just got to mention names like ‘Joan Kirner’ and see the response, or a few others, and you know what it is going to be. But the question from Mr Dalla-Riva is a serious question about infrastructure. We are committed to it. We have got a $38 billion plan out there which prioritises for 12 years — —

Mr D. Davis — Unfunded!

Mr LENDERS — Mr David Davis says ‘Unfunded’. What I would suggest to him, and it may be challenging, is that he get Mr Rich-Phillips to actually read it to him, bit by bit, page by page, and he will find that this is a block and in four years this is what its funding will be. We will be a little bit flexible in the four years in case there is commonwealth money, so we are being flexible and sensible. Then in the next four years there is another block.

The wonderful thing with no time limits on answering questions is that I could go on all day on the transport plan. That could be a lot of fun, because maybe if I explain the transport plan for some hours on end in question time, I could actually start to deal with some of these Pavlovian interjections we are getting.

An honourable member — Pavlovian palavers.

Mr LENDERS — Pavlovian palavers, that is right. If I talk of pavlova, that might actually calm people

down because they will be in the dining room. What we have — —

Mr Jennings interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I receive advice all the time, but the advice I am receiving is probably unparliamentary. What we have from Mr Dalla-Riva — and I nearly called him Mr Della Bosca. I actually introduced him to Mr Della Bosca the other day in New South Wales — the two of them. I understand there are no time limits, but I should not abuse that.

Mr Dalla-Riva asked a question about Peninsula Link. What I say quite clearly is that we are not going to toll Peninsula Link, and the Premier has made that clear. We are committed to infrastructure for the long term for Victoria. We have a 12-year Victorian transport plan which deals with rail rolling stock, trams, urban congestion, urban planning, roads, bicycle plans and regional rail in Victoria. Again people have opinions on everything. The opposition thought regional fast rail was a waste of money and unnecessary, but now it is silent on it. The opposition’s opinion was that it was a waste of money. It had no policy but said it was a waste of money.

I will conclude my response to Mr Dalla-Riva’s question on this basis: we are committed to public transport. We are not in the business of flogging off the public transport system like the opposition did when it was in government. We have a policy of building, we have a policy of maintaining and we have a policy of growing. That is what the Victorian transport plan is about. I hope Mr Rich-Phillips finds the time to slowly read it to David Davis, page by page, until he understands it.


Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — I am interested to see that Mr Leane is in waiting, because he will probably do a better job than the Treasurer. It is interesting to note that the construction plan for the Frankston bypass — and there were expressions of interest, as the Treasurer pointed out — was released. The facts are that prior to those expressions of interest a PSC (public sector comparator) should have been undertaken. I am surprised that the Treasurer, given that a significant PPP model has been undertaken, has not considered or released a PSC. I again ask: is the Treasurer hiding the fact that the PSC indicates that that is not the actual case and that he is in fact looking at tolling this freeway?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Sometimes I am delighted that our political opponents can be so naive,



but I am quite despondent about it from the point of view of the state of Victoria, because Mr Dalla-Riva seeks to be a minister in a future government. I will take on notice the technical aspects of what Mr Dalla-Riva asks, but I will say this: we have put out a call for expressions of interest. We want people to bid for a project. We want value for money. We want innovation — —

Mr Dalla-Riva interjected.

Mr LENDERS — If Mr Dalla-Riva listens, he might learn something. So what he is suggesting now — —


Mr LENDERS — It is interesting hearing the opposition talking of EastLink. As Mr Viney will say: the Scoresby bypass was in Melway for about three decades, and for most of that time the can-do Kennett government did nothing. It had an opinion that there should be a road, but it did not have the guts or the ability to do anything about it. The Kennett government had an opinion that there should be a road, but did it allocate a brass razoo to the road? Did it even plan the road? No. It had an opinion that there should be one, but its action was zero. Back to my basic point, I say to Mr Dalla-Riva that I will get back to him — —

Mr Guy interjected.

Mr LENDERS — ‘Shrill and desperate’ is coming from an expert. What I say to Mr Dalla-Riva is this: if he thinks — and if this is his opinion and his policy — that a PPP should involve, when we are — —


Mr LENDERS — Thank you for your help, Mr David Davis. It is question time, and the time limits have been removed. If Mr Davis want a fulsome answer, he will make the answer more fulsome by interjecting. Mr Dalla-Riva is suggesting that in relation to a PPP, where we want to bring out innovation and competitive tension and try to get people desperate to make a bid to come in so we get value for money — —

Mr Barber interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I take up Mr Barber’s interjection about how ConnectEast is performing. Isn’t that interesting? The risks have actually gone to the private sector, and that is good value for taxpayers, which is what I thought we wanted to see.

Mr Dalla-Riva is suggesting a policy, I presume, rather than an opinion, which is that we put out the PSC so every bidder knows exactly knows what the government’s bottom line is. It is a great negotiating strategy if you are in the commercial sector trying to get good value out of government, but I do not think it is such a good negotiating strategy if you are a government trying to get good value out of the commercial sector. Even Mr Wells, the member for Scoresby in the other place, is now looking economically literate compared to Mr Dalla-Riva. I welcome the day that Mr Rich-Phillips becomes the shadow Treasurer — of Queensland!

Economy: global financial crisis

Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer mentioned that Victoria was in recession. When did the state of Victoria officially enter this recession, and what criteria did the Treasurer use in making this assessment?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I must admit that either I am on a different planet from Mr Drum or — —

Mr Guy — You said it.

Mr LENDERS — Again I am getting lots of help here from Mr Guy — —

Mr Drum interjected.

Mr LENDERS — I think Mr Drum should go back to reading about Elwood Mead and the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. He may learn some more. I think what we have here is this — —

Mr Hall interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Hall is also being very helpful. The world is in recession. That is what the International Monetary Fund says — —


Mr LENDERS — Pavlov again. I am very impressed. Mrs Kronberg is another part of the experiment. The word is said, and they are all off! Obviously their question time briefing was: if you hear the word, salivate. That was obviously the message given in the morning. Yesterday the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), the Paris-based leading economic — —

Mr Drum — We are talking about Victoria.



Mr LENDERS — Mr Drum says that he is talking about Victoria. I would like to remind Mr Drum that we are on a planet called Earth. We are all in this together. He may not have noticed, but we are in this together. President Obama is over there with President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Rudd and 17 other G20 leaders at the moment, because we are on the one planet and we have a thing called the global economic crisis and recession to which — —

Mr Koch interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Do you want me to speak up, Mr Koch? I will do that; I am happy to. Yesterday the OECD came out with forecasts about the developed world — —

Mr Guy interjected.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Guy is encouraging me to go on for a lot longer. Mr Guy may be embarrassed by a bit of home truth that we are on the same planet. We have the opinions of Mr Guy and those on that side that we should not talk about the reality of the world, we should not talk about whacko opinions coming from the other side and we should not talk about where we fit in. If Mr Guy is embarrassed about that, I suggest he go off and read Noddy books, The Magic Pudding or whatever other economic texts his shadow minister uses and just get on with it.

Victoria and Australia are a part of a world which the OECD and the International Monetary Fund have said has moved into recession. The deputy governor of the Reserve Bank yesterday thought we would be in that position. The state of Victoria is part of the world. Mr Guy might think I am outrageous in suggesting Victoria is part of the world, but Mr Leane would know from grade 5 geography — and it was so when I last looked — Victoria was part of the world, but perhaps I am overreacting.

Victoria is not in recession. There is no data one way or the other that says it is, other than the state final demand figures in December, which showed we had growth in the December quarter. What statistics come out from here are ones that we do not control; we do not see. There will be ones that come out from the Reserve Bank of Australia, the International Monetary Fund, the federal Treasury and a range of other bodies, and there will be consensus figures on how Victoria is going. I do not know where Victoria will be. Our last forecasts were that we will not be in recession, but the world is changing.

What I can say is that Victoria is doing what it can in a global recession. We cannot hide the gravity of what

the OECD said last night in Paris — this is the think tank of the 30 leading economies of the world. If 1800 economists cannot reach a consensus, I do not know who can. The OECD has actually come to the determination that the world is moving into recession. We as a state will work around that. We will do what we can, whether it be through investing in people or investing in infrastructure, which the opposition always opposes if it has to pay for it. We will do that to make Victoria as insulated from the world recession as it can be. But we are part of the world. The last person I heard say we were not was Pauline Hanson. I do not think Mr Drum is embracing her economic philosophy.

Ms Broad — I don’t know!

Mr LENDERS — You might be right there, Ms Broad. What I will say is that in Victoria’s latest data — 31 December, state final demand — we were the fastest or second fastest growing economy in Australia. What we are doing now is positioning ourselves to protect Victoria as best we can; hence my response on information and communications technology jobs, hence my response on infrastructure jobs, hence we have policies to do things rather than opinions on everybody, which Mr Leane’s fifth grade also has, but that does not fix the world.

Victoria is not in recession. The world is in recession. Forecasters are saying that is maybe what will happen, but we will do everything we can to keep this state moving, keep every job in this state and position it to be an even stronger leader in this region as we go forward when this international recession bottoms out.


Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) — Something has changed between yesterday and today. Yesterday we were in recession, and today the Treasurer says we are not in recession. How can the Treasurer expect confidence in the business sector and the business community to improve when he prefaces every major financial statement that he makes in this chamber by reinforcing the fact that this state is in a global financial crisis, and now we find out, as he told us yesterday, we are actually in a recession as well?

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — Clearly Mr Drum has been through an intense seminar in the Kim Wells school of economics, which says it is okay to trash the state and it is okay to cause a run on the Members Equity Bank. Every single statement that I have made as Treasurer of the state of Victoria — —

Mr Drum interjected.



Mr LENDERS — Mr Drum, you have removed the impediment for me to repeat this 5000 times. I will repeat it until I get silence. If we are here at 6.00 p.m., so be it.

Mr Drum — You need to stop trashing the state!

Mr LENDERS — Every single statement I have made as Treasurer talks up the state of Victoria to build on business confidence, to encourage jobs and to encourage investment.

Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.

Mr LENDERS — You are correct, Mr Pakula. The loudest noise you hear from the opposition is the popping of champagne corks if someone loses a job.

I have said it before in this house — and Mr Drum clearly was not listening — that you have a choice between a glass half empty or a glass half full. The proposition I have put to the house is that you talk up the state. It is what I have put to this house before, as Mr Drum would know if he bothered reading Hansard. He should do a search on the name ‘Pollyanna’ and the name ‘Jeremiah’. Mr Drum might shake his head, but if he seeks to be a leader of the state and a parliamentary secretary in a coalition government, I would expect he would know enough about literature to know who Pollyanna and Jeremiah are, let alone scripture. He should read the Book of Jeremiah if he wants to know about lemon suckers.

What I say to Mr Drum is this: all of us in this house, if we want jobs in Bendigo, if we want jobs in Mildura, need to start talking up Victoria as a place to invest. We need to have a realistic dialogue with business that says, ‘In a time of global recession Victoria is a place to invest in people, in jobs and in infrastructure’. That has been our message. If Mr Drum does not want to hear that or understand that, that is Mr Drum’s prerogative, but what I will do as Treasurer and what every member of this government will do without exception is talk up the state. We will not have opinions on everything that trash the show. We will talk up the state, and we will not be in the business of causing runs on the Members Equity Bank.

Mr D. Davis — What you say is different from what you do!

Mr LENDERS — Mr David Davis is obviously an apologist for Kim Wells. What we say is what we do.


Mr LENDERS — I think Mr Davis has just been to see a show called Calamity Jane. I think he has got a line from Calamity Jane, so I will give him five out of five for innovation.

Mr Atkinson — Tell me more about Jeremiah!

Mr LENDERS — If Mr Atkinson wants to know about Jeremiah and a negative view, he should look to the other side of his pillar, and there she is.

I will conclude my comments by saying this: we believe Victoria is a great place to live, work, invest and raise a family. That is the core of what we believe in. We will do everything we can to make Victoria work. We are not going to celebrate, like the opposition does, every time a job goes. We celebrate jobs being created; we are going to work for that. That is what this Labor government is about — making Victoria a better place to live, work, invest and raise a family.

Sitting suspended 1.13 p.m. until 2.17 p.m.


Debate resumed.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) — Before the luncheon suspension I was saying that this motion is essentially about accountability. The Victorian constitution makes it quite clear there are three distinct elements of government. The ones that matter here of course are the executive and the Parliament. It is also quite clear that the Parliament has responsibility for the raising of taxes through taxation bills and spending, which it delegates to the executive via appropriation bills. In turn it expects the executive to be accountable for the spending of that money under appropriation bills.

That is what this motion today is about. It is about holding the government — the executive — accountable for the way in which it proposes to spend money appropriated for it by this Parliament in relation to the public transport tender, which is the subject of the documents sought through this motion. So it is not acceptable for the government and its representatives to come in here and run a number of lines as to why the government does not want to give the house these documents and so comply with the previous three resolutions of the house with respect to this matter, resolutions that were in order when they were carried by this house, that were within the powers of the house in terms of its constitutional remit, and that were legitimate motions when they were carried. In



executing its responsibility to be accountable to this Parliament, the government is obliged to comply with those three resolutions of this Parliament.

A mechanism was put in place to deal with any situation or dispute over a claim of privilege about documents; it required an independent arbiter to assess any claim of privilege. The government has chosen to ignore the process that was proposed to resolve disputes over privilege and has simply ignored the substance of the three resolutions of the house.

It is regrettable that we have reached a situation where we have a motion before the house this afternoon calling for the suspension of the Leader of the Government in his capacity as the senior minister responsible for the government’s actions in this place. I am sure that members of the chamber who are supporting this motion would have preferred the Minister for Public Transport to be held directly accountable for the failure to provide Parliament with the documents that were sought. Unfortunately we do not have that opportunity, so it falls to the government’s senior representative in this place to carry the responsibility on behalf of the government. This is a fundamental issue of accountability. It is regrettably an issue we have had to deal with time and again. The government simply does not accept its responsibility to be accountable to this Parliament — the Parliament that provides it with the appropriations it spends.

It is a closed loop. If the Parliament is willing to appropriate amounts for the government to spend on its behalf, it expects the government to be accountable back to the Parliament for the spending of those appropriations. It is pretty simple stuff. The government to date still does not seem to grasp its responsibility to this Parliament to account for the way in which it is going to spend appropriations, such as through the transport tender that is the subject of these documents sought today. Until the government has that realisation, I believe we will continue to see motions such as this before the house today. The government must be held accountable for the way in which it undertakes the spending of appropriations, and it must be held accountable for its tender processes, such as the public transport tender process, so it is appropriate that it respond fully and honestly to the three previous resolutions.

A fourth opportunity will be granted to the government today to respond to a resolution or a requirement from this house. I would urge the government to respond fully to a further order from this house, and I would urge the house to support this motion and ensure the

government is held accountable for the way in which it spends the appropriations it is given by this Parliament.

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Minister for Industry and Trade) — I rise to speak in opposition to this motion. I agree with Mr Rich-Phillips about one thing: it is regrettable that we are having to go through this yet again.

We have heard a lot of words spoken in here in very solemn and regretful tones by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rich-Phillips and others. However, I put it to you, President, that in reality this motion is the equivalent of a giant political temper tantrum, shrouded in faux solemnity and a false sense of responsibility. From go to whoa this motion has been about a coalition of the Greens, the Liberal Party and The Nationals saying it wants something because it wants it — not because it has been able to make out any rational reason for wanting it, not because it has been able to demonstrate to the chamber that no damage will be done to the relevant tender by it having it, but, as I think I said in a previous debate in this chamber, because it wants to have a gander at it. It is nothing more than a fishing expedition to see if there is anything out of which it might be able to make political capital.

Let us forget the ridiculous, circuitous arguments about the powers of this chamber; what this has really been about is a political hit job by the opposition and the Greens. They want to see some documents that relate to a live tender process because they might get some juicy political capital out of it — that is all they want it for. Because the government has placed great importance on the tender process, the proper running of that tender, the commercial interests of the tenderers and the interests of government in being able to deal with tenderers in a proper way so that they can have confidence in the process — because the government has put those principles at the top of its thinking — the opposition and the Greens have moved to suspend the Leader of the Government from the service of the chamber.

As Mr Viney and Mr Jennings have already pointed out, this is the most serious sanction the chamber can apply — a sanction that would effectively undermine the decision and the interests of over 100 000 people who voted to put Mr Lenders in this Parliament. The opposition and the Greens want to do these things simply because the Leader of the Government, in the exercise of his responsibilities as a minister, has decided not to compromise a live tender process. There has been no suggestion of any kind of misconduct by the Leader of the Government beyond his refusal to



hand over those documents, and there has been no suggestion that he has acted in bad faith.

There is the ridiculous, I would say idiotic, claim in paragraph (2) of the motion in which Mr Barber, or the chamber through Mr Barber, expresses disappointment that the government has failed to make any attempt to find a resolution to this issue. In fact the government has released every document it reasonably could without jeopardising the tender process.

Beyond that, when other manifestations of the sentiment behind this motion have been debated in this place previously the government did not stay mute; it provided good reasons why these documents have not been able to be released. Mr Rich-Phillips accused the government of simply running lines, but I think it is the opposition that is running lines. On numerous occasions in this place we have talked about the manner in which the opposition tries to present itself as being all things to all people. This is one more example of that phenomenon. This is the mob that goes off to the Australian Industry Group, the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Victorian Farmers Federation and all manner of Victorian businesses and portrays itself as the pro-business party in this state, as a party concerned with the interests of the businesses that transact with government. However, when it gets in here it panders to the worst antibusiness sentiments, taking no heed of the damage its antics might do to the ability of businesses to transact with government in an atmosphere of confidence during live tender processes.


Hon. M. P. PAKULA — Mr Viney makes a good point. If Mr Davis wants to come into this place and have a debate about Kemalex Plastics and the practice of corporations treating workers on factory lines as independent contractors, I urge him to ask me a question about it in this chamber and we will have a debate about that and other elements of the opposition’s industrial relations policy agenda.

Mr Rich-Phillips talked about the government not accepting responsibility. I ask him: is the opposition prepared to accept responsibility for the damage it would do to tender outcomes and processes in the state if the government succumbed every time the opposition decided it wanted to have a Captain Cook at documents around live tender processes? This motion put forward by Mr Barber, which is supported by the opposition, devalues the currency of suspension from this house. It has become a first port of call rather than a last resort. The opposition has decided it will seek to suspend from

this chamber a duly elected member, the Leader of the Government, simply because in the exercise of his responsibilities he has decided that it is not appropriate to put in jeopardy the conduct of a live tender for no reason other than that the opposition has decided it wants to take a look at something. That is a very unfortunate development and not the way this chamber should conduct itself. It should reserve these types of sanctions for the most serious and grievous types of examples. This is clearly not one of them, and the opposition needs to rethink its strategy if this is the road its members are going to go down every time they seek to jeopardise a live tender.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — Time and again members of the opposition come into this place without any content to what they seek to do other than bemoan the government. Whilst opposition members would like to think they are the executive and landed gentry who for so long ran this Council — —


Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Opposition members giggle when they hear this sort of language, and so they should, because they are in denial about their cultural links to this place and the way they used them. Unfortunately members of the opposition still carry those cultural links like albatrosses around their necks.

I make this point: whilst this house is a house of review, it is not the executive. It is the role of opposition members to seek to become the executive and they try everything they can and use every trick in the book to do so, but they are not the executive. However, there are limits to what opposition members can seek to do, what they can do and what they are entitled to do. They would be the first to moan about breaches of probity and interference in tender processes and be among the first to call for a probity auditor and the first to ask for the i’s to be dotted and the t’s crossed when it comes to process. Time and again, as a repeated theme, if there is even the slightest doubt about a government tender process, opposition members are prepared to condemn the government comprehensively, but when it comes to interference from their side in relation to these issues, they think they are entitled to do so. This goes to the core of the way opposition members see themselves in this place and the way they want to interfere.

Mr Finn interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I can hear Mr Finn calling out about class warriors or class criticisms. I make this absolutely clear: this is not a criticism of class in any sense or the traditional class argument that



Mr Finn might think it is. This argument is about culture. For the almost 10 years I have been in this place the opposition has carried that cultural baggage into this place every time its members have entered it. They forget that, after nine and a half years of Labor government, this is a state of inclusion and not a state of exclusion. This is not the state they thought it was going to be or sought to have it become when they were in government until 1999, and they still do not understand that you cannot seek to condemn a government on administrative grounds. It might be a technique that you use if you do not have any policy or commitment to policy renewal.

Mr Tee — You have got to have vision.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Yes. If you do not have a vision and a plan, you have to come back to something. The only thing that the opposition has as a tool or as a piece of symbolism — —

Mr Elasmar — As an excuse.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — Thank you. The only thing the opposition has as an excuse or way of attracting attention is criticism of administration. Its members like to think they are better at administration than anybody else. After nine and a half years members of the opposition do not understand that it is not sufficient to be only good at administration or to make that case. How can you expect people to pay any attention at all if you seek documents about administration all the time, even though there is still a process under way, or if you cannot come up with ideas and you fall back to the position of having to rely on the same old argument and the same old story that has not gained any traction for nine and a half years?

We have seen as much in this place. Members of the opposition thought that changing question time from 2 o’clock to 12 o’clock would attract a whole lot of attention. They thought the media would come up here. I hate to break the news to them, but the media does not turn up any more. Media people are not interested in the approach that members of the opposition display in this place at question time, because there is not a theme, a proposition, a plan or a demonstration of where opposition members want to take the state. Where does that leave the opposition?

Again we hear the same old argument about administration — that is, that they are better at paperwork than anybody else. In this day and age that is the first and foremost thing that people expect of governments. But people expect more than just administration, so the opposition cannot seek to take it

out on one person, as it would like to do with John Lenders. This is a recurring theme; this is not the first time the opposition has tried to do it, and I suspect it will not be the last.

The great loss for the opposition and the state of Victoria is that this is happening at a time when opposition members should be putting their attention, their energies and emotions into renewal, ideas and plans, if they have them. Maybe the lack of plans will force renewal from without rather than from within. Time and again opposition members rely on the same approach — that is, because they almost have the numbers in this place, they think this is the only place they can present a view. For many the view is not relevant. It is not relevant to people outside the chamber and to the general electorate and, much to the great loss of the state, there is no contest of ideas, as Gavin Jennings mentioned today. The lack of challenge to the government, which is represented by a contest of ideas, is a great loss not only to this Parliament and the people of Victoria but also a great loss to the opposition, the Liberal-Nationals coalition on the other side of the chamber.

Sometimes you can almost understand why members of the opposition are in that predicament. When you get into the minutiae of policy development, of course you end up on many occasions with the divided view of The Nationals and the Liberal Party. Where does this bring them back to? They return to condemning or criticising individuals or the government’s administration. That is the only common theme — —

Mr Rich-Phillips — On a point of order, President, on the issue of relevance. This is obviously a narrow and significant motion before the house and has nothing to do with any of the matters that the minister is canvassing. The motion is very narrow and relates to the administration of this house and the government’s relationship with this house, and it not about the issues the minister has been canvassing.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The fact is that this has been a broadly discussed debate on matters of great significance. Whilst I accept the minister is wandering a tad, I still think he is within reasonable guidelines for the debate. However, I remind the minister that, as much as possible, he ought to restrict himself to the subject at hand.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — I suspect members of the opposition know where their motive is on this issue. I also suspect that they know there is no greater example in this place of a man dedicated to public office than John Lenders. He contributes tireless hours, not only as



Treasurer of this state and as a local member, but he is also the Leader of the Government in this place, and yet he still has time to take on board the concerns of people in this chamber. He travels with them when they go up to Canberra and to New South Wales. In this place there is no greater example than John Lenders of what this Parliament should achieve, what it should do and how it should present itself. I suspect members opposite know that. They feel a little bit uncomfortable about this, but they know they have to go through the motions for all the reasons I have just expressed.

I find it incomprehensible that the opposition would want to move this motion. John Lenders has been a shining light in government and continues to be. I look forward to him continuing in his capacity here. It is an indictment of this place and of opposition members that they would seek to suspend John Lenders from the service of this Council just because it suits their political motives, even though there is a vacuum when it comes to everything else the opposition stands for.

Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) — I rise also to oppose the motion moved by Mr Barber. A lot of this debate is a debate that has been had in this chamber before, but I think it is important to go through the debate and many of the issues involved. This is a very serious motion moved by Mr Barber, a very serious motion that this Council is being asked to consider.

There are eight paragraphs in the motion. I will not go through them all. Most of the focus has been on paragraph (8), which concerns the suspension of a member of the chamber. I will touch on that. I indicate that I appreciate and will support Mr Kavanagh’s amendment to omit subparagraph (b). These are incredibly grave issues that the Council is being asked to address, and I think it is important to go through the motion. The first paragraph states that this house:

expresses its concerns at the persistent refusal of the government and the Leader of the Government … to fully comply with resolutions of the Council …

The first thing to note is that the government has an inherent respect for this institution. I know a lot of debate in this place goes backwards and forwards on where that goes, and that is understandable. It is part of partisan and spirited debate in this place. But in 1985 the Australian Labor Party resolved that reform of this chamber into a house of review was a critical issue. We campaigned on that in 1985, in 1988, in 1992 — —

Mr D. Davis — Eighty-five is not the year I would choose as your democratic highlight.

Mr LENDERS — David Davis says that is not the year he would choose. Up until 1985 the Labor Party had a view to abolish the Legislative Council. This is a seminal point. I take up seriously David Davis’s interjection. In 1985 the Australian Labor Party state conference — —

Mr Barber — In return for Democrat preferences.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Barber says, ‘Democrat preferences’. In 1985 the Australian Labor Party state conference resolved that reform of the Legislative Council was a priority. Let us just put the facts on the record: it was a priority. In 1985, when the Democrats were around, that was an issue, for sure. In 1988 we reiterated the policy. In 1992 we came up with the first PR (proportional representation) model for this house. In that model we had five regions returning seven members each. In 1996 we had that model again. Mr Barber interjected about preferences, but in 1999 we had a grubby deal with the Greens where the Labor Party vacated the field in Templestowe Province and urged its voters to support a Greens candidate. Labor also vacated the field in Higinbotham Province, where it urged its supporters to vote for a Democrat candidate — open, transparent and accountable — on the basis that those two parties were prepared to sign up to proposals for reform of the upper house. We have a track record. It was such a priority that for the first time in our history we made pacts with other parties. We believed upper house reform was that significant.

The point I make in opening is that we have a commitment to reform of this place. The entire tone of paragraph (1) of the motion is as if the Labor Party had been dragged kicking and screaming to the path of reform of the upper house, enhancing the powers of the upper house and giving resources to the upper house. If opposition members want to believe that themselves and repeat it often enough to themselves, fine, but let us put the record absolutely straight on those matters. Whether it be the staffing supplied to the upper house, whether it be the powers of the upper house, whether it be the electoral system for the upper house or whether it be the accountability of the upper house, with quadrennial elections rather than long, snoozy terms, reforms in all these areas have been put in place.

I take up Mr Madden’s point. We as a government are serious about it. The whole point of Mr Viney and me being members of the Standing Orders Committee — a very worthwhile venture with other parties — is that we are committed to this being an ongoing house of review.



Let us first deal with the language in paragraph (1). It says, ‘fully comply with resolutions of the Council’. What the Attorney-General tabled yesterday on behalf of the government, and it is interesting that it is actually the Attorney-General who tabled this on behalf of the government, was a response on all of the 67 documents that were requested. Most of the documents have been presented to the Council as requested. For those that have not, reasons have been put forward as to why they are inappropriate to be presented to the Council at this stage.

Paragraph (1) needs an explanation because there is a certain attitude, shall we say — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Tenor.

Mr LENDERS — Tenor, Mr Pakula, exactly. The second paragraph of the motion says the house:

expresses its disappointment that the government has failed to make any attempt to find any resolution to this issue …

In fairness to Mr Barber, he gave notice of this motion before the Attorney-General’s reply was tabled. We will certainly not impugn Mr Barber’s motive, because he did give notice before he got the reply from the Attorney-General, but what I would say is that there was a document tabled yesterday headed ‘Order for the production of documents’. The Attorney-General, in very measured language, referred to the government’s response on 67 documents. I categorically reject the assertion in paragraph (2) that the government has failed to make any attempt to find any resolution to this issue.

Paragraph (3) states that this house:

believes that the actions of the government amount to a serious attack against the powers, privileges and immunities of the Council and demonstrate again the government’s lack of accountability to the Parliament and the people of Victoria — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Sounds like a political statement to me.

Mr LENDERS — Mr Pakula, it does sound like a political statement. I will not regurgitate the debates, but I suggest anybody who wants to should go back to the original debate on the gaming documents. It was a different debate to the extent that it involved a specific act of Parliament and the specific powers of a minister, which cabinet had no authority over and I as Leader of the Government certainly had no authority over. Going back to that matter, we had a long debate about the meaning of subsections 19(1) and (2) of the state Constitution Act. That section refers to the powers of

the House of Commons back in 1854 and how they translate into this, the Victorian Parliament. We had an entire debate about whether the opposition was using, slavishly I would argue, Egan and Chadwick and Egan and Willis — two cases that came out of New South Wales and were based on a different constitution. I know the opposition and perhaps all the non-government parties will assert, as is their right, that their legal advice is better than the government’s legal advice. However, I absolutely stick by the advice we have in government that subsections 19(1) and (2) do not give those powers to the Legislative Council, although the mover of this motion is claiming in paragraph (3) that the Council has those powers.

I think where we are on this is at a difference of opinion, but I totally refute the assertion that this motion is about demonstrating a lack of accountability. This is about a very different interpretation of subsections 19(1) and (2) of the Constitution Act. However, it is also about, and this is a fundamental issue of accountability, the fact that I, like other ministers, have taken an oath of office as an executive councillor to uphold the laws of the state. We are talking about accountability. As a minister and as an executive councillor, I have taken an oath of office. I accept the fact that members opposite may argue that the role of the Council exceeds that of the executive government in the Westminster tradition — that is a debatable point — but I would disagree strongly with members opposite on this glib assertion of accountability when in my view the oath of office a minister takes has some weight when put up against rhetoric in a motion moved in the Legislative Council.

