state bank victoria - parliament of victoria · state bank. i make it clear to him that the...

Questions without Notice 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 637

Wednesday, 4 April 1990

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 2.4 p.m. and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

STATE BANK VICTORIA Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I refer to the Treasurer possible further

liabilities of State Bank Victoria totalling up to another $800 million identified since completion of the bank auditors' report and arising out of the National Safety Council of Australia (Victorian Division), A vram, and other loans. Has the Treasurer received any information on the need for additional provisions for these matters and, if so, what is the expected position?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-The Leader of the Opposition is simply continuing his constant attacks on State Bank Victoria in an effort to destroy public confidence. The government has made its position very clear; what it is doing is ensuring that the State Bank remains a strong and important contributor to the State's economy, particularly for the tens of thousands of people who depend on the State Bank for their home loans and housing.

I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition is in no way supportive of the State Bank. I make it clear to him that the government has acted so far as Tricontinental Corporation Ltd is concerned and that the State Bank is now in a healthy position. We expect that the bank will continue in its efforts, together with the government, to ensure that it plays a major part in Victorian banking.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-I refer the Treasurer to the

Baker report on agricultural research in Victoria, in which the honourable member for Sunshine recommends that the government should deny its policy against hypothecation of both capital assets and revenue through a five-year period of reconstruction. Is it the Treasurer's intention to accept that recommendation and, if not, why not?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I am delighted that the Leader of the National Party has read the report completed on behalf of the government by backbench members, in particular the honourable member for Sunshine. The report is being considered by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, who will at the appropriate time make recommendations not only to me but also to the government for consideration.

I should point out to the honourable member that from time to time hypothecated funds have been used for particular purposes. For example, some years ago funds from the sale of the St Nicholas Hospital site were specifically used for community houses in elect9rates around the State for the former residents of St Nicholas.

There have been individual instances where that has been proposed and accepted. The matter will be taken into consideration when the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs has completed his consideration of the report, and it will be considered on its merits at the time.

638 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Questions without Notice

VICTORIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION GRAND FINAL Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Northcote)-Will the Premier advise the House of the

outcome of discussions he initiated on behalf of the government about the staging of this year's Victorian Football Association grand final at Princes Park?

Mr CAIN (Premier)-This is a matter of some concern to a wide range of people. I can inform the House that I have spoken to the Lord Mayor, Cr Bill Deveney, and the Minister for Sport and Recreation has been involved in discussions with the Melbourne City Council. I believe there will be a satisfactory outcome. I think most honourable members in this place who represent metropolitan electorates believe VFA football reflects part of the community's interest and it should be accessible to the community; it is cheap entertainment and people like it. It is only.for one Sunday in a year and it is reasonable to ask that those who have concern about the use of Princes Park for football should have regard to that fact.

I believe next Monday the Melbourne City Council will confirm that the ground is available to the VF A. I understand the Australian Football League has given an assurance that it will not be seeking Sunday matches at Princes Park at any time in the next three years. That will be welcomed by the people in the area.

The VF A will benefit if its grand final can be achieved at Princes Park. The association has only one division now, where it used to have two divisions. I suppose it could be said that if it had five divisions one would have trouble finding a team in the fifth division that was as poor as that lot opposite!

The chairman of selectors for the Opposition, Mr Michael Kroger, will be having a good look at the team at preselection time, too!

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr CAIN-The shadow Cabinet's position looks pretty shaky, too! It would be lucky to get a game with the Manangatang thirds, if that is not being insulting to the Manangatang thirds.

I emphasise that the government is concerned to protect the interests of the people who live in the vicinity of Princes Park and it is also concerned about grassroots football. The Melbourne City Council controls Princes Park, and some people have suggested that its control should be taken away both from Princes Park and Yarra Park around the Melbourne Cricket Ground. I believe commonsense has prevailed in the use ofYarra Park and the MCG for football and other forms of entertainment and it will also prevail at Princes Park.

I congratulate and thank the Lord Mayor for his timely involvement. I should say I declare an interest in the subject as I speak as a patron of the VFA and Preston's No. 1 ticket holder; and I hope to see that team play at Princes Park on the third Sunday in September.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FINANCES Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-I direct a question to the Minister for Education.

Is it a fact that the Auditor-General has conducted special investigations into irregularities in the expenditure of$7·S million by the Ministry of Education for $oods certified as having been delivered but which in fact had not been delivered? If It is a fact, will the Minister inform the House when she became aware of this irregularity and why she allowed the statement of accounts to be improperly certified in the 1988-89 report of the Ministry of Education?


Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I thank the honourable member for his question. It should be of interest to all honourable members that for the first time in three years the education budget is totally on line. This has been achieved by great care being exercised by senior people in the education bureaucracy, by clear directions and by the allocation of resources to where resources oUght to be, that is, at the local school level.

The Auditor-General's investigations in my department are exactly the same as his investigations in any other department, and we will wait for the Auditor-General's report as other honourable members might well wait for the Auditor-General's report in order to get the answers that he will deliver in his report to Parliament in April.

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney)-I refer the Minister for Community Services to a press

release issued by her predecessor last week announcinJ' funding for the home and community care program-the HACC program-which Implied an increase in HACC funding for the current financial year. Will the Minister confirm that this is the same funding that was previously announced and that it will not become available until July 1990? Accordingly, will the Minister arrange immediate emergency funding with the Municipal Association of Victoria to alleviate the present financIal shortfall so that local councils can at least maintain existing services to the aged and disabled?

Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services)-I thank the honourable member for his question because it enables me to advise the House that the latest funding for home and community care programs is a new round of funding. It has been clearly indicated that this funding is additional money and it is not part of funding arrangements previously advised to the Municipal Association of Victoria.

The government has a good record of funding community services. The home and community care program, which has been developed by Labor governments at both the State and Federal levels is successful. It is largely responsible for bringing sensitive and needed pro~ms to people in their homes. I urge honourable members to advise their local munIcipalities of the new round of funding and encourage them to take part in the pre-funding arrangements so that they can obtain the benefits of the additional funding.

STATE DEBT Mr SEKCOMBE (Niddrie)-Will the Treasurer advise the House of details he has

received which indicate the outcome of efforts by the government to restrain the increase in State outlays?

Mr KOPEK (Treasurer)-I know that the House is interested in the State outlays of the government, particularly with regard to the latest publication, the publication selectively referred to by the honourable member for Brighton yesterday.

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate significant restraint in both recurrent and capital expenditure. State government outlays have increased by only 4·8 per cent. Commonwealth government outlays have increased by nearly 10 per cent, and some States have increased their outlays by significantly more than that.

The Victorian government has demonstrated a major commitment to restraint in its outlays of expenditure whereas other States and the Commonwealth have largely increased their capital expenditure. Victoria has reduced its capital outlays not only in real terms but also in dollar terms. The government will continue to exercise that


restraint and at the same time it will continue to ensure that services such as those in the social justice area are enhanced so that the living conditions of ordinary Victorians will continue to improve.

Compared with the Commonwealth government and other State governments the Victorian government is showing restraint in its activities, and it will continue to show restraint.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FINANCES Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-I direct a further question to the Minister for

Education and I ask: when did she become aware of a special internal audit investigation into financial irregularities and a report by Mr Neil Brown which was sent to the general manager of the Ministry and which relates to irregularities within the Ministry? When did she become aware of these internal audit reports? What action has been taken in response to those reports?

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-This side of the Chamber has great respect for the work of the Auditor-General. That work takes place in all departments, and in my department encompasses several issues-for example, the issues of increased expenditure on emergency teachers and expenditure in the works and services areawhich are part of the Auditor-General's normal reporting procedures.

In answering the honourable member's question I wilr certainly not pre-empt the report of the Auditor-General; he has not tabled his report on the Ministry in Parliament and he would not appreciate the disrespect being shown by the shadow Minister for Education for his role.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna)-Following recent announcements of new Ministerial

arrangements for education, will the Minister for Education advise the House of the implications of these changes for improving the links between secondary and postsecondary education?

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I thank the honourable member for her question and interest in the matter. It is significant in the restructure of the Cain government's Ministries that education, in all its facets, is now under one Minister. There are a number of important spin-oft's from those organisations being under one Minister, not the least of which is applicable to the honourable member for Swan Hill!

The first concerns the Budget process. There is now a real opportunity of ensuring that the marginal dollar is applied with flexibility across T AFE, further education and in the schools area. That flexibility will ensure that budgetary expenditure in the Ministry will reflect the aim of education: to ensure that everybody has lifelong opportunities of engaging in education or training.

The second important reason concerns industrial relations. It is crucial that there is one view of how industrial relations should be handled across the Ministry of Education. More importantly, in the industrial relations sense we can ensure that all Ministry personnel take part in reskilling programs.

The third reason concerns interface. Honourable members opposite often write to the Ministry asking why something has to be stuck in the schools sector when it should be in the T AFE sector, or vice versa. The important point about one Minister being responsible for education is that it will ensure that at last we can have proper linkages


between schools, T AFE and into further education. The whole area ofT AFE and skills development is essential for the future of the Australian economy.

I am interested in the lack of interest shown by some honourable members on the other side of the House. In many debates in this House they criticise the union movement, suggesting the union movement is concerned only with its own interests. In T AFE the lead in the national metals skills curriculum training courses has been taken by Laurie Carmichael, the former Assistant Secretary of the Amalgamated Metalworkers Union. He has taken the lead in ensuring that we have a national metals skills curriculum training exercise that will ensure improvement in our education system and greater productivity in our economy.

The fourth reason concerns teacher education. It is important that we ensure that education prepares young people for teaching in the next century. By putting postsecondary and school education together under the one Minister we will have the opportunity to ensure that through pre-service education, induction, professional development and post-initial courses and school industry exchanges we have firstclass teaching personnel right across the Ministry.

A single Ministry provides potential for major benefits in terms of budget, in terms of industrial relations--


Ms KIRNER-Y ou do not like it when we talk about new directions. The only thing you can cope with is slanging off at people.

The SPEAKER-Order! I suggest the Minister ignore interjections and address the Chair. The honourable member for Murray Valley should refer to Standing Order No. 107, and I further suggest that all honourable members remain silent while the Minister completes her reply.

Ms KIRNER-When one stands up in this House and talks about things that actually matter, people on the other side of the House do not want to listen. The Opposition does not have any clear policies at all in this area.

If I may return to the subject of the Ministry of Education, one Ministry under one Minister has advantages for the whole~ommunity both in economic and individual terms for budget planning, industrial refltions, the development of the economy and professional development, and provides an effective interface between all sections of education.

ST ALBANS SECONDARY COLLEGE Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-I refer the Minister for Education to the financial

scandal at St Albans Secondary College involving non-payment of creditors, possible misappropriation offunds and equipment and the attempt by her department to cover up that scandal. What action has the Minister taken to discipline those whose gross negligence and incompetence have led to the necessity of a $120 000 bail-out grant to that school?

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-Honourable members on the other side may well say "Ooh!" It is really remarkable that a person who pretends to be the shadow Minister for Education should drag the reputation of one school-a first-class school-through the mud. Ifhe had bothered to go and talk to the school council--



Ms KIRNER-Than if he did he would know the answer and would not be obliged to ask for it in Parliament.

The principal and the school council are well aware of the problems they face. I went to the school to open its new buildings and at that time I discussed with the principal and the school council how they would meet the losses that had resulted from inadequate financial action.

The answer to that is that they will be payin~ back the funds to the State over the next five years. Honourable members oPPOsIte ought to have a view about the importance of school-based decision making in the State. There are 2500 school councils that manage their own budgets-some of them are quite significant businesses. They are all volunteers, as the Premier said, and all worthy of much greater confidence and respect than the shadow Minister for Education is prepared to show them. He is an absolute disgrace and will be treated with the contempt he deserves by the schools for the attack he has made on one, when, if he knew the matter to be correct, he could have gone to the school council or come to me and said, "What are the arrangements for protecting the school and the students in it?

ROAD TOLL Mrs WILSON (Dandenong North)-My question is directed to the attention of

the Minister for Police and Emergency Services--

Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! Will the honourable member pause while the House comes

to order?

Mrs WlLSON-Will the Minister for Police and Emergency Services provide details to the House of what is bein~ done to promote government efforts to reduce the number of road deaths and injunes caused by speeding drivers?

Mr SANOON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-Today, with the Minister for Transport, I announced the next stage of the $25 million speed camera campaign, which is directed towards reducing the road toll. Last year 777 people were killed on Victorian roads. The government c9nsiders that figure to be inappropriate and maintains that it is time for serious actiojJl'to be taken. The speed camera campaign has been introduced and funding has been made available for new cameras that will come into use in the next two weeks. They will provide a major focus for attempts to convince motorists in this State to reduce speed.

Today the government announced a media campaign that concentrates on families and will be directed towards motorists who speed. The message that must be got across to people is, "If you speed, you are going to be caught. If you are caught-if you are a lead foot-you are going to lose your licence".

In relation to road deaths, speeding has been a major problem for too long. Mr Speaker, you would have read this morning a report about a panel van that went out of control. The two occupants and a small child were killed.

The advertisements that the government will run from now until and including the Easter holiday period will be very hard hitting. They are quite emotional and will be directed at trying to get people to be more responsible about the speed at which they drive. I saw the advertisements with my family. I say unashamedly that they brought a tear to my eye and made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. They are excellent in getting across the message, "If you speed, you are going to be caught, and if you are caught you are going to be fined and you will lose your licence" .

Petition 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 643

The government will continue this program and other efforts to reduce the road toll. The government is seeking to achieve a marked improvement by lowering the speed at which motorists travel. The target is to achieve a speed of 10 to 15 kilometres an hour lower than that at which motorists are travelling at present.

I hope the government has the support of all honourable members on this initiative. As I said, 777 deaths, which was the road toll last year, are too many. The toll is far too high for any reasonable community to accept. The government's view is that its initiatives, including the introduction of speed cameras, will reduce the number of deaths on Victoria's roads.

I commend the advertisements to all honourable members. I believe they will have a significant impact on the road toll.

PETITION

The Clerk-I have received the following petition for presentation to Parliament:

State Emergency Service funding To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT

ASSEMBLED:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria sheweth their great concern at the lack of funding provided by the State government for the volunteer units of the Victoria State Emergency Service.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will give urgent attention to providing additional funding for the volunteer units of the Victoria State Emergency Service so as to enable them to efficiently and safely carry out the statutory functions delegated to them under the Victoria State Emergency Service Act 1987.

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

By Mr Jasper (281 signatures)

It was ordered that the petition be laid on the table.

PAPER

The following paper, pursuant to the direction of an Act of Parliament, was laid on the table by the Clerk:

State Classification of Publications Board-Report for the year 1988-89.

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCE CHARGES) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act 1990 and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was brought in and read a first time.

644 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Vocational Education and Training Bill (No. 2)

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL (No. 2) Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish

a State training system in Victoria and to amend the Post-Secondary Education Act 1978, to amend the Employment and Training Act 1981 and to repeal the Industrial Training Act 1975 and for other purposes.


The Bill was brought in and read a first time.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION BILL Mr KENNAN (Attomey-General)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time.

As elected representatives of the people of Victoria, we have a responsibility to protect the safety of Victorians wherever and whenever possible. If horrendous threats of violence are made by any person--

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out to you that in the text of the Bill and the purpose of the Bill there is the name of a person. I believe that person is currently being charged with offences under sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act, that he is currently held on remand in respect of those charges, and that those charges arising under those sections relate to threats to the lives and safety of other people.

It appears from what the Attorney-General intends to say that his remarks may be highly prejudicial to the proper trial of the person concerned. The Parliament has to be careful at all times under the sub judice rule-and especially so under past rulings in respect of criminal charges-to avoid any procedure within the Parliament which could trespass upon the sub judice rule, that is, broadly speaking, which could cause prejudice to the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the court and to the trial of criminal matters.

I ask you, Sir, having alerted the Clerks yesterday to the possibility of this, whether you will ~ve a ruling on the matter. I expect that you will have had the opportunity of considenng the principles as previously enunciated by previous Speakers and by you, Sir. Now that we have before us the text of the intended remarks of the AttorneyGeneral, it might be appropriate at this stage-although I hesitated to interrupt the Attorney-General as soon as he started, but he has now mentioned the magic words, "threats of violence" -to have a ruling or some guidance on this matter. There is also a need to have regard to the fact that, when the debate on the Bill is resumed, the matter may still be before the courts, in the sense of being not yet heard, and your ruling, Mr Speaker, will apply to both the Attorney-General's remarks today and the remarks of any other honourable member who speaks during the course of the debate on the Bill.

The SPEAKER-Order! I have taken advice on this matter, as it was obvious that the sub judice convention may be raised in consideration of and debate on the Bill. I refer honourable members particularly to the ruling recorded on pages 1395 and 1396 of Hansard of 30 October 1968 in which Speaker Christie, in a lengthy ruling which canvassed the issue very thoroughly, indicated that the sub judice rule should not be applied in respect of legislation-tn other words, in respect of debate on a Bill. I should also indicate that other authorities support the ruling made at that time by Speaker Christie.

Community Protection Bill 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 645

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-Ifhorrendous threats of violence are made by any person, and if it is believed that the person making those threats can and will carry them out, we must take all possible steps to protect the public. The Hoddle Street and Queen Street mass murders deeply affected our community. We could never knowingly expose Victorians to another Hoddle Street or Queen Street. But we must endeavour at all times to balance the rights of the individual and the rights and interests of the broader community.

It is a fundamental principle of our society that a person may not be deprived of his liberty, except as punishment for the commlssion of a crime or for the purpose of care and treatment of a mental illness.

From time to time a situation arises when the rights of an individual must be balanced against the safety of the community, for example, when a person has what may be described as a mental illness or disturbance or a personality disorder as a result of which he poses a serious threat to the lives of others. I wish to make it clear that I am speaking about a severe disorder, a symptom of which is a demonstrated substantial propensity and capability for violence. Persons in this category may have episodes of mental illness which can be treated and dealt with under our mental health system or they may commit crimes of violence for which they can be punished under the criminal justice system. However, when the mental illness has been treated or the sentence of imprisonment served, and the mental disturbance or personality disorder remains or the mental illness recurs and the propensity and capacity for violence persists, there is no basis or system presently available for supervising, or in severe cases, detaining that person for the protection of others.

Because of its concern for such persons and for their interaction with the community, the government has given a general reference to the Social Development Committee to inquire into and examine the issues surrounding mental disturbance and community safety. This inquiry is being made on a reference by the Minister for Health and is not specifically directed to anyone person. Nevertheless, the committee, in its hearings has heard evidence concerning a specific person, namely Garry David, also known as GarryWebb.

The general issues surrounding Garry David would be known to most honourable members, as they have been discussed at some length in the press and on television. Garry David is aged 35 years. He has a very long history of institutionalisation, spending little time in the past 30 years out of institutions. Hls family background was unstable, his father having spent most of his life in prisons or psychlatric institutions. David was admitted to care at the age of six years.

Shortly after being released from prison in 1980 Garry David stole a car and a rifle intending to shoot a policeman. He drove down the Mornington Peninsula looking for an attended police station. Finding none he went behind a pizza parlour and smashed a bottle against a wall to attract attention. The proprietor's wife went to investigate and was shot by David. She is now a paraplegic. David then lay in wait for the police and upon their arrival he opened fire on them, wounding one. Police returned fire and wounded David in the legs. He fled and was later apprehended and charged with two counts of attempted murder and other offences.

David was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment, which sentence, because of remissions, expired on 3 February 1990. He is currently on remand on a charge of threatening to kill. His current remand date is 18 April 1990.

On 9 January 1990 David was certified under section 16 of the Mental Health Act as a security patient and is detained as such at J Ward, Aradale Hospital, Ararat. He has appealed against this certification to the Mental Health Review Board, which has, after a lengthy hearing, reserved its decision.

646 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Community Protection Bill

The advice the government has received is that Garry David can be detained under the Mental Health Act, if at all, only when he has the status of a prisoner because, for most of the time at least, he is unlikely to meet the stricter criteria for involuntary detention of non-prisoners under that Act. Garry David cannot, of course, be held in prison either if the current charge is dismissed or, if he is convicted, when any consequent sentence of imprisonment expires.

Garry David has a very long history of crimes of violence. His conduct in prison has also involved almost continuous acts of violence, including starting fires and assaulting police, prison officers and prisoners. He has also threatened various kinds of violence, including threats to commit multiple murders, particularly of police, prison officers, staff and people treating him.

Evidence given by a large number of medical witnesses to the Mental Health Review Board was to the effect that Garry David is capable of carrying out his threats of the most bizarre acts of violence, including multiple murders. All witnesses agreed there is a risk to the community if he is released-some put the risk as small, others put it as severe.

ne government believes the protection of the community from the serious risk presented by Garry David requires immediate legislation. The government is concerned to protect the community from any such risk, but to do so without pre-empting the report of the Social Development Committee or compromising either the mental health system or the criminal justice system. It is also concerned to provide protection for the community from Garry David without allowing the proposed legislation inadvertently to a~ply to any other person. For this reason the government has decided that the BIll should apply only to Garry David. The government will give consideration to further legislation when it receives the report of the Social Development Committee.

It must be emphasised that the Bill provides for the Supreme Court, on the application of the Minister, to consider whether or not Garry David should be detained. In other words, the Bill gives the Supreme Court power to make an order that Garry David be placed in detention and care if, and only if, it is satisfied on the balance of probabilitIes of two criteria: firstly, that Garry David is a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public and, secondly, that he is likely to commit any act of serious personal violence against another person. An order can be made only for six months at a time.

The Bill also provides for the Supreme Court to require and receive evidence without being bound by the rules of evidence. It is the intention that all documents that could bear upon the application should be received by the court and that the court may also require the presentation of reports.

The Bill provides for detention to commence upon the filing in the court of the application and allows the court to make interim orders for detention as it sees fit. The court may proceed with an application in the absence ofGarry David, if necessary.

An order for detention, when made by the Supreme Court, must specify whether Garry David is to be detained in a prison, a psychiatric in-patient service or other place of detention. If he is to be detained in a prison he has all the rights of other prisoners except that he must not be released, except in the case of medical necessity, from the prison specified unless the Supreme Court so orders. Similarly, if he is detained in a psychiatric in-patient service he has all the rights of other security patients except those relating to his release. Again he may be transferred to another Institution in the case of medical necessity.

In no case must the court make an order for detention for a period lon~er than six months and it must specify the period of detention in the order. The court IS given full


power to extend, vary or revoke an order for detention on the application of the Minister.

The Bill makes provision for the Director-General of Corrections or the authorised psychiatrist of the psychiatric in-patient service into whose custody Garry David is placed by the order of the court to make reports to the Minister at least once every six months-and more often, if the Minister requires or the custodian thinks fitconcerning the state of physical and mental health of Garry David, his care and treatment and his behaviour while in detention. The reports must also give up-to-date information on matters bearing upon his dangerousness to any member of the public and the risks ifhis detention is not to continue.

The government is of the view that this approach taken in the Bill provides the most appropriate balance between Garry David's civil liberty and the need to protect the community from violence. The Bill has a sunset provision of twelve months.

I commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick), the debate was adjourned.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-I move: That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

Mr ROSS-EDW ARDS (Shepparton)-On the question of time, I submit there should be an adjournment for one week to enable the National Party to comply with the necessary requirements that the Minister set out in his initial remarks so that the Bill can pass through both Houses and be proclaimed before the due date. There are serious principles involved in the proposed legislation and, so far as the National Party is concerned, the matter would have to be discussed at a full party meeting. It will be necessary to obtain some advice on the matter and I should like to have discussions with members of the Minister's staff and also take that to the party meeting next Tuesday. I am definite in my request and I put it forcibly.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) (By leave)-I hear what the honourable member for Shepparton has said. I believe honourable members understand the importance of the Bill being passed by Parliament next week as there is a time constraint because of the remand date of 18 April.

It is a sensitive and delicate Bill to which we should all give consideration. I believe the request for the matter to be considered at a party meeting is reasonable, and I suggest the Bill be adjourned until Tuesday next, which will allow time for proper debate. The government does so on the understanding that, subject to discussion at the party meeting, the matter can proceed through the Upper House expeditiously.

Mr ROSS-EDW ARDS (Shepparton) (By leave)-I cannot give an undertaking but I shall use my best endeavours so far as my party is concerned. Beyond that I cannot give a firm undertaking.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On the question of time, it is most unsatisfactory that Parliament should be asked to consider a Bill which is to be adjourned either until tomorrow, or by arrangement, until Tuesday next, without the necessary information to enable the opposition parties to give it proper consideration.

I do not wish to debate the issue but, on the question of time, obviously the National and Liberal parties will benefit by having access to the transcript of the hearing of the Mental Health Review Board which, I understand from the Minister's second-reading speech, has reserved its decision. The transcript should be available so that the opposition parties can review the evidence given.


We should also receive from the Attorney-General some indication of the outcome of the application made by the former Attorney-General, and a definition of "mental health". I do not know what that is because the second-reading speech does not disclose that information. It is of moment as to how long it will take the opposition parties to deal with the matter. The opposition parties do not have various other pieces of information that are essential for consideration of the Bill in any appropriate sense, let alone for debate tomorrow or on Tuesday next. Without access to the transcript of the most recent hearing, without access to the knowledge of what the Supreme Court will do, and without a definition of "mental health", it is impossible to give the Bill proper consideration.

In addition, I understand from the reference in the remarks made by the AttorneyGeneral that there is a remand date of 18 April. We know nothing, and there is nothing in the Minister's second-reading speech on when the charges under sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act are to proceed before a criminal court. For all we know, the person concerned may be convicted in the criminal court.

On the question of time, we can take as long as we like or as long as is appropriate to consider the Bill under those circumstances. I anticipate what the government is signalling to the opposition parties is that Mr Garry David will win his review and that, for some reason known only to the government or the Director of Public Prosecutions, he will not be prosecuted under the Crimes Act; and we are not to be given any assistance-or at least no assistance was offered-in determining our parties' attitude in regard to the matter.

On the question of time, to introduce a Bill that proposes to keep a person in gaol without a hearing, and without presenting any information as to why that person is to be kept in gaol other than the remarks that have been made by the Attorney-General in his second-reading speech, is outrageous. It is outrageous that Parliament should be asked to deal with the Bill tomorrow, and it is equally outrageous that we should be asked to deal with it on Tuesday next when the matter has been knowingly with the government for many months.

It is a matter of brinkmanship; it is outrageous to expect a Bill such as this to be debated without an appropriate adjournment and without appropriate opportunity for the parties to inform themselves so that they may make informed decisions about the matter rather than relying solely upon press reports and the Minister's secondreading speech, which is notable for its lack of information.

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-On the question of time, I am aware there was a charge made on 24 December. I believe all the documentation surrounding that charge should be made available to the Opposition and the National Party to allow our respective legal committees to consider them because, as the honourable member for Berwick has stated, there are only three days, in effect, for the matter to be discussed. By the time the material is assessed and decided upon for discussion at the party meeting on Tuesday we will hardly be in a position to make appropriate recommendations to the party.

On the question of time, I believe the adjournment period should be extended, and the conditions applying to the most recent charge made on 24 December should be made available to the opposition parties. I ask that that matter be part of the documentation provided to us.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-On the matter of time, the Attorney-General has already indicated that he is prepared to change the adjournment period from tomorrow until Tuesday next. My concern-and I have had discussions with only one party-is that this depends upon the attitude of the parties; they may decide to oppose or seek to


amend the Bill. It is a matter for the opposition parties to consider. The government should know what that decision is as soon as possible so that it may protect the public interest.

I have been assured by the Attorney-General that any information the government can provide will be provided and that that process can start immediately.

Mr E. R. Smith-And not sanitised either!

Mr ROPER-I can assure the honourable member for Glen Waverley that there is very little of a sanitary sort in this matter let alone anything sanitised. It is a most serious matter. Occasionally the government asks Parliament, as have other governments, to act speedily. The debate on the Bill will not be resumed until next Tuesday and all steps will be taken to ensure that any member of the Opposition who wishes to do so has a full opportunity of getting as much information as he believes he needs.

Mr LIEBERMAN (Benambra)-On the question of time, there is a sense of concern and outrage, Mr Speaker, as you would have gathered from the comments made by members of the Opposition. The second-reading speech has identified that the Bill proposes to change the method of proof of a criminal action in an unprecedented fashion. It seeks to deprive a person of his rights and liberty and to require a Supreme Court judge to hear a matter without having regard to the rules of evidence; in fact, to disregard the rules of evidence.

When one examines the summary of events, one realises that the person involved was charged on 24 December 1989 under section 20 of the Crimes Act with threatening to kill a fellow prisoner. It is now 4 April--

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Benambra is not at liberty to canvass the issues of why the Bill was introduced; he is at liberty to debate the length of the adjournment of the debate on the Bill.

Mr LIEBERMAN-It is extraordinary that Parliament is asked on 4 Aprif to deal with a Bill when the government has had since 24 December 1989 to send the man to trial in the normal manner on criminal charges of attempting to kill.

The proposal to adjourn the debate on this Bill for one day is offensive in those circumstances. The undertakings to give further time, if necessary, until next Tuesday is, in my view, summary, arbitrary and dangerous.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland)-The Bill goes to the fundamental freedoms that are basic to and cherished by all in our democratic system. If we are to threaten or challenge in any way those basic freedoms it is important that there is wide community consultation. It is quite wrong for Parliament to be forced into a position of rushing through the Bill.

It is clear that there needs to be wide consultation with the general community, the legal fraternity, psychiatrists and any other people involved in this matter. As I said, it goes to our fundamental freedoms. In fact, this Bill has been referred to as the Nelson Mandela legislation.

As the honourable member for Berwick said, the Opposition needs to have access to the information contained in the review of the case by the Mental Health Review Board. It also needs information concerning the charges under section 20 of the Crimes Act that were laid against this person on 24 December 1989.

In view of the lack of information and the fundamental importance of the Bill with regard to civil liberties-something which I thought members of the government held dear, as members of the Opposition do-it is absolutely outrageous that the debate on

650 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Medical Treatment Bill

the Bill should be adjourned until tomorrow or even next Tuesday. It is absolutely essential that the debate be adjourned until appropriate community consulation can be undertaken.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) (By leave)-In relation to the second matter raised by the honourable member for Berwick, which was the question of Supreme Court interpretation, I indicate that that is not expected to come on before May. Other matters about notices were raised, and I place on record that the all-party Social Development Committee has been considering this issue. It received a letter about this issue from the Minister for Health on 5 February this year, and the matters surrounding it have been well-known to interested members of all parties for the past couple of months. It is somewhat disingenuous for members of that committee to say that this is the first they have known of it and that they have not had enough time to consider it. I want to place that on record.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until next day.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY) BILL

The debate (interrupted on the previous day) on the motion of Mr Roper (then Minister for Planning and Environment) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen)-Last evening when the debate on this Bill was interrupted I had made out the case that many eminent legal people had questioned the Bill on the basis of its legal provisions. It is my view that no conviction of a doctor would apply where any agent acts with murderous intent. That is because the doctor, in his defence, would claim that he had acted upon a certificate, the provisions for which are included in the Bill.

I agree with the honourable member for Balwyn when he made the general proposition that a person who acts with murderous intent to bring about the death of a patient would have a defence in that he acted on the strength of a certificate. That situation should disturb honourable members. The Bill allows someone with an intent to murder to get off the hook because its provisions exonerate the doctor who should be the party who intervenes to protect the interests of an incompetent patient.

It is significant that the Bill requires only one doctor to si~ a certificate that could lead to someone's death. That is an illustration of how the BIll is sloppily drafted, has little concern for the a$ents I mentioned who may have improper motives, and has scant regard for the patIent who is incompetent and cannot act in his own interests.

The Bill contains many deficiencies, and I shall refer to a number of them to show how this Bill and the Medical Treatment Act will be tested on many occasions in the courts in this State, and I put that on record. The first question I shall raise is the definition of "reasonable provision of food and water". The Bill does not provide a definition of that. On what are the practitioners operating in this area day in and day out going to rely to understand that part of the Bill?

One of the advocates of the Bill, Mr Tonti-Filippini, attended a meeting in my electorate called by the Italian Catholic Association. I attended the meeting with the honourable member for Doncaster. I remember asking Mr Tonti-Filippini how he could justify the withdrawal of food and water; he was unable to give me a very clear or straight answer. It worries me that it is possible in Victoria to withdraw food and water from someone without their consent, which leads to their death.

Medical Treatment Bill 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 651

The Bill fails to set any limits on the circumstances whereby treatment may be refused. It fails to define "unwanted treatment". Another deficiency in the Bill surrounds the meaning of "unwanted treatment". Because of the lack of definition, the Bill is weak. I am sure it will lead to the Bill being challenged in the courts on a number of occasions.

The Bill has other deficiencies. What does "unwarranted" mean? No-one has clarified that. There is no definition of "unwarranted treatment". Those definitions would normally form part of a Bill, and would normally assist medical practitioners-and the courts, for that matter-in determining appropriate and inappropriate activities. There are many undefined terms in the Bill.

Another undefined term in clause 5 is "unreasonable distress". The Bill :provides no objective definition of "unreasonable distress". It is a clear argument agalnst the Bill and its deficiencies.

I do not argue that patients have no right to refuse treatment; that ha~ always been the common law right in Australia. How that right is controlled and exercised concerns me. The key word is "how"; how does that happen? Many incompetent patients actually want treatment.

I refer to an interesting article that appeared in the Sunday Press on 13 August 1989. It concerns Lady Mountbatten, who honourable members will remember was blown up by an Irish Republican Army bomb and was unconscious in hospital for a considerable time.

One aspect of the article demonstrates that there are people out there who, while unconscious or having the appearance of unconsciousness, have desires but cannot express them. The article states:

After the blast, Lady Mountbatten lay alone with her despair in the intensive care unit of the small Sligo General Hospital.

She hovered between life and death, unable to see or speak, with broken legs, lacerations to the body and eyes caused by splinters of wood and her eardrums blown in.

She was wired to a life-support machine and paralysed.

Heavily sedated, she had little sense of pain. Only hopelessness. But as she floated in and out of consciousness, her mind remained alert. Her awful fear was that someone might switch off the machine and she desperately tried to indicate to doctors and nurses that she was alive.

The article is very interesting; that someone of the stature of Lady Mountbatten was put into such a situation. After the event it was revealed that she was incompetent at the time but still wanted to live; she did not want the machines turned off. When she recovered, she revealed how people whom one might think are incompetent have wishes and needs that must be catered for. The Bill provides an agent with the capability of turning o1£a machine and, in the example I cited, the patient would have died.

I know patients may refuse medical treatment because the treatment itself is too burdensome, but not because life is too burdensome. That is the key; and that is the difference between my argument and those arguing for the Bill. When the medical treatment applies to terminal illnesses only, I support the Bill, and I believe the Catholic Church does the same. Much has been said about whether the Catholic Church supports the Bill. I intend to provide evidence that the Catholic Church does not support the Bill, and did not support the Medical Treatment Act.

I refer to two articles, both dated 22 November 1988, appearing in the Sun and the Age. Each article refers to statements made by Archibishop Little of the Catholic Church. I refer to several passages of the article but I implore honourable members to


read the complete article. The interesting aspect about each article is that the statements made are reasonably similar-one in each newspaper-so it can be assumed that the statements represent the views of the archbishop. The article in the Sun states:

But Sir Frank has gone even further by withdrawing his backing for the Medical Treatment Act, the major section of the legislation which was passed by Parliament and is already in effect.

In a statement issued last night, Sir Frank said the Medical Treatment Act was in "open contrast" to the teachings of the church.

It appears the key to Sir Frank's change of heart is that neither the first nor second Bills are limited to patients for whom death is "inevitable or imminent".

That clear case made by the archbishop of Melbourne impinges on the Bill; it demonstrates the clear opposition of the Catholic Church.

I refer to other statements as evidence of the church's opposition. The first is a letter from Bishop Pell, dated 3 September 1989. I shall not read all of the letter but, again, I am more than happy to make it available to honourable members. The bishop states:

According to Catholic teaching when inevitable death is imminent, persons can refuse fonns of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. As Archbishop Little has said, patients not in such danger of death have no moral right to refuse treatment which is necessary, appropriate i.e. not disproportionate and reasonably available. Nor do agents or guardians have any such right of refusal for incompetent patients. Naturally this Catholic teaching has not been rescinded.

It therefore follows that one of the reasons why this Bill does not confonn to Catholic teaching is that the powers of the agents and guardians to refuse medical treatment are not limited to these circumstances.

If the House is not satisfied with that reference, I point out that on a number of occasions Bishop Pell has $one into print to put the position of the Catholic Church. I refer to a letter published In the A$e after the Bill had been passed by the Legislative Council-and that is a critical pOInt! The letter from Bishop Pell, and published on 8 September 1989, in part states:

Some politicians have also claimed that the Bill is not incompatible with Catholic teaching. This is quite misleading. It is contrary to Catholic teaching for a person to intend to suicide or an agent to intend to kill. Under the Bill and despite its preamble both these things are possible, by omitting treatment.

The Advocate-the newspaper of the Catholic Church-on 15 March 1990 announced that Bishop Pell had been promoted which, I think, is the correct terminology:

Bishop George Pell has been appointed to the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace. This appointment comes shortly aft~r his appointment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

I congratulate Bishop Pell on those good appointments. That is an indication of his worth and standing in the Catholic Church. A few weeks ago he was appointed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and that is after he made his comments on the Bill.

In a letter to AD 2000 of March 1990, the latest edition of the magazine, Bishop Pell states:

I have been reluctant to write again on the Victorian Medical Treatment Bill but repeated claims that my position differs from Catholic teaching compel me to attempt once more to focus discussion on the central issues and the arena where they shall be worked out.

The church's teaching against suicide and euthanasia is quite clear and I accept it. There can be no licence to kill, even by omission.

We all want to die with dignity. This is not in dispute. A strong body of opinion also wants the right to practise euthanasia, to kill with mercy, to assist suicide. The Bill, provided certain procedures are followed (and, perhaps, true intentions are not made public) will allow people to do just this, by omitting treatment.

The much vaunted "safeguards" against homicide and suicide will be ineffective, undennined by legislation itself, and pushed further aside by incomprehension, disinterest, sentiment ("He's better off out of his misery") and financial pressure. In fact, and despite repeated claims to the contrary, the Act, when


amended by the Bill, will contain no specific reference to preserving the law against homicide. Sections 6B (2) and 463B of the Crimes Act 1958 refer to suicide.

A general reference to homicide has been expediently inserted in the purposes clause to the amending Bill where its legal effect is very uncertain. Such casual treatment of such a vital clause reveals how carelessly the Act treats human life.

It is quite misleading to claim the Bill is compatible with Catholic teaching. It represents a major change in social arrangements and a major effort to undermine important public moral perceptions. It is an initial victory for the pro-euthanasia lobby.

That is irrefutable proof that the Bill is not supported, nor is it in accordance with Catholic teaching.

I believe in palliative and hospital care for the dying. I know a little about it because last year one of my family members was in such a situation. The honourable member for Box Hill and I are in agreement that we need more palliative care services to assist those in the community who wish to die with dignity. I support the palliative care group in my electorate and I know the honourable member for Box Hill has attended their functions. We agree there should be an expansion of services for those who are dying, but the Bill is unnecessary, not only in a legal or moral sense, but also because there are misgivings throughout the general community.

Some people believe the Bill is part of a wider push; it is only one small blessing, but since I have been acquainted with the Medical Treatment Act and now this Bill I have taken an active interest in euthanasia. I have collected many articles on the subject and after examining the material on euthanasia, the right to refuse medical treatment or the right to die-or any of the popular names for it-I am convinced there is a worldwide push by people who want euthanasia. It is not a new push, it has been around since before Hitler. My view is that the push is startin~ again. It is clear that what is happening in the United States of America will happen In Australia.

The Liberal Party is a strong and great party, and one of its strengths is that it provides for a conscience vote on moral issues for its members. I intend to exercise that conscience vote. I cannot support the Bill; I must actively vote against it because I do not believe it is in the best interests of the terminally ill or the ill and incompetent people in our community.

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale)-I support the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill. The Social Development Committee, of which I was a member, had a reference to examine options for dying with dignity. That committee, comprising twelve Parliamentarians made a number of unanimous recommendations. That is one of the positive aspects of the Parliamentary system: within the committee system one is able to discuss controversial issues, such as options for dying with dignity, to work through those issues in a thorough manner and arrive at unanimous recommendations. The committee received 1400 submissions, took evidence from more than 150 witnesses, held 18 days of public hearings and visited 11 hospitals. One could not say the committee was meeting in isolation from the real world. The issues that were presented to the committee were controversial but they were dealt with in a sensitive way by the committee members as they worked through them. I compliment the Opposition members of that committee for their positive contributions, particularly the honourable members in this place. Two such members were the former honourable member for Doncaster, Mr Williams, and the former honourable member for Kew, Prue Sibree.

The Bill is the second part of the Medical Treatment Act. A number of honourable members have been debating aspects of the Medical Treatment Act but some of them do not understand that they should be debating a particular aspect of the Bill. The Bill


establishes the legal right to refuse medical treatment. As pointed out correctly by the honourable member for Bulleen, that right already exists under common law.

As was made clear during the committee hearings, a number of people in the last stages of their lives are totally unaware of their legal rights. It is difficult to say that a person who is in a hospital bed and suffering burdensome treatment has the legal right to refuse that treatment. As I pointed out during the committee hearings, to eminent lawyers, medical practitioners and others, it is a lot of rubbish to suggest that people in that position are alert and fully aware of their legal entitlements.

It was pointed out in a press release by the then Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Mrs Judith Dixon, formerly a member of the Upper House, that:

Such advances have resulted in an increased technological capacity to sustain life but it has also increased concerns about the protection of medical and other health caring professions.

In other words, the existence of advanced technology has meant that life can be sustained in situations where it would not have been in the past. This presented the problem of people within the caring professions not knowing their legal rights in those situations. Some doctors, nurses and other professionals were terrified that their treatment of a dying person could lead to their being charged under the Crimes Act. The situation needed to be clarified. The Medical Treatment Act went a long way towards clarifying that situation.

There has been much misrepresentation on the issue. The committee definitely recommended against euthanasia; it is ironical that the report was bitterly criticised by both Mrs Margaret Tighe and Dr Helga Kuhse, from both ends of the spectrum. The committee hit upon the right recipe and the community fully supported its recommendations. It undertook extensive community consultation and used logic and reason to win over fringe interest groups that tried to impose their will as vocal minorities. It was a victory for logic and commonsense in the interests of the community.

I was proud to be a member of that committee as a member of the Labor Party, and was proud to be associated with members of the Liberal and National parties who also took that position.

Mr E. R. Smith interjected.

Mr MICALLEF-Ifthe honourable member for Glen Waverley adopts such an extreme position, so be it, but he should look at himself and his political position within the whole spectrum.

During the inquiry many examples of burdensome treatment came to light. The John McEwan case was most prominent. Members of the committee interviewed John McEwan while he was kept alive by a life support system although he did not want to live any longer. He was paralysed from the neck down and asked time and again to be taken off the life support system until, at one stage, he was classified as being legally insane. He was then not able to give directions about his own wishes because he was considered legally insane.

Mr E. R. Smith-What happened after that?

Mrs Hirsh (to Mr E. R. Smith)-He was declared legally sane.

Mr MICALLEF -The respirator was finally turned off and John McEwan died peacefully in accordance with his wishes.

Mr E. R. Smith-He did not need the Bill to do that.


Mr MICALLEF-No, but this Bill clarifies the legal position. That is the important point. The House is not debating the position of John McEwan because John McEwan was competent when he was declared legally insane; in legislation recently passed he would have had the right to determine that he no longer wanted treatment.


The ACI1NG SPEAKER (Mr McDonald)-Order! The honourable member for Glen Waverley will have the opportunity of speaking shortly.

Mr MICALLEF - The Bill applies to those who are incompetent and unable to make their wishes known. When persons are in a proper and fit mental state they can stipulate that an agent can convey their wishes to the relevant people treating them, including those who are providing life support. Those people can take into account whether the life support system can be turned off to allow the person to die with dignity.

Honourable members heard the remarks of the honourable memberfor BalwynPerry Mason junior-talking about the legal ramifications of murder. It is not the intent of Parliament or the Parliamentary committee to support murder. If the honourable member understood the proposed legislation he would not have made those comments. I resent the suggestion that the government could be supporting murder. I do not think Parliament has that intent, nor did the Social Development Committee. It is somewhat naive for someone like the honourable memberfor Balwyn to misread the situation and read into it the argument that has been painted and the criticism made that the actions may represent murder. That person has a long way to go. The Bill is the last part of the medical treatment legislation, and is really one of the cornerstones of the legislation that has been passed by Parliament in the life of the Labor government.

During the inquiry members of the Social Development Committee visited various hospitals and came across so-called codes of practice. In talking to people it became obvious that in many situations the codes allowed for the designation "not for resuscitation" to be given. The honourable member for Balwyn might one day understand that life support systems have been turned off and that for a long time it was done under the lap. Is it not better for everything to be done above board so that patients themselves know where they stand? Patients' rights have now been established in hospitals and ethics committees and many other people can be involved in determining whether a person wishes to have life support continued.

Mr E. R. Smith-It is social engineering.

Mr MICALLEF-The issue is the quality of life. Is a life worth living if a person is suffering utter distress with no light at the end of the tunnel?

I took into account the comments of the last honourable member who contributed to the debate about palliative care. The thrust of the committee's report was to increase enormously the amount of resources available for palliative care. The more effective palliative care is, the less relevant this Bill will become. That is a positive way of approaching the matter. I appreciated those comments. Parliament should support the allocation of more resources to that area.

There are provisions to prevent abuse of the proposed legislation. There is also provision for persons to appoint an enduring power of attorney. As the honourable member for Rodney pointed out, the provision is not compulsory. Therefore, those with a conscientious objection to the proposal do not have to follow it. If Opposition members have a moral opposition to appointing an agent, that is their business and I


fully support their right to do so but the right of those who wish to appoint an agentI would be one of those-should be protected.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr McDonald)-Order! This is an important Bill. I believe the honourable member for Glen Waverley will contribute to the debate later when I shall give him the same opportunity of being heard as the honourable member for Springvale should now be given.

Mr MICALLEF-This is a sensitive debate on an important measure. I agree with the views expressed by the Honourable M. T. Tehan in another place, one of the representatives of Central Highlands Province, who expressed her disappointment WIth Bishop Pell's statement that the Catholic Church does not support the Bill. I have personally spoken to Archbishop Little who has expressed his support for the recommendations of the Social Development Committee in its report on dying with dignity. In fact, I had a long conversation with the archbishop and he was fully supportive of the measure, as were other Catholic hierarchy.

I also acknowledge the work of Mr Tonti-Filippini, former Director of the St Vincent's Hospital Bioethics centre, and Kevin Andrews, a representative of the Knights of the Southern Cross. There is a mainstream of opinion within the Catholic Church which regards the issue in a proper community context and which has worked through the issue for the benefit of the community.

I also acknowledge the work done by the former Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, Judith Dixon and the principal research officer, Mr Don Stewart. All those people have played an important role in the Bill's progression to this point and I commend them for their work.

Mrs WADE (Kew)-I have no option but to vote against the Bill and I am grateful that the Liberal Party permits a conscience vote on issues such as this. It appears likely that a majority of members will support the Bill because they support the concept of dying with dignity. It is important to realise that in supporting the Bill members are not just supporting its operation in the circumstances they have described as dying with dignity.

During the debate honourable members have described their support in terms of terminally ill patients, a patient in extreme pain, and a loving and caring agent. I do not cast aspersions on the motives of honourable members, but in supporting the proposed legislation honourable members are supporting provisions that will operate In circumstances when the patient is not suffering from a terminal illness, when a patient could recover and lead a normal healthy life, where the treatment may not Involve distress for the patient and where the agent may not be a loving and caring agent but an agent with an ulterior motive.

I also have doubts about the loving and caring agent provision and I shall come to that later. My major concern is with an agent who is either incompetent or who may even have a murderous intent.

The Bill extends the scope of the Medical Treatment Act so that, in certain circumstances, decisions to refuse medical treatment can be made on behalf of a patient by an agent. The person appointed as.an agent will bear the responsibility for any refusal of medical treatment.

The Bill must be examined in the context of the present position regarding the refusal of treatment. In most cases decisions about medical treatment are made by a patient in the light of advice received from a doctor or doctors. However, where a patient is not in a position to make a decision about treatment because that patient is


in a coma or has a physical or mental disability, a decision will generally be made by a medical practitioner after discussion with the patient's family. However, there are two other situations which apply at present. Firstly, where a guardian has been appointed by the Guardianship and Administrative Board, the guardian has the power to make decisions about medical treatment or about the refusal of medical treatment. Secondly, a patient may have appointed a person under an enduring power of attorney and that person has the power to make decisions about medical treatment, including the power to refuse medical treatment.

It is my view that Parliament should be cautious about a change in the law in an area that involves life and death decisions. Members of Parliament should be aware that it is not only our own lives that we are talking about-some honourable members have given illustrations involving their own circumstances in the future-and we should turn our minds to those members of the community who are least able to protect themselves. I refer to the very old, the very ill and the intellectually and mentally disabled.

Parliament should ensure that any new system which is proposed is better than the one it replaces and, above all, that it provides as much protection to those people in the community as the laws that it replaces. Parliament protects people in all sorts of situations across their whole lives, not just in life and death situations. Parliament enacts consumer protection legislation, occupational health and safety le~slation, credit and banking legislation and company and security legislation, to mentIon just a few of the Acts that are on the table before me.

Mr Tonti-Filippini has been quoted as saying that one cannot legislate to make people behave in a morally acceptable way, but Parliament normally legislates to put temptation out of people's way. It normally legislates to discourage behaviour which is not in the community's interest.

A relevant issue that does involve life and death is the regulation of road traffic. All political parties are committed to reducing the road toll and we know that we cannot trust everyone in society to behave responsibly. Sanctions are required, police are required, and cameras to record speeding traffic are required to protect the citizens of the State as they go about their affairs on our roads. Parliament would not allow these protections to be withdrawn if it thought such a withdrawal would put people's lives at risk. It would be careful about amendments to any road traffic legislation. The test should be the same with the proposed legislation. If this test is applied the Bill fails.

Before I apply the test to the Bill I stress one aspect of the Bill to which I have already referred: the power of an agent to refuse medical treatment. That power is not limited to cases where a patient has a terminal illness. The provisions of the Bill provide that medical treatment may be refused by an agent even where the treatment would restore a patient to a normal healthy condition with, perhaps, another 50 years of life. That treatment may be to stop a patient bleeding to death; treatment for a diabetic; treatment for a snake or spider bite; treatment for pneumonia or perhaps a tracheotomy.

During the debate some honourable members have said that these treatments will be performed as a matter of urgency without seeking the permission of an agent. In the great majority of cases that will be so. However, there may be some cases where an agent who is likely to be a spouse or close relative is present and in those circumstances that agent will be in a position to refuse treatment for the patient by producing a certificate of refusal. The Bill provides that a doctor who goes ahead with treatment in those circumstances is guilty of an offence.

One does not have to assume malice on behalf of agents. Stupidity or misunderstanding could be enough to end life in these circumstances. However,

Session 1990-22


malice cannot be disregarded. Honourable members should be cautious about assuming all agents will act in the best interests of patients. At present people can be appointed with powers of attorney to make decisions about the property of others.

I refer the House to the annual report of the Office of the Public Advocate for the year ended 30 June 1988. That office investigated circumstances regarding the operation of enduring powers of attorney. One section of the report states:

The picture is a sorry one. There are repeated stories of relatives coming to nursing homes in the middle of the night to obtain signatures on an enduring power of attorney (EPA), where the donor's capacity to give such power is in doubt. On the other hand, suggestible donors may sign and revoke powers at the request ofrelatives, or attorneys can intermingle a donor's assets with their own, either through ignorance or malevolence. There have been many examples of attorneys denying donors access to their money during their lifetimes, sometimes resulting in the enlargement of donors' estates when they die.

We cannot assume that people will act in their own best interests when they appoint attorneys under the Bill. When appointing someone to look after one's property, one assumes that one will appoint someone who loves and cares for one. But in many cases the person given the power does not act in the best interests of the person giving the power. If the Bill is passed, from time to time that will occur.

It is well illustrated that people do not always appoint agents who have their best interests at heart. In considering the Bill honourable members should test its provisions not only with respect to loving, caring agents and patients suffering from terminal illnesses but also in circumstances of patients with curable conditions and caring but confused agents, as well as uncaring agents or agents acting in bad faith and their own interests rather than those of the patient. Nothing in the Bill prevents agents inheriting the donors' estates.

Another aspect not covered by speakers in favour of the Bill is the situation where there is a guardian. Arguments have been put in terms of a person not having to appoint an agent if he or she has some concern about the Bill. But any person, regardless of whether he or she has a strong view about agents, could end up with a guardian. A guardian may by appointed generally by the Guardianship and Administration Board where a person is intellectually or mentally disabled-and that could happen to any of us. An agent can be approved specifically to make decisions about medical treatment where a patient is in a coma or is otherwise unable to make a decision' on his or her own behalf. Again that could happen to any of us, regardless of whether we believe in the proposed legislation. The agent may be known to the patient, or it may be the Public Advocate or an officer of the Public Advocate.

The test in each case that must be applied is whether the provisions in the Bill are better than the current position. I suggest they are not. At present if there is no enduring power of attorney, the decision about medical treatment is made by a medical practitioner, usually after consultation with family members. If there is an enduring power of attorney, the decision is made by the attorney after consultation with medical practitioners. If there is a guardian, the decision is made by the guardian.

An attorney or a guardian can refuse an operation, even if it prolongs the life of a patient, if the operation is believed to be an unreasonable burden on the patient. However, neither an attorney nor a guardian can refuse treatment to bring about the death of a patient. At present it is not an offence for a medical practitioner to treat a patient where an attorney or guardian has refused treatment. That is the major difference proposed by the Bill. Under the Bill it will be an offence for the medical practitioner to treat a patient where there has been a certificate of refusal, even if the attorney or guardian has ac!ed in bad faith and has a homicidal intent.

Once the Bill is passed, if a medical practitioner suggests that even painless treatment is required to save a patient, and there is a refusal by the agent or guardian, the


medical practitioner can proceed with that treatment, which may be required urgently, only if he or she is prepared to breach the law.

I prefer the current position. I prefer to take the risk that a person's life may be prolonged in circumstances where he or she may have preferred to die, if necessary, to avoid the situation where the lives of patients are lost unnecessarily through confusion, stupidity or malice.

The Bill's main problem is that it makes it an offence for doctors to treat a patient in the face of a refusal of treatment certificate by an agent. It is no answer to suggest that the doctor may apply to the Guardianship and Administration Board to have the refusal set aside. Treatment may be required urgently and time may not be available. Even if time were available, it is not clear that the board will permIt the treatment to take place. Without the board's approval the doctor would be breaking the law if he or she were to treat the patient.

It is not necessary to make it an offence for a doctor to treat a patient following a refusal of treatment certificate from an agent or guardian. It is not necessary to have provision for such a certificate. A Bill that provides for the rights of ~uardians and agents to make decisions about medical treatment or to refuse medlcal treatment should be sufficient. In most cases there would be no question of doctors failing to comply with the decision of an agent appointed specifically by a patient to make decisions about medical treatment. In the few cases where a doctor would do so, the disadvantages to those whose lives were prolonged against the wishes of an agent or guardian must be balanced against those whose lives would be lost as a result of a confused, uncaring or malicious agent.

In addition to the removal of the offence provision a number of other chan~es would be necessary before I could support the Bill. Firstly, the power of the guardlan to refuse treatment should, at the very most, extend only to situations where a patient has a terminal illness and the treatment is onerous and unpleasant. The significant majority of patients in respect of whom a guardian would be appointed will be intellectually disabled or mentally incompetent people. The guardian would not have any instructions from such a person about whether that person wanted medical treatment. It would be a matter for the guardian alone to decide. The patient would never be in a position to make his or her views known to the guardian.

That circumstance is raised by Mr and Mrs Harris, who are the parents of an intellectually disabled young man. I understand they wrote to all members of Parliament last year. In the Advocate of 24 August 1989 they are quoted as having said in relation to their son:

It will be Quite easy ifsomeone feels he is inconvenient to deprive him of essential treatment even ifhe has to undergo minor surgery, or ifhe is in need ofa drug like insulin, and let him die.

There may be instances when such patients are condemned to die for the sake of an inheritance.

I am aware that the Minister has disputed this statement in a letter to the Harrises, but on my view of the Bill the Harrises are correct in the statements that are made in the article. One can say that it is unlikely that this will happen but, nevertheless, this Bill authorises it.

The Bill should not give a guardian of an intellectually disabled person the right to refuse essential treatment which is neither onerous nor unpleasant. In my view there is no real need for the power to refuse treatment to be given to a guardian at all. The decision making in these circumstances is better left to the professional judgment of a medical practitioner in consultation with members of the family.

I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to the circumstances which can arise in a loving, caring situation. There are many examples. I have a fairly large


file on this Bill and I have brought along details of three examples which seem to crystallise the problems that exist even in the case of a loving, caring agent.

The first example has been referred to by the honourable member for Bulleen. That is the case of Lady Mountbatten. I shall not go into detail, but she was in an intensive care unit. She was paralysed and had broken legs and lacerations to the body and eyes, and was wired to a life-support machine. Her fear was that someone might switch off the machine, and she desperately tried to indicate to doctors and nurses that she was alive. I suggest that in the circumstances of her particular injuries a loving, caring agent might very well have felt that Lady Mountbatten would have wished the machine to be turned of[ She would have been lying there fully conscious but unable to communicate and would have seen that loving, caring agent turning off the machine.

The second case I wish to refer to is a spectacular example. I came across it in a report on the tribute to Sir Edward Dunlop in November last year. It describes the situation of Mr Bill Griffiths, who came from England to attend the tribute. He met Sir Edward Dunlop in Java in 1942 and had the misfortune to come across a booby trap as he was being taken prisoner by the Japanese. It blew off both his arms and blew out both his eyes. He apparently pleaded with Sir Edward Dunlop to put him out of his misery and allow him to die.

The report says that Sir Edward would not let him die and a nurse protested and said, "Colonel, Bill wants to die. If you don't have the guts to kill him, I will". Sir Edward would not comply with that. That was 47 years ago. Mr Griffiths went back to En$1and and ran a transport company. He was named disabled sportsman of the year, he IS described as an inspiring singer and was awarded the MBE. The final paragraph of the newspaper report says:

As the old comrades walked in the Toorak garden yesterday ... Bill burst out, "Isn't it great to be free, to feel the wind rustling in your hair even to feel the rain. It's just great being alive".

The final case I wish to refer to was in an article I came across in the Australian Women's Weekly of March 1989. It is perhaps the most compelling of all these articles and is headed "The day I asked God to take my daughter". It is an article about a nineteen-year-old girl who was struck on the head by a 3-metre pole that fell from a passing truck. She was taken to the Alfred Hospital and the doctors told her parents she had the worst head injuries and brain damage they had ever seen. She was in intensive. care for thirteen weeks. She had blood transfusions, operations, tubes, machines-everything. Her mother said that she sat by the bedside for thirteen weeks and prayed for the girl to die.

After thirteen weeks she came out of the coma and now, six years later, following many operations, she is living a relatively normal life in a Melbourne suburb where she shares a house with a friend. Her face has been rebuilt with silicone and steel and she has a glass eye and some memory loss, but her mother says that having her still alive is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to her.

In each of those cases it is likely that if this Bill had been in operation at the time and if a family member had been appointed by the person concerned as an agent under an enduring power of attorney, a refusal of treatment certificate would have been signed. In each of those cases that would have been a mistake.

We know this in restrospect: it could not have been known at the time. However, each of those decisions would have been a mistake. Everyone has to live with his or her own decisions and I should like to suggest that we each should consider how we would feel if, having signed a refusal of treatment certificate in those circumstances, we subsequently read an article along these lines. Would we not spend the rest of our lives wondering whether we had done the right thing?


In many cases it is better for decisions to be shared. Under this Bill it is likely that the responsibility to make a decision to refuse treatment will fall solely on the persons who most cares about one. It is not a decision I should like to ask someone who loved and cared about me to make on my behalf. It would be different if I were suffering from a terminal illness and was in great pain and had only a few weeks to live. That would not be a difficult decision, but if I were involved in a motor car accident or an explosion-as in the cases I have just described-it would be a very difficult thing for me to ask anyone to do.

A number of people have said that they will be asking people they love and care about to make the decision on their behalf. I should not like to put somebody I loved into a situation where he or she had to make the very difficult kinds of decisions I have referred to.

The proposed legislation could be rewritten so that it achieves most of what its supporters want without the disadvantages. We could have legislation that gave guidance to medical practitioners as to the person they should consult and the importance they should give to the views of that person. The certificate of refusal provisions are not required and the offence provisions by medical practitioners are certainly not required.

There can be no doubt that if this Bill goes through in this form some people will die unnecessarily; some people will die in circumstances where in retrospect people can say they should not have died; and worse still, some people-there may be only a few-will be deliberately killed. Law enforcement agencies will be powerless to act. The procedures set out in this Bill will provide protection to a person who has a homicidal intent. Parliament will have provided that protection.

As I said earlier, we do not frame our road laws on the basis that all people will be law abiding and will exercise care for their fellow citizens. Ifwe made that assumption with regard to the road laws people would die as a result. If this Bill becomes law, Parliament is making that assumption about agents and guardians and some of our fellow Victorians will lose their lives as a result.

I ask honourable members to reconsider this Bill on that basis. Honourable members cannot support the Bill on the basis that it provides death with dignity unless they are also prepared to accept that some members of our community, predominantly those who are less able to look after themselves, will die when they do not want to die, when they are not suffering from a terminal illness and when the treatment they require is not likely to cause distress. This Bill provides less protection for those people than is provided by our current law.

Dr WELLS (Dromana)-The Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill is a unique Bill in Victoria. It will project Victorians onto a new road in their personal and social lives. However, I want to offer my personal congratulations to the honourable members for Balwyn and Kew on the accurate and magnificent speeches they have privileged us with here in the past two days. They have reminded us of the legal basis to society and the requirement of Parliament to protect every individual. The honourable member for Kew in particular talked about the significant room for error resulting in the illegal loss oflife, associated with the proposed power of attorney. I cannot commend those two speeches too strongly to honourable members before they vote on this historic measure.

The Medical Treatment Act enshrines in statute the right of competent individuals to refuse medical treatment. The amendments proposed in this Bill attempt to provide that right for the person who is mentally incompetent.


The government has indicated that the Bill is based on recommendation 21 of the Social Development Committee's inquiry into options for dying with dignity. The government uses that recommendation as justification for introducing the Bill. Recommendation 21 is:

That concerned members of the public consider the value of appointing a person to act on their behalf in case of their incompetency by way of an enduring power of attorney.

It is important to note that not only has the government not, in fact, taken that recommendation into account in introducing the Bill, but also it has not-so far as honourable members are aware-paid any attention to the other 30 recommendations which were the summary of eighteen months work by the committee. I find that unacceptable.

The management of the dying may be a difficult subject. It involves medical, ethical and legal aspects. The problems have been accentuated by modem technology stretching the law and statutes badly. It is clear that in some ways the current response of modem society is inadequate, but I invite honourable members to cast their thoughts back for a moment to similar legislation introduced into the Victorian Parliament over the past five years. I refer to the Mental Health Act and to what was an infamous Division 6 in the second of three Bills that were introduced. The government proposed that a government committee would have the authority to organise the transfer of non-regenerative ti~sue, such as kidneys, from mentally incompetent people in institutions to mentally competent people such as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or me, or others outside institutions. That proposal nearly ~ot through Parliament; it was stopped only at the last moment. It is one demonstratIon of how error-prone a democratic Parliament can be.

A second Bill relating to in vitro fertilisation came before Parliament. Parliament accepted the justification for authorising the use of embryos during the first 22 hours after their production-based on the claim that until syngamy the embryo did not have full human potential. I warned the Parliament that this was an intellectual and scientific nonsense and I said I would wait to see what rational or irrational responses would be necessary when next the scientists came and asked to be allowed to use embryos beyond the age of 22 hours. I await that still because although it was an intellectual nonsense it went through Parliament.

The Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill is similarly error-prone for this Parliament. There has been a hastening, a rush to join the fashion and support the Bill's progress based on the work of a committee over eighteen months and based on several groups of individuals approving it. I submit that in the end Parliament is the ultimate authority and no group outside can offer opinions on which we should lean as a crutch in taking such humanly important decisions.

Mr Justice Kirby commented that the law is not doing so well in regard to this subject. I say that neither is this Parliament on this or the several other issues I have referred to previously. In large part that is because the issues are so complex.

The current proposal is inadequate and clearly so. If one reviews the comments of specialists from different areas there is a supportable approach to the matter.

I refer to the very good work brought forward in the first report of the Social Development Committee in its inquiry into options for dying with dignity, in which there was reference to Mr Justice Kirby on legal matters; Professor Max Charlesworth on philosophical matters; Sir Gustav Nossal on medical philosophy; Dr Neil Campbell on medical neonates; Miss J. Gibbs on nursing; Dr G. Parkin on intensive care; and Mr M. J. Pavone, who made his contribution as a member of the Australian Catholic Health Care Association.


At the end of my remarks I shall come back to the proposal that is germane to all of their contributions. So far as I can establish, it has not been brought forward and no evidence has been given that it was considered by the Social Development Committee.

Concern is felt among care givers, Parliamentarians, lawyers and the community at large on this subject, in part because of genuine concern and in part because of misinformation under which the community is labouring.

On page 87 of the first report of the Social Development Committee, Mr Justice Kirby is reported in the following terms: ... the recent cases in England alert lawyers to the fact that they may ultimately be forced to address, not merely the definition of death, but also the proper balance between the right to live and the equal right, in due time, to die naturally and with dignity, harassed neither by heroic doctors nor officious lawyers.

I would add there: and also not harassed by other vested interests or ignorance.

The reasons given for the provisions in the Bill, as have been outlined by previous speakers, fall into two broad categories. The first is that treatment would cause unreasonable distress to the patient; the second is that the patient, after seriously considering the issue, would have regarded the treatment as unwarranted.

The Bill arises basically because of the importance to the community at large of certain spectacular cases. One of a number of which spring to mind is the case in the United States of America of Karen Ann Quinlan. As the honourable member for Kew pointed out, the Bill involves a much wider range of medical· cases. That is where much of the difficulty arises, as I hope to make clear as I progress. There is serious doubt that in many cases where people are comatose they are aware of what is happening, but there is no doubt that observers suffer. Any of us who have nursed various loved ones who have died know that. There is no justification for us terminating such a situation to ease our anguish; we must at all times remember the patient's right to life.

The second ground for introducing the Bill is the belief that the patient would not have wanted the treatment proposed. How can we know that that is the situation? The patient is in a changed circumstance. I refer to page 107 of the first report of the Social Development Committee, in which Sir Gustav Nossal is quoted in the following terms:

In the event, many cancer patients cling to the last rays of hope and threads of life, and, when all the stops are pulled out, medical science can do much to make the end more bearable.

I illustrate the case that Sir Gustav refers to as patient 3, by quoting from page 105: The third example involves a 75-year-old woman who has strong views favouring euthanasia, and who

has made a "living will", the existence of which is well-known to her husband and relatives, which says that, in the event of her becoming in any way incapacitated, she wants nothing whatever done by way of resuscitation or treatment. The woman suffers a severe stroke, is entirely paralysed down the right side, and cannot speak. The husband is in a frenzy because he respects his wife's views. Nevertheless the doctor is called. He prescribes pills against high blood pressure and arranges intensive nursing. After a few weeks, it is obvious that the old lady registers everything that is going on. She clearly enjoys the visits of the grandchildren. She begins to say a few words, and the help of a speech therapist is enlisted, but progress is very slow. The physiotherapist is a little more successful, the patient learns to feed herself with her left hand and to walk a few steps with the help of a walking frame. Daily life is very hard despite the old couple's relative affluence, as looking after her at home absorbs much of the family's energies. Improvement continues for six months, then slows. Two years later, the patient has a second stroke and dies.

Sir Gustav Nossal continues: Patient 3 is perhaps the most illustrative of all. The key element here is that the well person cannot

possibly know how he or she would feel at the particular time and in the particular circumstance of some future contingency. The husband could have failed to call the doctor; the doctor could have failed to


control the blood pressure. In either event, the patient would have died sooner. But who is to know what joy those visits from the grandchildren brought one human life under the new circumstances now prevailing? Suppose that legislation were in place giving effect to her wish for no medical treatment. The patient could not speak. Suppose, following the stroke, an intense desire arose within her to live at least until the eldest grandchild's forthcoming marriage-a desire unknown and unexpected when well? Or suppose that the recovery had been just a little more complete? Again the range of possibilities is so great that the most equitable solution demands decisions taken at the time and not on hypothetical cases infused with the mores of the society that are themselves constantly changing, and with the good faith of a number of people involved in the particulars.

That is also important in a society where the ability of modern technology to prolong worthwhile life is progressing rapIdly.

The many cases quoted by honourable members during the debate cannot be swept aside by the government as being individually inconsequential because, in toto, they form a significant body of evidence that is compelling-that is, if Parliament is to fulfil its responsibility, which is to protect the democratic, personal rights of all Victorians, including the most defenceless Victorian-the person who is at, near or approaching death. Each Victorian is entitled to be given that protection until death.

I recognise that the issue is complex. Supposedly the Bill does not create a ri~t to die-or does it? Recommendation No. 1 in the report states that it is neither desIrable nor practicable for any legislative action to be taken to establish a right to die.

There has been a good deal of double talk in this House during the past couple of days about the right to die. It should be clear to any intelli$ent, competent person who is prepared to examine the issue honestly that ifby declinIng treatment a person dies, that establishes a right to die. We should not mince our words, because that is what we are talking about.

I accept a person's right to refuse medical treatment. It is for patients to decide what happens to them. Many philosophers accept that a person has a right to die at a time of his or her choosing. But what many honourable members have been talking about is the right to die in a satisfactory way, something which many have called the ability to make a good death. The phrase "dying with dignity" has been misused and abused so often that it no longer serves the cause. The phrase is being used as a mantle to cover all manner of issues.

Very often it is not possible for patients to die with dignity. Often there is the distinct possibility that if supposedly hi~-tech medical resources are withdrawn, a patient is far more likely to die without dIgnity-and I am talking about dying in pain and anguish.

There is no way that an attorney could know the wishes of a patient who is approaching death. That brings me to what I believe is the cardinal reason why the Bill is unacceptable: the Bill provides no capacity for another person to know how the patient will feel when approaching death. Honourable members will recall that Parliament has accepted the principle that a person could, for personal and unexplained reasons, while competent to make a decision, override the most competent and accurate medical opinion that could be offered. Parliament accepted that last year, and I accept that now. The only reason that is justified is that it concerns a personal decision and a personal right.

When third parties become involved that capacity is lost and the likelihood of error is increased-and that is a prime justification for stopping the progress of the Bill. Another reason for opposition to the Bill stated by some honourable members concerns the risk of agents acting with malice, and I shall return to that point. That reason, which was clearly enunciated by the honourable members for Balwyn and Kew, is also a sufficient reason to stop the Bill.


If the Bill is passed there will be a significant doubt about the capacity of legislation to protect the most defenceless of Victorians from homicide. For the reasons I have cited, there can be no justification for Parliament to proceed with the Bill, if honourable members claim to be concerned to protect the rights of the last individual in our community.

Whenever there is debate about an individual's right to decline medical treatment when competent, the matter becomes more controversial and arguments become much less supportable once a person becomes incompetent to make such a decision. The basic supposition behind the Bill and behind those who support dying with dignity is that the medical profession is deficient in its stewardship. That is a very serious charge, which I do not believe is sustainable.

Various reasons are offered about why doctors press on when patients are near death. One reason that has not been mentioned is that the basic reason doctors press on in such circumstances is that the families of patients urge them to continue treating their loved ones in the hope that they will survive. That is not surprising; indeed, it is a fact of life. Medical practitioners I have talked to have told me that, more often than not, they are pressed onwards by anguished families faced with the closing hours of their loved ones' lives. As has been said by medical practitioners, members of the government party, and members of the opposition parties, medical practitioners sometimes work under the justifiable fear of legal prosecution if it should ever be discovered that they have been professionally negligent by not having pursued medical techniques to the limit to try to preserve the lives of their patients.

I accept that it is valid for Parliament to do something about that matter, but I do not believe the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill is the way to do it. It would be practicable to provide legal protection. I am not legally trained, but I should have thought it would be possible to draft a Bill to protect medical practitioners by providing a safeguard where two of them acted in concert to give a medical opinion and provide a signed report justifying what they had done.

I have little doubt that such a provision would prevail in Victoria because we have accepted the practice of medical practitioners being able to defend their actions on the rare occasions that such cases have come to court. Certainly it should be possible to draft a Bill to give legal protection to medical practitioners in those situations.

The issue is very complex. I shall again quote remarks of Sir Gustav Nossal: Reverence for life is common to all civilised societies, and in ludaeo-Christian cultures, where the

rights and responsibilities of individuals are accorded special importance, each human life is seen as infinitely precious. The preservation oflife has traditionally been the main duty of the medical profession. It is only in recent decades that the role of doctors in the struggle of life versus death has become controversial.

I shall quote from the remarks of Dr Parkin, as they appear on page 112 of the first report-he is in charge of the intensive care unit-who states:

Against this background, maintenance of a holistic approach to care and perspective about the downstream limitations of illness requires constant vigilance, exceptional knowledge and uncommon wisdom.

I shall return to that in relation to the role of the attorney. I shall add, as I proceed, the comments of Reverend Dr Henley as they appear on page 77, who has this to say:

Seek not to end the living of the dying but rather to tend the dying in their living.

That casts an entirely different light on what we are talking about.

I return to the role of the medico in his daily practice. Through the centuries, doctors have been constrained to work under the old Hippo~ratic oath or principle that they will work to cure a person's illness while that cure is possible and will lead to a


satisfactory standard of living thereafter; but when the patient gets beyond that point they will work to alleviate suffering and to enable that person to die a good death, whenever that is possible.

That is what the community is asking for and that is what the government is seeking to do, but because of the complexity of the situation the government will fail to do that. It will fail in the accuracy of the decisions taken and it will fail to provide adequate defence against situations of malice. I shall not go into those situations of malice-they have been well covered.

All members of Parliament know from workin~ in their electorates that we are not all nice people. We all know that it is quite possIble to get dear old granny to sign a power of attorney that will give other relatives the capacity to decide life and death issues for her because, at those closing times,· we all know that dear old granny is desperate to please those whom she loves most. They are all she has left in the world; she needs contact with them and she is desperate to please them.

That sort of situation will be exploited from time to time, and-it is not adequate for this Parliament to maintain that, because we protect 99·95 per cent of people, that is sufficient. It is not adequate knowingly to create legislation that does not attempt to protect every person in Victoria. Errors of omission are one thing. Errors of commission are an entirely different proposition and an anathema to democratic government.

The Bill will enable the uninformed to override medical expertise. It will not enable an attorney who, for reasons I have explained, does not know the patient's wish or, as in nearly all cases-unless the person is a competent medico-does not know the complexity of the issues involved, to be a substitute for informed consent by way of a personal wish of the patient, where that patient is not competent.

This is the great difference in the proposal and the one on which it founders. The case for change depends upon the needs of patients-which must be pre-eminent, and I have talked about them-and the needs of the doctor, both in terms of protecting the doctor and in terms of making it possible for the doctor to record what he is doing, if that is necessary. It is based also on the statement that medical organisations are opposed to the Bill. Let me say, with great respect, they are not relevant to the Bill either.

This Parliament makes decisions based upon the rights of the individual and, when necessary, on moral and societal issues, as well as the philosophical premises of the issues concerned. This Parliament has failed to address itself to the philosophical issues.

Honourable members in this House have, in the past two days, heard speaker after speaker from the government side saying that the Social Development Committee worked on this issue for eighteen months, and they accept what the committee did; that the Catholic Church says it is all right; or that the Australian Medical Association says it is all right to do it. In the final analysis, they are all irrelevant to the decision about this issue. In the end it comes down to matters, as I have said, such as accuracy of the decision, the capacity to rule out malice, the real wishes of the person concerned, the preservation of the life of the patient until it is no longer preservable, and then the loving care of the person until he or she dies.

The fourth reason, and I have dealt with it, is that the churches say that it is all r~ght. I point out that not all of them say that. We have heard about the division in the Catholic Church. I do not believe we have heard from members of the Jewish faith whether they are opposed or are constrained to oppose this sort of proposal. The fifth justification given to us is that, after all, we are all very nice people. We have heard abundant evidence here today that that is not the case.


There is another reason in the complexity of the decision making that must be mentioned. Over the past twelve months I put two questions on this issue to the most senior doctors and to other doctors at all levels of practice in Victoria. Firstly, I asked: do you know the moment of death of your patients? Without question, on every occasion, the answer was no. Secondly, I asked: have patients surprised you by recovering? Without question, on every occasion, the answer was yes.

That sort of situation is difficult enough for doctors to handle. How can we pass that authority to an attorney who could be anyone involved with the patient? Life is our most precious asset. It matters, for the last person, even though his or her life may be very much shortened thereafter. The responsibility is onerous in the extreme.

At page 51, the first report of the Social Development Committee refers to the remarks of Robert Weir and states:

After detailing criteria which proxy decision makers should satisfy-they should have relevant knowledge and information, be impartial, not be under severe emotional stress, and be consistent.

How could those criteria be met by a single person, who is likely to be much closer to the patient? How can that attorney cover all those things, including not being severely emotionally involved to begin with? I agree with the honourable member for Kew that to place this burden on someone is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to expect a lay person to take that decision.

The Bill also has to relate to anencephalic babies, to brain dead individuals, and to various other categories such as cancer patients. I leave the babies and the brain dead individuals-there is no problem in dealing with them-but they do highlight the fact that even the findings of that committee are now out of date because the committee recommended that the definition of death be based on section 41 of the Human Tissue Act of Victoria which refers to cerebral or brain deficiency. Of course, the agreement now is that it should depend upon brain deficiency.

What does all this amount to? I think it amounts to a genuine concern in the community that we should examine the situation and see whether anything can be done to assist. The government's proposals are clearly unacceptable because they take the responsibility from the professional-the middle person who has no vested interest and who spends his life trying to do his best-and gives it to a lay person, who has no skills, who does not know what the patient thinks, and who might have a vested interest, even of malice. That situation is not acceptable to me, and I inform the government that I intend to vote against the Bill, unless it is prepared to do one thing: to look at what has not been brought out by the Social Development Committee.

If we must have change, let us examine the possibility of committees making these decisions in the hospitals, because we are always talking about the hospital situation, where the person dying, the family, any of their nominees, the medical staff, several medicos, and perhaps other people like-as Robert Weir pointed out-a physician, a nurse and a patient, advocates, anaesthetists, social workers and so on, can have a say.

That situation would overcome the problem of malice. In that way we may be able to reach a situation where, as Sir Gustav Nossal mentioned, we have a grey area type of approach where commonsense may prevail and the person's right to life and to dignity and comfort as he or she dies a good death may be pre-eminent. It is very unacceptable in this current state to give all this responsibility to another person. The Bill is absolutely and totally flawed. I do not question the government's wish to bring progress, but I point out that this is not the way. I call upon the government to leave the Bill on the table for another six months until the committee proposal is examined.


The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr NORRIS (Dandenong)-Debate on the Bill has been most interesting and several speakers from the other side of the House have been at great pains to explain their position. I am sensitive to the position of many of them and to the dilemma and depth of feeling that the Bill invokes in them. Fortunately I have no problems in coming to terms with the aims and objectives of the Bill. For the benefit of the House I shall restate the purposes of the Bill:

1. The purposes of this Act are-(a) to define the power of an agent appointed under an enduring power of attorney (medical

treatment); (b) to provide for safeguards over the exercise of an enduring power of attorney (medical treatment); (c) to amend the Instruments Act 1958 to make it clear that the powers of an agent under an

enduring power of attorney under that Act do not include a power to make decisions about medical treatment;

(d) to provide that sections 6B (2) and 463 (B) ofthe Crimes Act 1958 continue to have effect and that inciting, aiding or abetting suicide, or homicide, continue to be offences.

The purpose of the Bill is to enhance the right enshrined in the Medical Treatment Act of members of the community to refuse medical treatment. As I recall, the principal Act had two major elements: one was the clarification of a competent patient's power to refuse medical treatment and the other was to provide a means of nominating an agent to refuse medical treatment on behalf of a person who had become incompetent.

Incompetent patients should have the same rights as competent patients. I believe that is the nub of the Bill, and I believe that right is just, humane and moral. It is the right to expect that care givers and those legally entrusted by the patient carry out the patient's wishes and allow the patient to die with dignity.

That term has received some adverse comments from various Opposition speakers but I believe it is an apt and true term. We have heard many reasoned and sincere viewpoints expressed by Opposition members. I am sure the same members who are opposing this Bill would have opposed the original Medical Treatment Bill.

Last night the honourable member for Balwyn gave a sincere and legalistic argument about why he was opposing the Bill. I am not a legal eagle and, as I have said before, I had a rudimentary education at St Ignatius, Richmond up to primary school level. I could not follow the thrust of most of the honourable member's legal argument. However, he did say, "I believe that life is a gift from God". The honourable member for Balwyn has just come into the House, so he can correct me if I am wrong. He used a complex legal argument to justify what is basically an innate, philosophical and emotional befief. It is a proper belief, that life is a precious gift from God. If he were speaking to me over a cup of tea in the restaurant I am sure he would agree that that comment is the basis of his argument. It was a simple, deeply held religious and philosophical belief that he tried to disguise with a lot of legal jargon.

The question is whether life is a precious gift from God under any circumstances. I do not believe it is; in fact I have never been able to understand the basis of the religious argument put by opponents of the Bill, such as Mrs Tighe from the Right to Life organisation and Father Ahern of Berrigan. They are sincere people and their belief is that it is life at any cost.

Iflife is a precious gift from God, so is death. If one seriously believes that religious philosophy, surely, if God is withdrawing that precious gift ofhfe, God's desire should not be thwarted. We are now able to thwart God's wish to take a life because we have access to highly sophisticated medical technology to allow us to do so. These days a


person can be hitched up to all sorts of machines with all sorts of currents running through his or her body and wires coming out everywhere. Another invention may be put on the market today that was not on the market two weeks ago that could keep a person alive for another month. Are the opponents of the Bill basing their argument on any means that keep the patient alive?

That is the basis of my philosophy. If I had the same deeply held religious belief that many of the opponents of the Bill have, I could not see any contradiction. If one believes in God and believes in everlasting life at God's side, what is the aim of thwarting God's desire?

To pick up another point, the honourable member for Kew and another speaker mentioned Lady Mountbatten, who was involved in an horrific accident-more than that, she was the victim of an act of terrorism. She was no doubt hovering between life and death and everyone around her was hopeful that she would recover. Lady Mountbatten did recover. She had been linked up to all sorts of life support machines and I am sure it ran through her mind that nobody should turn-off the machines. Nobody did. My argument is that a person acting under the provisions of this Bill would not turn-off life support machines in an accident situation when there is the possibility of the patient recovering.

The honourable member for Kew mentioned the returned soldier from Britain who was blinded and had his arms blown off in an horrific land mine or booby trap accident during the second world war. He said, as many who suffer such horrific injuries would say, that he wanted to die. That is a natural reaction. Of course, in that situation, nobody acquiesces to that person's wishes. It is something that is said in the emotion of the moment when the patient is in an abysmally low mental state. In the case of the returned soldier, Weary Dunlop did not acquiesce to that gentleman's wishes and eventually he was extremely grateful to Weary Dunlop for saving his life.

With all due respect to the honourable member for Kew, that person would not have been in any danger from the provisions of this Bill. Every day hundreds of people want to die but their wishes are not acquiesced to, nor would they be under the provisions of the Bill.

I shall not take up the time of the House with all of the quotations that have been given by interested parties. Father Ahern quoted from Deuteronomy. Speakers quoted from the Old and New Testament. Anyone can justify anything from the Bible. I am sure if I looked hard enough in the Old or the New Testament or in the Koran I would find something that would justify the position I am taking.

Other arguments from both sides of the House have been that the Catholic Church supports the Bill and that the Catholic Church does not support the Bill. Archbishop Little supports the Bill; no, he does not support the Bill; and so on. I believe there is division of opinion within the Catholic Church, but in my opinion the Catholic Church does not oppose the Bill with any great ferocity. Some other people do, and that reflects their deeply held philosophical belief. It IS right that they can express those beliefs. I believe the Catholic Church supports the proposed legislation, as do the Anglican Church and theologians who have a much greater intellect than I.

I have no problem with the Bill because I believe those who are incompetent at the latter stages of terminal illnesses have the same rights as does a competent person, and that is the right to refuse treatment. The honourable member for Kew said that she would never put anyone in the situation of being an agent for her; that is her right! However, I should have no problem asking a member of my family to be my agent, and I would have no problem acting as an agent for anyone of my family. I love them deeply and I would do what I could for them. That is a simplistic way of putting the


matter, but I have no problem with that at all. I love them and they love me. I would trust my family to do what they believed was right.

The honourable member for Dromana in his thoughtful contribution asked, "How do we know what that person was thinking at that particular time?" We do not know. Every day members of the medical profession must make decisions and they do not know what their patients are thinking. All honourable members have possibly had members of their families about whom the medical profession has made decisions which under law could be wrong.

The honourable member for Balwyn spoke about a medical practitioner who was treating a person who had developed pneumonia. The pneumonia was not treated and as a result the person died. Pneumonia, as the angel of death, often takes people. I know of an elderly person who was close to death and that person developed pneumonia. The pneumonia was not treated and the person died. The doctor told me what he was doing. He made sure that the aged person did not suffer. That person was desperately ill. Simil.ar situations have been occurring since Adam was a boy, and they will continue to happen.

Mr E. R. Smith-Without legislation!

Mr NORRIS-Does the honourable member for Glen Waverley believe it should be left to the whim of a doctor as to whether a person is treated for pneumonia in a similar case, or does he believe there should be input from a person concerned about the patient's welfare? I should like someone who loved me to have an input in the decision making.

I return to the point made by the honourable member for Dro~ana when he asked, "How do we know what the person is thinking at that time?" We do not know, but we do know that when a person has made another person his or her agent the agent will have a good idea of the way the person was thinking; otherwise it is a matter of guesswork. If a person has appointed an agent the agent will know the thrust of the person's thoughts in particular situations. It is an important, complex, emotional and philosophical measure. I have enjoyed the debate that has taken place last night and today. I do not believe the Bill encourages suicide or homicide; it is about compassion and the rights of the incompetent.

The Bill provides adequate protection against an abuse of trust. Some honourable members may disagree but I believe it does provide that protection. For too long patients of the category that the Bill provides for have been denied their basic rights. That is the basis of my philosophy. I congratulate the government on the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage. I compliment honourable members from both sides of the House for their contributions.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-The Liberal Party supports the proposed legislation but the Liberal Party offers its members the opportunity to make a conscience decision that may not necessarily follow the party's decision. Therefore, when my party votes for the Bill I will not.

I find the Bill unsatisfactory in the terms that the honourable member for Dandenong used: that where there is love, compassion and trust there is no problem. As he said, people have coped for many years with the difficulties of living and dying without the Bill. The Bill allows the appointment of agents and I have no difficulty with the opportunity for people to appoint agents. My difficulty arises with the provisions that give agents a free hand to rewrite the wishes of the person providing the agency and, on occasion, for the chosen agents to be ousted by the Guardianship and Administration Board, which may then apply whatever idea it has as to availability of beds, waiting


lists or shortages to decide whether to speed on the incompetent or the aged, as it chooses.

I have observed that in psychiatric hospitals the entry policy reflects the discharge policy. The reason why one is discharged from a psychiatric hospital is because somebody else needs the bed more. The reason why one has difficulty gaining admission to a public hospital is because the hospitals do not have sufficient beds. If one's illness allows one's treatment to be deferred or if one is a paying or insured patient there is no difficulty in obtaining treatment, but, regrettably, there is no provision for a person appointing an agent to indicate the way he or she wishes the agent to exercise the trust given. The ability to write one's wishes is stylishly absent from the donation of power. One might say that, if one becomes incompetent, one wishes the agent to exercise his or her judgment along certain lines and that the agent should be guided by those views, but that is not included in the Bill.

What choice does one get in the appointment of an agent? It is a choice of having the agent's input into the decision making along with that of the doctor; the doctor and agent in effect then being unanswerable for what they decide and do.

I do not support the Bill. Previously I found with the parent le~slation that I could not trust the government because it did not proclaim the entire BIll as amended in the Upper House. I do not trust the government with a Bill that can be partly proclaimed, because it has done that in the past and I do not trust it not to do it again. I was unable to trust the government to proclaim a Bill that was amended in another place. I respect t~ose· people who have different views from mine as I expect them to respect my VIews.

The proposed legislation provides the opportunity of loving, trusting and caring; but because it is so badly prepared it offers loopholes that allow opportunities for those who do not love sufficiently, those who do not care enough and those who might be tempted to encourage older people to go to their deaths rather than be troubled by their continuing life.

Mr J. F. McGRA TH (Warrnambool)-The Bill seeks to complement the Medical Treatment Act 1988. As the lead speaker for the National Party, the honourable member for Rodney explained, the National Party has decided to support the Bill. As is the tradition with the party, honourable members who feel strongly enough about an issue of conscience are given an opportunity of exercising their vote as they see fit. Today I am exercising my conscience vote in opposing the Bill.

I compliment the honourable member for Balwyn on his remarks last evening. He traversed areas about the implications of the Bill that I would not be competent to adequately accommodate. He used his experience, judgment and goodwill to great effect, and I compliment him on that.

Much has been said about the various avenues of support for the Bill and from where that support comes. It is interesting to reflect on what some people have written about the Bill. Michael Barnard wrote an article in the Age of 10 October 1989 in which he raises an interesting question. He states:

The issue of euthanasia. in whatever guise it is dressed, has moral and practical implications for every member of the community, approving or disapproving. It should not be allowed, by public default, to gain the appearance of being purely a concern of Catholic moral theology, much as this, in its traditional teaching, might have to offer.

Mr Barnard goes on to refer to the implications of the debate and says: Two things struck me on reading Mr Tonti-Filippini's unquestioning acceptance of the Bill's "safeguards".

One, it remains that, for all the protective clauses, agents will hold life-or-death power over others in what sometimes must inevitably be ambiguous or ill-defined circumstances; and two, Mr Tonti-Filippini implicity


presupposes that any such law will have the benefit of being operated, now and into the future, within the moral constraints of Judaeo-Christian ethics.

That is not a theologian espousing the words; I repeat that it is Michael Barnard. In his long article he speaks about a range of matters and refers to the no-fault Family Law Act and says:

The "no fault" Family Law Act championed as an enlightened means of overcoming the pain and bitterness of family breakdown, now presents its face of compassion and social caring in the form of 41 000 divorces in a year, with a running total of about 450 000 lone or single-parent children and an annual cost to the public purse in lone-parent benefits (1988-89) of more than $2·1 billion (Budget Papers).

The point he is making is that when the Family Court of Australia was established noone perceived the ramifications it would have on society, our community and our families. Yesterday the House debated the Crimes (Family Violence) (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), and the need for that can be attributed to the decimation of the Australian community by the Family Court. Mr Barnard's analogy is relevant to this debate.

Mr Barnard goes on to talk about another issue that can be described as emotional, but it is real and I am concerned about it-I refer to abortion. Mr Barnard says:

With abortion, the liberalising but still clearly restrictive philosophies ofthose such as Victoria's Justice Menhennitt-essentially, that abortion is lawful where "necessary to preserve the mother from serious danger to life or physical or mental health"-has been allowed to run out of hand to a national annual tally of60 000 to 80 000 "terminations". This, even though the Australian Medical Association of the day (July 1969) publicly declared itself against abortion on demand (which is what we have got, with medical compliance) and even though one might safely assume that the killing of the unborn is far in excess of anything Justice Menhennitt or those like him envisaged.

What Mr Barnard has outlined in the article is the reason many ,experienced people are concerned about the Bill. Last night the honourable member for Balwyn and a few minutes ago the honourable member for Berwick touched on the implication of putting in place a legislative framework that will take us somewhere down a path, the direction of which we cannot predict. We are not able to put in place the safeguards to ensure that the roles included in the Bill will be handled in a proper, ethical, loving, caring and compassionate manner. We are unable to do that, yet we are told we should support the Bill.

I did not agonise over my decision of whether to support the Bill. My decision rests comfortably with me; I have had no agony, my opposition to it is solid. I do not waver; I know where I am going. I make that point because much has been made about the position of the Catholic Church and the support coming from the mainstream of that church.

Honourable members must be careful how we define the mainstream. We need to remember that Archbishop Little gave support to the Bill in his original letter, but there is a qualification to that. When it was drawn to his attention that the Bill went beyond the ambit of his understanding of its provisions, he sought to do the old twofoot shuffle and moved back a little from his support. He had to be discrete about how he did that, so he wrote a letter that enabled him to move back a fraction from his support. Do members of the government acknowledge that letter? No, they do not. They do not acknowledge the fact that Archbishop Little has stepped away from his jaitial support.

The religious aspect has been introduced to the debate. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, referred a few moments ago to St Ignatius Boys Primary School in Richmond. I was educated by the Good Samaritans, at St Brigid's Church, Crossley, and was further educated at the Christian Brothers college at Warrnambool. If honourable members have not realised by now, I was raised in the Catholic faith. Some may say I am in


conflict with what the church is on about. Perhaps I am, but, if I am it is because the statements of support are largely based on the first letter from Archbishop Little.

The statements of support are not based on his second letter, and certainly not based on the letter of the Auxiliary Bishop to Melbourne, George Pel!. Bishop Pell is not only the Auxiliary Bishop to Melbourne, and not only does he fill the vacuum created when Archbishop Little is overseas or interstate but also, as a result of his activities and his contribution in this very important area, he has been recognised by Rome. He has been made a member of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and represents Australia in Rome. Yet, members on the other side are prepared to hang their hats in support of the Bill based on what the church has said, and call on members voting against the Bill to reconsider their opposition.

I know what the church is saying. Unfortunately, in the early days the church was led by the nose by Mr Tonti-Filippini. I am well aware of the teaching of the Catholic Church on euthanasia, and that subject must be discussed. The Bill sanctions the refusal of any treatment, even life-saving treatment; euthanasia must be discussed because that is what it is all about.

Clearly, by legitimising those actions the Bill allows killing by the deliberate omission of treatment. It is simple, and black and white. I have no anxiety about that. Some honourable members who support the Bill have perhaps deluded themselves that it is not a euthanasia Bill. If not, why is Dr Helga Kuhse over the moon about it? She is certainly over the moon about this Bill!

In the October 1989 edition of the Rabelais magazine Helga Kuhse states: ... if you have got a patient who requires treatment, life-sustaining treatment, and you think that it is better, everything considered, that the patient should die sooner rather than later, and you withhold treatment, then you are as much responsible for the outcome of that-namely the patient's death-as you would be if you for the same reason administer a lethal injection, because you think it is in the patient's best interests that he or she should die.

That is an interesting comment from someone who has taken such a strong, provocative, and up-front stand on euthanasia in Victoria. Honourable members should not delude themselves about what they are on about today.

Let us not cloud the entire issue with a whole range of debate on who is for and against the Bill. Let us look at what it is all about, as the honourable member for Dromana said. It is very clear what it is about. How have we got ourselves into a situation where the Victorian Parliament is to legislate to allow for legal killing by omission?

One might say that scientific research and development has run wild, and gone over the top. That cannot be stopped. Now, honourable members find themselves in the position whereby only a few years ago many wanted to interfere with the greatest law of the land-the law of nature. It is the law that has divine proclamation, one mipt say. Now we are paying the penalty. The same people want to run around now sticking bandaids here and there to try to plug up past mistakes.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that we should be put into this situation. I have no doubt about what the honourable member for Balwyn said; life is a gift from God. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, said during your contribution to the debate, part of that life is death. However, I was never given the power to determine when someone should die. Never! If God had wanted me to have that power he would have given me a method long before today, and before Parliament was faced with making a decision about when someone should die. Grey clouds cover the connotations about pecuniary interests, estates, agents and those sorts of things.


Why should Parliament take the onus away from those who are best qualified to judge, if one likes, about who should die? Doctors can do that without the assistance of this proposed legislation. Why should Parliament take away their responsibilities and give them to someone like me who has no knowledge of what sort of life could be expected from someone following a car accident or a like incident?

I should like to dwell a little on Mr Tonti-Filippini because he has been responsible for dragging the Catholic Church into the argument. Originally, Mr Tonti-Filippini wrote to the former Chairperson of the Social Development Committee inquiring into the options for dying with dignity, Judith Dixon, and congratulated her for endorsing the concept picked up in that inquiry. Having committed himself to that course of action, surely it is not surprising that he has played a key role in ensuring that the Bill should pass quickly through both Houses.

To digress for a moment, all honourable members receive copies of Health Victoria issued by Health Department Victoria. It is Australian Labor Party propaganda, if one likes, and is paid for by the taxpayers. It is distributed to various areas throughout Victoria. The publication I refer to is dated October I 989-and honourable members must remember that the House is debating the Bill in April 1990. In that publication, the Minister states:

The Victorian Parliament made world history last month with the passing of legislation extending the rights of patients in their choice to prolong or end medical treatment.

The Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Act, often referred to as the "dying with dignity" legislation, will enable a person to appoint an agent to act on their behalf ...

I particularly refer to the first paragraph. The Minister for Health in the other place has held the democratic processes of this Parliament in contempt by distributing a government magazine telling the Victorian public that Parliament had passed legislation when that had not happened. It is tantamount to contempt for her to assume that the Bill will be passed. Why could she not say that she expected it to be passed, and not tell the people that it had been passed?

In the Sun of 15 November 1989, Mr Tonti-Filippini was recorded as havin~ been appointed to a special role within the Catholic Church following his activities surrounding the proposed legislation. As a practising Catholic, I am amazed and disappointed that someone who has taken the public down that path should receive that sort of recognition.

When talking about euthanasia, one must look at what was said about Derek Humphry, the Hemlock Society co-founder. An article in National Life states:

The Hemlock Society, the radical pro-euthanasia movement founded by Derek Humphry and his second wife Ann Wickett Humphry in 1980, is being investigated by both the IRS and the California Attorney-General allegedly for violating guidelines for non-profit organisations.

The investigations come at the same time the couple is divorcing, the cause of which Mrs Humphry says, is her husband's "panic" when he learned that she had come down with breast cancer. Mrs Humphry, who says the cancer appears to be arrested, told American Medical News (AMN) that, "ironically, through my own experience, I have come to understand the arguments" of those opposed to euthanasia.

That is an interesting twist by someone who has been involved in the development of the strong pro-euthanasia lobby, yet has done a 360-degree turn. The article continues:

Derek Humphry is a tireless proponent of "active" euthanasia-that is, physician-assisted suicidewho came to fame in 1978 with the publication of Jean's Way, an autobiographical account of how he "assisted" his first wife to die.

It is important to note that Jean died from breast cancer. One can understand that his second wife showed some concern when she was diagnosed with the same illness. The article continues:

Jean, who also had breast cancer, ingested a potion of pain killers and sleeping pills in a cup of coffee.


They are the sorts of people who are projecting their views on society and we, as a community, must think about that.

The contributions to the debate of government members have not given me reason to think a second time about my stance on the Bill. Government members have spoken on the Bill for periods from 4 to 15 minutes and have not convinced me that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure the rights of persons who may come within the provisions of the Bill will have those rights protected. It has been said that people refusing treatment on behalf of others will be above the temptations of life, but it must be understood that giving in to such temptations could see some people gain significantly and perhaps change their whole mode of living by being the single or a joint beneficiary in an estate. Nobody has been able to assure me that that could not happen and, more importantly, that it will not happen. We should think about the issues that affect people.

Mr and Mrs Harris of Glenroy have been mentioned in the debate, as have the grave concerns they have about their lack of control and, more importantly, their son's lack of control over his life, given than an agent of the Guardianship and Administration Board can ride roughshod over anyone. There is evidence that that is already happening. We are in the closing stages of this debate and the government has said nothing to convince me that I am wrong. My view is not based merely on my philosophical approach to these issues. It is, in part-and I admit that unashamedlybut I have not been given any assurance by the government that the legal implications that have been raised by the honourable members for Balwyn and Berwick have been addressed. There are no such protections in place. We are opening a Pandora's box; we are legitimising the ending of the future of many of our relatives and friends without putting in place any safeguards.

It has been put to me that I am playin$ God in opposing the proposed legislation. I consider that what Parliament is doing IS attempting to play God; to take over and guide the direction of what has been demonstrated as a long process of people choosing to live and die in a natural way. Ifwe must question where we are going, the arguments should be much deeper than those raised by a Bill such as this.

I should like to read a letter from Bishop George Pell, because I believe he has put his views as he sees them and explained how they fit with the theology of the church. The argument in this debate has involved the church, particularly the Catholic Church. In his letter Bishop Pell says:

I have been reluctant to write again on the Victorian Medical Treatment Bill but repeated claims that my position differs from Catholic teaching corn pe) me to attempt once more to focus discussion on the central issues and the arena where they shall be worked out.

Discussion of my theological understanding is a red herring, a distraction. The church's teaching against suicide and euthanasia is quite clear and I accept it. There can be no licence to kill, even by omission. In ) 986 the Victorian Catholic bishops also wrote: "Human morality, and the common law, do not require that extraordinary means (of sustaining life) be indefinitely continued or even begun: even though death may be a foreseen consequence". Naturally, I accept this too. As a bishop I am bound to teach what Christ and the church teach ...

It is quite misleading to claim the Bill is compatible with Catholic teaching. It represents a major change in social arrangements and a major effort to undermine important public moral perceptions. It is an initial victory for the pro-euthanasia lobby.

He makes the position clear, as do a range of other people who have written on this issue.

I trust that when the division bells ring-and they surely will ring-members from both sides of the House will exercise their conscience vote on a very important and sensitive issue. Members of the Labor Party must feel uncomfortable about supporting


this Bill, but I trust they will be allowed to cross the floor and vote when the opposition parties call a division.

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-This latest fiece of legislative social engineering-the Medical Treatment (Endurin~ Power 0 Attorney) Bill-is nothing more than another example of the government Introducing unnecessry legislation. In the last sessional period SO per cent-I received that figure from the Library-of the Bills introduced in this House were needed to amend legislation which had previously been brought in by the government and which had to be changed because it was faulty. This Bill is another example of the need to amend faulty legislation.

Before 1987, when discussion on this subject began, there was no legislation, and very few countries had legislation in this field. In 1988 a five-page Bill was introduced and in 1989 a nine-page Bill was introduced. The proposed legislation will probably be twelve pages long. I envisage that another Bill will be introduced later in 1990 seeking to make it compulsory for everyone to sign a refusal of treatment certificate because the government is insistent upon social engineering to the nth degree. The Bill is unnecessary because the common law caters for all the situations that have been discussed today. It caters especially for situations where doctors are competent, ethical and courageous. For centuries doctors have displayed those three characteristics and taken decisions regarding people's lives without worry. Today there is a body of opinion in the medical sphere that doctors no longer wish to be courageous.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in your contribution you said that you wanted, when your time came and it was necessary to have medical opinions, to have someone close to you helping you to make the decision. The common law gives you that right already. Your caring family-I know it is caring because I know your family-would be, let us assume, at the hospital making the same decisions that the doctors would be making, even if the proposed legislation were passed.

Let us consider the classic example at St Vincent's Hospital before the legislation was introduced in 1988. It concerned the elderly lady who had been on a resuscitator for some time. Her quality of life had deteriorated to the extent that she said, "I no longer want to have to endure what I am putting up with". She called for the support of her priest, family and medical advisers. One by one, they came to see her. They all said to her, "You cannot stand the pressure any more; we understand". That was a decision made by three groups, although there may have been others. The decision was made collectively between the patient's family, priests and the medical persons who turned off the resuscitator. She died peacefully during the night. Those people made the decision without needing legislation. They did not need to sign a piece of paper giving them the right to do so, such as the refusal of treatment certificate included in the Bill. The common law adequately covered the situation.

I wonder how many honourable members are rushing out to sign one of those certificates, or ripping it out of the back of the Bill. We do not have a clue as to what is in store for us in the future and, therefore, do not want to make decisions about what will happen in the future. The majority of people die peacefully at home in their beds, but there are other cases. Examples have been given of the traumatic experiences of victims of car accidents or war injuries, or the plight of persons suffering from cancer. In the case of car accidents, it could happen to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or me; we do not know what is in store for us. Honourable members heard the example of the person who had his arms blown off in a mine accident in the second world war and was cut and blinded as a result. How the devil can we possibly sign a legal certificate about what should be done in case a certain situation happens when we do not know what is in store for us? We do not know how our bodies will react to injury or disease.


Before the legislation was introduced competent, ethical and courageous doctorsI choose to dwell on those three words-were prepared to make decisions in collaboration, if necessary, with the person's family and certainly with the patient, even when the patient was incompetent. A decision can still be made. I do not know what a legal piece of paper can do in addition to that.

I addressed a group of 400 people at a retirement village in my electorate just before the first Bill was dealt with. Most of the people who spoke to me were worrying about euthanasia, and when they realised that the Bill did not contain provisions for euthanasia they were surprised. Many people thought that dying with dignity was about euthanasia and that the Bill would present some magical way in which they could leave the world without any pain. However, that is not what the Bill is about, because such provisions would compromise doctors and other people involved such as the guardians.

What has been most evident this afternoon is the confusion resulting from the proposed legislation. The community is completely confused about what is going on. The honourable member for Warrnambool referred to the Catholic Church. It seems to be confused about where it is going, although the true believer seems to be Bishop Pell; and is he wrong? The arguments do not bring any comfort to the public, particularly the aged, whose minds are riveted on the subject of death. The residents at the retirement village I visited were vitally concerned about what was going on in the Bill at the time. The legislation was unnecessary because the common law covered those situations. Hideously injured and old people are covered under the common law. In my opinion the Bill gives protection not to patients but rather to doctors and nurses. It is a protection measure for them, not patients.

I refer to the grotesque example of Karen Ann Quinlan in America with which honourable members would be familiar. Doctors went completely overboard and decided to play God by keeping the clinically dead girl alive. They kept her alive against the wishes of her Catholic parents for a number of years. I am not sure, but I think eventually the decision was made to turn off the respIrator. Why was she being kept alive? 1 suggest it was because of a misguided and wrong belief on the part of her medical team. The parents had said, "Please turn off the respirator". They went to court but once the law is involved one is not necessarily ~ven more freedom; often the law has the effect of taking away, jeopardising or limitIng freedom. The proposed legislation falls into that category.

Honourable members have referred to conscience votes. Conscience votes are not determined by whether one is a member of the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church or any other church; rather, they are determined by one's reasoning. If one logically considers a measure to be wrong, as a member of a political party one is allowed to say, "I disagree wholeheartedly with that and believe what is happening is wrong and will give my opinion on where it has gone wrong". In discussing cases such as that of Karen Ann Quinlan, honourable members are considering intrusive, demeaning and obscene medical practices.

These practices are being carried out by a number of medical and paramedical practitioners. If any legal action is necessary it should be directed against "a caring profession". The Medical Treatment Act specifies an offence for medical trespass, but the provision does not go far enough. It does not allow for a person who is clinically dead and who is being kept alive by a resuscitator. It does not give the agent that right to turn off the resuscitator. Medical trespass is a provision within the common law and has been part of the common law for a long period.

For example, some years ago the Australian people were asked, in a referendum, whether the right of accused people to be judged by their peers, as occurs in the jury


system, should be enshrined in the Constitution. Almost 66 per cent of people indicated they did not trust governments-governments of all political persuasions-to enshrine such a measure in the Constitution. There was no crying need in the community for this measure. The system of trial by jury was not under threat, but governments gave the impression that it was.

I believe when people examine the proposed legislation and understand its implications they will reject it. As I said earlier, the government introduces so much proposed legislation in an attempt to take the minds of honourable members away from the real issues, the economic issues and other important issues facing all Australians.

The proposed legislation is another attempt at social engineering; it is an attempt by the government to gain some control over the functions of life where it has not previously intruded. It is part of its philosophy of Big Brother or Big Sister. I remind honourable members that the Notice Paper contains approximately 30 Bills. Those matters will keep honourable members fully occupied, and too busy to pursue more important issues for the community.

I have received twelve letters from constituents which are not just the standard letters from the Right to Life Association and other interested organisations, but letters from people who are concerned and who care about the proposed legislation. I received a letter from R. F. Minio, 6 Nova Court, Wheelers Hill, who says: ... It opens the way to passive euthanasia by encouraging people to end their lives by refusing warranted life-saving treatment.

A second letter, from Michael Stagg, a medical student of 5 Bowden Court, Wheelers Hill, states:

I firmly believe this will encourage the development of attitudes of expedience among those community members responsible for elderly and frail family members.

I received similar letters from other constituents but I am sure that the average person in the street does not really understand the implications of the proposed legislation.

When I visit retirement villages I find that the residents believe the proposed legislation is really about euthanasia and that if they have to be confined to a wheelchair they may have to make a decision, perhaps with someone to assist them, to go away quietly. That is not what the proposed legislation is about or what the government or any responsible government would want to introduce, but that is what many older people In the community believe. They were disappointed when I advised them that the proposed legislation was not like that. I told them that I was opposed to it because it was not necessary. It is not necessary because the common law provides for dying with dignity.

Some doctors do not have the courage to help patients who are terminally ill or have the courage to bring into their confidence the relatives of that person, but many doctors do have that courage: the competent, the professional and technically trained doctors who have ethical values so highly prized in the medical profession.

The thrust of the proposed legislation is to protect thoughtful patients who are competent of making a decision about their life. It proposes to indemnify doctors who do not need indemnification under common law. And it is drafted to ensure that dying patients receive maximum relief from pain and suffering. Anyone who has seen death in a hospice or the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute or in a geriatric home knows only too well that this was never a problem.

The proposed legislation also provides for people who have advance warning of certain death to make legal provision for it. I ask honourable members to examine the


implications of these provisions. There will obviously be more paperwork for all concerned. That is extremely threatening to many elderly people and to people who are genuinely sick. Many of them often become more stressed as a result of the increased paperwork.

What is the legal responsibility of a nurse or a social worker at a hospice or a geriatric home who provides advice to the relatives of the terminally ill patient? Does the Bill provide that these people will be absolved from liability? Is the Bill really about absolving the responsibility of people in the medical profession? The implications are that more training may be required for nurses and doctors and then further training as future amendments to the Act are introduced. Parliament will soon amend the Act so that it is compulsory to fill out a refusal of treatment certificate!

The correspondence that I have received from my constituents and my own conscience and reasoning tell me that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. I have received letters from ordinary people in the community, from the organisations concerned with this issue, from Father Ahern of the Catholic Church and so on and they all say that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. Some people are concerned that the provisions may provide opportunities for people to die from non-fatal disease if they wish or if someone else wishes. Honourable members have spoken about this issue during the past few days. Some people may even conspire to bring about a death. I understand that is not the real intent of the Bill, but it is a possibility. A person may have a design on an inheritance, perhaps the family home that is the main asset of70 per cent of Australians. That is a concern that worries my constituents.

The proposed legislation may place suicide or self-killing at the forefront of unstable minds. My constituents are also concerned that the proposed legislation is so complex that it is being interpreted in diametrically different ways. People do not want the proposed legislation, just like they do not want the scratch ticket system.

They have said they do not want it; they are frightened of it because it is new and it has not been sold properly. I am sure that ten years down the track the provisions of the Bill will fall into misuse, as do most government Bills, because no-one is available to police them. The government introduced the Bill because it wants to say, "Look, we have done this, we have made big fellows of ourselves again". If no-one is available to police such a Bill, it will simply be another encumbrance on the statute book. No two spokespeople from any or~nisations have agreed. How can any member of the community know the true posItion about such a complex and far-reaching Bill that will affect their lives.

If a patient in a hospital is competent or incompetent to make a decision, he or she is protected by common law. When we have capable, professional, ethical and courageous doctors who consult with family members, or close friends if patients do not have families, it is possible for decisions to be made about whether patients are incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you or I were involved in car accidents toni$ht, and we did not have identification on us, would the Guardianship and AdminIstration Board telephone the hospital and say, "Yes, you should look after them"? or "No, let them die". That is nonsense. Doctors attending such patients are experienced and can make decisions; they will try to save patients. But we will not be changing our views about whether we want to live; that will not happen until some terminal stage of our lives. In the majority of cases when the board is involved it is extremely confusing for everyone.

Lawyers believe they have it right, but when the average person cannot understand these provisions, why are members of this House attempting to legislate in areas that they do not understand?


I sought the view of a senior criminal lawyer, who said the Bill proposes to introduce protection against suicide. The Bill and the principal Act have nothing to do with suicide; they are about dying with dignity at the right time. Suicide was abolished as a crime by previous Parliaments. If there is no crime, why do we need protection?

The Bill proposes to delete the Hother person" and insert "another doctor" in a refusal of treatment certificate. Can honourable members imagine trying to get one doctor let alone two doctors in the middle of the night when most people die? What would happen in the bush? What would happen in nursing homes, old folks homes or bush nursing homes? The Bill is a joke in the country and in most parts of metropolitan Melbourne.

The current system works well for courageous doctors who are careful and ethical. There is no problem with the common law applying to good doctors and good people.

The Act and the Bill are already unnecessary and are a slap at the public instead of the incompetent medics and paramedics. The senior criminal lawyer's observations are that the Bill will make life even more complex for the public, will result in higher incomes for doctors, and includes the threat of suicide-a non-crime which is not contemplated in the Act or Bill.

All political parties have been through a traumatic period as they attempt to come to grips with introducing a measure that some honourable members have not had the time to study because of the government's legislative program. Our constituents do not understand the Bill because they cannot fully understand the complexities of the Bill or the Act. The people do not know where they are with the proposed legislation, but the government says, "Trust us, it will be all right".

I do not want to trust the government with this proposal. I do not want to trust anyone in this field of social engineering over which we do not have control. As we do not have control we should allow the proposed legislation to lie on the table for another six or twelve months until people come up with better ideas. We should not attempt to legislate if legislation is unnecessary.

Many community groups and individuals have taken much time and trouble in providing information to members of Parliament so that they can decide on their attitudes to the Bill. Those people have come from religious organisations and from intelligent groups of people who care about other members of the community. They are not appealing to our better natures; they are not appealing to some religious superstition about which some honourable members have spoken; instead, they are appealing to our intelligence to work out what is right and wrong.

I declare my interest as a practising Anglican, but that does not mean I have to follow the line ofa specific church. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you said in your contribution to the debate, it is the individual who must decide. I listened carefully to your speech and there was very little in it with which I disagreed. The bottom line is that what the Bill seeks to achieve can be attained under the common law, a system that has worked successfully for hundreds of years. The common law system has operated up until now and I have not heard of any dramatic case over the past couple of years where the Act has helped anyone to die with any more dignity than if the legislation were not in place.

No-one has said, "Here is the shining example on the hill, here is the light that will lead the way; that is what it has done for people". It has done nothing. That will be demonstrated when instances of people misusing the legislation come forward and when people rely on it as a defence if criminal charges are laid. The capable, caring and professional people in our hospital system have coped, are able to cope and will


continue to cope in spite of the protection introduced by the Bill to cover doctors and medical staff who are not courageous enough in making decisions.

In the middle of the night it is difficult for a doctor to decide, in collaboration with the patient's family, or perhaps with the family only, whether this is the time that the patient is about to die. The doctor would not give a needle like a veterinarian might give a dog to put it out of its misery. The doctor will not put a patient on to a resuscitator if the patient is already brain dead.

As you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, the right to life is something that we all treasure. The Bill does not give any more rights to live or die. It is an attempt to limit the common law, the commonsense that has applied for hundreds of years. I am sure there will be many failures if the Bill is passed. Someone will take a case to the courts, which is the last thing honourable members want. It is important that patients should die with dignity and in ways where their families feel comfort and a degree of satisfaction that they, together with the medical staff, have done everything to help their dear old aunties to die peacefully. No legislation will do that. No legislation will make the competent, courageous or ethical qualities of doctors any better. The proposed legislation will provide opportunities for people who may have ulterior motives to use the provisions to achieve their own ends.

I urge honourable members who have thought about the Bill to join me in opposing it. I thank the Liberal Party for the opportunity of allowing its members to have conscience votes on such an important issue.

Dr V AUGHAN (Clayton)-The Social Development Committee received an order from the Governor in Council dated 17 December 1985 for an inquiry which became known as the inquiry into options for dying with dignity. The committee tabled its final report in April 1987. It was a unanimous report of the twelve members of the joint Parliamentary committee and contained 31 recommendations.

However, even before the government had considered those 31 recommendations, the inquiry by the Social Development Committee had already had a dramatic effect on aspects of life in the community. The mere process of the inquiry had a profound effect upon the quality of the teaching of ethics in medical schools, the operation of hospitals in the way that informed consent was to occur in the future and on public opinion in that people became more aware of the nature of informed consent as a feature of life in this free and democratic society. The public became more informed as to the nature of people's right to refuse medical treatment.

People say the public has a right to refuse medical treatment. I say that one of the issues exposed in the inquiry by the Social Development Committee was the widespread ignorance of the rights of the patient to refuse medical treatment-an ignorance that was also held by nurses and doctors.

Even before Parliament had received the report of the Social Development Committee, the mere process of the inquiry into such a delicate, sensitive and important subject had already had a profound effect on life in Victoria and beyond its boundaries.

Two of the 31 recommendations are of particular significance when one is talking about the Medical Treatment Act. The second recommendation in the report is:

That legislative action clarifying and protecting the existing common law right to refuse medical treatment is desirable and practicable and should be brought about by the enactment of legislation to establish an offence of medical trespass.

The government accepted that recommendation-as it accepted the greater number of the 31 recommendations contained in the unanimous report of the Social Development Committee-and introduced a Bill which led to the passage through


this Parliament of the Medical Treatment Act. In short, the Act merely codified the common law right to refuse medical treatment. The purpose of codifying an existing common law right was to put it on the agenda and inform the public, the medical profession and others involved in the health industry and to promote public education of the fact that people have autonomy in relation to decisions about medical treatment.

There is no time one needs autonomy more than when one is vulnerable and ill, perhaps dying. That piece of legislation, which is a credit to this Parliament, serves the people of Victoria well.

I turn to another recommendation which is the genesis of the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill. Recommendation 21 has in fact been referred to by earlier speakers. At the time the report was tabled in April 1987, the view of the members of the Social Development Committee representing the three parties in this Parliament was:

That concerned members of the public consider the value of appointing a person to act on their behalf in case of their incompetency by way of an enduring power of attorney.

It was the view of the members of the committee at that time that the Instruments Act 1958 was the legislative power that enabled that to be done. Since the tabling of the report in Parliament, apparently doubts have been raised in legal circles as to the adequacy of the Instruments Act to appoint an agent with an enduring power of attorney to cover medical treatment. There is a doubt-I am unaware of any testing of that doubt in court-but to address it the government made the decision to legislate to clear it up. This particular Bill basically clarifies the doubt.

I refer to the purposes of the Bill. Clause 1 (c) states: The purposes of this Act are-

(c) to amend the Instruments Act 1958 to make it clear that the powers of an agent under an enduring power of attorney under that Act do not include a power to make decisions about medical treatment;

This is a small Bill but it is concerned with clarifying a matter about which there is legal doubt. If it were tested in the courts, that is whether an enduring power of attorney under the Instruments Act that referred the matter of medical treatment and its refusal or authorisation, maybe it would stand up, maybe it would not. The primary purpose of this small but important Bill is to dispel the doubt and clarify the matter.

Given the contributions I have heard in this debate, I do not think that point can be emphasised strongly enough. I am not a lawyer and I do not provide legal advice. I accept the doubts that have been raised by legally knowledgeable people. If the doubts have been raised, it is appropriate that they be addressed. They are being addressed in the form of this Bill; I support the doubts being addressed and I support the Bill.

Much has been said in this debate about decisions made at the bedside of the ill and/or dying. Someone makes a decision at the bedside. It is medical roulette to leave the deciSion to the medical profession by default. I should wish the medical practitioner attending to me in a time of grievous illness or at my deathbed to share or be guided by my moral and ethical views.

It is possibly a good thing that Victorians are entitled to have ethical and moral decisions made about them at a critical time in their life, when they are particularly vulnerable, that are in sympathy with their own beliefs. The whole spirit of this legislation is about respecting people's autonomy when they are at their most vulnerable. That is a noble thing.

If a Bill were introduced to legalise euthanasia I would be first in the queue to vote against it. No matter what the direction was, I would be first in the queue to vote against it. This Bill has nothing to do with euthanasia. On my reading of it, it has


nothing to do with suicide. It is a simple legal Bill to clarify a legal doubt and if on the way it stimulates a debate, which it obviously has done, about issues to do with death and dying, and if along the way it promotes the concept of palliative care and respect for the dying, it is a very good thing and I support it.

The debate on the Bill has been vigorous. Strongly-felt views have been expressed, some well-informed and others not so well-informed. My simple point arising from the debate-and it cannot be repeated often enough-is that this small but important Bill aims primarily to clarify a legal doubt that may not exist if the matter were tested in a court of law.

I conclude by reference to the overall effect for the inquiry into options for dying with dignity conducted by the Social Development Committee. I have mentioned to the House a number of the profound achievements that have come about as a consequence of the inquiry. Since the tabling of the report of the Social Development Committee, the concept of palliative care has moved along in Victoria. Honourable members will be aware how palliative care has been put in place in the past several years in their local communities. Now palliative care has a widespread understanding in the community and a large measure of the support for that concept is a result of the inquiry conducted by the Social Development Committee and the government's acceptance and prompt implementation of the committee's recommendations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr W. D. McGRA TH (Lowan)-The debate on the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill has achieved something that it probably was not meant to achieve: it has resulted in some decorum being maintained during a debate conducted in this place. Honourable members have treated the debate with seriousness and respect; wild interjections have not been heard from either side of the House. If nothing else, the debate on the Bill has proved that Parliament can operate with decorum and respect can be shown for an honourable member who is speaking on a matter such as that dealt with in the Bill.

Many diverse views are held on the proposed amendments to the Medical Treatment Act. I listened carefully to the speeches made last night and today. The honourable member for Wantirna said that she would choose early to appoint an attorney for her old age in case it should happen-please God it will not arise-that she needs an attorney to say whether she should continue to live or be allowed to die.

All honourable members would like to have the opportunity of being allowed to die with dignity. Many have seen a close relative die either with a degree of dignity or with suffering for a period before death came naturally. I have seen it on both sides of my family. At that time, it is hard to find the necessary courage and appropriate feelings to face the difficult situation. However, it is a matter that everyone reflects on from time to time. Eventually people do find the courage and come to grips with and work their way through the issue.

The Bill provides for the granting of an enduring power of attorney and raises the question of whether when that attorney passes the sentence-so to speak-it could be at all considered as murder. I am considerably worried and concerned about this matter.

Honourable members have heard magnificent speeches in the debate conducted last night and today. The honourable member for Balwyn gave an excellent interpretation of the law as it stands in relation to suicide, homicide, and the different aspects of losing a life. The honourable member for Kew presented an address, as did the honourable member for Berwick. All three honourable members are highly qualified and knowledgeable in matters relating to the law. They have a legal background with the necessary legal training.


Mr Weideman interjected.

Mr W. D. McGRA TH-The honourable member for Frankston South says that the Bill relates to a matter of health. It relates also to the law because it can be challenged in two places: in one's conscience-if one has the enduring power of attorney-and in the courts, where it will be challenged at some time to ascertain whether there is a point of law to be clarified. That is why I feel I must oppose the Bill.

I have always been part of a close-knit family where we have confidence that at the time of stress, strain or death somebody will provide the right advice. My family is fortunate in living in the country because we know all of those who work in the hospitals-the doctors and the· nursing staff-and not much possibility exists of a power of attorney being given to someone who will abuse it.

That is not the case in the metropolitan areas. Because there are so many people in city hospitals, people are mere statistics. Perhaps there is not the same respect today among the nursing staff or medical practitioners towards the safeguarding of the lives of patients who are critically ill. I wonder how well the enduring power of attorney provisions will hold up through time.

The honourable member for Balwyn referred to an interpretation by Mr Ian Temby of euthanasia as murder. Much debate is taking place in Parliament on whether the proposed legislation will allow death with dignity or whether it has euthanasia connotations about it. Some doubt exists in the consciences of some honourable members in this Chamber. It certainly still exists in my mind at this time. Once again, I consider that doubt justifies my opposing the Bill.

Much has been said about whether honourable members should be influenced by their religious convictions when deciding whether to support the Bill, an issue thoroughly canvassed by the honourable member for Glen Waverley. The honourable member said that a person's religious denomination should not be presumed to colour his or her attitude to the Bill-and I agree with that comment.

I direct to the attention of honourable members comments made by the Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Bishop George Pell, which are contained in a letter published in the Age on Friday, 8 September last year. In the letter the bishop said:

Three groups of people should be worried by the Bill; (a) those who believe suicide is wrong, (b) those who believe euthanasia is sometimes permitted in limited circumstances of great suffering and (c) those who believe the Bill is simply clarifying the uncertainties of the law.

Careful consideration of those questions will help honourable members to gain an understanding of the issues raised by the Bill. The letter continues:

The Bill goes beyond all this.

The Bill endorses killing by omission. Treatment can be withheld, not just in extreme situations. but any time there is "unreasonable distress" (which is undefined), or when the patient would have considered such treatment "unwarranted."

Those paragraphs spell out clearly my need to examine my conscience in deciding whether to support the Bill. It is a sorry state of affairs when such Bills are introduced by governments in an attempt to control by legislation what was formerly taken care of by immediate members of a family.

The honourable member for Warmambool talked about the increasing number of abortions carried out in Australia. Australia is a young country full of potential and if that potential is to be fulfilled we must increase our population. Instead, the incidence of abortion, a procedure that is a denial of life, is rising.


I am not comfortable with the Bill because it gives agents, guardians and attorneys the power to make decisions for people who are termed non-competent patients in the last days of their lives-even though it is still open to doctors to consult in the normal way patients whose cases they know well. The Bill is not in the best interests of humanity and, as politicians, we must strive to do what we can for the betterment of society. The Bill condones the withdrawal of treatment from a person who is considered to have outlived his or her usefulness-and that withdrawal of treatment condemns them to death.

I am not comfortable with the Bill and I shall exercise my right to follow the dictates of my conscience in opposing it.

Mr JOHN (Bendigo East)-I am opposed to the Bill. The constitution of the Liberal Party allows members who are unable to follow party policy for moral and religious reasons to exercise a conscience vote. I intend to exercise a conscience vote at the appropriate time. I appreciate that right, which, regrettably, is not extended to members of the Labor government.

I have listened to most of the speeches made durin$ the debate. Because most of the arguments have been debated at length my contribution will be brief. I appreciate the important issues raised by the Bill, and I am aware of their moral and ethical implications. I respect the right of all honourable members to make up their minds about whether to support or oppose the Bill.

The Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill establishes a legislative framework that encourages euthanasia, even though I accept that those who drafted the Bill did not intend that. I believe the common law is flexible enough to deal adequately with all of the issues dealt with in the Bill. I agree with those honourable members who say that when we vote on the Bill we should do so on the basis of strongly held moral views and with the best of intentions. However, when Parliament attempts to impose rigid forms of behaviour on certain members of the community we venture into uncharted waters.

The ethics of the medical profession, which have as their basis the commitment to protect human life, have served us well. I cannot support a Bill that provides for the termination of life rather than its protection and prolongation. The Bill intrudes on the special relationship between doctor and patient. When we deal with people who are not competent to make decisions about their future, we bear a heavy responsibility-and the responsibility of medical practitioners is even heavier.