I turn now to paragraph (4), which says that the house:

notes that the Leader of the Government on behalf of the government has now, on three occasions, failed to fully comply with resolutions of the Council …

Mr Barber may move a motion that ‘notes’. I am not squeamish about being a representative of the government. Mr David Davis says nothing of this is personal. Motions similar to this one have been moved twice and the Council has, almost like Russian roulette or spin the bottle, said, ‘We are going to single out a person and sanction them’, whether it is me, whether it is Mr Pakula, whether it is Mr Madden, whether it is Mr Jennings or whether it is anybody else. I am not trying to overdramatise, and I am not implying the motives. I am not trying to use that argument, but often tyrannies will pick a victim at random and say, ‘We do not like something that a miscellaneous person somewhere has done, so we will go and punish someone else as an example’.



Hon. M. P. Pakula — Punish one, teach a thousand.

Mr LENDERS — Exactly. It sounds very Maoist — punish one, teach a thousand. But the reason I say that is that it is a serious issue. I have a role as Leader of the Government in this place, and I am not shying away from it. But I will make a serious point on the concept raised here: those opposite do not like something that Tony Robinson, the Minister for Gaming, did, so they will single out someone in this place. Again, without putting my colleague Justin Madden in front of the bullet, in that case he was the representing minister. But we have this random action of just picking a person because he is thought to be a good person to pick or picking another area and randomly finding another person. I am happy to take the bullet on behalf of the government, but I will say this: the methodology or the science behind this is that of randomly picking a person and saying, ‘We are going to hold that person accountable because we choose to say they are accountable’.

On the issue of gaming, I will make the point to show absolutely why the methodology of the parties opposite is whacky. On gaming, cabinet had no authority to hand over those documents. The only person who did was the Minister for Gaming. Cabinet does not control all government decisions: the Minister for Planning has independent powers, the Minister for Gaming has independent powers, and I could name half a dozen other ministers who exercise those powers as statutory office-holders, not as part of cabinet.

The flaw I find in this motion is that the opposition parties are just slavishly using this wording that has been copied out of Egan v. Chadwick and Egan v. Willis from New South Wales. Someone has done the work, they have given the advice and they have set out what you do, step by step. Forget the fact that it is a different state, forget the fact that it is a different constitution and forget the fact that the rules are quite different. This does not apply in this case. This is a case where the Minister for Public Transport has made a determination. I make the point that there is no flexibility, no movement. It is the same stage script used by the Greens party and the Liberal Party, straight out of Egan v. Chadwick and Egan v. Willis, and they just bring it forward again and again. They say it is nothing personal, because there is nothing original or creative about this. It is slavishly following New South Wales Legislative Council procedure, which actually operates under a different constitution.

We then go to the next paragraph:

(5) regards its capacity to obtain information on any matter affecting the public interest as being fundamental —

et cetera. Let us put some boundaries around this. Ms Darveniza and Ms Mikakos accept boundaries around these things. What we are talking about on these issues is that there is actually a thing called the rule of law. An assertion by a majority at any time that a majority thinks something is in the public interest actually tends to ignore the bill of rights, natural justice and dozens of concepts that are part of the rule of law. Let us not just make an assertion, as Mr David Davis has done, that if 21, 25 or 30 people in this house — and I used the example in our first debate — —


Mr LENDERS — I could actually have an interesting discussion about the bill of rights with those who wish to have that discussion. But what I say is that a majority asserting that they know what is in the public interest does not make their actions right. I used this example previously. A majority in the Zimbabwean House of Representatives interpreting the constitution of Zimbabwe does not make it right. It means they have the numbers, but it does not make it right. Similarly, a majority in the Reichstag in the 1930s made a decision after a fifth of the deputies had been arrested, and that did not make it right either. I am absolutely not drawing analogies of motives in either of these cases, but I am using historical fact: a majority does not make it right.

While I am on majorities, the other thing about this that I find obscene is Mr Viney’s point that the 110 877 people who overwhelmingly voted above the line — I take Mr Davis’s point: they voted above the line, and a tiny, tiny number voted for me personally — are being disenfranchised. If the opposition was genuine here and said, ‘We want to make an example of a minister’, then what it would do would be to pair that person while they were out. When that offer was put forward last time, the opposition was stonily silent; it said no and the Greens said no. Mr Kavanagh was the only person in this place who had the decency to say that if you are going to expel the person from the place because you want to discipline them, you should not disenfranchise the people who voted for them.

There is a fundamental point in this. This is a house to which members are elected by proportional representation, and we have this pontification in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the motion about the rights of the Parliament, government being arrogant and all the rest of it. The fundamental point here is that if the opposition and the Greens party are to have any credibility in this, Mr Barber will get up and say in his right of reply, ‘If this motion is carried, we will pair anybody expelled’. If he is not prepared to do this, then this motion is a grubby numbers grab; it is



disenfranchising 110 000 people in Southern Metropolitan Region and it is disenfranchising Mr Kavanagh. As soon as you accept the principle that you knock one person out and you do not replace their vote — fair enough: if you want to make a point, fine — and if your argument is that you want to take a vote away using your numbers, then you are getting to Mugabeism.


Mr LENDERS — It is Pat Field all over again. I think the bona fides of Mr Barber will be shown if he gets up in his reply and says that if this motion is carried, the Greens party will pair any person expelled. Then I will take my hat off to him and say, ‘It is an issue of principle being argued, not a grubby numbers venture’. The opposition will not do that. So I put the challenge to the Greens party members: if they believe in democracy and if they believe in proportionality, they should come out and actually say, ‘We will pair while we use our numbers to suspend someone from the chamber’ — changing the balance and disenfranchising 110 877 voters who thought it was good enough to have a Labor member representing them in this place.

The motion then goes on about it being:

(6) …. essential that the rightful powers and principles of the Council …

We have already addressed that issue.

This next point really sounds like something out of the Star Chamber, and it is obviously straight from Chadwick and Egan and does not contain much original thought:

(7) … adjudges the Leader of the Government guilty of a contempt of the Council for his failure to fully comply …

I go to my opening point: ‘contempt of the Council’ is an extremely strong statement. It means you have disdain for the entire foundation and the entire existence of the place and that you have no respect for the place. I would say one thing to this: we as a government take this place seriously. I as a parliamentarian take this place seriously, so I find this language contemptible. The Attorney-General has actually responded, document by document, explaining why each one is in or out of executive privilege from the government’s perspective. We have had debates on this. But the language of the motion has been slavishly copied out of Chadwick and Egan and Willis and Egan; it is straight out of central scripting from New South Wales. Forget the state, forget the person, forget the

constitution and forget the issue — we will just wheel out the master plan one more time.

That gets us to the final point, paragraph (8), which is the issue of the sanction. It is always in the hands of the house to make that determination. I know the federal House of Representatives expelled someone back in 1916 when Australia was at war with Germany — an Irish-born Australian member who had a view on the Easter Rebellion in Dublin. The House of Representatives thought that was an issue of contempt. Regardless of where you stand on the Easter Rebellion in Ireland, I can accept that in a time of war the House of Representatives thought that was a reason to actually throw somebody out.

When we get beyond that, the example that is again being cited constantly is the issue of Michael Egan, Leader of the Government and Treasurer of New South Wales, being cited for contempt of the Parliament and suspended from the Legislative Council on two occasions. If that is the example people wish to use, that is fine. I know we are going back to the debate of last year. The debate is clear; we can have this debate and argue it. We are not going to change our view. I am certainly not going to change my view. The provisions of section 19(1) and (2) of the Victorian constitution are explicit: the rights and privileges of the House of Commons as at 1854 apply to the Legislative Council. If we wish to exercise that as an executive government and take it to its limit, we would not hand over a single document. What we have done consistently throughout this process has been to apply the same test as the freedom of information legislation does and to release documents to the Council when asked — without exception. They are the tests we have applied.

We have a motion before the house. I think it is a flawed motion for a range of reasons, as it contains a number of assumptions that are flawed. It slavishly follows what happened in New South Wales under different rules for the cases of Egan v. Willis and Egan v. Chadwick. It attempts to follow the course followed in New South Wales. What it chooses to do ultimately is absolutely in the hands of the house, but there are two fundamentals in this. There is a fundamental disagreement on the powers in this issue. We have failed to persuade each other in debate here on several occasions. I accept that members on both sides of the house will not persuade each other on that. There is a fundamental disagreement on that and we can regurgitate and rehash that.

The second part of this is the arbitrary nature of a person being singled out. That in itself is fine, but what is deeper than that is that it also disenfranchises



110 877 electors who thought that they were electing a person to the Parliament to express their wishes. There is no recognition from opposition members, none whatsoever, that they should pair if they suspend somebody. If members of the Greens party have bona fides, they will at least say that they will pair anybody who is suspended during the life of a politically motivated suspension. I still think it is inappropriate to suspend somebody in any case, but the bona fides of this is whether it is a power grab, an attempt to marginalise Mr Kavanagh or simply a misguided following of New South Wales. A lot of the test of that will be how Greens members, including Mr Barber, respond to pairing. We know what opposition members think of pairing. They are contemptuous of it; they think it is their God-given right to suspend people from the chamber when they have the numbers, so I will not even seek reason there.

I urge the house to reject the motion for what it is. It is a misguided effort to further clarify the ability of the Council to scrutinise government. It is a legitimate aspiration but a misguided effort to seek to do that. I would urge that the motion be rejected.

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I was planning a brief reply to a number of the matters raised by previous speakers, until the Leader of the Government opened up the debate considerably and threw down a few more challenges for me, so I will need some time to respond to him as well. Whilst referring to what a number of other speakers from the government said, I may very well pick up on some of the points and principles he has raised.

Mr Viney used the analogy of a previous debate we had this morning in relation to a suspension of a member. It may very well be an appropriate analogy but it does not work for him in the way that he seems to think it does. The debate early this morning on the suspension of a member was on the principle that her activity may have disrupted the business of the house. That could quite simply be that business cannot continue to be debated. In this case the business of the house is to hold the government accountable and in many cases to pass legislation that facilitates activities, including those relating to public transport. The house is in a position to judge that a failure to provide this necessary information is also disrupting the business of the house. So the bases for both issues are to my mind very similar, if not the same.

Throughout his contribution Mr Viney constantly reminded us that this is a very serious issue, as if those of us on this side did not understand that. It may be that we deal with different motions — —

Hon. M. P. Pakula — At least you acknowledge which side you’re on, Greg — sorry, Mr Barber.

Mr BARBER — Don’t you get chucked out for 30 minutes!

It may be that different motions are treated more or less seriously by different members at different times, but at least my two Greens colleagues and I understand the extreme seriousness of this particular issue, and we do not need to be reminded of it.

However, Mr Viney’s analogy about the suspension of members is different in one way, in that the particular matter we had to debate this morning flicked by in seconds. It was a novel procedure, at least as far as the three Greens were concerned, and we did not have any opportunity to seek further advice or give it any serious consideration. By contrast, this is a matter that we have all had a lot of time to think about and take serious advice on. It would certainly have been our preference — admittedly procedures did not allow it, as we now know — to have had even a few minutes of discussion about that particular procedure this morning because everything that government members said about disenfranchisement applies just as much to that motion to suspend that member. If the numbers in this chamber had been differently arranged, the member’s suspension could have completely altered the outcome of the vote on this motion, which, as we have just said, relates to a most serious issue. Of course at the time there was no offer to pair with that member.

Maybe government members think what we are doing here is some sort of symbolic gesture. They are big on symbolism. This motion is meant to have the effect of forcing the government to reply. A theory has also been put forward by Mr Jennings and now Mr Lenders that you cannot hold an individual minister responsible for some other minister — the sudden atomisation of the cabinet and its decisions and choices back onto its individual ministers. When we talk about other issues of accountability — and we could even go to the Freedom of Information Act — suddenly we are told that a cabinet with solidarity and confidentiality in its decision-making processes is essential to the entire functions of government and therefore we cannot look at its deliberations. But 10 minutes later we are told, ‘Hey, there’s no such thing as collective responsibility. I’m just an individual minister and you’re picking on me in particular’.

I agree with Mr Lenders that many, many times we have exchanged our respective views on legal advice, and if it was simply a battle of legal opinions we would never have a judicial system and matters would never



be resolved via that mechanism. So the government should have as much interest as the rest of us in having the matter resolved, if necessary, if this is what it wants the case to be.

Mr Lenders along with Mr Jennings gave the familiar story of how the Labor government reformed the upper house and granted us this ability which we are now, according to them, apparently misusing. Mr Jennings went as far as saying that government members reformed the upper house such that Labor would never again have a majority or, he said, in only the rarest of circumstances. With the greatest of respect to my learned friend and long-term colleague, whose views and opinions I always consider seriously, that assertion is rot. All the government needed were 127 votes in Western Metropolitan Region, and then, for the purposes of this motion, it would have controlled the house. This motion would not even be on the notice paper, because we would have known that it was absolutely doomed to fail. I would not call those 127 votes that happened to be for Ms Hartland as opposed to Mr Barlow the rarest of events. I think that Ms Hartland being hit by lightning on her way to the polling booth would have been a rare event. I would say the likelihood is very high that the government will control this house again and wipe out any ability to set up inquiries, to seek documents in this way and a whole range of other necessary mechanisms. In fact the government is working very hard at it.

When the government designed the system of upper house proportionality it chose the system that was the least proportional, and yet it still got over the line. I have no doubt that it rejected other models that were more popular and that the government itself had espoused when it was in opposition. An effective numbers man like Mr Lenders would be able to calculate that the model the government was putting forward was the one most likely to deliver a majority.


Mr BARBER — Six by seven was out there for a while. In fact, I think I have got Mr Brumby on record saying it was the one he supported.

While this current government may have created the electoral geography, it is not the case that it somehow granted powers to the upper house. These powers have existed for many centuries through the trail of Westminster parliaments.

Mr Lenders brought the bill of rights into the debate. It is interesting that the bill of rights, as preserved in our own legislation by the Imperial Acts Application Act,

cuts both ways. When we argued about the production of gaming documents the argument was made that we would be asking a minister to do something illegal under the Gambling Regulation Act and that that act actually trumped any power of the Parliament. But if we go to the bill of rights, what we see is that no matter of debate that occurs in the Parliament can lead to any course of action in a court. Therefore either that argument was wrong or the government is now selectively pulling out its bill of rights as the authority it wants.

Mr Lenders then disdainfully talked about the parts of the motion that refer to the public interest, and yet it is quite a clear legal concept that the public interest is something to be balanced and judged. As we are operating not in the judiciary but inside the chamber, the chamber itself is acting to make that judgement. Those arguments, to be polite to those on the other side, are contestable.

Mr Pakula said that the motivation was simply to get some juicy political capital. I cannot tell you if there is any juicy political capital in the documents because I have not seen them.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Exactly, and that is the only reason you want them.

Mr BARBER — And that is the only reason you do not want to release them.


Mr BARBER — Let us address that particular issue. I have brought it up during the debate on all the previous motions. I am simply seeking that the government be accountable for what is being tendered out. In simple terms, I am looking for what it is specifying, what is being tendered out and what is it that the body which will take over the running of Melbourne’s trams and trains is meant to deliver. I would not have thought that is something that has to be held back from the public. Whether it is juicy political capital or whether it is dull as dishwater boring, we can only judge when we see it.

Mr Pakula could have stood up and said, ‘Actually, Mr Barber, it does not consist of those kinds of things’, or someone from the government could have made that statement in the chamber, or someone could have come to see me. The government could have released the contents page of the document simply to indicate the sorts of matters that are covered, but there has been a blanket statement from the beginning about it being commercial-in-confidence information, which is the

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL


exact refrain that the former Premier, Mr Kennett, used endlessly.

If the government cannot now explain to the public, which is bluntly asking questions about why the trams and trains are stuffed, how this new arrangement is going to make it better and how the blame shifting will end, then that is a mess of its own making, because it picked up the failed Kennett privatisation model for public transport, retained it and kept it going. On at least two occasions when it had the opportunity to take the whole thing back in house, the government balked. That was a political decision that has led us to this point.

Mr Kavanagh has now moved his amendment. The effect of that amendment is to remove from the motion paragraph 8(b), which is the bit that actually suspends the Leader of the Government. Since clearly my motion in toto would fail without Mr Kavanagh’s amendment, I am forced to support his amendment to my motion in order to keep the rest of the motion alive.

The remainder of the motion still finds the Leader of the Government guilty of contempt, but brings in, as Mr Kavanagh said, no automated suspension of the leader. Members need to understand, and I will foreshadow it now, that I will move a motion covering the first sitting week in June, assuming the documents have not been provided by that May sitting week deadline, which seeks the suspension, so we will be back here again.

It is a two-step process. It is a fourth warning. It gives the government a bit more breathing space and the chance to even have a quiet chat with me about the content of this document. The government might say, ‘Mr Barber, the thing you are looking for is not even in that document, we can provide you with all this other material and we will provide it to the public and other parties as well’, but we are nevertheless on the same track. I want that to be very clear before the vote, that that is the slightly changed procedure but nevertheless we will be moving in the same way, admittedly with a month’s grace.

I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. Yes, there have been many matters that have been raised and debated before; however, we continue to put more definition around this issue, particularly as different sorts of issues are brought to bear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amended motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (BEVERAGE CONTAINER

DEPOSIT AND RECOVERY SCHEME) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) introduced a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection Act 1970 to make further provision for environmentally sustainable uses of resources and best practices in waste management by establishing a beverage container deposit and recovery scheme to be administered by the Environment Protection Authority and for other purposes.

Read first time.

ELECTORAL MATTERS COMMITTEE

Kororoit by-election


That this house requires the Electoral Matters Committee to inquire, consider and report no later than 28 February 2010 —

(1) on the deliberate misleading of the electors in the 28 June 2008 Kororoit by-election, whereby a pamphlet authorised by the secretary of the Australian Labor Party was distributed that claimed ‘A vote for Les Twentyman is a vote for the Liberals’ contributing, in the opinion of the Victorian Electoral Commissioner, to ‘an undesirable trend for candidates to take advantage or build on community misunderstandings of preferential voting with confusing statements’; and

(2) as the Victorian Electoral Commissioner has suggested in his report on the Kororoit district by-election held on 28 June 2008, whether the Electoral Act 2002 should be amended to improve the operation of the misleading provisions of the act so that such abuses are more likely to be successfully prosecuted.

I am pleased to move this motion. In doing so I do not propose to debate this matter at enormous length. It is something that has been widely canvassed publicly. I am conscious of the time of the house and the need to move forward sensibly. It is an extraordinary occasion when the Electoral Commissioner — and I notice that the chair of the Electoral Matters Committee, Mr Somyurek, is here — brings down a report. It is worth putting on the public record some comments made in that report about the Kororoit by-election. I intend to quote some paragraphs, because I think they are pertinent to the reason for bringing this motion before the house and central to the points I am making.



This motion has been brought before the house purely because the Electoral Commissioner has reported on the Kororoit by-election. The truth of the matter is that electoral campaigns and processes are robust affairs. There is argy-bargy on each side. Sometimes people step out of line a little here and there. We all expect a robust political debate and a robust political process in Victoria, but this issue went a bit further and a bit too far. The Electoral Commissioner made a number of comments in the section headed ‘Complaints’:

Four complaints were received either by candidates or about candidates. One complaint related to the eligibility … to stand, which had no basis. Another related to what a candidate believed to be harassing and intimidating behaviour …This was referred to police. Such behaviour has the potential to reduce candidate fields.

Two other complaints related to what the complainant believed to be false and misleading electoral material being published/distributed. In the case of one of these complaints, there was no legal basis found for the complaint.

The second complaint is believed to be a contravention of the false and misleading provision in the act related to a pamphlet authorised by the secretary of the Labor Party, which stated that a vote for a particular independent candidate was a vote for the Liberal Party. The actual slogan was ‘A vote for Les Twentyman is a vote for the Liberals’.

I am quoting the Electoral Commissioner, because I think it is important in the context of this debate that the actual record of what he said be read in the Parliament:

This is not the first time in an Australian parliamentary election that a major party has indicated that a vote for one candidate is a vote for someone else. In another state it was claimed that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for Labor.

In fact, electors allocate preferences. Some choose to follow how-to-vote cards, some do not.

The VEC understands that in Australia the laws allow for robust expression —

my earlier point —

of opinion and debate and that it is up to electors to make their choices in secret. The subject pamphlet was considered to be outside of that general framework.

Accordingly, the VEC invited those directly involved with this particular complaint to make submissions in relation to the law. All submissions have been fully considered with specialist legal advice.

For a successful prosecution of an offence against section 84(1) of the act, there are two components to the statutory test —

I am quoting directly from the Electoral Commissioner —

the pamphlet must be likely to mislead or deceive an elector; and

the impugned effect of the pamphlet must be felt ‘in relation to the casting of the vote of the elector’.

Legal opinion is that the pamphlet is misleading in its suggestion of an affiliation or agreement between Mr Twentyman and the Liberal Party. Further, on current case law, it is likely to be construed as misleading electors in the formation of their judgement about their preferred candidate.

He went on to say:

However, in Victoria, the law has been interpreted to contemplate that the misleading provisions of the Electoral Act 2002 only apply to the actual casting of the vote. Therefore, although the electors’ views about who they would vote for may have been affected by the pamphlet, it does not clearly mislead electors in the casting of their vote and is consequently unlikely to be able to be successfully prosecuted.

Regardless of the legal consideration, such messages do conflict with messages from the electoral administrators that electors allocate preferences, and contribute to an undesirable trend for candidates to take advantage or build on community misunderstandings of preferential voting with confusing statements.

In this context, the Parliament may wish to consider whether the misleading provisions of the act require amendment.

In the context of that quite direct set of statements by the Electoral Commissioner I consider that it is desirable to refer this matter to the Electoral Matters Committee. I make the point this a committee chaired by Mr Somyurek and it has a Labor majority. So it is not a partisan step we are taking here; it is a step that, in a sense, handpasses this matter to that committee for it to look at in a sensible manner, to come up with some conclusions and to investigate the specifics of the complaint.

The Electoral Commissioner will no doubt have something to say. I would naturally expect that in such an inquiry the Electoral Commissioner may give evidence to the committee. Those responsible for the particular pamphlet in the circumstances may wish to give evidence to the committee and make their points regarding that. At the same time I would imagine the committee may wish to think about this matter in a sensible way as to what is achievable. I do not know that overly prescriptive legislation is necessarily effective in the context of an election campaign. There needs to be sufficient and sensible elbow room for political parties and individual candidates to robustly put their points of view. But the truth of course is that this pamphlet went too far. The pamphlet sought to mislead. The Electoral Commissioner was correct.

I note that some members of the Labor Party have, let us say, bounced around a bit on this issue after it was announced that we would seek to refer this to the



Electoral Matters Committee. If we wanted an unfair outcome we perhaps would not be so generous in referring it to Mr Somyurek’s committee. I would expect that he and his committee would look at this in a fair-minded manner. I know that a number of members of this chamber representing the western region have very strong views about this matter.

I know that the individual at whom this pamphlet was directed, Mr Twentyman, is a person who is generally held in high esteem in the community and in the west of the city in particular. I know he has been sick recently, but he is a person who has generally been held in high esteem. I think he was Victorian of the Year. I stand to be corrected on that, but he has certainly been given that esteem and recognition for his work in the community.

The concept that because a political party preferences another party there is some deal is a bizarre construction. I do not propose to overly grace with any serious comment the very strange comments put to me by the secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Newnham. I will just say that I thought they were particularly unbalanced and particularly out of touch. The community expects robust electoral contests, but it does not expect hectoring or the sort of grubby pamphlets we saw on this occasion.

I think it is a moderate and reasonable motion that I have brought to the chamber today to refer this to the Electoral Matters Committee. I will take this stance: it is in direct response to the Electoral Commissioner’s comments in his report on the Kororoit by-election. You would expect parliamentarians to read his report, to look at it closely, to understand the essence of what he is saying and thereby to act. That is what we are seeing here today. Constructions by Mr Newnham or others that there is something nefarious or sinister are just plain silly. This is a simple matter, and I ask for the house’s support in this referral.

Ms BROAD (Northern Victoria) — I rise to indicate, firstly, that Labor does not oppose references from the upper house to the Electoral Matters Committee that require the committee to consider reports from the Victorian Electoral Commissioner. Not only does Labor not have anything to hide, Labor strongly supports the role of an independent Electoral Commissioner. It was the Labor Party that proposed the establishment of the Electoral Matters Committee, not the Liberals. This is a new committee which has only existed since the 2006 election. It is one that Labor is very proud of having created as a new joint committee of this Parliament.

As Mr Davis has indicated, the Electoral Matters Committee is chaired by a member of this house, Mr Somyurek. I am a member of the committee, together with Mr Philip Davis. This house is well represented on the committee. The powers and responsibilities of the committee are determined by the Parliamentary Committees Act.

The functions of the Electoral Matters Committee are set out in that act:

(1) The functions of the Electoral Matters Committee are, if so required or permitted under this Act, to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal, matter or thing concerned with —

(a) the conduct of Parliamentary elections and referendums in Victoria;

(b) the conduct of elections of councillors under the Local Government Act …;

(c) the administration of, or practices associated with, the Electoral Act … and any other law relating to electoral matters.

Clearly it is appropriate for the Electoral Matters Committee to consider the report of the Victorian Electoral Commission on the Kororoit by-election.

I note that Mr David Davis’s motion refers to Mr Les Twentyman. It has been widely reported that Mr Twentyman was hospitalised with a life-threatening illness, and it is appropriate to record my best wishes to him and his family for his recovery.

The motion before the house refers to the Kororoit by-election held in June 2008 and to the report from the Victorian Electoral Commission on the by-election of January of this year. According to the VEC’s report, after the by-election the commission re-threw the ballot for two-party-preferred information purposes, with the result that Labor secured 71.5 per cent of the vote and the Liberals secured 28.5 per cent. The Labor candidate, Ms Marlene Kairouz, was therefore elected convincingly.

Mr Davis’s motion makes reference to the VEC report in relation to the matter of provisions in the Electoral Act regarding false and misleading electoral material being published and distributed, so I turned to the VEC report, which refers to a complaint relating to a pamphlet authorised by the secretary of the Labor Party which stated that a vote for the independent candidate, Mr Twentyman, was a vote for the Liberal Party. The complaint further stated that this claim was false and misleading. The VEC’s report goes on to say that this is not the first time in an Australian parliamentary election that a major party has indicated that a vote for one



candidate is a vote for someone else. The VEC report refers to another state where it was claimed that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for Labor.

The VEC’s report on the 2006 Victorian state election refers to two complaints concerning misleading material that were received and referred to the Victorian Government Solicitor’s office for advice. Those complaints concerned, firstly, material authorised by Mr Luke O’Sullivan for The Nationals, although Mr O’Sullivan did not identify his affiliation with The Nationals in that material. That pamphlet claimed that a vote for Mr Craig Ingram, the Independent candidate for East Gippsland, was a vote for Labor. Secondly, there were complaints concerning television advertisements and online advertising that claimed that a vote for Mr Russell Savage, the Independent candidate for Mildura, was a vote for Labor. Not content with distributing material claiming that a vote for an Independent candidate was a vote for Labor at the last Victorian election, miraculously an Independent candidate, who up until a month before the 2006 election had been employed on the staff of Mr Philip Davis, ran as an Independent at the election in East Gippsland against the Independent member, Mr Craig Ingram. I am sure it will be no surprise to anyone in this house that that Independent candidate did not direct their preferences to Mr Ingram, which is hardly a shock given their immediately prior employment.

In fact, going back further in relation to Independent candidates, in 2002 a letter was circulated by Mr Peter Hall acknowledging that Independents were sought to run and that these candidates were sought in the interests of supporting Nationals candidates. References were made in relation to Morwell, and I quote from Mr Hall’s letter:

We actively sought Independents to run and give us preferences.

References were also made to Narracan, as follows:

… an Independent who ran to assist us …

For a motion to be put before the house which in some way claims that what occurred in the Kororoit by-election is somehow way out of line with a whole series of incidents that I have barely touched on in relation to prior elections and that have involved both the Liberal and National parties is approximating having the hide of an elephant. That is without referring to the 2007 federal election, where three days before the election we had Liberal supporters handing out pamphlets purporting to be from what in fact was a completely fictitious — as in completely non-existent — Islamic group thanking the Labor Party

for supporting terrorists. I think that one would have caught the attention of members opposite as something of an extreme activity on the part of Liberal supporters which backfired rather badly on the Liberal Party.

It is important to put these matters on the record, because after all it is Mr David Davis who has put this motion before the house claiming that things occurred in the Kororoit by-election which are somehow or other completely out of line with activities in prior elections. He has done so without for one moment having regard to the actions of supporters of his own party and his coalition partner, The Nationals, in a whole series of elections where activities have been directed quite specifically against Independents and the parties have sought to run so-called Independents in the interests of seeking the election of their own members. So let us not have any great pretence here that suddenly the Liberal Party is the great protector of Independents and is concerned to see the election of Independents to the Victorian Parliament. Its actions would demonstrate clearly that this is complete and arrant nonsense.

I indicate to the house again that the Labor Party has no problem with these matters being considered by the Electoral Matters Committee. The Labor Party proposed the establishment of the Electoral Matters Committee so it could consider matters to do with elections. If the Electoral Matters Committee is to consider these matters in relation to the Kororoit by-election, let us consider them properly in relation to a whole series of elections. Let us consider them in relation to the activities of parties and Independents across elections. Let us look at the Victorian Electoral Commission’s reports, which have consistently raised these issues through a whole series of elections.

In considering whether the Electoral Act is adequate as it stands in relation to false and misleading material, the Victorian Electoral Commissioner clearly considers that these provisions of the law, which have stood for a considerable period of time, deserve consideration. As a member of the Electoral Matters Committee I have no difficulty whatever considering those provisions and reports from the Victorian Electoral Commission on these matters.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I will only speak very briefly on this matter, because I think the last two speakers have outlined much of the issue, but there are some points I would like to go over. The Greens support what we consider to be this extremely important referral. I strongly feel that this particular issue in this election and in other elections has just not received enough scrutiny. The lack of scrutiny is not surprising given the fact that both major parties have,



through letterboxing voters, dabbled in misrepresentation and scaremongering in the past. I would have to say I was a bit surprised at Ms Broad’s comments that because the Liberal Party has done it, it is okay for the Labor Party to do it as well.

Ms Broad — I don’t think I said that.

Ms HARTLAND — I think that was the implication, Ms Broad. I will quote from the Victorian Electoral Commission’s (VEC) report on the Kororoit by-election:

This is not the first time in an Australian parliamentary election that a major party has indicated that a vote for one candidate is a vote for someone else. In another state it was claimed that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for Labor.

I can think of a number of examples where this has occurred in Victoria. In the 2006 state election Labor made false statements about Greens preferences on a number of occasions. Craig Ingram, the member for Gippsland East in the Assembly, in a media release dated 6 November 2006 highlighted The Nationals swapping preferences with Labor in key marginal Labor-held seats.

The VEC report also states, referring to the pamphlet regarding Les Twentyman, that:

Legal opinion is that the pamphlet is misleading in its suggestion of an affiliation or agreement between Mr Twentyman and the Liberal Party. Further, on current case law, it is likely to be construed as misleading electors in the formation of their judgement about their preferred candidate.

In a recent article published in the Age, journalist Paul Austin revealed the true hypocrisy of the Brumby government. Austin wrote about the ‘weasel words’ of the Premier and how the Labor Party’s dirty tactics at the Kororoit by-election contradicted his 1990 booklet Restoring Democracy. Paul Austin quoted a passage from the booklet:

When governments are careless with democracy, when they tolerate double standards in their ranks, they send out a powerful message. They tell people that decency counts for nothing. They tell us that fairness is for fools.

This sneaky smear campaign, which delivered the seat of Kororoit to Labor, occurred in a by-election, and I would hate to think what types of tactics the community could expect to see in the 2010 state election, especially since Mr Brumby has not said that any of this kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

This is an important reference for the Electoral Matters Committee to address, because it needs to look at the inaccuracies and slurs that are put about in elections and

whether it is time to give more power to the electoral commission. It needs also to look at the Electoral Act to stop candidates and parties confusing voters about their true intentions. This needs to happen now, before the 2010 election, because I do not think we want to go through an election similar to the Kororoit by-election. There were a number of leaflets put out about Mr Twentyman, not just about the issue of a vote for him allegedly being a vote for the Liberals — and incidentally a number of people preferenced Mr Twentyman in that election. A number of other issues were put about in scare sheets, or what I would refer to as dirt sheets. When you are an independent candidate or a member of a small party, you do not have the capacity to respond to that behaviour, so it should be unacceptable.

Thus I think this is a very important reference, and I hope the Electoral Matters Committee looks at it very seriously.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I rise to strongly support the motion moved by Mr David Davis. I listened with a great deal of interest to Ms Broad, and tomorrow I will read with a great deal of interest her contribution in Hansard, and I may have to re-read it, and perhaps even re-read it again, because if I read it often enough it might start to make a grain of sense. Sitting here listening to her rabbiting on, there did not seem to be a lot of logic involved. I look forward to reading her contribution in Hansard when it hits my desk tomorrow.

In a sense it is a pity that this motion is being debated today, because it would have been very helpful if we had waited until the release of the Ombudsman’s report into Brimbank City Council, as I think there is quite a bit of overlap between Labor activities in Kororoit electorate and what has been going on in Brimbank for quite some time. As I said, to a degree it is disappointing that we do not have both reports, because it would have been useful to all members of the house to have the Victorian Electoral Commission report in the one hand and the Ombudsman’s report in the other so that they could quite easily cross-reference between the documents in relation to the individuals involved in the chicanery that we have seen in the western suburbs for some time.

It is interesting to think about the chain of events that has led to this debate today and to what would appear to be a referral to the Electoral Matters Committee. It all goes back to last year, when the then member for Kororoit and former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, André Haermeyer, went to the Premier and said, ‘I am thinking about giving politics away later this



year’. I understand that the Premier responded, ‘Why don’t you do it now?’. Mr Haermeyer said, ‘Yes, I will’ — he did not have a lot of choice at that point — and handed in his resignation. He assured the Premier that everything was on the up and up, he had his replacement all sorted out and there would not be a problem in the world. The Premier then proceeded with his trip overseas during the by-election campaign, once again showing the people of the western suburbs how much contempt the Labor Party holds them in and just how much it takes them — takes us — for granted.

The only problem with the story that André told the Premier was that it was not quite true. Mr Somyurek may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Mr Haermeyer thought he had his replacement lined up. It was his electorate officer, Natalie Suleyman, who was well known in the city of Brimbank — and once the report is released she will be considerably more well known throughout the state of Victoria and possibly the commonwealth of Australia — who was lined up to replace Mr Haermeyer as the Labor candidate for Kororoit. Clearly, given the electoral advantage that Labor has there, it was assumed that she would be the next member for Kororoit. However, the locals were not all at happy with that prospect, to say the least.

Those who had suffered through two years of Natalie Suleyman as mayor of Brimbank City Council were not at all delighted with the prospect of her being their local member, so they went sniffing about. At that point I think another local member got involved — perhaps it was George Seitz, the member for Keilor in the Assembly — and went sniffing around. He came up with a young lady from the northern suburbs — well away from Kororoit; I doubt she had ever been to Kororoit in her life — who did not know how to get to Caroline Springs without a compass and a cut lunch. She did not have the first idea.

Mr Somyurek — She worked in the western suburbs.

Mr FINN — Mr Somyurek said she worked in the western suburbs. She worked her way through the western suburbs! At least you have to say that Darebin is a little bit closer to Caroline Springs than Black Rock. That is one thing you have to give her credit for.

Mr D. Davis — Not as the crow flies!

Mr FINN — Perhaps not as the crow flies. I have not given that a lot of thought. At least the Labor Party came up with a candidate it thought would be palatable to the good voters of Kororoit.

There ensued a battle that is still being talked about — a battle that cut the Labor Party to pieces in the western suburbs and is still being fought in council meetings and branch meetings from one end of the western suburbs to the other and beyond — and at the end of the battle the blow-in had beaten the bozo, as I pointed out at the time. The blow-in from Darebin, who is the current member for Kororoit, became the Labor candidate and everybody, or at least those who had voted for her in the preselection, was seen to get behind her. The scene was set and the candidate was in place when all of a sudden there appeared from over the horizon a candidate who seemed to be someone whom locals could support — that is, Les Twentyman. He announced that he was going to be a candidate in the Kororoit by-election.

I have to declare to the house that I have known Les Twentyman for a long time. We are good mates and have been for over 20 years. His recent illness has distressed and worried me enormously, as it has a number of his other friends throughout the west and Victoria. We were delighted to hear that he is on the comeback trail. We hope he will be all right for the Richmond-Doggies football game on Monday week. This is unlikely at this stage, but we will wait to see if acceptances come in on the Monday morning before we declare him to be a scratching.

However, it was generally accepted — —


Mr FINN — We will not go that way just yet, Mr Dalla-Riva. It was widely accepted that this favourite son of the west, Les Twentyman, would stand an excellent chance of winning the seat. Everybody accepted it — the Liberals and Labor accepted it, and certainly the Greens accepted it — and a number of candidates declared throughout the course of the campaign that they would be directing their preferences to Les Twentyman. There were two reasons for this. Firstly, Les Twentyman is a good bloke and would have been a great local member of Parliament — a great fighter within the Parliament. Secondly, the Labor Party had treated, and continues to treat, the western suburbs abysmally — with contempt, as I have so often pointed out. There were two reasons that Les Twentyman gained such support from other candidates. Of course this put the fear of god into the ALP, and in particular into a chap called Stephen Newnham, who I understand to be the state secretary of the ALP.

I should point out that, whilst Les Twentyman is a mate of mine and has been for a very long time, he is not a Liberal — far from it; his politics and mine are very



different — but we share a common concern for people, particularly those in the western suburbs. When I worked in radio all those years ago we worked on a number of projects which have helped young people throughout the western suburbs. Les is renowned internationally for his work with young people. I emphasise the point that Les is not a Liberal. This chap Newnham came up with a campaign — —


Mr FINN — He certainly is not. I am not sure what he is, to tell you the truth. His campaign included a pamphlet that declared that a vote for the Liberal Party was a vote for Les Twentyman. That was and is an out-and-out deception. It is grossly deceitful for — —

Mr Guy — It is a lie.

Mr FINN — It is a lie. I was not going to use that word, but it is a lie — absolutely.

The pamphlet was distributed, but of course it was not the only form of deception that we saw throughout the course of that by-election campaign. Some of the filth and grubby abuse that was dragged from the gutter and used against Les Twentyman is some of the vilest material that I have ever witnessed in an election. I have been involved in politics for a little over 35 years and have seen some shocking things, but I have to say that you would go a long way before you would see anything as bad as anything that was used against Les Twentyman by the Labor Party in the course of the Kororoit by-election campaign. I heard his character maligned. I will not repeat some of the suggestions that were made to me and that I know were made to many people throughout the Kororoit electorate. It was despicable in the extreme. Those responsible should crawl back into the gutter from whence they came. It made me ashamed to be involved in the political process, but certainly not in the sense of being a member of the party that was responsible for the dirt campaigns that were run against Les Twentyman.

Stephen Newnham authorised a pamphlet, which was distributed. It declared that a vote for Les Twentyman was a vote for the Liberal Party. Of course this action makes Stephen Newnham the Peter Batchelor of the 21st century. We all remember that Peter Batchelor, the member for Thomastown in the Assembly, did something similar when he was the state secretary of the ALP — from memory it was in 1988. He authorised some shonky how-to-vote cards for a by-election in Nunawading to try to shore up support for Labor’s lagging campaign at the time. I could go into great detail about what Peter Batchelor did back then, but it

was and remains a contempt of democracy, just as what Stephen Newnham did last year in Kororoit was a contempt of democracy. As Peter Batchelor held the people of Nunawading in total and absolute contempt, Stephen Newnham last year held the people of Kororoit in total and absolute contempt — and both stand condemned for their actions, as they should.

It is interesting to note that only a few years after this government made Les Twentyman Victorian of the Year, last year its members tried to destroy him. They did not just try to beat him at the ballot box; they tried to destroy his character and anything and everything they could get their hands on. It was a despicable and disgraceful campaign. Whilst Les Twentyman is no Liberal, he certainly has no love for the Labor Party after what its members did to him — and his wife, I might say — last year.

Labor was caught out by the VEC (Victorian Electoral Commission) on the particular issue of the pamphlet, but there are many other issues that need examination. The Electoral Matters Committee may well be the vehicle that will open up these issues and examine some of the issues to which I have referred. I see Mr Somyurek sitting in the chamber, and I can assure him that I will be happy to appear as a witness before his committee and to give him and his members full details of what people said to me about Les Twentyman. Lies and innuendo were spread about Les in the lead-up to last year’s Kororoit by-election. I believe this is extremely important. I say that as a member representing the western suburbs, because for far too long the western suburbs have been subject to this skulduggery. We have seen it in federal and state elections, and most certainly at a local government level. I hope more about that will come out in the not-too-distant future.

As a Victorian and a member of this Parliament I also have a responsibility to ensure that the chicanery that we have seen in Kororoit is not repeated. All of us — members of this house and the other house — have a responsibility to ensure that what Stephen Newnham and his mates got up to in Kororoit is never allowed to be repeated. We have a responsibility to the people of Victoria to ensure that does not happen again. Hopefully the Electoral Matters Committee will be able to make the appropriate recommendations and the government will act upon those recommendations to ensure that in future elections and future by-elections we do have a good clean fight. As members opposite — and some on my own side — know only too well, I do enjoy a good, clean fight.

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT


Apart from seeing the election of a new member for Kororoit, the Kororoit by-election succeeded in showing us what the Labor Party is in the west and more broadly in the state of Victoria. That by-election has shown members of the Labor Party to be shysters and shonks, people who cannot be trusted and who will say anything to denigrate good, honest Victorians as they lust after power themselves.

I trust and hope the Electoral Matters Committee will pull the blanket away and let the light in on some of the evil practices of the Labor Party over such a long period of time in this state. I sincerely hope Stephen Newnham is exposed, as Peter Batchelor was all those years ago.

Mr D. Davis — He should front the committee.

Mr FINN — He should front the committee, Mr Davis. Would Mr Somyurek have him front the committee?

Mr Somyurek — All stakeholders.

Mr FINN — All stakeholders. I am glad you have said that — that is now in Hansard — because we need to ensure that these sorts of characters are exposed for what they are. Wherever they are, whoever they are, they need to be exposed. Just like Peter Batchelor some 20 years ago, Stephen Newnham needs the condemnation of those of us who do care about the democratic processes and who do care about people getting a fair go in elections.

What this disgraceful effort last year did was show once again Labor’s contempt for Melbourne’s western suburbs. Labor members have again used the west and they have abused the west. That is what the Labor Party does better than anything else. Its members might like to claim that they are clean and above this sort of thing, but we all know they are not. We all know that they look at the western suburbs and they do not see millions of people who have families and jobs and mortgages and problems that need assistance; they see a power base. That is what the Labor Party does in the western suburbs. It is about time that came to an end. I hope, once again, that this motion is passed and that this matter is referred to the Electoral Matters Committee. There is so much that needs examination, so much that needs cleaning up in this despicable matter.

Motion agreed to.


Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — I move:

That this house expresses its regret at the decision of the Minister for Planning to employ section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to contemptuously override the disallowance motion of Greater Geelong planning scheme amendment C118 relating to the Barwon Heads bridge, agreed to by this house on 11 March 2009, and regards this ministerial decision as undemocratic and in blatant disregard of the wishes of Bellarine communities, particularly Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove.

The Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove communities were shocked, dismayed and in some cases outright disgusted by the way the Brumby government has dealt with this matter. The two-bridge proposal has never been accepted by the majority of residents and those who regularly holiday at these destinations. I can tell the house that this was extremely well demonstrated by the large local rally held by the Barwon Heads bridge on the Barwon River foreshore on 11 January, and further to that the collection of some 3500 signatures opposing the two-bridge concept.

It is also important to be mindful of the fact that although tenders had been let, they had not been closed, nor had any contracts been signed prior to the outcome of the disallowance motion that was supported by 100 per cent of non-government members in this house. Hence, there were no sovereign risks involved. I think that is a very important position that we did appreciate at the time, as I am sure other non-government parties accepted.

Like the opposition, the community knew that what was proposed was bad for the environment and that no environment effects statement (EES) had been sought by the government. They were aware that this concept was financially flawed. There was a discrepancy of more than $10 million in the initial costings for the one and two-bridge proposals. I believe indications of final tenders far exceed the budget allocations originally put in place. It is unlikely that the final cost will be known for some time, but I think we all know and appreciate that it will be far greater than was ever forecast by this government.

The community was also aware that there was no consultation on the two-bridge concept. It is truly frustrated that the government would go down that track. At no time was there any leadership from local members, be it from the member for Bellarine in the Assembly, the Minister for Mental Health, or from the member for South Barwon in the Assembly, Michael Crutchfield. In fact government members have been



conspicuous by their absence right through this process. There has always been an obvious alternative that this community has been accepting of, and that is the one-bridge proposal which the community believed very strongly it was going to receive.

Public commentary has not been supportive of the government’s actions. I think it is particularly important that some of it is recorded in Hansard. For instance, the Age of 31 March published a letter from eminent people such as Dr Eric Bird, senior associate, Melbourne University coastal morphology, Neville Rosengren, former senior lecturer in environmental geoscience at La Trobe University, and John Sherwood, associate professor at the school of life and environmental studies at Deakin University in Warrnambool. Their contribution reads:

VicRoads’ two-bridge development … across the Barwon Heads estuary raises serious issues. The possible impacts of climate change mean the project should investigate the stability of the narrow spit as a base for the bridge; whether the removal of vegetation will increase erosion; and the possible increase in sedimentation causing shallowing.

The Barwon River estuary comprises an integrated and interrelated ecological system. What occurs upstream will affect downstream and vice versa.

Predicted sea level rise, inundation of coastlines and increased storms that accelerate erosion are part of a scenario that needs greater communication between all concerned. We encourage the authorities to examine our concerns via a public environment effects statement. A process including community, professionals and planners will ensure the best outcome.

I think that is good advice. Of course it is something the government is not interested in doing in relation to this project.

Further, there were many letters to the editor, and my office received many emails. I will quote one letter from the Geelong Advertiser, and it is one of many. It is titled ‘High-handed attitude is beyond belief’ and the author is Simon Townsend from Freshwater Creek. It states:

The high-handed and dictatorial attitude of the Victorian government, especially Premier John Brumby, Minister Justin Madden and Michael Crutchfield, MP for South Barwon, regarding the establishment of an inappropriate new bridge at Barwon Heads, beggars belief.

For elected representatives of the people they seem to be rather deaf to the voice of the people.

To proceed with the bridge as proposed by the government will see a serious swing against Labor at the next election and the loss of the gains they have taken years to achieve in the Geelong region.

…

Maybe a formal investigation into the actual position should be demanded by the South Barwon constituents and the whole mess revealed.

On 19 March the Geelong Advertiser ran an editorial under the heading ‘Madden leaves a bridge divided’. I again quote from the Geelong Advertiser:

Few local issues have inflamed public feeling like the proposed Barwon Heads bridge.

…

What will anger the community most is that the state government has bypassed the legislative process and used its administrative firepower to get the option it wanted. It has that right but it won’t change the mood.

…

With one quick stroke of the administrative pen yesterday, their —

the Barwon Heads people —

hopes were dashed and the Madden model is now fact.

…

It’s been a subject which has divided communities, brought accusations of backflips for political gain and highlighted tensions within local Labor ranks.

It continues:

Mr Madden said the project was too important to allow it to become a political tool for the opposition and the Greens party. No mention of it being, in his government’s opinion, the best option.

The biggest problem is that the Madden model provides for the potential for a massive traffic headache within the next few years …

…

Madden’s decision has resulted in an angry town of Barwon Heads and will leave VicRoads with a logistical nightmare in the future.

The political fallout from Madden’s decision may be interesting. Sitting ALP member Michael Crutchfield polled approximately 14 per cent more votes than his Liberal opponent in the Barwon Heads district in the 2006 election poll.

The editor signs off by saying:

It may be closer next time.

At page 5 the same newspaper on the same day carried an article by Jessica Craven and Julie McNamara that says, in part:

The decision has outraged local residents, who have warned they will show their anger at the polls next year.

…



Friend of the Barwon Heads Bridge Bernard Napthine said the community was shocked and appalled.

‘It makes a mockery of so-called consultation and is a slap in the face for the community’ …

‘If they think we will forget this, they are wrong. When Labor were in opposition, they argued Jeff Kennett was arrogant and he was thrown out, but they are even more arrogant. They’d better watch out’.

…

Cr Jan Farrell —

from the Greater Geelong City Council —

said the community was reeling from this decision.

‘I had 10 missed calls on my phone in the space of a 4-minute phone call’ …

‘I am personally outraged that the minister has overturned the decision of the upper house, which has been put in place so there are checks and balances to what happens in the government’.

Greens Senator Colleen Hartland —

my colleague and in the house here today —

said she was seeking professional advice on the legality of Mr Madden’s decision.

We may well hear a little bit more of that as the debate proceeds today. The article continues:

‘They —

that is, the government —

seem to think the rules don’t apply to their projects …

Cr Andrew Katos —

who has the planning and finance portfolio at the City of Greater Geelong —

last week moved a motion calling on upper house members to reject the amendment and said the state government was ‘circumventing the will of the Parliament and that of the community’.

I think all those are very strong statements from various people with various qualifications that express the outrage that is felt about what the government did on this occasion. The government wants to be very, very aware of what is going on in regional Victoria, particularly down Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove way, where this situation has arisen.

Importantly the local planning authority, the City of Greater Geelong, has also been ignored in its efforts to represent its own community. The council had submitted proposals for a single-bridge crossing, listened to the community and carried motions at

council meetings in opposition to a two-bridge concept, but unfortunately that was to no avail. Geelong councillors have been democratically elected to represent their ratepayers, but like community members, they have been walked all over on every occasion when they have tried to assist their community in reaching a position for one bridge.

All these positions have been clearly demonstrated and debated, and the voting on the disallowance motion clearly shows a majority position, again by all non-government sitting members in the upper house of the Victorian Parliament. I have to say that after the disallowance motion was carried I was having a cup of coffee late on the evening of 11 March at the top end of Bourke Street. After that motion had been carried it became clear that moves were afoot for this government to do whatever it could to overturn the motion that had been agreed to in the upper house, because the member for South Barwon in the Assembly, Michael Crutchfield, came sauntering past down Bourke Street as we were having our cup of coffee and he openly indicated to me that the two-bridge proposal would proceed. Although I remonstrated and said that I believed the disallowance motion had been carried and that the preferred choice was the construction of one bridge, Michael went on to say, ‘Believe me, it will be two bridges’. I was conscious from that point on that the government was looking at all possible avenues, as I say, to overturn what had been decided in this house.

After the rise of Parliament on the following day the City of Greater Geelong was called in, in a veiled attempt at further consultation. Again no notice was taken of the council’s position, and it has been suggested that a predetermined position had already been reached by the government. In fact the roads minister indicated to those in his audience that he would do what he had to do to move this project forward. The Geelong council came away with the genuine belief that the government would consider its thoughts, but after it realised the position the government had taken it was certainly deflated and left with nowhere to go. It felt as though the whole exercise had been a waste of time.

Is it any wonder that Greater Geelong City Council is not supportive of the development assessment committee’s suggestion being now foisted on it by this government and its influence over local planning matters being now redirected from local communities, which are best placed to make decisions, up here to Spring Street! It should be noted that section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 reads:



16. Application of planning scheme

A planning scheme is binding on every Minister, government department, public authority and municipal council except to the extent that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, directs by Order published in the Government Gazette.

I think that is pretty clear. It is in the conclusion. There is absolutely nothing that would indicate otherwise. But in this case I believe very strongly that it has been used in contempt of the upper house from the position reached earlier after quite a long debate.

After section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act had been invoked on that disallowance motion I took the opportunity to speak to many past members of both houses of Parliament — some of whom were in their very senior years and had served either one or the other house for a period greater than 25 years, in some cases over 30 years — and not one of them could recollect any occasion in their time in Parliament when, after a disallowance motion had been carried, the government went ahead and exercised the opportunity of invoking section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to overturn such a disallowance motion.

Having had the opportunity to do a lot more research on this matter to the best of my capacity and of those assisting me, nowhere along the road have we found an example of this opportunity being used before in the Victorian Parliament. Yes, disallowance motions have been carried, but in those situations always a further amendment came back to the house for consideration by either the Assembly or the Council. This is certainly a first, and until anyone can tell me differently we will live in the knowledge that the government has gone out of its way to set a precedent in this matter.

It is interesting to note that the last time that disallowance motions returned and were again voted down by the upper house was in a period when the government’s confidence in the state of Victoria was waning. When I say ‘the government’s’, I mean a Labor government. We saw that through the periods of the 1980s and into the early 1990s. I think we might be now seeing a repeat of that situation, with members of this government considering themselves to be members of a very decisive, decision-making, can-do government. Irrespective of the wishes of the people, they are quite happy to march over the top of the people to put in place things such as these two bridges.

Is it any wonder that people in communities such as Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove and other smaller communities whose members have been treated in a similar manner think there is one law for the government and another for the people of Victoria?

There is little doubt that this action by the government has been seen as being contemptuous of the Parliament and the Westminster system that has served us so well in Victoria for more than 150 years.

Some people have told me that they are looking at the legality of what has taken place. Many people are concerned that executive government is now overshadowing the rights and powers of elected members, as we are now in new and uncharted waters. I guess that in many respects we would consider it fruitless to pursue planning amendments in this house because, after a disallowance motion being carried as convincingly as this one was, this precedent has taken that opportunity away from the people of Victoria and the members who represent them in this house.

In closing, pity help any community, large or small, whose members demonstrate their will to this government, which has worked so hard against them or their fragile environments, and who seek justice after strong opposition has been openly expressed to an appalling planning proposal. I certainly encourage members on both sides of the house to support the motion and denounce the Minister for Planning and the Brumby government for their actions on 18 March in using section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to overturn the motion disallowing planning amendment C118 relating to the Barwon Heads bridge. That planning amendment was voted against by all non-government members in this house on 11 March.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Planning) — I do not intend to speak for very long, because a lot of words have been spoken about this project. But I do intend to clarify some of the issues that have been raised on various occasions. This has been a quite prolonged process and there is a significant amount of disinformation about the project. Initially I want to highlight what has taken place so that people get a much clearer understanding of the facts, as opposed to their own interpretation of what has occurred over the course of many years.

In March 2005 VicRoads initiated a community consultation process which identified three main routes for the redevelopment of the river crossing at Barwon Heads. Corridor 1 included the existing bridge alignment and options in the immediate vicinity, corridor 2 was an extension of Geelong Road and corridor 3 was a continuation of Thacker Street across Ramsar wetlands. I have to mention the Ramsar wetlands because there are obvious issues there. Following completion of planning, environmental, flora and fauna, and coastal studies, corridors 1 and 2 were identified as the best options to pursue.



The redevelopment of the bridge requires an amendment to the Greater Geelong planning scheme and a permit under the Heritage Act 1995. Additional approvals required to facilitate development of a new pedestrian bridge include Department of Sustainability and Environment consent under the Coastal Management Act 1995 and Parliament’s consent to change the status of a portion of the permanent Crown land reservation. As an interim measure DSE will consider issuing a temporary licence to enable VicRoads to use the required area of Crown land.

The commonwealth government has determined that a proposal in either corridors 1 or 2 is not a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The previous Minister for Planning determined that an environment effects statement was not required for corridor 1. VicRoads has made three separate applications for a heritage permit for the Barwon Heads bridge. The first was made in 2006 and requested permission for the demolition of the bridge. The application was refused. On 27 July 2006 the former Minister for Transport announced that the Barwon Heads bridge will not be demolished.

On 29 March 2006 the previous Minister for Planning announced the appointment of an advisory committee to examine options to ensure that safe bridge access across the Barwon River is maintained for all road users well into the future while protecting the important cultural heritage and the visual and social relationship the existing bridge has with the local community and the landscape of the lower Barwon estuary. The advisory committee examined the merits of developing the bridge in corridor 1 and corridor 2. Around 200 written submissions were received by the advisory committee. The hearings concluded in mid-October 2006, and the advisory committee provided its report on 31 January 2007. The previous minister agreed to act as the planning authority for a future amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the bridge, but only after receipt of the advisory committee’s recommendations, and that was contingent on VicRoads being granted a heritage permit.

On 16 March 2007 it was announced that a new bridge in corridor 2 had been ruled out and there was support for the committee’s preferred option to upgrade the existing bridge for traffic while improving pedestrian and cycling access and providing fishing platforms. The option of constructing a new bridge alongside the existing bridge was not rejected.

VicRoads’ second heritage application in October 2007 sought to reconstruct part of the bridge to the original

1927 timber design for the use of pedestrians and to provide two lanes of vehicular traffic on a contiguous, modern concrete structure. Numerous submissions opposing the proposal were received, including an objection from the City of Greater Geelong. VicRoads withdrew that application.

VicRoads’ third heritage application proposed a reconstructed replacement bridge, predominantly in timber and to the current appearance, for vehicular traffic. The application indicated the intention to build a new, separate, parallel pedestrian/bicycle/fishing bridge of a contemporary design located approximately 10 metres downstream. Due to traffic issues and the need to have two lanes operating during the two-year construction phase, the application proposed realigning the reconstructed timber bridge approximately 6 metres downstream from its current alignment. The new pedestrian bridge will be located outside the heritage-registered area and also outside the heritage overlay boundary under the Greater Geelong planning scheme. In response to the third application, around 30 submissions were received, some supporting it and others objecting to it.

On 19 August 2008 Heritage Victoria issued a heritage permit with conditions, including requirements that the details of the existing configuration of the timber substructure be retained, that a photographic record be made of the progress of the works and that a panel be appointed by VicRoads to review the condition of the timbers of the existing bridge components prior to dismantling, to assess their suitability for recycling into the reconstructed bridge.

On 28 November 2008, and in response to a VicRoads request, I agreed to amend without public notice the Greater Geelong planning scheme. Amendment C118 extended the road zone and conditionally allowed for the construction of the Barwon Heads bridge within the defined project area. The amendment required VicRoads to prepare a detailed development plan and a construction management plan for approval prior to commencement of construction works. On 28 November 2008 the Department of Sustainability and Environment issued a conditional consent under the Coastal Management Act 1995 to use and develop coastal Crown land.

On 11 January 2009 the Friends of the Barwon Heads Bridge held a rally in protest against the decision for the two-bridge option under Greater Geelong planning scheme amendment C118 and the Coastal Management Act 1995. The City of Greater Geelong convened a forum on 20 January to enable representatives of community opposition groups and relevant agencies to



be further informed about the approved project and also the secondary planning and coastal management consents that VicRoads needs to obtain prior to commencement of construction of the Barwon Heads bridge program for circa April 2009. Information was provided by representatives of VicRoads, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Sustainability and Environment at this meeting.

On 11 December 2008 I approved amendment C118 to the Greater Geelong planning scheme pursuant to section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This amendment was to facilitate the Barwon Heads bridge project. On 4 March 2009 the Minister for Roads and Ports requested that I consider invoking section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act to progress the Barwon Heads bridge project by declaring the act not binding on VicRoads for this project.

On 18 March the Governor in Council made an order under section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act to exempt the project from the act and the Greater Geelong planning scheme, subject to compliance with a schedule of conditions specified in the order. I also point out that on 11 March the Legislative Council revoked the Greater Geelong planning scheme amendment C118. The effect of that revocation was to reinstate the Greater Geelong planning scheme provisions as if amendment C118 had not been made.

This has progressed over four years, during which time VicRoads has been quite public — as has this government — in saying that the bridge as it currently stands has a very limited life span. I am surprised that even at this late stage today Mr Koch is calling for an environment effects statement. I know that is the position of the Greens, and I am sure members of that party will make statements in relation to that, but what this reinforces is that in planning there will always be difficult and contentious decisions that need to be made. Often these difficult and contentious decisions require leadership. It is one of the great criticisms of the planning system, not just in this case but in many cases across the board, that it is much easier to say no and have that as the default position rather than seek to resolve or lead on issues.