I t is possible that some provisions of the Bill will be abused, and an ironclad defence will be provided to a medical practitioner who follows the instructions of the agent's certificate. In such circumstances doctors will be immune from prosecution, even though they may have acted unethically. Some provisions of the Bill are framed too rigidly, and some of the gaps in its drafting will cause difficulty. I have heard no clamour from the people of my electorate urging me to support the Bill. The Bill has been the subject of a good deal of debate among members of various denominations, none of which has shown uniform support for or opposition to the Bill.

However, I am concerned about the Bill, and I intend to exercise my right to a conscience vote because I believe some of its provisions are morally dubious.

Mr LIEBERMAN (Benambra)-As a member of the Liberal Party I shall exercise my right to follow my conscience and vote against the Bill.

I base my beliefs on my philosophical and religious beliefs and also on my experience over almost 30 years as a practising lawyer and as a member of Parliament for 14 of those years. I believe from what I have seen, that the fallibility of man is such that the


provisions of the Bill will not work satisfactorily. I do not feel comfortable with them. I do know of events and pressures on people, and I have seen people behave in certain ways. If the Bill became law, I know it would not safeguard innocent people, particularly those who are unable to speak for themselves because they are incapacitated or intellectually disabled.

I have a number of friends who have intellectually disabled relatives or children. I have spoken with them at length about their concern for their family members who are helpless in some circumstances. I feel very strongly for them and I wish I could assist them as a legislator, but I know I cannot. However, I can assist them by expressing my opposition to this Bill and recording on behalf of those people a sense of concern that they should be protected. I do not believe the Bill will provide such protection.

The sitting was suspended at 6.32 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley)-The National Party has had lengthy discussions on the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill and a varying range of views have been presented by individual members of the party. I mention particularly the honourable member for Warrnambool, who has expressed clear opposition to the Bill. The National Party has said before in this House that there is a free vote on this Bill. I have spoken to people within my electorate and have read the information that has been provided by a wide range of people.

When the original Bill was debated in 1987 there was a division on it. In fact, many members of the National Party opposed the original measure. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the information provided by people who have been legally trained. I shall now express my concern about the Bill.

Members of the Liberal Party, particularly those with legal training, have expressed their opposition to the Bill, and I express my concern about the progressive implications it will have. Although it will introduce additional checks, there is a need to examine the measure objectively to decide where it will go and how it will affect Victorians.

When one considers the implications of the Bill, one should do so with concern and caution because it deals with life and death. I listened with much interest to the contribution to the debate of the honourable member for Warrnambool who expressed his strong conviction against the Bill. I listened also to the remarks of the honourable member for Rodney who expressed support for the Bill and its passage through the Legislative Assembly.

I recognise and acknowled~e the importance of the work done by the Social Development Committee on thIS measure. People were interviewed, and the committee prepared and presented reports to Parliament.

The Bill provides for the appointment of a guardian or agent who will be able to decide whether life sustaining drugs or support mechanisms should be provided for a person who does not have the capacity to oppose such treatment or decide whether such support systems or drug treatment should be continued.

I am concerned about the implications of the Bill and how far Parliament should go in providing for the appointment of guardians or agents for people who mayor may not believe, in the initial instance, that other people should be able to make decisions on their behalf.

My concern stems from the comments made by the former honourable member for Mildura, Milton Whiting, who spoke on the original Bill that was debated in 1987. When he spoke about it in the party room he quoted the case of his son who had been involved in a motorcycle accident and was being kept alive by artificial life support


systems. The family spoke to the doctors, who said that their son had major problems and that if they removed the support mechanism he may die.

The doctors left it to Milton and his wife, Veda, to decide whether the support mechanisms should continue to sustain their son's life. They discussed the matter between themselves overnight and returned to the doctors with a decision that the support mechanisms should be removed, acknowledging that if their son was able to survive they would accept that. but ifhe died they would accept that also.

The life support mechanisms were removed and, in fact, their son died. When Milton Whiting mentioned his son's case in the party room I was moved by his comments. He said in response-and this was prior to the 1987 Bill-that he did not support such legislation and that he and his wife had the opportunity of determining whether their son continued to be supported by artificial means. The then honourable member for Mildura mentioned in the party room that he did not support the Medical Treatment Bill in 1988; he would not support the Bill before the House today.

I believe every effort should be made to maintain life. However, if it is in the best interests of the patient, as indicated by the family, other action should be taken and that should be accepted. That was my opinion before the Bill was introduced and it has not changed. Doctors should be able to provide information to the family involved to enable them to make an accurate decision about whether life support mechanisms should be used to enable a life to continue or whether they should be removed.

This is an issue upon which honourable members must make individual decisions and that is the approach of the National Party. I oppose the Bill because it transfers the right of the individual to a guardian or agent to decide whether that person should live or die. The right of that person should be protected by the family acting on the advice of a medical practitioner.

Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-The Bill assumes that the guardian or agent appointed will be a loving and caring person who will act in the best interests of the individual concerned. Honourable members have expressed grave reservations that that might not always be the case. The honourable member for Kew gave instances of attorneys being appointed who have not always looked after the individual or the estate concerned. Several cases have been identified of people not acting in the best interests of individuals, especially if they are beneficiaries of the estates of those individuals.

My main concern is incompetent patients. Cases have been cited by honourable members, especially those who served on the Parliamentary committee inquiring into this matter. Over the years we have relied on the goodwill of the medical profession to determine whether a person should be sustained on a life support system or whether that support should be withdrawn. The former honourable member for Mildura had to go through the anguish of seeing his only son in a coma following a motorcycle accident. The doctors advised that he had severe brain damage and was not likely to recover. The honourable member and his wife were given a day to make their decision about whether the life support system should be turned off. Most honourable members would rely on their families to make decisions that were in their best interests.

I do not like the idea of legalising this procedure and of setting up guardians and agents to act on one's behalf. That places tremendous pressure on individuals who do not have the medical expertise to make those decisions. It is more important to maintain the current system of relying on families to make decisions in conjunction with medical practitioners. Iffamilies are not available to make the decisions, medical practitioners can assess the cases and take the appropriate course.


The Bill opens up areas that will create headaches in the future. I should like to quote from a letter from Bishop Pell, the Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, who states:

One must not ask for an act of killing, by action or omission, either for oneself or for another entrusted to one's care. We have an obligation to sustain life, but no obligation to prolong dying.

These principles were spelt out again on November 20, 1988 when Archbishop Little voiced his objections to the Medical Treatment Act 1988. According to Catholic teaching, when inevitable death is imminent, persons can refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. As Archbishop Little has said, patients not in such danger of death have no moral right to refuse treatment which is necessary, appropriate, i.e. not disproportionate, and reasonably available. Nor do agents or guardians have any such right of refusal for incompetent patients.

He then went on to speak of other issues.

That reflects my strong concern about the Bill. With the odd exception the medical profession has acted responsibly over the years. That exception does not justify changing the whole direction of the law. I oppose the Bill as it is presented.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-I join the debate to try to bring it back to the intent of tae Bill. One can understand the concerns of honourable members who are treating the debate as a rerun of the debate on the Medical Treatment Bill in 1988. For the benefit of the House, I shall read the purposes of the Bill:

The purposes of this Act are-

(a) to define the power of an agent appointed under an enduring power of attorney (medical treatment);

(b) to provide for safeguards over the exercise of an enduring power of attorney (medical treatment);

(c) to amend the Instruments Act 1958 to make it clear that the powers of an agent under an enduring power of attorney under that Act do not include a power to make decisions about medical treatment;

(d) to provide that sections 6B (2) and 463 (B) of the Crimes Act 1958 continue to have effect and that inciting, aiding or abetting suicide, or homicide, continue to be offences.

Honourable members would remember the concern expressed in this House and in the other place when the Medical Treatment Bill was debated in 1988. I regard the purposes of the Bill to put in place some safeguards.

Schedule 2 of the Bill holds some of the answers to the concerns of honourable members about the intent of the Bill. It revokes all previous enduring powers of attorney. It provides for the authorisation of an agent to make decisions about medical treatment on a patient's behalf and must be witnessed by two people, one of whom must be authorised by law to take and receive statutory declarations.

Those who have been through the process of obtaining a power of attorney will know that it is difficult to arrange. Recently it was necessary for me to obtain a power of attorney to conduct my father's affairs after he suffered a stroke. The carers at the hospital were not prepared to sign the document because they were terrified about the legal outcome of being signatories to such a document. Nevertheless, I was able to obtain that power and, with the passage of time, my father has been able to withdraw that authority and is now conducting his own affairs.

The Bill provides for a person who is of sound mind to make an enduring power of attorney. Schedule 3 provides for a refusal of treatment certificate for an agent or guardian of an incompetent person. Safeguards are included in the Bill for the Guardianship and Administration Board to intervene in some of these matters. I believe the debate on the original Medical Treatment Act addressed this situation and this Bill provides for a system that is workable.


Mr Weideman-It is voluntary!

Mr COLEMAN-I am reminded that this provision is not compulsory. It is a matter of a person who is of sound mind deciding that an agent may make a decision on his or her behalf. This appears to be the extension of a situation where a person is putting his or her affairs in order.

I do not believe it matters what system one has in place; a person who intends to defraud an incompetent person will go ahead and do so. At least a clause is included in the Bill which will preclude any benefits from flowing to a person who misuses his or her power as an agent. For that reason I believe the Bill advances the current situation and I shall support it.

Mr F. P. SHEEHAN (Ballarat South)-I shall comment briefly on a number of matters that have been raised by members opposite who have expressed opposition to the Bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. I have been placed in the position of having to address similar issues because of my background and because of others knowledge of my faith. I have thought through the issue as best I could, following my conscience, and it disturbs me that there has been an implication by speakers who have opposed the Bill that those who support it are in some way derelict in conscience or are not informed. I do not make any imputation against any honourable member, but that is how it appeared to me.

Mr Jasper interjected.

Mr F. P. SHEEHAN-I reject that notion because the government has worked with those who would be regarded as experts in moral theology and moral understanding, and for that reason I believe it is important that the point is made that those who support the Bill are not derelict in conscience or uninformed but rather are concerned about situations that might occur to anyone of us at some time. In my family I have faced a situation similar to that described by the honourable member forSyndal.

The work done prior to the drafting of the Bill was the result of a wide consultation process by the all-party Social Development Committee. Those members who were part of the committee have gone through various contortions of conscience about the way they formed their recommendations. This is a matter about which we, as a community and as individuals, should have grave concern.


Mr F. P. SHEEHAN-I wish the honourable member for Murray Valley would listen rather than interjecting for the sake of it. This is an important discussion, and respect should be given to those who wish to make particular points rather than them having to suffer stupid interjections.

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Murray Valley was heard in silence and he should offer the same courtesy to the honourable member for Ballarat South.

Mr F. P. SHEEHAN-I am expressing my view and, if the honourable member for Murray Valley would listen, he would find out in the fullness of time how I shall vote. That is my decision. Consultation was undertaken by the Social Development Committee with a wide range of organisations and with individuals who have expertise in theology; the discussion was most important. However, there has been some dispute about the process. I have a copy of a letter written by Bishop Pell, whom I know personally. I do not wish to give any connotation to the letter other than the words

Session 1990-23


that he has written in an objective way. It is important to state those without putting any construction on the words. In part Bishop Pell says:

... Archbishop Little voiced his objections to the Medical Treatment Act 1988. According to Catholic teaching, when inevitable death is imminent, persons can refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. As Archbishop Little has said, patients not in such danger of death have no moral right to refuse treatment which is necessary, appropriate, that is, not disproportionate and reasonably available. Nor do agents or guardians have any such right of refusal for incompetent patients. Naturally this Catholic teaching has not been rescinded.

I do not believe any honourable member on the government side of the House or those who have supported the Bill from the opposition parties would have any problem with that paragraph of Bishop Pell's letter. It is important that this comment is seen in the light of whether recovery is possible or death is imminent. That is the way it should be examined.

If one considers the question of human intervention at the end of a particular phase of treatment, one must also look at the human intervention that took place at the beginning of that phase. One correctly assumes that modem procedures, or the use of treatment involving technical facilities, is human intervention at the beginning of a treatment that is intended to prolong life in the hope of recovery or is some type of palliative care to make life more bearable.

If one accepts that human intervention at the beginning of a treatment process to provide the possibility of recovery or palliative care is correct, one must also assume that intervention at the end of a particular phase of treatment is correct. In such circumstances one assumes that intervention at the beginning will in some way prevent death or provide palliative care.

Without the use of current modem procedures and equipment, many of the people who are being treated would already have died. To take up the point made by the honourable member for Balwyn-I have great respect for his views-life is a Godgiven right. Other honourable members have spoken about that; the honourable member for Dandenong said today that if life is God-given, so then is death. We are considering human intervention to prolong life and make it as comfortable as possible or make it possible for a person with a particular illness to recover.

Other honourable members have spoken about the safeguards in the Bill. One must ask to whom -the safeguards apply. Some honourable members have said that the safeguards apply only to the medical and nursing profession. One hopes that is part of it because it is becoming a complicated world, but other people have said that they view the Bill as a safeguard against being given some sort of treatment that will end their lives.

The Bill does not address euthanasia, but I took the trouble of looking up the definition of that word in four different dictionaries. Three of the dictionaries regard it as a gentle and easy death while the other refers to it as a painless killing. Obviously, if the last definition were correct I would not support euthanasia. There is a subtle but significant difference between an easy and painless death and a painless killing.

I conclude by saying that I have thought about this issue long and hard. The thought that has been ~ven to this issue by all sections of the community is deserving of the matter. The BIll includes the intent, qualifications and safeguards that are necessary, and it will provide support for those people who must make decisions about the continuation of treatment for extremely ill patients.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-Ijoin the debate to make some brief comments. It has been wonderful to debate an issue that is not dominated by party lines. Honourable members have heard a wide range of opinion and belief on this matter. I am a little


disappointed that the Labor Party does not give its members the same freedom as the Liberal and National parties give their members to vote as they wish.

As the honourable member for Ballarat South said, honourable members have thought deeply about the Bill and have considered the options. It is interesting to note that the Liberal and National parties have decided to vote in favour of the Bill yet very few members of the Opposition have spoken in favour of it. That is the reason I beheve I should add a few words to the debate.

I intend to support the Bill. This time last year my family was placed in a position covered by the Bill. We had to make a series of decisions about how we would handle a set of circumstances involving my mother. We made those decisions in April last year, and our family, with my mother's blessing, followed through those decisions until her death in November last year.

During that period our family had plenty of time to think about what we had done and how other people would handle the situation. The Bill will never affect the Steggall family because ours is a close family and looks after its own extremely well. As there is no compulsion in the Bill, I cannot see a member of our family using it. Last night I listened to the honourable member for Wantirna who said that she was looking forward to the Bill being passed so that she could appoint an enduring power of attorney (medical treatment). That left me a little sad. I thought about my own situation, and I could not imagine a situation arising in my family where the Bill would be used. Therefore, I do not regard it as something that will affect me.

Having been through the traumas my family was faced with last year, and having come through them, I do not believe a person surrounded by a strong family would ever use the provisions in the Bill. However, because so many people are not as happily placed in their everyday lives as others, I know that some people are placed in traumatIc situations and must make the types of decisions my family had to make last year.

A person in a family where there is hate and who knows he or she has an incurable disease that will lead to incompetence-and eventual death-will examine this Bill with some relief, and will be able to think, "I do not trust my family but I trust others and, through this Bill, I will attempt to achieve something that I know my own family will not deliver". Unfortunately, families in which there is hate exist in far greater numbers than anyone would like to believe.

I am a member ofa small country community. The need for this type of proposed legislation is not as great there as it may be in some of the metropolitan areas because I know that no matter what happens, the fact that I am well known in a small country town means my own doctor will treat me. I will always know the doctors who may need to treat me, as well as the nursing staff and others in the community. Many country people have an advantage over Melbourne residents and sometimes country folk tend to forget that when Melbourne residents perhaps reach a state that eventually leads to incompetence, they may be placed into hospitals where they are unknown, and where they do not know the medical staff. In those circumstances, they are treated by different doctors, and become one of many numbers. That does not happen in country Victoria. Country residents will be treated by their own doctors, whether they are covered by Medicare or by private health insurance.

Last night I listened with great interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Balwyn. He raised some valid issues which disturbed me and which I hope the government will consider. He spoke about the guardianship issue whereby a guardianand not an agent-may be appointed without the consent of the person who is incompetent. If that is the situation, the government should examine that position


before the Bill is passed because the fears expressed by the honourable member for Balwyn-and, of course, they are subject to legal opinion-would not be in accordance with the intentions of the government or the Parliamentary committee, and that type of predicament should not be included in any legislation.

I hope the government will consider the issues raised by the honourable member for Balwyn and ensure that the Bill does not contain provisions that will cloud other provisions. Such fears could affect a person granted a power of attorney through the guardianship provisions in the Bill; that person could be seeking relief from the problems he or she observes within the family, or may not have a family. I ask the government to show sincere concern about that issue. I am sure my concern is supported by both sides of the House; and that type of loophole or mistake should not exist in any proposed legislation.

The debate has been a good and healthy one for the House; it has been one of a type that is rarely held in this place. Most honourable members have a good knowledge of the issues covered by the provisions in the Bill because of the numbers and type of people encountered every day in their electorates. All honourable members should very well understand the emotions, the fears and the aspirations that some have as a result of the Bill.

The Bill was first introduced and rejected in the other place, and I supported that rejection. Because of the experience gained over the past twelve months with my family, and because there have been other people placed into positions in which we found ourselves, I am able to see that there is an advantage for some people having the ability to appoint agents to help and be available when the hour of need comes at the end of a long illness.

I understand the problems that people raise concerning trauma or road accident victims where a person may become incompetent, a situation that he or she believed would never have to be faced. My family will not use the provisions of the Bill, but others will; other people will need to use It, and will feel happy about doing so.

The moral and religious issues have been well canvassed by many honourable members. I probably stand alongside the strong Christian followers in this place and I do not resile from the Christian faith in any way, shape or form, but there is nothing wrong with the Bill if it is passed in the way it has been presented, and if it is used for those who so wish, and by those who feel a need to use it.

I do not think many honourable members or many Victorians will use the proposed legislation. Many values may be reinforced into families because many will think about the provisions in the Bill so that a sense of belonging and responsibility that people must face from time to time as members of families will be reinforced. I do not regard the Bill as removing that factor. Had the Bill contained a compulsory aspect, I would be fighting it.

I appreciate the many opinions expressed about the Bill, and it is healthy that those opinions have been expressed in this debate. I understand the many fears of people and the needs of the many lonely people in the complicated society that has been created. There is a need for assistance in society in various areas.

Last year, my family and I examined what the Steggall family would do, and considered the decisions we had to make; at the time I thought of the people who cannot trust their families-and there are many such people in the community. For those who eventually slip into incompetence after being aware of the condition approaching and who have fears about their own families, this type of Bill will help.


The Bill will be passed, and will provide an option for dying with dignity for many people.

There are rogues and vagabonds in our society who will try to use the Bill to their advantage. It is not a perfect world, the humanoid of our society is not a perfect being. We make mistakes and mistakes will be made in a Bill such as this. The passing of the Bill will give support and confidence to a small proportion of the population.

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I do not wish to prolong the debate, but before proceeding to the Committee stage of the Bill, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Bill is an important one that has obviously exercised the conscience of a number of honourable members on both sides of the House and one, therefore, to be treated with respect in the totality of the debate, including the voting procedures that are to follow.

The honourable members for Swan Hill and Syndal made two important points: firstly, that it is an act of choice that is reflected in the Bill and, secondly, that it is based on the assumption that it is an act of love. The Bill provides protection for those people who wish to have that protection when they are competent to make a decision based on die trust of another person about the power of attorney or about the appointment of a guardian by the Guardianship and Administration Board. This is an important Bill regarding human and humane decisions about our society. I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate and for the way the debate has been conducted.

At the same time, I congratulate a former honourable member for Boronia Province, J udy Dixon, the former honourable member for Doncaster, Morrie Williams, the former honourable member for Kew, Prue Sibree and the former honourable member for Wantirna, Don Saitmarsh, all of whom made an important contribution not only to the Bill but also to the important public discussions that took place on the previous Bill in 1988 until the introduction of this Bill. We as politicians will sit in judgment on this Bill in the next half hour but other people will sit in judgment on the Bill for the future.

A number of groups have lobbied very hard on the proposed legislation and I hope they understand from listening to the debate that everybody has a right to have a say and have their views respected. When honourable members put their views in this place they have the right to be respected and not treated as people who have a disagreement with one particular point of view.

I thank everybody who has contributed to this and the previous Bill and to the development of a society which is both humane and just.

The House divided on the motion (the Hon. Ken Coghill in the chair).

Ayes Noes

Majority for the motion

AYES Mr Andrianopoulos Mr Baker Mrs Barker Mr Batchelor Mr Bildstein Mr Brown

65 16

49

NOES Mr Dickinson MrEvans MrJasper MrJohn MrLea Mr Liebennan

694 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990

AYES MrCain MrCole MrColeman MrCooper MrCrabb Mr Cunningham MrDollis MrElder MrErnst MrFordham MrsGarbutt MrGavin MrGude MrHamilton Mr Harrowfield MrHayward Mr Heffernan Mrs Hill Mrs Hirsh Mr Honeywood Mr Jolly MrKennan MrKennedy Ms Kirner MrLeigh MrLeighton Mr McCutcheon MrMcDonald MrMathews MrMaughan MrMicallef MrNorris Mr Perton MrPescott MrPlowman MrPope Mrs Ray Mr Richardson MrRoper MrRowe MrSandon MrSeitz MrSercombe Mrs Setches MrSheehan

(Ballarat South) Mr Shell MrSimmonds MrSpyker MrSteggall Mr Stockdale MrTanner MrThomson MrTrezise DrVaughan MrWalsh MrWeideman Mrs Wilson

Tellers: DrNapthine MrSheehan

(Northcote)

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Medical Treatment Bill

NOES MrMcGrath

(Warrnambool) MrMcNamara Mr Maclellan MrPerrin Mr Ross-Edwards MrSmith

(Glen Waverley) MrsWade DrWells

Tellers: MrClark MrWallace


Clause 1 Mr CLARK (Balwyn)-I shall make some brief remarks on this clause. The first

aspect on which I wish to comment is clause 1 (d) which, along with other provisions inserted in the Bill in another place, is a welcome provision but, regrettably, does not go to the heart of the issue. Some people believe it will overcome the problems concerning the law of homicide to which I referred in the second-reading debate but I want to place on record that, in my opinion, it will not do so because it is only a statement of purpose. There is no accompanying substantive provision-no operative provision-to give effect to the words of the paragraph, and unfortunately, the meaning of the words of the paragraph is not beyond doubt.

I spoke to Mr Merralls, QC, about the provision subsequent to his giving the two opinions to which I referred in the debate yesterday. Mr Merralls indicated to me that, in his opinion, the amendment made by the provision did not alter the conditions to which I referred previously.

I turn generally to the question of purposes and shall take up some of the purposes that have been referred to by honourable members during the debate as being the purposes they want the Bill to achieve. The main purpose that honourable members who have supported the Bill have said they want the Bill to achieve can be summarised as that of giving patients more control over their own lives; and that is a perfectly commendable purpose. At the moment, if persons are not competent to make their own medical decisions, whether it is because they have not been competent throughout their lives or because they have become incompetent, there are doubts as to how those medical treatment decisions can be made.

There is no objection in principle to the existence of a mechanism whereby a person who is competent can nominate someone to make medical decisions on his behalf if he becomes incompetent. I have not objected in concept to such a provision in the Bill and I do not believe other opponents of the Bill have objected to it. However, if that is the purpose people want to achieve, there is a better way of doing it. There is no need to go through the extensive regulatory and procedural system laid down in the Bill. One needs only to divide the form of the existing power of attorney that is present in the Instruments Act.

In my opinion, the existing Instrument Act power of attorney itself is adequate. That was also the opinion of the Social Development Committee. However, some people have raised doubts subsequently. In order to put that issue beyond doubt the instrument need only be split in two, incorporating stringent safeguards as to the witnessing of medical powers of an attorney under the Instruments Act to ensure that a person who makes such an appointment knows what he or she is doing, because that is another great weakness in the Bill.

There should also be a register which can be searched to detect forgery and so that there is a procedure whereby revocation can be noted. Thus, to achieve all those purposes which honourable members opposite have sought to achieve does not require a Bill of the sort now before the Committee.

The other change to the law needed to give effect to the purposes expressed by honourable members who support the Bill is legislation to deal with the position of guardians. I am pleased that the honourable member for Swan Hill raised his concerns about this provision in the Bill, even though he supported the Bill, because the point I make is that it is the most dangerous provision in the Bill. I hope the Minister will take up the urging of the honourable member for Swan Hill and reconsider the provision, assuming the Bill is passed. To achieve the purposes desired by honourable members opposite, Parliament needs to tighten existing laws relating to guardians rather than to loosen those laws in the way the Bill provides.


An express provision could be inserted in the Guardianship and Administration Board Act which would state that without limiting the generality of the duties of a guardian he or she has no power to refuse or prevent the provision of medical treatment to a protected person. That would protect incompetent patients who do not have agents to give effect to the purposes aspired to by honourable members opposite. Although I believe members of the Guardianship and Administration Board have their hearts in the right place, I doubt their ability to give effect to their good intentions. Parliament must be careful in giving further powers to them.

A further aspect of the purposes clause of the Bill relates to a glaring omission. All the purposes in the original Bill related to the powers of an agent, but the powers of a guardian are equally important for the reasons I have expressed throughout the debate, yet there is no reference to that in clause 1.

In an article entitled "Euthanasia of Persons with Severe Handicaps: Rethinking the Rationalisation" in the 1985 Journal of the Association for Severely Handicapped, Evelyn Lusthaus states:

Wolfensberger has warned repeatedly against the "for their own good" mode of thinking. He pointed out (1972, 1975) that society's mistreatment of people with handicaps is usually justified on the basis that "it is for their own good". He indicated that women with handicaps were sterilised "for their own good"; people were isolated in remote institutions "for their own good"; and disabled children were segregated into separate schools "for their own good". He recently warned (1984) that euthanasia will be-and even is-called mercy, love, humanism, honesty, even good religion. He said, "If there is anything a society wants very badly, then its intellectuals and scientists will prove that it is good and desirable" (p. 74).

That is a grave risk with the present Bill. I am certainly not alleging that any particular supporter of the Bill wants that result, but the point I make is that the provisions of the Bill allow that result to be achieved by the way they are drafted.

It is to be regretted that more attention has not been paid to the power of guardians and that power has not been picked up in clause 1. The title of the Bill does not make reference to guardians. It is called the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill. The second-reading speech refers to the guardian only once. It then refers to the appointment of someone "we love and trust" and that is expounded upon for approximately two and a half pages. The issue of guardians has not been adequately dealt with in the public debate by supporters of the Bill. I reiterate that this is a key issue that needs to be picked up.

I refer also to another aspect of the purposes of the Bill which you, Mr Chairman, during your contribution to the second-reading debate, suggested that I might have had as my reason for opposing the Bill. Mr Chairman, you made two points: firstly, that I and other opponents of the Bill might be arguing that life should be preserved at any cost. That is not my position. I believe reasonable medical treatment should be provided to incompetent patients, but that there are limits to what is reasonable medical treatment. Medical treatment ceases to be reasonable if it causes unnecessary pain or if it causes unreasonable expense. To put the latter point another way, if the person receiving medical treatment is tying up facilities which could be available to another person, it is open to the patIent or, perhaps, to the agent, or someone representing the patient, to forgo that treatment. The reasons for forgoing the treatment are then not to bring about death, but because it is considered unreasonable for one reason or another.

Life is a gift from God, as I said previously, and as you referred to, Mr Chairman, but it is a gift that should not be thrown away. That is not to say it is a gift that is to be clung on to at any cost, but it is not something that it is our decision to forgo.

Secondly, you suggested that the arguments I raised relating to homicide were an attempt to disguise or reinforce the moral conclusions that I have reached. I emphasise


that those arguments on homicide are completely separate from the moral issues, although they tend to the same conclusion. The distinction is that even if one accepts that in theory, one ought to have the right to choose to forgo life, the worry is that if that power is granted in legislation people will die against their wishes. Even a supporter of euthanasia should be concerned about that result and concerned to ensure that the law does not allow that result; whether because there is poor second-guessing of what the patient might then want, as previous speakers have referred to; whether there has been a change of mind on the part of the patient that is not known or appreciated by the agent or guardian; or whether there is malice on the part of the agent or guardian.

If Parliament confers in legislation the power of the agent or guardian to refuse treatment in a homicidal manner, inevitably those dangers are opened up. Even a supporter of euthanasia should be concerned about those dangers and should reach the conclusion that regardless of the in-principle merits of the proposed legislation, it is too dangerous to be acceptable in practice.

The Bill contains a number of other deficiencies and aspects which demonstrate that the statement of purposes is inadequate. For example, there should not be a blanket immunity to doctors who act on the unusual instructions of an agent or guardian. There is a risk that the improper motives that may be adopted by an agent or guardian will not be reacted to by the doctor if the doctor has that blanket immunity. In the absence of that blanket immunity, the doctor would have an incentive to question unusual decisions.

For that reason the purposes set out in the clause are undesirable. They are particularly undesirable because of the existence of the certificate system which creates the mentality that if one follows through the paperwork all will be well, and a doctor can park the patient in a corner and leave him or her to die. Unfortunately, not all members of the community can devote to this Bill the degree of attention that honourable members have been able to devote to it. Doctors who want to know how to carry out their practice in a straightforward manner will look at the Bill and see that the paperwork procedure is specified. They will decide to follow the procedure, fill out the paperwork and that is where their duty ends.

Of course, in an extreme case a doctor may object to what is happening and take the matter to the Guardianship and Administration Board, but in a borderline case, the doctor will fill out the forms, follow the mechanism and not run any danger of acting against the law.

For those reasons the statement of purposes in the clause is highly defective and, together with other provisions of the Bill, should be remedied.

Dr WELLS (Dromana)-I shall contribute briefly to the debate on clause 1, particularly clause 1 ( b) which provides for safeguards over the exercise of an enduring power of attorney for medical treatment.

The safeguards are inadequate, and I shall quote two references in support of my statement. The first is the most challenging article I have seen in recent medical literature. In the Sun of 29 March an article entitled "Coma man stuns doctors" states:

An accident victim who spent 10 years as a "vegetable" has amazed doctors with his recovery after being given a simple tranquilliser.

The 40-year-old from the US State of Wisconsin woke and started talking after he was given Valium before routine dental work.

In those ten years, the man could only utter a few words from his hospital bed. But, since being given Valium, he could add, subtract and do complicated calculations, neurologist Or Andres Kanner said.

He said the man slept for five minutes after he was given the tranquilliser for the March 12 dental work.


Then he woke up and started talking. He was able to answer questions, say his name, to feed himself and walk, Dr Kanner said.

Hours later, the man lapsed back into the vegetative state.

He was given a second dose that brought him out of it for about 90 minutes.

Dr Kanner said doctors were trying to find a combination of drugs jhat would prevent another relapse.

That is the extent of the report, but so far as it goes it is challenging in the extreme. Until that report appeared many people would have considered that after a year or two of being in a coma a person would be unlikely to recover.

I also place on record a comment from the submission of the Right to Life Association recorded on page 203 of the second and final report of the Social Development Committee inquiry into options for dying with dignity, which states:

It is part of good medicine to recognise when death has become inevitable and to adjust treatment to take account of this fact, since the patient's best interests are now served by treatment that emphasises relief or palliative care rather than the now futile attempts to cure.

Those two illustrations cover the extent of a situation not adequately covered by the Bill. As to the first example, will doctors now be able to advise attorneys to switch off comatose patients who are not brain dead? Secondly, will attorneys, ifinformed, now be justified in switching off machinery or authorising the switching off of such machinery? Thirdly, what if attorneys are ignorant of this case and of the potential it illustrates?

This Valium treatment will, I expect, lead to extensive and urgent research. It is the first small window into an important area about which we have known so little for so long. It illustrates the rapidity of change of knowledge in the medical field, to which I referred in the second-reading debate. It is a challenging matter and one that has occurred since the government formulated the Bill. It is one that the government cannot ignore.

As the second-reading stage of the Bill has now passed, as this is the second Chamber in the Parliament to debate the matter, and as it presumably will pass the third-reading stage, I suggest the government should produce a third Bill to accommodate two issues: firstly, a register of the exercising of attorney powers so that we may review and learn from cases in the near future; and, secondly, that the power of a single attorney is supplemented by requiring a review committee in each case to review the parameters of the case to avoid malice and to attempt to ensure that the most appropriate medical treatment is provided.

It is clear that a lay attorney will not be capable of making the fine medical judgment that is required using the knowledge and techniques available today. Also, having an attorney is not acceptable because that person does not have the power or authority of the patient who can override medical knowledge based on his own personal wishes. We do not know those personal wishes.

It is clear that a committee of people rather than a single attorney is to be preferred in these cases. The committee may involve several doctors, patient representatives, family members, family representatives, an expert in ethics, a nurse and perhaps a lawyer. These people, sitting together marking time for the case while the patient is alive and in urgent need of medical care, are far more likely to be able to ensure that malice does not apply and that the best treatment is identified and made available to that person: this may be palliative treatment to permit the person to die in as comfortable a state as possible to achieve what I referred to in my second-reading speech as a "good death",


It is preferable to proceed down that track-to go further than the government is proposing in the Bill-than to pass the authority onto a single power of attorney.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 2 to 6.

Clause 7

Mr CLARK (Balwyn)-Clause 7 is the heart of the Bill, and it is important to place on the record a number of defects in the clause that were not brought out fully in earlier debates. The first defect is the interaction between the provisions in this clause which create a certification system and section 9 of the Act which confers immunity on a medical practitioner in certain circumstances.

Most people rightly believe the vast majority of doctors, particularly those in our public hospitals, would observe the highest ethical standards and would devote themselves fully to the interests of patients, but there may be occasions when those standards of care and dedication are not observed.

I raise by way of analogy an article in the Aqe of 22 July 1989 concerning abuses that were uncovered in a nursing home. The artIcle states:

Doctors responsible for three women residents in a Melbourne nursing home will be investigated because of alleged inaction that led to "inappropriate, inhuman and cruel" treatment, the guardianship board was told yesterday.

Mr Tony Lawson, the president of the board, said serious questions had to be asked of the doctors, who apparently had not challenged the use of high doses of sedatives and restraining belts on the women ....

Mr Lawson said there had been no explanation of the absence of care by the doctors responsible for three of the four women put under the guardianship of an advocate by the board last month.

I have no doubt this is an isolated incident but it is an example of where the standards of care can fall down.

One must ask whether under this Bill there could be circumstances when not only was there a lack of care-as was exposed in this instance-but also where the proper standards of procedure were not observed by medical practitioners in evaluatin~ an attempt to effect a refusal of treatment, thereby resulting in the death of the patIent concerned.

My criticism of the clause is primarily that an immunity is given to a doctor who observes the procedures of the Bill and of the clause. That creates enormous potential for abuse.

From the instance to which I referred, it is obvious that regulatory authorities find it difficult to pick up on existing abuses, and I put it to the Committee that regulatory authorities will find it at least as difficult, if not more so, to pick up on similar abuses of the procedure laid down in the Bill.

There are other defects in the Bill which I raised with the Minister's predecessor several months ago. I hope she will respond to those matters during the debate on this clause. I wish to touch on them briefly.

The first is that there is no provision in the Bill that would make it an offence to make a false statement in connection with a refusal of treatment. It seems to follow that if there is no financial benefit to be gained by the person making a false statement it is going to be difficult to obtain a conviction against such a person unless one can prove a homicidal intent, which would be extremely difficult.

Professor Finnis has pointed out that one cannot even get a conviction for a manslaughter that arises from the making of a false statement-unless one can prove intention-if one cannot show that the manslaughter is the result of an unlawful act.


In other words, the making ofa false statement will not be an unlawful act unless it is an offence.

I ask why the Bill does not provide that any agent, medical practitioner or other person who makes in a refusal of treatment certificate and any witness who makes in an enduring power of attorney a statement, which the person knows to be false, is guilty of an offence. That would give one comeback against the potential for abuse.

There is a further point that should be made in relation to this clause, and that is the manner in which decisions as to the non-refusal of treatment are given effect. The Bill relates not only to the refusal of treatment but it is expressed to relate to decisions about medical treatment generally. That is certainly welcome but I point out that, although there is an elaborate mechanism whereby a refusal decision can be given effect, there is no mechanism whatsoever to give effect to some other decision, for example, to administer a particular form of treatment. That may render the entire reference to being able to make decisions other than refusal decisions ineffective because no mechanism is laid down.

Another really grotesque anomaly that occurs in this clause of the Bill is that if treatment is refused on behalf of a patient by an agent or by a guardian and the patient thereafter recovers consciousness, it is extremely difficult for the patient to override the refusal of treatment made by the agent or guardian.

In the case of a refusal by an agent, the patient can indirectly overturn the refusal by revokill$ the appointment of the agent. One hopes that no-one will insist too strictly on a patIent emerging from consciousness being able to give such specific instructions. One would hope that some commonsense would be applied.

In relation to refusals of treatment by a guardian, it appears that only the Guardianship and Administration Board can bring about the cessation of that refusal by revoking the appointment of the guardian. Because there is no power to suspend the guardian or a refusal by a guardian, it seems that there would have to be a hearing

. which will require seven days notice before the guardianship board can overturn the guardian's refusal of treatment. I am sure no-one wants that result, but why can the Bill not be amended to avoid these ridiculous anomalies that are likely to lead to suffering and possibly even to death?

I point out also the converse anomaly, that if a patient refuses medical treatment there is no power for an agent or ~uardian of the patient subsequently to revoke that decision in the event of changed CIrcumstances. If the current condition of the patient changes, the refusal of treatment will lapse of its own accord. However, if there is a change of circumstance that is not a change of current condition, one may well want the agent or guardian to be able to overturn the patient's decision but that cannot be done.

The next point to which I wish to refer is the grounds on which an agent or guardian can refuse treatment. If one says the guardian shall have the power to make medical treatment decisions-and I do not reject that in principle-one next needs to ask: what is the range of medical treatment decisions that a guardian should be able to make?

There are good grounds for saying an a$ent should be able to make all medical decisions, short of homicidal treatment deCIsions, because the agent has been chosen by the patient, and the patient is entitled to have his or her wishes given effect. However, ifit is a decision being made by a guardian, by definition, it is not a decision that is being made by choice of the patient. The guardian has been appointed either because the patient has never been mentally competent and therefore has never expressed an opinion or the guardian has been appointed because a previously


competent patient has never taken the step of giving effect to his or her wishes by appointing an agent.

There seem to be far fewer grounds to allow that guardian to make medical treatment decisions from across the gamut of possible decisions because it is so much harder to infer that the decisions of the guardian are being made to reflect the wishes of the patient-simply because, as I have said, no wishes of the patient have been firmly placed on record-if they have been placed on record at all.

Therefore, I consider that in proposed section 5B inserted by clause 7 a difference should be drawn between the power conferred on an agent and on a guardian. The power of a guardian to make treatment decisions should apply only to decisions that lie within reasonable medical practice. There is no justification for empowering a guardian to make wider medical treatment decisions.

These are some of the defects that exist in clause 7. I could continue for some time pointing out additional defects that should be removed. However, I shall limit myself to the ones to which I have referred but I hope, having referred to those defects, I have shown that, regardless of the intentions of supporters of the Bill, the way those intentions have been executed is riddled with errors.

I repeat my hope that before bringing this proposed legislation into effect the government will examine those errors to ascertain whether the Bill can be corrected to carry genuinely into effect the wishes that have been expressed by a number of honourable members rather than to carry those wishes into effect in a flawed manner that would put patients unnecessarily at risk.

Mrs RAY (Box Hill)-I refer to clause 7 of the Medical Treatment (Enduring Power of Attorney) Bill, which inserts proposed sections 5A to 5E, and refer specifically to proposed section 5e, which is concerned with the Guardianship and Administration Board and its powers to suspend or revoke the authority. This addition to the original legislation is agreed to by all parties because it provides a major safeguard and allays the concerns of those who feared that people may not act in and represent the best interests of a patient or, indeed, reflect accurately the wishes of a patient.

My comment comes from conversations I have had over a number of years with the President of the Guardianship and Administration Board, Mr Tony Lawson, and the Public Advocate, Mr Ben Bodna. Their concerns were that they were often called to hospitals to assist by providing guidance to doctors who were unwilling to make judgments about the course of treatment to be followed for people who had lost consciousness and who had nobody to represent their wishes. This happened prior to the introduction of this Bill and followed the passing of the Medical Treatment Bill, which did not bestow power on an agent. Because of the new demand on those officers their workload had reached the stage where a great deal of the rest of their work was seriously compromised. The load came to them as a result of the issue being brought into the public arena through the passing of the first Medical Treatment Bill, so it is good to see that this Bill confines the role of the board to that of intervening in cases where there is some doubt about the appointed agent. I am aware that those officers welcome this change in their role by confining their assistance to times when some clarification is required. The provision greatly strengthens the original measure and will be welcomed by those agencies that have previously faced considerable increases in workload because help was sought by the medical profession when people were unable to appoint agents.

The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses and the schedules.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and the report was adopted.

702 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Yackandandah Land Bill

The SPEAKER-Order! The question is: That this Bill be now read a third time.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out to you that the third reading of the Bill has been put without twenty members being present in the House.

Mr Clark-And after the Committee stage.

A quorum was formed.

The SPEAKER resubmitted the question.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time.

YACKANDANDAH LAND BILL The Order of the Day for the resumption of the debate on the motion for the second

reading of this Bill was read.

The SPEAKER-Order! I have examined this Bill and am of the opinion that it is a private Bill.

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-By leave, I move: That this Bill be dealt with as a public Bill and that fees be dispensed with.


The debate (adjourned from March 7) on the motion ofMrs Setches (then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The Yackandandah Land Bill relates to an area of Victoria where subdivision was undertaken during the time of the gold rush. As a result, the titles for much of the land are for relatively small areas. Some consolidation of some of the titles has taken place but in other areas the titles have covered small pieces of land for some considerable time. In this instance Mr and Mrs Holden purchased a piece of land adjacent to the Yackandandah reserve which is currently used as a golf course. The piece of land purchased by the Hoidens was landlocked, so they were unable to obtain a building permit from the Shire ofYackandandah.

Given that an exchange of land is to occur, some of it involving public land, it would be reasonable to assume that the Yackandandah Land Bill would be a private Bill. However, because the size of the HoIdens' land that will become Crown land is greater than the size of the Crown land to be transferred to the Hoidens, and because Mr and Mrs Holden have agreed to pay into consolidated revenue the difference between the valuations of the two pieces of land, it has been generally agreed that the Bill should be treated as a public Bill.

As I said, what is designated as a recreation and racecourse reserve is used as a golf course. The portion of Crown land that will be transferred to the Hoidens is unsuitable for those purposes, and the parcel of land to be transferred to the Crown is suitable for ~oclusion in the recreation reserve. The area is managed by a committee of management, which agreed to the transfer, as has the Shire of Yackandandah. Given the general support for the Bill, the Opposition also supports it.

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-For the reasons so clearly stated by the honourable member for Syndal, the National Party supports the Bill.

Kew and H eidelberg Lands (Trust) Bill 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 703

The SPEAKER-Order! The question is: That this Bill be now read a second time.


The Bill was read a second time and, by leave, the House proceeded to the third reading.

The SPEAKER-Order! The question is: That this Bill be now read a third time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time.

The SPEAKER-Order! The question is: That this Bill be transmitted to the Legislative Council and their concurrence desired therein.


Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out to you that all those procedures were carried out without twenty members being present in the House.


The SPEAKER resubmitted the questions.

The motions were agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

KEW AND HEIDELBERG LANDS (TRUST) BILL The debate (adjourned from March 7) on the motion ofMrs Setches (then Minister

for Conservation, Forests and Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-Under the Kew and Heidelberg Lands (Trust) Bill, the Yarra Bend Park Trust is to be given additional powers to enable it to carry out an upgrading offacilities within the park, particularly the historic boatsheds. Dights Falls, which are within the park, are an historic landmark. They are particularly significant because they divide the tidal part of the Yarra River from its natural flowing stream. At the turn of the century Dights Falls were included in what was then a national park. Yarra Bend Park has a long history. The park is still recognised for its golf course and other facilities that are used extensIvely. As such, the park contributes to the enjoyment of Melburnians.

The main purpose of the Bill is to incorporate the trustees of Yarra Bend Park, which will entitle the trust to an accommodation from the Treasurer to enable it to refurbish the boatshed, in particular. The Opposition supports the Bill; but while the Bill is between Houses, I ask the Minister to consider the insertion of reporting provisions. Proposed section 11 provides:

(1) The Trust may, with the approval of the Treasurer, obtain financial accommodation.

(2) The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Government of Victoria, execute a guarantee on any terms and conditions that the Treasurer determines in favour of any person or body of persons, guaranteeing the due satisfaction of amounts that become payable and any other actions required to be performed as a result of or in connection with the provision to the Trust of financial accommodation ...

It is clear from subsequent provisions that that arrangement can continue without the knowledge of Parliament. Given that the trust is required to report to the three councils that comprise it-Collingwood, Northcote. and Kew-it is reasonable that

704 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Kew and H eidelberg Lands (Trust) Bill

the annual report of the trust be presented to Parliament, together wit~ a projected budget for the following year. This year the trust had receipts of $1·1 7 million. The trust should be brought under the supervision of Parliament if it is to be provided with a Treasurer's guarantee.

The legislation that established the trust dates back to 1933. There is a requirement for a quorum, which would meet the requirements of some sections of the Associations Incorporation Act, if the committee of management were incorporated in that sense, but there is no suggestion that there ought to be reporting back to Parliament. I am suggesting that, while the Bill is between here and another place, there be some discussions on the matter to ensure that all honourable members are happy with the provision of the guarantee and, more importantly, that once the guarantee is in place those who are interested in that organisation have the opportunity of examining the way in which it is performing.

As I have said, the trust is a viable organisation. It receives funds from the supporting municipalities. It receives funds from the Department of Sport a.nd Recreation, and it participates in the apprenticeship scheme. It receives an income from the main golf course of some $579 ·000, and some $62 000 from the par 3 course. Its property rentals bring in revenue amounting to $81 458 and ground hire fees bring in $18830. Therefore, it is a substantial organisation that can exist without support.

Following the work that was done on Kanes Bridge in the area, it seems reasonable that the other facilities that generally service the Yarra Bend Park ought also to be upgraded. It is my understanding that the current tenant at the boathouse is prepared to enter into a 21-year lease and to be involved in the tendering process. On that basis, it seems there is every prospect that the income from the refurbished boathouse will be able to service the loan.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that we need some understanding of what other transactions are being undertaken, given that the Treasurer's guarantee will be put in place. It is on that basis that I seek an indication from the Minister for Conservation and Environment that he will be prepared to consider amendments while the Bill is between here and another place, to provide an assurance that the Treasurer's guarantee will be protected by some procedure of reporting to Parliament.

Mrs WADE (Kew)-The Yarra Bend Park is land permanently reserved for public park and recreation purposes. It is currently managed by the trustees of the park by way of a Crown grant issued in the names of the trustees. The management of the park is carried out under the Kew and Heidelberg Lands Act, which dates back to 1933.

The Yarra Bend Park is one of Melbourne's major parks. It is an outstanding park that consists in large part of natural bushland. It is probably unique as a park with natural bushland so close to one of Australia's major cities.

The trustees are currently working on a management plan for the park. A new chief executive officer has recently been appointed, and the trustees have some ambitious plans for regenerating the park and creating new interest in it. I understand the plans for the park include the import of a number of grey kangaroos, which will attract overseas tourists in particular, who will come to see not only the natural bushland but also the native fauna. I am not sure whether the plans will go beyond importing grey k.angaroos and include koalas and other examples of native fauna, but there is no doubt that the trustees have plans for the development of the park as a tourist attraction.

The trust currently obtains in the vicinity of$1 million worth of income principally from the golf courses in the park. As has already been mentioned, there are two golf

Kew and H eidelberg Lands (Trust) Bill 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 705

courses. In addition there is the Studley Park boathouse. There is also a boathouse on the other side of the river.

There have been some problems with the management of the park because the trustees have not been incorporated. The Crown Land (Reserves) Act, which provides for the incorporation of committees of management and gives them various powers, does not apply to the Yarra Bend Park Trust, and this Bill is intended to give the trust the same powers as are given to other committees of management. The Bill provides for the trust to become a body corporate and for the body corporate to take over the various obligations and to become the successor in law of the trustees.

If the Bill is passed, the park will become vested in the new trust. The trust will be given the function of managing, controlling and making improvements to the park at its discretion and, for those purposes, it may do anything necessary to carry out its functions.

The trust is also given borrowing powers that are available to other committees of management under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act. That is to say, the trust may, with the approval of the Treasurer, obtain financial accommodation; and the Treasurer may, on behalf of the government of Victoria, execute a guarantee on any terms and conditions that the Treasurer determines, guaranteeing the due satisfaction of amounts that become payable or any other actions required to be performed as a result of or in connection with the provision to the trust of financial accommmodation. The guarantee in respect of such sums is to be paid.out of the Consolidated Fund.

The second-reading speech on this Bill states: The provisions of the Bill will enable the trust, with the approval of the Treasurer, to borrow the

necessary funds to carry out the capital works required for such projects as the boathouse refurbishment. The Bill will also enable the Yarra Bend Park Trust to grant leases of the park or any part of it for up to 21 years and licences for up three years.

The speech also says: The trust will then be able to offer long-term tenure of the boathouse and in doing so ensure recovery of

any costs associated with refurbishment and provide a lessee with ample security for his or her investment in the operation of the boathouse.

I have some difficulty with that paragraph, because it seems to suggest, on the one hand, that the trustees will borrow the necessary funds and carry out the refurbishment of the boathouse and, on the other hand, that the operators of the boathouse will be able to obtain a lease of up to 21 years to ensure recovery of any costs they incurred in the refurbishment of the boathouse. That seems a little unclear.

After talking to the trustees, I understand the proposal is not for the trustees to borrow with the assistance of a government guarantee to refurbish the boathouse but, rather, that tenders be called for, on the basis that people who are interested in leasing the boathouse will put forward the money to refurbish the boathouse and will then have the security of a long-term lease.

I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on this matter because it does seem somewhat unclear. There is obviously some breakdown in communication between his department and the trustees of the Yarra Bend Park.

With regard to the power of the trustees to borrow money and have that money guaranteed by the Treasury, it does seem desirable, given this power is incorporated in the Act and whether the trustees do borrow on these terms, that there should be some reporting provision. So far as I can see there is no reporting provison either in the Bill or in the Act.

706 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill

Given the unsatisfactory nature of some of the other ways borrowings have been dealt with in this State it would be desirable that a report should be made t., Parliament in respect of any moneys borrowed with a government guarantee. The Minister should also appreciate his responsibility in monitoring any such borrowings. I should be interested to have the Minister's comments on this aspect of the Bill.

I have spoken to a number of representatives of conservation groups in my electorate who are interested in the Yarra River and the Yarra Bend Park. Generally speaking they are happy with the terms of the Bill although they have some concern about the proposal for the redevelopment of the Studley Park boathouse. At the moment it is a rather old-world boathouse and not a particularly flourishing commercial venture. It has an old-fashioned ambience and, althou~ it might be desirable to develop it so that visitors could perhaps buy cups of coffee m a slightly more comfortable atmosphere than currently exists, it would be undesirable for the development of the boathouse to be out of context with the surrounding parkland. The conservation groups would rather have a low-key development of the boathouse than a massive commercial development. I ask the Minister to take that into consideration when making provision for approving borrowings for the redevelopment of the boathouse. As I said previously the Yarra Bend Park Trust is happy with the provisions of the Bill subject to some clarification from the Minister about the proposals for the boathouse.

I have written to the Kew City Council about the Bill but I have not yet received any response. I was not expecting the Bill to come on for debate this evening. I suppose one can only trust that the Kew City Council has no difficulty with the Bill. On that note, Mr Speaker, I hope the Bill is not rushed through Parliament and that time is given to obtain responses from parties interested in the provisions.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-I thank honourable members opposite for their support for the Bill. Both speakers raised the need for a reporting process. I am happy to discuss that further when the Bill is between here and another place. The facility provided for the trustees is the same as the facility provided for committees of management of Crown land, which is already incorporated in existing provisions. However, it would not be unreasonable to ask the trustees of the Yarra Bend Park to at least table their annual report in Parliament.

The second matter raised was the question of who is raising the money for the boathouse refurbishment. I am advised that that has not yet been determined. At least that was the position when my advice was written but the matter may have been determined since then. The honourable member for Kew has spoken with the trustees, who seem to be keepins their options open. The trustees could refurbish the boathouse and rent it out at a higher rental or, alternatively, rent it at a lower rental and leave it to the lessee to refurbish the boathouse. The trustees may have already made a decision about that. I think it is more appropriate for the trustees to make that decision than for me or, indeed, Parliament to do so.

I thank honourable members for their support. I am more than happy to discuss reporting arrangements when the Bill is between here and another place.



LAND CONSERV ATION (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from August 17, 1989) on the motion of Mr Roper (then

Minister for Planning and Environment) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 707

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The Bill seeks to redress a problem that occurred when the former Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands was established. With the distribution of the current Ministry, the Opposition is not sure whether this Bill should be proceeding.

When the Land Conservation Council was established in 1970 its purpose was to make better provision for conservation of public land. Essentially the council was established to determine public land uses and it drew together people with expertise in the various areas into a council to determine this process.

The membership of the council, according to section 3 of the Land Conservation Act 1970, was to comprise:

a person appointed by the Governor in Council who shall be chairman; the chairman of the Soil Conservation Authority or his nominee; the Director of Agriculture or his nominee; the chairman of the Forests Commission or his nominee; the Secretary for Lands or his nominee; the chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission or his nominee; the Secretary for Mines or his nominee; the Director of Fisheries and Wildlife or his nominee; the Director of National Parks or his nominee; a person experienced in industry and commerce; a person with experience in the conservation techniques used in developing land for primary production ... and two persons with special knowledge of and experience in some aspect of conservation of natural resources ...

The membership was drawn from separate departments and the purpose of the council was to bring together those separate departments so that each would be able to argue its own points of view and, at the end of that negotiating process, the subject being discussed would have had input from a wide range of people.

What has transpired since the amalgamation of those former departments into the former Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands is that the nominee from the soil conservation area comes from that department; the nominee from the forests area comes from that department; the nominee concerning lands comes from that department; the nominee representing the fisheries and wildlife area comes from that department; and the nominee for national parks comes from that department.

The nominees of the government agencies are essentially all from within one department. As a result of Ministry arrangements made on Monday, the only area not represented by the Department of Conservation and Environment is mines.

The process established in 1970 for the Land Conservation Council has now been completely abrogated. It is important to bear in mind the way the department operated previously when consideration was given to matters in-house and the department made one contribution-not in a public sense-from each of those different bodies so that the original intent of the council was watered down through that developmental process. The current Ministry arrangements can only add to that situation.

The intent of the amendment was to have the nominee of the Secretary for Planning and Environment and a nominee of the Minister for Local Government included. That matter should be reviewed because of the new structure of the Department of Conservation and Environment. Will that representative be from the environment or the planning area? We have not been advised about that shortcoming but that will probably be explained later.

The LCC has been in operation for twenty years and since then virtually all the State has been reviewed twice by the council. Recommendations are still to be made about the Mallee and that will complete the second cycle of evaluations undertaken by the council.

When the council was set up it was to be free of influence in its direction, but in 1983 it was directed to take account of ~overnment policy. The council was given a directive to reconsider the Alpine NatIonal Park in accordance with government


policy. Not only have directions in terms of reference eventuated for the Alpine National Park-something which had not previously occurred-but also when the report was finally delivered, the government second-guessed the council. The government did not accept the report that was put to it. Extensions were made to the recommendations of the LCC, and in the Mallee the government has again secondguessed the LCC.

One begins to wonder whether the council has become a tool of the government and whether it has outlived its usefulness. It is clear that the LCC's recommendations have received general acceptance. I understand approximately 94 per cent of its recommendations have eventually been put in place by various governments. The LCC has proved to be a useful body and is admired by most other States. It has provided a modicum of impartiality which other States admire. Many issues in other States could be resolved by a similar process to that in place in Victona.

Because of the restructuring that has drawn together all the land-use areas into a super Ministry, matters will be resolved internally rather than being debated in the public arena and providing an opportunity for the public to make a contribution to the debate as well as for the veracIty of statements to be examined, thus allowing the public to understand the processes involved.

Only a limited number of people have held the positions of chairman of the council. The most recent chairman is Mr David Scott. The former Minister for Planning and Environment, now the Treasurer, appointed Mr Scott not only as Chairman of the LCC but also as Commissioner for the Environment. Mr Scott has been an ambassador for the LCC and has willingly travelled throughout the State in order to understand the issues the council has been confronted with. He is competent to argue points of view in the public arena.

We want that forum to be maintained. I believe there will be some problems if all the developmental input is under one Ministry and decisions are made internally.

Mr McCutcheon-But it is not! Mr COLEMAN-The House will receive an explanation about that matter shortly.

The legislation originally derived from the fact that within the former Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands there was an existing problem, and the government recognised the need for a broadening of the membership of the council. The Bill was to provide for the secretary of the former Ministry for Planning and Environment and a municipal nominee to be included on the council. The nomination has some general support. However, if there is to be departmentalisation of the decision making it is important that those people who live in the areas that the recommendations of the council will affect and the inhabitants of municipalities in those areas should have input into the determination process.

There should continue to be public consultation by the council on the various propositions. Having a representative of the municipality on the council will ensure that there is local input into the decision-making process when the council is examining recommendations. To that extent there has been general support for the matter.

The Opposition is not clear whether the secretary of the former Ministry for Planning and Environment will have a nominee. Presumably the government will move to amend the Bill in the Committee stage and will indicate where the person will come from. One should have thought that the proposed legislation would be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for that. Nevertheless, presumably amendments will be introduced in the Committee stage and honourable members will receive a full explanation of the matter.

The Land Conservation Council is recognised as a body that is prepared to consider a number of issues; however, the government is beginning to second-guess those


decisions. In some instances the council has made specific recommendations about land use in a particular context, but the government has changed that context in application.

I have received a number of letters from people who are concerned about the use of four-wheel drive vehicles in specific areas of the Alpine National Park. The Land Conservation Council has recommended that there be no restrictions on the use of recreational vehicles on the existing track network. Despite that, the government has, of its own volition, determined the way it wants the area to be managed. The same principle applies to beekeepers. The government has nominated some areas as being unsuitable for beekeepers to take nectar and pollen from to sustain their bees; however, the Land Conservation Council has no difficulty with access for beekeepers. Conflicts exist in a number of other areas also.

If the Land Conservation Council is to exist and ifit is to consider public submissions and bring down reports that members of the council are prepared to sign, at the very least the government must stand behind such reports and ensure that their recommendations are accepted. To do less than that abrogates the work of the council. It means that the government is considering the particular issues of interest groups that wish to press their points in ways all honourable members have started to understand.

It is incumbent on the government to indicate during the debate whether it is prepared to continue to allow the Land Conservation Council to do the legwork and accommodate minority interests at a later stage or whether it will leave the decision making to the council. It is apparent from some of the issues that have been raised that the government is being driven by matters outside the charter of the council.

There is apprehension across the State about the way the recommendations of the council are handled, and other honourable members will highlight those areas. Amendments will be proposed to the Bill during the Committee stage, and I hope discussions will take place when the Bill is between here and another place.

The Opposition wants to sharpen the provision regarding the nomination of municipalities, and consideration should be given to the appointment of a nominee of the Secretary for Planning and Environment. Clause 5 deals with social and economic implications and that must be carefully considered. During a debate on the East Gippsland area, economic and social implications were significant, and the government recognised that.

Mr Roper-It was taken into account by the Land Conservation Council.

Mr COLEMAN-The government had to do something about the social and economic implications over and above the council.

Mr Roper-And it did.

Mr COLEMAN-I acknowledge that some work was done, but it did not really address the issue. Honourable members have before them a report on the Mallee area and the social and economic implications of that should receive consideration.

Mr Roper-They have.

Mr COLEMAN-I suggest that it is possible that they have, but the Bill makes it clear that social and economic implications must be considered. That matter will be discussed further during the debate.

The Opposition supports the thrust of the Bill, but it will seek to amend it when the Bill is between here and another place.

71 0 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-The Land Conservation Council was established in 1970 at a time when the mana~ement of public land was distributed amon~ a number of different agencies that fell wIthin the jurisdiction of several different MinIsters. That situation gave rise to inevitable conflicts about whether specific parcels of land were appropriately managed, for example, whether some areas were better off under the management of the then Lands Department or the then Forests Commission, and there was underlyin~ pressure within certain sections of the community for the establishment of addItional national parks.

After two abortive attempts in the late 1960s, at the third attempt in 1970 the ~overnment managed to establish the Land Conservation Council. The council had Its genesis among much controversy involving various Ministers of Lands from 1967 to 1970, who planned to open up certain sections of Little Desert for farming purposes. That controversy led to the establishment of the Land Conservation Council.

During the debate on that matter I expressed my deep concern about the structure of the council and claimed that its membership was weighted far too heavily in favour of the "conservation element" in the community. It lacked any direct representation from the areas where people had to live with these decisions. I point out that the jurisdiction of the Land Conservation Council is confined to public land within shires so people who live in towns, cities and larger municipalities do not have to worry about what the Land Conservation Council might do with public land.

The constitution of the Land Conservation Council meant that it was doubtful whether even one member of the council was a resident of a shire. To me that sounded like a serious warnin~ of a lack of representation and understanding of the decisions that this body was hkely to make, which obviously the government was likely to adopt.

My forecasts about the dangers of the representation on the LCC came to fruition at the very first inquiry, which took place in the far south-western area-the Shire of Portland. When the council's first recommendations were released there were plaintive cries from the Shire of Portland-whose members were all members of the government party of the day-about what the recommendations were going to do to that area of Victoria.

As parts of my electorate were soon for the chopping block so far as the LCC was concerned, I took it upon myself to alert as many organisations as I could to the urgent need to make submissions to the council when it commenced studies in the East Gippsland area, which was the third of the regions it undertook to examine.

I believe my efforts had something to do with the massive increase in the number of submissions that were made compared with those received in Portland. Those people might well have saved themselves the time. At that hearing and ever since the LCC has totally ignored or rejected the points of view of rural residents. I believe this State is worse off because the Land Conservation Council was not strangled at birth.

The honourable member for Syndal said that other States envy Victoria its Land Conservation Council. I can assure him that the people in rural areas of New South Wales are very pleased that they do not have a similar body. If one is looking for advantages that Victoria has over New South Wales with respect to the conservation of areas of special significance, I cannot see what benefit this organisation has had. All it has done is generate huge quantities of printed material.

It has placed tremendous pressures on people in rural areas who are obliged to make submissions, because if they do not the inference is that they do not care about what is happening to their public land. However, they make submissions knowing full well they will be totally ignored. I have yet to see any submission put forward by rural


people that has received the slightest recognition from the Land Conservation Council and, to be quite honest, I do not believe it even reads them.

This organisation is not a good one and not worth the huge amounts of money that have been spent on its operations. It almost brings every other department to a halt when it moves into an area because the field officers are busy carting around LCC officers while they do their studies and write their hu~e reports. It is a very tall order to ask people who have busy lives to write submiSSIons. They are trying to earn a living and they do not have the resources of word processors, stenographers and research officers to help them. They have to sit down and try to get their submissions on paper in their own spare time. Preparing a submission to the LCC is a difficult job.

Let us examine the effect of the Land Conservation Council. As the honourable member for Syndal indicated, Victoria has been studied twice in ten years. That is absolutely nonsensical, for a start. The management of public land-particularly forested land-is a long-term proposition. It cannot be turned around every ten years. Surely that shows how ridiculous and lacking in understanding and knowledge the LCC and the government are. I suppose I cannot blame the LCC. It is the government's responsibility and it is the government's fault for ordering a second study in only ten years.