No matter what form this project takes, having undertaken four years of extensive consultation and having had alternate designs done, we now know there will be elements and no doubt significant numbers in the local community in the Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove area who will not be satisfied, whatever the outcome. That has been highlighted. In many ways it is very much life imitating art.

It is important that we act on this now and that these works be undertaken expeditiously. This is important because if the works are not commenced and undertaken in the time frame in which they need to be, the community may end up with virtually no bridge at all. As the timbers in the bridge progressively rot, the load limits on the bridge will have to be reduced and it is likely that vehicle speeds on the bridge will also have to be reduced because of issues relating to the continued deterioration of the bridge.

It is particularly important that the construction of the bridge be commenced as soon as possible, but, having gone through an extensive consultation process, we should also bear in mind that an upgrade of the road will mean an upgrade in the sort of traffic that will use the road. The decisions that have been entered into for a second bridge crossing relate to community safety and community amenity. As has been raised on a number of occasions, when there are greater levels of traffic, which will be the result of an upgrade, and when there is a significant number of large vehicles on that bridge as part of the upgrade, there will be inherent conflict around the ways in which the bridge is currently used. At present large numbers of pedestrians, cyclists and those using the small fishing platforms along the side of the bridge are among those, other than vehicular traffic, who use the bridge. Upgrading the bridge will bring inherent conflicts and safety issues. On that basis, and after a very elongated process, we have arrived at this position.

I know the opposition will make comments about the amendment not being supported and being defeated in this place. What disturbs me about that is that although there is no doubt a large portion of the community that does not want the project to proceed as it is, does the opposition have the details of all those people who were on location at that time? Does the opposition actually know where those people were from? Does the opposition expect it will use the same methodology with other projects in the future? And what is the defining point — is it the number of people at a public event? Is it a plebiscite? What is the methodology the opposition parties in this house will use as a vehicle to not support planning scheme amendments as they come to this place?

It is an important proposition that I put to the opposition. I do not believe the opposition has provided any clarity around that other than expressing what it believes is community sentiment. We know that with any planning project, and with any project of substance, there will always be a variety of views. I look forward to the opposition highlighting what the criteria are that it uses for not supporting planning scheme



amendments. I say that in the context of Mr Guy on other occasions not wanting, in a sense, to support planning scheme amendments and in the context of the opposition not wanting to introduce uncertainty to the planning process.

What is important, and what the opposition needs to be mindful of, is that this has been a four-year process. It has been an exhaustive process. In any planning process of this nature, and this process has been prolonged and exhaustive, you will always have a number — and in this case a high number — of people who are not satisfied with the net result.

But what we know is that the project must proceed. We know the opposition’s position on the sort of bridge it would build, because it has stated what sort of bridge it would build. I am troubled by the fact that Mr Koch comes into the chamber today and again asks for a public environment effects statement. I know that is the position of the Greens, but I am not convinced that they have a resolution for this project either. The opposition seems to have a proposition even though it has undergone no public process. As well as that, the opposition is asking for an additional element to a public process where it has already defined the net result.

Again, the opposition parties today — and hence the need for strong and decisive action — have presented the view that reflects the sentiment of a large portion of the local community. They are in agreement about what they do not want, but they are not in agreement about what they want. We see that reflected in the arguments put by the opposition today.

There is no doubt that planning occasionally needs a firm hand to make significant and strong decisions. We have not steered away from that. I have undertaken to make that decision through the mechanisms I am at liberty to use through the legislation I have responsibility for. This is not just being done in isolation; it has been done after a long, extensive and exhaustive process.

I ask the opposition: when the submissions were raised on each of those accounts and at each of those stages, did it reflect a community sentiment or did it make a submission then? Did The Nationals make a submission? Did the Liberal Party make a submission? Did the Greens make a submission? At no stage did they make a submission. Many people made submissions, but the opposition parties did not make a submission. This reinforces and highlights that whilst the submission process has been long and exhaustive, the opposition has been in many ways populist, without

the ability to resolve this issue in the manner in which it needs to be resolved. The opposition is not clear on where it stands. It has come to a position without any other information in relation to the project other than what it believes to be representative of one large-scale rally.

I say to the opposition that it should think again, because the next time a community rally is held and the next time a community group comes to it — —

Mr Guy interjected.

Hon. J. M. MADDEN — No, the next time a group comes to the opposition and asks it to amend or disallow a planning scheme amendment, what will be the threshold test that it will use? What will be the criteria by which it accepts or discounts an argument? Will it be a proper, thorough and due process that has been undertaken; will it be the sentiment it believes it has picked up on; will it be populist; or will it be just the fact that the opposition believes there is political opportunism in it?

I am surprised that the opposition cannot resolve in its own mind that this is a bridge that needs to be built. It needs to be built as soon as possible. We should all get on with building it. We should all allow that to occur so we can get on with our lives.

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — I am glad I have the opportunity to speak after Mr Madden has spoken. I have to say I am a bit surprised that he is speaking today when he did not bother to speak on the day the house debated the disallowance motion. He asked what the criteria are and why I would have decided to take on such an issue. I am more than happy to outline that.

It was not just the community rally. It was the lack of an EES (environment effects statement); it was the lack of real consultation; and it was the lack of cooperation with the local council. I do not take on these issues easily. My office does not have the resources to take on these issues easily, so yes, we have criteria by which we do it. We did it for all the reasons I have previously mentioned.

I have to confess that I anticipated there would be some kind of retribution against the community in the wake of the successful disallowance motion. I thought it would be something like the bridge being closed for six or eight weeks and the government running a campaign saying, ‘This is what the Greens do to you’. But I did not expect that the government would completely disregard what had happened in this house and that it would hold this house in utter contempt. I am aware



that it is not unconstitutional for the Minister for Planning to override the disallowance motion, and that has been outlined by Mr Koch. But that would show contempt for this house. It would also indicate that the planning minister and certainly this government have very little regard for the communities of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove. The minister took no notice of the councillors of Greater Geelong, who voted nine to three across party lines against the two-bridge proposal.

I find it interesting that Mr Madden has spoken today about the process and the need for leadership et cetera. Quite a bit has been said today about how the government has reformed the upper house and made it more inclusive of the community. But it does not want it to be a house of review. It does not want to take its powers seriously. That is a bit of a contradiction. Either you reform the upper house and you allow it to be a house of review, or you do not.

The thing that has really concerned me during this process is the fact that the government is disregarding its own coastal strategy along with failing to conduct an EES. That does not instil trust within the community or within me. The fact is that the government wants to hang this bridge on a spit that is eroding at a rapid rate. As Mr Koch has quoted correspondence, I will also quote from a letter in the Age of 30 March. It is not just me or members of the Greens or the community who are saying this. Dr Eric Bird, senior associate at Melbourne University, Neville Rosengren, former senior lecturer in environmental geoscience at La Trobe University, and John Sherwood, associate professor in the school of life and environmental studies at Deakin University — all respected academics — have said:

The Barwon River estuary comprises an integrated and interrelated ecological system. What occurs upstream will affect downstream and vice versa.

Predicted sea level rise, inundation of coastlines and increased storms that accelerate erosion are part of a scenario that needs greater communication between all concerned. We encourage the authorities to examine our concerns via a public environment effects statement. A process including community, professionals and planners will ensure the best outcome.

Mr Madden seems to think we have talked about the need for an EES, but it should have happened before this. This process, as the minister has said, has gone on for a long time. Why not have an EES at the start of the process? The single-bridge proposal has widespread support among the communities of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove. I cannot see that they are going to take this situation lying down. They will continue to protest as the bridge is being bulldozed. I would also like to say to Mr Madden that I will continue to bring disallowance

motions to this house when I believe the government has overridden a community, has not consulted and has not done the basic work such as an EES. I think the minister will have to get used to his authority being questioned.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria) — It is not my intention to speak at length on this issue this afternoon as I made a fairly lengthy contribution when this matter was before the house on 11 March 2009. What I would like to do is provide a report to the house on a number of things that have happened since 11 March. The first was on Monday, 17 March, when I received a phone call from a representative of One Voice One Bridge, who requested a meeting in my office. I facilitated that meeting to occur early the following morning. It was a good and quite refreshing meeting, to say the very least. A number of requests were made of me, which I have fulfilled in full. One request was to facilitate a meeting with the Minister for Roads and Ports, Tim Pallas. I was able to do that, and that meeting took place last Friday. It has been reported to me by the minister’s staff as well as the community members that were present at that meeting that it was a cordial and respectful meeting, and there was an opportunity to go through the issues. A new proposal was put to the minister.

I would like to state for the record that I was also provided with a copy of that new proposal. I took the opportunity to go down to Barwon Heads on Sunday to visually match in my mind those drawings and that proposal. It is quite helpful in terms of having a greater understanding of that later proposal.

The president of the Barwon Heads Association and the chairperson of the Ocean Grove Community Association were in attendance at the meeting that was held on Friday. As I understand it, they were also at the meeting that was held yesterday with VicRoads and Heritage Victoria. I am advised that that meeting also was cordial and respectful. A number of options were put, and there were fulsome responses to a whole range of ideas. I am also informed that that meeting was a fairly lengthy meeting and that, whilst no agreement was reached, people were satisfied that they actually had their views and their opinions heard in every sense.

Members of Western Victoria Region also received an email yesterday from the chairperson of the Ocean Grove Community Association and the president of the Barwon Heads Association. I believe Colleen Hartland also received a copy of that email. The major point in that email was the need for members of this house to try to come up with a solution to progress this issue. It essentially asked us not to enter into political point scoring and to resolve the issue in an apolitical



atmosphere. Unfortunately the motion before us today is anything but apolitical. I certainly do not think it is what the authors of the email had in mind, because the motion we have in front of us this afternoon is clearly party-political. It clearly attacks the minister and does not add anything whatsoever to the debate, and it certainly does not offer any positive avenues for us. As I said, it certainly does not express the sentiments in yesterday’s email.

The reality is that the action taken by the minister last week was not taken lightly. He has addressed the background of the lead-up to that decision in the house today in relation to exercising section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act. He did that because this has been a very lengthy process to say the least, and there has been no real sense of getting resolution at any time. There are a lot of people in the community who hold a range of positions in relation to this matter, and I went through those when I spoke in the house when this issue was before us on 11 March. The reality is that people want an outcome, they want certainty and they want to move on. They want the government to get on with it, and they are particularly concerned about the safety aspects in relation to this issue.

Without any further delay I call on members of this house to reject this motion and to see it for what it essentially is — that is, blatant political opportunism.

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) — I rise to support Mr Koch’s motion expressing disappointment at the actions of the Minister for Planning in overriding a disallowance motion in relation to the Barwon Heads bridge. There has been discussion today about the legality of that action, but I think it is beyond members in this chamber to determine whether such an action is legal or not. There has also been discussion about the merits of the decision and about the environmental consequences, the financial implications, the considerations relating to process and the aesthetics involved. However, these were all canvassed in some detail weeks ago when the original disallowance motion was considered.

I do not think today’s motion is about the merits of the decision. It is about the correctness or otherwise of overturning a decision of this house disallowing a planning approval. It seems to me that this is indeed an improper action, because it is based on contempt. It involves the contempt of many people and many organisations. It is contemptuous of the City of Greater Geelong, the responsible local authority, which has made it perfectly clear that the two-bridge option is not its preferred option for Barwon Heads. The decision by the planning minister was contemptuous of local

opinion, which was made clear at a rally earlier this year involving 2500 people who were opposed to the two-bridge option. It was clear from my discussion with locals in Barwon Heads recently, and their opinions are also obvious in local newspapers.

In my opinion it is also a decision that is contemptuous of those of us who bear special responsibility for western Victoria. Of the five people here who represent the electorate of Western Victoria Region, three voted to disallow the planning decision. They were Mr Koch, Mr Vogels and myself — a majority of those who represent western Victoria. Although perhaps we do not properly have special power in this respect, I think we have a special responsibility, and the decision we made pursuant to that responsibility has been overturned in an undemocratic and contemptuous fashion. It is not just contemptuous of the three members of the Parliament from western Victoria who voted for the disallowance motion; more importantly, it is contemptuous of the Parliament itself and particularly of this house.

This exercise has been one of raw power being used to overturn the decision made in a democratic fashion by this Parliament. It is an act of contempt, and I fully support the sentiment that it is disappointing to many of us here — but perhaps, unfortunately, it is not very surprising.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria) — I will make only a few brief comments on this motion because we discussed this issue at some length in the last sitting week, during which we had an extensive debate about the role of this house as the ultimate planning authority for Victoria, the very real prospect of a severed connection between Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads if we spend many more years trying to work out how to resolve the question of whether there should be one bridge, two bridges or no bridges, and the need to take some action and make a decision. We talked about the years of consultation, the hundreds of submissions, the original single-bridge proposal and the opposition to that — the response to that being this second proposal in the shape of a two-bridge option.

We have had a debate that reflects the views of a community that is divided on this issue. Members opposite have suggested that the government has been contemptuous of the views of the community, but it is apparent that there are many views on this in the community and that anyone pretending otherwise is being dishonest. In the debate last sitting week we discussed how the Liberal Party was on a slippery slope in creating a precedent by attempting for the first time through a disallowance motion to obstruct an infrastructure project which was out to tender, and we



discussed the degree of uncertainty that causes. It involves the Liberals taking a position quite contrary to positions they have taken on other disallowance motions in the past.

Today we are discussing Mr Koch’s motion expressing regret about the role the Minister for Planning played in using section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act. Mr Kavanagh said the minister’s action was one of contempt and disregard for the wishes of this house as expressed in the last sitting week, but the power the minister used was invested in the minister by legislation that has been passed in this place.

It has been asserted that the minister’s action was undemocratic, but again I make the point, as I did in the last sitting week, that there are 40 members of this house, and many of them live and work a long way from the location of this proposed bridge. I question the appropriateness of members from Eastern Victoria Region, Northern Victoria Region and the five metropolitan regions playing the role of a local planning authority on a very local issue when there has been a process over a long time. Mr Koch said the minister had set a significant precedent in taking his action, but the real turning-the-world-on-its-head act was the decision of this house to attempt to stop this infrastructure project, which was out to tender.

Today we have re-debated the question of the Barwon Heads bridge, we have re-debated the matter of cabinet-in-confidence documents and we have re-debated the question about whether the Leader of the Government in the house ought to be thrown out on the whim of 21 members of this place. Given all of that, Ms Hartland’s first reading of her bill was a breath of fresh air on a day that seems a little repetitive and a little like Wednesdays by rote from the opposition. Again the Liberal Party has demonstrated its expertise in having an opinion on everything — with not a firm option to be seen.

The community is divided on this issue. As previous speakers have indicated, whilst there is some vocal opposition to the current proposed project, absolutely no clear alternative is being put. There is the Liberal Party plan to have a timber bridge made from old-growth rainforest and the Greens plan for a concrete bridge, but no single alternative could go ahead. This bridge’s days are numbered. It is structurally compromised to such a degree it already has a load limit. Quite some years ago the bridge was given only a number of years. This project absolutely needs to go ahead, and the minister has had to take this action, invoking a power provided to him by legislation that has passed this house. This motion today adds

absolutely nothing to the debate whatsoever, and I urge the house to reject it.

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — It is interesting to note that the Minister for Planning has spoken twice today, 1 April. The planning minister usually does not speak on motions in this chamber. In fact he does not usually speak in this chamber unless it is question time or the adjournment debate. But he has been rolled out twice today, and twice he has put in a performance that fits the day — —

Mrs Peulich — Less than that of a reserve bencher.

Mr GUY — Maybe, Mrs Peulich, that is a better way of putting it — less than that of a reserve bencher.

We have had some contributions from Labor members that really make you wonder where these people have been for the last hundred years or so in terms of thinking about democracy. These are the people who championed democracy in 1999, who put out statements and booklets such as Restoring Democracy and who talked about the death of democracy in Victoria. Members might remember Steve Bracks’s election night speech in 1999 in which he said we should bring democracy back to Victoria. Do members remember that one? Let us bring democracy back to Victoria — that is what Steve Bracks said in 1999, and that is what he said he would do as Premier.

Nine years into government it seems the Labor Party has forgotten what it stood for and on what it professed to be elected, because its actions on the Barwon Heads bridge are contemptuous, not only of the Parliament but also of the people of that district. The responses of the minister and Labor members have been arrogant, and the flippant and offensive nature in which the minister treated this issue in question time yesterday summed up for all of us on this side of the chamber how Labor members feel about the people of Barwon Heads. They could not care less about those people’s objections to this bridge. They had no interest in listening to their point of view regarding why they opposed it. From the start there was a VicRoads strategy to get two bridges to go through, and come hell or high water that is what was going to happen. That is the truth. It is astounding that Labor members walk into this chamber and say, ‘There is no alternative’. They did not even read their own panel’s report. Ms Pulford is a local member — did you read the panel report?

Ms Pulford — There were 200 submissions opposing it.

Mr GUY — There were 200 submissions opposing it and 3500 signatures in favour of it — 3500 versus



200. Ms Pulford says she is on top of the issue. She is one of the local members of Parliament, and she did not even read the panel’s report. It is your panel’s report. Let me read to you your panel’s report — the one you did not read, despite being a local member and despite your condemnation of everyone on this side — the one commissioned by your Minister for Planning. It says:

We are confident that a solution that retains and adapts the bridge for road traffic is achievable and practical.

That is from your own panel.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Eideh) — Order! I ask the member to address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr GUY — Labor members come into Parliament, make arguments and criticise the opposition. I understand that, but if they are going to criticise us about something that their government commissioned a study into, they had better be right. In this case they are not.

I find it astounding that of all people the Minister for Planning can say that the opposition’s decision is populist. This is the man who in 1999 stood with former Premier Steve Bracks in Waverley Park booting footballs with Channel 9 and Channel 7 staff, saying, ‘I will save football for Waverley’. Mr Finn is an avid football-goer. I ask him, through you, Acting President: when was the last time he went to see football at Waverley Park?

Mr Finn — It would be a few years back.

Mr GUY — I think it might be a few years back. In fact there are houses that surround Waverley Park.

The minister referred to our opposition to the proposal as being a populist decision. He does not understand. I will mention a few examples to refresh the memories of those opposite. There was the Twelve Apostles kiosk that Mr Vogels mentioned. Was it a populist decision? No, I am sure it was made on policy grounds! I mention Labor’s opposition to the Albert Park grand prix. Do members remember John Thwaites, who was the member for Albert Park in the Assembly — he later became Deputy Premier — running around with the then mayor of St Kilda?

Mr Finn — He had yellow ribbons on his fence.

Mr GUY — He did have yellow ribbons on his fence, Mr Finn. Was this a populist decision? I cannot believe it; it was based on policy.

I mention the Labor Party’s opposition to tolls on CityLink. Do members remember Peter Batchelor, now the Minister for Energy and Resources and then the shadow minister for transport — the man who presided over the introduction of tolls on EastLink — driving over the bridge before it was opened, outraged that there would be tolls?

Mr Finn — With a car boot full of how-to-vote cards.

Mr GUY — That is right, and I am sure they were for Nunawading. Do members remember the protest against the new Melbourne Museum location in Carlton Gardens, which was to eliminate the horribly ugly glass structure at the front of the Exhibition Building and the car park without the removal of any major trees. The Labor Party opposed it. It was not populist, of course; it was all based on policy.

I have one more example — that is, the upgrade to the facilities at Wilsons Promontory. Does Mr Vogels remember that one? I think we all do. Of course it was not based on populism, it was based on policy.

Mr Vogels — They have since burnt it all down.

Mr GUY — Indeed. The minister said, ‘The members opposite are making a populist decision’, when his own panel recommended an alternative. When he asks why members are voting in favour of the disallowance motion, the answer will be simple. It was because there was a clear alternative to this proposal, an alternative which was backed by the government’s panel, costed and put forward to the community by VicRoads, and which the government had the opportunity to implement; but he said no. He should not come into the chamber and say there was no alternative, that it was not costed or that there was no chance to do anything but build two bridges, because there was an alternative. It is set out in the 84-page panel report I hold — and we might get local members to read it — which is the January 2007 report of the advisory committee.

When the people of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads get angry and say the government is riding roughshod over the decision that this chamber — and I will come to this point — made to support their decision, their anger will be justified because there was an alternative, but the government chose not to go with it. Government members should not come into this chamber and say they had to do it, they had to invoke a section of the Planning and Environment Act, which has never been invoked before by the Minister for Planning, to override the Parliament — and I will come back to the death of



democracy and the Steve Bracks line later. This government had an alternative.


Mr GUY — Mr Viney, I know it is 1 April, but we expect more from you. Labor Party members talk about how they stepped in, reformed and brought in public relations to this chamber — in their words, to democratise the chamber — but they are now incandescent with rage that they no longer have the ability to get their way. They act like petulant kids when this chamber does what it has the absolute right to do — that is, to reject a planning scheme amendment because there is an alternative. The alternative has been costed, engineering has been done and VicRoads has been out there. The panel report has made its recommendations, and they were put before the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Roads and Ports. This chamber said, ‘There is an alternative, and we are going to override the government and tell it to go with the alternative it has costed’. Then the government turned around and said, ‘To hell with democracy, to hell with all the decisions we made and fought for in the 2002 and 1999 election campaigns’ — and fraudulently tried to get the majority in the upper house in 1985 to implement.

Mr Finn — It spat in their eyes.

Mr GUY — The fact is the Labor Party spat in the eyes of the people of Victoria, Mr Finn. The people of Victoria expect that the candidates they vote for and elect to Parliament are those who will make the final decisions for the state, irrespective of whether the government has a majority in this chamber. Future governments, be they Labor or Liberal-National, may not have a majority in this chamber either; that is a fact of life with which governments of the day simply have to work.

This government has not accepted the will of the chamber. It has not accepted the democratic will of the Victorian people, the right of members of Parliament to come into the Parliament and put forward an alternative because we do not agree with the government’s decision. Mrs Pulford says it is an attempt to stop an infrastructure project; it is an attempt to put forward an alternative which has been costed by the government. All 21 of us were elected by a majority of Victorians. We have the right to stand up for this alternative, and we are.

In conclusion I say simply that Mr Koch’s motion should be supported, because the majority of people in the communities of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove

stand behind the single-bridge proposal absolutely — not 51 per cent or 61 per cent of them. Some 200 people put in objections to the single-bridge proposal. Although members of the Labor Party did not say so, most of objectors supported the Geelong Road option and did not support the Labor Party’s option. In fact about 3500 people supported the option for one bridge. Members of the Labor Party can stick their heads in the sand and then go away and think they are doing the right thing, but I am sure that on 1 December 2010 the member for South Barwon in the Assembly, Michael Crutchfield, will say, ‘Thanks very much’, as he knocks on your door looking for a job.

The people of South Barwon, in particular the people of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads, know they have been done over by an arrogant government flush with its own self-importance. Government members know they have taken people for granted in that area, and those people know who has stood by them and who has presented an alternative that is workable and achievable, has been costed and could be implemented tomorrow. The only people who are standing in the way of the single-bridge proposal for Barwon Heads are members of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr VOGELS (Western Victoria) — I want to make a few comments on the Barwon Heads bridge saga, which has been going on since 2005 — some four years. I have listened to what Mr Guy has had to say. The opposition’s alternative proposal is the same proposal taken to the lower house electorate of South Barwon by the then candidate for that electorate, Michael Crutchfield, in 2006. The Labor Party promised the people of South Barwon that there would be only one bridge. Talk about hypocrisy! Our proposal is to deliver exactly what Michael Crutchfield said he would deliver if Labor won the seat in 2006. However, in 2009 he has changed his mind, as has the government.

Yesterday Ms Tierney asked the Minister for Planning a question about the Barwon Heads bridge, and I must say that I was disappointed when I heard the minister’s response. Hansard staff can only report what was said, but I noted the way in which he expressed himself. He seemed to experience sheer glee that our motion from a couple of weeks earlier had been disallowed. That stuck in my craw, because his attitude was arrogant. It was as though he had said, ‘We have steamrolled you. We have done you over. We have found some way of doing you over’. It was very disappointing to hear the minister speak in that way.

We have also heard the minister say that the decision by the Liberals to support the single-bridge proposal



has been taken for populist reasons. Mr Guy mentioned the proposal to build a visitor information centre and kiosk at Port Campbell near the Twelve Apostles. I lived in that area at the time, and I well remember that fiasco. The Kennett government had decided to build a kiosk with a visitor information centre near the Twelve Apostles. The then shadow minister, Sherryl Garbutt, who was also the member for Bundoora in the Assembly, came to a meeting at Port Campbell which was attended by about 400 or 500 people. She vowed and declared that if the Labor Party won the election in 1999, there would be no kiosk and no visitor information centre at the Twelve Apostles because it was public land and there were heritage considerations — the same sort of rubbish you often hear from Labor members.

I find it interesting that the Labor government did win in 1999 and did stop the kiosk from being built. A toilet was built instead — a big toilet. To be honest, it is a $6 million toilet. What is the Labor Party doing at the moment? It is putting a kiosk in the toilet. What a stupid, populist decision that was! Members of the Labor Party now realise that they need a visitor information centre there and that people need to be able to buy a drink, so what are they doing? They are putting a kiosk in the toilet. The hypocrisy of it all is gobsmacking.

Mr Guy mentioned Waverley Park and Mr Madden trying to kick footballs through the goals from 10 yards out and missing them. I saw that on Channel 9. Of course Waverley Park no longer exists.

Two or three weeks ago we had an extensive debate in this house, which is fair; it is called democracy. The vote on the motion to disallow the two-bridge proposal was 21 to 19 in favour of disallowing the proposal. It was a democratic decision. However, the minister obviously has gone away and in the dark of night, after having gone through the books with his 12 minders, has found a loophole. Now the government is going to go ahead with the two-bridge proposal, against the wishes of the local community, against the wishes of Greater Geelong City Council and against the vast majority of the people who live down there.

That is basically all that I want to say. I believe we should have a division on this motion. When the debate comes to an end and Mr Koch has summed up the debate, I hope we have a division, but I will bet that the people on the other side will not have the guts to call for a division on Mr Koch’s motion. Let us wait and see.

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — Firstly, I would like to thank all members who made a contribution to the debate on this motion. On our side of the house I thank my colleagues Mr Guy and Mr Vogels, and I appreciate the contributions made by Ms Hartland and Mr Kavanagh, who have been supporters all the way of the communities of Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove on this matter.

The contributions made by Ms Tierney, Ms Pulford and the minister were very disappointing. Their hypocrisy demonstrated to me and others on this side of the house why the community of Barwon Heads could not possibly get a hearing from this government. The people of that community expended a lot of energy over a long period in relation to the options that lay before them.

I might add that in my opinion the minister was happy to run with quite a bit of disinformation, although he got up on the platform that it was people on this side of the house who were spreading the disinformation. The interesting part was that the minister wound the clock back to 2005, not acknowledging that the community had moved forward from that position. People in the Barwon Heads area were very deliberate in speaking with one voice for one bridge, as many of us experienced at the rally on 11 January. One thing that has always stuck in their craws relates to the government not putting the environment effects statement in place in relation to this infrastructure development.

It is also important to note the position that the minister took in relation to amending the planning scheme. In November 2008 he amended planning scheme C118, which covers the bridge. He did so without giving notice and without consultation. In December, again without consultation, he approved the same amendment. On 4 March, a week before the disallowance motion was debated in this house, the government was prepared to invoke section 16 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Obviously the government did not believe the disallowance motion before the house would get support and be carried. Again government members have misjudged the people who support communities in regional Victoria. Regrettably, this government does not support those communities.

The minister also attempted to mislead the house. He indicated that the bridge was in a fragile state and could fail at any time. Mr Duncan Elliott, who is the regional manager of VicRoads and is based in Geelong, has made public statements that the bridge is sound for another two years. He did say that beyond the two years

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


further consideration would have to be given to load limits on the existing structure. However, he went further and said that VicRoads does a maintenance check of this bridge every three months and currently the bridge is in a sound state. The minister asked us to come up with examples of consultation we might have had with the community and to substantiate our reason for putting a disallowance motion forward. The minister should have known far better than to run down that line, but I am afraid he did not prove up.

As indicated again here today, in early 1999 the community expressed its desires about the situation at Waverley Park, and the government when in opposition was supportive on that occasion without any policy whatsoever. It was a populist decision on its part.

The minister said we did this lightly, but I can assure the house that the opposition on this side of the house has not supported a disallowance motion for 18 years. We do not see the upper house as a planning authority, and never have. But an exception was made in this situation because there was such strong community input in relation to what took place on the Barwon River between Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove. I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon. This is a very important motion, and I urge everyone to support it.

Motion agreed to.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA

Debate resumed from 11 March; motion of Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria):

That this house acknowledges the tragic impact of the recent bushfires on many Victorians and Victorian communities and notes the role and responsibilities of the state government and the royal commission in the aftermath of the fires.

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — It is with regret that I speak on this motion. The tragedy of the bushfires in Victoria in 2009 is that we all know with the benefit of hindsight that much more could have been done to ameliorate the impact of those fires. There was enormous relief this week when it was announced that rather than the death toll from the bushfires of 7 February being 210 people, that number had been revised down to 173. It is a tragedy of enormous proportions nevertheless, but in a bizarre way perhaps it tempers some of the community concern if only inasmuch as statistics can mean anything. For those who have lost a member of their family, the statistics mean absolutely nothing.

This opportunity to make a contribution to this debate is timely in respect of my electorate because today the

royal commission into the bushfires held the first of its community consultation sessions in the Latrobe Valley where 11 people died and more than 250 homes were destroyed in the fires in the Churchill, Jeeralang and Boolarra areas in the week or 10 days preceding the fire on 7 February. The consultation event held today was for the people of the Traralgon South and Callignee areas. I am advised that the primary concern being put to Commissioner Teague was land management practices, which were the major contributor to the fires. Indeed that has been a consistent theme in the representations made to me directly and to the commentariat, because that is the reflection of the media which has made comments about the fires.