There have been two studies into East Gippsland and everybody has been given a chance to put a submission forward. The greenies-if I can call them that, because that is what they are generally becoming known as-have had a tremendous opportunity to express their point of view. I shall go into that in more detail later.

Two studies have been conducted in East Gippsland and on each occasion the council has recommmended that additional areas be set aside for national parks, scenic reserves and special areas of various kinds. Of course, in the process the studies have proposed to set aside areas which have been chosen for logging purposes for the timber industry.

Having arrived at those decisions after two intensive studies, the government then set up an inquiry into the timber industry. Again, submissions had to be made and a huge document was produced. The timber industry in East Gippsland was assured that there would be a timber industry strategy and an area was set aside for logging which would be allowed on a sustainable yield basis. In other words, by the time the timber industry had gone over the whole area the original area would be back to a stage where it could be logged a second time.

This was generally agreed to and accepted despite the fact that many people in East Gippsland believed the timber industry in particular and the whole region in general had compromised itself to a high degree in acceptin~, although it did not have much option, the extent of the national parks that were deSIgnated.

As honourable members would know, the National Party opposed some of those recommendations in this House. At least the timber industry was established on a sustainable basis in East Gipsland and everything was working just fine. Then onto the scene came the Commonwealth government and, on top of all these investigations-without considering any of the studies that had been instituted by the Victorian government-it designated even more areas as part of the National Estate.

The National Estate areas, so far as I can ascertain, have been so designated because they are described as being old growth forests, which by definition means they have not previously been logged. There are still fairly extensive areas of old growth forests in East Gippsland and there is no assurance whatsoever that those areas will not be designated for inclusion on the National Estate register at some time in the future.

The greenies-as all honourable members are aware-started their protesting about the logging of National Estate areas in East Gippsland. A Federal election was in the


air, and I invite honourable members to reflect on what happened. All of the proposals about sustained yield, the timber industry strategy, the two studies by the Land Conservation Council and the recommendations were totally abandoned, thrown overboard, just wiped! The result came about because of the protests by the so-called greenies in the early part of this year.

Those protests led to the blockading of the Princes Highway near Orbost and later to a massive demonstration by the truckies in Melbourne. In case you have forgotten, Mr Acting Speaker, that was the occasion when the Premier told the truckies to get their rubbish out of the city of Melbourne. That "rubbish" was timber rigs worth some $150 000, $200 000 or $250 000, every one of them maintained in better condition than the government can maintain the trams and trains in this State because those people care about their equipment and the jobs they are doing.

With a Federal election in the air, something had to be done to resolve the situation. It is interesting to contemplate how the impasse was resolved. Senator Cook, the then Minister for Resources in the Federal government, came onto the scene. He signed a deal with the timber industry; I understand the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services was involved in that. The deal was that the sawmillers' operations would be moved out of National Estate areas into lower yielding forests.

I asked Senator Cook about the agreement at a meeting held at Cann River. He explained that the timber industry was going into lower grade forests and he said, "They are guaranteed the same yield of timber from those lower grade forests". My reaction was to say that that would mean there would be more trees felled with more waste of timber. Senator Cook's reply absolutely astonished me. He said, "We are going to let them woodchip them".

I said, "How is this going to jell with the attitude of the State government and the Land Conservation Council?" For ten years the government has not been able to make up its mind whether woodchipping is good or bad. The government has had the job of determining this all-important question about the management of public land, in particular our forests, and it cannot make up its mind on the basic question of whether woodchipping is good or bad for our forests. If the LeC thinks woodchipping is bad, why does it not say so? If the government thinks woodchipping is good for our forests, why do we not have it?

Some $1000 million worth of timber is lying on the forest floors in East Gippsland and has been there accumulating over the past ten years. The government cries poor; it could have received $10 million in royalties each year if it had allowed that timber to be woodchipped! The government is supposed to be a body talking about conservation, yet it allows-in fact it insists-that a situation be maintained in which 100 million tonnes of timber lies on the forest floors in East Gippsland. I invite honourable members to consider how.anyone in his or her right mind could call that conservation! Yet that is what the Land Conservation Council has played a part in.

I asked Senator Cook, "How is the State government going to go about that?" His reply was, "They won't be able to do anything about it because I am going to give them an export licence and they can export it through Eden".

I ask honourable members to consider just who is managing the forests now. It is not the State government; the Land Conservation Council has no say-the Commonwealth government has taken it over. It has decided that woodchipping will be conducted in East Gippsland. The decision has been made without conducting any inquiry or study and without the benefit of input from the Land Conservation Council. It will spread to other areas because surely if it is good enough to do it in one area it is

Adjournment 4 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 713

good enough for another area. That is the bullet the ~overnment has refused to bite over the years, as-in all fairness-did the previous LIberal government.

It seems strange to me that a body that refuses to allow rubbish to be used for woodchipping should make such a decision. The wood from the Gippsland forests should be used for woodchipping. If it had been sound and not eaten by white ants, the timber industry could have cut up the wood, taken it away and sold it and nobody would have raised an eyebrow. Because it has been eaten by white ants, nobody will buy it. The timber industry could not use it because even members of the Land Conservation Council would not buy timber that has been eaten by white ants and use it in their houses.

The timber stays there because it cannot be used for milling. The government will not allow it to be used for woodchips or to make paper. Now honourable members witness the spectacle of these idiots who have chained themselves to trees and done unspeakable things in the forest in order to achieve what they claim to be the saving of the trees and forests in East Gippsland! I guarantee that they have not saved one tree because they cannot solve the problem of wastage by tackling it at its source. Wastage must be tackled at the point of consumption.

Wastage and the abuse of resources is not occurring in the forests of East Gippsland; it is taking place in this city. Probably one of the worst offenders is the present Treasurer. I cannot come to terms with the amount of paper that is wasted each day that the House sits. After nearly 30 years in this place I cannot come to terms with the waste that occurs in this city. Yet these idiots get up and say, "We have saved the forests because we have forced the loggers out of the areas". As the honourable member for Syndal interjected earlier, more trees must be felled to gain the same amount of timber. If woodchipping had been allowed, the timber would have been better utilised and smaller areas of forest would have had to be felled to get the same amount of timber for community needs.

If the timber does not come from East Gippsland, it will come from Indonesia, South America or somewhere else where concern for the environment, reforestation and similar issues is not developed to the same extent that it is here.

One of the reasons for the erroneous appreciation of our forest management has been the composition of the Land Conservation Council, which has been far too heavily biased towards the so-called greenie element in the community and has ignored the scientific views put by people who have been trained in and have dedicated their lives to forestry and forest management in this State. It is those people to whom we should look for direction on the proper way to manage our forests.

In accordance with Sessional Orders, the debate was interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT State Bank Victoria-Aggressive dogs-Land tax-Travel allowance for emergency

teacher-English course fees for Chinese student-Flooding in WestmeadowsCaulfield planning scheme

The SPEAKER-Order! The time appointed by Sessional Orders for me to interrupt the business of the House has now arrived. The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-The matter I raise is directed to the attention of the Treasurer and relates to what I call fringe benefits at State Bank Victoria. It refers to such things as expense allowances and loans that are made to officers of the State

714 ASSEMBLY 4 April 1990 Adjournment

Bank. I direct particular attention to special low-interest loans to senior executives of the State Bank, like the $250000 loan, at 3 per cent interest, to an assistant general manager of corporate banking at State Bank Victoria.

One must question how $250 000 can be lent to a senior executive of the bank. I wonder how many of those sorts of loans are made to senior officers of the bank? I pose the question for the Treasurer, and it deserves an answer: who is paying the fringe benefits tax on a loan of that nature?

Another concern about the loans is that they are what could be described as hidden loans. If one were being unkind, one might say that the loans were laundered to senior executives. Otherwise, why would the loans be encompassed in a special account known as the "officers emergency fund"? Why would one hide loans of that nature in that circumstance? I ask the Treasurer to take a special interest in this area, and advise the House and Victorians more explicitly about the details. Why is it that the loans have been hidden in the officers emergency fund? Is it because the senior members of staffwho have benefited from the privileged $250 000 loans at 3 per cent do not want the lower echelons in the State Bank to know about the loans because they know the level of discontent that would exist within the system, or is it perhaps because a special deal has been struck?

On the subject of fringe benefits, I have had directed to my attention a benefit that was afforded the Acting Chief Executive of State Bank Victoria, Mr Jim McAnany, when he joined the bank from Sydney. He was given temporary accommodation for about six months, having initially worked for the former Commonwealth Banking Corporation in New South Wales.

It is not unusual when someone is transferred in his employment-whether one works in a public sector bank or in the private sector-to be given some form of accommodation assistance. I wonder whether that assistance has been declared as a fringe benefit, and ifso who paid the fringe benefits taxation on that. Was it the bank, or was it a case of "It's your money, Ralph"?

Did Victorians pay that fringe benefits tax? I understand that while Mr McAnany was involved in the six months rent-free accommodation he had a problem with his swimming pool. I have it on good authority that he used approximately $10 000 of the bank's money to repair a leak in the pool. Is that a fringe benefit? Has that been declared as a fringe benefit? What account in the books of the State Bank has been used to hide that amount for repairs? Why would the bank pay for repairs to a swimming pool in a property being leased by a senior executive?

The cheap loans are not available to normal employees of the bank, regardless of whether they are senior officers or otherwise; certainly, they are denied to the broader Victorian community. There is not one honourable member in this House who would mind obtaining a $250 000 loan at 3 per cent interest.


Mr GUDE-A few hands have been raised in the House by those who would like a share of the action!

What happens when those executives leave the bank? Is it the same sort of charade Victorians have experienced about housing loans, where loans were continued after persons left the bank? Will the loan be brought to account? Have people who have left the bank, and who have received those loans, been required to meet the normal terms? Are they on 20 per cent rates, as they ought to be?


I raise those matters for the attention of the new Treasurer. The former Treasurer was not prepared to provide answers but I hope the new Trea~urer will show more integrity.

Mr NORRIS (Dandenong)-The matter I raise is for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for transmission to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The problem arises from a number of representations I have received from constituents expressing concern at what appears to be an increase in the number of fierce and aggressive dogs that people appear to be keeping these days.

Has the Minister or his department examined the situation or conducted any surveys that may provide an indication of whether it is an imagined or a real increase in the number of aggressive animals being kept in the community?

The number of dog bites upon people has increased. I refer the Minister to a report that recently appeared in the Sun newspaper, from memory, in which the Royal Children's Hospital said it had noticed an increasing number of incidents of dog bites reported to the hospital-mainly bites about the face, and bites inflicted upon children. The dogs identified in most cases were of the German shepherd breed.

I am also concerned about the increase in the number of bull-terriers, and what appears to be an increase in the pit bull-terriers. It is a phenomenon that appears to be growing among a certain element in the community that sees these dogs as an extension of their own personalities, or that in some way they make up for their personality inadequacies. Those types are evident in all communities-wandering around with these extremely dangerous and ferocious animals!

I refer to the article in the Herald of 14 March 1990, in which the spokesman for the Royal Children's Hospital states:

We are certainly hearing about more dog bites but there must be so many more bites that we do not hear about when a face is not involved and the people go to their local doctor or a smaller hospital. ..

My concern is that the department may not be taking proper measures in a number of respects. There should be a register of dog bites; I raised this matter several years ago in this place. The dogs that are attacking particularly children should be identified, and certain measures should be taken to control them.

I ask the Minister to investigate whether there has been an increase in the number of people who keep what I term to be vicious animals? Has the department examined the definition of what may be a fierce, vicious, and aggressive dog?

I refer to the widespread practice in the United States of America of crossbreeding pit bull-terriers with other breeds of dogs. An article in the Anthrozoos magazine, volume one, No. 1, produced by Lockwood and Rindy, states:

American Staffordshire and pit bull-terriers were bred to show little aggression to people. Other breeds with which they are commonly hybridised, such as the German shepherd, the Bullmastiff, the Rottweiler and Rhodesian ridgeback have been selected for use as guard dogs against human intruders.

Many of those dogs have become popular in this country. The result of the mix can be animals with the potential aggressiveness of dogs that attack people.

Recently there were well-publicised incidents in my electorate when three crossbred bull-terriers attacked three members of the community. A local newspaper photographer who went to the scene of one of the incidents to take a picture of one of the dogs alleged to have bitten several people was also set upon. The crossbred bullterriers were taken to the local dog pound and destroyed.


Many people who own such dogs have no idea of how to manage them or how dangerous they can be. I ask the Minister to investigate how many people own such dogs and what measures can be introduced to control such dangerous behaviour.

Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-I again raise the issue of land tax. I recognise that there is a Bill on the Notice Paper--

The SPEAKER-Order! I ask the honourable member for Malvern to nominate the Minister to whom he is directing his remarks.

Mr LEIGH-I shall, Mr Speaker. The matter I raise is not so much to do with the Bill on the Notice Paper as with the wider issue of the imposition of land tax in my electorate. The level of land tax has increased dramatically in the cities of Malvern, Caulfield, Hawthorn and Prahran and in many areas it has increased by more than 1 SO per cent. Many elderly people in my electorate are bein~ driven from their homes because the government's attitude is that old people who lIve in comfortable houses can afford to pay high land taxes.

Mr Tanner-That's Jollynomics.

Mr LEIGH-As the honourable member for Caulfield said, that is an example of Jollynomics. The government must decide--

Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, it appears that the honourable member is speaking about land tax. The Land Tax (Further Amendment) Bill is listed on the Notice Paper; therefore, I suggest that the honourable member is out of order in raising the issue at this time.

Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I have not referred to the Land Tax (Further Amendment) Bill because I am aware the Bill is listed on the Notice Paper. I do not believe the honourable member for Wantirna has cause for complaint.

The SPEAKER-Order! In any event, an honourable member may not request specific legislation when speakin~ on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting. An honourable member can nllse only administrative matters that fall within a particular Minister's portfolio, not matters determined by legislation. I do not uphold the point of order, but I caution the honourable member to be careful about the matter that he is raising.

Mr LEIGH-There are many people in my electorate and in other electorates who are suffering from the blight of land tax. This government makes about $22 million a year in land tax from the people of Malvern.

Mr Gavin interjected.

Mr LEIGH-That is what you lot took from the people of my electorate. You claim they are rich!

The SPEAKER-Order! I advise the honourable member that he cannot raise matters dealing with legislation. The matter that he is raising appears to the Chair to have no remedy other than by legislation. It does not appear to be a matter where discretion to act is available to either the Treasurer or the government. I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to matters that fall within the administrative discretion of the Treasurer.

Mr LEIGH-I am talking about the personal hardship that people face because of the government's actions.

Mr KENNEDY (Bendigo West)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I understand that during debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting honourable


members are entitled to make specific requests of a Minister seeking specific action. So far no request has been forthcoming from the honourable member for Malvern about how he proposes the Treasurer should rectify what he alleges is a problem for constituents in his electorate. In this case it is appropriate that the honourable member be asked to specify the action he requests of the Treasurer. These points must be borne in mind so that, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting, the normal rules of the House are abided by. I ask you to request the honourable member to stipulate the nature of his request.

The SP~AKER-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member's time has expired. I make the point that I regard it as unreasonable for honourable members to erode an honourable member's time by making unnecessarily verbose points of order.

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Education concerns the hopeless financial mismanagement of the Ministry of Education. In particular, the matter concerns Mrs Janice Collins, who is an emergency teacher. For the last nine weeks of the 1989 school year Mrs Collins taught at Healesville High School. This meant she was entitled to receive a travelling allowance for any distance she travelled beyond 40 kilometres a day. Although she has not experienced any difficulties in receiving her wages, she is waiting for the payment of her travelling allowance.

The acting principal of the school signed the required form for the travelling allowance on the last day of the school year. It was posted on that day or the next. Late in January of this year the form was returned to Mrs Collins with another form for her to fill in to authorise the use of her car. The completed forms were received by the Ringwood office of the Ministry of Education on about 7 February. On approximately 20 March Mrs Collins's husband rang the office to find out where the money was and was told it should be processed that night. On Friday, 30 March the money had not arrived. Mr Collins again telephoned the office and was told that the money was in the mailbag. The person who processed such claims told Mr Collins that he is doing the job previously done by two workers, and members of the Collins family believe him-although that does not help to pay the bills.

This is an inexcusable example of financial and administrative incompetence. That an allowance to which an emergency teacher is entitled and which dates back to the end of last year is yet to be paid to her despite repeated inquiries to education authorities is disgraceful. I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to take up the matter with the Minister for Education and ask her to make genuine efforts to put the administrative affairs of the Ministry of Education in order-because at this time they are very much out of order!

The Ministry of Education is in an administrative and financial shambles. The matter that I have directed to the attention of the Minister is but one of the many examples that I propose to bring to her notice.

Mr GA VIN (Coburg)-I direct a matter to the attention of the Attorney-General, who is the representative in this place of the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It concerns the failure of Hales College to refund $5250 to Ji Sen Yuan. This matter has been raised with me by Ji's friend and a cousin, both of whom live in Melbourne. On 2 August Ji Sen Yuan paid $5250 to Hales College for a twenty-week English language international course that was to commence in January this year.

I have a copy of the receipt issued to Ji Sen Yuan, numbered 3205. The amount was made up of$50 enrolment fee, $3200 for fees and $2000 for living expenses. Ji earns approximately $50 a month in China and on that basis has saved nine years wages. He and his family have put the money together for Ji to undertake the course.


Honourable members who have travelled to China would be aware of the importance the Chinese place on learning the English language. As English-speaking tourists travel around China the Chinese practise their English skills with them. If a Chinaman can speak English it improves his or her prospects of obtaining a job in China. Unfortunately as a result of the massacre that occurred in Tianenmen Square in June last year tens of thousands of Chinese who wished to come to Australia to improve their English have been prevented by the Federal government from doing so. The Federal government has restricted people over the age of 35 years from coming, and Ji is over that age limit. He is unable to come to Australia to undertake his English course which began in January.

The matter has been raised with Hales College because it is holding $5250 of Ji's money. The college has admitted to holding that money together with moneys of other students, and the college will not refund that money.

My office has taken up the matter with the Director of Hales College, Mr Spiros Liolios. The college has admitted to using students' moneys to furnish the building that it is renting at 152 Elizabeth Street. That is a multistorey development and the college is using the students' moneys to upgrade the equipment and to provide staff at the college. This does not help the Chinese students; they are fearful that their money has vanished. The money represents their life savings and, naturally, Ji's cousin, David Cheung and friend, AlIen Wu have made representations on Ji's behalf. That $525C could be earning 20 per cent interest in a deposit account and that $800 interest would represent about eighteen months' employment in China.

Ji has friends in Melbourne who have brought this matter to my attention but there are many Chinese who do not have any friends and they are unable to receive help. A matter such as this can ruin Australia's reputation in China and damage our relationship; it is not giving Australia a good name. It raises matters of morality and fairness. How can a company operate a business by not paying its debts to these Chinese students? It should not be holding their moneys no matter what commercial difficulties the college is experiencing. I had hoped the days of bush ranging were over in this country, but it appears that that is not the case.

Will the Minister take action to ensure that the Chinese students are able to have their moneys refunded?

Mr SEITZ (KeiIor)-The matter I direct to the attention of the Minister for Conservation and Environment is a drain in Westmeadows commonly referred to as the Broad Street drain. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works drain that has operated efficiently under normal circumstances has been upgraded but unfortunately on 19 February 1990 there was a heavy downpour in excess of a 1 in 5 year rainfall. However, the drain was designed only for a 1 in 150 year rainfall. The water from the drain spilled out into the Moonee Ponds Creek but at that time the creek was flooded and the water could not drain away fast enough from the outfall drain. That caused damage to adjoining properties and one particular house was flooded to a depth of 3 to 4 feet. The house is owned by Mrs Gough who is a pensioner and her husband is an invalid pensioner in a wheelchair. They were unable to do much of the cleaning up and Board of Works officers assisted them. I compliment also the Broadmeadows City Council which assisted as well.

The trouble started when it came to the insurance claim. The insurance company said it was an act of God and that the flood damage was not covered by insurance. However, with persuasion and goodwill tt£e insurance company accepted the claim and paid for the damage. The company notified Mrs Gough that it would not renew her insurance cover for the following year and that her policy would expire. Taking


those factors into account, the board of works engineers are examining how flooding can be prevented in the future.

Discussions have taken place about constructing a retarding basin or an embankment, but it involves another municipality, the Shire of Bulla. When one considers that two local government bodies and the board of works are involved one understands the bureaucracy involved and how long it will take before funding will be made available.

In the meantime Mrs Gough is trying to make the best of her life looking after her husband. She is concerned about her insurance cover; the worst scenario is that the cheapest way out is to sell her house. People should not have to live under those conditions. Will the Minister examine the matter expeditiously with the MMBW and the two municipalities to enable Mrs Gough to be given an answer about her future while she is still in the house.

I have experienced heavy rain in recent years in that particular area. It has not been 150 years since we have had heavy downpours.

Mr TANNER (Caulfield)-I raise with the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth the concern of the council of the City of Caulfield regarding the ability to remove restrictive covenants under the Caulfield planning scheme. I anticipate that the Minister is aware of the concern of the City of Caul field as a portion of his electorate ofSt Kilda falls within that municipality. The council wishes the Caulfield planning scheme and other metropolitan planning schemes to be reviewed as a result of the concerns municipalities have expressed.

The council feels the provisions of the scheme which now allow easements and restrictions to be removed or varied in relation to existing parcels of land are able to be altered easily which is not in the community's interest, and that this matter should have been given greater attention by the government prior to the changes.

Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-The honourable member for Dandenong raised the issue of the breeding of super-fierce dogs. He said this is occurring at present particularly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, where people are crossbreeding American pit bull-terriers and other dogs to breed super-fierce dogs. They are then selling these dogs to organisations that want to use that type of dog to guard premises. The dogs are also being made available to people within the general community.

I am not aware of such activities occurring either in Victoria or in other States of Australia at this stage, but we are certainly aware of the need to act in this case. I point out that if attempts were made to import super-fierce dogs into Australia, action could be taken under the quarantine regulations with the support of the Commonwealth government. That would be the appropriate action for the government to take to prevent the importation of that type of crossbreed of dog into Australia; I might add that the genetic material would be available here for people to undertake crossbreeding of that nature.

The government intends to introduce companion animal legislation into Parliament in the near future. It would be appropriate to use that sort of legislation to control the many issues emanating from the Social Development Committee's report on companion animals in our society. It will then be possible to consider the issue of the control not only of the breeding of super-fierce dogs but also, as the honourable member rightly pointed out, situations like those involved in the recent spate of cases identified in the media of dog attacks on children and members of the community generally. Certainly there has been an increase in the incidence of such attacks in the


community in recent times, and it causes me concern, as the Minister responsible for this area of activity.

In the long term, there is a need to encourage responsible pet ownership in the community. I accept the point that the honourable member makes: Victoria could face having to deal with the introduction of super-fierce dogs. There are so many instances of children who are in the Royal Children's Hospital as a result of attacks by stray dogs and pet dogs in the community, as well as their own dogs within the household.

In the second instance, I. believe it is a matter of introducing the appropriate legislation that encourages responsible pet ownership. Also, where a dog is deemed to be dangerous, the Social Development Committee has canvassed possible controls and ways of dealing with specific instances.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr ROWE-The honourable member for Mornington is right-it is the owners. That has been the essence of the government's response to the report of the Social Development Committee on companion animals. The government wants to encourage responsible pet ownership.

Mr Cooper-How do you intend to do that?

Mr ROWE-I shall make available to the honourable member for Mornington a copy of the government's response, which I tabled in the House, to the complex and varied issues raised in that report. I believe that is the appropriate way to deal with the issues relating to attacks that have been identified in the media in recent times, as well as the general issue of dog attacks in the community, particularly on children.

In respect of the overseas experience with the breeding of super-fierce dogs, I shall write to my Federal colleague about the quarantine regulations to ensure that we do not encourage or allow such dogs to be imported into Australia. Where people seek to breed such dogs, the Victorian government has the capacity, under the Dog Act, to control that activity.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-The honourable member for Cobur~ raised a matter with me, in my capacity as the representative in this place of the MInister for Consumer Affairs. The matter he raises appears to require urgent redress. I thank the honourable member for his continuing interest in this matter and for raising it with me. I shall take it up with the Minister for Consumer Affairs for his urgent attention.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-The honourable member for Keilor raised a matter concerning one of his constituents who is suffering difficulties with excessive water coming from a drain and from the Moonee Ponds Creek. I shall investigate the matter further and ascertain whether the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works can do something to expedite remedial action.

Mr SANOON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-The honourable member for Hawthorn raised a matter for the attention of the Treasurer regarding State Bank Victoria. The honourable member for Forest Hill raised a matter relating to a travelling allowance in the Ministry of Education. The honourable member for Caulfield raised an urban planning matter. I should be happy to refer those matters to the appropriate Ministers.

The House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.


Thursday, 5 April 1990

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Ken Coghill) took the chair at 10.33 a.m. and read the prayer.


STATE BANK VICTORIA Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I refer the Treasurer to recent reports

that Mr John A vram will file a $600 million damages claim against Tricontinental Corporation Ltd and I ask: has provision for legal actions of this kind been included by the government in its provision for Tricontinental's bad and doubtful debts? If so, how much has been provided and, if not, why? .

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I should have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have been aware that on 22 February a report was prepared on the provision made, and that report was part of the statement made. Nothing has occurred since then to change that.

Mr Cooper-Answer the question!

Mr ROPER-If one had to make provision for someone issuing a press release saying he or she was taking legal action, there would be great difficulty ahead. Any honourable member opposite who had ever handled more than about $2 would be aware that that was the case-and I understand the Leader of the Opposition has on occasions handled more than that amount. Naturally State Bank Victoria must look at any legal actions taken and make the appropriate commercial and legal response.

HUME FREEWAY Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-Given the concern of all parties

about road safety, I direct the attention of the Minister for Transport to Budget Paper No. 5, which shows the estimate of expenditure for the Hume Freeway bypass for 1989-90 to be $10 million. In a letter dated 22 March the Federal Ministry of Transport and Communications confirmed that that amount had been allocated.

The SPEAKER-Order! Would the honourable member come to his question?

Mr McNAMARA-I finally direct the Minister's attention to the fact that Budget Information Paper No. I--

The SPEAKER-Order! The practice of this House for question time clearly provide that questions are to be asked rather than statements made. I ask the honourable member to come to his question.

Mr McNAMARA-I direct the Minister's attention to Budget Information Paper No. 1 released yesterday, which shows that less than $1 million is to be spent on this project. I ask the Minister: what has happened to the other $9 million that was allocated?

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport)-The State and Federal governments can take pride in the upgrading of the Hume Highway over a number of years. Although we may have been critical of the Federal government in other areas, such as funding for minor roads and other areas of local government, the record of the Federal Session 1990-24


government-and also the State government-in the past eight years in upgrading the Hume Highway and ensuring that dangerous areas are removed is something to be proud of.

I do not have the details of the Budget Papers here but I assure the House the government will endeavour to complete the duplication of the highway as quicldy as possible. I remind the honourable member that we had a successful launch of the Drive Safe campaign yesterday and I urge all honourable members to use tbeir best efforts in their electorates to make sure that the coming Easter, which is a family occasion, is a death-free Easter.


The SPEAKER-Order! There is too much interjection. The Leader of the National Party asked a question and he should enable the Minister to complete his reply. I suggest the Minister keep his answer relevant to the question.

Mr SPYKER-Obviously honourable members opposite are not interested in road safety. The question from the Leader of the National Party related to road funding and safety, and that is what I am talking about. One needs only drive on the freeway and reach the New South Wales border to see the marked difference in the road. That is the difference between a Labor government and a Liberal-National Party government. If the honourable member believes funding should be increased, he should be talking to his National Party colleagues in New South Wales.

The government will continue to address road safety and will continue to make sure every dollar spent on road construction is well spent.

ETHNIC AFFAIRS Mr OOLLIS (Richmond)-I ask the Minister for Ethnic Affairs what steps he has

taken to define the direction of ethnic affairs policy for the coming twelve months, including the development of interpreter services.

Mr CAIN (Minister for Ethnic Affairs)-I thank the honourable member for his question and his continued interest and involvement in this important area. I am delighted to take on the responsibility for the ethnic affairs portfolio and I pay tribute to the excellent work of my predecessors, especially my immediate predecessor, the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth, who continued the development of the already impressive record in the ethnic affairs area that the government has acquired since 1982.

I remind honourable members opposite, who believe that a question asked about ethnic affairs is an opportunity to catcall and interject, that the Opposition, so far as I can ascertain, does not have a formal policy on ethnic affairs.

Mr Leigh-What about a bipartisan approach?

Mr CAIN-I expect that type of interjection from the honourable member for Malvern on ethnic affairs issues. The Labor government has been at the forefront of developing multicultural policies and it is timely to take stock and consider future emphasis in a variety of areas.

The government is committed to multiculturalism, unlike the Opposition, for whom it is merely tokenism. The government has set out to provide high-quality programs and services for all Victorians, regardless of their background or birthplace, and provides opportunities for all Victorians to use their skills and talents to their maximum


benefit. The government will encourage Victorians to pass on and share their cultural and linguistic heritage.

In my new role, there will be an increased emphasis in three key areas of ethnic affairs: English in the workplace, where recently some progress has been made in the public sector, in particular the quality of interpreting and translation services, and extending these services so far as we are able to key non-metropolitan areas; and the difficult, much vexed and continuing issue of the recognition of skills and qualifications gained overseas-this country has a range of disciplines where qualifications vary and governments need to continue to address that area to ensure that they get the maximum benefit from the wide-ranging skills of people who come to this country from other lands.

Prior to 1982 little was done to help mi~ants who were disadvantaged in the workplace because they could not speak Engbsh. The government has addressed that issue and will continue to address it in the future.

The government is committed to extending language service provisions in key nonmetropolitan areas. It has done well in the metropolitan areas where the ethnic population is concentrated and organised, if I can use that term, in various community groups. Ethnic communities in non-metropolitan areas are more diverse, particularly when they are outside the provincial centres, but the government will try to address that issue too.

I understand. from my experiences years ago, before I came into this place, the anguish and feeling of non-recognition that so many migrants felt when they had high skills and qualifications in international terms, yet were unable to use those skills or qualifications in Australia because they were not recognised. I also reco$D:ise that it is a long-term problem and that, although it is being resolved in the nght way, the resolution needs some acceleration.

I emphasise again that the government will continue with its strong commitment to multiculturalism. It intends to make this State, as so many of our International Olympic Committee visitors recognise and see, the best multicultural society in the world.

GAS AND FUEL CORPORATION CHAIRMAN Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-I direct my question to the Premier and remind him that

he sacked Mr Neil Smith from the board of State Bank Victoria because of his gross personal mismanagement of Tricontinental Corporation Ltd. Has the Premier not sacked Mr Smith from other government boards only because of his close personal friendship with him?

Mr CAIN (Premier)-It appears the honourable member for Hawthorn is endeavouring to outdo the Leader of the Opposition in remaining irrelevant in this place. The government is not concerned about raking over those issues. Mr Smith and a range of others chose to resign. That was a matter for them; they gave their reasons for choosing to resign. I should have thought that even the honourable member for Hawthorn would recognise the considerable contribution made by a range of persons, including Mr Smith, across the public sector of this State over more than 45 years.

PLANNING AMENDMENTS Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-I ask the Minister for Conservation and

Environment: in view of the severe financial hardship brought about by the implementation of Statewide planning amendments S4 and S6, will the Minister


withdraw these temporary provisions, given that amendment S5 can be implemented by November ifit is adopted by the community at large and the government?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-I genuinely thank the honourable member for Gippsland East for his question because it indicates his remarkable perception of my capacity for absorbing new portfolios. I shall sincerely try to meet his expectations in the days and weeks ahead, but as I have -been the Minister in charge of these matters only since Monday, during most of which time I have been incarcerated in this august Chamber listening to the wisdom of the honourable member for Gippsland East, I have not yet fully acquainted myself with the differences between S4, S5 and S6, but I shall do so and I shall respond to him in due course.

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES Mr LEIGHTON (Preston)-Will the Minister for Community Services outline to

the House the most recent advice that she has received regarding the impact of measures taken by the government to strengthen child protection services in Victoria?

Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services)-I thank the honourable member for Preston for his interest in these matters; he has had a long history of involvement in social justice.

Since October 1988 the government has made a concerted effort to deal with this difficult community matter. Indeed, the government's actions contrast sharply with the policies of the Opposition, especially regarding child protection. The Opposition proposes to keep these services with non-government agencies and funding them, therefore ensuring that they continue to take a back seat in the eyes of Victorian people.

The government has made a concerted effort to implement the Fogarty review. The number of reports of child abuse investigated by Community Services Victoria has more than doubled since late 1988-this does not mean that there is an increase in the incidence of child abuse. The good news is that it reflects CSV's capacity to respond to Teports. CSV now investigates 97 per cent of all reports it receives, and that is a marked increase on the pre-October 1988 situation. Also, 94·5 per cent of child protection worker positions are now occupied.

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Forest Hill is totally out of order in intetjecting in the course of the Minister's reply. The Minister for Property and Services is not assisting by attempting a debate across the Chamber with the honourable member for Forest Hill.

Mrs SETCHES-The positions have been occupied by older, more experienced workers, and 94·5 per cent of protection worker positions are now occupied. These officers are proceeding to look after their areas of responsibility with a great deal of expertise.

In 1989 Community Services Victoria also recruited 40 experienced social welfare workers from Great Britain. They are already making a valuable contribution towards strengthening protection services in Victoria.

The phasing out of the protection services dual-track system is under way. Six CSV regions are piloting the phasing out of that system in the 1989-90 financial year. Pilot regions have been allocated an additional 23 child protection workers to support the phasing out of police involvement.


Planning is well advanced for joint Victoria Police-Community Services Victoria training in the management of a single-track system for protection services delivery. A further six regions will be phased out in the next financial year and another six In the following financial year.

The government, through CSV, has increased its capacity to deal with child protection issues. It is waiting to hear from Mr Justice Fogarty, who is currently reviewing the implementation of the protection services pro~m. The government and the department want to improve their performance in thiS area, and will rely on Mr Justice Fogarty to provide information on how to do that.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE CABINET Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-I ask the Premier: is it a fact that the staffing

for the Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet is to be substantially increased for the honourable member for Doveton so that he can maintain his influence on Cabinet and economic policy?

Mr CAIN (Premier)-I do not know from where these matters emerge. The Opposition appears to be making irrelevance an art form, and it continues day after day. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet will carry out his functions as Parliamentary Secretary. I hope the honourable member for Doveton, like all backbenchers on this side, not the Opposition side, of the House, will contribute to the work of the government asa whole .. That is what· we do. The government has backbench members, not only Ministers, involved in a whole range of its initiatives.

Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Malvern is totally out of

order in interjecting in the manner in which he is. If he wishes to ask a question, I shall call him at the appropriate time.

Mr CAIN-I will encourage all non-Ministers, if I can use that term, to be involved in a wide range of government policy issues and initiatives. That is the reality, and I will continue doing that.

Perhaps I should point out that when the Labor Party came to office, not only was there no Cabinet office but there was no attempt to keep records of any consequence. There was nothing there. The Liberal Party had a Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet-a model the government has followed-to record what happened in Cabinet. At that time it was the then honourable member for Noble Park, Peter Collins, but I could never find out what he did!

Over the past eight years you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services have acted as Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet, and have played a role that has been relevant to the business of ~overnment. The newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet will continue playing that role, which is to link up with a properly constituted Cabinet office in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

When the Liberal Party was in government it had nothing of that kind. This government has a proper Cabinet process that is not only admired but also followed in New South Wales and Queensland because the model works.

Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, about the relevance of the Premier's reply. The question was specific in that for decades the staff and role of the Parliamentary SecretarY. of the Cabinet has not changed. The question is direct; it relates to whether there wlll be a substantial increase


in staff for the secretary. That is the question that has been put to the Premier in the knowledge that for decades the Secretary of the Cabinet has had only two staff and his role has always been the same. The question is precise and direct: will the honourable member for Doveton receive a substantial increase in staff? The answer should be yes or no.

The SPEAKER-Order! The Premier was asked a question by the honourable member for Glen Waverley about the level of staffing of the Cabinet Office and whether there will be any change. To date the Premier has been explaining the functions and the level of staff of the Cabinet Office. There is no point of order.

Mr CAIN (Premier)-I do not want to ~o over it all again. I know members of the Opposition do not understand how a CabInet Office should be run. The government will go on running it in the way that is most efficient and ensures that the office does its job in servicing Cabinet and providing the service that is required to honourable members and departments in respect of Cabinet decisions. It will go on doing that.

RESIDENTIAL LAND Mrs GARBUTT (Greensborough)-Is the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth

aware of the adequacy of measures being taken to provide additional residential land; and, if so, will he inform the House of the advice he has received on the matter?

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Urban Growth)-I thank the honourable member for Greensborough for her question and her interest in urban growth; she is an extremely ~ood representative of one of the growth corridors of the city. By the year 2000 it is hkely that the population will be some 3·3 million in the metropolitan area with an additional 500 000 people being added to the population between 1988 and 200 1. That is a considerable growth; the additions to the metropolitan area by the year 2000 will be the equivalent of two Canberra-type cities on the periphery of Melbourne. That is significant growth, and the government is concerned that it should happen in a planned and coordinated way.

Three areas are essential to the development policy of the government. The first is the corridor development. The metropolitan area has three corridors under study: the Plenty Valley corridor, the Werribee corridor and the south-eastern corridor, all of which will experience significant increases in population. The Plenty Valley corridor could have an additional 70 000 people, the Werribee corridor could have an additional 50 000 people and the south-eastern corridor through Berwick, Pakenham and Cranbourne could have an additional 170 000 people.

That is the preference of the people, but the government has been concerned about the cost of that type of development through the provision of urban infrastructure and services. Major emphasis has been placed on urban consolidation. Honourable members will be aware of the impact of the dual-occupancy measures, which have had a significant effect on residentIal permits. In the past few years some 12 to 13 per cent of housing approvals have been for dual-occupancy hOUSIng.

Honourable members interjecting. Mr McCUTCHEON-Members of the Opposition should listen because during

the time I have been a member of this place I have not heard them come up with any policies for urban growth.

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth said he was giving the government policy on this matter. I suggest to you, Sir, that if it is a matter of government policy it should be given by way ofa Ministerial statement and not in answer to a question


without notice that is supposed to be seeking details about government administration, not government policy.

The SPEAKER-Order! The purpose of questions without notice is for honourable members to ask questions that seek information. It is not to be seen as a substitute for Ministerial statements.

Mr Plowman-We have had three already this morning .

. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Evelyn is aware of the provisions of Standing Order No. 107. I suggest he observe them.

The Minister is reaching a stage in his answer where it might be seen to be a Ministerial statement. I suggest he confine his answer to the provisions applying to questions without notice.

Mr McCUTCHEON-I was saying that significant moves are being made to develop specific sites around the metropolitan area to provide land for development. Honourable members will be aware of the significance of Lynch's Bridge, the possibilities and the potential use of the docklands, Southbank, Jolimont and William Angliss sites and the proposed Bayside development as a way of reducing the costs of urban development by making use of the existing infrastructure. The honourable member for Gippsland East will also be aware of the importance of the provincial cities in this development.

The significant issue is the coordination of the necessary services that people expect when they settle and become new residents in the urban areas. The new Department of Planning and Urban Growth is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the services that are necessary for people to settle in these growth corridors and be supported with health centres, schools, transport and the other necessary amenities.

I believe the government's record has been very good and it is determined to tackle this critical problem.

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-Is the Premier aware that the left-wing Australasian Meat

Industry Employees Union is costing the meat industry in Victoria $1 million a day in loss of export income? Will the government intervene to settle this crippling dispute?

Mr CAIN (Premier)-Obviously, honourable members opposite did not listen to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs when he spoke on this issue some time ago. He gave quite a detailed response to this matter and I find it strange that the Opposition is picking out one industry and making an attack on it when Victoria's economic growth has far outstripped that of the rest of the country.

New private fixed capital expenditure in this State between 1983 and 1989 grew by around 97 per cent compared with the 57 per cent for the rest of Australia.

Mr HONEYWOOD (Warrandyte)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I ask you to bring the Premier back to the question that was put to him. The question was concerned with a specific industrial dispute and had nothing to do with the financial mismanagement of this State.

Mr CAIN (Premier)-On the point of order, it is entirely relevant to see this State's growth in industrial and private investment growth in the broad. Those opposite fail to do that. I suggest it is entirely relevant for me to advise the House of what is


happening right across this State so far as private investment and confidence is concerned.

The SPEAKER-Order! At this stage of the Premier's answer, I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr CAIN-I repeat that private fixed capital expenditure and investment in this State far outstrips that in the rest of the country, because investors, enterpreneurs and businessmen have confidence in the State. The State's share of the nation's business investment has grown from a low 22 per cent-which is what it was in 1982 when the government came to office-to 27·5 per cent now. That is the kind of confidence that this government engenders.

Honourable members interjecting. Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the

question posed by the honourable member for Ripon was specific in dealing with the problems and losses associated with the meat industry in the State of Victoria. The Premier is ranging right around the issue and has not attempted to deal with the meat industry dispute, let alone make any reference to the specific question asked by the honourable member for Ripon, which was: what is the government prepared to do to resolve the dispute that is crippling this State? The Premier's answer has been totally irrelevant; I ask you to request him either to answer the question or to sit down.

Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, it is clear that again the question was specific and precise and the Premier's treatment of this issue-in not yet addressing the question and treating the issue as ajoke and as not being of relevance to the economic importance of this State-not only results in his not addressing a serious question of concern to hundreds of thousands of people across the State but also is an abrogation of his duty both as Premier and as the Minister responsible for answering questions of major economic and public importance. The Premier has not started to address the question, which was clear, precise and specific. It was on this singular strike that is costing this State at least $1 million a day in lost exports. The issue is important and I suggest the Premier should be asked to address the question put to him.

Mr CAIN (Premier)-On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I believe I am perfectly entitled to paint the broad picture of what is occurring in this State, putting it in context in respect of a particular industrial dispute which is being dealt with in a way that has characterised this government's approach to industrial relations and ensured that we have growth and development right across this State as a consequence.

Honourable members interjecting. Mr CAIN-The interjections of those opposite demonstrate their shallowness.

Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! If the honourable member for Forest Hill wishes to address

me on a point of order, he should stand and he will get the call. I suggest to the honourable member for Malvern, whom I have already cautioned today, that he should be moderate in his language and should respect the provisions of Standing Orders and the practices of the House.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Warrnambool and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister has the right to answer a question as he sees fit, subject to the answer being relevant to the question that was asked.



The SPEAKER-Order! I remind the honourable member for Burwood of the provisions of Standing Order No. 107. I ask the Premier to relate his remarks to the question that was asked.

Mr CAIN-This State is enjoying industrial growth that far exceeds that of any other State. One of the reasons for this is that for eight years the government has observed the requirements of the Industrial Relations Act and followed the industrial relations practices of this country, which far exceed those of any other country in demonstrating a capacity to resolve industrial disputes. The existing meat dispute to which reference has been made is before the Federal Industrial Relations Commission. Those opposite may not understand that.

Mr Cooper-A cop-out!

Mr CAIN-The honourable member for Mornington calls it a cop-out. The industrial practices in this country are not only better than anywhere else but they are admired in other parts of the world.


The SPEAKER-Order! Question time cannot proceed when there is such a disorderly barrage of interjections against a Minister replying to a question. At this stage, the Premier's remarks are clearly relevant to the question asked of him. I ask that the Premier be heard in silence.

Mr CAIN-The commission is the place for the dispute, according to established practices which have been in existence for more than 90 years-but perhaps not known to those opposite-and which have stood Australia in good stead; the government will continue to support those practices and the electors of Australia have endorsed those industrial relations practices. The Federal Labor government has been supported, but the Federal Opposition would have thrown out the window those practices endorsed by Australians for more than 90 years and admired by those in other parts of the world as the best system of industrial relations.


The SPEAKER-Order! It is impossible for honourable members to hear the Premier's reply with such a barrage of interjections. I particularly ask the Leader of the National Party, who has a responsibility in this House as Leader of his party, and the honourable member for Mornington to remain silent and enable the Premier to conclude his reply.

Mr CAIN-The interjections opposite demonstrate the kind of industrial anarchy that those opposite would woo and want. The performance the House has observed today is indicative of the difference between my government, the Hawke government and the Opposition. Labor governments believe in conciliation and arbitration-they seemingly do not-and will continue to support it.


The SPEAKER-Order! I have already advised the honourable member for Mornington that he is out of order with his constant loud interjections. I do not wish to have to act against him but I caution the honourable member and ask him to remain silent.

Mr CAIN-Because of the lack of understanding of or appreciation for the industrial history and practices of Australia, in the late 1970s and 1980s the country was plunged into industrial chaos.

730 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd

Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, with regard to your frequent rulings in this House that the answers given by Ministers must be relevant to the questions, I suggest that the Premier's answer is completely irrelevant to the question, and he is claiming that nothing was done in the industrial relations arena by the opposition parties when in government--

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member on the point of order. Mr AUSTIN-The Premier is completely ignoring the fact that the Industrial

Relations Commission has ordered Mr Curran and his union to return to work.

The SPEAKER-Order! There is no point of order. Mr CAIN (Premier)-I make it clear to the House that the government will continue

observing the requirements and the practices of industrial relations in this country. Those opposite will always seek to go outside the system; they do not want to face the crunch. The matter is before the commission; that is where it should be, and that is where it will be resolved.

Mr Cooper interjected. Mr CAIN-I believe the people of Australia want their industrial disputes to be

resolved in an orderly--Honourable members interjecting. The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Glen Waverley is totally out

of order with his interjections; I ask the honourable member to remain silent because I do not wish to have to act against him and deny him the opportunity of remaining in the Chamber.

Mr CAIN-I make one further point: if any evidence is needed that the industrial practices in this country will p'revail over all sorts of forces, honourable members should remember the airline ptlots; a situation which demonstrated that that system is the best, and that the system will prevail. The government will support the prevailing system. The cries opposite, the catcalls, the yells and the schoolyard abuse are Indicative of the Opposition's approach to industrial relations. My government's reply is that we have a system, and it should be supported right across the country-even by a rabble of an Opposition.

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS AND AGENCY CO. LTD Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-By leave, I move: That there by presented to this House a copy of the report of a special investigator into the collapse of

Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd, consisting of five interim reports, supplement to first interim report, executive summary and schedules.

The motion was agreed to. Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General) presented the report in compliance with the

foregoing order. It was ordered that the report be laid on the table.

PAPER The following paper, pursuant to the direction of an Act of Parliament, was laid on

the table by the Clerk. Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958-Report on the Greensborough District By-election, 15 April

1989.

Vocational Education and Training Bill 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-By leave, I move: That the following Order of the Day, Government Business, be read and discharged:

Vocational Education and Training Bill-Second reading-Resumption of debate.

and that the Bill be withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was withdrawn.

OPEN SPACE AREAS Mr SANOON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-I move:

731

That this House notes the government's achievement in increasing open space in the metropolitan area from 28 700 to 32 190 hectares since 1982 and supports the government's decision to adopt the open space and nature conservation programs to provide a better environment for future generations of Victorians.

As we move into the 1990s it seems appropriate for Australians to understand the importance of open space. As all honourable members are aware, Australia is a nation that has the predominance of its population living in its cities. Everyone is aware of the tremendous urban sprawl.

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Notice of Motion, General Business, No. 2 on the Notice Paper stands in my name. I seek your ruling on whether it is: firstly, in accordance with the forms of the House; and, secondly, a matter of good form, even if it is in accordance with the forms of the House, for a Minister to be taking up the time of General Business on a Thursday. At least in the time I have been in this place-and, I believe, before-the spirit of cooperation in this House has been that Thursday provides an opportunity for backbench members of Parliament to initiate matters for debate-it IS a very limited time, and I ask for a ruling from you, Sir.

If your ruling is that it is strictly legitimate within the Standing Orders, I further ask for an intimation from you about whether it is appropriate for a Minister to take the time of the House on a Thursday, to move motions and to debate them.

The SPEAKER-Order! The matter raised by the honourable member for Brighton is not a matter in which it is appropriate for the Chair to intervene; it is a matter for the House. The Minister gave notice of the motion in accordance with the practices of the House before he became a Minister; and there is no provision that would debar the Minister from proceeding with his motion. If the House wishes to take some action, it is a matter for the House. It is not a matter in which the Chair can or should intervene.

Mr SANDON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-The urbanisation of Victoria demands appropriate conservation, environment and open space strategies to deal with it. I pay tribute to the achievements of the former Minister for Planning and Environment; and I am sure such achievements will continue under the Minister for Conservation and Environment. During the time I have had the pleasure of knowing the Minister I have been impressed with his interest in and deep knowledge of conservation matters in general and flora and fauna in particular, not only throughout Victoria but also throughout the world.

Governments must deal with the problems caused by more people crowdin$ into our cities, but special problems are also posed by cities such as Perth, which IS the same size as greater London, but has only one-tenth of that city's population. Members of all political parties must seek to understand the special problems caused by

732 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Open Space Areas

urbanisation, because all political parties must give a greater commitment to solving the problems it causes.

Since coming to office in 1982 the Cain Labor government has made conservation and environment policies two of the strongest planks of its platform, and the government's nature conservation program augments its open space program. The Labor government has increased open space in the metropolitan area by 12 per cent in eight years. There have been major increases in opeI) space in the .Maribyrnong Valley, the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Valley, as well as the creatIon ofa range of parks. The figure of 12 per cent does not include the open space areas in the Plenty Gorge and Braeside metropolitan parks.

The Braeside park, which is in my electorate, is one of the significant additions of open space that has been provided for the enjoyment of the people of Melbourne. The park was classified to be used for other activities, but the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works has seen fit, with government support, to include the park in the government's open space program-which reflects the achievements of the government. The Board of Works programs-in the uandenong Ranges and at Braeside, for exampl.e-have received widespread community support.

Since 1982 a significant number of metropolitan parks have been designated. The Koomba, Nortons, Boulevard and Point Cook parks were opened in the early years of the Labor government; in 1985 the Werribee and Shepherds Bush parks were proclaimed; in 1986 the West Gate park was opened; in 1987 the Plenty Gorge park and the Point Cook park and historical precincts were opened; and in 1989 the Braeside park was proclaimed-and each of those parks represents a significant extension of the government's open space program, and each is an example of the import of the motion before the House.

One of the major achievements of the government in this area has been the extension of bike paths throughout the metropolitan area, which is a further manifestation of the government's open space program. I have had the good fortune of accompanying the Premier on rides along the bike track in my electorate, from the mouth of the Patterson River to Dandenong, a ride of 13 kilometres which takes about an hour to complete. I always enjoy those rides with the Premier, because we do not have to cross any roads and the scenery is delightful.

Mr Pescott interjected.

Mr SANOON-Yes, the sun invariably shines! When we begin our journey the Patterson River is on the left-hand side, and on the right-hand side is the Runaway Bay development. We then pass the Illawong retirement village, go under the Frankston Freeway and then ride along the path beside the National Water Sports Centre which, as I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party would agree, is the best water sports centre in Australia. Then we ride past the south-eastern purification plant at Keysborough, then across Eumemmerring Creek and through to Dandenong. The ride is a sheer delight!

Not only has the government increased the area of open space through agencies such as the MMBW, but also it has encouraged local government to become involved in the program. All honourable members will be aware of the cleaning of the Yarra River and its environs since the government came to office. The Yarra River is an integral part of the city and the way the river has been cleaned up and beautified has encouraged more Melbumians to use and enjoy it. The delegates of the International Olympic Committee who came to Melbourne to examine our 1996 Olympic Games bid were full of praise for the way the government has enhanced our parklands and the environs of the river. Southbank, the Flinders walkway and the pedestrian bridge are important achievements.

Open Space Areas 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 733

Mr Pescott-Mr Deputy Speaker, I direct your attention to the state of the House.


Mr SANDON-The metropolitan open space plan was a major initiative of the former Minister for Planning and Environment, the current Treasurer, and his achievement has been applauded by the community. The program was launched in 1988 and was part of the government's conservation strategy, which was released in 1987.

It is the first strategy plan since 1929 that has increased and improved Melbourne's parklands. It is the first strategy plan for 50 years that has led to a significant improvement in parklands. The plan was launched to ensure good management, imaginative planning and careful protection of parklands. The plan itself contains an unbroken green network of park pathways based mainly on the city's waterways and coastlines.

Implementation of the plan to which the government is committed will increase the overall amount of open space in Melbourne and will upgrade the quality of and accessibility to open space for people.

The main themes of the plan are to expand and to link open space to create a network of parklands and to ensure that open space is distributed fairly throughout Melbourne as well as increasing the provision of open space in suburban areas. It is also aimed at improving the relevance of open space to ensure that it provides people with an appropriate range of settings. That is significant.

There is a need to protect natural, cultural and landscape features. It is important that there be community involvement and participation, and the strategy directs itself towards cooperation.

The strategy plan provides that all metropolitan open space be made available to the public. It incorporates urban areas and the immediate rural fringe. The need for the plan is obvious. Although open space has increased, community needs are diversified. The plan will continue to adopt to those diverse needs throughout the 1990s and into the 21 st century.

Victoria is well placed in having a plan and strategy document that understands the needs of Melburnians and the need for a diversified approach to parks and land.

The strategy plan provides a building block for future development. The major elements of the open space plan are to expand and link open space, particularly increasing the amount of space made available for a range of recreational opportunities for future generations.

Anyone who has spent time in Melbourne's parks would have seen the diverse range of interests of the people who visit those parks. What I find fascinating about Melbourne life is that when one visits Melbourne'S parks at weekends one can see people, particularly from non-English speaking backgrounds, visiting the parks. When Europeans visit Victoria they are astounded at the number of parks in Melbourne and Victoria. They envy us. I and other honourable members who have travelled overseas know that the major cities do not have the amount of open space Melbourne has. It is not surprising that when people from different ethnic backgrounds travel to Victoria they wish to take advantage of that open space.

It is a great joy for me and my family to spend time in parks and open spaces, seeing the Australian community with its marvellous ethnic mix visiting the parks and open spaces.


Another aspect of the strategy is equity and access. It is important that access to parklands and open space be made available throughout the metropolitan area, not directed only to the southern suburbs but also to the whole of the metropolitan area. Parks and open spaces must be made available throughout the metropolitan area.

I turn to the positive achievements that have taken place, such as the Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park; the Braeside Metropolitan Park, to which I have already referred; the Cranbourne Botanical Gardens; and the Point Nepean National Park. The government is delighted that the Army has given that latter area to the people of Victoria-it is an important historical park and a significant part of Victoria's coastline. The designation of that area as a national park preserves it for the future. Although I have not been to the park, I look forward to visiting it in the future.

Mr Evans interjected.

Mr SANDON-I am talking about 12 per cent of open space being made available. The Braeside Metropolitan Park and the Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park are not included in those figures.

Other areas that should be taken into account when examining the extent of the park system are the Dandenong Valley, Maribyrnong Valley, Yarra Valley and Point Cook metropolitan parks; the Nepean State Park; the Warrandyte State Park; the Organ Pipes National Park, which is a lovely area near Geelong; the Gellibrand Hill Park; the creation of a link between Lysterfield Lake Park and Churchill National Park; the Kinglake National Park; and the Dandenong Ranges National Park.

There is a need for the parks to be linked, and part of the strategy allows for the development of an interconnecting system. For example, a linking system would include the Yarra and Maribyrnong nvers. There is a need to improve distribution and accessibility. The Treasurer, the former Minister for Planning and Environment, has worked with councils to widen those areas to provide greater access. One area is the provision of bicycle paths.

Statutory authorities have contributed to the strategy. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is in a unique position in that the MMBW Local Government Assistance Scheme will give priority to the purchase of local and district open space in areas where large concentrations of people do not have adequate access to open space. The program has worked well in areas around Melbourne that did not previously have open space available.

Another part of the strategy involves a program of conserving open space. As well as providing additional and more diverse parkland throughout the metropolitan area, the government will ensure that existing open space is protected and preserved for future generations. The government wants to prevent the land that was previously designated as public open space from being lost to other planning approaches. The government must ensure that areas designated as open space are preserved for recreation and conservation. It must ensure that areas designated as having scientific, cultural or conservation value are protected and preserved, and that appropriate management plans are put in place in those areas.

With the management plans that have been put in place priority must be given to parks such as Yarra Bend Park, Wattle Park, Albert Park, Warrandyte State Park, Dandenong Ranges National Park and the Braeside Metropolitan Park.

All this cannot be done in isolation. It requires the assistance of the community. It is important to involve members of the community in what is occurring and to encourage them to become involved in the planning, design and development, and maintenance of open space to ensure their n~p.ds are met. It is also important to


increase the community's awareness of existing and future open space opportunities. The purpose of the metropolitan open space plan is to ensure that Melbourne's urban environment is protected and enhanced, and I suggest it has been an outstanding success.

I refer now to the urban nature conservation program, which complements the open space program. Urban nature conservation is relatively new; nonetheless, it is significant. A $10 million urban nature conservation program was announced in September 1988. It is a four-year program designed to preserve and restore natural areas in and around the city for the benefit of wildlife and of people. The program aims to protect and restore natural areas, to enhance wildlife habitation, to conserve remnant bushland, and to create natural vegetation links.

I am fortunate that there are some large wetland areas in and around the electorate that I represent-the Edithvale wetlands and the Seaford-Carrum wetlands. The middle of my electorate was once a wetland area and, fortunately, some of it has been preserved. The preservation of the wetlands has been an outstanding success. International bird treaties that have been signed have ensured that those wetlands remain, and the government has provided significant resources to enhance and protect them.

At present problems are being faced because the urban sprawl threatens to intrude into those areas. I am sure all honourable members would want the government to ensure that that does not occur, and I shall do all I can to ensure the continued preservation of the wetlands in the future.

The wetlands are a wonderful part of the environment that serve as a record of what existed there previously. It is important, when the right strategy and approach is put in place, that it is built on for the future. I have been delighted with the responses of the Dandenong Valley Authority, the then Ministry for Planning and Environment and the local councils in my area, who have all made it possible to expand the wetlands.

The wetlands in the Edithvale area are on the south side of the highway and it was possible recently to purchase a significant amount of land on the north side for the development of a different form of wetlands. The wetlands on the south side can be seen only from their edge, but the new wetland areas proposed to be createddevelopment of them has just started-will have a pathway through them, so it will be quite a contrast in style. The wetlands are most significant areas, and bird lovers will--excuse the pun-flock there to enjoy the wildlife. My children, other members of the community and I have received enormous satisfaction from saving that open space and the indigenous flora and fauna.

It is important to list other aspects of the programs. Enhancement of native flora and fauna habitat has been undertaken in a number of areas, such as Ballarat Common, Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve and Gellibrand Hill Park. The program also includes the conservation of remnant bushland at Portarlington and Cranbourne Gardens. It has been possible to create native vegetation corridors linking parks and reserves from Lysterfield to Churchill Park, and Lilydale to Warburton. We have seen the development of additional urban conservation reserves at the Williamstown Rifle Range and the Western Wetlands. Other developments of wetlands have occurred at Lysterfield Lake, Geelong's Lake Modewarre, and Serendip.

There has also been upgraded management planning based on public participation at Yarra Bend Park, Bendigo's urban parks, and Tyers River. Also, community education opportunities have been increased through the provision of interpretation centres at such parks as the Dandenong Ranges and Kinglake national parks. That is


another great success story. The program provides greater knowledge and understanding for the community.

There is a heightened awareness of the native flora and fauna, and most parks that provide education programs certainly contribute to enhancing the community's understanding of what is so special about Australia, and particularly Victoria. The parks represent a legacy, places where people can go and have a glimpse of what life was like previously. Of course, those areas will also be protected and preserved for the future.

Visitors who come to Victoria and Australia are excited about and gain tremendous satisfaction from seeing the unique flora and fauna, and the programs available in national park areas assist visitors tremendously in understanding them better.

There has been specific habitat protection and enhancement for the helmeted honeyeater, the eastern barred bandicoot, and the Eltham copper butterfly. Flora and

. fauna surveys have been undertaken at Bendigo, Ballarat and Melbourne. The importance of these surveys cannot be underestimated, because the wildlife and plant areas that exist in th~ urban setting must be protected at all costs.

It often disturbs me to note that Australians have not gained a proper fix on the range and classification of Australian flora and fauna. We have never really provided our scientists with sufficient resources to do the necessary work. It is a taxing task, but I should like to see it done in the future. The research work that has been commenced in this area is an important step towards achieving that goal.

There have been some wonderful success stories of urban nature conservation in Victoria, and I shall detail some of them to the House. In Keilor, west of Melbourne, the Friends of the Organ Pipes have been working for many years to remove weeds from the Organ Pipes National Park. I have spent an afternoon in that park. In fact, while we were there, my family and I spent some time pulling out weeds-Paterson's curse has spread throughout the park. After enjoying a barbecue, we pulled out weeds alon~ with other people, friends of the park, who have been encouraged to assist in the eradication of those weeds.

The ParkCare program in the Dandenong Ranges involves the local community to a great extent in an effort to protect parks on the fringe of surburbia from the effects of dogs, cats and non-native plants, which have taken a foothold in natural bushland.

The establishment of the urban wildlife watch program was an important bicentennial event that involved thousands of people in Victoria's cities and towns in a major survey of urban wildlife. More than 4000 wildlife sightings have already been reported.

At Eltharn, on the outskirts of Melbourne, plans for a housing subdivision have been amended to protect the habitat of the Eltham copper butterfly. Similar programs are under way to conserve the habitat of the endangered Altona skipper butterfly, which is found only in a few scattered locations in western Port Phillip Bay salt marshes.

In Geelong, part of a swamp adjoining the Barwon River has been developed to create the Balyang Sanctuary, which is a waterfowl habitat. At nearby Lara, the Serendip Wildlife Conservation Centre is being developed as a focus for public ?wareness about wetlands wildlife and breeding programs to support threatened native species.

In Ballarat and Bendigo work is under way to improve near-city parklands, forests and wetlands. At Gellibrand Hill Park, close to Melbourne Airport, the woodlands and nature reserve provide a home for more than 70 species of birds as well as


possums, bats, reptiles and the endangered eastern barred bandicoot. So it goes on. In urban areas throughout Victoria the government's programs and projects reflect real progress in protecting or re-establishing natural bushland and its dependent wildlife.

I have mentioned programs across the board in a number of significant areas and I now briefly mention those in the electorate I represent. Tremendous development has taken place in the wetlands areas. The Patterson River bicycle park has been developed, and the Braeside Metropolitan Park, the largest Board of Works park to be developed in more than 50 years, has a semi-wilderness area that provides habitat for much flora and fauna of interest. It also plays an educational role, has provision for bushwalking and will form an important part of our natural bushland that is now preserved for the future. The government can be proud of its record in this area.

I am proud to be able to announce to the House, through the motion, the extensive, wide-ranging programs and policies that have been implemented and for which funds have been allocated. Those funds reflect not just words, strategies, or draft documents but the real commitment of the government to preserving these lands. The former Minister for Planning and Environment and the government have a proud record of achievement. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-Under the guise of moving a motion, this is clearly a case of one Minister commenting on the portfolio of another Minister. I acknowledge the processes of this place that have allowed this motion to be placed on the Notice Paper but it has taken up the time provided for backbench members to raise matters. I do not know whether the Minister's own backbench is concerned about that but I assure the Minister that the Opposition is concerned with this intrusion into what should be the time for the government backbench and the opposition parties to raise matters.

The contribution made by the Minister has been less than enthralling and he has been wrong on a number of strategic points, as highlighted by his reference to the Organ Pipes National Park. From his comments one would think that prior to the 1982 election Melbourne had no open space and that the Labor government has created it all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The government has contributed nothing to open space. All it has done has been to state its policy; so far as getting any additional open space for future generations is concerned, its actions have been sadly lacking. Apart from a lot of powder puffing and press hype the government has done nothing to put in place any tangible assets for future generations. When the government has the opportunity of putting its policy on the line, it reneges. I propose to demonstrate that.

One great attribute of the government is its capacity to print glossy documents. It has no regard for the trees that must be cut down to provide the paper, it simply keeps pumping out these glossy documents. The document I have has a multi-coloured front that announces, "Melbourne's Open Space". The third page has a photograph of the former Minister for Planning and Environment, now the Treasurer. This document is the open space plan for Melbourne produced in August 1988. It states in the foreword:

In the past six years, open space within the metropolitan planning area has increased from 1()'9 hectare to 12·4 hectare per 1000 people.

That is contrary to what we have been told. While this has not been uniform across the whole city, it reflects the growing commitment of the State

government, local councils and private groups to protecting, increasing and enhancing Melbourne's open space.

Local councils, State government departments and statutory authorities are all involved in managing parklands in Melbourne.


The motion suggests that this has been done by the government on its own. This selfcongratulatory motion "notes the government's achievement". The provision of open space and conservation programs is not a singular action of the government, it is a collective action of the whole community.

The foreword continues: Local councils, in particular, manage more than half of this city's open space and their roles in its

planning and in working directly with the community are enormously important.

At least the former Minister for Planning and Environment recognised that and it is a pity the Minister for Police and Emergency Services did not refer to that in his contribution.

It is axiomatic that in the time since the government came to office there needed to be an increase in public open space. I wish to table and have incorporated in Hansard a document from the Melbourne Residential Land Development Monitoring System.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! I have seen a copy, which has been accepted by the Speaker. Leave is granted.

Mr SANOON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-The current practice of the House is to seek leave and for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to put the question and for the House to respond. The question was not put. This is the first notice I have been given. I believe the custom is that before seeking leave the document is shown to the Minister at the table. Perhaps that was an oversight. I do not have any difficulties with it but I hope that with future presentations that courtesy is extended.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! The custom is that the honourable member seeking to incorporate material shows it to the Speaker. The Speaker has seen it and approved it. I am informed it still requires the consent of Leaders of other parties to incorporate it. Is leave granted?

Mr SANOON-Leave is granted.

Leave was granted, and the document was as follows:

Quarter

March 1982 June 1982 September 1982 December 1982 March 1983 June 1983 September 1983 December 1983 March 1984 June 1984 September 1984 December 1984 March 1985 June 1985 September 1985 December 1985 March 1986 June 1986 September 1986

Plans of Subdivision

Sealed by Councils

1249 895

1052 907 657

1551 1069 2026 1977 3031 3555 4796 2490 6822 3348 3945 2709 3756 3053

Plans Approved By Titles

Office

1112 1210 1095 1016 996

1230 1340 1339 2034 2557 2696 3144 3395 3574 4094 3776 3609 3903 3639

Allotments Consumed

2005 2534 2631 2746 2340 3659 3604 3940 3440 4264 4658 4280 3298 4284 4272 4302 3404 3580 4003

Open Space Areas 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY

Plans 0/ Subdivision Plans Approved

Quarter

December 1986 March 1987 June 1987 September 1987 December 1987 March 1988 June 1988 September 1988 Decem ber 1988 March 1989 June 1989 September 1989

Sealed by Councils

3228 3139 2375 4058 2247 3670 4529 3155 3210 1426 2326 1841

84092

Source: Melbourne Residential Land Development Monitoring System.

By Titles Office

3805 3448 3226 3100 3360 3135 4034 3190 4476 2952 3488 2791

86764

739

Allotments Consumed

4025 3313 3159 3595 4037 3696 4336 5121 4988 4426 4901 3649

116490

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The document sets out the plans of subdivision sealed by the councils between March 1982 and September 1989, the plans approved by the Titles Office and the allotments consumed in that period-a total of 116 490.

At an average of three and a half persons a household Melbourne's population has increased by approximately 400 000. Is the government saying, in its self-congratulatory motion, that it has no obligation to ensure that those people who now live in the new housing developments are provided with adequate open space?

The amount of open space has increased proportionally to the increase in the population of Melbourne. In 1966 the Planning Act was amended to ensure that 5 per cent of all subdivided land would be open space; so some of the claims that the government makes in its motion have been achieved by the amendment to the Planning Act.

As I said earlier, the statistics show that 116490 allotments have been provided in Melbourne since 1982, and approximately 400 000 people are occupying new houses on those allotments. The new estates have been developed on land that was generally private land, farm land, and was open space prior to the development.

The rise and decline of governments is often illustrated in the plans of subdivision sealed by councils. Honourable members will remember that in 1982 and early 1983 the plans of subdivision for housing dropped considerably because of the state of the economy. The plans of subdivision peaked in the June quarter of 1985 at 6822 and then declined progressively to the September quarter of 1989 when the figure was 1841. The Minister is not correct when he says that the increase in open space is solely because of the government's administration.

Since Melbourne was established as a city several decisions were made that laid the foundation for the establishment of the ring of parks around Melbourne. Unfortunately, developments which have occurred under the administration of this ~overnment have jeopardised the continuing viability of these parks. Long-term plannIng should ensure that future generations shall receive the benefit of decisions made by this and previous generations. The rearranging of the chairs in the Ministry of this administration will not achieve the government's objective of maintaining the amount of open space that is available to this generation, which was provided to it by a previous generation of planners.


The inner city area of Melbourne has a substantial number of parks. The Treasury Gardens are a fine example of an inner city park. They are a feature of promotion for developing the tourist potential of Melbourne. Many of our overseas visitors enjoy walking through the gardens. They are a major tourist attraction. An emphasis on encouraging the development of these parks must be maintained.

The booklet entitled Melbourne's Open Space contains a 1929 plan drawn up by the Melbourne Town Planning Commission. The Minister said that this plan was the last plan drawn up for the development of Melbourne until the Labor government's initiatives in 1982. The 1929 plan sets out the future uses for Melbourne's waterways and indicates that development will occur on a radial system, because of the topography of the land and the rivers and streams flowing into Port Phillip Bay. That plan was reinforced by the corridor plan of 1971. The growth wedges were determined by the river and drainage systems which were already in place and which were utilised for the future development of Melbourne.

The 1929 plan for the future development of Melbourne shows the proposed parklands that border the Yarra River and its tributaries, principally the Maribyrnong River and the Merri Creek, to which I shall refer shortly. The plan was the basis for decisions made at that time of developing Melbourne. To say that this plan was the last completed plan for the development of Melbourne is incorrect. In 1949 planning responsibilities for the City of Melbourne were given to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The Board of Works was extremely successful in developing much of the open space that borders the river and drainage systems of Melbourne.

In 1954 the Board of Works proposed a plan which formed the basis of the construction of the metropolitan parks system. I do not denigrate the work done by the government for the development of the waterways concept. It is a valuable asset for the city. However, the Board of Works is the body which has had the planning responsibilities and control for substantial areas of the land development surrounding Melbourne. The Werribee sewage farm, although it is not ,enerally accessible to the public, is a large area of open space on the western SIde of the city. Braeside Metropolitan Park was originally a pan treatment depot; it has now been developed as an open space area for the community. Similarly, the South Eastern Purification Plant and the Frankston sewage treatment farm both provide significant areas of open space.

It is not credible for the government to say, "We have changed the categories of these areas and therefore we have created this open space". Previous generations made the decisions about the open spaces and put them in place so that we can now enjoy them. Although we may open up some of these areas to the public, nevertheless it IS incumbent upon the goverment to ensure that, as our population grows, additional areas are secured so that similar benefits will flow on to future generations.

Comments have been made about the Plenty Gorge area that is to be developed to the north of Melbourne. The planning decision has been altered three times. I do not believe a decision has been made as to how many persons will live in that corridor; it has major servicint; problems, but an excellent park will be created along the Plenty River. It is a fascinating area and it is one that the people of the northern suburbs will use, irrespective of whether major development continues in the Plenty corridor. Access to the park in that area will benefit future generations. Its nomination is one achievement that has been made by the government.

Populations do not distribute evenly across Melbourne, so these matters should be examined further. I have two tables which have been taken from a publication of the former Ministry for Planning and Environment, Melbourne Metropolitan Recreation


and Open Space Inventory. The document puts together, in a readily understandable form, what is happening about open space in the metropolitan area. It is in two parts. One table lists the total area of open space in hectares, and the other lists the open space available in hectares per 1000 of the population. I seek leave to have these tables incorporated in H ansard.

Leave was granted, and the tables were as follows: 3.* AREA TYPE TABLES-TOTAL OPEN SPACE (HECf ARES) BY LGA AND REGION

Informal Informal Sporting Sporting Total Unrestricted Restricted Unrestricted Restricted Undeveloped Open

IUOS IROS SUOS SROS UNOS Space NORTHERN REGION Broadmeadows 138·6 34·3 135·8 59·9 428·8 797·4 Brunswick 32·6 ()'2 17·9 3·6 13·9 68·2 Bulla 848·6 (}O5 78·9 83·4 314·6 13260{) Coburg 91·6 (}O8 49·1 9·1 7·1 157·7 Diamond Valley 214·3 4·4 222·6 44·6 21·9 507·8 Eltham 441·1 2·4 61·8 14().4 584·2 1229·9 Heidelberg 31(}O6 (}O8 106·0 440{) 9·4 47()'8 Northcote 85·2 ()'2 165·2 5()'1 9-4 31()'1 Preston 179·3 13·9 219·6 2(}O6 60-8 494·2 Whittlesea 188·6 48·9 102·9 100-0 184·0 62404 REGIONAL TOTAL: 253()'5 106·4 1159·8 555·7 1634·1 5986·5 WESTERN REGION Altona 138·2 48·4 106·3 46-6 271·5 611·0 Essendon 92·8 22·5 121·3 46·0 (}OO 282·6 Footscray 66·3 ()'3 62·8 11·3 12·9 153·6 Keilor 455·2 3·6 321·8 99·4 392·6 1272·6 Melton 163·6 (}O6 142·9 16·9 247·7 571·7 Sunshine 182·1 13·5 154·0 45·0 81·9 476·5 Werribee 579·1 5·1 244·6 48·1 356·6 1233·5 Williamstown 55·9 (}O2 41·6 118·7 38·7 255·1 REGIONAL TOTAL: 1733·2 94·2 1195·3 432·0 1401·9 4856·6 CENTRAL REGION Collingwood 28·3 (}O9 15·5 4·4 6·1 55·2 Fitzroy 26·5 (}O6 3·9 1·1 30{) 35·1 Melbourne 306·4 29·6 329·6 12·7 15·5 693·8 Port Melbourne 73·1 1·0 17·6 9·5 12·0 113·2 Prahran 29·3 1·3 14·8 4·5 (}OO 49·9 Richmond 34·8 ().O 32·0 ()'7 (}OO 67·5 St Kilda 82·0 1·3 45·5 2·1 (}OO 13()'9 South Melbourne 4()'2 (}O1 15()'9 2·7 ()'1 19400 REGIONAL TOTAL: 62(}O6 34·8 609·8 37·7 36·7 1339·6 EASTERN REGION Box Hill 128·7 ()'3 78·9 46·5 2·1 256-5 Camberwell 147·4 1·2 138·3 16·9 8·4 312·2 Croydon 179·2 2·2 144·7 49·7 19·7 395·5 Doncaster and

Templestowe 736·4 14·6 155·4 102·6 229·8 1238·8 Hawthorn 32·7 2·0 32·6 7·4 6·3 810{) Kew 152·1 1·3 41·7 103·4 18·9 317·4 Knox 1016·9 15·9 237·5 75·3 448·6 179402 Nunawading 243·5 7·1 147·4 11·9 65·2 475·1 Ringwood 106·5 3·0 105·7 12·4 13·4 2410{) Waverley 374·1 1·8 24().1 99·8 48·2 7640{) REGIONAL TOTAL: 3117·5 49·4 1322·3 525·9 86()'6 5875·7 SOUTHERN REGION Berwick 641·1 3·8 194·0 94·2 138·5 1071·6


Informal Informal Sporting Sporting Total Unrestricted Restricted Unrestricted Restricted Undeveloped Open

IUOS IROS SUDS SROS UNOS Space Brighton 5(}OO 2·6 94·0 11·2 (}OO 157·8 Caulfield 30·8 (}OO 119·7 12·5 0·2 163·2 Chelsea 72·5 (}OO 39·0 131·1 34·6 277·2 Cranbourne 397·9 16·1 134·4 25(}O3 113·7 912·4 Dandenong 61·7 1·0 102·5 1 (}O1 225·5 4()()'8 Frankston 455·3 3·3 207·7 297·8 69·5 1033·6 Malvern 36.6 1·2 90·6 12·7 9·1 150·2 Moorabbin 66·5 1·5 164·4 268·2 43·2 543·8 Mordialloc 44·2 5·7 27·2 11(}O3 (}OO 187·4 Oakleigh 81·2 5·0 6(}O5 221·8 24·0 392·5 Sandringham 99·8 2·3 94·6 101·7 (}OO 298·4 Springvale 8(}O6 95·2 217·2 279·8 165·2 838·0 REGIONAL TOTAL: 2118·2 137·7 1545·8 1801·7 823·5 6426·9 METROPOLITAN

TOTAL: 1012(}OO 422·5 5833·0 3353·0 4756·8 24485·3 ·REFER CHAPTER 2

3. AREA TYPE TABLES-OPEN SPACE HECTARES PER 1000 OF POPULATION Unrest-

ricted Informal Sporting Unde- Open Space Restricted

Open Space Open Space veloped (IUOS+ Open Space Total (IUOS+ (SUDS + Open Space SUDS + (IROS+ Open

IROS) SROS) (UNOS) UNOS) SROS) Space NORTHERN REGION Broadmeadows 1·7 1·9 4·2 7·0 0·9 7·9 Brunswick (}O8 (}O5 (}O3 1·5 (}O1 1·6 Bulla 3(}OO 5·7 11·1 43·8 3·0 46·8 Coburg 1·8 1·1 0·1 2·8 0·2 3·0 Diamond Valley 4·0 4·8 0·4 8·3 0·9 9·2 Eltham 11·1 5·1 14·7 27·3 3·6 3(}O9 Heidelberg 5·0 2·4 (}O2 6·9 (}O7 7·6 Northcote 1·8 4·4 (}O2 5·4 1·0 6·4 Preston 2·4 3·0 (}o7 5·7 (}O4 6·1 Whittlesea 3·0 2·6 2·3 6·0 1·9 7·9 REGIONAL TOTAL: 4·5 2·9 2·8 9·1 1·1 1(}O2 WESTERN REGION

. Altona 5·7 4·6 8·3 15·7 2·9 18·6 Essendon 2·1 3·1 (}OO 3·9 1·3 5·2 Footscray 1·4 1·5 (}O3 3·0 0·2 3·2 Keilor 4·9 4·5 4·2 12·5 1·1 13·6 Melton 5·7 5·5 8·6 19·2 (}O6 19·8 Sunshine 2·1 2·1 (}O8 4·4 ()'6 5·0 Werribee 11·1 5·6 6·8 22·5 1·0 23·5 Williamstown 2·4 6·9 1·7 5·9 5·1 11·0 REGIONAL TOTAL: 4·3 3·8 3·3 1(}O2 1·2 11·4 CENTRAL REGION Collingwood 2·2 1·5 (}O4 3·7 ()'4 4·1 Fitzroy 1·5 (}O3 (}Ol 1·8 ()'1 1·9 Melbourne 5·5 5·6 (}O3 1(}O7 ()'7 11·4 Port Melbourne 9·2 3·3 1·5 12·7 1·3 14·0 Prahran (}O7 (}O5 (}OO 1·1 ()'1 1·2 Richmond 1·5 1·4 (}OD 2·9 (}OO 2·9 St Kilda 1·8 1·1 0·0 2·8 ()'1 2·9 South Melbourne 2·2 8·3 (}OO 10·3 ()'2 1 (}oS REGIONAL TOTAL: 2·8 2·8 (}O2 5·5 ()'3 5·8

Open Space Areas

Informal Sporting Open Space Open Space

(JUOS+ (SUOS+ IROS) SROS)

EASTERN REGION Box Hill 2·8 2·7 Camberwell 1·8 1·8 Croydon 4·5 4·9 Doncaster and

Templestowe 7·6 2·6 Hawthorn 1·2 1·3 Kew 5·4 5·2 Knox 9·9 3·0 Nunawading 2·7 1·7 Ringwood 2·7 2·9 Waverley 3·0 2·8 REGIONAL TOTAL: 4·6 2·7 SOUTHERN REGION

5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY Unrest-

ricted Unde- Open Space Restricted

veloped (JUOS+ Open Space Open Space SUOS+ (JROS+

(UNOS) UNOS) SROS)

0·1 4·6 1·0 0.1 3·5 0·2 0·5 4·5 1·3

2·3 7·6 1·2 0.2 1·2 0·3 0·7 5·4 3·7 4·3 9·9 0.9 0·7 2·7 ()'2 ()'4 2·7 ()'4 ()'4 3·0 ()'8 1·2 7·7 ()'8

743

Total Open Space

5·6 3·7 9·9

12·5 2·7

11·3 17·2

5·1 6·0 6·2 8·5

Berwick 13·3 5·9 2·8 20·0 2·0 22·0 Brighton 1·6 3·2 ().O 4·4 ()'4 4·8 Caulfield ()'4 2·0 0.0 2·2 ()'2 2·4 Chelsea 2·8 6·6 1·3 5·6 5·1 10·7 Cranbourne 9·5 8·8 2·6 14·8 6·1 20.9 Dandenong 1·1 2·0 4·0 6·9 ()'2 7·1 Frankston 5·4 6·1 0.8 8·7 3·6 12·3 Malvern 0·9 2·5 0·2 3·3 0·3 3·6 Moorabbin 0·7 4·5 0·5 2·9 2·8 5·7 Mordialloc 1·9 5·1 (),O 2·7 4·3 7·0 Oakleigh 1·5 5·1 0.4 3·0 4·0 7·0 Sandringham 3·4 6·4 0.0 6·4 3·4 9·8 Springvale 2·1 5·9 2·0 5·5 4·5 1()'0 REGIONAL TOTAL: 3·3 4·8 1·2 6·5 2·8 9·3 METROPOLITAN

TOTAL: 4·0 3·5 1·8 7·9 1·4 9·3

Mr COLEMAN-The two tables show the current differential between areas in the provision of open space and those developments that have already occurred compared with those that are still proceeding. The tables are broken into five regions: the Northern, Western, Central, Eastern and Southern regions utilised by the former Ministry for Planning and Environment.

The Northern Region has a total of 10·2 hectares of open space per 1000 population, the Western Region has 11·4 hectares per 1000 population; the Central Region, 5·8 hectares per 1000 persons; the Eastern Region, 8· 5 hectares per 1000 persons; and the Southern Region, 9·3 hectares per 1000 persons. The overall metropolitan total of open space per 1000 persons was 9·3 hectares. Clearly, the Central Region has less open space than other regions.

The document, produced in 1988, was based on 1986 statistics. The total open space hectares by local government areas in those same regions were: 5986·5 hectares in the Northern Region: 4856·6 hectares in the Western Region; 1339·6 hectares in the Central Region; 5875·7 hectares in the Eastern Region; and 6426·9 hectares in the Southern Region; which gave a metropolitan total of24 485·3 hectares.

Once again those figures indicate the differential between the outer regions and the Central Region, which comprises the municipalities of Collingwood, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Port Melbourne, Prahran, Richmond, St Kilda and South Melbourne. The prospects of purchasing land in those areas is infinitesimal because of the associated


costs. It is almost impossible to purchase any land to replace open space lost or to expand the open space available.

The Opposition was opposed to the Flinders Park development because of that situation. In dealing with a region in the metropolitan area with the lowest number of hectares per 1000 persons one is dealing with an irretrievable situation, because it is almost impossible to replace the space that is lost. For that reason the Opposition was appalled by the recent press statement of 29 March issued by the former Minister for ConservatIon, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, on new car parking for the Melbourne Cricket Ground, which said:

A total of 6200 car parking spaces will be provided for major events at the MCG and nearby venues following the signing of an agreement today.

The Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, Ms Kay Setches, and the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Cr Bill Deveney, today signed the new agreement on car parking in Yarra Park North.

I am delighted by the level of cooperation which has been achieved between the government and the council on this important agreement, Ms Setches said.

We all recognise the need to make the best use of the magnificent sporting venues in the precinct and part of this lies in assuring those members ofthe public who travel by car that car parking will be available.

Those who live in the eastern suburbs understand the difficulties with car parking because, at any time when people patronise those venues, there are traffic problems in Punt Road, Brunton A venue and Batman A venue. The parking facilities in those areas are inadequate, and the government's handling of the situation has not been adequate. The press statement continues:

All these parties will meet regularly to ensure that information on major events and parking availability is shared at the earliest time. The council is determined to ensure the best possible parking facilities are available, consistent with its responsibility to maintain the surface of the park.

Essentially, Yarra Park will be providing, on a continuing basis, car parking for the MCG, the Flinders Park complex and the other sporting facilities in the immediate area. As there is a decline in the available use of open land of those areas it is imperative that, when the opportunity presents itself for continuing the expansion of open space, it is taken up. On that basis I desire to move an amendment to the Minister's motion:

That all the words after "House" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "supports the continuing increased provision of open space and calls on the government to honor their commitment to provide additional open space in the metropolitan area."

I shall deal with four specific areas where the government has not honoured its commitment. The document Melbourne's Open Space provides an opportunity for some criticism of the government's actions in two areas. The 1929 plan, on which the government said it based much of its work, indicates that a substantial area of open space will be created along the Merri Creek north of Mahoneys Road. In the 1988 State election campaign, the government made a commitment to create a linear park along the Merri Creek and to purchase a substantial area of native ~asslands in the Campbellfield area. The purchase would enable the concept of a hnear park to be transferred into a regional park of some significance; the area proposed to be purchased has no fewer than 145 different species offlora, and obviously is well worth preserving.

A government press release of 13 September 1988 states that a new reserve, forming part of the $27 million open space package announced that day by the Premier, would be created in the Campbellfield grasslands.

That was a clear commitment by the government which, at that stage, involved a $9 million allocation. A press release of 12 September, accompanying another of the Australian Labor Party's glossy policy magazines, A Greenprint for our Future, states


that the government will implement a $10 million urban nature program. Funds were to be made available from that program to protect some of the areas I have mentioned.

In 1989 the Broadmeadows Observer raised the question of whether the area of land ought to be purchased. An article referred to the Minister for Planning and Environment saying that funds would be set aside in the next Budget to purchase the 70-hectare site.

The Sunday Observer of 4 June states that the owner of the site on Cooper Street is allegedly asking $10 million for the land. The municipality's valuation, carried out before the government's election to office, was about $3 million.

That passage of events continued to the point where, in a letter to me dated 15 January 1990, the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, who is now the Minister for Community Services, states:

I appreciate the concern of the owners of the land in Cooper Street and regret the delay in finalising this matter. However, in view ofthe expenditure that may be required by the government, I consider that it is of the utmost importance that any decision be made only after careful appraisal of relevant information.

Prior to obtaining a formal valuation for the Cooper Street site, the Valuer-General requires information on the best available use of the site, i.e. what form of subdivision would be possible. This is still subject to negotiation between the Ministry for Planning and Environment, City of Broadmeadows and agents for the owner. However, my department has obtained a kerbside estimate which is a good indication of any sale price.

The 70 hectares of land is significant in its own right for its conservation values, which are of State significance. The land could have been attached to an area of land currently reserved by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works as a retarding basin, or to the corridor that runs up to the Merri Creek. If the 1929 plan is so significant, the government would thus have provided for the completion of one of the outlines incorporated in that plan.

There has been a dithering on the part of the government, to say the least. I understand that the previous Minister, now the Minister for Community Services, indicated that this was one of the unresolved issues lying on her table when she left the portfolio. The government has to decide whether the 1988 promise to people living in that area will be honoured and the open space will be purchased, or whether the $10 million, which is said to be the value of the land, will be provided in the Budget, which was the suggestion of the then Minister for Planning and Environment, who is now the Treasurer.

It appears to me that there has been no formal valuation sought from the ValuerGeneral. If the government intended to purchase the land I should have thought the first thing it would have done would have been to ask the Valuer-General for a valuation. I repeat: the letter of the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands states:

Prior to obtaining a formal valuation for the Cooper Street site, the Valuer-General requires information on the best available use of the site.

Mr Deputy Speaker, both you and I represent electorates where there is a significant amount of industrial zoning. The area in question has industrial zoning now. One would assume that that is the best use to which it could be put. On that basis it would be possible for the Valuer-General to value the land, but the problem is that no-one went to the Valuer-General for a valuation. No-one in the government said, "Get the valuation so that we can make a decision based on the valuation to purchase this land as part of the government's urban open space achievements". The time continues to tick away. My information is that the government will not purchase the land. This will be just another of the government's un met commitments. A site further up the headwaters of the Merri Creek-Bald Hills-and another site at Craigieburn have


also been suggested. Another opportunity for the government to make a positive contribution to open space in the city has been lost.

Further in the government's glossy document mention is made of the inner circle railway line which runs through the Park Street area in Fitzroy. This land would have been an admirable contribution to open space in the central Melbourne area.

Mr Simmonds-Sold out by the Liberal government!

Mr COLEMAN-It was not sold out; although the honourable member for Reservoir, who has just entered the Chamber, may know something about this matter. The document suggests that the Park Street land alongside the inner circle railway line may be used for open space; What a wonderful achievement it would be for the government to put in place some additional open space that would not be jeopardised in the future and would increase the parkland available in inner Melbourne.

However, the Minister for Housing and Construction has another exercise on his mind. He has suggested that additional housing should be provided to further clog up the inner Melbourne area, which already has the worst record in providing open space in metropolitan Melbourne.

It is no wonder that a group has been formed to try to save the Park Street park. It has been particularly vocal in trying to ensure that the government creates additional open space in that area.

Clearly, the Minister for Housing and Construction is trying to have houses built on that reservation. One can only wonder where the commitment is to open space, particularly in the inner areas. The government's dual-occupancy provisions allow a person to get an as-of-right claim to maintain two premises on one allotment. That has meant that in the areas wher~ the demand for open space is greatest-the inner areas-the concentration of people is increasing.

I do not disagree with dual-occupancy housing because it is an attempt to better use the infrastructure. However, regulations provide that some 5 per cent of subdivisions must be kept for open space. Those regulations were made in 1966 on the basis of onepremises allotments in population density. The population density is now increasing and what looks to be a distortion in the figures provided for the central region will increase further. There will be a disproportionate spread of open space as dualoccupancy premises extend out into the eastern suburbs and other areas in the immediate environs of Melbourne.

Mr Honeywood-They are not cheap either.

Mr COLEMAN-That is right, and, more importantly, a cash contribution is required to get further open space. Currently, this money is devoted to the provision of better facilities in existing areas. What a pity it is not devoted to the purchase of further open space.

I shall get back to Park Street. That situation illustrates a clear difference between the policies of one Ministry and those of another. A policy document from the former Ministry for Planning and Environment spells out the concept of a linear park running along Park Street to connect with areas along northern Melbourne heading towards the Plenty Gorge park. I do not know whether the government is clear in its concepts. If it believes in its open space plan, it must stop the housing development in Park Street. The government must honour the intent of the policy, and it must ensure that future generations that occupy that area of Melbourne have open space available to them.


The conflict within the government is leading to a deterioration of the opportunities that are available for this generation to leave an enhanced environment for future generations. In his contribution the Minister for Police and Emergency Services laboured heavily on Braeside. That is not a good example for the government. If ever the government were presented with an opportunity of addressing the issues, Braeside was that opportunity. The government should have stuck firm on that, however, the calamitous financial decisions made by the government are forcing it to sell open space. The government wants to sell 140 hectares of the magnificent area at Braeside. That land should be preserved in its entirety, but the government wants to sell 140 hectares of the proposed parkland.

It is all right to congratulate oneself on what one has done, but the selling of that land will result in a significant reduction in open space. It is all very well for the government to change the name on the gate from a sewage treatment plant to a park, but it is selling off some of the land, and that is an abrogation of its duty.

The sale of 140 hectares of land at Braeside draws together the government's problems. It has financial problems, of which all honourable members are aware. The government has an assets sales program which has the intent of terminating previous planning decisions and terminating for the next generation the options it has to make decisions of its own. The government is removing the options that may be available to future generations. When people stand back and consider the performance of this government, they will realise that it has undone the responsible planning decisions made by previous govemments~

Some 140 hectares of Board of Works land is to be subdivided in an area that already has large industrial activity. There are a number of golf courses in the Braeside area, so there will be a continuation of open space although it will not necessarily be available to the public. The golf courses are significant in providing environmental relief because they have tree cover and they offer relief in a landscape that would otherwise be fairly unattractive.

What is left of the Braeside park will be developed and it will form part of the ring of parks surrounding the city which have been developed by the Board of Works and paid for by ratepayers. The parks run from Brimbank at Keilor, to Westerfolds Park at Templestowe through Jells Park and around to Braeside. That is not the result ofa decision made by this government; it is not something that has happened during the life of this government. It is an example of long-term planning for which the government can take no credit whatsoever. To claim in this House that it is one of the government's achievements is an indication of the attitude of the government. When the decisions made by this government are compared with those made by previous governments, the record will show that this government is one of lost opportunities. Opportunities at Cooper Street and Park Street were presented and lost, and those opportunities will never return.

I shall refer to an area in the Premier's electorate, the Mont Park Psychiatric Hospital land. Mont Park has probably run its life as a psychiatric institution. We all support deinstitutionalisation; we all support the current program to reallocate the uses to which those areas were previously put.

Mont Park has presented a unique opportunity for the government to preserve an area in the northern part of Melbourne-the Premier's own electorate-for future generations. Not this government! The financial pressure is on.

What has the government done to the great expanse which was Mont Park, treed with beautiful red gums which have an age span of something like 200 years? The government has decided to tell the Urban Land Authority that the land can be


subdivided for homes. It will be a lost opportunity because the State already owns it and, therefore, there are no purchase costs. However, the financial pressures of the government mean it has to be sold.

Mr Honeywood-How many trees are they going to knock down?

Mr COLEMAN-I do not know. All I know is that there are some magnificent gum trees down there. They are part of a significant area which is supported by the La Trobe University's commitment to the preservation of open spaces. The government has decided to provide to the Urban Land Authority this magnificent area which most people expected to be available for future generations. That option has been terminated by the government, which is being pressured by financial mismanagement. It is not a decision that is clear of pressure.

The other matter I wish to give some attention to is one which the honourable member for Carrum also raised-the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, an annexe of the Melbourne Royal Botanic Gardens. That area came to the State by way of a significant grant from the Maud M. Gibson Gardens Trust which had a genuine interest in preserving that part of Melbourne. It is an important area which had what could be deemed to be remnant vegetation.

The government made what I perceive as a series ofwron~ decisions. The honourable member for Carrum spoke of the urban nature conservation program, to which $1·5 million was dedicated for work to be carried out at the Cranbourne site. In the first year of that money being made available-1987-88-$2oo000 was spent. In the subsequent year $700 000 was spent. This year it will run the gamut of the Budget because the money is gone and the developments are only half completed.

It is a valuable site in the sense that access to it has been altered. It is now possible to gain entry from the South Gippsland Highway and it is being used increasingly by bus traffic and people who are interested in nature conservation.

The original concept was that, in terms of native vegetation, the Cranboume gardens annexe would become to Melbourne what the Royal Botanic Gardens, designed by William Guilfoyle, has become; one of the greatest attributes of the city in terms of structured gardens.

The site has been increased in area over a period and now consists of 340 hectares. It has the potential-with the right sort of management and given its location in that growth corridor-to become a magnificent legacy for future generations. As I said, the Cranbourne gardens annexe came to the government as a gift from the Maud M. Gibson Trust and has been added to, but the government has no management plan for it. The development of the site is being done by a steering committee as money becomes available. Already the plan has changed tWice.

There has been a significant amount of sand extraction, and rehabilitation is proceeding. Nevertheless, if the original intent of the grant is to be honoured, at the vel).' least the government should put in place a management plan that is consistent while there is a change in administration at departmental level and while the vagaries of funding continue.

The Shire of Cranbourne and the service clubs in the area have assumed a sense of ownership of the annexe and it has devoted hours to its development. The shire has also prOVIded assistance with machinery and some money towards maintenance.

In its own inimitable style, the government has formed a steering committee which effectively excludes that local contribution. The government is telling the local commumty that it will develop the site, but when one examines it, one sees there is no management plan. It is an ad hoc process. One can only wonder whether the


determination and foresight which were shown by William Guilfoyle and later by Mr R. T. M. Pescott, who was Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens from 1957 to 1970, in the creation of the Royal Botanic Gardens will be applied to what ought to be one of the most magnificent nature reserves in that part of Melbourne.

Clearly the area is of significance. It is located in one of Melbourne's prime growth corridors and should be handled in such a way that open space value which is available can be managed by the community so that it meets the community's aspirations but, more importantly, preserves the environment and conservation values which are attached to it.

There is no doubt that the government must put in place a management plan which involves not only the Department of Conservation and Environment but also the municipality, a representative group of local residents and people who have expertise in the area of nature conservation because its contribution to the State was a magnificent gesture. To use the football terminology which has been used in this House in recent weeks, we ought not to fumble the ball. Parliament should be brave and put in place a system that ensures that the inherent values of the area are maintained so that future generations who choose to live there have the benefit of it.

My amendment to the motion should be supported by all honourable members. Historically the government's record will not be one of having created extra open space but will be one of simply having changed the signs on the gates!

Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-There was considerable argument in the National Party ranks about who should handle this motion, and I lost! For more than one and a half hours I have listened to what I consider to be a complete waste of time and of the resources of Parliament. Something is sadly wrong with the Standing Orders of this place when honourable members have to sit here listening to a debate on a motion put on the Notice Paper some eighteen months ago by the then honourable member for Carrum in a moment of euphoria. In the meantime, important issues that have cropped up are left in limbo.

I should prefer to be explaining to the House and to the current Treasurer, the former Minister for Planning and Environment, what has been the effect of his absolutely disastrous planning amendments! I should prefer to be explaining to him how those amendments are wreckin~ the lives of country people who have put investments of the order of $200 000 Into their futures and what his stroke of a pen has done in wiping them out!

I should prefer to be referring to the fact that country people are taking to the cars driven by officers of the department over which the former Minister for Plannin$ and Environment, now the Treasurer, presided! I should prefer to be describing the inCIdent in which a car was tipped over by a bulldozer!

Instead of that, honourable members have had to listen to utter rubbish as put up by the honourable member for Carrum, now the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. His arguments were totally demolished by the honourable member for Syndal.

Mr Cooper-He tore him apart!

Mr EV ANS-Yes, The motion is puerile. It contains reference to the "metropolitan" area but the Minister has talked about the "Organ Pipes National Park near Geelong". Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you, is that park in the metropolitan area? Perhaps the Minister spent too long in the local pub before he visited that park and lost direction!

The Minister for Police and Emergency Services said that during the only visit he has made to the Organ Pipes National Park he spent his entire visit pulling out weeds. What a wonderful way for someone to spend a day in a national park-pulling out


weeds! I wonder whether he might by mistake have pulled out some orchids? That is what has happened in an area I have known during my lifetime as a great recreational area. The government designated it a national park. On one occasion, I was there having a picnic. A nice old lady came along with a flower in her hand and said, "What a lovely little flower". The little flower was a donkey orchid that she had picked illegally! That is the sort of thing that is happening through the ignorance of visitors like the Minister for Police and Emergency Services! He goes to national parks and pulls out "weeds" which are probably flowers because he does not know what he is pulling out!

The Minister referred to an increase in open space. I ask him to explain what he means by "open space". Does he mean that houses or other buildings were pulled down to create open space; is he talking about public or private open space; what the blazes is he talking about? I did not hear him mention any case in which the government bought an area with buildings on it, pulled down the buildings and turned the area into a park. The only thing he talked about was the government drawing a line around an area that was open space and indicating that nothing would be put onto that land.

I should like to know whether Melbourne's city square is open space. I consider that that represents the creation of open space because now where there used to be buildings the people can congregate and the area is open to fresh air.

Surely to goodness the government cannot claim it has created areas of open space simply because it has put a fence around land and indicated that it will be a park! That is how the Minister for Police and Emergency Services views the creation of open space! It is rubbish!

The same philosophy is being expressed about national parks. Ministers sit here in Spring Street talking about areas they have never been to and are never likely to go to. They draw lines on a map or describe boundaries of an area up in the mountains and then they say, "Look what we have done; we have created a national park!" As I said, they never move out of Spring Street and they have not been to the mountains, so how can they know what they create?

Mr Roper-I have been to the Mallee and East Gippsland.

Mr EV ANS-Yes, and what did you create when you were there?

An Honourable Member-Havoc!

Mr EV ANS-I wonder what the current Treasurer, then the Minister for Planning and Environment, protected when he had his previous portfolio? I wonder whether he ever went to East Gippsland to fight a bushfire and save a few people's houses?

Mr Cooper-You get your hands dirty if you do that!

Mr EV ANS-Like other Ministers, the former Minister for Planning and Environment sits here in Spring Street and says, "Look what we have done; we have protected the environment; we have done all these wonderful things"-sitting in Spring Street, drawing lines on a map, using up paper! The government talks about saving trees and then goes about printing more Bills, more reports and more speeches!

Mr Roper interjected.

Mr EV ANS-I have plenty to say on the Land Conservation Council.

The Standing Orders of this place are in urgent need of a change so that matters of urgent public importance can be discussed.

I point out also that the honourable member for Carrum-if I can refer to him in that capacity-had the right as a private member to move the motion but when he


became a Minister of the Crown I believe he should have taken the step of withdrawing his motion. Further I point out that a motion in my name expressing lack of confidence in the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands stood on the Notice Paper. Because of the change in Ministerial positions, I considered that the right thing to do was to withdraw that motion.

Obviously the Premier felt the same lack of confidence in the former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands and took proper action; she has been chucked out of the portfolio and somebody else has been put there in her stead. The object of my motion has been achieved.

As Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the honourable member for Carrum would have shown a high level of respect for the operations of this House if he had given honourable members the courtesy of withdrawing the motion. The motion is pointless because, as I said, it will not achieve anything. It has simply allowed the honourable member for Syndal to demolish completely the arguments put by the honourable member for Carrum.

It has provided me with the opportunity of pointing out that if the government claims to create open space it must do so from closed space, not simply by redesignating an area that is open space and claiming credit for something that was not done.

The government pursues that course continually. It is high time the government did something positive instead of usin, all its efforts in its public relations mode, in which it says, "Let us convince an idiotIC electorate that we are really doin,something by putting out the propaganda, even though we are really not doing anythIng at all".

The National Party supports the amendment of the honourable member for Syndal. I congratulate him on the way he demolished the arguments of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

In accordance with Sessional Orders, the debate was interrupted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! The time appointed under Sessional Orders for Government Business to take precedence has now arrived.

This may be the appropriate time for honourable members to enjoy the open space of the Parliament House gardens.

The honourable member for Mitcham, who is next to receive the call, may make his contribution when the motion is again before the House.

The sitting was suspended at 1 p.m. until 2.5 p.m.

LAND CONSERVATION (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (interrupted on the previous day) on the motion of Mr Roper (then

Minister for Planning and Environment) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-When I was interrupted last night by Sessional Orders, I was dealing with the conservation of resources, remembering that the Bill has a relationship to the Land Conservation Council as it is currently constituted.

I was sayin$ that the needs of conservation are not met by idiots who put their arms around trees In the forests of East Gippsland; the problems of conservation exist in the wastage that occurs in the metropolitan area. One must tackle the problems of conservation from the consumption end, and not from the production end. Even if all


the forests in Australia were closed to logging, and no use were made of them, nothing would be achieved unless the community reduced its use of timber and timber products.

One area that has the greatest wastage is· one that no-one ever dares tacldeincluding the government, the opposition parties, and the conservationists-because no-one dares upset their friends in the print media. I have made inquiries about the value of newsprint going into the publishing of the Saturday Age. I have not bought the Age for many years because that newspaper demonstrates a waste of resources.

Mr Coleman interjected.

Mr EV ANS-Some do but one has to search closely to find them.

The Parliamentary Library was kind enough to supply me with information. Each Saturday's Age comprises $2·50 worth of newsprint. Think of the thousands of copies of that newspaper spread every Saturday around Victoria, with the bulk never being opened or read-it is an absolute waste of resources!

If the conservationists and the greenies are fair dinkum they will mount a campaign against the wastage of newsprint in such publications as the Saturday Age. I do not suggest that the Saturday Age should be banned, but Parliament should legislate to ensure that the price of newspapers at least covers the cost of the newsprint.

The community must not allow the advertising industry to subsidise the wastage of valuable resources. The timber resource is so precious and valuable that the community cannot afford to waste it. The conservationists argue in that way, but they are hypocrites unless they meet that problem. I do not advocate that that is what should be done; I do not claim that Victoria is wasting resources by utilising timber products.

Timber is the most logical material to use for buildings and for many of the purposes of mankind because it is about the only renewable resource. One can almost guarantee that every alternative to timber would be more energy inefficient. The community must come to its senses and understand that nature has provided it with a marvellous material in the form of timber, and it should be used wisely. That resource should not be wasted and the community should pay for its real worth-including those who use newsprint. Then, the community would see a more sensible utilisation of Victorian forests and obtain a better understanding of the whole management process.

Forest management is widely regarded as a scientific subject. Many people spend all their lives in the study and practice of forestry. Over the years such people have educated me about and increased my appreciation of our forests. I have never heard a qualified forester argue that our forests should be closed up and left to nature to look after. Foresters are aware that we should be constantly nurturing our forests rather than locking them up.

Passin~ old forests on to future generations is a lot of nonsense. I do not believe any of my chlldren or grandchildren will appreciate being handed down white-ant-ridden, rotting old trees; but I am sure they would appreciate being handed down vigorously growing young trees. Also, even the most dimwitted in our community understand that young, growing trees use up more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than mature trees; and old, decaying trees tend to give off more carbon dioxide than they absorb. The House should support the intelligent use of our forests rather than locking them up on the pretext that they are for the appreciation of future generations.

One of the major conservation organisations in Victoria is the Conservation Council of Victoria, which was established in 1968. When the government established the Land Conservation Council in 1970 it allocated two positions on the council to members of the Conservation Council of Victoria. The first chairman of the CCV was a former chairman of the Forests Commission, Mr Alf Lawrence. The council was


established as an umbrella organisation that comprised groups of field naturalists, bush walkers, and the National Parks Association, as well as many other interested groups.

In its early years it was a legitimate conservation organisation. As I said, two members of the Conservation Council of Victoria are also members of the Land Conservation Council. All other positions on the LCC are filled by either public servants-the heads of various government departments and agencies-or people 'appointed by the Governor in Council. Although the charter of the Land Conservation Council restricts it to caring for public land in shires, I doubt whether any member of the LCC has actually lived in a rural shire, so having to face the consequences of his or her decisions.

As I said in the House last night, rural people were angered by the early reports of the Land Conservation Council. That set me wondering about who comprised the Conservation Council of Victoria, especially since the council was given the privilege of being represented on the Land Conservation Council. I wonder how one becomes a greenie or becomes qualified to consider oneself a conservationist. Is it necessary to have a degree in forestry or agriculture? Is it necessary to live in the bush and to spend long periods travelling through the bush rather than back-packing through it for a few days of the year? I found it difficult to uncover details about the membership of those whom the Conservation Council of Victoria claimed as its members and supporters. It was coy about revealing the names of its 45000 supporters and the group or groups to which they belonged.

I made some strong comments in the House about the CCV's reluctance to reveal details of its membership. Shortly thereafter the Director of the Conservation Council of Victoria wrote to the Speaker objecting to what I had said; and to prove his point he included a list of all of the organisations and groups that were affiliated with the Conservation Council of Victoria, as well as the number of members of each particular group. The Speaker kindly gave the letter to me for my comments-which is how I was able to get my hands on the details I wanted!

As I said, the Conservation Council of Victoria comprises field naturalist clubs, organisations for growing Australian flowers and the National Parks Association-all of them sincerely dedicated to the preservation and propagation of Australian flora and fauna. Also Included in the list of organisations was a group calling for the saving of milk bottles and a wine and cheese society-which seemed to be more interested in consumption rather than conservation! There are a number of groups opposed to uranium mining and a small group formed by members of Friends of the Earth. Such groups contain only fifteen or twenty members although I am sure the Conservation Council of Victoria has no way of knowing whether all the small groups comprise the same fifteen or twenty people. Each group or organisation is represented by a delegate--


Mr EV ANS-It was your Liberal government that very generously funded it! One of the biggest organisations belonging to the CCV is the Australian Railways Union.


Mr EV ANS-The only information I have is that which I received many years ago. The honourable member of Syndal will understand that I am persona non grata with the CCV; the council does not readily communicate with me because I am inclined to stand up in the House and expose what it is on about. When it was first established Session 1990-25

7 54 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill

the Conservation Council of Victoria was a genuine organisation of people who were concerned about the preservation and cultivation of Australian flora and fauna.

The left-wing elements saw the golden opportunity they had with their power on the Conservation Council of Victoria and used that power to frustrate the council. The council has been around for many years and often I remonstrated with the previous Liberal government about why it was funding agitators who were working against it. The CCV has played an active role in the setting up of a number of organisations. I mentioned a moment ago that there is no way of knowing whether the various groups against uranium mining comprise different groups or the same group of people. The Conservation Council of Victoria, together with the Wilderness Society, the Victorian National Parks Association and another group, set up a new organisation called the East Gippsland Coalition. That coalition has nothing to do with East Gippsland. One or two of its members may live in East Gippsland and, therefore, the coalition says that it has members living in East Gippsland.

I believe that process was deliberately set up to undermine my ri~t to speak on behalf of the people of East Gippsland. The only person who has the nght to speak on behalf of the people of East Gippsland is the person who is democratically elected to Parliament, and I have been elected on ten consecutive occasions and no-one can challenge my right. For years and years in this place I was told that I represented trees, not people, on the basis that the rural electorates had smaller enrolments than those of the city electorates. That comment was thrown at me for many years when trees were not fashionable. On one occasion in an emotional moment I replied to the then honourable member for Brunswick East, Mr Leo Fennessy, that the trees I represented would be doing their bit for mankind long after the people he represented were 6 foot under. Now that trees are fashionable nobody wants to know that I represent them.

According to the government that was all I was concerned about for fifteen to twenty years, but now the community is beginning to understand the importance of trees and the environment and the government is turning its back on the people who know most about it. I am not talking about myself; I am talking about the people who are trained in forest management and know what they are doing. They are doing their best to ensure that Victoria has better forests to pass on to future generations.

The Premier is prone to using football analogies from time to time. I suggest the Premier would be very upset if, after having rescued the Footscray Football Club, it then appointed someone as coach who had never had anything to do with football. The management and care of public parklands in the State is a vastly more complex issue than running a football team.

The sole working experience of the Minister for Community Services, the former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, was as a shop assistant in Ringwood. Where is the logic in that? When the government came to office it set about destroying the credibility of people who had been trained in forest management. The first thing the government did was to sack Dr Ron Grose, who is acknowledged as one of the best foresters in Australia. The government destroyed the credibility of the profession by dropping the use of the title "forester". Foresters in my electorate were proud to be foresters. I was always delighted to introduce people to the divisional forester or district forester because it was a proud profession.

The government then called them "scientific officers" and they went into the melting pot with everybody else. People qualified in forestry are now looking after fisheries and other areas. The government has transferred people everywhere and destroyed the fine organisation that was then known as the Victorian Forests Commission.

I hope I have demonstrated to, if not convinced, members in this place that rural people are extremely concerned about the constitution of the Land Conservation


Council. In the Committee stage I propose to move a number of amendments. Noone wants to see greenies from metropolitan councils dumped on the LCC in the guise of representing municipal government. Provision should be made for rural representation also.

The National Party wants representation from the Land Protection Council because that council has a particular and special interest in the protection of land. Members of that council know what they are talking about; they are not emotionally disturbed; -they have a sound, long and abiding interest in the good management of land. The Victorian Farmers Federation should also be represented on the Land Conservation Council. People who live on farmland adjoining public land have a close interest in how the public land is managed and looked after. Those people have a right to representation. They will not take control, but at least representation will enable them to know whether the thousands of submissions by rural people are taken into account.

For that to take place a vacancy must be created on the Land Conservation Council. The Bill proposes that representation of the Conservation Council of Victoria be reduced from two to one. I dislike that aspect of the Bill. The Conservation Council of Victoria receives government financial support to enable it to put submissions. However, rural people are not entitled to any right at all although they have put substantial submissions to each inquiry. It is contrary to the basic principles of justice that a body with a declared point of view on a particular issue-whether it is how a particular parcel of land should be used or anything else-should sit in judgment on the decisions that have to be made. That is what the Conservation Council of Victoria has been doing over the years. It is a partisan body and has taken part in the setting up of the East Gippsland Coalition. The council receives funding and rural people are unable to put their side of the story. It goes against the grain that the CCV should retain membership on the LCC at all; it is in a strong lobby position.

I suggest the CCV knows the individual members of the Land Conservation Council and is hob-nobbing with the council on a regular basis. Members on the council would be known personally and it is unfortunate that people who live hundreds of miles away in places like Bendoc, Cabanundra, Dellicknora and Tubbut are not taken into account. People in those areas have to go to New South Wales to attend hospital and to send their children to school, and they receive New South Wales newspapers, television and radio programs.

The government does not even build decent roads in their part of the State. They live in a lovely part of the State, but their livelihoods and way of life are being devastated by the effects of Land Conservation Council recommendations that are being translated into legislation by this Parliament and management plans that are then imposed on them.

The management plan for that area includes the suggestion that, where horses are allowed to go into national parks, they should wear old shoes. Can one imagine that! Does the council think the horseshoes are changed daily?

I hope I have driven home some points on this issue. I have tried very hard to do so for a long time. I find it almost heartbreaking to have to return to my electorate and try to explain to people that it seems impossible to get those who live in the city to understand. People in my electorate just cannot comprehend how people in the city can do such stupid things when it comes to the management of our public lands. Who do they think looks after the forests? Who do they think will go and put out the fires and do all the necessary track work when such crises occur? It is not the bushwalkers or the greenies who do all the hard work and take all the risks. They are not the ones who put up all the equipment and risk their lives, as well as their businesses in many cases, if the forests are not managed properly.


Admittedly, some people may have a pecuniary interest in proper forest management,but they are not out to destroy the forests so that their children and grandchildren will not have similar interests to follow. That would be crazy. Of course, there may be a few fly-by-nighters-there are always a few of them in other areas as well-but that does not mean the whole lot should be discounted because of one or two people. In any case, by and large, the government has weeded out those people over the years, and I am pleased about that.

The people on adjoining farmlands-who are in many cases third and fourth generation farmers-have slogged away all their lives; they are people who demand the least resources from the government. As I said, they do not have the schools, the good television reception, the telephones or the roads that city people have. The government does not spend much money on roads in that area. Yet, these are the people on whom the government is trying to place the burden of conservation. The burden should be placed on city people. The buck stops right here, in Melbourne.

It is time that people in metropolitan Melbourne came to terms with the wastage they are creating and the smog they are causing, which is polluting the atmosphere. One does not see smog in country towns-it is all being created in Melbourne. That is where the environmentalists ought to be doing their work. If they are fair dinkum, they will maintain that people oUght to pay the full cost of the newsprint necessary for newspaper production. I wonder how the publishers of the Age would accept an increase to $2·50 in the price of the Saturday edition. That is the cost of the newsprint that goes into it.

We are allowing the advertising industry and the media to waste resources to a shocking degree. One way to address the problem is to make people pay the full cost of the resources being used. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you buy a copy of the Saturday Age, I hope you will pay the full cost of the newsprint, $2.50. There is no way that people should be able to buy it for 70 cents. I have not bought one since it was 10 cents!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Or 10 pence.

Mr EV AN8-That is more correct. I hope the House has taken note of my remarks on this Bill. I hope, when the Bill is dealt with in Committee, fair consideration wil] be given to. the proposal I have put forward, because I believe it is in the best interests of not only the people but also the forests in the electorate that I represent.

Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura)-The principal clause with which I shall deal this afternoon is clause 5, which sets out the functions of the Land Conservation Council and states:

In making a recommendation as to land use the council shall have regard to the social and economic implications relevant to the recommendation.

I am particularly interested in this provision because, as the former Minister for Planning and Environment mentioned in the second-reading speech, Parliament will soon be asked to deal with the Land Conservation Council's recommendations for the Mallee.

The then Minister said that the government wanted to ensure that socioeconomic factors were dealt with by the Land Conservation Council and considered in all its future investigations. I could not a$fee with him more. However, the responsible Minister is about to introduce a Bill Into this place that proposes massive extensions to national parks in the Mallee. Most of the proposed extensions will occur in my electorate of Mildura, but socioeconomic factors have not been taken into consideration.


The government cynically accepted the LCC's recommendations and trumpeted its intentions about them three days before the Federal election, perhaps in the hope that the Labor Party might pick up a few additional green votes. That did not work because nine Victorian seats fell to the Liberal Party. The recommendations of the Land Conservation Council include an increase in the parks in the Mallee from some 201 700 hectares to 975 200 hectares. In all, if Parliament accepts the council's recommendations for the Mallee, it will take the park system to more than 1 million hectares and reserve some 25 per cent of the Mallee.

There is no way that the government should expect Parliament to contemplate such a move without first considering and assessing the socioeconomic implications for the region. The Mallee parks proposal should be referred back to the LCC for further consideration in light of the provisions of this Bill, so that it takes into account the social and economic factors as well as the environmental issues.

In the press release issued by the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands on 21 March, the Minister said that consultation would be carried out with the people of the region on the implications of the decision and that the $ovemment would consult with local government and local communities on economic development for the region. Surely the consultation on and consideration of these social and economic factors ought to take place before the Bill has been introduced in Parliament, not after. What the then Minister was saying was, "The government has made up its mind. It has adopted a particular position, and it will consult with you afterwards. Like it or lump it, that is what we will do".

The Lands Conservation Council and the new Minister will probably argue that, in the course of its deliberations, the council does consider social and economic factors. However, until this Bill is passed, there is no statutory obligation on the council to do so. It certainly did not take them into account in its deliberations on the Mallee parks system. All honourable members know that in the past the council has rejected submissions because they addressed the social and economic implications of its recommendations rather than the strictly environmental issues.

I have received dozens of item~ of correspondence over the past seventeen months from individuals, groups and organisations-including all the municipal councils in my electorate-expressing their genuine concern that socioeconomic factors were not addressed by the LCC in its Mallee area review. An opportunity exists with the passage of the Bill for that to occur-and it must.

The local community has strongly and loudly voiced its concern. When the Land Conservation Council first released its recommendations just days before the State election in October 1988-and wasn't that nicely timed!-the Millewa and north-west district councils of the Victorian Farmers Federation at short notice convened a public meeting in Mildura, which was attended by more than 550 people. The meeting resolved to reject the LCC proposals on the grounds that they were impracticable, unworkable, unjust, failed to adequately consider local needs and opinions and contravened section 5 (1) (a) of the Land Conservation Act, which requires the council to provide for the balanced use of public land.

Two further meetings were called, one in Werrlmull in October 1988 and another in Mildura in December of that year. They attracted more than 100 and 300 people respectively, who wanted to signal their disapproval of the LCC recommendations. In a nutshell, the recommendations to extend the parks system in the Mallee would see licensed grazing areas slashed from around 500 000 hectares to 90 000 hectares, and the special conditions the LCC wanted to impose would further effectively reduce the grazing area to about 60 000 or 65 000 hectares. The recommendations call for broombrush harvesting to be restricted to an area that the local harvesters say is


unsuitable and would prove uneconomic. The families involved in the harvesting have been there for years-some for generations. They are not get-rich-quick speculators.

I shall return to the social and economic implications and consider some specifics. On 22 November last year four municipalities in the electorate I represent, the shires of Mildura, Walpeup, Dimboola and Karkarooc, came to Melbourne to address the Liberal Party on this issue. Their submission stated in part:

As representatives of four municipalities vitally concerned with the report, we can assure you that the following conclusions constitute a common reaction to us all ...

Firstly, we find it difficult to comprehend the underlying approach taken, indicating the only way to protect the Mallee for future generations is to declare all public lands as national parks or other category of parks. That conclusion was presumably reached without any thought of the economic repercussions on the whole area, the drastic effect on individuals and the premise that sufficient finance and resources would be provided by the government to CFL to manage the new parks.

The LCC has an obligation to consider the use of public land in Victoria and the government has an obligation to refer recommendations from the Mallee district to the LCC to consider the social and economic implications within the government's conservation, economic and social justice strategies.

Good government in Victoria is not well served by the imposition of the views of a minority group whose members do not live in the area; it is the hundreds of people who live in the area and whose livelihood depends on the work they do in the Mallee that will be affected.

A letter dated January 1989 from the Mildura Shire Council to the Land Conservation Council states:

While the ratepayers lose their leases, council loses rate income. The council will only lose in the vicinity of $15 000, which is not a great deal, but the effect on leases will be profound as it affects the lessee's livelihood.

If the recommendations are adopted, then about half the Shire of Mildura would become non-rateable.

That had better mean that if half a municipality becomes unrateable the Victoria Grants Commission will give a considerable boost in funding to the municipality for the severe'disability caused.

The next issue is roads. The Land Conservation Council states that road-making material should not be taken from road reserves unless no suitable alternatives are available. The Shire of Mildura has hundreds of kilometres of unsealed and unpaved roads that rely primarily on the use of natural resource materials. It would be an economic impossibility for the shire to import the materials it currently takes from road reserves.

The Shire of Karkarooc also has strenuous objections to the recommendations. I might say that I have met all the councils in the electorate I represent. At my invitation the shadow Ministers for environment, agriculture and conservation and eleven of my Liberal backbench colleagues have also been to the Mallee; we have at least taken the trouble of having a look.

Mr Steggall interjected.

Mr BILDSTIEN-National Party members have also toured the area. I believe the ALP caucus rural committee also had a visit. The Minister made a secret visit; he did not tell anybody about it.


The Shire of Karkarooc is concerned about the additional burden on its ratepayers that will result from the recommendations, especially with respect to the spread of noxious weeds. It states:

Noxious weeds such as horehound spread rapidly if constant control is not carried out. Vermin such as rabbits are increasing in numbers at present. Financial pressure is placed on ratepayers by having to establish new vermin-proof fencing adjoining reserves, at a cost of S3000-plus per kilometre. If these problems cause ratepayers to leave the district, the social balance of the area is drastically upset. One family leaving could cause a school or church or sporting team to close or disband.

The survival of many small towns in the Mallee hinges on the continuation of the income that is generated by the public land in the area.

The government recognised the effect of its policies on small rural populations and the potential demise of small towns and instigated a small towns study. Despite that, in the Mallee the government plans to withdraw from income-producing activities much of the land on which these towns depend. A number of families will have to leave the district and further pressure will be placed on schooling.

Many small businesses are concerned about their future. The N orth-West Land Settlement Committee states:

Mallee communities are already facing the threat ofloss of population and are striving to maintain their existing services. To withdraw the grazing licences in question would significantly reduce the income in small towns such as Patchewollock and Werrimull, making it impossible for them to retain their current level of services and social structure. As· the small towns study has revealed,· the flow-on effects of the loss of income, and hence population, and then services, can be very severe on small rural communities.

On 9 March I attended a meeting of the North Western Municipalities Association at Hopetoun, at which the Minister for Local Government was the speaker. She said she could not believe that country Victorians thought the Cain government was ripping the heart out of country Victoria. She said she could not accept the perception in the bush that the government was beholden only to city interests. She claimed this was a government for all Victorians. She said:

We don't want to rip the heart out of country Victoria. What an emotional term. We have done all we can to ensure preservation of country Victoria. I am disappointed that that is the way in which my government is regarded, and I shall take that message back to my colleagues.

If she did take that message back to her colleagues they have not listened, or if they did she did not hold a lot of sway in the Cabinet room because the government intends to barge ahead with huge extensions of national parks in the Mallee without giving a damn for the local viewpoint.

The former Minister for Planning and Environment thought so much of local opinion that when he visited the area he did not tell a soul he was coming; he just went through on his own.

It is often said that the extension and development of national parks will provide a massive boost for tourism; it has been said that that will provide a stimulus for tourism in the Mallee area. No amount of tourist activity will replace the income of people who work in these areas and on which the small towns depend.

I direct the attention of the House to a submission from the Mallee Tourism Association, which is based at Ouyen. The association states:

At a recent seminar on tourism in the Mallee, 80 enthusiastic participants were unanimous in that they considered the MalIee a unique area--developed not only over thousands of years as an ecological area, but also as a distinctive ecological system over the past 100 years or so since man's influence on the area has been evident. It is for this reason and other equally important reasons that we of the Mallee Tourism Association are objecting to the Lee recommendations. The clearing of Mallee scrub and the provision of water has provided the fauna of the Mallee with a habitat which they have come to completely rely on for


survival. Take this source of water away and hundreds of species of birds, stated as being unique to the Mallee, will be left to die or forced to migrate to the already overtaxed areas of Hattah-Kulkyne and Wyperfeld.

The association further states: We, as a tourist group, have the future and the preservation of the Mallee region as a major reason for

existing and cannot see how such vast changes could make it any better managed or preserved than it is currently.

The Sunraysia branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia summed up its feelings in a letter to me-this is another social impact that has not been considered-when it states:

We feel the local shooter is being discriminated against in his own backyard. There have been adequate provisions made for bird-lovers, bushwalkers, apiculturists, campers and hikers and the like, but what about the shooters?

That is another adverse social impact on the region.

The major industry in the Sunraysia region is the dried fruits industry and the Sunraysia District Council of the Australia Dried Fruits Association is also extremely concerned that the Land Conservation Council has made recommendations about that area without first inspecting it. The association represents growers in Mildura, Merbein and Red Cliffs, which are all on the Victorian side of the border, and Gol Gol, Buronga and other small areas in New South Wales. Many dried fruit operators, on the understanding that they have a long and secure tenure, have leased public land which they use for their drying racks and drying grounds for the fruit they harvest. They had expected to have the opportunity of purchasing the freehold of the land, but they have been deprived of that opportunity. If the land reverts to bushland reserves there will be a consequential growth in the number of rabbits and noxious weeds and that will be detrimental to the adjoining fruit blocks.

Broombrush harvesting is another industry that will be adversely affected if the ~overnment accepts the Land Conservation Council's recommendations. This industry IS a clear example why clause 5 is a necessary provision in the Bill and why the council's decision on the proposed Mallee reserve should be reconsidered. Solomite Strawboard at Murtoa has been engaged in the manufacture of brush fence panels produced from the mallee broombrush for a number of years. It employs 37 people and the managin~ director of the company has told me that the employment of the people means an Injection of$780 000 a year into the local economy. In a letter to me the general manager states that if the Land Conservation Council recommendations are accepted this successful and important rural business is at risk.

The Shire of Dunmunkle has also written to me telling me that it supports the company and that it must continue to operate profitably because Murtoa has to be spared a further devastating blow and that the destruction of the company would be detrimental to the economy and the viability of the town. The shire secretary states:

Central to our case is that the council and the company are firmly of the belief that properly managed, sufficient areas of broom brush are accessible and the species has the ability to regenerate at a level which would provide a fully sustainable cycle of operation, not detrimental to the environment and compatible with the principles of conservation.

I have got to know a brushcutter, Tommy Campbell, very well. He has been cutting brush for eighteen years and with a stroke of the pen the government says "Off you go; we do not care about you any more; you have made your living and that is it". Mr Campbell's son wrote me a moving letter in which he states:

It is impossible to find jobs, other than those my father and I have at present. My father and I both own houses in the area and have no way of getting a satisfactory price for them even if we could sell them. I am


presently engaged in furthering my education yet to do this I must travel to Mildura. If I lose this job this will have to cease. My father is over 50 and has not the time needed to retrain for another job.