One only had to listen to the talkback radio chatter in the days after the fires and which still continues as people seek to resolve matters emerging from the bushfires. The opening up of the talkback lines has given ample opportunity for the amplification of those concerns about poor public land management practices, and in reality poor private land management practices because of that interface. The poor private land management practices are a direct result of government policy — that is, policy in respect of native vegetation retention. It has removed the capacity for sensible decision making by people who are seeking to manage their own estates to the advantage of themselves and their neighbours. The consequence of that is, regrettably, there has been an unsatisfactory fuel build-up over a period of time. I am sure we will hear more about that.

It is reasonable to recap very briefly the change in the attitude to land management. It is true that many bushmen, however you like to define them, well understood the natural management regime of the Australian bush in yesteryear. They would seek to imitate or replicate that management in the late autumn, particularly in the high country when stock were removed, by doing what is called a cool burn. In effect they would drop a match behind them as they brought the cattle out of the high country. Even on the coastal plains and the lowlands in bush country there was a tradition of cool burning. The Australian bushmen were emulating their forebears in land management, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. The reasons for the change are, in my view, quite obscure, but they essentially turn on the question of people objecting to smoke. You might say they were the forerunners of the antismoking lobby. The people who object to smoke in the environment have progressively caused a change in policy which has coerced land managers, with the sanction of governments, to reduce the capacity of both public and private land to be managed in a sensible way to reduce fuel loads.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


I am sure part of that lobby is the other layer in the public policy debate on public land management and that is what is broadly defined as the environmental lobby. I am not going to suggest it is entirely the responsibility of the Australian Greens, and certainly not the members of the Australian Greens in this house. However, the Australian Greens in this place who purport to represent that environmental lobby are the visible tip of the iceberg that underpins that political force that says philosophically that man’s imprint upon the land is objectionable and therefore anything that man does to the land should be prohibited.

That is basically the direction that public policy in respect of public land management, and indeed increasingly in respect of private land management, has moved over recent decades, to the extent now that private land-holders have very limited capacity to manage their own land sensibly, and certainly not practicably. In the main we have lost that school of experienced public land managers, those people who went off for a tertiary education in forestry and who actually understand the interrelationship of the natural cycles within our environment and landscape, and the part that climate, rainfall and indeed fire played in the renewal of that landscape.

I could refer to work that has been undertaken by a number of parties that would argue that fire is the single most powerful tool that we have to sustainably manage our landscape, our rural land, and our public land in particular, to ensure that there is a proper and satisfactory cycle of regeneration and renewal. There are people such as Professor Mark Adams, dean of the faculty of agriculture at Sydney University, who has given extensive papers on this, and in particular on the connection between vegetation class and age and the water yield from our catchments.

We have heard from Roger Underwood, who is a well-respected Western Australian expert in fire management, who gave a paper recently at a Stretton Group lunch; whereas normally they would expect about 40 or 50 people, about 130 or 140 rolled up on the day. I think they were handing out the chicken bones to chew on rather than the quarter chickens! He gave an incredibly effective paper, which I do not intend to quote from at all today, because I am sure there may be others who wish to use that as a basis of some comments.

Parliament’s own committee, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, certainly handed down a very effective report which has stood the test of the January and February fires of 2009. The evaluation of what has occurred this summer against what was

recommended in June of last year after an extensive review of bushfires by that committee that was triggered by the 2007 fires makes the report and recommendations appear prescient, if I may say. The members of that committee did a pretty effective job. I actually thought they wimped it at the time. I did not think they went far enough. I still think they could have gone much further. But they got most of it pretty right, even if they did not quite take it to the edge, as they say, in their recommendations.

There has been extensive discussion about bushfires. There were the fires of 2003, which are known as the alpine fires of 2003, which occurred coincidentally with what is generally known in Australia as the Canberra bushfire. In fact the fires that affected Canberra were fires that occurred across northern Gippsland and north-eastern Victoria, as well as southern New South Wales and into the Australian Capital Territory. In Victoria alone 1.3 million hectares of land was burnt in those 2003 fires. In 2005, 130 000 hectares of the Grampians was burnt. In the Great Dividing Range fires of 2007, 1.1 million hectares of the alpine area of eastern Victoria was burnt, some of which had already been burnt in 2003, much of which had not. Of course there were other fires that occurred in the north-west of the state, in the Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne national parks. There have been many other fires as well. We do not even count the fires that perpetually occur in far East Gippsland as a matter of course. Indeed there is fire everywhere, and that is the natural order of things.

Mr Hall — Even today.

Mr P. DAVIS — As Mr Hall says, there are fires going today; and I recall that last week on one day there were 20 lightning strikes in the East Gippsland fire management district. Fire is the natural order of things. But these sorts of fires get out of control when there is a combination of weather events, particularly wind — more so than temperature. Importantly, if that wind combines with a fire that is either man-made or naturally lit, that fire will be fanned by wind; and if there is a high fuel load then inevitably that will cause a major problem, as the fires in January and February of this year did.

What is my point? The point of giving some background about the nature of fire is to say that in my view it is evident that the present government, which has been in office now for about a decade, did not do enough. Are we up to a decade yet? It is approaching a decade. This is the 10th year. I am sure we will see a celebration to remind us all when the government actually does get to its 10th anniversary because it will

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


be proudly promoting this fact. I might make the point that it would be ill advised to do that, in my view, because there are a few challenges confronting this government for which it needs to be accountable. Did the government heed all the warnings? After the 2003 fires an attempt was made by Parliament in both houses, separately, to establish a joint parliamentary inquiry to investigate the bushfires. But that was rejected and voted against, separately but in both houses, by the government in 2003. It voted down the establishment of a bushfire inquiry. It refused to allow Parliament to establish an inquiry. That was an adamant rejection of the proposition that the government should be held to account for public land management. It still does not want to know.

Subsequently the government set up its own inquiry — that is, headed by a bureaucrat — to report to the government and to provide what would satisfy the government’s political agenda, which it did. That was the Esplin review. Bruce Esplin is a fine public servant, but he is a public servant who does what the government directs him to do.

I would say the next flag was the 2005 Grampians fire, which have I referred to. Again the government got no message. There was nothing learnt. Nothing happened. There was no change in policy. And there was no change in practice. Again, we have no comprehensive response to that. In 2007, finally, Parliament was able, through the Legislative Council, to direct a reference to a parliamentary committee to establish an inquiry, the outcome of which I have referred to.

But even coming to the government’s response to the inquiry it was equivocal about responding to the key message. The key message was fuel reduction — managing the fuel load. The government is still not committed to the core recommendation of that report, which was 385 000 hectares of annual burning, which many people regard as being too little. I suppose we could argue that we have had a pretty good go at it in recent times anyway — that is, that nature has taken its course because the government could not manage its business.


Mr P. DAVIS — As Mrs Petrovich intercedes, that recommendation was about cool burns. When you look at the flatlining of the actual amount of fuel reduction burning that has occurred over the last decade, what you see is an ineffectual government response. There have been lots of press releases and a lot of examples of the government saying, ‘We are going to commit to more resources. We are going to do this. We are going

to do that. We are going to have more firefighters on the ground’. There is no point having more firefighters if you have not done anything about the fuel load. The government should deal with the fuel load. This is the key message.

People in my part of the world, eastern Victoria, an area that has been significantly affected by the fires, are universally scandalised. They now understand better, simply because the matter has been before them so prominently in terms of what I describe as the new cycle. They have been unavoidably educated. Even people who have lived in eastern Victoria for a long time but who never really focused on the fact of bushfire being a serious threat because they had not thought they or their communities could be affected have lived in blissful ignorance. Whether they have been impacted directly by the fires or they know somebody who has a relation or friend who has been affected, they are very much more informed than they were. The clear message is that the community expects a significant change in government policy.

As I understand the government’s position on reviewing how fires will be managed in the future, it will wait for the outcome of the royal commission. Its position is not to take some action now, immediately, to deal with the fire threat for the next summer period but to wait for the outcome of the royal commission, which is not scheduled to report until after the next fire season. I think that is really quite strange.

Mr Jennings — That’s not honest. I have sat here and listened to this for 10 minutes. It is not honest. We are out there fighting fires today. We are burning fires all around the state today — and you know we are.

Mr P. DAVIS — The minister invites himself to join in my contribution. I am delighted he has.

Mr Jennings — You have not made eye contact with me for 10 minutes.

Mr P. DAVIS — I will ask the minister and he can respond by interjection: has the government in fact committed to the 385 000 hectares this year? I know the answer, which is no. You have not provided the resources to achieve that this year, and therefore your interjection should stop until the end of this debate, when you can respond.

Mr Jennings — You just make things up that suit yourself.

Mr P. DAVIS — Well, respond to the question: where is the 385 000-hectare commitment? You did not respond.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


Mr Jennings — You know the answer to the question. It was given in December.

Mr P. DAVIS — Where are the 385 000 hectares?

Mr Jennings — Were you talking about it in December, when it was raised then? It was responded to in December. The strategy was outlined, and you know the intention is to increase mosaic burns. You know that, but you live in denial of it.

Mr P. DAVIS — Minister, you are unable to say, ‘Yes, we have responded to 385 000 hectares as a recommendation, and we agree with it’. You have not made that commitment, Minister.

Mr Jennings — You know the answer to that question.

Mr P. DAVIS — Yes, I know. I am telling you what the answer is.

Mr Jennings — But you have spoken for the last 20 minutes as if you do not know the answer. You have been trying to get away with blue murder.

Mr P. DAVIS — Minister, it is quite clear that you will not say in this house that you are committed to 385 000 hectares.

Mr Jennings — I have spoken about that on a number of occasions.

Mr P. DAVIS — Well, why are you not saying it now? Why are you not just coming clean in the chamber?

Mr Jennings — Because you know that the narrow casting of your question does not cover the full dimension of this issue. You might choose for 10 or 15 minutes to act in denial of the truth and think you can get away with it. That is what you have done — and I have pulled you up.

Mr P. DAVIS — No, Minister, you have not pulled me up. I have invited you to respond to a question. You have avoided responding because you know what the truth is: it is that the government has not committed to responding to the recommendation of the inquiry, which suggested that — —

Mr Jennings — It responded in December.

Mr P. DAVIS — Indeed, the secretary of your own department, Peter Harris, said in evidence to the inquiry that the fuel reduction burns should increase threefold, and yet you still have not committed to that target. I say to you, Minister, that it is an embarrassment to the

government that this should be the case. Subsequent to the fires at the very least the government could have come out and said, ‘Regardless of everything else, we are going to deal with the core recommendation of the parliamentary inquiry and actually adopt it, implement it and make sure it happens’, because without it more people will die and more property will be lost — and you, Minister, will be culpable. You, Minister, and your colleagues are now culpable in a collective sense for a failure to deal with fire management and public land management over the last decade.

Mr Jennings — The eye contact is very good, as distinct from the last 20 minutes, when you could not look me in the eye. The eye contact is much better now, much better.

Mr P. DAVIS — Minister, I am reminded by your interjection that I should be addressing my comments through the Chair. I am delighted to make eye contact with any and all members of the chamber, but it might be interesting to note for the parliamentary record that the minister is not the only member in the house and indeed that my comments have been addressed to the house as a whole.

Mr Jennings — Rubbish! You have almost turned your back on the chamber for 20 minutes.

Mr P. DAVIS — How can I turn my back on the chamber when I am in the corner of the house? Minister, your interjections are amusing, but they do not detract from — —

Mr Somyurek — On a point of order, President, can I remind the member on his feet that he should be addressing his comments through the Chair, and can I remind my colleague on this side that interjections across — —

The PRESIDENT — Order! If Mr Somyurek has a point of order, he should make it. If he wants to take over the running of the Chair, he can do that as well, but not at the minute.

Mr P. DAVIS — I am always respectful of advice from the Chair, and I will persist in addressing the chamber through the Chair, delighting in the fact that I have the attention of the minister and the rest of the house. The fact of the matter is that we face a major challenge in protecting the community, and as a result — —

Mr Viney — On a point of order, President, I was in my office and came in when I heard the member over the loudspeaker say that the minister was culpable in relation to the fires, and I think he extended that to the

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


government. I think the tone of the whole debate in this place on the fires has been pretty good, but I think Mr Philip Davis has crossed the line.

The PRESIDENT — Order! In terms of the point of order with regard to the comments made by Mr Philip Davis in referring to the minister being culpable, I remind the house that the minister was in fact here and is more than capable of defending himself. In the instance where he may not have heard it, I would accept some other point of order. I am strongly of the view that the minister did in fact hear that. I think it has been noted that I have allowed a bit of repartee between the almost-combatants, can I say. If the minister wished to interject at the time, he could have. He chose not to.

Mr P. DAVIS — Having made some comments about the deficiencies in the performance of the government with regard to public land management and, dare I say it, the effects of government policy on native vegetation in relation to managing private land, I might make the point, because I think it is worth making, that in the tragic circumstances of 7 February the government has generally responded constructively to the needs of the community, as we would expect in a time of a crisis.

I need to indicate, lest the minister misunderstand my contribution, that I do have some regard for him and a number of other ministers who have shown a good deal of sensitivity to the circumstances of individual people who have been affected by fires and those involved in the fire recovery process. I had the opportunity to speak with the minister at the Churchill staging ground during a visit he made with the Leader of the Government in this house to Gippsland in the aftermath of the fires. In that sense the government did make a point, and I think it is a fair point because it is unusual in my experience, of engaging with non-government members in regard to activities in providing what I describe as support — political support and parliamentary support — to those communities and stakeholders who had been affected. I make that observation that the government and some ministers, at least on visits to areas affected by fires, did indeed endeavour to ensure that there was a bipartisan approach. I do not want that to go unrecorded.

I guess political activity is no substitute for a meaningful response to the community. A number of problems have been raised with me which I am sure the minister understands well. As I have alluded to, a lot of people in the electorate of Eastern Victoria Region have made representations in connection with the native vegetation controls and the planning regime. In part the government has responded by indicating some

consideration of how those matters will be dealt with as a consequence of the royal commission’s report.

There is the issue, which I have previously highlighted to the chamber and which I reiterate, that the government, in my view, needs to deal with proactively, and that is the misinformation about the clean-up work with respect to fire damage. There is considerable confusion in the bushfire areas in terms of who has responsibility for clearing the remains of buildings from burnt properties. This question is confused because of the involvement of WorkSafe and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and their regulations with respect to clean-up programs specifically relating to demolition work and work on properties where there is asbestos.

The government has appointed Grocon to manage the clean-up, and the company is moving quickly to engage licensed contractors. Where possible, it is arranging for contractors such as earthmoving companies that may not have WorkSafe or EPA licences to work with contractors that are licensed. The principle underlying this is to give work to local companies in bushfire areas and create benefit within local communities. But I have been informed that there is a lot of misinformation in those communities about where people need to go to get the authority to commence the clearing work and among local contractors about the prospect of gaining work on the program. This is causing not only confusion but also a measure of distress among people and contractors who simply want to get on with the job. The government needs to address that fairly quickly.

We have faced some challenges with respect to farmers obtaining sufficient supplies of posts for fencing, as there are obviously thousands of kilometres of fences that need to be rebuilt. Obtaining fence posts for that part of the project is a significant challenge. After some pressure the government has indicated that timber sourced from the firebreaking operations can be used to cut posts from. Rather than just burning heaps that were pushed up for firebreaks, some of that timber can now be cut into fence posts. That is a fairly limited resource, but at least it is a resource — so I can partially tick the box for the government responding to that. But I urge the minister to look at that a bit more carefully to see how, in addition, a supply of posts may be made available fairly quickly, because there are contractors in the industry who are available to cut posts and get those posts out.

It is important to note the loss of timber resources, particularly the impact of this in Gippsland in relation to the plantation resources. I understand Hancock Victorian Plantations manages 245 000 hectares of land

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


and supplies some 3 million tonnes of softwood and 300 000 tonnes of hardwood to the industry — sawmillers, panel producers and pulp and paper mills in Australia and overseas. The company supplies about 1.5 million tonnes a year of sawlogs and pulpwood to sawmillers in Victoria’s Gippsland region, including Australian Paper’s Maryvale pulp and paper mill. The direct impact of the bushfires on those operations is that 18 000 hectares of plantations were lost across the state, including 11 500 hectares in Gippsland — amounting to about 10 per cent of the total plantation area. The company is still harvesting areas that were not fire affected, but it is doing so at a much reduced level because of the large recovery operation under way in the fire areas.

It is too early to tell what impact this will have on Australian Paper’s Maryvale Mill, which gets timber from Hancock and from VicForests, which has also lost a lot of its supply. It is clear that the impact of the fires will be profound in terms of the security of resource for Australian Paper’s Maryvale operations, and given that there are, in round figures, 1000 employees at Maryvale this is a major economic issue for the state, particularly at the regional level.

In connection with this loss of plantation and state forests, I alluded to the fact that we have lost state forest in water catchment areas. My understanding is that in terms of loss in the Upper Yarra Catchment, fire has affected about a third of that catchment area. If you go back to my reference to the work that Professor Mark Adams has done in this area, it is clear that this will have a significant impact on water yields in the medium term. As I have said in this place on other occasions, the threat to water supply from not managing the forest estate and having fuel reduction burning is very significant, and that has now been proven by the significant fires in the Yarra catchment. There is more to come in terms of water yields, and I will not spend a great deal of time dealing with that now.

However, as much as we as parliamentarians can make points in this house, it is mere trivia to the people who have been affected by the fires. To the thousands of people whose lives have been disrupted by the loss of a home or a business or who have had a friend, another person or a close family member lost in the fires, just the fact that politicians would debate these matters and indeed argue about them would be disappointing to most of those people. There is no argument that what has occurred is a tragedy. In my view it is inarguable that the impact of that tragedy could have been much less had the decision-makers in Victoria — the government, including the offices of the government, the public servants, relevant departments and agencies,

and the Parliament — collectively managed the public land estate and the regulations in relation to private land in a more practical way. It is inarguable that you cannot control the weather. To some extent it is very difficult to control an ignition source, but you can manage the fuel load. The fact that the Victorian government has failed to do that indicates that community leadership has been lacking in this area.

Individuals have made a case, and many people other than me have argued the case about public land management, fire risk management, the amelioration of risk and the reduction of fuel loads. Many other people with a great deal more background and depth of understanding of the subject have put the case far more articulately than I ever could. Yet I personally feel an enormous sense of responsibility that individually and collectively we just did not fight to the death on this issue and force the government to change its policy. By failing to argue that case and execute such a case — —


Mr P. DAVIS — You invite a response. If Mr Viney had been in the chamber before when I made my comments to which his minister responded, he would have heard them. The message was there from 2003, and there has been no substantial change in policy in the last six years. Mr Viney should settle down and make his contribution another time.

We have a collective responsibility. I am arguing, as I say I must, that I feel an element of personal accountability for not arguing that case sufficiently well. If Mr Viney is alluding to the case that this has occurred over a period of time and through a succession of governments, then I have already admitted that. I have not just admitted it; I made that case when Mr Viney was not in the chamber. That has been — —


Mr P. DAVIS — My view is that over a period of years there has been, as I said earlier, a significant shift in the way the community thinks. That has limited the way in which land managers, through various government agencies, the Parliament and governments have collectively looked at this question. However, the warning was there from 2003 about the significant problem that had emerged as a result of the neglect of public land management over a period of time. That fuel load has not accumulated in the last year or two years; it has been building up over a long period. You could say, for example, that a large part of the fuel load, in particular that in the Melbourne Water catchment areas, has accrued over the 70 years since Black Friday

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


in 1939. In effect the majority of the Melbourne Water catchment areas have not had a proper fuel reduction burn since then.

There is no doubt about it: things change. We need to be accountable to our constituents, and I feel that burden enormously. I hope the Parliament collectively does too. I go back to my point that I was concluding on: it is a pity we have to argue about these things incessantly and that we cannot just act in a way that accepts what is clearly a practical responsibility of the Parliament and the government to provide the resources to deal with this matter of fuel loads. My concluding point is that if we do not, we will be facing up to this sort of tragedy again and again, and still we will never actually understand our responsibility in it.

You actually have to accept responsibility for your actions. The fact that the government will want to defend itself — instinctively it will want to do that — and likewise parliamentary members will want to point fingers across the chamber at one another avoids the collective burden we all have. We all need to accept that this is something we need to change now. Even the people in leafy suburbs, and even some of those people who might have voted for Mr Barber at the last election, would now accept that there has in effect been flawed policy in relation to public land management. If ever there was a moment, a window through which you could see a seismic shift coming, this is it. With that I conclude my remarks.

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — Saturday, 7 February, has aptly been named Black Saturday, and we will never again take for granted a day of total fire ban. Australian summers have traditionally been times of fire danger, and our history has demonstrated that we have to prepare our homes and properties from the potential threat of fire.

There are a number of issues I would like to raise today on behalf of my constituents in Northern Victoria Region. This area comprises some of the most affected areas, including the communities of Marysville, Flowerdale, Healesville, Kinglake, Yea, Alexandra, Kilmore East, Wandong, Broadford, Bendigo, Redesdale and Mia Mia — the list of places in the northern region goes on. Many of these close-knit, small communities have been affected in the most tragic way, but they continue to demonstrate a resilience and tenacity for which I have nothing but admiration.

Many of these communities had little or no warning of what was about to change the landscape, engulf their homes and take their loved ones away from them. They

knew it was a day of extreme fire danger, but currently we have no way of articulating the degree of risk in this situation. I have thought about this carefully, and I would like to state from the outset that I am in no way critical of the emergency services, the media or any other group. But I feel it is necessary to raise some of the underlying issues that contributed to the occurrences of Black Saturday and deliver my community with the answers they deserve. I do this on behalf of all my constituents, but particularly those who lost their lives in these terrible fires.

One of the issues raised with me is that roadblocks were used to seal off communities in the path of advancing firestorms on Black Saturday without the residents inside those sealed zones being made aware that they were at risk. Residents have said to me that some of those roadblocks were set up well in advance of approaching fires and that no attempt was made to warn them that the fires were coming. It was a hot day. A lot of people were sitting inside, cocooned in their homes with blinds drawn and the air conditioner on, although the power had gone out in some places. This all highlights to me the need for a system to let people know what is about to ensue.

People have asked me why they received no official warning. Clearly emergency services were aware there were monumental fires about to engulf communities. There was no way of warning these people at the time the fires were heading for them. I have spoken to survivors of fires in places where 26 out of 30 homes were destroyed. One of the things that concerns me is that many of these people had to wait until the following day before any external help arrived. I raise these issues because they are issues that were raised with me after the 2006–07 fires.

Graeme Stoney, a former member for Central Highlands Province in this house, told a very similar story during the fires that engulfed the Howqua Valley. They were left to fend for themselves with very little communication, and it was some days before anyone arrived to see whether they were alive or dead. I am not critical, but I know that we have to move quickly now get ahead of the game.

We have heard enough examples of the sorts of trauma and disaster that can ensue to formulate some policy around preparation, warning systems and also what needs to happen to make sure that people have basic fundamentals after a fire event such as we have seen in recent weeks. Lack of warning meant that some residents who had actually planned to leave their homes rather than stay were trapped. I have heard a number of examples of this. I have spoken to one of my

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


constituents in Kinglake who had done his preparation, decided he was going to leave, packed up his family and headed down the hill to find the road was blocked. He then gathered up neighbours and other people who were travelling along the road and took them back to his own home. They sheltered there and survived. Subsequently he lost his home, but they were able to take shelter long enough to survive. The lack of warnings meant that some people did not get that opportunity.

Grieving communities need closure, and they require answers to achieve that closure. I am pleased we are in the process of a royal commission inquiry. This will assist with events that have taken place. Subsequently, a text messaging system was implemented to warn those communities on the bad Tuesday that we had following Black Saturday. I was relieved to see this messaging system in operation, but I was also concerned to note that, in the words of emergency services commissioner Bruce Esplin, this was a system he had been lobbying for for four years. Why did it take so long? If we knew this sort of notification was required, could we not have put a little bit of extra effort into ensuring that we could get those messages out to people? We ended up with a messaging system for communities that arrived one week later, and I was relieved that that happened.

I live in the Macedon Ranges and was concerned with fires there. After having seen what I have seen in those communities with one road in and one road out, I was worried about the community of Mount Macedon if the fire that came through the Wombat State Forest from the Muskvale fire were to affect Macedon. What occurred on that day needs to be heard and acknowledged. I am afraid a culture of silence and secrecy will not make the required changes that will need to be made prior to the royal commission’s conclusion.

These issues are not new. They have been canvassed previously and they are also well documented in a number of reports, both recent and historical. There will unfortunately need to be some actions taken to ensure that there are no further disasters in the time between now and the royal commission’s findings. With fuel loads at the level they were on Black Saturday, there needs to be an effective warning system in place. The reality is that in many of those areas fire tracks are overgrown. There is only one access road in and out. This places people living in this area in grave danger. On Black Saturday the fire started at Kilmore East. It raced from Wandong and Heathcote Junction to the top of Kinglake in just half an hour. It was a very bad day. We all know the temperature, we know about

combustibility. We know it was a very bad day and that it was a fast-moving fire.

Many of the people who live in that area were fire ready. They are country people; they did the preparation and they knew that it was total fire ban day. Some were packed and ready to go; they had a fire plan. The Country Fire Authority, the media and others said it was a day of extreme fire warning. What was unable to be implemented was a warning system or a text or an audible siren. This fire had very little smoke and no warning. It was a monster that ravaged the Kinglake community and damaged it to the core. It came upon this community with no warning.

I heard a great example of this from a lady I met, who had been to the hairdressers that morning. Coming out of the hairdressers she was deciding whether she would have a cup of coffee at the cafe next door or whether she would go home. She decided that she perhaps did not feel like a cup of coffee. She did not see any smoke, she did not see any flames and she had no idea of what was about to ensue. She made it home with 10 minutes to spare. Had she decided to sit down and have her coffee she would have been in a very similar position to a lot of people who were caught on the road and killed through radiant heat. This lady and her family survived, and so did their house. This was the lotto that was played out on that day of extreme fire risk.

With the level of fuel in our national parks and public land, all the aircraft and aid given by emergency services could not and cannot stop a fire of the magnitude experienced on Black Saturday. That is why we need an audible early warning system. What I would like to highlight and demonstrate to members opposite is that whilst we are having a royal commission, which I welcome, I am concerned that no appropriate steps will be taken to ensure safety for the continuing fire season. We still have very hot, dry conditions, we have had very little rain, and everything is tinder dry. As I said, I am concerned that no appropriate steps will be taken to ensure safety for the continuing fire season and for the upcoming fire season in 2009–10. I am concerned that nothing will be done to prevent such a tragedy from engulfing other communities before the findings of the royal commission are released. Rural Victoria deserves appropriate public land management and an early warning system which clearly articulates the level of danger the community is about to face. People involved in the Black Saturday fires did not know what they were going to be subjected to. They knew it was a fire ban day, they knew there was a bushfire, but they did not understand the magnitude of what was about to occur, and they were not warned.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


This government has chosen to ignore the recommendations put forward in the Environment and Natural Resources Committee (ENRC) report which detailed 20 recommendations to assist public land management. I remind the Brumby government of the work and the recommendations of this all-party committee which received over 140 submissions. The report was submitted to the Brumby government in June last year and was met with the response, ‘In general we agree with everything in the report, but we will not be implementing any of the recommendations’.

Mrs Peulich — You’re joking.

Mrs PETROVICH — I am not joking, Mrs Peulich.

Mr Jennings — She is not being totally honest either.

Mrs PETROVICH — I am being very honest.

Mr Jennings — I don’t think so.

Mrs PETROVICH — I ask the minister, ‘What has been implemented?’. Forgive me at this point for expressing my anger and my disgust at this do-nothing government — and I am being honest.

Members opposite who have read the ENRC report should hang their heads in shame at this government’s lack of action about what has occurred. I suggest that all members opposite read this document, if they have not done so already. They need to take some responsibility. This has been a vital issue for our communities, and the lack of action has had a dreadful impact. It is an issue that I believe has been clearly articulated and should have served as a warning. I would like to quote from the ENRC report:

On balance, the committee finds it is likely that the bushfires of 2002–03 and 2006–07 were both the result, and the most recent examples, of inappropriate fire regimes. The inherent risk to Victoria’s biodiversity posed by bushfires of the scale and intensity of those experienced in 2002–03 and 2006–07 is one that must be mitigated. The committee finds that an increase in prescribed burning across the landscape represents the best strategy for managing the risks that future bushfires pose to biodiversity and other natural assets.

The report also says:

Inadequate resource allocation, particularly of personnel, was cited by a number of stakeholders as a constraint on the level of prescribed burning. A related argument was that there has been a loss, from DSE in particular, of the knowledge required to maintain an adequate broad-scale prescribed burning program. The committee concurs with these stakeholders and recommends a substantial increase in funding to engage skilled fire management personnel dedicated to undertaking prescribed burning activities.

I have been on record in this place from the moment I made my maiden speech as asking for a more proactive approach to public land management and an effort to protect biodiversity catchments and rural people from the dangers of bushfire and wildfire. We have all heard that wildfire is an American term, and the pedants opposite do not like Americanisms, but it is probably a term that best describes what we are now experiencing. With the royal commission under way I do not want to pre-empt its outcomes, and I will welcome its findings. What I want to do is emphasise on behalf of a very large and angry community that years of negligence have been demonstrated by public land managers and the Brumby government.

In what seems like a premonition, the Weekly Times of 4 February carried an article titled ‘Alarm on catchment fire threat’ in which Professor Mark Adams was quoted in detail on the effects of bushfires on catchments and the capture of water. Professor Adams is quoted as saying that bushfire caused rapid regrowth, and that used more water. The article says:

Professor Adams said the inflow into the Murray-Darling Basin was about 8000 gigalitres a year and 40 per cent of that was from forests in north-east Victoria.

He said if a fire burnt 3 million hectares in the Murray-Darling Basin then ‘a 10 per cent reduction amounts to far more than could be saved by buckets in showers and water restrictions on households’.

The article goes on to say:

Professor Adams said ‘bad fire years’ could also produce massive carbon emissions, comparable to Australia’s industrial outputs.

He suggested that we need to look at the release of carbon in fires.

Sitting suspended 6.31 p.m. until 8.04 p.m.

Mrs PETROVICH — Before dinner I was discussing a range of issues regarding the 7 February bushfires and those in the days that ensued. I was pursuing points about fuel reduction burning, which had been not sufficiently conducted, despite an all-party Environment and Natural Resources Committee report which went to the government in June last year and which clearly articulated the processes that might have alleviated some of the circumstances that ensued on 7 February. There were over 20 recommendations and a number of significant findings, which I will expand on shortly. In spite of that report going to the government in June, the response to that report came back in early December with the acknowledgement that the recommendations were sound and good, and yet no action would be taken.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


I also spoke about an early warning system. I have a range of elements in my background, but one of my credentials, relating to my family, is that I am a fourth-generation member of the Country Fire Authority. When there was a fire in my community when I was growing up it was very easy to identify when there was a need for the fire brigade to attend because a siren would go off. No matter what time of day or night the brigade was required, the siren was sounded and the firemen and women would get on the truck and go out and fight the fire. That was a clear and easy message which put the community on alert and which served the community well for generations. Unfortunately for various reasons that early warning system is no longer used as easily as it should be, and in some cases when it was implemented brigade captains have actually been reprimanded for its use, which I find quite astounding. Incidentally, where the sirens were used in Gippsland a number of lives were saved because of the early alert of impending danger. People in that area were given sufficient time to get to safety or to implement their fire plan. They knew it was a serious issue, and they were able to do either of those things.

The issue confronting us now is the requirement for prescribed burning to be conducted during the autumn period — which is the desired time — in the areas of the Macedon Ranges, the Dandenongs and the Otways, which have not had significant fires in them for a little while. During the Muskvale fire I was concerned for the communities all around my home in Woodend, particularly those around Tilden, Trentham and Macedon, which I believe were right in the line of fire. Deep litter had been allowed to build up in the forest for many years. In fact Mount Macedon has not had a significant burn on it since 1983, and we all know the result of that.

I would like to expand on a number of issues surrounding the lack of controlled burning. The stress and anxiety put on the communities that were waiting in the aftermath of 7 February for the potential disaster that could ensue with no early warning system was devastating. They waited for a long time, but that disaster did not ensue, thank goodness.

A text message warning of fire danger was sent around 10 days after the 7 February fires. I am pleased the system has been implemented, but in this technology age why did it take a disaster like 7 February for this to occur? We can do all sorts of things that we never dreamt about. A man was put on the moon a long time ago now. We have an information technology and telecommunications system that is an effective means of communication, and it took a disaster like 7 February for that text messaging system to be implemented.

The Muskvale fires and the Baynton-Mia Mia fires brought to mind many of the issues that communities around me were facing. Children across the state were not able to attend their schools, and in many cases they were left unattended because there is no child care for children over seven years of age. Parents have to look after their jobs as we are facing tough economic times and people are worried about their continued employment. In my own community many children were left either at home or with friends, probably not in ideal situations.

One of the issues we need to get across — and I hope the royal commission will deliver on this — is the need to provide safe community refuges or facilities that will protect schoolchildren, or at least a system whereby they could be accounted for. If a fire had gone through my community on that particular day, I know a large number of children would have been left to their own devices, probably through no fault of their families.

Members would know that I have a great love of animals and agriculture. Another issue that confronted me was that many people had no capacity to remove either their livestock or their horses from their property to a safe zone. This presented huge problems for many of my friends and people involved in equestrian activities, which is the sport I am involved in. Where could you take your animals? Where was safe? Where was the capacity to take them? It is a huge impost on shires to decide that. The Murrindindi shire in my electorate has been severely affected by the fires. The local government dealt with the immediate issues of the aftermath of 7 February admirably. Of its 145 staff, 10 per cent were directly fire affected — 14 lost their homes, 1 passed away and 1 was hospitalised. They, along with volunteers, supported their community through what I hope was the biggest disaster that shire or community will ever have to deal with. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the volunteers who worked in the community and also of the shires and its councillors who worked across the shires of Murrindindi, Mitchell and Nillumbik to support their communities on a range of issues.

We all talk about cost shifting and local councils being able to deal with whatever is handed out to them, but local government staff are now very tired, and they are still dealing with many issues. I am pleased to say there has been some respite, but eight weeks after the fires people are still very traumatised, they are still coming into areas they fled from after staying with families and friends, and even this week there are people who are still registering with authorities.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


This will be a longstanding and difficult issue for the people of Victoria, and we should not forget too soon that these people will need ongoing support. Local governments will also need ongoing support to deal with the magnitude of the problems they will have to deal with.

Fuel reduction burning is an issue about which I am particularly passionate. Through my background with the Country Fire Authority and the work I have done on the all-party Environment and Natural Resources Committee, it is very clear in my mind that the government has dropped the ball on public land management. I feel some guilt about that. I feel I should have yelled long and loud after December, when the findings of the committee came back but there was no result for those communities. In some respects I feel I have let that community down because I knew — and so did the government, because it was clearly articulated in the committee report — what needed to occur.

There are 20 recommendations which deal with a range of issues, but I think the most significant is recommendation 2.2, which is about the amount of prescribed burning that needs to occur on public land to make a difference to communities who live alongside them; I refer to those interface communities that have to deal with ferocious fires that are about to start. Recommendation 2.2 is:

That in order to enhance the protection of community and ecological assets, the Department of Sustainability and Environment increase its annual prescribed burning target from 130 000 hectares to 385 000 hectares. This should be treated as a rolling target, with any shortfalls to be made up in subsequent years.

What has happened in the last 10 years and before that is that we have completely dropped the ball on public land management. We are hell-bent on creating national parks, which is a very fine ideal I could support if we could look after our public land properly. Recommendation 2.3 is:

A comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the increased prescribed burning target in meeting ecological and bushfire suppression needs should be conducted every three years.

As recently as today I have heard that every 10 to 20 years is sufficient. This needs to be clearly mapped, clearly articulated and gone back over. When a burn is not done adequately, we need to go back and burn again. I am talking about cool mosaic burns. They are the sorts of burns that protect the environment. They protect biology, water catchments and communities. It does not refer to a hot burn that burns at over 140 degrees Centigrade and is the sort of burn which

melts aluminium from cars and evaporates people. People had no chance against this fire, and one of the reasons was because there was nowhere to go. There was no buffer and no protection and we let it happen.

There is a whole range of recommendations in this report, and I recommend members to have a look at them. Recommendation 4.1 is:

That the Victorian government replace or compensate for water taken from domestic, stock and irrigation dams …

In 2006–07 farmers were desperate for the replacement of water, but no process was in place for that to occur. Recommendation 6.4 is:

That all information pertaining to current and planned prescribed burns be published more prominently on the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s website, with a single prominent link to this material on the website homepage.

The big difficulty is our mindset, which I will not blame the green movement for entirely. Our mindset is that we are too frightened to burn. If there is a bit of smoke in the air communities get very worried because they do not have the information, they are not consulted and they are not included in the process. We have to make the process more transparent, become more proactive and involve communities when we are doing prescribed burns to let them know what is going on and to break down the fear. We also have to explain to them that sometimes fire is dangerous and that sometimes when cool mosaic burns are done on fine days, things happen. Nevertheless we need to get on with the program of burning to make Victoria a safer place. Recommendation 6.6 is:

That the integrated fire management planning framework establish zones in the interface between public and private land in which bushfire risk management is the shared responsibility of the Victorian government and private land-holders.

We have not even had that discussion. During the Environment and Natural Resources Committee inquiry into the impact of public land management practices on bushfires in Victoria 140 submissions said that people who live alongside public land are very worried. They are putting up dirt barriers and burning off on their own land, but they know the fire comes from the neighbour from hell and not from their own properties. This also relates to recommendation 6.9, which is:

That the Department of Sustainability and Environment and its partner agencies continue to develop a proactive approach to engagement with the local and wider media to achieve continuous improvement in the standard of community information and education.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


Whilst I was traipsing around the countryside and attending hearings in the 14 months it took to complete the inquiry it became very clear to me that traditional methods of burning had been largely ignored. The Country Fire Authority was not consulted. We heard in an earlier contribution to this debate made by Philip Davis — and he should know because he is a cattleman from the high country — that when cattlemen used to bring their cows down in the autumn they would flick matches onto the ground, burning as they went, just as our indigenous population used to burn when they left their hunting grounds. This was done to keep that land open and to encourage the growth of vegetation so as to provide adequate food for native animals. Our cattlemen and mountain grazing people used to do exactly the same thing — that is, they looked after the land — but the culture has changed because we are now very frightened to burn at all. When planned, prescribed burning — cool mosaic burns which give animals and plants a chance to recover or escape from fire — is not done we end up having hot burns such as the ones we had recently, and they are no good for the environment. They are no good for biodiversity, no good for catchments and certainly no good for communities.

The report contains a whole range of findings, which I would like to go through but I will not, because if I did so I would be here all night. However, the report does make extensive reference to the way in which our forefathers managed our land. It has been a very long time since Australia was uninhabited. Our indigenous predecessors burnt the land successfully, and we could learn a lot from them.

I hope the momentum of recovery will be made easy for those people who need to rebuild and that they are provided with every assistance. I am hopeful that shires will fast-track planning requirements and that plans will not be held up at referral authorities. I also hope in cases where existing infrastructure needs to be replaced that that will be done expeditiously. I refer to things such as septic tanks and water tanks. Many communities in my electorate are struggling to have tanks cleaned and water replaced. I have heard strong anecdotal evidence that people are suffering gastroenteritis and a range of illnesses because of a lack of potable water. I know everyone is doing their best and it is a monumental problem, but we need to get in and make sure that the Department of Human Services has the manpower and the capability to ensure that the most basic of human services are provided.

One of the issues for Kinglake and Marysville is that those communities have developed through the tree change phenomenon. People have moved to those areas

for reasons of housing affordability or lifestyle change. I hope one of the things that comes out of the royal commission is that we make people fire ready and improve their understanding that a bushfire is not necessarily a grassfire, that there are degrees of fire, and to make the choice to leave early or stay and defend, which is okay if you know what you are dealing with, you have the right equipment and you understand the nature of fire. I believe some people were caught in a situation for which they were ill prepared, probably because of a lack of country culture. It is a very sad state of affairs that they neither had an early warning system or enough education, or probably any awareness of what was about to occur.

We now need to be brave. I say that from the bottom of my heart. It is about being brave enough to articulate the realities — not the political realities but the realities of life in rural Victoria and the realities of public land management, how much that costs and how much it costs when you do not do it properly. How much it cost those people in Kinglake and Marysville is immeasurable. We need to be brave enough to explain to the community why we need to do prescribed burning and why we need to increase our program from 130 000 hectares to 380 000 hectares, as was recommended in the Environment and Natural Resources Committee report and as has been clearly articulated at a range of levels. It is very simple; $20 million would have done it. That is probably very close to 20 houses, and we know that a lot more was lost than 20 houses on 7 February.

We need to be brave enough not to be frightened of a litigious society which is very quick to blame those public land managers who want to do the right thing and do prescribed burning that produces smoke and worries people. We need to be brave enough to tell the community why this is occurring. Lock it up and leave it does not work, and neither does creating additional national parks.

I could talk on this issue for a very long period of time. The coroner and the community have seen the ultimate result of what we are dealing with. When you have a megafire on a bad day, no amount of infrastructure or firefighting planes will stop a fire like that. The only thing that will stop a fire like that is preventive work and community education.

My greatest hope is that the royal commission will find a way through this and that those who have made submissions and those who will continue to make submissions to the royal commission will not being doing so in vain. Earlier we heard from Philip Davis about the history of submissions, inquiries and reports

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


on bushfire management that have fallen on deaf ears because governments do not want to accept responsibility. My fear is that these communities will go through this process, and in 18 months time nothing will have happened.

I have to articulate to the house that I will not rest until we have a change of culture in this place and this community that ensures that we look after our forests, our communities, our public land and our national parks to protect what needs to be protected. I will not rest until we have the guts to do what needs to be done.

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise in support of the motion moved some days ago by Mr Hall that we acknowledge the tragic impact of the Victorian bushfires and the role and responsibility of the state government and the royal commission in their aftermath. I will not speak for an excessively long period of time, because no amount of time someone who has been essentially removed from these events and who has not been involved in one of the directly impacted communities could spend talking in this chamber could do justice to the stories that have unfolded before our eyes and the tragedies we have witnessed, albeit vicariously, through the media and through the pictures, stories and interviews we have seen.

Those pictures, stories and interviews have been suspended since the start of the royal commission. They have been suspended in terms of the way the issues are played out in the public domain. This has affected the entire Victorian community — not just those who are directly impacted but also people in the community who have been moved, who have been emotionally engaged and who have sympathised and supported via donations, writing messages of support to affected communities and providing material goods and going out to help, as well as the many volunteers who were involved in the rescue effort.

As a city member I feel compelled to talk about the way we see the tragedy from a metropolitan Melbourne perspective. I understand the jigsaw puzzle can only be assembled through a structure such as a royal commission that can pull together the various dimensions of experience, which will vary from community to community and which will shed different levels of insight into the various issues that have affected our ability to protect people, property and the environment, both flora and fauna. That is what it is all about. Having been struck by a devastating fire, it is about being able to assess the level of preparation needed to properly protect people and the environment, our capacity to respond in terms of the rescue and relief

efforts, and the need to protect people, property and the environment — and to do so at all levels. We need to look at individual people’s preparation for fires and fire safety, at the levels of preparation that emergency services, local agencies and local government are responsible for as well as at the state and federal levels.

We also need to look across the entire state, first and foremost at those communities that have been directly impacted, that have been obliterated, that have been devastated and that will never be rebuilt despite all the best efforts and intentions of our political leaders. At the national memorial they said that their objective was not only to provide the necessary rescue and relief but also to rebuild these communities. Let me say that as a mother, and I have no doubt that most people in this chamber would agree, if you have lost a child or a loved one, there is no way any government can act to fully rebuild your life. It can never be rebuilt. You can replace material possessions and rebuild some normalcy, but you cannot fill in the gaps and voids left by people who have been tragically taken from you. I cannot even envisage what it would feel like to see a member of your family or a loved one vaporised before your very eyes, with not one scintilla of evidence of their existence left after they were vaporised in that intense heat. That can never be rebuilt.

I would like to commend Philip Davis, Peter Hall and Donna Petrovich for talking about their communities, because their doing so gives us some insight into the sort of impact those communities have had to contend with.

There are a number of challenges ahead for the ministers and governments of the day as well as the different agencies. Well before the findings and interim and final reports of the royal commission are tabled they need to make sure that that preparation and response is actioned, changed and improved. Whenever those recommendations come out of the royal commission, they need to make sure they are fully implemented.

It saddens me greatly to hear Mrs Petrovich talk about the recommendations tabled in this chamber by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee (ENRC). It is an all-party committee and the recommendations were supported by all sides. The full implementation of those recommendations would have cost this government $20 million out of a budget that is in excess of $35 billion. Over 10 years the government has had $250 billion, and yet $20 million would have enabled the relevant departments, in particular the Department of Sustainability and Environment, to

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


undertake the necessary back-burning and preparation to diminish the devastation capacity of these bushfires.

There is no doubt about it, these fires were unusual. They were unusual because we have had a drought, and there has been climate change. I am not necessarily a climate change enthusiast, but I know enough to know there are cycles and that we are in a cycle of some increase in the temperature in our climate. But of course this is not an overnight incident. It was well recorded and well on the record. It was recorded on the web pages of some of the major agencies. The various levels of government should have been preparing for these events sometime beforehand.

I visited, for example, the CSIRO web page, which says, in trying to explain what caused the bushfires in Victoria on 7 February 2009, now known as Black Saturday:

In south-east Australia, bad fire days are associated with the presence of a ‘blocking’ high pressure system in the Tasman Sea. This brings hot, dry strong wind from the centre of the continent to the south-east.

The high temperatures, some in excess of 45 degrees, and dry air experienced throughout Victoria on Saturday resulted in very low fuel moisture content. Combined with the extended rainfall deficit for much of the state, this resulted in tinder-dry fuel that was very easily ignited and very difficult to extinguish.

This is really the reason we ended up with unprecedented conditions. But the reason the devastation of the bushfires was so great was that the back-burning and the clearing of fuel were inadequate. Mrs Petrovich pointed out that there was a two-thirds deficit in the clearance of public land as pointed out by ENRC but which had not been undertaken by this government. If the Minister for Environment and Climate Change disagrees, he can come into this chamber and explain to us that that figure is wrong. And if that was the case, it also should have been a part of the government’s response to the ENRC report, but it was not the case at the time.

A number of communities have been devastated. I mentioned those in my speech during the condolence motion. I would also like to thank all those in my community of South Eastern Metropolitan Region for offering their sympathy and support; all those who have signed the condolence books; all those who have afforded material effort; and the firefighters. Everyone has banded together, and it is just amazing to see the Australian community’s spirit of volunteerism prevail when these crises occur.

Those of us who were not born in Australia understand how the Australian character has been forged out of the

challenges of the land and the crucible of fire, flood, drought and the need for communities to stand together in order to rise above those challenges. We knew that fire frequency and intensity was on the rise. We did not do the necessary preparation.

I understand — it is on the record, and we have all read about it — the government’s response has been overwhelming in an attempt to get on to the front foot, to appear as if it is in control and that it has spared no expense, but we have found out that it was not prepared to commit the $20 million that was required to implement a recommendation of ENRC. It will and has cost our community an enormous amount in loss of life, property, livestock, fencing and flora and fauna; and of course it will cost the Victorian budget, as well as the federal budget, for the reparation work — and we know that reparation work can never be complete.

I am not sure whether Mrs Petrovich mentioned it, but I think the ENRC report really hits the nail on the head when it talks about the intersect — I hope this will be something the royal commission does elucidate — and relationship between the Forests Act 1958 and other legislation and other agencies. I quote one section from that report. Section 62 of the Forests Act 1958 does not give the secretary or the chief fire officer the necessary responsibility to protect the state of Victoria from its well-documented and greatest recurring threat since the first settlement, being bushfires. Section 62(2) says:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act or law it shall be the duty of the Secretary to carry out proper and sufficient work for the prevention and suppression of fire in every State forest and national park and on all protected public land but in any national park or protected public land proper and sufficient work for the prevention of fire shall be undertaken only by agreement with the person or body having the management and control thereof and in case of failure to reach any such agreement as determined by the Governor in Council whose determination shall be final and conclusive.

Basically it gives the power of veto to DSE and other agencies that are responsible for the management of public land. That has been one of the obstacles to achieving the sorts of targets that the ENRC report highlighted have been lacking. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change should be largely responsible for answering those questions and explaining the reasons why that clearing has not occurred.

Obviously it has been devastating for those country communities, but I invite all members, including those who represent metropolitan seats, to drive through their electorates and have a look at some of the Crown land in their metropolitan seats. A few weeks ago I took a drive through my electorate. I drove through Frankston.

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


On the corner of McClelland Drive and Cranbourne Road is a property owned by one of the water authorities. It is absolutely littered with fallen fuel — fallen timber — and is a fire trap, a disaster waiting to happen. The Frankston Reservoir is in a similar condition. I know a lot of constituents have contacted my office, concerned that their own properties would be under threat as a result of that interface, because of that negligence and failure to fulfil one’s duties as a good neighbour.

In most instances the government and agencies at various levels are failing to manage Crown land or other land that is under their control. Similarly, in the electorate of Mordialloc there is a beautiful park, Braeside Park. I have walked through it. If anyone drives down Lower Dandenong Road, particularly the section between Howard and Springvale roads, I encourage them to have a look at the fallen timber there which has not been removed and which is a disaster waiting to happen. Our beautiful Edithvale wetlands are a gorgeous asset. I am not sure exactly what sorts of fire strategies are in place to prevent those natural reserves from igniting, and of course in their current condition they pose an enormous threat to the adjacent residences in metropolitan Melbourne.

The concern is acute in the fire-prone areas of country and regional and rural Victoria, but it should not be ignored in metropolitan Melbourne. Our entire community has dropped the ball on fire safety. The onus is on all of us as legislators, whether we represent country or metropolitan areas, to make sure that what needs to be done is done. As Mrs Petrovich said, if we have got the guts to implement those recommendations we should implement the measures so that we are better prepared for the next fire season, so we can diminish the devastating effect of fires that occur, so that our capacity to respond in terms of recovery and relief is better, and so that we will have fewer challenges in the rebuilding of those communities — and of course we have already said that those lives lost can never be restored.

The other point Mrs Petrovich mentioned was the absence of a warning system. I was absolutely gobsmacked — I was floored — when I read an editorial in the Herald Sun, which is a reputable daily newspaper, which basically argued that because Premier John Brumby was out there talking to the media about an impending critical time, that Saturday was going to be ugly, ugly, ugly, and his remarks were then reported in the papers, on the radio or on television, that somehow this constituted a warning. I am sorry, it is not a warning. A lot of people do not watch the television news, a lot of people do not read

their newspapers until the day after they come out, if at all, and a lot of people do not listen to the radio. It is astonishing to me that people at a reputable major newspaper could consider the Premier engaging in some public relations exercise and spin to be sufficient warning to vulnerable communities. Ten days later, 5 million Victorians received via Telstra an SMS message on their mobile phones. If it could happen 10 days after the event, why could it not have happened before the bushfires? We have heard that that technology has been available for the last four years, but the will has not been found to ensure that the system is in place.

One of the challenges of the royal commission is to investigate the whole notion of warning and a range of other policies, including the stay and defend policy versus the evacuate policy. Mrs Petrovich has mentioned that amongst even those who decided to evacuate there were problems, because roads were closed without them having any forewarning or knowledge. They could not escape or get out. They were trapped. For those who want to stay and defend, once upon a time we had things called fire refuges in the forests.

In 2002 — I have been reading some information — this government decided, in response to the public liability insurance concerns, that it would go through a process by which local government and the Country Fire Authority would undertake audits of the fire refuges, as a way of mitigating or reducing the government’s exposure to public liability. Instead of putting some subsidy into lifting the standard of those that were substandard so that people would be able to use them when there is an emergency, the government made the policy decision to close those fire refuges. It certainly withdrew all those on government land, including those at schools. Others that were on private property — —

Mr Viney — This is very grubby.

Mrs PEULICH — I actually have the documentation; it was provided to me. I look forward to making it available to the royal commission. The government took the decision to close fire refuges. The government failed to do the back-burning, it failed to have a warning system in place and it closed the fire refuges.

Yes, the response was overwhelming. I guess it is very difficult. There was probably no expense spared, especially in the generosity of Victorians in providing material and financial aid, and there was an outpouring of sympathy. I commend all those Victorians who did

BUSHFIRES: VICTORIA


that. They did a magnificent job. There is no place in the world that has a stronger sense of volunteerism than Australia. Victorians shone and we are proud of them. The tragedy would not have been of the magnitude that it was if the government had undertaken its responsibilities, which it had failed to do.

Mr Viney — I suppose when it is 40-60 you get desperate. That is what this contribution reeks of.

Mrs PEULICH — I am sorry, the issues are far too serious for cynical political jibes to be made by a member who can have his opportunity and make his contribution.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Take your own advice!

Mrs PEULICH — I represent 470 000 people and I have every right to stand up in this Parliament and raise the issues which they have raised with me. The government has found refuge not in its good form but in trying to establish some sort of cone of silence and suspend politics so that we cannot scrutinise its actions and its culpability. How convenient! All members opposite need is a skirt behind which to hide. They should not hide. They should fess up. They should identify the problems and make sure they are not repeated. These fires were more devastating than all the other fires we have seen in Australia, certainly in the history of Victoria. With increased technology, better communications and better knowledge, what happened should not have happened.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — Why have a royal commission? Why don’t we just let you be judge, jury and executioner?

Mrs PEULICH — I am more than happy to provide the information that has been made available to me. Government members do not want to hear it, and yes, it is a concern that government members are so sensitive. Despite the Premier saying that he will leave no stone unturned to get to the truth, what we see is this government still trying to cultivate the culture of silence, not only in this Parliament but also amongst its agencies and departments, by forcing all of them to go through the single legal team appearing before the royal commission.

The government is going to cleanse the information and resort to this culture of silence so that what comes out of the royal commission eventually will be of less use to the government of the day. Members of the government ought to be doing the right thing by lifting the shackles. They should stop their desperate attempt to protect their own backsides. They should not have a continuation of this culture of silence in this democratic

chamber but make sure that the truth comes out and is addressed.


Mrs PEULICH — Obviously those opposite are feeling very sensitive about this. On the response of the government, I quote briefly:

Victoria’s public sector rallied on an unprecedented scale to help thousands of firestorm survivors restart their lives following Australia’s deadly Black Saturday.

It was the day the state stood still, faced with a once-in-a-lifetime disaster involving all of nature’s elements — earth, wind … and fire.

It goes on:

Routine business of government went on, while whole-of-government resources went into ensuring people received the relief and recovery services they needed.

That was good, but the government’s preparation was appalling. The magnitude of the response would not have been required if that preparation had been undertaken.

We need the royal commission to find out what happened. I was a little concerned that the focus group meetings in the affected communities were closed to the media. It was reminiscent again of this government’s sensitivity and the desire of government members, including members here today, to suppress debate and scrutiny and to somehow make us feel that we are un-Australian or treacherous by raising the questions that the people in the communities deserve to have raised and expect us to raise.

Hon. M. P. Pakula — You are not raising questions. You are making allegations.

Mrs PEULICH — No, you are trying to silence the debate because you have something to hide, and you know it.


Mrs PEULICH — On my closing pages, and I have very little time, I have the word ‘secrecy’. Do I need to say anything more?

I refer to a very good paper prepared by Roger Underwood. I did not have the honour of attending the luncheon to which Mr Philip Davis referred which was held recently in Melbourne by the Stretton Group, but I have had the opportunity of reading the paper. I think it is very telling. I would invite anyone to read the paper put together by this person, who is extremely

BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT) BILL


knowledgeable about everything to do with bushfires and public policy. He says:

To me, the epidemic of recent killer bushfires in Victoria are not an indicator of what is inevitable in the future. To me, they are an indicator of the inevitable consequences of what has happened in the past. To me, these fires toll like bells: they toll for failed leadership, failed governance and failed land management.

The issues of leadership and of good governance are central to my position. What these terrible fires point to is that the leaders of our society, Victoria’s politicians and senior bureaucrats, have palpably failed to do the most fundamental thing expected of them: to safeguard Victorian lives and the Victorian environment in the face of an obvious threat. They have failed to discharge their duty of care. Just as we now look back with incredulity at the amateurish strategies of the generals in the Great War of 1914–18, so will future Australians look back on the work of those responsible for land and bushfire management in this country (our bushfire generals) in the years leading up to the great fires of 2003–09.

In closing I look forward to the royal commission shedding light in an open, accountable and transparent way on what should have been done to prepare for the bushfire season in a bushfire-prone environment to make sure that the devastation we have seen, including the loss of life, thousands of hectares of land, livestock and fences, is not repeated to the same devastating effect we experienced on 7 February.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr KOCH (Western Victoria).

Debate adjourned until next day.

BUSHFIRES ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT) BILL

Introduction and first reading

Received from Assembly.

Read first time for Mr LENDERS (Treasurer) on motion of Hon. M. P. Pakula.

ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second reading

Debate resumed from 12 March; motion of Mr LENDERS (Treasurer).

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — What a riveting bill to lead into a Wednesday night! The Associations Incorporation Amendment Bill did not arouse a huge amount of passionate debate in the

Assembly, although it did arouse some interesting debate. I will go through the specifics of the bill, maybe six or seven points, to have a look at those and then move on to zest the bill up and give a bit of zing to a Wednesday night.


Mr GUY — Mr Pakula is quite right. We will give it a shot. The Associations Incorporation Act 1981 is being amended to merge the roles of public officer and secretary of an incorporated association — Mr Pakula may remember that as something like the unions — to prohibit the incorporated association from acting contrary to its rules or statement of purposes, and we will come to that later; to provide remedies where an incorporated association engages in oppressive conduct against a member, which again is like the unions; to allow for the appointment of a statutory manager to an incorporated association; and for other purposes, although we may not come back to that part.

The key point to the bill, firstly, is to amend the principal act, which is the Associations Incorporation Act 1981, to provide for the merger of the roles of secretary and public officer of an incorporated association. That is a move supported by the Liberal Party and The Nationals. The second purpose is to establish the registrar as a body corporate. Again that is a move supported by the Liberal-National parties.

The third purpose is to prohibit an incorporated association from acting in contravention of its rules or contrary to its statement of purposes. I will have a little more to say about that later, but it makes sense at one level. There is some danger in some of the things which can flow from unnecessary litigation. Those points were raised by my colleague the member for Malvern in the Assembly, Mr O’Brien. The fourth purpose is to provide remedies where an incorporated association engages in oppressive conduct.


Mr GUY — I am not sure that is true. The fifth purpose is to allow for the appointment of a statutory manager to an incorporated association. The sixth purpose is to prohibit an incorporated association from distributing its assets to its members on winding up. The seventh purpose is to permit voluntary cancellation of incorporation for certain incorporated associations. And the eighth purpose is to improve the operation of the act.

There are a number of goals that this bill will achieve. It is not necessarily the most interesting matter that has been debated in this house today but it is certainly



necessary, and as a consequence the Liberal Party and The Nationals will not be opposing the bill.

The bill provides for the enforceability of the rules and statement of purposes of the incorporated association by a member or a registrar in the public interest through the Magistrates Court. A member may take legal action in the Magistrates Court against an incorporated association for oppressive conduct. This is when the conduct is unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory against a member, or contrary to the interests of the members of the incorporated association on the whole. The Magistrates Court has a wide range of powers to deal with any breach of a rule or oppressive conduct. A committee member of the incorporated association must knowingly be concerned with the contravention of any rule of the incorporated association.

I am advised that the incorporated association may be wound up by the Supreme Court as indeed we all know with incorporations. The bill imposes obligations on former office-holders to return documents belonging to the incorporated association, which of course we would acknowledge is a very important point. It certainly sets out the rules for the removal of auditors and clarifies the requirements for the passing of a special resolution.