The Merbein sawmill currently has a turnover of approximately $2·5 million a year and employs twenty Victorians. I grew up with many of those people, I went to school with them and I count a number of them as my friends. Those twenty jobs will be jeopardised if the recommendations of the Land Conservation Council are adopted and the quantities of river red gum taken from Victorian forests is reduced to a nonviable level. The irony is that the Merbein sawmill sends 100 tonnes of river red gum timber products a week to the greenbelt of Melbourne; the people of Greensborough, Eltham and even Dandenong, who say, "Don't cut down the trees". They are the same people who are using the goddamn products that come from the forest! They are the people who want the natural timber for furniture; the woodchips in their gardens. What a joke!

I have endeavoured to highlight the fact that clause 5 is an important clause and should be applied to the recommendations that the Land Conservation Council has made in the Mallee region. Government decisions must not be based on the views and aspirations of a small number of conservationists who are in positions of influence in the Department of Conservation and Environment or the Land Conservation Council. Serious concern has been expressed about the Land Conservation Council recommendations in the Sunraysia district and the people's voice must be heard.

The regional office of the then Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands made a submission to its central office on the recommendations of the Land Conservation Council. I want to know wltat the submission of the local office was, but I am not allowed to see it. The previous Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, would not let me see that submission. I believe it differed markedly from the submission that the head office of the then Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands sent to the Land Conservation Council.

The Minister told me to get the information under the freedom of information provisions. I have lodged that FoI request, but I bet London to a brick that the request sits there until well after the Bill dealing with the Mallee area is debated in this place.

According to the Mallee Heritage Committee, a group that was established to coordinate the regional objection to these proposals, the economic significance of existing agricultural activity in the area is far greater than was suggested by the LCC review team. The committee released a paper in which it concludes:

Enterprises engaged in farming, beekeeping and broombrush harvesting on land affected by Lee proposals are estimated to directly and indirectly contribute around $6·6 million annually to the Victorian economy.

All surveyed agricultural producers expect to suffer losses in income, threatening or removing the viability of their entire operations.

The implementation of Lee proposed recommendations would result in the dislocation of 33 per cent of existing farm families and their employees. Of those who would not relocate, 57 per cent will require supplementary sources of income in order to secure the viability of their operations.

Affected Mallee area agricultural enterprises employ 285 full-time and part-time staff. A further 120 casual employees (mostly shearers) derive income from these businesses.

There are over 200 dependants in families of "affected" agricultural producers.

Recreational uses of the Mallee area public leased land contribute to the Sunraysia-Mallee region's tourist attractions package. The large regional tourist industry is built around natural environment and recreational attractions.

The planned and incidental pollination by Mallee area bee colonies critically supports a $42 million annual horticultural sector (principally almonds). .


Brushcutting operations in the Mallee area supply an important business/employment initiative in the township of Murtoa. This business is an excellent example of a local economic development in "value added" manufacturing; and an example to other rural areas.

I urge the newly appointed Minister for Conservation and Environment to acknowledge the social and economic impact that the recommendations of LCC for the Mallee will have on my electorate, and I request that it be instructed to reconsider its proposals regarding the amendments contained in the Bill.

If the Minister refuses, clearly the government is abrogating its responsibility to the Mallee region and indicating that it is more concerned about the perception of the greens in Melbourne than about what is right, wrong, logical or reasonable.

Mr HARROWFIELD (Mitcham)-It is with pleasure that I support the Bill, which amends the Land Conservation Act and provides for changes to the operation of the Land Conservation Council.

The council has played an important role in land management in this State over recent decades. It has been at the forefront in its endeavour to ensure that Victoria has properly managed resources and that they are properly scrutinised. The LCC has performed valuable work not only during the past eight years of Labor government but also during the years under the previous Liberal government.

When the former Minister for Planning and Environment, now the Treasurer, introduced the proposed legislation he said that the LCC had made more than 5000 recommendations during its lifetime and almost all of those recommendations have been accepted. The results of those recommendations are there for all to see in the area of public land that has been specifically set aside to protect the State's natural resources. Public land has been increased from 3 per cent of the State to more than 40 per cent of the State; that is an impressive growth which is a result of the work of the LCC.

In 1970 Victoria had only eighteen national and State parks. That number has been substantially increased because now there are 20 new national parks and 36 State parks that have been proposed by the council and adopted by this and previous governments. The State's assets are there to see and they are the result of the operation of the LCC. The areas of the Grampians, the Little Desert, Errinundra, the major extension to the Snowy River park, and the Alpine National Park are reflections of the sort of Bill that the House is discussing today.

I welcome the proposed changes. The Bill seeks to broaden the representative nature of the LCC. The present structure of the council is a reflection of arrangements that applied to government departments during earlier decades and certainly prior to the conservation, forests and lands departments that were established in the early 1980s. It is timely that the Bill has been introduced to broaden the representation on the council.

I applaud the fact that the council will include local government representation. It is necessary to involve our partners in local government in the important decisions that the LCC deals with from time to time.

Mr W. D. McGrath-Don't forget the rural councils!

Mr HARROWFIELD-I am happy that there is a representative of local government and it does not matter whether that person is from a rural or a metropolitan council. It is the third tier of government; it is important that local government is represented. It is excellent that a representative of local government will be included in the structure of the council.


I am also pleased that representation from outside the conservation area will be included on the council. As a result, a much better cross-section of views will be provided during the deliberations and work of the. council. It is important that the council has already sought to involve the community in its deliberations.

I was intrigued to hear the comments made by the honourable member for Mildura when he proposed that the recommendations on the Mallee should be referred back to the LCC because the work of the old council did not reflect a cross-section of views on that issue. That is not the case. The council is to be congratulated on the diligent manner in which it went about its work on the Mallee proposal. It was painstaking in its consultation with the Mallee community, taking into account the views of all parties and individuals interested in or affected by the proposals

The Bill provides also that the council consider the social and economic implications relating to the matters with which it is dealing. Honourable members should not assume that the government has introduced the Bill because it believes the Land Conservation Council has not thoroughly played that role in the past. The Bill will put beyond doubt the fundamental responsibility of the council to take those implications into account. I emphasise that in the work the council did on the Mallee proposal it went out of its way to consider all the social and economic aspects of the issue.

Perhaps I should place on record some other examples. One issue dealt with by the council in examining the proposal for a national park in the sunset region is broombrush harvesting. A significant amount of work was undertaken by the council prior to its reaching its recommmendation on the impact of any change to the economic status of the industry and the Mallee. The economic implications were a significant part of the work undertaken by the council on that issue.

With respect to the sensitive issue of grazing licences in the Mallee, extensive consultancy work was undertaken by the council in considering all aspects of grazing licences and the implications of any change to that arrangement. The stocking of land and the way licences were being managed were thoroughly and painstakingly examined by the council. The same can be said about cultivation licences. It was not just a case of the council taking a supervisory role on the matter. The council carefully examined all the implications of changes to cultivation licences. The Bill will ensure that, in future investigations undertaken by the Land Conservation Council, all implications will be taken into account.

It is understandable that the honourable member for Mildura should seek to use the debate to canvass the Mallee issue. I do not criticise him for that, but I criticise him for postponing the inevitable day when he and the Liberal Party will have to make a decision on the recommendations of the Land Conservation Council on the Mallee area. The National Party has clearly adopted its position, which it is pefectly entitled to do, but the Liberal Party has not come to grips with the issue. The Liberal Party has a difficult problem to resolve, not the least of which is the honourable member for Mildura himself. When the Liberal Party examines the extensive work undertaken by the council and the various social and economic implications of its recommendations, I believe it will adopt a different view from that of the National Party. Although I give the honourable member for Mildura full marks for using this debate to postpone the day of decision, the Liberal Party must face up to its responsibilities and decide on the council's proposal for the Mallee area.

The Mallee is a valuable part of Victoria's heritage and it is an area that should be protected. I certainly wish to see the council's recommendations implemented.

Mr Leigh-Have you been up there?


Mr HARROWFIELD-Yes, I know the Mallee very well. I hope the honourable member for Malvern and his colleagues will take the trouble to look closely at the area and not simply heed the calls of the honourable member for Mildura to defer a decision on the matter yet again.

I welcome the role and importance of local govenment in providing input into investigations undertaken by bodies such as the Land Conservation Council. I have always supported the involvement of local government in such forums. I am pleased that the view of the council as a bureaucratic organisation is being addressed by the Bill. The input of local government into the council's work should be applauded. The government is making a clear statement that social and economic aspects should be enshrined as a fundamental part of the processes by which the Land Conservation Council goes about its work. The council has already recognised that responsibility and has made thorough efforts to consider all implications of its work. The Bill will put that issue beyond doubt.

When the Land Conservation Council was established in 1970 to consider recommendations on the balanced use of public land in Victoria, it could not have been envisaged that it would have such a major impact. I believe the council has been a constructive influence on Crown land in this State. The runs are on the board as a result of this government and previous governments being prepared to accept the council's recommendations. The results of the council's work will remain for future generations. Many valuable natural assets have been retained for the benefit of all Victorians.

I welcome the provision to update the composition of the membership of the council. It makes it clear that the work of the council involves a wide canvassing of views and issues. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-The Act which this Bill seeks to amend-the Land Conservation Act 1970-has always had a good deal of significance for the National Party. The honourable member for Gippsland East has adequately outlined many of the issues that have been raised by the National Party since the Land Conservation Council was established in 1970.

The council has been provided with enormous resources by governments of the day to undertake its work in reviewing public land throughout the State. Basically that has been done on regional boundaries. Over the years reports have come out on various regions, including Gippsland, Gippsland South, Western Victoria, the Wimmera, the Mallee and even the Central Highlands. In the debate honourable members have referred to the work undertaken by the Land Conservation Council and to the fact that the Bill provides a change in the membership of the council. I shall return to the amendments to be proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland East.

The honourable member for Mitcham appears to give much of the credit for looking after Victoria's land assets to the Land Conservation Council. I question that assertion because my understanding of the way country Victoria is looked after does not lead me to the view that the council has be~n responsible for such protection. I suggest that many landowners and people living adjacent to Crown lands have been responsible for ensuring that many endangered species of flora and fauna have been retained and protected over the past twenty years.

I shall refer to an area of land between Ararat and Stawell, which is the upper catchment area for the Wimmera River. It is in the Landsborough district, which was clear-felled some 60 to 100 years ago. That clear-felling has resulted in soil degradation and salinity, and I hope the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth will visit the area to see it for himself.


Mr Coleman-He will not go out of the suburbs!

Mr W. D. McGRA TH-That is an interesting point. I should welcome an opportunity for the Minister to come to the area to look at the problem.

Mr McCutcheon interjected.

Mr W. D. MCGRATH-I hope the Minister will see the results of the clear-felling of that land some 60 to 100 years ago. The major responsibility for the rehabilitation of the land is being placed on the farmers who now own it. The land was clear-felled so that the timber could be used not for local purposes but for the industrial and residential heating in Melbourne. A railway line was specifically constructed from Stawell to Landsborough so the timber could be loaded and sent to Melbourne.

It will probably take $3 million or $4 million a lear over the next 20 to 30 years to fully rehabilitate that country. Is that the responsibility of the current landowners or is it more the responsibility of the whole community to bear the cost?

Magnificent programs are ongoing in the Wimmera area. For example, the Wimmera Tree Planting Group is helping farmers to come to terms with the problem. The group is plantin~ trees in 30 to 40-acre lots, fencing off the area, getting it established and then moving to other areas. That is why it will be a 20 to 30-year program. The current landowners should not bear the full responsibility of rehabilitating the land because the benefits of the clear-felling long ago were reaped by the whole community.

That example could be multiplied a number of times over throughout Victoria and Australia. We do not need the green movement ~oing over the top and telling us what to do in country Victoria. Land care and replantIng programs are well under way. One has only to go to the nursery at Wail near Dimboola to see that millions of trees and shrub seedlings are being produced each year. Approximately 90 per cent of those seedlings go to farmland throughout Victoria.

Mr McCutcheon-Give the green movement credit for that.

Mr W. D. McGRATH-Why would I give the green movement credit for that? The nursery at Wail is a government-controlled nursery and has been producing seedlings for 40 years. The nursery grows seedlings of dry-land species, but this government has nothing to do with that. The production of the nursery has increased, and that has given more opportunities to farming and local communities of ensuring that specific areas are revegetated.

Anyone in farming or who understands farming knows that trees cannot be grown everywhere; there must be a proper and sensible balance. That applies not only to private land but also to government land. I question whether government land has been properly and sensibly used over the past eight or ten years.

I cite the incident at East Gippsland where, despite the fact that the Land Conservation Council had made certain recommendations and that the timber industry strategy had been put in place in consultation with all involved, Senator Rechardson, the then Federal Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories came down from Canberra to catch a few votes. The then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, said to the Senator, "I will jump; how high do you want me to go?" The tImber industry was forced into a begging position. I wonder about the future of the industry in East Gippsland, even though I represent the other side of the State.

The same attitude was adopted after the Land Conservation Council made recommendations about the Grampians. For approximately 90 to 100 years the former Forests Commission had made decisions about various timber strategtes, ensured that


regeneration occurred and that the utilisation of the timber resource was maximised on that enormous Crown land area. However, the Land Conservation Council recommended that the entire Grampians region should be a national park. Under Labor government policy and legislation, the area became a national park, and the opportunities for grazing or logging no longer exist.

The Grampians is a magnificent area for tourists "to visit but, with proper management, there is still room for grazing and timber harvesting operations. They went on for 90 to 100 years, and I do not believe the Grampians region is any better now than it was 40 or 50 years ago or even 20 years ago when timber harvesting and grazing were allowed. The threat of rabbits and feral cats and dogs destroying the environment is greater now than it was when there were people in the business of logging or grazing.

Because the Grampians no longer has the same access tracks of the past, my greatest fear for the area is fire. Victoria has total fire ban days when the hot north winds blow. If there is an outbre~k of fire in the Grampians-lightning often brings it about-the horrific situation of access not being available in a crisis will arise. The greatest threat to the Grampians today is not whether logging or limited grazing are allowed to continue, but the outbreak of fire.

When severe north winds combine with a blaze in the Grampians the government of the day must accept responsibility for having put the legislation in place. It will not be able to say, "We extend our sympathies to those people who have been involved with fire suppression", because such a crisis could have been avoided with good planning and management practices.

The National Party is not saying we should be clear-felling, ·as in the example I mentioned some time ago. It is saying that there has been and can be proper, sensible, balanced utilisation of the Crown land in Victoria.

Farmers whose properties adjoin national parks continually stress the problems of vermin and noxious weeds. The government does not provide national park workers with the necessary resources to enable them to eradicate the vast numbers of vermin and noxious weeds which are flourishing because land is being closed. I hope we shall be able to take the Minister to the lower part of the Mallee to show him the degree to which the noxious weeds are flourishing because the owners of adjoining lands are not allowed access to the parks.

I t was encouraging to hear the honourable member for Mildura talk about the recommendations for the Mallee lands. He gave his speech today on the legislation to be proposed by the government in a few weeks out of which it made political mileage prior to the Federal election. I hope he will be able to give that same speech in his party room and get support along the lines he has taken today.


Mr W. D. McGRATH-I have been given an assurance by the honourable member for Syndal that the honourable member for Mildura will not be prevented by political sway from bringing a reasonable and sensible approach to land management in the l'Aallee area.

Members of the National Party went into the country with the O'Sullivan family, which farms the pine plantation 10 or 15 miles out of Patchewollock, and visited the property of the McArthur family which has been there for 40 years. The front page of today's Sun carried a story about that family. It is good to see the metropolitan media giving coverage to the hardships being faced by a family such as this.


If the suggested recommendations are put into legislation by the government it would deny access for grazing purposes to Crown land that is possibly being designated for national park classification. Those illustrations indicate to members of the National Party that sensible, balanced grazing in those areas is not detrimental, even though the land is fra~e. To have farmers controlling the rabbits and the noxious weeds that would otherwIse bloom provides a safeguard to the land. Those farms have been there for the last 20, 30 or even 50 years.

The government needs to listen closely to those who have knowledge of the landthe local authorities in these regions and the local members of Parliament and communities. They are not about destroying the land; they are about ensuring the land is there as a resource for everyone.

If Crown land or national parks are locked up there will be a tremendous explosion in the numbers of feral animals, whether they are goats, cats or dogs. I kid you not: they are causing tremendous damage to the natural flora and fauna. The government is not providing the resources for the departmental officers who have the responsibility of coming to terms with those problems.

The honourable member for Gippsland East will move a number of amendments concerning the membership of the Land Conservation Council. He will suggest that the member of the Land Conservation Council who is representing municipal councils should come from a country municipality. That is a sensible and logical approach simply because 99 per cent of the time the Land Conservation Council is working in country Victoria. Why should the representative on the Land Conservation Council not be a person from a country municipality?

For instance, it would not be sensible if a representative on the Melbourne Olympic Committee-where the Melbourne City Council has a direct influence-were taken off and replaced with a country municipality representative. There is no sense in that, and no-one would agree with that.

The Minister says by interjection that it is a slightly different situation. I should like the specific interest in public land to be reviewed periodically by the Land Conservation Council. Public land belongs to all Victorians. I could not agree more with the Minister, but it does annoy me considerably that a number of prominent people in the conservation movement imply that decay of land-if there is any-is caused by the inability of country people to care for it.

I ask those people-and I would welcome them-to visit the country to examine their own backyard and address the problem of emissions from city manufacturing and industrial plants. They should consider the emissions from one passenger vehicle alone. Cars crowd the freeways from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from about 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. every day. If one travels the route of the South Eastern Arterial-which is more like a car park-one can sit in one's vehicle and see just how much pollution is being released to the atmosphere. That matter is not addressed by the conservationists; one never hears them talking about such issues!

Nor is there talk of the pollution of Port Phillip Bay. It is interesting that documentaries are being shown on television that include reference to the pollution of the environment of the city and the problems that arise for areas such as Port Phillip Bay.

Dr Wells-Right on!

Mr W. D. McGRATH-The problems of pollution of the environment are particularly obvious in Sydney and Melbourne and conservationists should address those issues first. Country people can deal with their conservation problems adequately


and well if they are given the opportunity of doing so. Under various policies and legislation of this Parliament initiated by the Labor government, the opportunity of taking responsibility for land rehabilitation is being denied to country people.

A substantial case exists for additional money to be allocated to this work. It need not all be provided by the State government, as local government, local communities, and even local farmers will come in alongside. However; a financial commitment is needed from the government at both Federal and State levels so that the problems can be addressed and solved.

The honourable member for Gippsland East spoke about the need to have representatives of the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Land Protection Council on the Land Conservation Council. The Minister for Planning and Urban Growth should have no problem in accepting a nomination from the Land Protection Council as the Chairperson of the Land Protection Council, Mrs Joan Bennett, was appointed by a former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands who is now the Minister for Education.

Mr Steggall interjected.

Mr W. D. McGRA TH-I take up the interjection of the honourable member for Swan Hill as it is a reasonable comment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Delzoppo)-Order! It might be a reasonable comment but it is disorderly; interjections are disorderly.

Mr W. D. McGRATH-The Minister for Education, when Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, had the respect of her departmental officers in my region and other regions of Victoria. In recent times, the morale, confidence and commitment of departmental officers has waned because of some of the policies and directions imposed on them as well as some of the restrictions with which they have had to deal.

The amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Gippsland East regarding the nomination of a member of the Land Protection Council to the Land Conservation Council should be accepted readily by the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth.

I refer to the question of nominating to the LCC a representative of the Victorian Farmers Federation. Does the Minister deny that people whose land surrounds national parks should have a say through the Land Conservation Council in what happens in national parks? Does he deny that these people should have an input into the policies and directions that guide the Land Conservation Council when its members review the use of public land in Victoria? If the Minister denies that representation to the Victorian Farmers Federation, he will be stating that that organisation has no credibility. The National Party has considered the foreshadowed amendments to the membership provisions of the Land Conservation Council with much care, thought and logic and I hope the Minister will see their value.

I have demonstrated that problems arise in many national park areas because of the outbreak offires and the explosion in the number of feral animals in the environment. Honourable members have the opportunity of making a change in the direction ~fthe policy on the use of many Crown land areas. Some sections of Crown land could have controlled-I emphasise the word "controlled" -timber harvesting and grazing allowed on them. If it is controlled and sensibly balanced between those who have a direct responsibility for the land and the government of the day, with departmental officers overseeing these objectives, the environment will be conserved sensibly and in a balanced form for generations to come. The opportunity is here for the government to


demonstrate that it has indeed come of age on the matter of land management by accepting the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Gippsland East.

Dr WELLS (Dromana)-The Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill amends the Land Conservation Act in its membership provisions and functioning of the Land Conservation Council. The operative provisions are included in clauses 4 and 5, the former dealing with membership.

In summary, I support the government's proposed additions to the membership of the LCC but I oppose the deletions. It is my understanding that the Liberal Party will oppose those deletions in another place so that the proposed deletions of categories of membership will remain within the LCC. They represent senior positions in Victoria with defined statutory responsibilities and are of importance to the deliberations of the LCC. I see no reason for deleting those positions as no-one could argue that increasing the LCC membership from twelve to the suggested fourteen will detract from its efficient operation. As I said, the matter will be dealt with in another place.

Clause 5 is of greater import because it represents a policy decision with a continuing effect on the very basis of the functions of the Land Conservation Council. I shall spend my time dealing with clause 5, which provides that: ... after sub-section (2) insert-

"(2A) In making a recommendation as to land use the Council shall have regard to the social and economic implications relevant to the recommendation.".

I applaud the proposal. As honourable members will recall, the Land Conservation Council was a creation some years ago of a previous Liberal government. I think it is fair to say that the LCC has enjoyed bipartisan support since that time. Proposed subsection (2A) reflects what has been the policy for a considerable time of both parties on the Opposition benches. Certainly it has been a policy of the Liberal Party to ensure that the LCC has regard to the social and economIC implications of its recommendations. As a relatively new member to this House, of some five years standing, I find it strange that the LCC did not operate on such a basis from its inception. The absence of such a provision is an illustration of the fairly primitive stage we are at in Australia in planning matters. There is no doubt that Australia is not behind the rest of the world in terms of coming to grips with our natural world, on the one hand, and urbanisation, on the other hand.

I congratulate the Cain government for accepting the proposal in proposed section 5 (2A). I am delighted that something the Opposition has supported for so long has been accepted by the other side and will now become part of the law of Victoria. It is very important because it is a landmark change. It changes entirely the function of the Land Conservation Council.

I am not suggesting that in the past the council has not paid attention to economic and social considerations, but it has not been required by statute to give them the weight it will now have to do, and to report on them in detail to justify, as part of its recommendations, that these aspects have been considered in both the short and the long term.

The science of managing planet Earth, as I have said, is primitive and has been more like tribal battles to date, including in Victoria. We have had power blocs, with one posed against the other, and, I presume it is fair to say, in many ways succeeding by manipulating public support and public pressure, especially around election time. It comes down to groups opposed to the government of the day pressing and to the government giving ground. We have had this primitive tribal business occurring;


resulting in decisions on matters that are too important for that to be the modus operandi.

There is no question that we have to look after our economy so that we may eat and live. We have to ensure we pass on an economy to our children and grandchildren that is suitable for them. In recent years it has become very clear that we also must preserve the natural world at least to the standard it was when we obtained it, and pass it on in at least that form.

There is a concept abroad at the moment that the totality of what we pass onto following ~enerations must be at least equal to what we obtained in our time. In other words, it IS saying we mut not lead to a net loss in the totality of human resources during our time. That convention has restrictions in that there may be some absolutes in the equation, such as if one destroys prime farmland, for example; probably, it has gone for ever, and certainly, it has gone in practical terms. There may be absolutes like destroying a coastline; It will be gone for ever.

In the total make-up of economy, society, and the natural world one must have a balance, and because that balance is so complex it must be based on far better intellectual work than we have done thus far. It is not good enough for people from farming districts to say, "You are not giving us a fair go". The government of the day should not be able to proceed until it can demonstrate in form, facts, and figures that all sectors have been considered in detail, and the best possible decision overall has been made. Sometimes that may mean opting to preserve farmland at any cost against urbanisation.

At other times it may mean protecting a valley from economic destruction-by either primary or secondary industry-because that valley must be protected at any cost. We have not yet had a scientifically and intellectually acceptable system in which to consider these issues. I suggest that proposed section 5 (2A) has the potential to open the floodgates to bring this about. Therefore, I am extremely enthusiastic about it.

However, in the proposition is a sleeper which is of equal importance. It is not only a question of creating a structure whereby responsible authorities are obliged by statute to examine, for example, the economic effects of a system to which they make suggestions for change, but also this proposal-and I direct my comments to the responsible Minister-carries with it a responsibility for the Lee to attempt in economic and financial terms to quantify the value of the other side of the equation, and to quantify the value of the natural resources-not only the economic resources but also the natural resources.

The great deficiency in the debate raging over the past ten years about the natural world versus the commercial world can be best illustrated in this way: when a developer goes to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and says, "I wish to undertake a $250 million development in such-and-such a place, and this will have these benefits for the community", it is fairly easy for human beings who have a knowledge of the area to say, "$250 million means this and that, and other things in the short term and the long term".

When the other side of the equation says, "You should not wipe out that coastline", that is important and it is left at that. It is difficult for administrators and politicians to work out what that really means. The simplest differentiation means that in absolute terms it may mean something is genuinely priceless. In that case, the $250 million development should be swept aside or modified, if possible, so as not to destroy the natural resource.


Yet, it may be a less valuable natural resource and it is said, "It is worth less than that; we will strike a different balance for that reason". It is necessary today for society, for example, not only to value things in terms of a high-quality water supply that comes from a natural resource but also society must have some recognition of the effects on the sanity and happiness of the people who use-even if only by looking at-the natural resource. That is a difficult area and one where we do not have answers at this stage.

I suggest to the government that that is the second parameter of the proposal it is putting. Now there is a responsibility upon the council to value all parts of the equation. The economic one will be much easier; the non-economic one more difficult, but the council will have to grapple with it, and certainly I will raise that requirement in this place on appropriate occasions.

In terms of the economic aspects, it is important that we have an idea of the effect on productivity, economics, and society in the area concerned. The council now should be required to arrive at some actual quantum of money that may be lost if some change is made to protect that natural area. Recently, statements have been made that environmental conservation work to date has not yet cost Western societies very much. That is a defensible statement. That is not likely to be the case if we continue to dally in some areas and not look at future damage to the globe.

It is equally likely that we can ameliorate those costs if we take action sooner rather than later. We need some idea of the cost of environmental protection. I think it is well known in this place that I have a personal interest as a committed conservationist to matters such as this. In the past, I have also had a strong vested interest as a farmer. Therefore, I bring my experience from both sides of the fence into my contribution to the debate; I always try to maintain that balance in my comments.

The economic assessment involves not only the effect on producers-and the House has heard about that today, by way of illustration, in the Mallee-but also the effect upon towns, including the recycling of the money in those areas; it involves the effect upon Victoria with, for example, people being forced to a capital city for work at a much higher cost for facilities.

It involves an effect upon Australia through welfare payments if people lose their jobs and cannot get jobs thereafter. The experience of the council will grow as it grapples with those areas. It is necessary through the council's proposals to the ~overnment to have clear proposals to offset such losses so far as the local community IS concerned.

This proposal goes further, and when the council looks at some proposal in economic and social terms, it is incumbent upon it to see what else may be done in that area. If one creates a national park one may obtain extra tourism from it. Honourable members hear that all too often; often it is a glib phrase without any quantification.

For example, I seriously doubt the effect of extra tourism in the Mallee for the first decade of any park. We need to know something about that. It may be that if we are to move to change the mana~ement of an area, for management purposes it may be possible to undertake other thIngs-some reforestation, and maybe running marsupials in the area. It is about time the community overcame the emotional hang-up that marsupials are different. Marsupials are part of the system of biological management as are herbivores.

Other aspects of the matter need examining. We must focus on the costs of such strategies. It is important to take up the statements of conservationists who say, "Look, if you do this you will stop soil erosion". Let us test that, and discover what it means in terms of reducing soil loss and reducing the costs involved both in the short


term and the long term. One of the properties to be included in the new Mallee national park has been grossly damaged by sheet erosion.

I have travelled through the Mallee region with Parliamentary committees and at other times, and I have been over the properties referred to by previous speakers. The managers of one of those properties were warned some years ago to sharpen their footwork, but they did not. As a responsible Victorian one cannot allow that situation to continue. Something must be done to ensure that that area of Victoria is better preserved than it is at present.

There is another sleeper in this proposition which is more removed but which must be taken on board if we are to take the final step forward in this scientific assessment of proposals to manage land in Victoria, and it is something the Opposition has been fla~ng for as long as I have been a member of Parliament. I commend the government for Its conservation work and for the number of State and national parks it has created, following the tradition of the former Premier of Victoria, Sir Rupert Hamer. But both opposition parties have criticised the Jovernment for not putting its money where its mouth is-and especially for not looking after the areas it has closed up.

Such land is abused by feral animals and overrun by weeds and is likely to be destroyed by fire. If we are to adopt a scientific approach to the assessment of environmental and conservation proposals, the government is obliged to produce specific guarantees showing that it can afford what it proposes to do with the land. It is not good enough to lock up land and leave it to deteriorate. Progress may have been made in some areas, but others have gone backwards. Much of the Mallee land is currently under public ownership. It could be left in the state it is in under the present system until a future time.

Under the Bill the Land Conservation Council should be obliged to include in the scientific assessment of its conservation proposals the question of whether it is possible to develop new systems of land management. Large dry areas of land are vulnerable to damage, and it is very difficult to manage them. It is unlikely that the government will provide enough officers to look after such land; nor is it likely to provide enough money to control the spread of rabbits. There is a major problem with rabbits in the Mallee, and kangaroos are causing problems in the Hattah-Kulkyne National Parkneither of which has been addressed.

Shared management systems may be able to be devised so that in special areas responsibility can be diVIded between private enterprise and the government. Some properties in the Mallee are well managed but will not be included in the proposed new park; and others that are poorly mana~ed will be included. On one of the wellmanaged properties, one-third of the land IS taken out of production at one timeand there are other systems of management that could be introduced. If we are to adopt scientific assessments of land management all such options must be examined in a non-political atmosphere. I have referred generally to the problems caused by government control of land when insufficient money is made available. In the Mallee region trouble is likely to be caused by fire, uncontrolled weeds and pests such as rabbits. I have also referred to the possibility of systems of shared management as a way of overcoming these problems.

Finally, to use a glorious, old Australian phrase, if the government is fair dinkum about the provisions of the Land Conservation (Amendment) Bill, it should delay the introduction of the Mallee national park Bill and subject the provisions of that Bill to a thorough examination and analysis by the Land Conservation Council. We should have as much information as possible, which would permit us to say to the Parliamentary representatives of those areas and to farmers and others who will be affected by the creation of the new national park: "Here is the information on which a


decision has been made by the government to proceed with the creation of a new national park".

Although I have not discussed this suggestion with my colle~es and so have no authority from my party to bring this forward, I have flagged In the Liberal Party room that I shall recommend that the Opposition does not support the creation of a new Mallee national park until the project has been analysed based on the criteria established by the government-the economic and social criteria to which the Bill refers and about which I have spoken.

Mr Steaall-Whatever that means!

Dr WELLS-It means working out a more scientific approach to an analysis of the proposals-and then doing the job. If that means that the creation of the national park is delayed for six or twelve months, the exercise will nevertheless be a valuable and correct step.

If the government is fair dinkum it will not introduce the prot><>sed Mallee national park Bill until it has properly done its homework. If the Bill is Introduced I hope the opposition parties will delay it in another place until we can complete what would be the most SCIentific analysis of such a proposal to have come throu$h Parliament since I have been a member of it. Not only would that be an important SCIentific contribution to settling such an issue, but also it would be a flagship for future, rational, scientific, defensible and comprehensive decision-making in matters concerned with managing natural Victoria.

Mrs GARBUTT (Greensborough)-I am pleased to sup-port the Bill, which will make important changes to the Land Conservation Councll. The many considerable achievements of the LCC have served the State well, and it is an agency of which all Victorians can be proud. Some 98 per cent of its recommendations have been accepted, which is a commendable record, and by and large its recommendations have received bipartisan support.

The reasons for its success lie in its thorough method of investigation, its comprehensive reports and its careful process of consultation, as well as the wide range of interests reflected by its membership. Those features of the council will be further strengthened by the measures contained in the Bill.

Among the proposed changes is the strengthening and broadening of the LCCs representation. The provisions in the Bill will add balance to the membership of the council. Local councils should be represented on the LCC, and proposed new section 3 (1) (h) as contained in clause 4 provides:

U(h) one person, being a member ofa municipal council, appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for local government;"

The clause provides for a broad choice among councillors in Victoria. Councillors will add the third tier of government to the Land Conservation Council.

The second change in the representation on the council is the appointment of a representative from the planning and environment Ministry, bringing to the LCC an important agency of the government, which will broaden and balance the council.

Proposed section 5 (2A) as contained in clause 5 of the Bill states: U(2A) In making a recommendation as to land use the Council shall have regard to the social and

economic implications relevent to the recommendation ....

That provision formalises the requirement for the council to take into account the social and economic implications of its land use recommendations. It does not imply that such consideration does not already happen; clearly and demonstrably it does.


I turn to the council's most recent reports. A study was carried out into East Gippsland and extensive community consultation took place. Public meetings were held, for example, in Orbost and other areas, and economic and social implications were taken into account. The council spent $60 000 examining the social and economic implications of developments in the timber industry. It investigated the reduction in sustainable yield in the timber industry as well as the social and economic impact on the region.

The council made recommendations on additional parks and examined the economic and social implications such parks would have on employment and the economy of the area. The figures are contained in the report for anyone who wishes to read it.

I turn to the Mallee. The council visited the Mallee region and spent $70000 consulting people and examining the social and economic impacts in the area. As the honourable member for Mildura said, public meetings were held and every grazier and lessee was spoken to on several occasions. The clause spells out clearly that social and economic impact will be taken into account. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid misleading criticism, such as that of the honourable member for Mildura who alleged that consultation did not take place, but in his contribution to the debate he let it slip that it did take place.

After the economic and social impacts were taken into account, the proposals were varied. The first proposal was to phase out all grazing. After consultation and consideration the final recommendations were changed to allow grazing to continue outside parks under new management strategies.

The Land Conservation Council listened to the views of many people and changed its proposals, but it must be spelled out clearly that that is what happened so that nobody will make misleading comments in claiming that consultation did not take place. The Bill will strengthen the work undertaken by the LCC and will address those public criticisms, misleading as they were, and encourage greater public confidence in the council. I support and welcome the Bill.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-I shall put the other side of the argument from what honourable members have just heard from the honourable member for Greensborough. It was interesting to hear the honourable member speaking in glowing terms of the consultation that was carried out by the Land Conservation Council. I shall give a number of examples of the problems that have occurred in my area, which comes under the Mallee review that the LCC has just completed.

The review covered not only the Mallee lands for the national parks, but it also took into account the Leaghur State Forest near Boort and areas along the River Murray. There was a probl~m with Beveridge Island, an island in the River Murray, which is well known to local people. There was a High Court case some years ago as to where the border between New South Wales and Victoria lay. After investigations by the LCC the lessee of the island was informed that the land had been devastated by the clearing of trees since white man had arrived and denuded the area.

However, many of the River Murray areas were devoid of trees up until the 1920s. It is only since that time that trees have grown, except for the red gum forest areas that are famous along the River Murray, of which we are proud, and which are protected. Therefore, there were no trees on Beveridge Island before the 1920s. When the white man arrived he interfered with the soils-as happened along the River Murray-and trees began to grow. The LCC was informed that trees had not been cleared from the island and that the only trees there have grown since the 1920s.


Another area of concern was south of Lake Boga. An interim report of the council stated that the area was swamp land. The leassee was concerned because the designated swamp land was on a hill.

A multitude of small pieces of misleading information have found their way into these reports. As the reports of the Land Conservation Council cover all areas of public land, of course the council will make mistakes-and it does. It is hoped that those mistakes have been picked up. However, it is most annoying to note the adamant attitude of the people who conduct those investigations when one knows mistakes have been made. I know members of the government party will scour the reports of the discussions and debate on this matter to gauge what people are thinking about the Land Conservation Council's reports. I note that the next report is due to be tabled in Parliament soon.

I direct to the government's attention the current arrangements for leased lands, which are the main areas of concern. The public land leasing arrangements were established for a purpose: to provide a barrier between the public lands, which will now be known as national parks-it does not really matter what they are called because they are all areas of public land in the Mallee, which have always been in existence and which no-one wants to change in any way, shape or form-and private farming properties. In the early part of this century our forefathers made those arrangements to create a fringe around the public lands and the wheatlands of the Mallee. That fringe area is subject to the lease controls. An examination of the lease papers reveals that the terms of the leases are very strong. They are written in such a way as to allow the departments responsible for conservation, forests and lands to have total control, if they so desire, over the occupants of the leased land.

In the old days the object of the exercise was-as it should still be today-that the land would be managed under the lease arrangements by the farmers, graziers or whoever held the leases, under the influence and control of the conservation, forests and lands departments.

Creating a barrier between the public lands and farmlands and providing leases is the ideal way to ensure the management of those lands. The direction in which the LCCs recommendations for land management are heading is wrong. The reason for the leased land being on the outer fringe of public lands is clear, and everybody understands it: it is there to allow for management of the land and as a buffer between the farmlands of the Mallee and the national park lands.

I hope the government will use commonsense in this matter and that it will genuinely consider the concerns expressed by the people involved and by honourable members. I understand that the appointment of the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services to the conservation and environment portfolio will probably mean more of a confrontationist situation than existed previously, but I hope the Minister will give some consideration to the people in the Mallee as well as to the national park lands. The suggestion I am making is that it will be much more beneficial to the national park to have leased land surrounding it than to absorb those leased lands into the national park itself, leaving just a straight division between farmland and national parkland.

The government knows full well that it does not and will not have the money to be able to manage that land in the way it should be managed. The government also knows that the lockup mentality that has been displayed in previous debates on land use will not work, because times have changed in the past 150 years. The main change has related to the problems created by rabbits, cats and other vermin, and other factors that are making an absolute mess of many areas of the Mallee.


I put it to the Land Conservation Council-and, in the first instance, to the government-that the best way to manage that land is to lease it to people, who will operate under the terms of the lease. That is the situation that now exists. I suggest the departmental offices in the area have not had the resources to properly manage, control or supervise the leases that have been available. However, it is not a bad way to manage the land, and it is certainly more economical for the government to have the land managed in that way. The leases enable the management of the land to take place in any way the government wishes. However, the assumption that locking up the land will solve all the problems that the people perceive to exist in the Mallee area is false. It is not a fair and reasonable approach.

Unfortunately, when the LCCs new report is tabled in Parliament, it will be used as a political football, and consideration of the actual use and management of the land will be secondary to the political benefit that the government believes it may be able to achieve. I suppose that is a fact of life-there will always be a political approach to these decisions. The argument of land management as against political support from the major areas of the metropolitan area is difficult to understand for those who live in the country. It is difficult to get the message to city people that it is country people who are first and foremost involved in the management of land and soils, control of vermin, and ensuring that the productive life of public as well as private land is enhanced and maintained in the best way possible. City people do not understand that. The media is playing a lovely headkick run to ensure that the emotion that has been built up is further compounded. All this makes it very difficult to have reasonable discussions on these sorts of propositions at a political level.

Under the structure that has developed over the past few years the Land Conservation Council has adopted more of a confrontationist approach to many people in country Victoria because of the political atmosphere in which it operates and the direction and policies being followed by the government. I shall mention, as an example, the Leaghur State Forest-which is mentioned in the LCCs report on the Mallee-which is just north of Boort and at the bottom part of the area covered by the latest review.

The first report on the creation of a State park recommended a banning of all grazing, hunting and shooting. A meeting of departmental officers and representatives of local government and the Victorian Farmers Federation was held, at which it was suggested that the forest should not be locked up. Conservation managers should be able to use whatever means are necessary for the best management of the land. For instance, after a series of good years it mIght be necessary to clean out the forest and grazin~ would be the best means of doing that. It is also possible that wild pigs might breed In the forest and that eventually would need to be controlled. My point is that restrictions and bans should not be included in reports; those matters should be left to the departmental managers of the parks. I am pleased to say that those restrictions were dropped from the final report and the decision about the management of the forests was left to the departmental manager.

That same argument should apply to the Mallee parks area. If the government is sincere in looking after wilderness areas and huge tracts of public land, it will ensure that conservation managers in the area have the means by which to most appropriately look after that area. The department has enormous control over the lease agreements with farmers in the Mallee area, and departmental officers have the expertise to work with leaseholders on fringe lands to maintain a balanced use of the land.

Clause 5 relates to the social and economic implications relevant to a recommendation. I am not sure how the government will make a judgment on that. Perhaps it is there merely for window-dressing or perhaps the government is actually sincere about it. Eventually we will be able to judge for ourselves whether the government is sincere. I would have hoped, in all the work the Land Conservation


Council has already done in Victoria over the years, that social and economic implications would have been considered.

During the rather immature debate on this issue over the past five years in this place emotion has run riot and the question of the management of public lands has not been of much consequence to government members. The result is a poor understanding of what is happening to public lands in the country. One must remember that 75 per cent of Victorians live in the small area of Melbourne and the remaining 25 per cent live throughout the whole area of the rest of the State. As a result, politics becomes rather obvious and country members of Parliament continually fight to keep the government direction on line with what is achievable and of benefit to the people with the use of public land. I hope the debate today is the start of a more mature attitude towards the work of the Land Conservation Council and its recommendations to the government.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Urban Growth)-I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for their contributions. There have been some eight speakers in three and a half hours of debate on what I thOUght was a small Bill to deal with membership of the Land Conservation Council and its consideration of social and economic implications. We have had a Cook's tour of various honourable member's views of the Land Conservation Council and an assessment of its performance. Liberal Party members gave views about its origins and mentioned that it was the Liberal Party that brought in the original legislation.

Basically there was a recognition that the Land Conservation Council has made a significant contribution to the analysis and determination of land use and the management of and responsibility for public lands in this State. The Bill addresses two matters: who should be on the Land Conservation Council and the adding of social and economic factors to the matters to be considered by the LCC.

I shall deal briefly with the second matter first; various speakers made reference to it. The honourable member for Mildura, because of his interest in the Mallee study, strongly asserted that economic and social factors were not taken into account in the course of that study. That is not true and, as the honourable member for Greensborough said, $70000 was spent by the LCC in gathering social and economic information as part of its consideration of the activities of grazing and broombrush harvesting and cultivation licences and the effect of maintaining or discounting them.

Another assertion was that the LCC has failed in its recommendations to address management, especially of Mallee areas. There can be a wide variety of opinions on how land should be managed, and the honourable member for Swan Hill made some interesting observations about that. Nevertheless, it is not true to say that the council has failed in its report to address the management problems, even if they are not addressed in the way the honourable member for Swan Hill might consider satisfactory.

The honourable member for Gippsland East has attacked the Land Conservation Council more strongly than any other honourable member who has participated in the debate. He has implied that it would be better if the council did not exist. The government does not agree with the National Party's proposed amendments.

The Land Conservation Council has thirteen members, including the chairman. Its representatives comprise members of government departments with skills and particular areas of responsibility plus four representatives who come from specified areas of industry and commerce, conservation, primary industry-that means agriculture-and a representative from the Conservation Council of Victoria. The council has eight public servant representatives and four non-government representatives. The recent reorganisation of departments and Ministries means that five of the government representatives are from the old Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands.


The previous Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, after discussions with various organisations, thought it was appro~riate that a representative of local government be appointed to the council. The council has many dealings with local government, as the honourable member for Gippsland East indicated, and it was thought that a person from local government would provide a different perspective and understand better local government concerns. The question of whether the person with local government experience should be from country Victoria or metropolitan Melbourne is not critical, but it is important that a person be appointed to the council who understands the concerns of local government, its responsibilities and its arguments.

The inquiries and responsibilities of the Land Conservation Council spread throughout the whole of Victoria and include the timber industry, agricultural industries and areas such as the Mallee, where it is proposed to have a national park. It is appropriate that the local government representative on the Land Conservation Council should understand the arguments and submissions put by a broad range of local governments. I do not believe there is any alJument with that proposal and the correspondence that was received by the then MinIster for Conservation, Forests and Lands demonstrates that that appointment will be an important addition to the operation of the Land Conservation Council.

The government's proposed amendments also include some housekeeping amendments that will change the departmental representatives on the Land Conservation Council. It is proposed that the Director-General of Planning and Urban Growth be appointed to the council instead of the intended appointee prior to the changes of MInistry, the Secretary for Planning and Environment.

Mr Steggall-Who is handling the Bill?

Mr McCUTCHEON-I am handling the Bill and I am the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth. It is proposed also that the representatives from the old Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands who are currently on the council should be reduced from five to four members. That provision was canvassed widely and is supported.

Those two amendments will be important to the operation of the Land Conservation Council. The government's arguments against the National Party's proposed amendments are not who should be on the council, but how those people are deployed.



Clause 1

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-Clause 1 states: The purpose of this Act is to amend the Land Conservation Act 1970 with respect to the membership

and functions of the Land Conservation Council.

The Chamber has been debating this Bill for some time, but just prior to the committal of the Bill it became apparent that the responsibility for the proposed legislation is with the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth. The National Party was under the misapprehension that the administration of the Land Conservation Council would be under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Conservation and Environment. The Committee has not had any guidance about that because the government has not taken honourable members Into its confidence.

I do not believe one of the functions of the LCC is to harass people living in rural areas. It is extraordinary, if one happens to live in a part of the State such as Gippsland


East, to find that there is a constant round of inquiries going on-the East Gippsland area study, the alpine study and the Gippsland Lakes and hinterland study have come one after the other. Now we are to have a wilderness investigation by the LCC and so the whole thing will go into the melting pot. We are also to have a heritage rivers investigation. Some people are almost permanently engaged in writing submissions.

The Parliament has given the government a right to harass the people of this State. I do not believe the LCC is doing the right thing.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland East are pertinent. As I understand the Ministerial responsibility that resulted from the reallocation of portfolios on Monday, the Land Conservation Council is in limbo.

Mr Roper-No, it is not.

Mr COLEMAN-It was not clear until recently where the administration of the LCC rests. It would be reasonable for that matter to be clarified further by the Minister during his comments.

Legitimate questions were raised by the honourable member for Gippsland East as to the wilderness study. A proposal is now on public display to attract public comment and at the same time legislation on the Mallee park is imminent. We have had management plans for the Alpine National Park on public display to attract submissions. Management plans for East Gippsland parks have been on public display and submissions have been sought.

The recommendations that are sought for the wilderness study are a signal that any conclusion drawn on anyone of those other matters will have to be resubmitted for further public comment. I suggest to the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth, if he is the Minister who will be handling the LCC issues, that he ought to terminate the inquiries on the Mallee, the Alpine National Park and East Gippsland parks until he has resolved the question of the wilderness.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-On a point of order, I can understand the desire of the honourable member for Syndal to generate further debate on the LeC, after the completion of the second-reading debate, but ifhe examines clause 1--

Mr Coleman-Are you reading it carefully?

Mr ROPER-Indeed I am reading it carefully. Clause 1 deals with the membership and functions which then relate to clause 5, which adds social and economic implications to the council's functions. It is a fairly restricted debate, particularly as there was such a broad-ranging debate on the second reading of the Bill.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-On the point of order, Mr Chairman, the Leader of the House is right: the clause refers to the functions and the amendment in clause 5 deals with the social and economic implications, but the comments I make are directly related to the issue of social and economic implications. In this context I emphasise the social implications.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! I uphold the point of order. I believe clause 1 is restricted. The honourable member for Syndal was going into detail and straying from the purpose of the clause. I ask him to come back to clause 1.

Mr COLEMAN-I put it to the Minister that the implications of the wilderness inquiry ought to be considered and finalised before the other matters are resolved. I hope he will consider that matter because currently he is raising people's expectations about the matter. As a result they will be disappointed if their expectations of the


outcome of the current inquiries are abrogated by the recommendations and final resolution of the wilderness study.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 2 and 3.

Cause 4

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Urban Growth)-I move: I. Clause 4, line 5, omit "Secretary for Planning and Environment" and insert "Director-General of

Planning and Urban Growth".

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Urban Growth)-I move: 2. Clause 4, lines 7 and 8, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert-

'(ii) for paragraph (e) substitute-

"(e) the Chief Administrator of the Administrative Unit specified in Column One of Schedule Two of the Public Service Act 1974 and called "Department of Conservation and Environment" (or the successor ofthat Unit) or his or her nominee;"; and'.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr EV ANS (Gippsland East)-I move: I. Clause 4, lines 9 to 13, omit sub-paragraph (Hi) and insert

'(iii) for paragraph (h) substitute-

"(h) one person, being a member of a municipal council whose municipal district lies wholly or partly outside the metropolis (as defined in the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board o/Works Act 1958), appointed by the Governor in Council-

(i) from a panel of three names submitted by the Municipal Association of Victoria; or (ii) if such a panel of names is not submitted within two months of receipt ofa written request

from the Minister on the recommendation of the Minister;

(ha) one person appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Land Protection Council or, if such a recommendation is not made within two months of receipt ofa written request from the Minister, on the recommendation of the Minister;"; and

(iv) in paragraph U), after "Governor in Council" insert "on the recommendation of the Victorian Farmers Federation or, if such a recommendation is not made within two months after receipt of a written request from the Minister, on the recommendation of the Minister"; and

(v) in paragraph (k), for "two persons" substitute "one person"; and

(b) in sub-section (3), before "(4)" substitute "(3A)"; and'.

The amendment provides for a change to the membership of the LCC to a minor degree. Subparagraph (iii) provides for the municipal representative to be from a municipality outside the metropolitan area. As I said earlier, the proposed legislation is specifically restricted to public land in shires and, therefore, I believe it is only reasonable that one of the representatives on the body should be a member of a shire council. Although the amendment does not confine membership to that extent, at least the member w.ould be from a country municipality.

I cannot ignore the comments made by the Minister a few minutes ago when he implied that he wants the member to be a person who knows the State from one end to the other and that that member would have to be someone from Melbourne and not from the country. The implication was that, if one is from the country, one must be intellectually weak and that only intelligent persons live in the city. He said that the member could not be from the country because the person would have to understand the whole of the State. Those were the Minister's words and he cannot back down from that position. The Minister's attitude is disgraceful but it does not


surprise me to hear him say that, because it is obvious that that is the government's attitude. Again, subparagraph (iii) suggests that the municipal representative should be from a rural council.

The second part of my amendment proposes that a person should be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Land Protection Council. That body has been established by the government to advise it on land protection issues.

I suggest it is wrong for two discrete organisations-one looking after the management of public land and the other the management of private land-to be advising the government because the management of the two areas is intimately tied together. It is important for the Land Conservation Council to have as one of its members a person concerned with the management of private land that is adjacent to or close to public land. Such people have a significant amount of knowledge to offer a body of this kind.

In many cases the declaration of an area as a national park can have serious implications for people who own land adjoining that park. A constituent of mine living at Bendoc, very close to the famous Errinundra Plateau, has had his whole future completely devastated because the public land adjoining his has been declared a national park.

Mr Baker-Rubbish!

Mr EV ANS-It is not rubbish. If the honourable member for Sunshine wants some details, I shall be happy to provide them to him.

Mr Steggall-Take him up there!

Mr EVANS-We have enought feral people up there already; we do not want any more! The controls covering buffer areas around national parks are completely destroying a project this young man and his partner had in mind when they originally purchased the property. Controls have been imposed on the way they manage their property but people living on properties away from national parks hav~ no controls placed on them.

In addition, the ever-increasing encroachment of native animals from the government's national parks create further problems for private landowners. Plagues of kangaroos, the problems of bush fires and so on will continue to create difficulties for future generations. The people living in areas adjoining national parks have to put up with the consequences; not the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth who is safe and sound in his urban environment where he is completely isolated and immune from the effects of his decisions. My amendment is for a person to be appointed on the recommendation of the Land Protection Council, which is a government body responsible to the Minister. I suggest it is a fair and reasonable proposition.

The next part of my amendment proposes that a representative of the Victorian Farmers Federation be appointed a member of the Land Conservation Council. It is interesting that in his earlier remarks the Minister said he believed the theme of the amendment was designed to wreck or destroy the Land Conservation Council. I fail to understand how a municipal representative, a member from the government's own Land Protection Council, and a member nominated by the Victorian Farmers Federation-only three out of a total of twelve members-can wreck the council. Apparently the Minister'S mentality is that these people would all come from the country and, therefore, would not be concerned about the whole State. The Minister believes that no-one from the country would express concern for the environment and that they would be out to destroy the council.


The final part of my amendment would reduce the representation on the council by one.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! It is a fascinating conversation across the Chamber, but the honourable member for Gippsland East has the call.

Mr EV ANS-I have made clear in this debate and on numerous occasions what I think of the Land Conservation Council. It is unfortunate that the original concept of the council, being a worthwhile and valuable body, has had its objectives perverted so that the council's main aims now are not conservation but political issues. There is no doubt that the council has been used for political purposes and is promoting idiotic ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny from people who know something about country Victoria, people with some knowledge of nature and experience or training in forest management. The council has done a grave disservice to future generations.

If the council were prepared to devote its activities to fighting a battle against the wastage of resources, such as taking on the Age newspaper and insisting that people should have to pay $2.50 for Saturday's Age, which is the cost of the newsprint, it would have some credibility.

Mr Delzoppo-Who reads Saturday's Age?

Mr EV ANS-That is not the point. In every edition of Saturday's Age in this cityI do not know how many copies are printed-there is $2.50 worth of newsprint. I suggest that all newspapers should charge at least the value of the newsprint; otherwise they are misallocating our scarce resources.

Mr Steggall-It is a hidden subsidy!

Mr EV ANS-Yes, they are using advertising to subsidise the cost of newsprint and wasting a valuable resource. Victorians should not be cutting down trees so that newspapers such as the Saturday Age can waste so much newsprint.

Mr Gavin-Do you want any newspapers at all?

Mr EV ANS-I am just putting forward the view the Land Conservation Council should be arguing if it is fair dinkum. I am not arguing about whether we should be cutting down trees. I have not tied myself to a tree or kissed a tree to show how much I love it. That is an example of the idiotic action that led to the confrontation in East Gippsland a few months ago.

These problems have arisen because Victoria does not have a body constituted by people with a broad enough range of opinion to be able to fully understand what they are doing. The council is responding to publicity that comes from sources such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is absolutely outrageous the way the ABC keeps promoting the cause of greenies all the time. I do not blame city people because they have no other means of finding out the truth for themselves. People in the city have these views thrust down their throats time and again. The Land Conservation Council reacts because that appears to be the popular opinion.

It is like letting the barrackers run the football team. One does not let the barrackers decide where the players should be placed on the field. Why should the barrackers decide how Victoria manages its forests? It is a nonsense. It is crazy.

People have a right to express their views, but the official body appointed by the government has the responsibility to analyse those views and to take action. The current process is responsible for handing onto future generations huge areas of rotten white ant-ridden decaying old trees. We are not giving them the forests they will need


for the future. We are passing on a heap of rotten old trees. I am sure my grandchildren will not thank me for that.

Mr Baker interjected.

Mr EV ANS-And I am sure any grandchildren of the honourable member for Sunshine would not thank him. For goodness' sake, the government should look at what it is doing and try to use some commonsense. It is there for anyone to see, but some of the ratbags in the government could not see beyond the ends of their noses. Members of the government should ask a person trained in forestry, and I guarantee that he or she will agree essentially with what I am saying. I have not found one yet who has said, "No, you are wrong; I disagree with your point of view". Surely that is what the Land Conservation Council should be dOIng. The reason it is not is because it is not properly balanced. The amendment I have moved seeks to address that situation and to include on the council country people who spend their lifetimes dealing with nature.

The Department of Conservation and Environment is dealing with forests, the full cycle of which will not be completed for 150 to 200 years. However, the rules are being changed every ten years. How absurd can the government be? How can a forest be preserved for 150 or 200 years if the rules are changed every ten years? Surely Parliament has enough intelligent people within it to understand that! As surely as I stand here, we are passing on to future generations a legacy of decaying, rotting, white ant-ridden old trees.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The amendment put forward by the honourable member for Gippsland East is based on a supportable proposition. Clearly, from what the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth has said the Bill cannot meet the requirements of the Land Conservation Council. The Bill provides that a municipal representative on the council will be nominated by the Minister for Local Government. The honourable member for Gippsland East has argued-and the Opposition agrees-that if there is to be a municipal representative, that person should be taken from a municipality that has a rural base.

I shall quote a section of a letter I received from the Victorian National Parks Association Inc., which states:

The VNPA firmly believes that the municipal representative should be chosen from a panel of names, submitted by the Municipal Association of Victoria to the Minister for Planning and Environment, as Minister responsible for the Lee, not as in the proposed Bill, one name to be submitted by the Minister for Local Government. We believe this is totally inappropriate and unsatisfactory and see no reason why the system which has been in effect for the conservation representatives on the Lee according to the Act. VNPA recommends that the municipal representative should be a municipal councillor.

That association is also critical of the Bill. It believes the municipal representative should not be nominated by the Minister for Local Government but by the organisation that represents local government. I add to that that the nomination should be from a council in the rural area.

The shadow Minister for planning and environment is the honourable member for East Yarra Province in the other place, the Honourable M. A. Birrell. As I said during the second-reading debate, the Opposition seeks to have some discussions with the Minister when the Bill is between here and another place. It is not the desire of the Opposition to frustrate the passage of the Bill, but this matter is represented for the Opposition by an honourable member in the other place.

I reiterate the comments made by the honourable member for Dromana. The Opposition supports an increase in the number of representatives on the Land Conservation Council, particularly to retain the input from areas that were originally


contemplated in the structure of the council. The letter from the Victorian National Parks Association further states:

I wish to present the VNPA position on the LCC amendment Bill. The VNPA does not support changes to the composition of the LCe. The VNP A believes that a reduction in the five members of DCFL is unwarranted. The five key disciplines within DCFL should be represented-

wildlife management, including fisheries;

plant ecology and habitat protection;

national park and conservation reserve management-and other related public land administration;

forestry; and

land degradation-vermin and noxious weed control and soil conservation.

The Bill seeks to remove from the council the Director of Land Protection and the Director of Fisheries, but the Opposition believes those two officers have a legitimate role to play. To that extent, the Opposition will seek to retain those positions on the council.

The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland East seeks to have representation on the council from the Land Protection Council and the Victorian Farmers Federation as well as to reduce from two to one the number of representatives from the Conservation Council of Victoria. The Opposition is in a dilemma about those issues. It is not my prerogative to deal with them, and although the Opposition wants to support the basic proposition in the amendment, given the way it is presented, it is unable to support the amendment.'

Mr McCUTCHEON (Minister for Planning and Urban Growth)-The government does not accept the amendment moved by the National Party. I have already indicated concerns about the process of the Municipal Association of Victoria nominating a local government representative with the additional constraint that it must be someone from outside the defined area of operations of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. That is an unnecessary preclusion.

I want to totally deny the interpretation of my remarks by the honourable member for Gippsland East. Local government representation should be by someone who is capable of hearing submissions from local government and interpreting the needs and interests of local government in discussions with the Land Conservation Council. That does not mean that, therefore, the representative must be from the city. I did not say that, and it was not my intention to indicate that.

The Bill provides for the Minister for Local Government to make the appointment, but that does not mean someone from the city will be appointed. The honourable member's imagination was making that up. I can imagine that the Minister for Local Government in making that appointment might well consult with the Municipal Association of Victoria to see what names it would submit as appropriate.

Mr Perton interjected.

Mr McCUTCHEON-It has nothing to do with factionalism. It is clearly to do with selecting someone who h.as the experience making a contribution to the Land Conservation Council. The Opposition is putting constraints on it.

Mr Evans-Why not someone from the country?

Mr McCUTCHEON-It could be someone from the country or it could be someone from the city who knows the country. The honourable member for Gippsland East is making out that because one lives in the city one knows nothing about the country. That is absolute nonsense. He makes out that I am a city person, but I have worked in the Mallee. I have scooped out water channels and driven horse teams; I have sown,


cropped and bagged wheat. It is ridiculous to come to the conclusion that, because people now live in the city, they know nothing about the country. All the honourable member for Gippsland East does is to imply that nobody else knows anything about the country. It is absurd.

The government's rejection of the amendment is based on the fact that the National Party's proposals seek to put limits on the representation on the council. The National Party does not appear to object to local government being represented; I have acknowledged that. The government objects to the way the National Party goes about it, as it did with the Victorian Farmers Federation, by using the federation and the Land Protection Council as a means of denying the Conservation Council of Victoria a place it has had for many years and filled very well on the Land Conservation Council.

Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-I regard the Minister's explanation for his rejection of this amendment as totally unsatisfactory. In effect, what he is saying is that we cannot run the risk of having somebody from the country on the council by making the provision watertight.

I point out that all the council members-apart from one-are city-based. Surely to goodness it is reasonable to suggest that in a body which is concerned solely with the management of land in non-metropolitan areas, at least the municipal representative should come from a non-metropolitan area.

I venture to suggest that no city councillor really understands what it is like to run a municipality in which 83 per cent of the area is public land. The Shire of Orbost comprises 87 per cent public land and comes under the purview of the Land Conservation Council. The recommendations of the LCC can have a dramatic and devastating effect.

A former Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands who is now the Minister for Education, claims she was once dubbed the thirteenth member of the Orbost Shire Council. She may claim that because she was the landlord for 87 per cent of the shire, and not a very good one at that because she did not bother to get permission when she wanted to build something, and did not contribute to the maintenance of the roads her department used.

Mr Kennett-Or the rates!

Mr EV ANS-She did not pay rates either! I can assure the Committee that that former Minister was a shocking landlord, but the fact remains that the decisions of the department, which are influenced by the Land Conservation Council, are very important indeed to the Shire ofOrbost. If I had my way the municipal representative on the council would be from the Shire of Orbost. There is no other shire more affected, despite what my colleague from Mildura might say. The argument of the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth on that count was totally inadequate.

The other aspect the Minister raised was that he is not prepared to put a fanning representative on the council. That means the only reason for reducing the representation of the Conservation Council of Victoria is that it is within the power of Parliament to do so.

Ifwe had not removed one of the representatives we could not have added another member because it would have required a message from the Governor and, as the Minister knows, we do not have the power to do that.

If the Minister will accept the thrust of what I am trying to do, there is nothing to stop him from moving an amendment to increase the membership of the Land Conservation Council by one and keeping the two members of the CCV ifhe thinks it Session 1990-26


is so vital. I happen to disagree with him on that matter, but he is the Minister. If he thinks there is a virtue in the :proposal he can achieve the purpose by increasing the membership by one and keepIng the two members of the Conservation Council of Victoria there. At least the council would have somebody who understands the situation in rural areas and who could tell us what really goes on in the inner sanctum.

It is all highly secret and nobody knows who says what and who votes in'what way in the inner sanctum which affects us all so much. We would dearly like to know. Whom can we expect to be on our side and who are those who are setting out to destroy the fabric of rural areas where there is public land in such significant amounts? It is all too secret; it is not democratic in any shape or form.

I will continue my battle in this place for as long as I can summon the strength to drive home to the members of this Parliament that what they are doing is wrong. They are not properly protecting the forests of this country for future generations. They are condemning future generations to pretty crummy old forested land.

The Committee divided on the question that the subparagraph proposed by Mr Evans to be omitted stand part of the clause (Mr Norris in the chair).

Ayes 66 Noes 8

Majority against the amendment

AYES Mr Andrianopoulos MrBaker Mrs Barker Mr Batchelor MrClark MrCole MrColeman MrCooper MrCrabb Mr Cunningham MrOelzoppo Mr Dickinson Mr Dollis MrElder MrEmst MrFordham MrsGarbutt MrGavin MrGude MrHamilton Mr Harrowfield MrHeffeman MrsHill Mrs Hirsh MrJohn MrKennan MrKennedy MrKennett Ms Kimer MrLea Mr Leigh MrLeighton Mr Lie6erman Mr McCutcheon MrMcDonald MrMathews MrMicallef DrNapthine

58

NOES MrEvans MrMcGrath

(Lowan) MrMcGrath

( Warrnambool) MrMcNamara Mr Ross-Edwards MrWallace

Tellers: MrMaughan MrSteggall

Occupational Health and Safety Bill

Mr Perrin MrPerton

AYES

Mr Pescott MrPlowman MrPope Mrs Ray MrReynolds Mr Richardson Mr Roper MrRowe MrSandon MrSeitz MrSercombe Mrs Setches MrSheehan

(Ballarat South) MrSheehan

(Northcote) Mr Shell MrSimmonds MrSmith

(Glen Waverley) Mr Stockdale MrTanner Mr Trezise DrVaughan MrWalsh MrWeideman Mrs Wilson

Tellers: Mr Honeywood MrThomson

MrBrown

5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY

NOES

PAIR Mr Jasper

The clause, as amended, was agreed to, as was the remaining clause.

787

The Bill was reported to the House with amendments, and passed through its remaining stages.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT) BILL

The message from the Council relating to the amendments in this Bill was taken into consideration.

Council's amendments: 1. Clause 4, line 2, after "4." insert "(I)".

2. Clause 4, line 3, after "with" insert ",or persons each with".

3. Clause 4, lines 4 and 5, omit "co-ordinate health and safety activities on behalf of the employer" and insert"be the employer's representative or representatives under sections 26,30 and 31 ".

4. Clause 4, after line 5 insert-

'(2) In section 30 (8) of the Principal Act, after "this Part" insert "in consultation with the employer's representative or representatives and".

(3) In section 31 (l) of the Principal Act, after "representative" insert ", in consultation with the employer's representative or representatives,".'.

788 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Occupational Health and Safety Bill

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-I move: That amendment Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to.


Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-With respect to amendment No. 3, I move: That this amendment be agreed to with the following amendment:

Omit ",30".


Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-With respect to amendment No. 4, I move: That this amendment be disagreed with but the following amendment be made in the Bill:

"Clause 4, after line 5, insert-

"(2) In section 31 (1) of the Principal Act-

(a) after "(b)" insert "after consultation with the employer's representative or representatives";

(b) after "(c)" insert "after consultation with the employer's representative or representatives";

(c) after "(cl)" insert "after consultation with the employer's representative or representatives ..... .'

There have been extensive negotiations and discussions with the various parties. That emphasises the importance of the employer nominating representatives under the terms of the Act, and specifying the various functions of the occupational health and safety representatives, after consultation with the representatives.

I will request the Occupational Health and Safety Commission to examine the general issue of consultation in the workplace with a view to preparing guidance material for employers and employees, if that proves necessary.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-The amendments have come to the House as a result of negotiations yesterday and this morning between departmental officers and employer organisations. The Opposition has not had the opportunity of viewing those amendments to ensure they bring about changes that are not inconsistent with the original moves the Opposition made to amend the Bill when it was in the other place.

I will not be opposing the amendments before the House; however, the Liberal Party will·be considering the amendments while the Bill is between here and another place. It will be consulting with employers to ensure that the intent of the original amendments is not lost.

I take particular note of the words used by the Minister when introducing the amendments. He made specific mention of the consultative process; if that is brought about by the further amendments, I see no reason why the Opposition would have any difficulty with the amendments because the intention of the Liberal Party's original amendments when the Bill was before the House in 1989 was to ensure that employer representatives were consulted, as part of the total process.

The Liberal Party took the view that the consultative process was important for the employer who has a direct responsibility not only for the financing of the equipment in the workplace, production, and other matters in a particular business, but also a responsibility for the care and trust of employees who work for him. The Opposition will not oppose the amendments

Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool)-Like the Liberal Party, the National Party will not oppose the amendments. Occupational health and safety is an important issue in Victoria and the consultative process that has occurred with industry has resulted in the past few minutes with the amendments being thrust at me, as the National

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 789

Party spokesman on industrial relations. It would have been nice to have been advised of the government's intentions about the amendments.

It is important that honourable members remember that Parliament is designed to debate and discuss various issues, including occupational health and safety. The National Party has raised issues that were dealt with in another place by means of amendments to the Bill. It appears that the new amendments will not be contrary to what the National Party did in the other place.

I wish the Bill a speedy .passage so that its provisions can be implemented in the workplace, thereby rectitying some problems in the community. The Minister for Labour and his Ministerial colleagues have a responsibility to consult with representatives in this Chamber-whether they are from the Liberal Party or the National Party.

In future, I would welcome the opportunity of discussing these matters, thereby not having such amendments thrust upon me. The National Party will not oppose the amendments to the Bill.

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour) (By leave)-Discussions on the amendments occurred last night, this morning and this afternoon. I accept what the honourable member for Warrnambool has said, and I will discuss the matter with him while the Bill is between here and another place. I will ensure that all advice and information is available to honourable members who represent their parties on this issue. I will ensure that they are satisfied with the amendments, that the amendments are in line with discussions that have occurred with employers, and that they are in line with what is understood to be the intention about employer representation. Those discussions will take place as soon as possible. If a problem anses when the Bill is between here and the other place, I shall ensure that there is plenty of time before the matters are debated in the Upper House.


It was ordered that the Bill be returned to the Council with a message intimating the decision of the House.

PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL The debate (adjourned from October 12, 1989) on the motion of Mr Jolly (then

Treasurer) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr LEIGH (Malvern)-Although the Bill is small it has significant implications not only for Victoria but also for Australia. The oil industry is an important part of our economy, and members of Parliament should do everything they can to maximise Australia's oil production. Failure to do so would result in Australia having to buy more oil from the Arabs, thus worsening our balance of payments problem, returning us to the days when the Arabs had a stranglehold on our economy-as they still have on the economies of some other countries.

Australia's crude oil reserves are being depleted at a rate faster than they are being replenished. Production of crude oil from known and currently producing oil fields is expected to fall from 564 000 barrels a day to 300 000 barrels in four years time-and to fewer than 180 000 barrels a day by 1998. But demand is expected to rise from the present level of 565 000 barrels a day to 680 000 barrels in the 1990s. In short, Australia is facing a serious problem.

The Bill aims to encourage oil companies to explore for oil. The oil reserves of Bass Strait are very important. There are fourteen oil platforms in production in Bass

790 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill

Strait, which have produced up to 420 000 barrels a day and are currently producing approximately 320000 barrels a day. Some two-thirds of the reserves of the Gippsland Basin-our largest source of supply-have beenl'used; and our largest field has been depleted by 80 per cent. To give the House some idea of what is happening, in 1988 something in the order of between 20 and 40 million barrels of new oil were discovered, compared with an average of 70 million barrels between 1970 and 1983-a vast difference.

The government deserves to be criticised for letting the Bill lie over until this stage of the session. The government introduced the Bill in October last year, and ifit had been serious about an issue that is important not only to Victoria but also to Australia it would have taken more interest in ensuring that the Bill was passed.

The decline of Bass Strait crude oil production and the growth in production in other areas-especially on the North-West Shelf-has widespread implications for Australia's energy trade payments, the balance of payments, the energy mix for domestic consumption, government revenue, industrial development, employment and defence. There are many reasons why Australia must attempt to be much more self-sufficient than it is at present in producing crude oil supplies, given the present indications of where we will be in ten years time.

The nature of the problem is that, on a cumulative basis, our initial crude oil reserves amounted to 41 000 million barrels; but our remaining crude oil reserve is only 1500 million barrels. We need to do more to encourage exploration for oilwhich is what the Bill seeks to do. A number of companies are attempting to increase their levels of oil exploration in Australia-in particular, the Esso-BHP consortium, the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd, and at least one other foreign oil company that I am aware of.

One of the barriers to increased exploration is the current price of oil. To bring one well into production can cost between $7 million and $20 million. For every ten attempts to find oil only one may be successful. Oil exploration requires heavy investment, and the risks are high. It is imperative that governments do everything they can to enhance oil companies' prospects for finding and producing oil-but as I said, Labor government policy at both the State and Federal level is providing a barrier to exploration.

Of every $1 paid for oil sold in Australia 58 cents is taken by the Federal and State governments. Governments have used the revenue from oil as short-term economic remedies. If Australia is forced to import oil, governments will lose revenue-and it will have occurred because Labor governments have discouraged oil companies from exploring for oil. We need to ensure that the costs involved in taking oil from the wellhead to market are reduced, because often oil companies spend more to produce the oil than the market is prepared to pay for it.

The Bill provides four major changes. Firstly, the Minister can declare a location over any block from which the Minister is satisfied petroleum can be recovered; and as many blocks as are necessary to cover the discovery may be included in the location. The current nine-block limit is to be removed, and the Minister can declare a location over such numbers of blocks as he sees fit.

Secondly, the provisions providing for the over-the-counter issue of permits and production licences will be repealed because of a preference for the system of competitive tendering. The old system was that if someone applied for a permit he or she made the application and it was dealt with on its merits; now, if someone shows an interest in a particular area, it is advertised and the Minister has the ability to


assess the best proposition-and that would be the most active exploration program put before the Minister.

Thirdly, sensitive contractual information is to be protected from disclosure. This change has come about as a result of pressure from Western Australia where it was desired to keep sensitive pricing information on gas costs out of the public domain. Two types of documents would be made available to the department; one would deal with the physical aspects of the potential discovery and the other would indicate whether there were farm-out arrangements with other companies. The sensitive information would still be made available to the Minister but would not be published.

Fourthly, provision is made for the early release to government of basis data and interpretive information to be supplied to the titleholders. That has always been the intention but there has been some problem with the principal legislation and this change is designed to cope with that problem.

This Bill is part of the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth and mirrors the Commonwealth legislation introduced in 1987. Members of the State Opposition and the Federal Opposition have talked to representatives of the industry about the matter. They agree that the Bill should be passed so there is no gap between the two jurisdictions, because otherwise the age-old problem arises of who has the right to say what the rules should be at a particular point offshore.

Having said that, the Opposition obviously supports the Bill. The oil exploration industry is of vital importance to the economy of this country. It needs more encouragement and both State and Federal governments need to do more. The most practical thing the Minister can do is to thump on the table of the Federal Minister, asking the Federal government to introduce a tax on the products of exploration designed to encourage more exploration and more production. Since the early 1970s, there has been a dramatic decline in oil exploration in Australia and to maintain the levels of production oil exploration in Australia will have to at least double. The Opposition encourages the government to proceed with the proposed legislation a little faster than it has to date.

Will the Minister explain why it has taken so long to introduce the proposed legislation? Honourable members have waited since October for the Bill to be debated. As I understand it, the proposed legislation was available some time before the government introduced the Bill in the Legislative Council last year. One must wonder whether the Cain Labor government is interested in the economic outlook of our country. Ifwe fail to find more oil it will result in the Federal government having to buy oil from the Arabs or elsewhere. We as a nation will have to find the money to pay for that oil and because of that there will be less money for other measures. For example, two days ago the government sought to raise extra revenue to spend in the urban areas on the outskirts of Melbourne.

If oil is not found, the government will have to buy the oil from elsewhere. The government should seriously consider the importance of oil exploration. Bass Strait is running down. It is the major source of oil and the oil companies must have the ability to explore. I am sure the government is aware that in another area, namely, mineral resources, we have to do everything we can to encourage development. Failure to do so means that we will become, as the Federal Treasurer said, a banana republic or the poor white trash of Asia.

Will the Treasurer at the table explain why the government has been so lax in proceeding with the proposed legislation?


The Opposition supports the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage. I hope the Premier and the government will declare the Bill an urgent Bill so that the industry can do the job it is supposed to.

Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-As the honourable member for Malvern said, the proposed legislation has been around since October last year. It is complementary to Commonwealth legislation, and it seeks to remove the impediments to development and exploration contained in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. As a result, few impediments will apply in the exploration of oil in Victorian waters and in waters that surround Australia as a whole. It is important to have a strong commitment to the exploration of crude oil in our waters and on our land surface.

Some time ago when the National Party was in a coalition government in Canberra, coalition Ministers were criticised severely for their stance on providing incentives to oil companies to undertake exploration. In hindsight, there was a degree of wisdom in what they were saying. Australia has been dependent on crude oil supplies from the Middle East for many years. With the oil crisis a number of years ago there was a heavy dependence on Middle East crude oil and it was a precarious situation. There were considerable price rises in our community because of the high cost of energy at that time. Although Australia is 70 per cent self-sufficient with oil reserves, there is still a high degree of urgency to maintain an exploration drive for further crude oil resources on our land mass and in the sea area under our control.

For those reasons the National Party supports the Bill to bring the legislation in line with the Commonwealth legislation. By doing so it will provide the oil companies with the opportunity of carrying out further exploration operations without impediments being imposed on them.

Mr PERTON (Doncaster)-The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to reflect amendments made to the corresponding Commonwealth le~slation. The purpose of the Commonwealth legislation is to improve the adminIstration of petroleum exploration and to correct certain anomalies which were shown to present risks.

The honourable member for Malvern stated that the Bill is being introduced at a critical time for Australia and Victoria as Australia's balance of payments position continues to deteriorate.

In his contribution to the debate in the other place, Mr Chamberlain indicated that Australia was under some threat in respect of its future oil needs and self-sufficiency.

Since that time the situation has deteriorated dramatically. Recent assessments of the Australian Institute of Petroleum, published in the January edition of the Petroleum Gazette, indicate that by 1999-within ten years-Australia's ability to meet its demand for oil through domestic production will drop from 84 per cent this year to about 33 per cent. The problem is that it will then cost Australia $5·6 billion a year in Australian dollars to import the oil needs of this country.

Having regard to the fact that our external trade deficit is now somewhere between $20 billion and $25 billion, and the fact that in the world economy today capital will become increasingly scarce and more expensive as Eastern Europe and Asia continue to develop, it is quite clear that this has enormous consequences for the Australian economy.

In the mid and late-1980s, the situation did not look bad at all because it was apparent that demand was decreasing. However, in worldwide terms, the replacement of oil reserves has been keeping very close to the actual usage of oil since that time, and we have now discovered that there is probably sufficient oil in known reserves to


last until the middle of next century. However, the problem is that oil is being found in increasingly inaccessible places.

Although oil found off the shores of Australia. may be expensive in terms of production costs, the fact is that we are now searching for oil in South Africa, South America, parts of Asia and other places, where the recovery costs will lead to much greater expense, not merely for the exploration for oil but also the recovery of that oil. That means that, while demand in Australia is expected to increase from 660 000 barrels to 792000 barrels a day by 1999, the cost of that oil will be much higher than it is today. We will continue to experiment with ways of recovering oil from our current, known oil fields, some of which have been tapped recently, and we will continue to make attempts to find alternative fuels. Although the rest of the world feels fairly confident in its continued use of oil, it will mean that the cost of finding alternative sources of fuel and energy for Australian industry will not be economical and will not proceed at the pace that one would desire.

It may be of interest to honourable members to learn that there are Australian organisations that are attempting to deal with the problem of fields that have become uneconomical. It was with interest that I read last November an article in the Australian about a key discovery by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The article states:

A discovery by a CSIRO research team could substantially boost Australia's dwindling oil supplies and have a major impact on the international oil industry.

Led by Or Brian Embleton of the CSIRO's division of exploration geoscience, the team has found a method offeeding and breeding bugs that live hundreds of metres underground and are capable of pushing oil to the ground's surface.

The reason why the CSIRO has developed this micro-organism, which can apparently live at temperatures of up to 70 degrees Celsius, is that the current reliance on water to provide sufficient pressure to lift oil to the surface will not be sufficient in some of those fields.

Apparently the use of this bacterium will enable the Australian oil industry to recover billions of dollars worth of oil. What should be very attractive to this government, and also to the incoming Liberal government, is that this has the potential to earn for CSIRO and Australian private corporations a great deal of money as they assist the world oil industry to again push out the horizon of well-known oil reserves.

The history of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the cooperative scheme dates back to the late 1960s and early 1970s when there were a series of disputes between the Commonwealth and the States. Although there has never been any doubt since the creation of the Commonwealth that the States have had the capacity to pass laws in respect of their territorial seas, what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s was an attempt by the central government to seize control of the seabed because at that time it was determined to further exploit the continental shelf.

I shall quote from a book that was published this year by the Law Book Company Ltd entitled Shipping Law. It was written by a Melbourne academic, Martin Davies, and a Perth academic, Anthony Dickey, who state:

The status of the territorial sea, and the issue of legislative competence over this part of the sea, was resolved in a series of High Court cases decided between 1969 and 1977.

The authors then cite several cases and state: The result of these cases may be summarised as follows. Firstly, the territory of the States ends at low

water mark. The territorial sea and its subsoil thus do not form part of a State's territory. Secondly, the States are competent to legislate for the peace, order and good government of their territory only. However, and thirdly, the States are competent to legislate on matters concerning their territorial sea and indeed any


other extra-territorial locations provided they are thereby legislating for the peace, order and good government of their State territory.

The major case in relation to the control of the sea on the continental shelf arose in 1975 as a result of Commonwealth legislation known as the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. The New South Wales government, which was subsequently joined by several other State governments, challenged that legislation.

Mr Roper-I remember it well.

Mr PERTON-I am sure the Minister remembers it well. I suspect that he was actually lecturing or tutoring in political science at the Melbourne University at that time.

Mr Roper-No, it was in education at La Trobe.

Mr PERTON-I stand corrected. The interesting feature of the case was that the Commonwealth could rely on only one head of legislative power, the external affairs power. That is yet another example where a Labor government, unable to convince the population or the States that it ought to be allowed to seize further powers and further centralise authority, was forced to rely on a provision of the Constitution which has been sorely misused and manipulated by the Federal government. The ultimate decision has been interpreted as meaning that, in respect of matters of concern to Australia as a nation, the Commonwealth has ultimate authority over the seas and seabeds adjacent to Australia.

This Bill is part of the legislative framework that was finally negotiated between the Fraser government and the State governments of the day-which ultimately led to the passage of the Commonwealth Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act and other legislation-and means that the cooperative scheme will continue. The Bill provides for major changes to the legislative structure.

The changes were explained in detail by the honourable member for Malvern, but they could be summarised as follows. Firstly, the Minister can declare a location over any block from which the Minister is satisfied petroleum can be recovered, and as many blocks as necessary to cover the discovery may be included in the location. Secondly, the provisions allowing for the over-the-counter issue of permits and production licences are repealed, because of preference for the system of competitive tendering. Thirdly, sensitive contractual information is to be protected for disclosure; and, fourthly, provision is made for the early release to government of basic data and interpretive material to be supplied to the titleholders.

This Bill certainly improves the administration of oil exploration around Australia, and certainly off the coast of Victoria. However, it is still insufficient to meet the challenges that confront this country. Oil exploration around Australia is at an almost historical low, and the reason for that is the tax regime, which the industry has complained about at great length.

The honourable member for Malvern rightly pointed out that a major proportion of the cost of petrol from the bowser goes into State and Federal taxation and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, among other bodies, has claimed that those moneys have not been put to the use of the motorists or to improve roads or transport in this country but have merely gone into general revenue.

The real problem is that the profitability of the producers has been squeezed unreasonably. Oil exploration-like gas exploration-is inherently risky; the costs are high and the potential for successful discoveries can often be low. I recently had the opportunity of visiting Bass Strait and examining some of the drilling facilities in


operation. The daily cost of drilling is staggering but the probabilities of success on any drilling operation are relatively low.

The Australian Institute of Petroleum states that, ~though management of locations can be improved, that alone is insufficient. The institution claimed in a major submission to a Federal government review of certain aspects of petrol taxes that: ... the taxes levied on oil inhibit the substantial risk-taking required to find and produce the quantities of petroleum Australia needs.

For example, the institute believes that the system of petroleum taxation-involving both company income tax and a range of secondary taxes, including royalties and excise---distorts investment decisions.

This, and other factors, reduce the attractiveness of investment in the petroleum industry.

As I said earlier, Australia is likely to be in a poor position in the latter part of the century because of oil demand and oil production. That is likely dramatically to distort our external balance. Although the Bill is necessary, if the government is working in the interests of all Victorians it should be persuading the Federal government to change the entire taxation and legislative regime protecting the petroleum industry so that the Australian economy will not be dealt almost a death blow by its continuing need for oil and its dramatically diminished production in the latter part of the century.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-On behalf of the government I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. This is a highly technical Bill that covers a major area of Australia-wide enterprise. I am pleased both. opposition. parties support the Bill.



Clauses 1 to 6 were agreed to.

Clause 7

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I move: 1. Clause 7, page 4, line 3, omit "nominations" and insert "nomination".

Following the passage of the Bill through the Upper House four minor amendments have been found to be necessary to brin$ it into line with Commonwealth legislation. Transcribing errors occurred in translatIng the Bill from the Commonwealth-style to the style of our Parliamentary Counsel arrangements.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 8 to 13.

Clause 14

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I move: 2. Clause 14, page 6, line 24, omit "need" and insert "must".

This also relates to a transcribing error.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as was clause 15.

Clause 16

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I move: 3. Clause 16, page 8, line 6, omit "(m)" and insert "(I)".

4. Clause 16, page 8, line 7, omit "(n)" and insert "(m)".

796 ASSEMBLY 5 Aprli 1990 Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Bill

The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were the remaining clauses.


The sitting was suspended at 6.23 p.m. until 8.4 p.m.

FISHERIES (ABALONE LICENCE CHARGES) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to correct an error in the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act which was recently passed by Parliament. The Act contains an error in the formula, which was introduced as a House amendment, in that the figure 500 was included at the beginning of this formula instead of the figure 5000 as was intended.

The error has had no effect on the collection of abalone licence fees for this year but, as it deals with a mechanism for calculation of the licence fees in subsequent years, it needs to be corrected to enable effective calculation of future fees.

The formula as amended by the Bill is that agreed with the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation during consultations on the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act.


Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-Since the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act was promulgated there have been changes in Ministries and ~overnment departments. The Act was previously within the portfolio of the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, who is now the Minister for Community Services. I am disappointed that the then Minister did not in this House deal comprehensively with the amendment establishing the formula. It could then have been debated properly in Committee in this Chamber rather than being dealt with as a modification to a suggested amendment from the other House. Had the government amendments been circulated widely and had adequate time been given for their proper scrutiny, the need for this amending Bill might have been avoided.

Mr W. D. McGrath-And the cost involved might have been avoided.

Mr COLEMAN-Yes, there is a cost involved in the preparation of this amending Bill and in a range of other issues.

Although the Minister representing the Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands in the other place foreshadowed the proposed amendment during the debate on the Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Bill, the amendment when moved later in this place was wrong.

The formula used for determining the licence fee had the figure of 500 instead of 5000. The incorrect figure would have had the effect, if applied this year, of reducing the licence fee from $26 450 to $2645. Licence holders were extremely delighted with the proposed outcome of the legislation! It was a simple error. However, if Parliament had been given the opportunity of scrutinising the legislation, as is its correct role, this error would not have occurred.

After I had circulated the amended Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Act containing the error in the formula, I received a telephone call from a licence holder

Fisheries (Abalone Licence Charges) Bill 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 797

who obviously had a smile on his face. He said, "We have survived and have actually shown a profit for the year". But the legislation was wrong.

The legislation had already passed through both Houses and had come into operation, it was not possible to correct the error immediately and amend the formula. Agreement has been reached on the amended formula for the abalone licence fee for this year.

The Victorian Fishing Industry Federation, acting on behalf of the abalone licensees across the three zones in the State, has agreed to the provision. It has the effect of removing the necessity of debating a regular change in abalone licence charges. The formula will provide for the recognition of the fluctuation of abalone beach prices. To that extent the Opposition supported the previous legislation when it passed through Parliament. Unfortunately, suspicions existed about circulating the amendments and that did not enable those people who have the responsibility of ensuring the provisions are effective to study carefully the intent of the amendment, and consequently a mistake was made.

The provision is also retrospective and those on this side of the House are apprehensive about passing retrospective Bills. However, when the previous Bill was debated it was clearly indicated that the system was to be introduced and that was acceptable to the opposition parties. There was agreement on the charge for the current year and consequently there is no reason why the opposition parties should not support this retrospective Bill.

It is retrospective to last Sunday, but it does not matter whether it was last Sunday or last year-the fact is that the Bill is retrospective. This could have been avoided. The retrospectivity of the Bill is breaking a principle that is firmly held by the opposition parties but the commitment made during the previous debate has convinced the Opposition that the formula was agreed to and was supported by the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation; it was the first major legislation that the federation had handled. The Opposition supports the passage of the Bill.

Mr W. D. McGRA TH (Lowan)-The National Party is also prepared to support the Bill which changes a formula figure from 500 to 5000, as was first intended, to allow the formula for abalone license fees to be set.

I note in the last paragraph of the Minister's second-reading speech that the formula has been amended as was agreed to by the Victorian Fishing Industry Federation. It is pleasing that the government, although at times it appears to neglect consultation with various industry sectors, has on this occasion obtained agreement from the industry in respect of the Bill.

I endorse the remarks made by the honourable member for Syndal about the retrospectivity of the Bill: the National Party does not want retrospective legislation. However, sometimes it needs to be done. The then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, now the Minister for Community Services, lacked ability in this area and other mistakes may eventually appear and require amendment.

The National Party supports the proposed legislation but it is not impressed that such a simple error was made requiring additional Bills to be printed. The government talks about conservation and saving trees but, because of this error, it has been necessary to deal with this matter again.



798 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Vocational Education, Training Bill) (No. 2)

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL (No. 2) Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I move: That this Bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will recall that the government presented a similar Bill to Parliament last October. Since that time the State Training Board-STB-and the government have continued to consult key organisations. As a result the government has decided to make a number of changes to the Bill. Rather than take up Parliament's time with a large number of House amendments, the government thought it preferable to bring in a fresh Bill incorporating the amendments.

The Bill, however, is fundamentally the same as that introduced last year. I refer honourable members to my second-reading speech of 24 October 1989, which went into some detail on the important reforms contained in the Bill. Rather than go over the ground again I will make some general observations about the objectives of the Bill and then deal with the changes incorporated in the revised Bill.

At a conference h~ld to discuss the legislative review in October last year the Executive Director of the Victorian Employers Federation, Mr David Edwards, said that these reforms are a" ... recognition by State and Federal governments that education and training are essential elements in developing a strong economy".

This is one of the main principles underlying the Bill-the establishment of a State training system which is responsive to the needs of industry and which will underpin strong economic growth in the State.

The other main objective of the Bill is the establishment of a system of self-governing T AFE colleges. For the first time the charter of colleges to provide the community with programs and services across the whole range of technical and further education will be set out in legislation.

I shall now deal with some of the issues which have led to alterations in the original Bill and which require explanation.

COORDINATION OF THE STATE TRAINING SYSTEM

During consultation there has been a lot of consideration given to the means by which the State training system should be coordinated. The objective has been to develop a decentralised system which allows operational matters to be determined by colleges and industry training boards-ITBs-but allows the Minister and the STB to determine matters of system-wide significance.

Ministerial guidelines and directions can be issued after consultation with the STB. The directions can be issued on certain specified operational and administrative matters only. Examples are fees and charges issues, measures necessary to comply with inter-governmental arrangements and the development of management plans. Directions may be issued to individual colleges or industry training boards.

The T AFE College Councils Association of Victoria-TCCA V -has raised a point regarding the use of Ministerial directions in relation to T AFE colleges' entrepreneurial activities. The directions will be used primarily for fees and charges policies in relation to government-funded programs. The government expects that, in the normal course of events, directions will not be used to regulate in detail the fee-for-service activities of individual colleges. But it will be necessary to establish a financial management and accountability framework within which these fee-for-service activities will be undertaken.

Ministerial guidelines, on the other hand, will focus on vocational education and training itself. They will relate to policy issues which the Minister considers to be of

Vocational Education, Training Bill) (No. 2) 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 799

significance to the State training system. But the main means of coordination of the State traininJ system will be performance agreements between the State Training Board and tndividual colleges and ITBs. These agreements will be negotiated periodicallr. They will specify what the colle$e and the ITB will do on behalf of the State trainIng system and, in return, commIt a level of funding out of the funds appropriated by Parliament. This approach gives colleges and ITBs more operational discretion in fulfilling their objectives and enables them to plan their activities with more certainty as to funding.

A concern expressed during consultation was that the performance agreement provisions might allow the STB too much influence over fundin~ decisions in relation to further education programs in TAPE colleges. This concern IS in large part due to the fact that the vocational educational program in the Appropriation Act supports a wide range of college activities, including further education programs of colleges.

The concern has been addressed by alterations to clause 10. The State Training Board's ability to negotiate performance agreements and allocate funding will more clearly be restricted to vocational education and training matters. But the new provisions will allow the Minister to use the performance agreement as the means for providing funds for other activities. In this way the management flexibility inherent In performance agreements may be extended to colleges for areas other than vocational education.

COMPOSITION OF COLLEGE COUNCILS

The Bill proposes that 25 per cent of the membership of every T AFE college council should be Ministerial nominees. This reflects the current situation under most college constitutions. Under current arrangements college councils recommend candidates for the Minister's consideration. The government has received representations to maintain this practice, and it has agreed to those representations. The recommendations of the councils will be considered before selections are made.

A change has also been made in the selection process for certain Statewide industry representatives. These members will be nominated by college councils subject to endorsement by the board.

COLLEGE DIRECTORS

Under the Post-Secondary Education Act college directors are members of the T AFE Teaching Service. As explained in the second-reading speech for the original Bill, it is proposed that college directors should be accountable to their respective councils.

The T AFE College Councils Association of Victoria has asked the government to initiate a further change to the current legislation. The association has sought the exclusion of directors from the T AFE Teaching Service so that they would be directly employed by councils. Their proposal is strongly opposed by the Technical Teachers Union of Victoria.

The government has already indicated its support for greater council control over the selection of college directors. But it believes the issue of central versus council employment of directors should not be decided in this Bill. The issue should be considered in the context of new industrial arrangements for the T AFE Teaching Service, which are currently under negotiation.

COMPOSITION OF THE STATE TRAINING BOARD

An important change from the current arrangement is the proposal to include a member of a T AFE college council on the State Training Board.

800 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Vocational Education, Training Bill) (No. 2)

As outlined in the second-reading speech for the original Bill, the government believes members of the STB should be chosen for their expertise rather than as nominees or delegates of the various interest groups involved in training.

The Bill, therefore, does not confer nominating rights on any group with the exception of the teacher representative. This exception is made on principles of industrial democracy. But the ~overnment would in the normal course of events consult key groups on the selectIon of members. In particular, the government would consult relevant employer associations, unions and the body representing T AFE collegescurrently the T AFE College Councils Association of Victoria-on the respective categories ofSTB membership.

It is also intended that the board's membership should have a proper balance of skills and backgrounds. For example, the Ministerial nominee positions may be used to ensure that the STB includes people from key industry sectors, such as primary industry, or with relevant professional expertise. Another significant change to the Bill is the inclusion of a requirement that the board's composition reflect both metropolitan and non-metropolitan interests.

ACCREDIT A TION

Accreditation is the investigation of courses and certification of their quality. It involves assessments of both educational soundness and industrial relevance. As in the earlier Bill the STB is to have ultimate responsibility for the accreditation system, but it can establish industry trainin~ accreditation boards to handle accreditation in various fields. These boards will bnng together the expertise of educationalists and persons with experience in the relevant industry.

Concern was expressed to the government that this arrangement may result in fragmentation of the accreditation process. The revised Bill, therefore, contains provisions dealing with the establishment of a Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board. This board will monitor and coordinate the work of the other accreditation boards. It will also advise the STB on all issues affecting accreditation policy and may itself handle the accreditation of some courses.

FURTHER EDUCATION

The government wants to reaffirm its commitment to further education.

The Bill establishes administrative arrangements for the T AFE system as a whole as well as a framework for the formulation of policies for vocational education and training. There were already a number of provisions in the Bill designed to ensure that further education programs continue to be a priority of the T AFE system. The alterations to the funding provisions in the revised Bill are another example of the determination to ensure the maintenance of further education. But this Bill will not take the place of separate further education legislation. The government has initiated a review of further education legislation by the Ministry of Education. It is expected that proposals for further education legislation will be developed and finalised in the course of this year.

CONCLUSION

In March last year the STB issued a discussion paper as the basis of public consultation on the principles underlying new training legislation. In that paper the board indicated that consultation was to be the keynote of the legislation review.

Many individuals and groups have made important contributions to this process and these are strongly reflected in the Bill. On behalf of the government, I should like to acknowledge in particular the efforts of the Trades Hall Council, the Victorian

Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 5 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 801

Employers Federation and the other peak employer associations, and the T AFE College Councils Association of Victoria.

The future economic prosperity of Victoria depends very largely on the skills of its people. The Bill's purpose is to provide the means by which those skills can be improved. Its basic principles have widespread support. The government 'therefore' seeks the support of the whole Parliament in enacting and implementing these reforms as soon as possible.


On the motion ofMr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill), the debate was adjourned.

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I move: That the debate be adjourned until Thursday, April 19.

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-On the question of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister for Education to agree to an extension of time if further consultation is required.

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education) (By leave)-Yes, I am pleased to agree to that request, if necessary .

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Thursday, April 19.

STAMPS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL The debate (adjourned from November 17, 1989) on the motion of Mr Jolly (then

Treasurer) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr CLARK (Balwyn)-The government does not appear to be particularly enthusiastic about defending the Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The call would normally have flowed to the government, but its members were not in a position to support the Bill, and no wonder.

This is a poor Bill. It does not comply with the statements made by the honourable member for Doveton, the then Treasurer, in his Budget speech as to what it would achieve. The Bill imposes heavy rates of duty on a wide range of transfers of businesses.

It is also a Bill that contains a number of other onerous provisions of both revenueraising and procedural natures. I want, firstly, to consider the central element of the Bill, namely, the element which imposes a business transfer tax or a so-called goodwill tax. I want to contrast some of the remarks made by the government about what the tax would be with the provisions in the Bill.

I shall, firstly, refer to the Budget speech of the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Doveton. When announcing the tax he said:

Stamp duty will be levied at land transfer rates on goodwill when businesses are transferred under agreements entered into from I November 1989 ...

At page 5 of Budget Paper No. 2 reference is made to: Inclusion of business goodwill in the value of businesses for the purpose of stamp duty on transfer ($1 ().O

million).

At page 3 of Budget Paper No. 4 this statement is made: The lack ofa stamp duty on goodwill which attaches to the transfer of business or land is an anomaly in

Victorian conveyancing duty. All other mainland States already levy such a duty and Victoria is penalised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission for failing to do this. Moreover, the absence of a duty on goodwill creates an avenue for tax avoidance and evasion where a business is sold along with real estate.

802 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Accordingly, the government proposes to extend the land transfer duty rates to cover business goodwill transferred under agreements entered into from I November 1989.

Finally, at page 11 of Budget Paper No. 4 there appears this statement: In order to minimise avoidance and evasion, legislation has been passed to include the value of chattels

sold with real property in the transfer price for duty purposes ...

In the 1989-90 Budget the government proposes to extend the land transfer duty rates to cover business goodwill transferred under contracts entered into from I November 1989. This will bring Victoria into line with the other mainland States and remove an avenue for avoidance and evasion where a business is sold along with real estate.

If one tries to work out the government's rationale, one finds that it is highly confused. There seem to be three elements: firstly, the ~overnment tries to justify the introduction of the tax on the basis that it is an anti-aVOIdance measure; secondly, it tries to justify it by saying that it brings Victoria into line with other States; and, thirdly, the government tries to justify the tax on the basis that it is simply introducin$ a new tax on goodwill. The dominant element of those three confused reasons IS that the government wants to introduce a tax on goodwill. That was certainly the way the business community reacted to the announcement.

I shall turn now to the question of what "goodwill" means. I believe a statement by the former Treasurer was misleading when compared with what is contained in the Bill. In a paper issued by the former Treasurer on 13 November 1989, it is stated that:

Essentially the transfer of goodwill represents a transfer of a business in colloquial terms.

That is the justification the government is trying to use to explain the enormous gap between what the former Treasurer foreshadowed in his Budget speech compared with what the government has included in the Bill. I put it to the House that the assertion in the paper issued by the former Treasurer is totally incorrect. It strains the credibility of anyone to believe the government seriously thinks that statement is correct. It, therefore, makes it extremely difficult for honourable members to accept any statements on finance made by the government.

In refuting the assertion made in the paper released by the former Treasurer, I shall refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which defines "goodwill" as: ... established custom or popularity of business etc.; privilege granted by seller of established business, of trading as recognized successor; amount paid for this.

That is what the community understands to be goodwill, and it is also what the accounting profession understands to be goodwill. I refer to statements of accounting standards contained in the 1989 Accounting Handbook. The statements were accurate as at 1 November 1988, and I have no reason to believe they have changed since. I shall refer to two statements, the first of which is paragraph No. 4 of Accounting Standards AAS 18, which states:

In this statement the view adopted is that goodwill comprises the future benefits from unidentifiable assets which, because of their nature, are not normally recorded individually in the accounts. Unidentifiable assets would usually include market penetration, effective advertising, good labour relations and a superior management and operating team. This would exclude assets of an intangible nature which are capable of being both individually identified and specifically recorded, as may be the case with patents, licences, rig'tts and copyrights.

Paragraph No. 38 of the statement reads: Purchased goodwill should be measured as the excess of the purchased consideration plus incidental

expenses over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired.

In other words, the meaning of goodwill as accepted by the accounting profession is very much in accordance with the meaning of goodwill as defined in the dictionary and as generally accepted in the community.


As I said earlier, the term was certainly taken in that context by various groups within the community. I shall refer to the statement made by the Victorian Authorised Newsagents Association Ltd in a letter to the honourable member for Brighton, in which the general secretary of the association Statf~S:

In newsagencies goodwill is normally over 75 per cent of the selling price. Could there be some amendment that provides dispensation once the goodwill exceeds a certain percentage of the total sale price in retail business?

That quotation illustrates that not only is the tax announced by the former Treasurer considered to be extremely onerous by the newsagents but also that it is considered to apply only to goodwill.

I refer also to a statement issued by the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce which states:

v ACC rejects the concept that goodwill; often the only source of "equity" available in a business, especially to franchisees; should be taxed via stamp duty.

This is especially so for goodwill not attached to the sale ofland. Is it proper to tax goodwill developed by years of hard work?

Again, the two conclusions follow: firstly, that the tax will hit hard members of the chamber of commerce; and, secondly, the tax was considered to be a tax on goodwill only.

I shall now refer to a statement issued·by the·Australian Medical Association in a letter to the honourable member for Brighton, in which the executive director states:

As I read the material, the legislative proposal will only affect members of the medical profession who are in private practice and who, if they sell the practice, include a goodwill element in the contracted price.

Again, industry groups took the Budget announcement to refer to goodwill in the ordinary, accepted meaning of the word. The Bill, however, contains draconian provisions. The Bill applies not only to goodwill but also to the FOSS value of the assets of a business to be transferred, with minor exemptions. Stock In trade, livestock, unshorn wool and growing crops are the only exemptions made. Not only that

l but

also the Bill imposes double duty where there are assets forming part of the bUSiness that are already liable to stamp duty, for example, motor vehicles, shares, leases and real estate.

A person who buys a business will pay duty on the transfer of the specific assets, for example, a motor car, and again when the asset forms part of the gross value of the assets of a business. One is looking at a marginal rate of approximately 11 per cent on the sale of those assets of a busines~. Not only that, but there are also virtually no exemptions made for business reconstructions.

The one minor exemption is for linear ancestors and descendants, but there are no exemptions for changes in partnerships or transfers from a partnership to a corporation consequent upon incorporation of a partnership. That is the draconian tax the government proposes to introduce under the heading ofa "goodwill tax", and which has not been foreshadowed in the public statements made by the government. It is simply trying to sneak it through the House without having it exposed.

The Bill introduced by the government also contains a large number of other unannounced revenue provisions and other draconian procedural provisions. I refer to clause 4, which requires every person liable to pay duty on a document to ensure that all relevant facts in that document are disclosed. That obligation applies not only to someone who knows what the relevant facts are but also to someone who might not know.


I cite by way of example a company whose shares are being transferred. In normal circumstances the company would know nothing whatsoever about the facts relating to liability for duty on those shares. However, the company is a party which is notionally liable for duty on shares. Therefore, a duty is to be imposed on a company to ensure that all relevant facts are disclosed to the Comptroller of Stamps. The same provision would apply where a party did not have control of the lodgment of the document with the Stamp Duties Office-for example, mortgagors-yet the government is going to impose that sweeping burden on those various parties.

Clause 9 relates to partitions of land. The government has tried to say it has no intention of extending duty when land is partitioned but it appears, on advice from the Law Institute ofVictona and lawyers who have examined the matter, that there is a grave danger the clause would impose duty on partitions of land where no obligation to pay duty exists at present.

I wish to refer to a letter from the Law Institute of Victoria dated today and addressed to the present Treasurer, in which the president of the institute says:

If the intention of the amendment is to ensure that duty is payable on the amount representing the difference in value between the two properties we are doubtful whether the proposed amendment achieves that purpose. In order to put the matter beyond doubt we would recommend amendments ...

He then goes on to specify the amendments.

Clause 10 changes the provisions of th~ Stamps Act concerning nominees. That clause would impose duty where property is purchased by an agent or by a trustee on behalf of the real owner or where it is purchased pending the incorporation of a company. These are examples which, under present law, are not liable to duty, yet the government is going to make them liable without that intention being publicly announced in the Bud~et speech as it should have been. In addition, the legislation is to be made retrospective to the period of the Budget announcement because it is to apply to transfers executed by the vendor on or after I December 1989, whereas the transfer could well have been executed by the purchaser before that date.

Clause 11 also has retrospective application. It applies an aggregate duty where there is a purchase of a business and land from different vendors, whereas duty is not imposed under present law. In other words, it is not simply an anti-avoidance measure; it extends the net of stamp duty.

Clause 12 also imposes duty on the full value of intellectual property which is licensed to a business even if that intellectual property is owned by associates of the vendor, not by the vendor and where that full value is not being acquired by the purchaser. That is an extension of duty.

The same clause would have imposed an obligation on businesses which were subject to sale, to be valued on a worldwide basis, even thou$h in the end the duty applied only to that part of the business which was located in VIctoria. This is another example of inconsiderate and sloppy preparation of proposals which would have imposed unnecessary cost on businesses.

A further example of draconian procedural provisions is clause 23, which enables the service of notices at the last address of a person known to the Stamp Duties Office. In other words, the Stamp Duties Office does not have to make any real effort to find a person upon whom it wants to serve a notice. It could address a notice based on a document in its possession that was years old.

This is the sort of Bill that was introduced into the House by the previous Treasurer. It is the sort of Bill which, but for the actions of the Opposition, the government would happily have passed without scrutiny.


However, the Opposition alerted the business community to what was proposed in the Bill. The Opposition also twisted the arm of the then Treasurer to allow a meeting between the Opposition, the Comptroller of Stamps and representatives of the Law Institute of Victoria. The Law Institute had previously been refused permission to raise with the Comptroller of Stamps its legitimate concerns.

Now the government is trying to beat a retreat. I understand it will be coming to Parliament with a fistful of House amendments. That is a constant government tacticintroduce an outrageous Bill to see if its outrageous aspects are picked up by the Opposition and interest groups. The government hopes some of its devices will not be spotted and will just slip through, but when they are exposed the government says, "We did not intend that. It was a drafting mistake. It was an accident. We will fix it up".

Quite frankly, the Opposition is sick to death of this approach by the government. Under the Westminster system the Minister is responsible for the quality of Bills that are brought to the House. The Minister is responsible for the actions of officers of his department in preparing the measures and it is the Minister who must take full responsibility for the content of the Bills he brings to the House.

I refuse to accept mistakes as an excuse for such provisions. If mistakes of the order and range which have been made in this House are true mistakes, the Minister who brought the Bill to the House should resign because of incompetence. Althoup the former Treasurer has now resigned, he has not to this day admitted responsibilIty for any of his shortcomings as Treasurer, and certainly he has not admitted responsibility for the shortcomings in the Bill.

Even with the House amendments which I understand are to be introduced the fundamental problems with this new tax are not being addressed. In particular the rate of tax remains outrageously high. I wish to quote figures provided by the Law Institute on a transfer of a business valued at $800 000. In Victoria under this Bill the rate would be 5·5 per cent; in New South Wales it would be 3·94 per cent; in Tasmania it would be 3·6 per cent; and in South Australia it would be 3·85 per cent. There is an enormous difference between the rates in Victoria and other States, and I certainly find it difficult to believe the Treasurer's low estimate of the revenue to be raised by this Bill.

Not only must we be concerned about the rate of duty, we must also be concerned about the breadth of the new duty. It still applies to almost all assets of a business which is being transferred, and it still applies to the gross value of the business. In other words, it does not allow any adjustment where there are liabilities of the business which are being taken over or paid out by the purchaser. The real value of a business might be only $200 000. However, the business consists of $1 million worth of assets and $800 000 worth of liabilities. The duty applies not to the $200 000 but to the $1 million. There is no credit for the $800 000 of liabilities.

In terms of the effective rate on the purchaser ofa business, it is far higher than the 5·5 per cent or whatever other percentage might apply to the value of the business. There are still inadequate provisions made to exempt businesses which are subject to reorganisation.

The Minister has said this is a tax that applies in other States and we are simply introducing the same system in Victoria. I do not for 1 minute accept that argument. In considering any proposed taxation one must examine the entire taxation profile of the State. We all know the overall taxation burden in this State is among the highestif it is not the absolute highest-in the country. The absence of such a tax-the goodwill tax-to date has been one of the few features of the Victorian taxation regime


which gives Victoria some slight advantage over other States and encouragement for businesses to locate here rather than another State.

Victoria's advantage will be taken away if a goodwill tax is imposed. I invite honourable members to consider why on earth we should follow and emulate the folly of other States in imposing such taxes on business transactions, taxes which cripple the efficiency of business and, therefore, cripple the productivity of our economy.

The Treasurer says also that the Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will provide anti-avoidance measures in respect of land transfer duty. If that were so, the Treasurer could simply amend the prescribed form of a statutory declaration lodged under section 63A of the Stamps Act. Such an amendment could solve that problem if that was all the Treasurer was concerned about. It is no answer to say that a statutory declaration could be falsified, because if a person is prepared to falsify a statutory declaration he or she would be prepared also to falsify a statement lodged under the Bill. Those are the reasons why the proposed tax on business transfers is completely unacceptable to the Opposition.

Despite the best efforts of the Opposition and the Law Institute of Victoria to bring some sense to the government's legislative measures and arrange for the other unacceptable provisions of the Bill to be remedied, there remain several provisions that are not acceptable in their present form. They relate to the partitionin~ of land where the government still may be imposing a duty in addition to the duty lmposed under the present law. I refer also to the provisions relating to demonstrator motor vehicles. People engaged in the business of selling motor cars are unbelievably restricted. The Bill makes it almost impossible to obtain a reduction in duty on the sale of demonstrator motor vehicles.

For those reasons, although the Opposition is prepared to pass those mechanical provisions that simply tidy up the Stamps Act, it is not prepared to pass the provisions to which I have referred. In particular, I indicate that the Treasurer has not shown why the proposed business transfer tax is justified.

For the reasons I have given, Parliament should not grant to the government the imposition of such a tax on the community.

Mr BAKER (Sun shin e)-It is a reasonable proposition to put to the House that there is no such thing as a "popular" tax, or, put in the obverse, all taxes are imperfect in the eyes of those to whom they directly apply and affect.

The problem for government is, of course, that given there is general agreement across all sides of politics that taxes must be raised to a certain degree, the argument then devolves around what manner the government should choose and how it should go about picking the points of exacting taxes.

Some general rules are that a tax should be equitable; it should be collected at some clearly definable point of exchange; and, finally, it should be easily collectable and collectable with a minimum of administrative cost. But in the end, one can put a further proposition: that the taxes that are most acceptable are those with a long history, that is, those with which people have become comfortable through time.

Stamp duty is perhaps the most obvious example of such a tax. It may interest honourable members to know that stamp duty has been with us for something like three and a half centuries and was first introduced in Holland in 1624, according to my research earlier today. Stamp duty travelled to England in 1694 with William of Orange, who-I hasten to assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker-is not one of my heroes. Nevertheless, stamp duty was established in England in 1694 on instruments, and not transactions. It was established on vellum or paper, things of that kind. William of


Orange used the taxes that he raised from that imposition to finance a war against the French. I cannot remember who won that war but I think the Poms got up.

The other matter common to taxes is that they have a history. Stamp duty travelled to Australia with our ancestors and the first duty-from my research-was imposed in 1878. It followed the form I suggested: it was a document duty; it was a tax on instruments rather than on transactions.

However, taxes must change to meet the changing environment and the circumstances of the time. So it was that previous Liberal administrations have been largely responsible-as a matter of history-for changing the nature of the application of stamp duty in moving it from a tax on instruments and documents to a tax directed more towards transactions.

I point out to honourable members that it was a previous Liberal government which in 1958 extended stamp duty so that it applied to hire purchase arrangements and it was a previous Liberal government which in 1964 extended stamp duty to apply to household mortgages. I am sure honourable members will be delighted to know that it was a Liberal government which introduced those changes and extensions to the application of stamp duty.

Finally, in 1967 it was again the then Liberal government which extended the application of stamp duty so that it became a turnover tax, a tax on all receipts. It was a Liberal government which did that!

Given that small preamble, I indicate that all that the government is proposing through the Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is a logical extension of the process to which people of the same political persuasion as members of the Opposition have been a significant party in recent history.

The latest extension of a stamp duty is required because of two major elements or imperatives. The first is that because of modern environmental changes in the marketplace and social changes in the way that business is transacted a whole new range of areas of tax avoidance has arisen. There is no equity in the way in which the tax is levied.

The second point should be drawn to the attention of honourable members opposite in particular: the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in a report ofa couple of years ago, made significant criticism of Victoria's failure to fully utilise its options within its limited tax base in comparison with other States. It criticised Victoria for not taking up its full capacity for taxation by using the stamp duty option to the point where it was suggested that Victoria was some 7 per cent behind the other States.

Mr Perrin interjected.

Mr BAKER-I am sure that the honourable member for Bulleen with his infinite and detailed understanding of Federal-State financial relations will know that that means that when the equalisation formula is calculated for Victoria we would be severely disadvantaged. The State has been losing some proportion of moneys that would have been available to Victorians anyway. It is a matter of duty.


Mr BAKER-It is a matter of duty, and duty of care that has brought the Bill before the House.

I present one final concept, to get honourable members opposite goin~, and to set the scene: the notion of goodwill is now commonly regarded as an asset Within the life of a firm, and within the accounts of a firm. It is regarded as an asset in the way in which firms are traded. It is shown on the balance sheet, and it is acceptable. I


understand that in the example of hotels, a third of the value of the price of exchangeand honourable members opposite are supposed to be the free marketeers-will be shown as goodwill. That is not subject to stamp duty under the existing legislation.

There is an inconsistency in terms of true Liberal philosophy: that all the elements cannot be ignored, and that one element of the price of exchange is ignored. I commend that view to honourable members opposite. The Bill will bring provisions into line; that happens in New South Wales and in other States.

Mr Perton-I wouldn't use New South Wales as an example; you slam them every week!

Mr BAKER-The technical mechanism may be slightly different in the way it is proposed here; the effect is what one worries about with taxation, and the effect will be that the Bill brings Victoria into line with neighbouring States. Goodwill will be taxed.

As to the level of the taxation, my understanding is that the government has taken the proposition of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and has run a consumer price index indicator to the precise level of 7 per cent, as was recommended. The government has conservatised the figure, as one would expect it to do; any prudential government on the revenue side of the ledger would behave prudentially and not make some wild airshot claims about what the figure might be.

On the question of goodwill, Victoria will be brought into line with those States with whom it trades. As for the suggestion that it will discriminate against businessI find that most amusing.

Mr Perton-It increases the cost levels in Victoria.

Mr J. F. McGrath interjected.

Mr BAKER--':Companies are exempt and the professionals who service the business community-the people making most of the noise-are the ones who are really concerned about this because they are the ones playing the goodwill game to suit themselves, and catching it each way. It does not affect companies. As I understand it, the major companies will not be disadvantaged. They will not lose some comparative advantage they had before.

Mr Perrin-What about small business?

Mr BAKER-When you run down the profit and loss statement it will be shown as a cost to the business.

Mr Perrin-You are wrong; it is capital!

Mr BAKER-You will get it. What is left is added to the price of the product and, in the usual way, the cost is diffused throughout the general community. For that reason, business is a good point at which to levy taxation, and it is acceptable because it acts as a single-stop mechanism for spreading the costs of taxation more equitably throughout the community.

The tax on used motor cars is a good example. There has been much fuss, but that cost has basically been spread throughout the community. It has worked well. One must give credit to the motor car traders-

Mr Heffernan-I bet you support consumption tax.

Mr BAKER-The traders have made themselves available and have performed well by collecting that tax.


The other elements to this Bill about which there has been some bagatelle and persiflage relate to simple provisions concerning tax avoidance; and in terms of my earlier remarks, that scene must be put right. The first provision rectifies a technical deficiency in the legislation which relates to nominees. The Bill will accommodate that problem.

The second provision closes a potentially expensive loophole. One would not want any loopholes in any legislation of this kind, would one? An equitable tax scheme is desirable. The government wishes to close the loophole whereby people have been transferring shares rather than land-and that is rather naughty-thereby preventing trusts from being used in the way in which they have been used to circumvent the problem.

Also, the government wishes to prevent the prospective practice of the registering of new cars, and then leaving them on the showroom floor. I do not suggest that this practice is widespread but there is a difference for vehicles priced at more than $45 ODO-one pays $4 in $200 under the present stamp duty provisions.

Mr Perrin-Is this the Robin Hood principle?

Mr BAKER-That seems to handle the problem.

Finally, there is a provision for the honourable member for Murray Valley. I am sorry he is not here tonight but he assured me that he is possibly far away in a distant chookhouse, and he may be listening to me. From time to time he has accused me of being a little academic-I have been very practical!


Mr BAKER-I did not go up to the Murray Valley to count the number of demonstrator cars that his family and mates have in their business, where they have been running on this-shall we say-small loophole-or is it a major loophole? I know the honourable member for Murray Valley is an extremely honest citizen and he would not want a loophole of that kind to continue to exist.

Therefore, through this Bill the government has defined a "demonstrator car" quite clearly. One must use it for the purpose of flogging the vehicle. The alternative is to have the revenue cops-if they will allow me to describe them as that-go out and interpret the strict letter of the law as it is now. One will not be able to take a demonstrator car home for sandwiches!

This is a serious matter; taxation is not a matter to be taken lightly. Certainly it is not a matter for political grand standing on the scale we have seen from members opposite-especially given the Liberal Party's historical attitude to the introduction of stamp duty on commercial transactions.

Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-The Bill is of major concern to members of the Liberal Party. We unashamedly support private enterprise, unlike honourable members opposite-and in particular, unlike the honourable member for Sunshine.

The government lacks the capacity to understand that the State and the nation no longer ride on the sheep's back. Victoria rides on the back of businessmen and women who are prepared to work hard-the employers of Victoria. The vast majority of employers run small businesses, and the majority of those people start their businesses from humble beginnings. Some business people are fortunate enough to have businesses established by parents or other members of the family passed on to them, but the majority of small business people succeed through hard work, determination and blood, sweat and tears.

81 0 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Government services such as health and transport are in crisis-but the crisis is not confined to those areas of government responsibility. Throughout the State business, particularly small business, is in crisis. At present my colleagues are undertaking a project of listing the number of premises that are available for rent or lease in the metropolitan area. Until recently no premises were available for rent or lease in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne such as Ringwood. For many years people had to queue up to rent a shop to commence a business. Until recently space for rental accommodation was at a premium, as was the case in many other areas of the State.

Mr Roper interjected.

Mr BROWN-I should have thought the new Treasurer would be more concerned about the fate of people who run small businesses. Until Christmas last year prospective business people could not rent or lease a shop in Ringwood for love or money. This month 57 business premises in Ringwood are vacant, and more are becoming vacant each week-with no prospect of finding tenants. Businesses are going broke. The development of rental accommodation in the commercial field has almost ceased.

Members of the Opposition have spoken about this matter to municipal officers in electorates throughout the metropolitan area. They have been told that no new development permits are being issued and that the number of shops available for rental is increasing daily. Any government guided by logic and commonsense-and I regret this government has neither-would appreciate that the economy is headed for a recession. Not only Victoria but also Australia is about to fall into a deep economic trough.

But the government responds by introducing Bills such as the Stamps (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the aim of which is to slug small businesses. The effect of the Bill will be to speed up their demise and so speed up the break-up of their families through financial stress. It may be that such Bills will cause one or two suicides because of the intolerable financial pressures that some small business people will experience. The Opposition is concerned that in the months ahead some small business people will face intolerable pressures that they will be unable to bear.

I am one of many members of the Opposition who have owned their own businesses. I am one of a number of honourable members on this side of the House who started businesses from nothing and ended up employing a number of people-unlike most members of the government party, who have never done a true day's work in their lives, never had their hands dirtied and never bent their backs. In fact, it seems as though they have never left school!

The former Treasurer, who was thrown out of office because of incompetency, is one of them-a theorist in the finest tradition. He knows how the economy works because he has read all the books! He is just like the present Treasurer, who knew all about health-and he fixed that up! He claimed to know all about transport, and he fixed that up, too! He claimed he knew how to fix the planning and environment portfolio-and a Supreme Court judge has called his behaviour scandalous. Yet now he is the Treasurer.

Mr Hayward-God help us!

Mr BROWN-Well might one say, "God help us", because no mortal will be able to help the government!

The Liberal Party unashamedly supports small business. We support people who want to start businesses as well as those who have already started them. I am well aware of what Labor governments can do to small business people. I was the founding proprietor of a small business. In 1972, when the Whitlam Labor government was


elected, I employed 32 people, most of whom I grew up with or went to school with. They were all trustworthy, loyal and hardworking. By 1975, when the Whitlam government was defeated, I had had to retrench half of my staff because the Federal Labor government had destroyed small businesses throughout the nation.

The Victorian government is doing the same thing to Victorian business people. It follows deliberate policies of high interest rates and of kowtowing to its union masters. Earlier today a matter was raised concerning Wally Curran's involvement in the meat industry. The Victorian Secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union is ruining an industry-there is no other word for it-in which good, hard-working people want to work; but because of his actions they are being deprived of their right to work. The government has acquiesced to Wally Curran's demands. When the Liberal Party is in government it will stand up to such people. It will support businesses both large and small.

I shall go to the heart of the matter: this Bill is a new taxing Bill. Nobody argues that that is not the case. Obviously the Treasurer, who is at the table, knows that that is the case. If the government goes to an election on the basis of levying no new taxes, I can tell the House the government will honour that commitment-the Opposition will ensure that the government is held to that commitment, if necessary, by the use of the numbers that the Liberal and National parties have in the Legislative Council. Unequivocally there will be no new taxes as promised by the government; unequivocally we will hold the government to that promise.

The tax levied in the Bill fits that category. The first point I make is that this debate must necessarily take place solely to place on the record why this tax, for which the government has no mandate, will not become part of the statutes of Victoria. This bad tax would be bad for business. What the government wants to do is get more money from any source, including selling off our heritage, and our children's inheritance ifnecessary, to cover up and pay for its schemes of incompetence and the miserable failures of Its theorists and whiz-kids.

The Opposition welcomed the demise of the former Treasurer last week. At a personal level it was sad that he had to be hounded out of office-instead of being a man and accepting the inevitable responsibility and resigning, he had to be hounded out. The same can be said of Dr Peter Sheehan, who resigned. At least I give him credit when he spoke publicly--

Mr Hefl'ernan-A theorist.

Mr BROWN-A theorist of the first order. When he called a press conference he admitted that their policies had failed. He said for the public record that their policies had failed.

The government went to the 1982 State election on the basis that it would introduce modern money management techniques.

Mr Heff'ernan-They did.

Mr BROWN-Yes, it honoured those promises, but all of those undertakings, all of those high-flying, you-beaut whiz-kid schemes introduced by the high-fliers who think off the top of their heads and employ people from rent-a-car firms that failed to run our public transport system, have failed.

At least I am glad to note that that failure has been acknowledged by one of its architects; at least he had the courage to say, "I was wrong" -and he was wrong. The government is wrong across a range of issues, including the desire to introduce a tax for which there is no mandate.


I know people who work with their wives and, conversely, women in business who work with their husbands, families and children. They work in their businesses on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, take work home and literally work a lifetime to establish a business. Often all they have left when they sell up is the goodwill component which, for many, is their superannuation.

If the government wanted to close a loophole where taxes are being avoided, I would say, "Introduce the Bill and we will support the closure of that loophole without argument". However, the government cannot introduce a measure, without a mandate, to levy an unannounced tax to close what it claims is a loophole.

If there is a requirement in the statutes to declare the value of the real estate one is selling and the government says that taxes are being avoided by a loophole, that loophole must be closed by all means; the government should introduce draconian measures so that nobody will be stupid enough, after signing a statutory declaration, to claim that the property being sold is not worth the valuation figure.

The government has used the red herrin$ of interstate comparisons. It claims that the fact that this tax exists in other States IS a justifiable reason for introducing this unannounced tax without a mandate. That is rubbish! If the government wants to make comparisons-and I invite it to do so in this debate, comparing like with like and not apples with pears-it must examine payroll tax, which is a dramatic impost on businesses, large and small. Victoria has the highest taxes in the nation under the Cain government.

If one wants to examine land tax and compare like with like, one finds Victoria has the highest tax in the nation under the Cain Labor government. If one wants to examine stamp duty on land--

Mr Gavin-Compare it with New South Wales.

Mr BROWN-The Victorian government has put a debt of $11 000 around the necks of every man, woman and child. I acknowledge the corrupt Wran government and the Unsworth government in New South Wales, but even with that millstone around the neck of every man, woman and child, the burden in that State is only $6450. The honourable member for Coburg interjects and says, "Compare it with New South Wales". The honourable member should hang his head in shame.

I turn to stamp duty on land transfers and again invite comparison. Victoria has the highest rate of stamp duty in the nation. What about the financial institutions duty? Again there was no mandate, and no electoral undertaking to introduce it. The government wins an election and introduces the tax after it has been elected. I say now that those days are finished. The financial institutions duty is another impost introduced unannounced by the Cain Labor government. This tax will cripple businesses laIJe and small. Again I invite comparison with other States. There are numerous bUSIness stamp duties, too numerous for me to canvass in the time remaining in this debate, but if one looks at the statutory authority taxes one realises the government leads not only the nation in that area, but also the world. Government members are the masters of the big take; they are the masters of ripping the guts out of businesses through imposts that bear no relativity whatever to the earning capacity of those businesses; that is why they are going broke.

I turn to the Legislative Council. Some people say the Legislative Council performs a safeguard role, a claim that I readily accept. I accept that the safeguard role should be exercised judiciously and that decisions on the merits of the issues should be made only after they have been fully considered. In the case of an unannounced tax, the opposition parties have the nght to reject a measure. It has been suggested that, constitutionally, the opposition parties do not have such a right. We have taken advice


from learned counsel, which indicates that, constitutionally, we are within our rights to reject that aspect of the Bill.

The Bill deals with some 24 substantive issues. The Liberal Party does not oppose the majority of those substantive issues. However, there are four substantive areas where the Opposition disagrees with the government. The first is the partition of property; the second is nominee clauses in real estate transfers; the third is motor car dealers' demonstration vehicles; and the fourth and main one is this question of goodwill.

If this government is reasonable-and I ask the Treasurer to take note-there is no doubt that it should be able to negotiate three out of four of those issues successfully'. The government should negotiate-and I invite the Treasurer to do so while the Bdl is between here and another place-on the partition of property question. It should negotiate on the nominee clauses in real estate transfers; and it should negotiate on the issue of motor car dealers' demonstration vehicles. The Liberal Party is prepared to negotiate on those issues. However, there will be no negotiation on the fourth component-the goodwill tax.