The bill provides that the role of a public officer is to be performed by the secretary of the incorporated association. As I asked before: what are some examples of incorporated associations? It is worth having a look at a couple of them, because one of the key points of the bill is set out in the purposes provision. Clause 1(c) states that one of the main purposes is to amend the act:

to prohibit an incorporated association from acting in contravention of its rules or contrary to its statement of purposes.

I know this will be a bit of a copycat discussion, but I will do it anyway. I noted that in the Legislative Assembly debate my good friend the member for Malvern went and looked at one incorporated association and its statement of purposes and whether it was still relevant; it was the statement of purposes of the Australian Labor Party, which is an incorporated association. It is interesting to look at the statement of purposes of the Australian Labor Party to see whether or not, according to this bill, it is living up to the statement of purposes or whether it is in fact contrary to its statement of purposes.

I did a little digging on the web; it is not that hard. The Minister for Information and Communication Technology sits opposite; I am sure he will be interested in this. I have a statement from the Australian Labor Party’s 44th national convention entitled

‘National Convention and Constitution 2007’. I am sure that the Minister for Information and Communication Technology, as he sits in this chamber, will be happy with this statement.

Mr Jennings — My colleague is the minister, although I had the portfolio for a short moment.

Mr GUY — I have no doubt that Minister Jennings has an interest in information communications. I am sure he will forgive my ignorance for not knowing his portfolios.

I refer to the objectives of the ALP as set out in the statement I obtained:

The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other antisocial features in these fields.

Mr GUY — I thought this was interesting — —

Mrs Peulich — Does it say that?

Mr GUY — It does say that, Mrs Peulich. While you go on, I might actually read a little bit more. Objective 3(a) says:

Redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their lives.

I was wondering whether Brian ‘Brezhnev’ Tee wrote some of these documents. Mr Brezhnev is not in the house tonight, but we have Mr Honecker instead. It is interesting now that we are talking about the democratic socialisation of the economy and workers collectives. As they used to say in the Soviet Union as they marched down the road on May Day in Moscow, С ПРАДЗНИКОМ ПЕРШИЙ МАЯ — which means ‘You can celebrate on 1 May’. I went through the statement of purposes and found it quite interesting. It is relevant to this bill, I might add. I am not making this up; it is all here in the Australian Labor Party 44th national convention. Objective 3(v) says:

Commitment to and participation in the international democratic socialist movement as represented by the Socialist International.

I did some digging to find out who is a member of the so-called Socialist International and managed to find something I might know a bit about: it is the Ukrainian workers party. That party is a member of the international socialist collective. I thought, ‘Hang on a tick, these guys are affiliated with the Labor Party, but



they are the ex-communists who are in this democratic collective’.

Mrs Peulich — Same virus.

Mr GUY — Mrs Peulich, if you hang around with dogs, you are going to get fleas. No doubt there are some fleas that might jump off here and there onto the Australian Labor Party from its mates in the international socialist collective.

We are looking at the Associations Incorporation Amendment Bill 2008. I will again point out the key points of the bill. The third purpose is to prohibit an incorporated association from acting in contravention of its rules or contrary to its statement of purposes. I will just read one more statement of purpose and then I will move on to the end — —

Mrs Peulich interjected.

Mr GUY — It is not the hammer and sickle, Mrs Peulich. It is not where your family or my family may have come from. There are no red flags, hammers and sickles or people singing the Internationale. But we are coming close. I noticed that Lenin’s statue was bombed in Moscow this morning. It might have been done by someone from the international socialist movement — the statue probably was not left wing enough!

Objective 3(w) of the Australian Labor Party 44th national convention says:

Recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad principles of democratic socialism.

It is interesting that the broad principles of democratic socialism, as subscribed to by the Socialist International, include parties like Die Linke, the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany which produced such wonderful characters as Walter Ulbricht, Eric Honecker and Egon Krenz who lasted eight days before the wall came down. I am glad the members on the other side of the chamber are in good company.

It has been a magnificent bill to do a bit of research on. I have appreciated taking the carriage of this bill through the Legislative Council at approximately 10 minutes past 9 o’clock on a Wednesday night — —

Mr Leane interjected.

Mr GUY — I am having a lot of fun, Mr Leane. We are waiting for Mr Leane to take the Treasury benches after today’s performance. We have noted the absence of Mr Brezhnev up the back!

In conclusion, I wish to say that this bill is one that the Liberal-Nationals coalition does not oppose. We have some concerns about the increased litigation of members of incorporated associations because of internal disputes. Where they were previously resolved via elections, they may now be sent to an overburdened court system. We accept that may be a burden on the court system. Courts will be required to decide whether particular decisions of an incorporated association are consistent — and I say this again — with the generally broad terms of the statement of purposes of associations. There is inadequate supervision of a statutory manager once appointed to an industry association by a court. That aside, the Liberal Party and The Nationals will not oppose the bill.

We wish our Labor Party colleagues all the best at the next meeting of the international socialist movement. They will most likely meet somewhere in Eastern Europe!

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I will be somewhat briefer than the previous contribution, because I am rehearsing my material for the comedy festival back home. It is open mike night here in the Legislative Council. Everybody is welcome to get up and have a go. But seriously, folks, from the Greens point of view this particular piece of legislation is notable for the lack of unsolicited submissions we have received about it.

It could be that because this bill affects all not-for-profit incorporated associations equally, perhaps there is no particular group out there with a particular interest. I therefore had to read the legislation from the point of view of my own experience in not-for-profit groups and try to understand how each measure may work. Perhaps in some small way, in the style of Mr Guy, I have some funny anecdotes about various not-for-profit associations and how they have worked at times, from local field naturalist groups right up to my own political party, which of course is incorporated under this same act. Having been through that exercise, I find nothing particularly objectionable in the bill. Therefore the Greens will support this bill.

Ms HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) — I am pleased to hear that members opposite are not going to be opposing this very important piece of legislation, the purpose of which is to amend the Associations Incorporation Act 1981. The Associations Incorporation Act was established to provide a simple and inexpensive means by which unincorporated not-for-profit associations could have the benefit of corporate status. Despite the tenor of Mr Guy’s comments, this is a very large and important sector of



our community. As at 30 June 2008 there were 34 385 incorporated associations in Victoria.

The community and not-for-profit sector plays a vital role in making our communities livable, inclusive and fair. Incorporated associations deliver and facilitate a broad range of community services, including aged care, children’s services and social services such as health care, housing, legal services, environmental groups and sporting, education, arts and faith-based groups. I am sure many people in this place have been involved in the community sector as a member of or even an office-bearer in an incorporated association. Many of the incorporated associations around the state will welcome the changes brought about by this piece of legislation.

The government is committed to supporting this sector through initiatives such as the Victorian government’s action plan known as Strengthening Community Organisations and the policy A Fairer Victoria. The bill delivers a range of amendments which will update and simplify the act. This is part of a two-stage process; the second stage will follow at a later time.

The purpose of the bill is to enhance the rights of members of incorporated associations and to improve internal governance arrangements, enhance the supervisory role of the registrar of incorporated associations and improve provisions relating to voluntary winding up and external administration. It also makes a number of minor administrative amendments.

I would like to look in detail at some aspects of these changes, in particular those enhancing the rights of members and improving governance arrangements. One of the changes proposed by the bill is the merging of the role of secretary and public officer. This is a sensible decision which will streamline the internal administration of incorporated associations, clarify the role of office-bearers and improve communications between associations and the registrar. As many members will know if they have been involved in incorporated associations, it is common for the same person to hold the role of both secretary and public officer, as I myself have done in a number of organisations. This is a very sensible amendment.

One of the other provisions is the inclusion of a number of additional mandatory rules — that is, matters that must be dealt with in the rules of an incorporated association. The rules will now have to provide that minutes must be kept for both general meetings and committee meetings, and members must have access to those minutes. These rules will apply to financial

statements so that the financial books of an association will be more available and accessible to members. Altogether these amendments will improve democracy and accountability within incorporated associations. It is not a difficult thing for incorporated associations to change the rules; all it requires is a special resolution.

The bill also provides that members must confirm the termination of appointment of an auditor at a general meeting. This will increase the level of protection for members in relation to management of funds. We have also noted that outgoing office-bearers must return documents within 21 days.

I think Mr Guy’s comments belittle what is a very important provision in this bill, which is that the statement of purpose of an incorporated association must be complied with. This requirement is enforceable by an application to the Magistrates Court, which can be made by a member of an association or by the registrar. A statement of purpose defines the aims of an incorporated association and influences the decisions of people joining an incorporated association. Therefore it is important that it can be enforced. For example, this will ensure that funds collected by a charity are used for the purposes for which they are intended.

One of the other changes brought about by this bill is that a member or former member of an incorporated association can seek a Magistrates Court order to remedy the effects of oppressive conduct by an incorporated association. Remedies include a restraining order or an order requiring action to be taken, such as reinstatement of a member. If required, the Magistrates Court can refer to the Supreme Court to wind up an association.

Another aspect of the changes brought about by this bill is that it enhances the supervisory role of the registrar of incorporated associations. The registrar becomes a body corporate, which is of benefit as when an incorporated association is cancelled property will vest in the registrar. It will make it easier for the registrar to dispose of assets if it is a body corporate. Additional powers also clarify the validity of lodged documents. The registrar may refuse to accept a document if they are of the opinion that it is not valid. The magistrate has the power to settle any dispute regarding the validity of documents.

If a special resolution changing rules has been passed by an incorporated association and the registrar forms a view that one or more of the changes contravene the act or regulations, the registrar has the power to amend the resolution so that if one or more changes are disallowed, the balance of the changes dealt with by



that special resolution can stand. The bill also gives the registrar the power to seek appointment of a temporary statutory manager of an incorporated association by the Magistrates Court in the event of evidence being produced of serious dysfunction in the operations of an association.

The bill is an important part of the Brumby government’s commitment to developing and supporting community and not-for-profit organisations. As stated in the action plan Strengthening Community Organisations, the government recognises that the community and not-for-profit sector creates economic value by providing overall health and wellbeing, engaging with minority groups and marginalised communities and providing a wide range of services to many Victorians.

The reforms introduced by simplifying some of the administrative processes required to be followed by incorporated associations and by making incorporated associations more transparent and accountable will strengthen that sector of the community. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate interrupted.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Finn) — Order! Before calling Mr O’Donohue I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery this evening of a former minister, the Honourable Race Matthews, and a former member of this house, the Honourable Ron Best.


Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — I am pleased to rise and say a few words in relation to this bill. Incorporation for volunteer groups and others is a critical issue in limiting their legal liability, arranging their affairs, conducting business and coordinating their affairs in an appropriate and straightforward fashion.

Incorporation creates its own set of burdens. There is the need for minutes, bank accounts, administrative responsibility, the election of office-bearers and the like. This issue was touched on previously by the Economic Development Committee in its 2002 Inquiry into the Impact of Structural Changes in the Victorian

Economy. The issue I want to specifically address relates to a loose collection of individuals who might be acting in the best interests of the community for a specific purpose or for a purpose that does not in and of itself require incorporation pursuant to this bill or any other piece of legislation. There are community groups that meet spontaneously on a particular issue or in a sporadic fashion. They may not wish to incorporate and encumber themselves with the administrative processes, burdens and costs associated with that incorporation. The liability of groups that remain merely a loose collection of individuals working for a specific purpose, in particular a specific community purpose, is not limited; their legal liability is the same as it is for an individual conducting normal business in the community.

Whilst liability for groups cannot be limited in every situation, it is worth noting that we are in a period when it is more difficult to attract volunteers to community service. We have seen this during the recent bushfires. With Rotary, the Lions and other community groups the age profile of the volunteer base is increasing and the numbers of people participating in a general sense is diminishing. I am concerned that groups that do not wish to incorporate but at the same time want to come together for a designated community purpose do not have the protection of limited liability. In a sense one does not wish to force them to incorporate, because that creates additional burdens for them and can be a disincentive to participating as a community group.

I can see no easy or straightforward answer to the problem in this sector. People, as individuals, must be accountable for their actions; they must be held responsible, where appropriate, for their acts, their omissions or their negligence. But by the same token we must do everything we can to encourage volunteerism. We must do everything we can to keep the management of that volunteerism as free from burdens and administrative hassles as possible. I note on page 248 of the aforementioned Economic Development Committee report that evidence from a witness indicated that there needs to be ‘recognition by governments at all levels and the community generally of the contribution made by volunteers to the community’ and ‘better levels of legal protection of volunteers against claims of negligence during the conduct of their work’. They are worthy aims and goals. More work needs to be done in this area to address this issue appropriately.

I would like to thank the Honourable Neil Lucas, a former member for Eumemmerring Province, for bringing this issue to my attention. I have had some good discussions with him about it. With those words, I



reiterate the position, as put by Mr Guy, that the opposition does not oppose this bill.

Ms MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) — I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. The Associations Incorporation Act was established to allow a simple and inexpensive means by which unincorporated not-for-profit associations could obtain corporate status as a distinct legal entity in their own right. With the benefit of the protection of members and office-holders against personal liability for debts and other legal obligations of a specific organisation it is easy to see why becoming an incorporated association is a popular step for many not-for-profit community groups. There are many such groups in my electorate that have, over the years, for these very reasons become associated incorporations, and I have been pleased to be able to assist and advise them on the steps necessary to become registered under this legislation.

I take this opportunity to say to the staff members of Consumer Affairs Victoria that the work they do in this regard — they have developed an online search register and a model set of rules that community groups can use in becoming registered — is very useful. I thank them for that work, and I know that it is of benefit to many community groups around our state.

The amendments proposed in this bill have been subject to wide consultation and detailed analysis. A review of the current legislation three or four years ago identified a number of areas that needed reform. Those areas were subject to further consideration during the 2007 State Services Authority review of regulation of not-for-profit organisations.

The act essentially regulates the creation, operation and dissolution of incorporated associations. The amendments in this bill will improve their internal governance arrangements, enhance the rights of members, toughen the prohibition on an incorporated association acting outside the scope of its statement of purpose and introduce a number of minor administrative amendments. The Victorian government action plan to strengthen community and not-for-profit organisations commits the government to implementing a number of reforms to the Associations Incorporation Act that will streamline the operation of many incorporated associations.

The bill addresses the need to improve the internal governance arrangements of incorporated associations by merging the role of public officer with the role of secretary. As someone who has served as the public officer of an association, I think this is a very sensible step. Under the current legislation the public officer is

responsible for the lodgement of all relevant documents and is the first point of contact for the association. For many incorporated associations the secretary is a member of the management committee and is responsible for all the day-to-day paperwork of the association, so it is sensible that the roles of the public officer and secretary, which are very similar, be merged into one position.

These amendments should result in improved communications between the registrar and incorporated associations and the inclusion of accurate and up-to-date information in the register of incorporated associations. The bill will also include certain mandatory rules which aim to improve the rights of members in relation to accessing information about the operation of their association. As someone who has been asked to mediate in disputes between members in local community organisations and to interpret their constitution and constitutional obligations for them, I think a vast number of disputes could be resolved if members were provided with more information. It is easy for people to complain about the running of any organisation when they feel they have been left out of the loop of decision making affecting an organisation of which they feel some ownership.

While the current system requires an accurate recording of meeting minutes and financial transactions by the management committee, this bill will allow for an express right of access to this information for all association members. It will readily assist in reducing disputes and promoting transparency and accountability to members on the part of the committee. The bill will also toughen the prohibition on incorporated associations acting inconsistently with their statement of purpose. Given that most people are likely to become members of an association based on the understanding that it operates for particular purposes, it is important that the activities of the association properly reflect its statement of purpose.

Members will be given the power to bring proceedings in the Magistrates Court if they believe the association is acting outside these nominated purposes. Proceedings may also be brought where a member believes the association has engaged in oppressive conduct or conduct that is unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory. Of course in all cases it is desirable that members of incorporated associations try to resolve disputes among themselves in an amicable manner that has regard to rules of natural justice and the rules of the organisation under its constitution. I believe these amendments will encourage incorporated associations and office-holders to have regard to the concerns of their members and in particular to provide them with more information.



Overall, these amendments are vital in developing our community, voluntary and not-for-profit organisations and will greatly improve the administration and operation of such organisations in Victoria. The bill balances the rights of members of incorporated associations while also clarifying the basic administrative obligations of the management committee. For these reasons I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ELASMAR (Northern Metropolitan) — The Associations Incorporation Act 1981 was established to provide a cheap and simple method by which unincorporated not-for-profit associations could obtain corporate status. The act currently regulates incorporated associations, or not-for-profit charities as they are more commonly known in Victoria. In June 2008 there were 34 385 incorporated associations on the register of incorporated associations. The bill introduces a range of amendments to the act that will clarify the rights of members of incorporated associations; ensure proper accountability of office-holders to its membership; establish internal governance arrangements; and strengthen the supervisory role of the registrar of incorporated associations.

Included in the reforms are clearer provisions relating to the voluntary winding-up and external administration of incorporated associations, together with a number of minor administrative amendments that will improve overall efficiency in the management of not-for-profit charities.

In April last year the Premier launched the Victorian government’s action plan to strengthen community and not-for-profit organisations. The action plan defines and specifies simplified regulatory compliance and reporting requirements. The purpose is to update legislation and improve support for the community and not-for-profit sector.

Most members of committees of management are unpaid volunteers. However, this does not provide an excuse in law for non-compliance with rules and regulations. It is true that some of the reporting rules in relation to annual reports and audits can be a burden and sometimes require professional advice and assistance. The amendments seek to ease these burdens.

The action plan identifies several issues that required further consideration and consultation with stakeholders. These include revised financial and annual reporting requirements, appropriate thresholds for audit requirements and external dispute resolution mechanisms. In particular I would like to mention some of the reforms that go to the establishment of dispute resolution procedures. The present act has very little in the way of a process for resolving disputes. These

amendments will incorporate a mediation process that will allow for speedy resolutions.

The bill also merges the roles of public officer and secretary of an incorporated association. The public officer is responsible for the lodgement of relevant documents with the registrar and acts as the primary contact point for the incorporated association. Often the registrar is the last person to know about the changes to the membership of a committee of management, usually because public officers fail to notify the registrar of a change in their address or newly appointed public officers fail to notify the registrar that they have taken on this role. This creates enormous difficulties for the registrar, who has a duty to advise associations of their legal reporting requirements. Without the right information as to who holds what position within the organisation, the registrar has an impossible task.

To remedy these problems, the amendments repeal references to the position of public officer and provide that the secretary of an incorporated association will assume all roles currently undertaken by the public officer. This amendment will vastly improve communications between the registrar and incorporated associations and also provide for accurate and up-to-date contact information in the register of incorporated associations.

Disputes in not-for-profit charities commonly arise out of a lack of consultation. Because the vast majority of elected board officials are not paid employees, they sometimes make arbitrary changes without consulting anyone. The amendments prescribe a code of conduct for all board members, paid or otherwise. Members will be able to access information about their incorporated association and its operations. Accurate minutes of board meetings and annual general meetings will be provided to members on request. Financial records will also be available on request. This will instil and foster a culture of accountability by the board to its membership.

These amendments aim to resolve and clearly define the expectations and rights of ordinary members to access information about the organisation to which they too are giving their time and money. The bill includes a provision granting qualified privilege to statutory managers, administrators and auditors appointed in accordance with the act. Qualified privilege provides a statutory defence in circumstances where a statement, whether written or oral, might otherwise be perceived as defamatory. As general meetings have been known to become quite heated, with many words being spoken that perhaps in hindsight should not have been said, this is a necessary protective measure.



The bill also introduces new provisions that will enable small incorporated associations with surplus assets of less than $10 000 to apply to the registrar for voluntary cancellation of their incorporation, thereby removing the necessity for these associations to appoint a liquidator.

There are many thousands of charities that perform marvellous services for the community and there are many wonderful individuals who give time, effort and money to help other people who are less fortunate than themselves. The bill seeks to assist those volunteers who are taking on the job of running a corporate structure by providing clear and specific rules and instructions so that they understand their legal and financial responsibilities both to the members of the organisation they lead and to the state government that assists them with assets and grants. Through this bill the Victorian government is supporting and developing voluntary organisations, encouraging them to operate in a friendly but transparent way and putting in place rules that everyone is able to understand and comply with. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Associations Incorporation Amendment Bill, the main objective of which is to implement a review of the Associations Incorporation Act 1981.

Before I speak about the specifics of this bill it is prudent at the outset to give a brief background to it. Governance of associations is a big issue in our community and can often lead to significant and protracted conflict between groups and factions. At this point I should debunk Mr Guy’s assertions, but I will not; I will push on. As a member of Parliament I have had many people approach me requesting intervention in disputes associated with incorporated associations, but being the consummate politician I am I have managed to steer clear of this minefield. However, this bill will bring clarity to the area of associations and incorporation.

The Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (AIA) was established to provide a simple and inexpensive means by which unincorporated, not-for-profit associations could obtain corporation status. The AIA essentially regulates the creation, operation and dissolution of incorporated associations and is the most popular vehicle for the incorporation of community and non-profit groups in Victoria.

The reforms implemented by this bill have been the subject of wide consultation and detailed analysis. A public review of the AIA commenced in 2000 with a former colleague of ours, Ms Dianne Hadden, and a

number of reforms to the act were proposed by the interim report of the review, which was released in 2005. The government has adopted a two-staged approach to implementing the reforms of the act, of which this bill is stage 1. The action plan identified a number of issues that required further consideration and consultation with stakeholders, including revised financial reporting requirements, appropriate thresholds for audit requirements and external dispute resolution mechanisms. Those measures are not addressed in this bill; they will be the subject of further consideration later in the year.

This bill introduces a range of amendments to the act. I will take a minute to go through them briefly, then I will speak about two of those amendments in greater detail. One of the amendments is to enhance the rights of members of incorporated associations. Another amendment is to improve internal governance for incorporated associations, and that is one that I will speak more about later in my contribution. A further amendment enhances the supervisory role of the registrar of incorporated associations, and yet another will improve the provisions relating to the voluntary winding up and external and internal administration of incorporated associations. Finally, the last amendment is to introduce a number of minor administrative amendments.

One amendment that I said I would speak about in greater detail concerns the merging of the roles of public officer and secretary of an incorporated association. Under the existing provision of the AIA the public officer is responsible for the lodgement of relevant documents with the registrar and acts as the primary contact point for the incorporated association. However, in many instances public officers fail to notify a change of address or newly appointed public officers fail to notify the registrar that they have taken on this role. This creates difficulties for the registrar when the association needs to be advised of matters such as changes to the law, changes to procedures or lodgement of documents or a reminder to lodge financial statements. The relevant contact person is often difficult to locate.

In order to address these issues the amendment will repeal references to the position of public officer and provide that the secretary of an incorporated association will assume all roles currently undertaken by the public officer. In my experience many people have approached me about these matters. My view is that it is superfluous to have a public officer and a secretary. That model confuses people, and I have never been clear on what the role of a public officer is and where a secretary’s role kicks in. That is a common source of

MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND BILL


confusion in the community as well. For many incorporated associations the secretary of the committee is responsible on a day-to-day basis for the paperwork of the association and is a member of the management committee of the association, and it is sensible to combine this role with that of the public officer for the purposes of the act. This will eliminate some of the confusion that exists in the community.

A further change amends the schedule of the act to include additional mandatory rules. This amendment will improve the rights of members to access information about their incorporated association and its operations. The bill will amend the schedule to the act to provide that the rules of an incorporated association must provide for the preparation and retention of accurate minutes of general meetings of the association and of meetings of the committee or other body of management of the incorporated association. In addition the rules will be required to specify the rights and procedures for members to examine or obtain copies of the minutes of meetings and the accounting records and financial statements of the incorporated association.

Currently many incorporated associations do not keep accurate minutes of meetings, nor do they provide access to them for members. Requiring the rules of an incorporated association to set out clear statements of members’ rights of access to accurate minutes of meetings is designed to enhance member control and participation in the association and should assist in reducing the number of disputes in the community.

In conclusion, this bill forms part of the Victorian government’s commitment to developing and supporting our community and our voluntary and not-for-profit organisations. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — By leave, I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

In doing so I thank all members for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.


Second reading

Debate resumed from 12 March; motion of Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change).

Mr DALLA-RIVA (Eastern Metropolitan) — On behalf of the opposition I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Melbourne Cricket Ground Bill 2008.

The bill re-enacts and provides for the law relating to the Melbourne Cricket Ground by repealing a number of acts: the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1951, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Trustees) Act 1957, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1983, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1984, the Melbourne Cricket Ground (Guarantees) Act 1984 and the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust Act 1989. It also makes consequential amendments to various other acts. The bill repeals seven existing acts and consolidates the existing provisions of the MCG legislation that are required into the future with limited changes.

Although some provisions in this bill are very similar to the current legislation, for the purposes of this bill there are three key areas of change to the existing provisions. The first is the provision of an additional function for the MCG Trust to allow it to provide the minister, on request, with advice about matters relating to the construction and management of major sports facilities such as stadiums and the management of major events. There is an issue with how that information is requested. There is some concern from our side of the house about how that information will be dealt with by the minister. Will it be an open and transparent process? Will the information provided to the minister be made available in some form, or will it be subject to an FOI process that might take five years or so? There are some issues there. That concern extends to matters relating to the management and construction of major sports facilities.

The second of the three areas of change relates to the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the MCG’s name. Clause 27 on page 18 of the bill is headed ‘Commercial exploitation of name prohibited’. It states:

A person, in the course of a trade or business, must not assign the name “Melbourne Cricket Ground” or the initials “MCG” as the name, or part of the name, of any place that is not the Ground, or a part of the Ground, unless authorised by the Trust.



I note the significance of the penalties, being 100 penalty units for a natural person and 600 penalty units for a body corporate, which would be a business or corporation or similar. That extends the protection, and we support that.

The third of the three key areas of change in the bill relates to the updating of provisions that will authorise the trust to replace, remove, refurbish or upgrade the floodlight towers. The ground was subject to planning laws, but clause 28 of the bill states:

Nothing in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or in any planning scheme made under that Act applies to the development or use of any spectator stand on the Ground.

Clause 29(1) states:

Despite anything to the contrary in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or in any planning scheme made under that Act, the Trust may —

(a) replace, remove, refurbish or upgrade the floodlight towers on the Ground; and

(b) operate the floodlights affixed to those floodlight towers.

That gives the MCG Trust a bit more surety in establishing some level of self-control in terms of what it can do to the ground without having to go through an onerous process. Years ago when the Melbourne Cricket Ground was established there would have been significant planning issues. It is fair to say that the ground itself, the buildings, the light towers, the car parks and the facilities are now in a position where they do not need separate planning laws. The trust ought to be able to make reasonable planning replacements. I do not think it will be ripping down parts of the ground without some need to go to a planning authority to undertake those actions. The third key area of change is supported by members on this side of the chamber.

In passing I note that the bill updates the protection from legal action in relation to the floodlights, as provided for in section 4 of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1984. Other minor changes in the legislation include the circumstances in which trustees can be removed, and the adjustment of provisions in relation to the trust’s annual report. Those changes are detailed briefly in the legislation.

I understand a late amendment was made to the bill in the Assembly to give greater certainty to the Melbourne Cricket Club. There needs to be some certainty for the Melbourne Cricket Club but also for the various football clubs that utilise the ground.

It is fair to say that this facility is the foundation for Victoria being seen as the events capital of the world. It really is the focus of major sporting events. It is a focal point. It lights up Melbourne when football games or cricket matches are being played or other activities such as concerts and the like are taking place at night. It is a wonderful ground. This bill will repeal the seven existing acts governing its management and consolidate their provisions into this one piece of legislation.

As I said, the only issue we have is with the capacity of the minister to have information provided to him. The bill is straightforward. It consolidates a range of provisions. Clause 4 establishes the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust. The grant of the ground to the trust is set out in clause 5. Essentially the bill details how the trust can be established. Clause 6(1) makes very clear where this legislation intends this to go. It states:

(1) The functions of the Trust are —

(a) to manage, control and make improvements to the Ground at the Trust’s discretion; and

(b) to carry out any other function conferred on or given to the Trust by or under this Act or any other Act; and

(c) upon the request of the Minister, to provide to the Minister advice in relation to —

(i) the construction and management of sporting facilities; or

(ii) the management of major sporting events.

This establishes the authority of the trust in terms of moving forward.

I touched before on the issue of the light towers under clause 29. Clause 30 is headed ‘Ministerial determination in relation to floodlights’, and clause 30(1) states:

The Minister may make a determination specifying a day or days on which the floodlights affixed to the floodlight towers may be operated.

Hopefully there will not be an issue in the future where the lights have to be turned off at a certain time. The local residents will now see a new authority being conferred on the minister, or at least being made clearer in one piece of legislation. We need to ensure that the light towers are allowed to be utilised for major events, for the football or for the cricket, so that the literally hundreds of thousands of people who attend these games each year — —

Mr Finn interjected.

ADJOURNMENT


Mr DALLA-RIVA — I think you are right, Mr Finn. In terms of football and cricket, it is probably getting close to millions who attend just this one ground. As I said before, this is an important piece of legislation to ensure the continued operation of the ground and its floodlights. It is good to see the provision in clause 32 relating to no injunction or other relief because a person replaces, removes, refurbishes or upgrades the floodlight towers or operates the floodlights affixed to the floodlight towers in accordance with this bill. That is important because the last thing we need is for one person to be able to disrupt an event that has the potential to bring in hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy the major events and the spectacle that is the MCG. As I indicated, the MCG is the reason Victoria is the events capital of the world. For that reason, the opposition will be supporting the bill.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT — Order! The question is:

That the house do now adjourn.

Housing: Parkside estate, Shepparton

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) — The matter I wish to raise is for the attention of the Minister for Housing. It is about the failure of the neighbourhood renewal program to deliver improved social and economic outcomes for the residents of Parkside estate in Shepparton. My request is for the minister to meet with residents of Parkside estate immediately, and to urgently implement a plan to address the chronic violence, vandalism, crime, unemployment and other social issues that are still prevalent in this neighbourhood renewal site.

Initially this project was to cost $5 million. It then blew out to $13 million, then to $18 million, and last week we heard that $28 million has been spent on the project so far. Unfortunately we cannot see that much has been achieved from this expenditure, other than a few new front fences, carports and a new park that the minister opened last week. The promised employment programs have failed and residents are scared to leave their homes at night due to the violence and crime in the neighbourhood.

Unfortunately the Brumby government’s Parkside neighbourhood renewal project has proved to be nothing more than an attempt to disguise the underlying problems of the estate; and its major achievement has

been to produce 29 feelgood media releases for the government and a handful of media stunts, like the minister’s visit last week.

As I said, $28 million supposedly has been spent on this project. The minister claims this funding has produced just 25 jobs — that is a staggering $1.12 million per job. But there is no evidence to prove if these jobs were long term and whether they are still in existence. In fact it is highly unlikely given the estate’s employment programs, Kids and Cars and Just Romans, have failed and closed.

The community’s biggest concern is that neighbourhood renewal has done very little to address the real problems in Parkside estate, the social problems that stem from disadvantage. Crime is still rife in Parkside estate, with young children committing acts of vandalism and some residents too afraid to leave their homes at night.

The residents have put forward solutions that they believe would deliver results for their community, such as establishing a youth group to help reduce the crime and antisocial behaviour, but so far the government has failed to listen. When the Minister for Housing, Mr Wynne, visited Parkside estate last week a group of residents approached him with a list of their concerns. The minister reportedly told the residents he was shocked to learn about the problems in the estate. I do not know how the minister can make this claim when I have made many representations to the minister regarding the social problems and disadvantages that still exist in the estate, including Hansard entries as recent as 4 February 2009 and 12 November 2008. Perhaps the minister is just not listening, or perhaps he just does not care.

During his visit the minister committed to a further meeting with concerned residents. My request is for the minister to honour his commitment to meet with residents of Parkside estate immediately, and to urgently implement a plan to address the chronic violence, vandalism, crime, unemployment and other social issues that are still prevalent in this neighbourhood renewal site.

Melbourne Wholesale Fish Market: relocation

Mr HALL (Eastern Victoria) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Agriculture, and it concerns the future of the Melbourne Wholesale Fish Market. The minister at the table, Mr Jennings, would be aware that this is not the first time that I have raised this matter. It was in October of last year when the Parliament was sitting in Lakes Entrance that I

ADJOURNMENT


raised the matter, given the importance of the matter to the fishing fleet at Lakes Entrance. We could add Corner Inlet, San Remo, Portland, Hobart and Port Lincoln, and I suspect also many other ports and fishing fleets around Victoria that utilise that facility to sell their product. I am told the Melbourne Wholesale Fish Market has something like 200 direct employees on site and around 400 businesses buy direct from the market, including other wholesalers, retailers, supermarkets and restaurants.

The fish market is an important facility. It was due to close originally on 31 March, which was yesterday. I understand now that the period has been extended to 30 June, but that leaves precious little time for the development of an alternative wholesale market.

Again I call on the government to work with the industry in Victoria towards the establishment of a new market. It seems to me that the immediate solution would be to extend the time for the closure of the site on which the fish market exists. I also understand VicTrack does not have an urgent need for that particular land, so the time could be extended for a number of years while industry and government work together to find a satisfactory long-term solution. I call on the Minister for Agriculture to start that process.

Northern Victoria Region: health services

Ms DARVENIZA (Northern Victoria) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health, Daniel Andrews. The matter I wish to raise concerns the issue of access to high-quality medical equipment and facilities in regional Victoria, particularly in my electorate.

Mr Hall — On a point of order, President, I thought my time went quickly, and I see that the clock is starting at 1 minute 30 for Ms Darveniza rather than the scheduled 3 minutes for the adjournment debate. I think I was cut short to 90 seconds as well. I am not asking for extra time for myself, but for Ms Darveniza and others I hope the time can be rectified.

The PRESIDENT — Order! Ms Darveniza will continue; we will investigate the matter.

Ms DARVENIZA — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Health, Daniel Andrews. The matter I raise concerns the issue of access to high-quality medical equipment and facilities in regional Victoria, particularly in my electorate of Northern Victoria.

As a former nurse, I worked in the health sector in regional Victoria, and I understand all too well the

importance of patients being able to access medical equipment and facilities that can provide a diagnosis quickly for their illness, and also treatment as close as possible to where a person lives. This alleviates any additional stress and anxiety that might be associated with having to travel long distances to access the equipment so that a diagnosis can be made or to access the facilities required to get the best possible treatment.

Since 1999 the Labor government has more than doubled the funding of Victoria’s health services. In fact there is not a single hospital in the state that has not received an increase in funding every year since the government came to office in 1999. The government has also invested $4.1 billion right across Victoria in the largest capital works program this state has ever seen.

Given the government’s commitment to investing in Victoria’s health services, my specific request is that the minister take action to ensure the provision of funding for the upgrading of medical equipment to the health services in northern Victoria, so that we can continue to provide quality care and services to the constituents of my electorate.

Rail: Freight Futures strategy

Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Public Transport concerning the failure of the government’s rail freight strategy. The strategy, put into effect with the buyback of the rural rail network from Pacific National in 2007, was designed to make rail freight more competitive and in particular encourage bulk transport by rail — presumably with the objective of avoiding further road congestion. The government’s Freight Futures strategy, released only in December, reinforced that approach. It has not worked, and Freight Futures will make no difference.

Over the two years since the buyback there has been a significant drop in rail freight traffic in all areas of the state. This hit home in the east of the state — ominously, on Friday, 13 March — when the contract to transport logs from Bairnsdale to the Midway plant at Geelong was terminated as a result of Pacific National seeking to impose a 65 per cent increase in freight charges.

The transport of East Gippsland logs by rail has been operating effectively since 1999. As a consequence Midway has been forced to use road transport, a move that has had a significant impact on the movement of heavy transport on the Princes Highway throughout Gippsland, through Melbourne, over the West Gate

ADJOURNMENT


Bridge and on to Geelong. Previously, an average four trains a week, each carrying 1000 tonnes of logs, made the trip in the middle of the night to avoid disruption to passenger trains on the Gippsland line, suburban services and services to Geelong. The shift to road transport has added some 100 B-double trucks a week to the traffic load on the Princes Highway.

The government has a policy to keep bulk freight off our already congested roads. It owns the country rail lines through VicTrack, and it has a responsibility, in the public interest, to ensure road safety and community amenity. The policy has demonstrably failed. The situation with log freight also suggests the same fate could be in store for the 120 000 to 150 000 tonnes of pulp and paper a year that currently goes by rail from the Latrobe Valley to Melbourne.

I therefore request that the minister act to implement a more practical strategy that facilitates the maximum use of rail for bulk freight movement throughout Victoria.

Rail: public safety

Ms HARTLAND (Western Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky. Colin, an old friend of mine, is vision impaired. Each day he and his guide dog, Gus, travel from Barwon Heads to the city for his job. He emailed me today, and I have checked with him to make sure that it is all right for me to read this out tonight. He said:

Whilst I have been annoyed for years at the poor service of both Connex and V/Line my annoyance is rapidly transforming to fear.

Last evening at Flinders Street I caught a train from platform 1 (Epping 4.23) and had the doors slammed on me and my guide dog as we were in the process of boarding.

This morning on Southern Cross Station at 7.46 platform 10 the doors were slammed on people alighting from the service with still at least a dozen to alight and as many to board the train. It appeared that the driver was making frantic attempts to close the door of the train and depart. Once again my guide dog and myself were trapped in the door.

I would appreciate it if you could make inquiries from the minister as to whether the department or Connex has ordered drivers to slam doors on passengers in an attempt to get punctuality numbers up.

The action I ask of the minister is to investigate this dangerous situation and to take action so that it does not happen again.

Bushfires: appeal fund

Mrs KRONBERG (Eastern Metropolitan) — My matter is directed to the Premier. It is derived from an impassioned letter from one of my constituents. This individual highlights what he describes as an unprincipled and unsavoury situation. Central to the understandable concern expressed by him is the question of bushfire grants for house repairs and reconstruction. On this government’s bushfire website the emphasis is on funding being made available for the principal place of residence. Owners of holiday homes are affected by what is clearly an iniquitous situation. Many have worked hard to secure often humble family holiday homes in places like Marysville, and now they are apparently excluded from government grants to restore their treasured places of respite.

Many Victorians are appalled by the discrimination holiday home owners are experiencing. As we all know, people with holiday homes often make valuable and ongoing contributions to the local community. The very economy of the fire-ravaged districts would be quite dependent on their purchasing power and their record of using local tradespeople. Holiday home owners also pay rates. Their involvement in communities can span decades, and their commitment is often passed down through the generations. In hamlets and small towns, holiday home owners would provide diversity and increased demand for local produce and the uptake of services.

One is forced to conclude that this government is intent on discouraging these former long-term, part-time residents from returning. The politics of envy seem to apply here. I expect there will be howls of protests from government members that this is not the case, but where the rubber hits the road there is no other conclusion to draw. I feel that the donors to the bushfire relief fund would be equally horrified to discover that the results of their overwhelming generosity are being put through a filtration process. There should be no discrimination as to how relief funds for reconstruction are allocated. The generosity directed by so many Australians and our supporters overseas had no caveats attached. Money was donated to comfort Victorians suffering from horrendous losses and to restore what the national estate has lost to the conflagration.

I ask the Premier to revise the policy that denies grants to Victorians affected in this way to ensure that this discriminatory anomaly is overturned.

ADJOURNMENT


Penguins: St Kilda colony

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. On 21 November 2007 I raised with the minister the issue of the safety of the little penguin colony on the St Kilda breakwater. I mentioned then that the main threats to the health and welfare of St Kilda’s little penguins are human interference, dog attacks and exposure to pollutants in the water. Since then, 40 million cubic metres of contaminated sediments have been dredged from the Yarra River and dumped on the sea floor about halfway between Mordialloc and Werribee.

The independent panel which inquired into the supplementary environment effects statement for the channel-deepening project (CDP) recommended that the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PMC) strengthen relevant clauses to ensure that the health status of the little penguin colony at St Kilda is monitored during and after dredging. The Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, accepted this recommendation, saying, ‘It is my assessment that PMC monitor the health status of the St Kilda penguin colony both during and for at least one year after the completion of CDP dredging’. To date, no such monitoring of the St Kilda penguins by the PMC has occurred, despite clear evidence that they feed in the very areas affected by the recent dredging of contaminated sediments.

Whilst it is acknowledged that weights are being monitored in a sub-population of Phillip Island penguins, this data is not only irrelevant but completely deceptive. Only about half of the Phillip Island penguins venture into Port Phillip Bay, and when they do it is for only six months of the year. The St Kilda penguins live in the bay for 365 days a year. Using Phillip Island penguins to gauge the impacts of dredging on little penguins guarantees inconclusive results and may lead to poor decisions about the implications of dredging due to misinformation.

The little penguin is a high-order consumer in the marine food web. Recent analysis of mercury in the pre-dredge feathers of St Kilda little penguins detected concentrations higher than levels that are considered dangerous for many birds. Contaminant concentrations can easily be measured in the St Kilda penguin colony by non-invasive feather-sampling techniques. Current reference indicators are well established. This would provide a robust and complementary assessment of environmental conditions to which other organisms, including humans, are exposed.

My request is that the minister provide adequate funding for feather analysis and for a full analysis of penguins that have died post-dredging to assess contaminants in St Kilda little penguins in collaboration with Earthcare St Kilda, whose members have been monitoring and studying the St Kilda little penguin colony for 23 years.

Crime: Albert Park and Bentleigh electorates

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and is in regard to the issue of crime statistics in the Albert Park and Bentleigh electorates. The issue is about the detail of crime statistics that the Brumby government makes publicly accessible.

It is disturbing to note that in recent years there has been a sharp increase in serious and violent crime across Victoria. The following statistics in Victoria are of particular concern to me: 3000 gang attacks were committed in 2008; the number of attacks by groups of two or more people has increased nearly 50 per cent in the past four years; and the number of attacks by unknown assailants has doubled in the past four years to more than 6000. Attacks leading to the following injuries have doubled since 2000: unconsciousness, fractures and serious internal injuries. The number of victims classified as having serious injuries increased from 1564 in 1999–2000 to 3300 in 2008, which was an increase of 1736.

In the annual release of statistics by Victoria Police, violent crimes are not identified any more specifically geographically than by local government area. I have tried, through questions on notice, to get some statistics that are specific to individual suburbs such as St Kilda and Bentleigh, but I was told by the minister that my request ‘represents an unreasonable diversion of resources’. The annual release also does not contain the detail I previously nominated, such as the number of victims classified as having serious injuries — for example, it will simply have ‘assaults’.

As I said in a contribution earlier today, the Brumby government prides itself on its openness and transparency. I do not believe the statistics are giving an open and transparent view into assaults in this state, certainly not by suburb area, so that we can build proper policies to develop strategies to deal with these issues. I would like to know what the Brumby government is hiding. This non-disclosure is another admission that the government is ashamed of its record on crime fighting and on protecting St Kilda and Bentleigh residents. The minister knows his

ADJOURNMENT


government has neglected the people of St Kilda and Bentleigh, but he does not want to take responsibility for the failure.

The action I seek is that the minister, as a matter of urgency, ensures detailed crime statistics are released for individual suburbs so that an accurate picture of crime problem areas can be ascertained.

Remar Australia: Kinglake rehabilitation facility

Mr GUY (Northern Metropolitan) — Tonight I raise an issue for the Minister for Mental Health, the Honourable Lisa Neville. It concerns the Remar drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinic. Remar was located north of Kinglake. I say ‘was’, because it was a victim of the Black Saturday bushfires. The seven buildings that formed the small community on the Melbourne Water land were a long-term residential rehabilitation clinic for men suffering drug or alcohol abuse issues. The facility offered a Christian-based approach to rehabilitation and was run by Luis and Karina Brito, whose four children also lived on site.

Luis and Karina usually had 17 to 20 men at a time on site and over the years have treated well over 600 people through their care. The isolation of the facility allowed the Britos to offer a facility where recovering men could occupy their time restoring the old buildings, tending to the fabulous gardens on the site and re-engaging their spiritual wellbeing.

It was a terrific place for a rehabilitation centre and Luis and Karina put their heart and soul into the facility and the people who went through, despite the fact that they did not own the buildings. Remar was run with genuine care for those who were at the facility. As I have said, as a result of Black Saturday the facility was lost. The magnificent gardens had a myriad plant species which were destroyed and the heritage buildings were burnt to the ground, so Luis and Karina have to start again from scratch. Tonight, on behalf of Remar, I seek assistance from the minister.

Down the road from Remar is a well-known Christian mission organisation called MMM Australia. It too was burnt out, although not entirely. The MMM site is located on the Kinglake Road, north of Humevale. It is not far from Remar in real terms and could be used as a new base to get Remar up and running again. But like many community facilities destroyed by the fires in February, Remar needs financial help. It needs help to relocate to the MMM site and to possibly get some financial assistance to buy the burnt site from MMM

Australia, which has advised Remar that it is willing to sell.

If Remar were able to relocate, the men who were at Remar at the time of the fires may be able to return from their current private care, where they are unsupervised and have access to government grants, to a supervised care facility where rehabilitation could be offered. But Remar needs financial help.

Tonight I ask the minister to help Remar. I ask the minister to have her department directly intervene to negotiate an outcome so that this land can be purchased for Remar and it can relocate and continue the care it offers to men with drug and alcohol rehabilitation issues. I understand the minister would have many similar requests, but this one is getting urgent and thus I plead for her speedy action on this issue.

Queenscliff: safe harbour

Mr KOCH (Western Victoria) — My matter is for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and relates to the impact on seaside communities where foreshore land is being leased to private enterprise. The Queenscliff community is being left in the lurch by the Brumby government as the commercial realities of building a safe harbour in the town come to light.

At a public meeting held in Queenscliff last week members of the town’s recreational groups, businesses and sporting communities condemned the state government and Parks Victoria for selling out to a private monopoly in the form of a safe harbour. Public land is being divided up on long-term leases and everyone, bar the government and the safe harbour operators, Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd, have been hung out to dry. We have a community at Queenscliff, including commercial fishermen, dive boat operators and recreational users, whose needs are being ignored. Even the local municipality, the Borough of Queenscliffe, has expressed the notion that it may also have been sold a pup.

This safe harbour project will raise berth fees for boats in the town fourfold and force local business to cease and set up elsewhere. Many have tried to work with the safe harbour operators to improve berth facilities, but it just has not happened. The facilities are not what was expected, and businesses have been asked to pay up-front. The community is not getting what it wants, although it is being asked to pay considerably more. Queenscliff had the potential to be the diving capital of the state, but that potential will be squeezed out by overcommercialisation of the safe harbour. My office

ADJOURNMENT


was contacted by Queenscliff businessmen after rumours began circulating that local businesses would close beyond 2011 as fees became unviable.

I am also concerned that local businesses are being forced to cut corners to avoid the spiralling costs associated with the commercial monopoly granted to safe harbour operators. It has been determined that refuelling from harbour facilities will see significant surcharges imposed. In an endeavour to avoid these charges, boat owners, including commercial operators, are transporting their own fuel at possible risk to public safety or are refuelling elsewhere.

Residents and businesses alike have been asking the Bracks and Brumby governments questions about this for years. What they have got in return amounts to nothing more than lip-service. My request for the minister is: will the government now accept this community’s point of view and stop working so hard to deny businesses and job survival, but listen and act to resolve this detrimental situation that will cost this coastal community dearly.

City of Kingston: waste disposal

Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) — I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. I was going to raise this matter this morning as part of my 90-second statement, but the events of the house overtook the opportunity. I refer briefly to the April edition of the newsletter journal Kingston Your City which airs some views in relation to the problems plaguing the northern part of the city of Kingston of the off-site impact, loss of amenity and other problems in relation to landfill at various sorts of management and waste facilities.

There is a litany of problems, some of them stemming from illegal dumping of waste and others from the lack of enforcement of licence conditions of various operations, be they landfill or other waste management facilities. Despite the very best efforts of the City of Kingston, it has not really got on top of the problem. I would like the minister to enlist the assistance of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). I know the minister has done some good work in the past, responding to the need to audit various landfill facilities for methane gas leaks, and that was commendable, especially following the Stevensons Road landfill crisis.

We need the assistance of the EPA. Some of the problems are significant — for example, Heatherton Hill, a landfill operated by Transpacific Industries Group which has purchased a number of waste facilities in the Heatherton, Dingley and Clarinda area, has

erected a mound that is probably over 100 feet high. The dust that sweeps across the suburbs is substantial and significant, and that has an impact on the amenity and the health of residents. I was contacted by a woman who talked to me about the problems her husband was having as a result of some serious breathing conditions. There is also the impact on the roads, in particular Old Dandenong Road, where dust makes it dangerous for drivers. But really the City of Kingston does not have the ability to enforce the licence conditions or to act on the illegal dumping of waste which seems to be prevalent.

I know the minister can be very diligent in these matters. I would like him to use his influence with the EPA to undertake that investigation and take some action to ensure that the illegal dumping is stopped and to ensure that the licence conditions at the various tips or other waste disposal facilities are enforced appropriately to protect the community.

Gaming: poker machines

Mrs PETROVICH (Northern Victoria) — My matter today is for the Minister for Gaming and concerns the worrying increase in gaming expenditure, particularly through pokies, at a time when many Victorians are facing financial hardship. Electronic gaming machines are a deep, dark well, and they con participants into playing them even though they do not know the rules and do not understand how the odds are stacked against them.

There are many issues that need to be addressed as science takes each new generation of machines further into our mind space; the machines all have a view of taking more of our money. Today I want to focus in particular on the safety of electronic gaming machines and how this government has failed to protect consumers against the hidden traps of pokies.

The latest figures from the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation reveal some frightening trends. Despite the current economic hardships facing country Victorians, annual expenditure put through pokies in Victoria is more than $2.5 billion, with country Victoria responsible for $540 million — that is, $639 per adult per year in Melbourne and $505 per adult per year in country Victoria.

In Mitchell shire, where my office is located, poker machine expenditure increased by $680 000 to over $15.2 million in 2007–08. In Macedon Ranges, where I live, the net expenditure has increased by almost 10 per cent and exceeds $9 million. This proves poker machines are the only winners. The reason they are

ADJOURNMENT


winning is that their owners are investing millions of dollars to delve into the psyche of gamblers, be they problem gamblers or the occasional flutterers — for example, Aristocrat’s 2008 profit and loss statement shows that it spent in excess of $115 million last year on research and development. Let me assure members that this money is being spent on researching and developing more profitable and more addictive machines.

I understand new poker machines are coming out now with more feminine spiritual symbols. Their colour tends to be pink, purple or light blue. They are designed specifically to tap into the growth of community interest in things spiritual and New Age, incorporating ritual and religious themes and symbols. This parallels the current growth in retail sales of healing stones, crystals et cetera. A lot of it is designed specifically to attract middle-aged ladies — a key target market.

These machines are not designed on a whim, but they are based on scientific data that is being collected every time someone uses a pokie. Here in Victoria the government has allowed gaming machines to be owned and controlled by the gaming industry. As it stands the industry has sole access to the data being collected from each machine allowing a scientific analysis of the relationship between the machine’s characteristics and its users. There is a whole thesis on the correlation of these machines and their impact on the more vulnerable in our society. The focus should be on the product, the industry, the environment and the ultimate impact on our community.

The action I seek is for the minister to provide details of what he is doing to monitor the safety of poker machines, and in particular what plans he has to manage these most addictive machines.

Police: licensing services division

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It concerns a worrying situation in the licensing services division of Victoria Police. LSD, as it is known within the police force, covers the firearms and securities industry.

A situation has come to my attention. It occurred on, during or around October 2008. It involves a petition which was signed by some 20 LSD staff. This petition concerned a no-confidence view of the management of LSD. This petition was presented to senior management of Victoria Police, including the then Chief Commissioner of Police. That was where the problem started. At some stage around October last

year the petition disappeared from the drawer where it was kept.

What followed can only be described as a campaign of intimidation directed at the signatories. That campaign continued until all signatures were withdrawn from the petition. I am sure the house can see the concerns and worries that would have been caused by those who signed the petition and who would have known about it in that particular division. It is unhelpful for the work practices of the licensing services division of Victoria Police. It is even stranger when one considers that up until midnight last night the officer in charge of LSD was also the officer in charge of the ethical standards section of the police force — that of course is Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius.

I ask the minister — I am aware he knows of the incident — to conduct an urgent ministerial inquiry into this incident. I ask him to include in this inquiry the role of the former Chief Commissioner of Police, the current chief commissioner and an assistant commissioner, Luke Cornelius, in what can only be described as an act of bullying and intimidation within the senior section of Victoria Police.

Rail: Cardinia Road, Officer, station

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) — My adjournment matter this evening is for the attention of the Minister for Public Transport, Lynne Kosky. The adjournment issue flows from a letter I received from Minister Kosky on 11 March in response to correspondence from me. The state government in its transport plan released in December stated that the commencement of the Cardinia Road railway station construction would be brought forward from the period between 2011–16 to 2010. The expectation of all interested parties was that the 2010 commencement date for the railway station would mean completion would be in 2011 at some stage. The letter I received from the minister of 11 March states that construction will commence in 2010, with completion not expected until 2012–13.

The Cardinia Road railway station is not a complex project. By government standards it is a relatively small project; it is a greenfield site. I understand that planning is either complete or near complete. I cannot understand why it would take between two to three years to complete such a small project.

That also draws to my attention other like projects identified in the transport plan, such as the Caroline Springs station, which is identified as short term; the Lynbrook station, which is identified as short term; and

ADJOURNMENT


the Williams Landing station, which is identified as short term, as was the station at Cardinia Road.

The action I seek from the minister is to clarify, first of all, the definition of ‘short term’. Does it mean the same as the minister’s explanation in her letter to me with regard to Cardinia Road — that is, that it will be several years before any of these other stations are completed, notwithstanding when they may start?

The second action I wish the minister to take is to explain to me — and through me to other interested parties — why it may take up to three to four years to complete what is a relatively small project and whether or not that calls into question the government’s capacity to deliver complicated, large-scale projects in the time lines that have been envisaged under the transport plan. If it takes the government that long to deliver such a relatively small project, how can the public have confidence in the stated dates for completion of the complicated, large-scale infrastructure development projects that have been identified through the transport plan?

The third and perhaps most important action I seek from the minister with regard to this issue is for her to review the timetable for construction as outlined in her letter to me of 11 March with a view to expediting the delivery of the station in a more timely fashion.

Responses

Mr JENNINGS (Minister for Environment and Climate Change) — I have a number of responses to matters that were raised previously on the adjournment by Mr P. Davis on 3 February, by Mr D. Davis on 5 February, by Mr M. Viney on 5 February and by Mr D. Drum on 26 February.

I will refer to the relevant ministers the following matters that have been raised on the adjournment by the following members, with the exception of the ones I will respond to myself.

Wendy Lovell raised a matter for the attention of the Minister for Housing, noting that he was at Parkside estate last week visiting the community in relation to a neighbourhood renewal program. She has asked him to return to meet again with the residents to discuss a range of matters that she has put on the record tonight.

Peter Hall raised a matter for the Minister for Agriculture seeking his intervention to ensure the timely relocation of the wholesale fish market.

Kaye Darveniza raised a matter for the Minister for Health seeking his support for the delivery of

high-quality equipment to regional Victoria, in particular the Northern Victoria Region.

Philip Davis raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport seeking additional action from her to ensure the success of the government’s rail freight strategy to provide for bulk transport on the rail system.

Similarly, Colleen Hartland raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport seeking a review of the current train operations of Connex that may lead to passengers being stranded or caught within closing doors as they try to get on board trains within the metropolitan system. She drew attention to an alarming incident that occurred in the last 24 hours in which a traveller, Colin, and his guide dog may have been trapped as a result of such an event. Ms Hartland was seeking a review by the minister of those procedures.

Jan Kronberg raised a matter for the attention of the Premier seeking his support for guidance to be issued to the bushfire appeal process to provide relief for those in the community who may have lost their holiday homes. I remind Mrs Kronberg that in fact that fund is administered by an independent board which I am sure will take advice from the government but which makes decisions about the appropriateness of the relief that is provided to people within the Victorian community.

I also bring that matter to the attention of Mr Guy, although I will answer Mr Guy’s question as well. The issue that Mr Guy raised may deal with some remedies and some support from the bushfire appeal fund.

Sue Pennicuik raised for my consideration the matter of the threats to the little penguin population in St Kilda. She acknowledged that, as she and I have agreed previously, the major risks to that penguin population come from the inappropriate behaviour of humans who try to pursue these penguins from the land side and who are sometimes in the company of their pets, which may create difficulties for these penguins. Nonetheless, she was seeking some additional work to be undertaken to ensure the wellbeing of this penguin population. In raising the matter Ms Pennicuik acknowledged that an extensive program has already been undertaken as part of the environmental management program of the Port of Melbourne Corporation. I believe that is the appropriate regime by which this population’s wellbeing should be monitored. Ms Pennicuik asked me to intervene to provide some additional support. In the first instance I will be very keen, through the environmental monitor, to ensure that the program is undertaken with completeness to provide for the security of that population from waterside and marine impacts that may be associated with channel deepening.

ADJOURNMENT


Andrea Coote raised a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services seeking the availability of crime statistics, which I am sure are compiled and used by police command in the appropriate region to ascertain the levels of crime and to respond accordingly in the name of delivering community safety. Beyond this she is seeking the release of additional material to enable public scrutiny of these matters. That matter shall be passed on.

Matthew Guy raised a matter for the Minister for Mental Health and Minister for Community Services seeking her support to enable the re-establishment of the Remar alcohol and rehabilitation centre. I will draw the attention of the minister to that, but I also advise Mr Guy that the bushfire appeal may be able to provide relief to community organisations such as the one he is seeking support for.

David Koch raised a matter for my attention in relation to the significant safe harbour development that has occurred at Queenscliff. I refer him to the fact that this redevelopment has been delivered in the local community. It is a project worth more than $30 million, and it has provided significant employment opportunities for the community. I refer him to the fact that harbour fees for boats have been frozen at their current level and guarantees have been provided to the local community that those fees will not increase until 2011. I am also advised that the fuel provided within that safe harbour is provided to local operators at market rates. But at this very late stage, which coincides with the opening of this $30 million redevelopment that will provide safe harbour — it will live up to it its name in relation to the harbour and jetties which it has replaced — there is some community concern and agitation about whether the fee structure will be competitive compared to other bays and marines around the state. Notwithstanding the fact that I am advised it is intended that the cost structures will be very competitive and will lead to a higher utility rate within the local community, there are still community concerns. I know there are community concerns, and I am happy to listen to any legitimate ones and respond to them accordingly. But I am advised that in many of the issues that have been raised possibly a gift horse is being looked in the mouth in relation to this proposal. I am happy to work through any legitimate issue with the local community.

Inga Peulich raised a matter for my attention. I note her graciousness in relation to my determination to make sure that the Environment Protection Authority acquits its responsibilities in providing confidence to local communities about the calibre of landfills and the way they operate. She raised a number of issues that require

attention in the Kingston community. She has an undertaking from me that I will work with the EPA to try to provide additional confidence to the local community and the satisfactory delivery of environmental standards of landfills to that community.

Donna Petrovich raised a matter for the Minister for Gaming. She talked about the elaborate ways in which machine operators are trying to attract new aspects of the market, and they are very elaborate indeed. While many of us may not feel that we would ever be vulnerable to the attractions of poker machines, some unfortunate people in our community are inadvertently and inappropriately attracted to the bells and whistles and apparently some symbols as well. The Minister for Gaming will be made aware of some of the extra challenges that are confronting him in the regulation of the industry.

Mr Finn recounted a very elaborate story in relation to the wellbeing of the licensing services division of the police force. I will not make any comments apart from the comment I have just made in describing the elaborate story that Mr Finn outlined to the house. I will encourage the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to respond to it.

Mr O’Donohue raised a matter for the Minister for Public Transport, in effect seeking her support to build the Cardinia railway station at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding there were three categories of requests within it, that is in substance what he seeks from the minister.

The PRESIDENT — Order! The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 10:46 p.m.

parliamentary debates (hansard) · wednesday, 1 april 2009 council 1671 wednesday, 1 april 2009 the...

Documents