The honourable member for Sunshine actually had the audacity to suggest that really there is no problem because the cost of this tax can simply be added to the price of the goods that people either sell or manufacture. In a situation where businesses are going broke daily, when bankruptcies are occurring, and when families and individuals are under such . Intense financial pressure, it is ludicrous for the honourable member for Sunshine to suggest that the answer to this problem is to bring in this new unannounced tax-he says it does not matter; it could just be added on to the price of goods.

Ifhonourable members accept his argument, who suffers? The people I am concerned about, in addition to the proprietors of the businesses, are the workers of this State, the people the Labor Party once stood for but no longer does. For the honourable member to suggest that this tax should be added to the prices of items that workers consume is, I suggest, outrageous.

I refer to what I call the old style of Labor politics. It is regrettable that at the last State election the few remaining old-style members of the Labor Party were removed and we now have an entirely new breed of very arrogant, so-called intellectual politicians in the Labor Party who think they know better than everyone else how to run a business-as the former Treasurer, Rob Jolly, proved with Bourke's ACTU Store, and as the government has proved with forays into other areas of private enterprise! Not only do members of the Labor Party not know how to do it, but also they know how to ruin others along the way.

The issue is clear. This is a time of crisis for literally hundreds of thousands of small business proprietors, which means also a crisis for all thek employees and their dependants. Surely this is not the time for the government even to consider introducing a tax such as this. Even if the economy were healthy there would still be totally valid reasons for suggesting that this tax is iniquitous and provision for it should never be brought into Parliament.

I said at the outset and I repeat: the Liberal Party, under my leadership, stands unashamedly for support of businesses, large and small. We understand that this nation, this State and this economy ride on the backs of those people who put so much into ensuring that their businesses do not fold up. Not only are they in the minority when compared with the number of people they employ, but in many instances they are no better off financially than the people they employ. In some cases-and I am aware of several-the employees are actually better of[ Yet, these people battle on


because they want to be self-employed and, in many cases, it is with a determination to ensure that the people they employ continue to have jobs. The Liberal Party will support such people. It will take an interest not only in the employees but also in the people themselves who have established these businesses from nothing and put in the hard work to ensure they continue.

I repeat: this government has no mandate for this tax. The Labor Party went to the last election on the basis that it would not introduce any new taxes, but it lied, cheated, schemed and purposefully and wilfully misled the community-of course, I refer to such things as the VEDC scandal and cover-up. At least on the basis of the outcome of the election, where the control of the Upper House rests in the hands of the Liberal and National parties, we can now ensure that the Labor Party's promise not to introduce any new taxes is honoured-and honoured to the letter It will be.

On the motion ofMr RaPER (Treasurer), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until next day.

ADJOURNMENT SBV loans for office accommodation-Proposed country tourism association

Strathmore freeway resenation-Dieldrin-affected cattle-Government regulation of country abattoirs-Women's participation in sport-Victorian Accident RehabiHtation Council

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I move: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HEFFERNAN (Ivanhoe)-I direct the Treasurer's attention to a matter regarding State Bank Victoria. A report on the Melbourne property market investment strategy dated February1990 compiled by Baillieu Knight Frank (Vic.) Pty Ltd states that 44 per cent of the 95 000 square metres of office space completed last year remains unlet. It states further that 74 per cent of the 500 000 million square metres of office space in the central business dIStrict due to be completed by the end of this year still remains unlet.

As the Treasurer will be aware, pre-Ietting of office space has been a deciding factor for developers wishing to undertake work in this State. This has now ceased, and there will be the sharpest downturn in the development of office space within the central business district that this State has seen since the war. Not only office space but also holes in the ground will remain empty as the development sector of Victoria slowly grinds to a halt.

I ask the Treasurer to inform the House either tonight or at a later stage whether State Bank Victoria is liable for any ongoing holding costs arising from loans to these developers of office space that remains vacant and the open-ended commitments that I believe have be~n undertaken by State Bank Victoria. Of course, these commitments are the hidden costs and losSes that will be incurred in the future. I also ask whether these open-ended commitments will be taken into account in the provisions for bad debts and losses.

A large amount of the responsibility for the financial crisis in banking that has hit the State has to be borne by State Bank Victoria for entering into the development market with policies of open-ended loans being made irresponsibly and with no securitr. The securities already in place do not cover 50 per cent of some of the loans. A full mquiry must be held Into the early operations and the directorship of State Bank Victoria.


Without doubt the directors of the bank have created turmoil in the financial industry because of their attitude towards the lending of money in this State. They have forced other banks to compete and provide loans in a way that in the past would have been regarded as totally irresponsible. That has been brought about totally by the actions of the bank and its directions from the government.

I ask the Treasurer whether he can come forward with a total denial that the bank has open-ended commitments to developers of office space and that it has guaranteed repayment of the loans until these places are let. If it has it could be an ongoing cost that the State can ill afford. I ask that the taxpayers be told so they know what to expect in the future if Victoria goes into a recession.

Mr JASPER (Murray Valley)-I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Tourism and I refer to the Minister's attitude towards the development of tourism in country Victoria and the coordination of tourism across the State. The Minister would be aware that last week at Tullamarine the first Victorian Country Tourism Conference was held, at which the Minister was a speaker. The Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party and I addressed the conference as the National Party spokesman on tourism.

One of the issues raised was the need for coordination of all tourist activities in country Victoria. I highlighted the fact that the Minister had wound down and broken up the regional tourist authorities that had operated in Victoria until twelve months ago. He removed partial funding to those authorities and the system collapsed. The Minister has since used a different system for funding of tourist activities in country Victoria.

My concern is that Victoria has no coordinated country tourism facility. The conference last week decided to set up a coordinating association and that was strongly supported by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Tourism Commission, Ms Katie Lahey. The Minister has apparently not given support to the formation of this association, but the concept should be supported.

The first National Conference of Regional Tourist Organisations is shortly to be held in South Australia. Every State in Australia except Victoria will attend. In fact, most of the other States have country tourism associations that will be represented at that conference. If the regional tourist authorities were still in existence, they would have been able to present a united body at the conference.

At the conference last week it was decided to form an association. We are looking for support from the Minister so that an association can be coordinated to allow representatives to go to the conference in South Australia to promote tourism in country Victoria.

I support the actions the Minister has taken in the Gippsland Lakes promotion and the promotion of the River Murray region. Unfortunately no coordination with New South Wales has been possible. It is important that that is achieved, because the River Murray region should be promoted as a joint Victorian-New South Wales venture. However, I support the Minister's action in spending $1 million over two and a half months to promote tourist activities in the River Murray region.

The National Party wants coordination. The Minister has supported country tourism in the past. I ask him to take on board the comments that I make, which are a genuine attempt to help coordinate country tourism.

In an attempt to get in the Minister's good books, I present him with a plaque that he won when he attended the winery walkabout last year and the country fair on the Sunday at which a celebrity grape tread contest was conducted. The Minister attended


at my request and, although I had been the winner of the grape tread contest in the previous two years, the Minister, with the support ofMrs Margaret Gillespie, won the contest. On behalf of the Apex Club of Rutherglen I present the Minister with the plaque. The inscription is "Celebrity Grape Tread Winner-Steve Crabb partnered by Mrs Margaret Gillespie". I hope the challenge is thrown out again to the Minister next year. It is an event that is well known throughout Victoria and Australia and is held to promote the region.

Mr THOMSON (Pascoe Vale)-I direct the attention of the Minister for Transport to the need for the deletion of the reservation known as the Strathmore Escarpment Route Freeway. At present a reservation sets aside an area in Strathmore for the construction of a freeway run'ning along the northern and eastern side of the Essendon airport. This is causing substantial difficulties to local residents. They are concerned that the freeway will be built along the northern and eastern side of the airport, which would have disastrous environmental consequences for the local community, especially those people whose houses are directly affected by the alignment and who would have to move, as well as those who would be affected indirectly in the adjoining area and along the Moonee Ponds Creek, because noise and other adverse environmental effects would be experienced.

The City of Essendon has prepared an alternative to the Strathmore Escarpment Route Freeway reservation, which is contained in a publication entitled Tullamarine Freeway 2050. The report sets out in some detail why the existing Tullamarine Freeway alignment can be used to prevent the need for the Strathmore freeway being constructed.

The proposal has a number of advantages. First, it utilises the existing transport corridor, which has the necessary infrastructure, street lighting, emergency services, telephone link, noise barriers, landscaping and many other structures that could be used in an enlarged freeway.

The second advantage is that it requires a reduced area of land to accommodate the proposal. Although it takes up some airport land, it frees all the land previously acquired for the escarpment route, including 146 residential house blocks worth at least $90 000 each, or approximately $13 million in total.

The third advantage-the greatest advantage-of the proposal is that it will cost $20 million less than the escarpment route proposal. Added to this is the $13 million saved by the sale of surplus land currently reserved for the escarpment route-a total potential saving of$33 million.

The alternative proposal is far less intrusive on the environment, provides for the same carrying capacity, costs less and has the support of the community. There is no justifiable reason for maintaining the escarpment route reservation on the Metropolitan Planning Scheme.

Last week a deputation from the City of Essendon, including me, saw the previous Minister for Transport, now the Attorney-General, and obtained his agreement to a proposal that the escarpment route reservation should be deleted from the planning scheme. I direct the matter to the attention of the Minister for Transport and seek his assurances that the undertaking of the previous Minister will be honoured.

Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-I direct to the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs a matter that should not have arisen in the first place, but more importantly needs urgent correction. The Minister will be aware of the serious chemical residue problem that has affected many farmers in Victoria, particularly in the Bellarine and Gembrook districts. These farmers, through no fault of their own, suffer great hardship and some have even been forced to sell their properties.


In order to provide some relief and assistance for these dieldrin-stricken farmers, landowners on clean properties were asked to accept the challenge and take cattle on agistment. It was typical that the farmers were willing to help others who were in a similar business to overcome their problems. The landowners who took the cattle for agistment were given absolute guarantees that their lands would not be affected in any way by the dieldrin, and they were encouraged by the department to help out their less fortunate colleagues.

Now, the situation has arisen that these farmers must pay a penalty and suffer the stigma of having to give notice of having agisted the dieldrin-affected cattle if they wish to sell their land. An amendment to the Sale of Land Act, passed by Parliament in the 1989 spring sessional period, referred to any encumbrances on the land. The terms of the Act are now considered to apply if stock on the land have been contaminated with chemical residue.

I can appreciate that the departmental officers may have been unaware of the amendment, but the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, should have been alert to the repercussions of the amendment. It prescribes certain formalities for all sales, the most notable being under section 32, which says that vendors must provide to purchasers, before selling, statements that detail matters relating mainly to planning and encumbrances.

Under the amendment to the Sale of Land Act it is now necessary for a landowner who has agisted contaminated cattle to disclose that fact before he sells his land. I realise that some honourable members on the government side are not interested in this matter but I assure the House that it is important to the farming community that they must comply with this provision, which must create doubt in the mind of a prospective purchaser, to the possible detriment of the vendor. There is no need for this situation to arise.

In view of the anomaly, which has created unnecessary difficulties that are contrary to the express guarantees, will the Minister seek an urgent amendment to the Sale of Land Act in order to rectify--

The SPEAKER-Order! I remind the honourable member for Ripon that it is not possible to request amendments to legislation during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting. The honourable member, as an experienced Parliamentarian, should well know that.

Mr AUSTIN-In that case I ask the Minister to examine the matter and endeavour to rectify the problem. A working party has examined the matter, but it is only through Ministerial action that this anomaly can be overcome.

Mr STEGGALL (Swan Hill)-I direct the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs to the unrealistic regulation of quality standards imposed on small country abattoirs. Unfortunately I do not have a plaque for him tonight because all the plaques in this issue have "closed" written on them.

I have raised the issue with the Minister before but there has been no improvement. I ask the Minister to get a proper handle on the standards set for small abattoirs. It seems that every time a standard is set and achieved, the goalposts are moved and further standards are imposed on small abattoirs. Many. abattoirs are now under suspension orders. Some have closed and others are struggliq.g to maintain their operations as a result of extremely high standards that are now well beyond a joke.

It appears the government, by continually changing the standards, is aiming at penalising and eventually closing most country abattoirs because of some belief that they all should be in Melbourne. Session 1990-27


The country abattoir industry is strongly of the opinion that the government has a set program of destruction through regulation to achieve that goal. I ask the Minister to seriously examine the enormous number of quality standards being imposed upon small abattoirs.

Despite a good public health record, country abattoirs are subject to consistent inspections by health inspectors, Environment Protection Authority inspectors, stock inspectors, local veterinarians, area supervisors for the common code, Commonwealth inspectors, permanent meat inspectors employed on site, Department of Labour inspectors, health and safety inspectors and building inspectors.

Mr Gude-That's a lot of money!

Mr STEGGALL-Yes, and there are also a series of flying visits from senior personnel of ~overnment departments. This would be one of the most over-regulated health areas In country Victoria. There is no reason for the enormous amount of regulation and red tape imposed on small abattoirs.

The upshot is that many have dropped out; others are finding it difficult to maintain their position; and a number are under suspension orders.

The government, with its supposed interest in employment-it keeps telling everyone about its employment record-is creatinB significant problems for those employed in country Victoria. The abattoir industry IS a high employer of skilled labour and has been operating extremely well over the years. The regulation that has been put in place time and again, year after year, is doing nothin& for employment or for the health of the State.

Country abattoirs have had an impeccable record with health standards over the past 50 years. The standards that are bein& demanded, and being changed year after year, are placing significant hurdles in the way of country abattoirs, and they achieve nothing. It appears the current aim of the Labor Party IS to close down abattoirs in country Victoria and centralise them in Melbourne.

Mrs HIRSH (Wantirna)-I direct to the attention of the Minister for Sport and Recreation the public advancement of women's sport. In the past the media, both through television and the newspapers, have given little space or time to women's sport. Public notice of women's sport is increasing dramatically and the number of chauvanistic comments and images about women playing sport have decreased.

I direct the attention of the Minister to what in one sense is an excellent item in today's Herald, but it has unfortunately been spoiled by a cartoon that serves only to ridicule the positive aspects of the article. I refer to a photograph and article on page 1 of this afternoon's Herald, which reports on the first female umpire employed by the Australian Football League, Sharon Alger.

The article describes how last week Ma Alger umpired her first Victorian Football Association match and reported a player who was subsequently suspended. It is an excellent article, and I congratulate Ms Alger on her participation in a non-traditional sport for women. Publicity of this type of participation by women provides a positive role model for girls who may want to participate in both traditional and non-traditional womens'sports.

The article is excellent, but, unfortunately, the cartoon lampoons the suspension of the player by the tribunal. The cartoon spoils the positive effects the article and photograph will have in encouraging young WOlnen to participate in sport. It alludes to women in the old-fashioned way as sex objects. Certainly it is only a joke, but, nevertheless, it is an image that girls at school must overcome before they feel free and comfortable to participate in sport.


At coeducational schools one often finds an ignorant approach to the participation of girls in sport from their young male colleagues. Some of them are not as well educated as are honourable members in this place. Male students taunt the girls participating in sport simply because they are females.

It is sad that a positive article about a woman participatins in a non-traditional female sport has been spoiled by a fairly unpleasant cartoon. This afternoon a number of women rang me to complain about the nature of the cartoon and the implications of it in alluding to women as sex objects.

I want the Minister to investigate whether the Department of Sport and Recreation has any policies that work towards encouraging the public display of womens' sports.' The Australian women's hockey team is probably this country's best example of the successful participation of women in sport. The team is a positive role model for young women, and it is wonderful. I ask the Minister to advise me whether the department has any policies to advance womens' sports and to increase women's participation in sporting events.

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn)-I wish to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister for Labour. It relates to what I understand is the resignation of Jim Davidson, the head of the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council. I am not sure whether he has resigned or jumped ship like Dr Shepherd but the involvement he had with the CPS Rehabilitation Service fraud effectively overturned a decision by the Victorian Accident Compensation Commission to take legal action against the CPS Rehabilitation Service.

I am wondering where this man has gone. Surely the Victorian public sector is not so lacking in integrity and skills as to continue to employ him. One could assume he has been picked up by the Federal Labor Party, because nobody else in their right mind would employ this man. He has debased the process of rehabilitation in this State and misrepresented the integrity of the Victorian Accident Rehabilitation Council.

Mr CRABB (Minister for Tourism)-The honourable member for Murray Valley at long last raised the matter of the celebrity grape treading contest on last year's Queen's Birthday weekend, in which I showed my interest in tourism in the Murray Valley. I defeated the honourable member for Murray Valley by half as much again, which has nothing to do with the tardiness of his presentation of the trophy, but I am grateful to him for it! I must admit that it was Mrs Margaret Gillespie who knew what she was about. I have put in a bid that she and I oUght to defend this trophy. The condition is that she be my partner.

In terms of tourism, the honourable member was concerned about a lack of coordination between States. I do not really accept the point he raised. The campaign that the Victorian Tourism Commission IS ·about to run in regard to this issue has been discussed with organisations along the River Murray, as recently as yesterday morning. I believe the tourism organisations in that area are well pleased with the campaign that is afoot. I am sure the Murray Valley campaign will be equally successful-if not more successful-as the Lakes campaign that has just been completed.

The whole of the Murray Valley has enormous attractions for the people of Victoria. Given that the airlines, despite their recovery from the pilots strike, are charging like wounded bulls and not providing very much in the way of discounts, there are many attractions in a purely financial sense for people who can get better weather and facilities at a lower price in the Murray Valley than they can by being seduced to Queensland.

Turning to the honourable member's concern about representation at a conference in South Australia, we try to achieve coordination between the States in regard to


these matters. We tried to achieve a joint tourism campaign with the Murray Valley between Victoria and New South Wales but New South Wales had spent its money and did not feel it was in its best interests to promote a particular region. The government in that State runs its promotions on the basis that New South Wales is larger than life and tries to promote everything at once rather than focusing on a specific area.

In terms of representation at interstate conferences, I am more than happy to see tourism associations along the River Murray band together and do it themselves. The whole basis on which my department is supporting regional tourism is to say that whatever regional tourism authorities want to do in marketing themselves, it will put up $1 for every $1 they put up.

Last year we provided $1 million, and we want to increase that this year to $2·2 million. If the associations want a representation basis, we are happy to support it.

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport)-The honourable member for Pascoe Vale raised with me the freeway reservation along the escarpment at Strathmore. He indicated that my predecessor, now the Attorney-General, had had a meeting with the Essendon City Council and undertook some discussion about the existing Tullamarine Freeway. He indicated also that strong public support existed for the removal of the reservation at Strathmore.

I undertake to have discussions with my predecessor to ascertain what commitment he made and I shall report to the honourable member for Pascoe Vale early next week on the outcome of those discussions.

Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-The honourable member for Ripon raised a matter in respect of dieldrin-affected farmlands in the Barwon area. He referred to the problems they face in disposing of their properties where they have been agisting cattle from previously dieldrin-affected properties.

At the outset, I acknowledge the magnificent job done by my predecessor in another place, Mr Walker. He responded to a major problem that impacted on the beef industry in Victoria and especially on individual farmers. The response was to the problems of the industry generally in order to protect a major export industry to the United States of America. His record in that capacity is truly magnificent. The ongoing program provides assistance for individual farmers to allow them to trade out of the problems they face on dieldrin-affected land.

The issue has been dealt with in cooperation with the Rural Finance Corporation. The matter raised tonight related to the repercussions of the amendment to the Sale of Land Act. I recognise the point made by the honourable member for Ripon in respect of the anomaly that could result in an undue impact on farmers whose land is not dieldrin-affected but who have done the right thing in agisting cattle from affected properties. I agree that the problem should be examined, and I shall be pleased to consider the matter and provide a response as quickly as possible.

The honourable member for Swan Hill raised a matter relating to standards in abattoirs in country Victoria. As he is aware, those standards are the responsibility of the Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority. He would appreciate also that the standards are set at national level. The government is looking to upgrade the standards not only in respect of exports but also those relating to domestic abattoirs and killing houses in this State. The matter has been under consideration for some time and is being decided by the Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority.

The government has been considering the upgrading of the killing establishments over a number of years. The owners of each of the abattoirs are aware of the new


criteria which have been set, as I said, at the national level. The owners have been gi ven every possible opportunity for making the appropriate improvements, not only to protect our export industry but also to protect our domestic industry.

Mr Steggall-There are no exports at all!

Mr ROWE-I know that. The standards for domestic abattoirs are different from the standards for export abattoirs but the domestic abattoirs must be brought up to a particular standard. As I said, people have been given due notice to attain that standard. A process must be followed under which the owners must be given due notice. The national standards are being implemented in a reasonable and compassionate manner. The government must proceed to implement the standards in order to protect the domestic industry.

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-The honourable member for Wantirna referred to Sharon Alger, the first woman Australian Football League umpire, who was featured in an article in today's newspaper, although the article was lessened by an accompanying cartoon ofa somewhat sexist nature.

As much as possible, my department's policy is to broaden participation by females in a variety of sports throughout Victoria, and that policy has been rather successful. In recent years, there has been more participation by females in what have always been typically male-dominated arenas; for example, sports like Australian Rules football. Now there are female goal and field umpires in junior codes; also, females are umpiring male cricket matches in the junior ranks, and my department encourages females to participate in sports.

A short resume of the department's policy states: The department will take positive action to encourage women and girls to take up and maintain

participation in the full range of sport and recreation activities.

The department will work towards improving the image the media presents of sportswomen. It will encourage increased reporting of women's sport which will provide role models for girls and young women in particular.

Therefore, the government is taking a number of initiatives.

Last year, the Department of Sport and Recreation sponsored the Victorian women's golf championship, and attracted extra participation because of the sponsorship. Last Tuesday week, at the Western Oval, on behalf of the Western Sports Association, the department financed an introductory day for youngsters from ethnic-speaking backgrounds; many females were introduced to Australian sports. They were very interested in Australian Rules football and other games that they had not played before. The department wanted as many as possible of those in the western suburbs to participate in sport, without being discouraged.

I congratulate Sharon for her achievement on being the first AFL umpire. I trust that she will achieve her ambition of umpiring a senior AFL game. She is a very good example for other females to participate in sport; and, rather than discouraging females from participating, the press should be encouraging them.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-The honourable member for Hawthorn raised an issue concerning a Mr Davidson, and asked that the matter be referred to the Minister for Labour. That matter is part of the honourable member's ongoing exercise in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting of attacking individuals and hoping that some of the mud he throws under privilege will stick. He adopts that practice at every opportunity; now and then it would be useful for him to go outside and say certain things-if he did so, very shortly he would be a poorer person.


The honourable member for Ivanhoe surprised me by knocking development in the inner city area, and suggested that there would be some major problems in the inner metropolitan development arrangements. Certainly at present there are a number of properties that are not let, and there are significant possibilities of a temporary oversupply situation.

As the honourable member will be aware, part of the rights of capitalists are to lose money as well as to make money, and some are exercising those rights at the moment.

If the honourable member has any particular developments or loans that he thinks should be examined, I would appreciate it ifhe could provide the details to me; he did not provide any details during his address to the House. I will then seek further information.

Once what has been a major boom starts to turn down, it would be very surprising if some parties were not affected-just as in the next couple of years the most important and skilled property developers will need an appreciation of exactly. when the market is about to improve. Only those developers who are capable Wlll be able to take advantage of it. If the honourable member for Ivanhoe provides me with the details, I shall be happy to follow up the matter for him.


The House adjourned at 10.21 p.m. until Tuesday, April 10.

Questions on Notice 3 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 823

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated-

WORKCARE AND SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 147)

Mr AUSTIN (Ripon) asked the Minister for Labour, for the Minister for Local Government:

In respect of each department, agency or authority within her administration since the commencement ofthe WorkCare program, how many former government workers, who were entitled to superannuation, are currently on WorkCare, indicating-(a) how many have been completely paid out of superannuation; and (b) have any agreements been drawn up in relation to these matters; if so-(i) what formulae have been used; (ii) what are the terms ofthese agreements; and (iii) on whose authority were they negotiated?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is:

(a) Nil-Local Government Department.

Nil-Local Authorities Superannuation Board.

(b) Nil-Local Government Department.

Nil-Local Authorities Superannuation Board. (i) Not applicable.

(ii) Not applicable. (iii) Not applicable.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT STAFF-MILDURA (Question No. 269)

Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) asked the Minister for Transport: What the staffing statistics are for each department, agency and authority within his administration in

the electoral district ofMildura for each of the years 1980-891

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport)-The answer supplied by the former Minister for Transport is:

State Transport Grain Road Constn. Road Traffic Authority Elevators Board Authority Authority

1980 154 12 31

1981 153 12 31

1982 152 12 31

1983 153 12 31 9

1984 151 16 31 7

1985 151 15 31 9

1986 148 17 31 9

1987 139 17 31 8

824 ASSEMBLY 3 April 1990 Questions on Notice

State Transport Grain Road Constn. Road Traffic Authority Elevators Board Authority Authority

1988 133 16 31 8

1989 124 16 31 8

Road Traffic Authority staffing statistics do not provide district staff members prior to 1983.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF-MILDURA (Question No. 285)

Mr BILDSTIEN (Mildura) asked the Minister for Labour, for the Minister for Local Government:

What the staffing statistics are for each department, agency and authority within her administration in the electoral district of Mildura for each of the years 1980-89?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is:

Nil-Local Government Department.

Nil-Local Authorities Superannuation Board.

WORKCARE PAYMENTS-MINISTRY FOR SPORT AND RECREATION

(Question No. 332)

Mr GUDE (Hawthorn) asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation: In respect of each department, agency and authority within his administration:

1. What the cost was of Work Care payments made to personnel employed in the financial years 1985-86 to 1988-89?

2. Whether he will advise the amount paid by each organisation in WorkCare levies for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively?

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-The answer is: 1. The cost of WorkCare payments made to personnel in the financial years 1985-86 to 1988-89 by

agency was:

Totalizator Agency Board

Harness Racing Board

Greyhound Racing Control Board

National Tennis Centre

Department of Sport and Recreation

2. The following WorkCare levies were paid by each agency.

Totalizator Agency Board

Harness Racing Board

Greyhound Racing Control Board

National Tennis Centre

Department of Sport and Recreation

1987-88

$

244184

26321

14461

6087

75670

$

2405725

4446

Nil

9155

70322

1988-89

$

242934

28756

12754

12338

115573

Questions on Notice 3 April 1990 ASSEMBLY

FUNDING FOR WOMEN IN DEPARTMENT OF SPORT AND RECREATION

(Question No. 367)

Mr WADE (Kew) asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation:

825

In respect of each department, agency and authority within his administration, what are the names and addresses of persons, organisations and groups who received or are to receive funding in each of the financial years 1981-82 to 1989-90 for purposes assisting women, indicating, in respect of each year(a) the amount of funding received or to be received by each person, organisation or group; and (b) the purpose for which the funding was approved?

Mr TREZISE (Minister for Sport and Recreation)-The answer is: Since 1986-87 the government has published annually the "Women's Budget" and information on

those programs targeted for women are contained in these publications.

Prior to that, separate funding for specific groups was not maintained and it would be a substantial clerical task to attempt to analyse each allocation made in those years 1981-82 to 1985-86 to identify the women's funding component which limits of present resources do not justify.

826 ASSEMBLY 5 April 1990 Question on Notice

QUESTION ON NOTICE

The following answer to questions on notice was circulated-

COST OF OPENING OF BUNYIP SECTION OF PRINCES HIGHWAY

(Question No. 375)

Mr PESCOTT (Bennettswood) asked the Minister for Transport: In relation to the official opening of the duplication of the Bunyip section of the Princes Highway on

2 June 1989 near Wimpole's Road:

1. What was the total cost of the opening?

2. What was the breakup of the costs associated with the opening, indicating the cost of-(a) the construction of the roadway from Wimpole's Road to the site of the official opening; (b) the supply of sand and/or screenings to the roadway; (c) the application of such sand and/or screenings; (cl) the hire oftoilets; (e) the hire of the marquee or tent; (f) the cost of the luncheon and the total cost thereof; (g) discovery, transport and placement of the large rock near the marquee or tent site; (h) construction of the steps and/ or path from the marquee or tent to the roadway including the pl~cement of the red gum rises; and (I) purchase, delivery and spreading of the wood chips or other material on the steps and/or path to the roadways?

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport)-The answer supplied by the former Minister for Transport is:

The total cost of the opening was $10 881. The usual cost of an opening ceremony is in the vicinity of $5000. However, due to the wet and steep nature of the site, additional preparation was necessary which increased the cost of this particular opening.

The overall cost of the construction of the car parking area and the access to roadway to the site was $1580.

This area including the opening ceremony site is located on the alignment of a future access restoration road and was constructed as part of the overall roadworks.

The crushed rock material used in the area was material trimmed from the main carriageway during pavement construction. This material would normally be stockpiled at a suitable location for future use on access roads or other areas. In this case it was used to pave the opening ceremony area and has been left in place for future use at this location when the access road is fully constructed. The only cost therefore resulted in the grading and rolling of the material.

The toilet was hired for the day from Donpar Hire at a cost of$75.00.

The cost of the equipment hire including marquee, flooring, tables, chairs, labour and transport was $2948.

The cost of catering for the light luncheon was $1206.

There was no cost for the rock on which the plaque was attached. It was an in situ rock exposed during the construction of the batter.

The cost ofthe construction of the steps and pathway from the marquee site to the roadway including the supply and installation of the wood mulch and sleepers was $2542.

The balance of the costs of the opening was for the supply of the brass plaque and ribbon, overnight security of the site, issue of invitations and preparation and printing of the brochure.

Distinguished Visitor 10 April 1990 ASSEMBLY 827

Tuesday, 10 April 1990

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Ken CoghiU) took the chair at 2.4 p.m. and read the prayer.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR The SPEAKER-Order! On behalf of the Chamber, I should like to welcome to the

Gallery Senator-elect Kemp, who is visiting Parliament as the guest of the honourable member for Brighton.


STATE BANK VICTORIA Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-Is the Treasurer aware that a private

investigation firm has interviewed a number of State Bank Victoria staffand reported on internal procedures following the public disclosure of bank documents? If so, will the Treasurer advise the House whether the report covers the State Bank loans scandal, secret commissions, theft and insider trading, and will he make the report public?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-This is again part of the Leader of the Opposition's constant campaign to denigrate the State Bank. One wonders why he has chosen to do so. I am sure the bank from time to time carries out inquiries, as it should do and as it is charged to do under its Act. If the private investigation firm is carrying out inquiries, I am sure that if any evidence of wrongdoing is found it will be reported to the Victoria Police Force and appropriate action will be taken taken.

PROTECTION OF UNSECURED CREDITORS Mr W. D. McGRA TH (Lowan)-In view of the commitment of the Minister for

Agriculture and Rural Affairs to the provision of a legislative framework to protect unsecured creditors in primary industries-bearin~ in mind the collapse of the Victorian oatgrowers pool and Fantasy Farm, which will see many farmers as unsecured creditors lose many thousands of dollars-when does the honourable gentleman intend to introduce such legislation and what form will the legislation take?

Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-The honourable member has in the past raised with me this matter of providing protection for agricultural producers when traders default. It is important in a deregulated market-particularly in the wheat market with the chan~es that are filtering through from Federal legislation, supported by complementary legtslation in this place-that all business people, and farmers are in business, take every precaution with respect to trading in grains and other products.

It is important that the government provide an element of protection for businesses against default by traders that is no fault of the businesses. Instances have occurred in the recent past where individual farmers have been left with enormous losses as a result of trading through private firms that have gone into receivership.

My department has taken the matter into consideration in developing an appropriate framework and legislative model. It requires significant consultation with colleagues at the national level, and that is continuing.


VICTORIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION GRAND FINAL Mr SERCOMBE (Niddrie)-Following the decision last night by the Melbourne

City Council, will the Premier advise the House of what further steps the government is taking to ensure that the 1990 Victorian Football Association grand final is played at Princes Park?

Mr CAIN (Premier)-I am delighted to inform the House that commonsense and the spirit of grassroots football has prevailed and the VFA grand final will be played on the third Sunday in September at Princes Park this year-and I hope in succeeding years.

I believe last night's decision by the Melbourne City Council to allow the grand final to be played on a Sunday is a triumph of consultation. Unlike honourable members opposite, who have been sleepwalking through the 1980s, the government has moved with the times and learnt how to work with people to achieve a desired result. That is what has been achieved.

I make it clear that we will cooperate with the Melbourne City Council in its request for a working party to look at the issues generally surrounding the use of Princes Park, and I want to assure those residents who are and have for some time been troubled about the use of the ground that what is involved here is one Sunday game a year. We are not opening the way for regular Sunday games or regular Friday night games; and, yes, I believe-contrary to some of the jibers opposite-I· will see my team, Preston, playing on the third Sunday in September. I must say I have a lot more confidence in that team's being there than the Opposition's chairman of selectors, Michael Kroger, seems to have in his team. He is giving it away. He is not even going to the draft list.

The Melbourne City Council and the Lord Mayor, I believe, have responded constructively to what was a proposal for community football's benefit and the benefit generally of those people who support community football through the VF A-the Victorian Football Association; and the residents, as I say, will have their input into the process that the working party undertakes. I welcome their decision and I thank them for it.

VICTORIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I address a question to the Treasurer. I refer to the

$10 million interest-free loan made by the Victorian Economic Development Corporation to some members of the Cester family-the proprietors of Chubby Chick Pty Ltd-to purchase the Fantasy Farm business and to the possible imminent collapse of the Chubby Chick companies. Is it a fact that the Cester family were induced to enter this deal by the honourable member for Footscray and the Honourable Evan Walker agreeing to facilitate the transfer of valuable hen quotas to the Chubby Chick companies, contrary to the law--

Mr Kenneciy interjected.

The SPEAKER-Order!

Mr STOCKDALE-I understand the honourable member is very sensitive on this matter, Mr Speaker!

Mr Kennedy interjected.

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo West is well aware of the Standing Orders and the practices of this House. I ask him to observe them.


Mr STOCKDALE-Is it a fact that the Cester family were induced to enter this deal by the honourable member for Footscray and the Honourable Evan Walker agreeing to facilitate the transfer of valuable hen quotas to the Chubby Chick companies, contrary to the law, and undertaking to the Cester family to ensure that that transfer took place?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-Firstly, I should point out that it is not the practice for either myself or my predecessor to comment on individual accounts, but I do understand in this instance a receiver has been appointed, and no doubt that receiver will manage the situation in the best interests of all the creditors.

On the second part of the question, it is very interesting that members of the National Party were allegin~ a quite different arrangement only in the past fortnight, when they were saying that It was all about an inducement regarding some developed land in Warrandyte. Indeed, officers of the Ministry for Planning and Environment, as it then was, made it clear that any such suggestion had been simply thrown out by them when it was put.

The allegations are easily made. However, if the honourable member has any evidence whatsoever, he should make that available. Ifhe has evidence of criminality, he knows where to go with that: he should go to the Victoria Police. If he does not, everyone will know that he is simply using this place to attack people while he has the protection of Parliamentary privilege.

EASTER ROAD TOLL Mr McNAMARA (Leader of the National Party)-Given that the Minister for

Police and Emergency Services has identified the objective of trying to have zero fatalities over the Easter period and is putting millions of dollars into an advertising campaign, will he explain why he has not provided sufficient manpower and resources to enable the 60 speed cameras that have been purchased by the police to be operated fully?

Mr SANOON (Minister for Police and Emergency Services)-The honourable member's question allows me the opportunity of informing the House that I shall continue the practice of my predecessor with respect to the day-to-day operations of the police, which will be Within the jurisdiction of the Chief CommiSSioner of Police. Of course, I shall follow that through. My role will be to set the policy and guidelines under which the exact operational matters will be the prerogative of the chief commissioner.

A number of cameras will come into operation prior to the Easter period. The objective is for a zero death count this Easter. It will be difficult to achieve that because of human frailty. Unfortunately, accidents will continue to occur, and too often because people have had too much to drink or are tired.

However, it is important to maintain our broad objectives and to use speed cameras to try to reduce the speed at which motorists drive. I shall do everything I can to try to reduce that speed to within the limits set. We have set ourselves targets for that as well. I hope all motorists will slow down-because speed kills!

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION Mrs BARKER (Bentleigh)-Will the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs

inform the House of the most recent advice he has received on the number of animals used in experimentation and, in particular, animals used for the testing of cosmetics?



Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-I am disappointed with the reaction of the opposition parties on this important issue because the Victorian government has led the country on animal welfare. In 1983 the government introduced controls over scientific experimentation, which involved each institute in the State reporting--


The SPEAKER-Order! The Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Berwick well know they are completely out of order. Not only are their interjections out of order but they are unrelated to the question and, therefore, not even apt. I ask them to observe Standing Orders.

Mr ROWE-As I said, in 1983 the government introduced action· to control and regulate the use of animals in experimentation. This requires the relevant institutes in Victoria to monitor the situation, to report to the Bureau of Animal Welfare on an annual basis the use and number of animals used in experimentation and to establish ethics committees and peer group assessment.

In 1986 the government went a step further and banned the Draize test on rabbits' eyes used in experimentation for cosmetics. That ban was applied in Victoria well ahead of the rest of the country.

The annual report for 1988-89 on the number of animals used for experimentation is available and will be released by me today.


Mr ROWE-The annual report shows that some 280 000 experiments on animals were conducted in Victoria. However, the pleasing feature of the report is that it showed a 10 per cent reduction in the use of animals for scientific experimentation, despite an increase in the number of projects. However, it is alarming to note that since 1985 the number of animals used for cosmetic testing has increased from 4 to 83. I am pleased to inform the honourable member and the House that the government will ban the use of animals for cosmetic testing. There are alternatives to the use of animal experimentation. Tissue culture is a most appropriate use of technology for that type of experimentation.

Not only is Victoria leading Australia in the humane treatment of animals, but also the new proposals will allow Victoria and Melbourne to remain internationally competitive in scientific experimentation.

VICTORIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr AUSTIN (Ripon)-I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs: is it a

fact that the honourable member for Footscray and one of the honourable members for Melbourne Province, the Honourable Evan Walker, agreed to change the law to allow the transfer of a hen quota from Fantasy Farm to another company to enable the Victorian Economic Development Corporation to induce the Cester family to buy the Fantasy Farm business?

Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-I am amazed at the sorts of questions coming from the Opposition. The honourable member for Ripon is well aware that the Rural Finance Corporation is not my responsibility, nor has it been for sometime.


The honourable member may cast aspersions, but that is no substitute for policies. I thought the honourable member would have an interest in the agricultural industry and would have policies for that industry, but he can only cast aspersions and use gutter tactics.

I reject the assumptions underlying the question. I reject any involvement by former Ministers in the issue raised. The depths the Opposition will go to are clear for all to see. It cannot frame a question or devise a policy for a major export industry, but simply stoops to this activity.

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN TEACHERS Mrs HILL (Frankston North)-Will the Minister for Education advise the House

of the implications of the recent award restructure for Victorian teachers; in particular, in developing career opportunities for women teachers?

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-Honourable members will be aware that women have always made up the laraest contingent of teachers in the Ministry of Education, but they have seldom had appropri~te career opportunities or chances to obtain principal positions. That, of course, is beginnina to change under the affirmative action policies of the government.

Although women now take up 67 per cent of positions in the Ministry they actually obtain only about 15 per cent of promotion positions. Therefore, it is crucial that the new career restructure should address affirmative action policies.

Mr Stockdale interjected.

Ms KIRNER-It would be a shame if the Opposition had some kind of interest in equal opportunity matters! What the government and the Teachers Federation of Victoria have agreed and put before the Industrial Relations Commission of Victoria is a series of proposals which are the most advanced affirmative action proposals in the nation.

Firstly, if schools have more than one leadership position, one of those positions has to go to a woman and 40 per cent of school responsibility allowances will also go to women. At least one woman should be represented on the selection and assessment panels and, on panels which select teachers for school responsibility positions, the principal or the principal's nominee has to be a woman.

All selection panels will receive training in equal employment opportunities for principals, and women will have first call on 50 per cent of the positions in professional development programs. The overriding principle behind the career restructure is merit rather than seniority.


Ms KIRNER-It is time merit in women is recognised and the interjection by the honourable member for Murray Valley indicates why his party's benches have no women on them. The National Party is happy to have women operating behind the scenes doing all the work but it is not happy to have them sitting on the benches in Parliament where they would have some recoanition and some power.

With the introduction of affirmative policies, women are now getting the confidence to apply for principals' positions and in a recent round of vacant principal positions 10 per cent more women applied and, therefore, more women were appointed.

Another part of the creation of opportunities for women in the schools career restructure is to provide adequate child-care. I am pleased to join with the Minister

832 ASSEMBLY ID April 1990 Questions without Notice

for Labour and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs who also have, as with the Ministry of Education, set up pilot work-based child-care projects to ensure that women have the opportunity to take on promotion positions.

HEN QUOTAS Mr I. W. SMITH (Polwarth)-I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs

whether hen quotas worth approximately $1·5 million which belonged to individual members of the Musgrove family, the proprietors of Fantasy Farm, were illegally transferred to Chubby Chick Pty Ltd in 1988, despite the fact that until June 1989, a year later, companies could not legally hold hen quotas.

Mr ROWE (Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs)-I shall examine the thrust of the question asked by the honourable member for Polwarth and I shall provide him with a detailed answer with respect to the transfer of hen quotas during the period he has put forward.

WASTE DISPOSAL IN GIPPSLAND Mr W ALLACE (Gippsland South)-I ask the Minister for Conservation and

Environment: in view of the growing uncertainty over waste disposal arran~ements in the Latrobe Valley and Sale region and the fact that this uncertainty IS severely restricting development, will the Minister inform the House what progress is being made with the public inquiry into the proposed Delray beach ocean outfall, and advise particularly whether the inquiry will be completed on time and when a government decision on the project can be expected?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-Last week it was the honourable member for Gippsland East and now it is the honourable member for Gippsland South who appears to have a remarkable confidence in my ability to get on top of my Ministry quickly. I shall do so and I shall respond in due course to the honourable member for Gippsland South.

AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS GOODS CODE Dr VAUGHAN (Clayton)-Will the Minister for Labour advise the House of the

steps the government is taking to overcome widespread community concern about the transport of food and toxic chemicals on the one consignment?

Mr POPE (Minister for Labour)-In early February this year an accident occurred in Gundagai, New South Wales, involving a truck carrying foodstuffs and toxic chemicals, and a recent television report brought to my attention the problems that existed with the Australian dangerous goods code.

I wrote a letter to transport Ministers and Ministers responsible for dangerous goods in all States and the Commonwealth accompanying a submission from the Victorian Department of Labour that was sent to the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which includes all Australian transport Ministers, and the submission was accepted. In the future the Australian dangerous goods code will be amended so that it will not be permissible to carry both foodstuffs and toxic chemicals unless they are carried in consignments that have been sufficiently isolated by steel containers.

I am pleased other States have responded positively to my department's submission about the problem with the Australian dangerous goods code. I hope the proposed amendments will be in place by the middle of this year so that truck accidents similar

Questions without Notice 10 April 1990 ASSE1.'IIBL Y 833

to the one in Gundagai involving toxic chemicals and foodstuffs on the one consignment will not happen.

VICTORIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I direct my question to the Treasurer and ask: is it

a fact that the Victorian Economic Development Corporation stands to lose a further $10 million if it and the Rural Finance Corporation stand idly by while the purchaser of Fantasy Farm, Chubby Chick Pty Ltd, collapses and that 60 farmers also stand to lose millions of dollars?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I thought I made it clear that a receiver has been appointed in this matter and that he will look after the interests of creditors. That is the appropriate arrangement under Victorian law, and that process is being followed.

SCHOOL BUS FUNDING Mr J. F. McGRATH (Warrnambool)-In view of the government's current

expenditure of around $2 million to advertise and promote the Victorian certificate of education, will the Minister for Education advise the House why she is unable to adequately fund school bus operations in rural Victoria?

Ms KIRNER (Minister for Education)-I am pleased the honourable member for Warrnambool has given me the opportunity of restating the government's policy on school buses. The responsibility for school buses has recently been transferred to the Minister for Transport. However, there is a joint policy position on school buses.

The honourable member will recall a recent committee report to me on school transport which, far from reducing funds for school bus transport, extended it. For the first time in Victoria's history State school children in years 11 and 12 will be able to travel to the schools they choose so they can follow their own curriculum programs. That seems to me to be an important extension of bus transport availability, not a reduction.

As to the issue of funding for the Victorian certificate of education information program, I suggest any program mounted on television and in the daily press that is responsible for more than 10 000 requests for a booklet is one for which honourable members should be offering congratulations and not making comparisons between two important areas of education that are well handled and well funded by the government.

POVERTY ACTION PROGRAM Mr SEITZ (Keilor)-In view of the representations made to the Minister for

Community Services on the poverty action program, will the Minister advise the House what action she has taken to support the program?

Mrs SETCHES (Minister for Community Services)-I thank the honourable member for Keilor for his question; he has a long interest in social justice programs. Addressing poverty is a large and complex task for both the community and the government, and a range of responses are required from both those sectors. For that reason the poverty action program was put in place after the 1985 election, and it is a central part of the social justice strategy. Over the past four years the program has received $1 million a year.


I am aware that some community concern has been expressed about the funding of the poverty action program. A review has been undertaken by the Low Income People's Network and Community Services Victoria. I assure honourable members that groups will continue to receive funding until 31 December 1990, provided that their projects have not been completed within the current four-year period. Completion of the projects will be undertaken in conjunction with the groups concerned.

After considering the reviews that have been undertaken by fundin~ groups and Community Services Victoria, it is evident to me that some changes WIll have to be made beyond December 1990. Those changes will be undertaken in consultation with the groups concerned.

Mr Kennett inteIjected.

Mr Micallef(to Mr Kennett)-Why don't you shut up!

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Springvale is well aware of the Standing Orders and practices of the House and I ask him to observe them. Similarly, I ask the honourable member for Burwood to enable the Minister for Community Services to complete her reply without interruption.

Mrs SETCHES-It is extremely important when projects are entered into that the groups involved understand the requirements for achieving the objectives. The government will be working with those groups so that they have a clear understanding of what is required over the next six months. During that time the government will be working in consultation with those groups.

VICTORIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that the

Victorian Economic Development Corporation tricked the Cester family into buying the Fantasy Farm business by fraudulently withholding information known to the corporation that vital genetic stock purported to be sold had in fact been lost or stolen before the Cester family bought the business.

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-It is clear that the Opposition is engaged in a genuine fantasy. Only the week before last the Deputy Leader of the National Party was alleging that the Cester family had been offered special inducements with regard to planning arrangements in Warrandyte. On examination of the matter the regional manager made it clear that that was a load of nonsense.

The same kind of unsubstantiated allegations are now being made. As I said to the honourable member for Brighton before, if he has evidence of criminality he should go to the Victoria Police. IIhe has evidence of criminality and does not go the the Victoria Police, he is not carrying out his duty. I know the honourable member has only recently come back from overseas and has just recovered from jet lag, but if he has information he should take it to where he should take it.

STATE TAXES AND CHARGES Mr A. J. SHEEHAN (Northcote)-Is the Treasurer monitoring the impact on

Victorian families of State taxes and charges for the current financial year; if so, will he advise the House of the results?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I thank the honourable member for the question because it is an extremely si~ificant issue for Victorian families. Over the past few years, the government has delIberately set out to ensure that there are no significant increases in

Questions without Notice 10 April 1990 ASSE~IBLY 835

State charges. It has done that in stark contrast to the policy clearly adopted by the Greiner government in New South Wales.

Over the past two years the increase in State and local government charges as a percentage of the consumer price index movement has been just over 5 per cent-a very modest amount indeed. In New South Wales the figure is in the order of four times as great.

In the same two-year period-the term of the Greiner government-the CPI increase component represented by government charges in New South Wales has gone up by 21·9 per cent. That clearly demonstrates the contrast between the honourable member for Brighton's approach to these issues and the approach taken by honourable members on the government side of the House.

In New South Wales government charges have gone through the roof, as have taxes. I point out that in New South Wales the cost of registering and insuring each family car is $590. The equivalent charge in Victoria is in the order of $286-about half as much as in New South Wales. That is a very good example of the kind of burden the Greiner government is putting on families in that State, and a complete contrast to the deliberate actions taken by this government to reduce expenditures by families.

There have been huge increases in transport, water and sewerage charges in New South Wales and special levies have been placed upon every householder in the Sydney metropolitan area. It is demonstrated in the CPI figures that this government is taking steps to ensure that the burden on Victorian families is not increased, in contrast to the situation in New South Wales where the increases are absolutely horrendous.

STATE BANK VICTORIA Mr BROWN (Leader of the Opposition)-Will the Treasurer advise the House of

the exposures of State Bank Victoria in overseas lending and will he give an assurance that, of the amount exposed, tens of millions of dollars are not at risk of being lost?

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-Last week we had the Leader of the Opposition, without the honourable member for Brighton, saying that because someone had issued a t>ress release about proposed legal proceedings, the State Bank should be making prOVision for a $600 million potential liability-a very interesting proposition.

Now the Leader of the Opposition is saying, without any knowledge of the matters, that there is another area for which provision should also be made. I wish to make it clear that the bank conducts full, formal reviews of its loss provisions on a half-yearly basis. The last review was completed on 22 February and took into account the whole range of the bank's activities. Most detailed statements were subsequently made about that.

I have now been advised by the bank that since then there has been no material change to affect the level of provisions, and that is how the matter stands. Obviously there will be further full, formal reviews by the bank and it will appropriately make the results of those reviews available to all members of Parliament.

PLANNING AMENDMENTS Mr EVANS (Gippsland East)-I direct a question without notice to the Minister

for Conservation and Environment. I refer again to Statewide planning amendments S4 and S6. As the Minister has had the opportunity of studying the effects of the amendments since I asked a question about them last week, will he advise the House


whether he is prepared to withdraw them in view of the severe hardship they will impose on certain individuals?

Mr CRABB (Minister for Conservation and Environment)-The honourable member for Gippsland East asked a question about Statewide planning amendments S4 and S6 on Thursday of last week. I am still working on amendments SI, S2 and S3. When I have come to amendments S4, S5 and S6 I will let him know.

ACCESS FOR DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr GAVIN (Coburg)-Will the Minister for Transport advise the House what measures he is taking to ensure that disadvantaged groups have improved access to transport in their local communities?

Mr Evans-Start off with Mallacoota!

Mr SPYKER (Minister for Transport)-I am delighted with the support I have from the honourable member for Gippsland East because he will be supportive also of the provision of services, particularly transport services, to people with disabilities. I cannot recall any representation that has been made by him; obviously he is failing as a local member to speak on behalf of groups in his area. I am delighted to advise the House that--


The SPEAKER-Order! There is too much interjection. Will the Minister pause while the House comes to order?


The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Gippsland East.

Mr SPYKER-The government has made available through the Ministry of Transport approximately $500 000 to ensure that people with physical disabilities are able to be mobile. In association with Community Services Victoria the Ministry of Transport will continue its campaign to ensure that people in the community who have some disabilities have the mobility to lead their lifestyles as normally as possible.

Funding has been made available to 25 groups. Members of the National Party will be particularly pleased to learn that, of those 25 groups, 14 are in country Victoria. Again, the government is ensuring that in this particular case the people in country Victoria are not forgotten. The honourable member for Gippsland East is right in his interjection: one of the groups that will receive the funding is a group in Mallacoota.

An example of the type of funding that is available is the allocation of approximately $10 000 for a twelve-seater community bus for Doveton. The bus will be used by physically disabled persons who belong to various community groups.

In respect of the representations made by the honourable member for Coburg, I inform the House that approximately $21 000 will be made available for the purchase of a wheelchair-accessible bus for the people of Coburg who would not otherwise be able to use public transport.

The funding indicates the government's continued commitment to ensuring that people who live in institutions or who are otherwise housebound or reliant on members

Petition 10 April 1990 ASSE~ABL Y 837

of their families are provided with mobility so that they may participate in the many activities in their communities and be as independent as possible.

The Deputy Premier will be pleased to know that another one of the groups is in Williamstown, in her electorate. To ensure that there is a balance, another group is in Violet Town. Other groups to receive assistance are at Birchip, Mallacoota, Whittlesea and Mansfield. The government will ensure that the vehicles of both V/Line and the Met provide accessibility so that people with disabilities can use public transport. The most important factor concerns their pride, dignity and respect, because those with physical disabilities do not like to rely on others to provide transport. That is an example of the government's continued commitment to the integration of people who have disabilities and to enhancing their pride, dignity and respect.

PETITION The Clerk-I have received the following petition for presentation to Parliament:

Young drivers To THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT

ASSEMBLED:

We, the undersigned residents of Victoria, lodge objection to State government policies aimed at:

introducing controls to downgrade young drivers, rather than introducing education and encouragement programs to improve driving skills and attitudinal approach to driving.

In particular, we object to the demoralising, degrading and draconian suggestions to put down young drivers by:

limiting the number of passengers to be carried by young drivers, and/or

placing curfew on night driving by young drivers.

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

By Mr PertoD (253 signatures)

It was ordered that the petition be laid on the table.

PAPERS The following papers, pursuant to the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were

laid on the table by the Clerk: Dentists Act 1972-

Dental Board-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 30 September 1989.

Specialist Practitioners Qualifications Committee-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 30 September 1989.

Egg Marketing Board-Report for the year 1988-89.

Planning and Environment Act 1987-Notices of approval of amendments to the following planning schemes:

Bulla Planning Scheme-No. LIS.

Cranbourne Planning Scheme-No. RLI09 Part 1 to Chapter 1.

Diamond Valley Planning Scheme-No. L4.

Essendon Planning Scheme-No. Ll.

Lexton Planning Scheme-No. L2.

838 ASSEMBLY 10 April 1990

St Kilda Planning Scheme-No. L5.

Waverley Planning Scheme-No. RL 110.

Werribee Planning Scheme-No. L12.

Whittlesea Planning Scheme-No. RL 73 Part 2.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Prostitution Regulation Act 1986-SR No. 52.

Public Service Act 1974-SR No. 55; PSD Nos 4, 5.

Racing Act 1958-SR No. 56.

Community Protection Bill

Victorian Prison Industries Commission-Report and Statement of Accounts for the year 1988-89.

COMMUNITY PROTECTION BILL The debate (adjourned from April 4) on the motion of Mr Kennan (Attorney

General) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-At the outset, on behalf of the Opposition I characterise this piece of proposed legislation that the House today is asked to debate as one of the most obnoxious Bills that has ever been introduced into Parliament.

It is obnoxious because of the provisions within the Bill that overturn every decent legal principle that has ever been adopted in Victoria and it is more obnoxious for the background that comes with it. That background includes the manoeuvring and deliberate distortion of events by the government and by public servants and public officers who ought to know better, and who bear a heavy responsibility in playing with the life of one poor human being, to the discredit of the great State of Victoria.

Every member of Parliament should be ashamed of what has been done to the person named in the Bill and what he has been through. He has been in institutional care for virtually the whole of his life. We have moulded, shaped and distorted him in every way possible, and now we propose the final indignity-that he should be detained as a dangerous person without a real trial and under circumstances that should cause all honourable members great pain and considerable misgiving.

I shall turn to the provisions of the Bill in the broad. The provisions of law that are overthrown are that the Supreme Court, which has to hear the application made by the Attorney-General, is not to be bound by the rules or practice of evidence. It will allow the desk of some poor, unsuspecting Supreme Court judge to have piled upon it every piece of evidence such as medical and police records, Adult Parole Board records, prison records, Mental Health Review Board transcripts and anything with either a prejudicial view of or to the advantage of the accused. It is also to ensure that the victim will not escape an adverse finding.

The Bill seeks to ensure that the hearing will be ex parte, meaning that the AttorneyGeneral can make application for the hearing and the person concerned will not even have to be in the court or know anything about the application. There was public criticism of the fact that the National Australia Bank Ltd made a Christmas Eve application in respect of Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd. This Bill provides that the Attorney-General may sneak off to the court and make the application, and the victim of the application may never know and never be told that the application has been heard. In addition, the keepers who are to have custody of the person concerned during the six-monthly intervals that he is to be kept in detention are to provide their opinion as to his dangerousness and the needs of public safety.

Finally, and underpinning all that I have said, is the reversal of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Every small dictator in every despicable regime around


the world receives letters from Amnesty International. Some members of this Parliament are members of Amnesty International and write to the petty dictators of the U gandas, Inner Mongolias and perhaps other countries in Eastern Europe about the same types of provisions as those contained in this Bill-the reversal of the presumption of innocence, the suppression of the rules of innocence and the throwing of natural justice out the window. The man concerned is to be condemned, not by a process of law but by a process that must be compared with the historical Bills of attainder.

Bills of attainder were whisked through Parliament in England simply to declare someone guilty when it could not be proven that the person was guilty in the courts. Perhaps Archbishop Laud was the last person to be beheaded as a result of a Bill of attainder. The Victorian government has dusted off the precedents of 300 or 400 years ago and brushed them up for use by this Parliament.

The government stands condemned for introducing this Bill because it has had a long time to deal with the problem. The person named in the Bill has been a prisoner of this State in a sense since about the age of six years, and has been an offender prisoner of this State for the past eight years-ten years if one throws in two years on remand. His period of imprisonment coincides almost exactly with the life of the government. That is not to say that what happened to him before the government was elected was right, it was not; it was wrong, and tragically wrong.

Late last year in some corner of our prison system we discovered a prisoner who was eventually due for release; his sentence was to expire. One might ask why it was to expire in ten years instead of the fourteen years the court had given him for attempted murder. The answer is that the government had not passed the Corrections Bill, which provides for minimum sentences to be served without automatic remissions. Because the government had not passed that Bill this man received automatic remissions that reduced his sentence from fourteen years to ten years.

In his second-reading speech, the Attorney-General says: His conduct in prison has also involved almost continuous acts of violence, including starting fires and

assaulting police, prison officers and prisoners. He has also threatened various kinds of violence, including threats to commit multiple murders, particularly of police, prison officers, staff and people treating him.

His reward was to have his sentence reduced by four years because of automatic remissions. He was not charged with one offence until the offences were created and the charges laid in respect of sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act-that is, threatening to kill. Apparently it does not matter if one attempts to set fire to a prison in Victoria if the Attorney-General's second-reading speech is to be treated seriously. Frankly, I think the Attorney-General's second-reading speech deserves to be treated with contempt.

Can the Attorney-General give an honest answer and say whether the starting of the fire was an attempted self-immolation: that is, burning himself to death rather than trying to burn down the prison? Can Parliament be trusted with information like that, or are we expected to believe every fantasy story that the government, the media and the public servants spread about the victim of this Bill? Whether members of the government know about it or not, that is what has been happening under the government's nose. There are agendas in the Bill which go through the factions of the government. This Bill is a disgrace for each and every one of us and it should not be wrapped around Parliament or the community of Victoria just because the government does not have the courage to promote the matter in a timely way or in a way that is frank and honest.


This is a fake crisis of time; it is suggesting that the man might get bail. Snowballs might fall in Hades! Why not today introduce an amendment to the Bail Act providing that people who are charged under sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act shall not be given bail unless their bail is approved by an order of a Supreme Court judge? It happens for murderers, so why not for those who are charged with the exotic offence of threatening to kill?

We are not making changes retrospectively. He is not on bail-nor, I might add, I presume, is Mr Dixon-Jenkins, who is currently resident in a prison in America and he was given bail on exactly the same sort of charges in respect of the same sections of the Act.

Mr Ross-Edwards interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN-As the honourable member for Shepparton interjects, it could happen. It has happened under this government and we have had no legislative suggestions to cure that. The government has not introduced legislation to cure the bail problem although it talks about the bail problem as if it is a problem that needs to be cured.

The Bill would easily be recognised by Nelson Mandela, who spent years in a little prison on the coast of South Africa because he was a danger to the public. I might add he was rightly in that category. He was also convicted. He had a conviction and the then government felt he was a danger, so he was detained.

Mr Ross-Edwards-But they had an Act.

Mr MACLELLAN-I am sure the South African government had an Act. I am sure Parliamentary action in South Africa is taken faster than it is taken here, and there are probably fewer voices heard in the wilderness of that Parliament than here. Helen Suzman might have been the only one to speak out against it.

Despite the rush of the Bill introduced on Wednesday last week and the government's hope that it would be debated on Thursday and passed through Parliament this week without community debate and without the opportunity of a close examination, we shall get to the bottom of the Bill and also get to the bottom of what is wrong with the government at the same time.

A young Aborigine named Savage is in Florida. I wonder how he would feel if the State of Florida passed a special Bill to detain him as a danger. This is the sort of Bill that would have been easily recognisable in East Germany or in Rumania until recently.

The person named in the Bill was not even told of its introduction into Parliament last Wednesday. Since then I have had a conference at which officers of the various Ministries were present-and I thank the Attorney-General for his kindness in allowing officers to speak to us. The 9.30 a.m. meeting was a disaster because the Ministerial advisers were not present to tell the officers what to tell us. However, we had another meeting in the afternoon, which the Attorney-General attended.

At the morning meeting I asked whether anybody had bothered-I was rude to have said "bothered" -to tell the man named in the Bill or his solicitor that the Bill had been introduced. I was told that with a telephone call I could be given an assurance one way or the other. After a number of telephone calls an assurance one way or the other was not available. I asked the solicitor's name and I rang and asked whether the man named in the Bill or his solicitor had been told; the answer was no. That is really Solzhenitsyn-type Gulag stuff: the supreme soviet has passed a Bill about one's


detention but one does not know about it. That is the contempt the government has for the victim of its legislation.

I am not saying that the Attorney-General should be expected to pick up the phone and make a telephone call about what is happening. What about the highly paid advisers and departmental officers who surround the Attorney-General? Did it occur to anyone of them to ring Garry David's solicitor to let him know what was happening? The answer, of course, is no. I spoke to the Attorney-General directly; I did not wish to ambush him, but I reported to him that no-one had bothered to tell the solicitor.

It was 298 years ago-young Victorian certificate of education students could tell us-since the trials of witches of Salem. Arthur Miller popularised that incident with his play The Crucible. That play has had an enormous impact on the young students in our State illustrating witchcraft in the context of the American crusade against communism but using an historical model. It is a pattern.

The beautiful, wonderful State of Victoria of 1990 is not so far away from the Salem trials. We can imagine a picture of a person committing bizarre or obscene sorts of actions. We have all read in the newspapers what has not been said? Who has set us up, softening us up for the eventual rush of legislation which is supposed to protect us from this dangerous and frightening figure?

Of course, the witches of Salem received excellent trials-let me assure honourable members of that. Judges sat and verdicts were given. I do not know whether appeals were heard-probably not-but the executions went on and on until suddenly the community began to realise that there was a sort of insanity abroad. The crops were not failing because of the witches and the plague was not spreading because of the witches, but because of what was wrong with the society that was willing to make those witches the victims of its own fear.

We are invited to go down that track in a similar way. We are asked to support the idea that natural justice be dismissed as a concept and that the rule of law be abandoned and that fake urgency be used as an excuse to rush the Bill through Parliament before anyone has had time to examine it carefully.

If the government were sincere, instead of having the Bill introduced to Parliament it would amend existing legislation. If it were sincere, the former Attorney-GeneralI do not know whether it was inadvertent on his part or not-would have presented the Law Reform Commission report on the concept of mental illness in the Mental Health Act 1986. This is the report that the former Attorney-General has been sitting on and which he has denied to Parliament and to the public. It has not yet been presented to Parliament.

Mr Kennan-On Thursday.

Mr MACLELLAN-The Thursday after the Bill is passed, I suppose!

Mr Kennan interjected.

Mr MACLELLAN-For which I am immensely grateful, but surely all honourable members would have been grateful and surely the public would have been grateful if they could have discussed the recommendations of the commission and the draft Bill and their relation to the person named in the Bill.


Mr MACLELLAN-There are twenty pages of it; does the Attorney-General want me to read the twenty pages? Is that how it is done?



Mr MACLELLAN-I said the former Attorney-General had been sitting on it.

Mr Kennan-You are lying!

Mr MACLELLAN-The Attorney-General says that I am lying.


Mr MACLELLAN-It will be interesting to know whether the Attorney-General would care to identify the date on which the document which contained those words arrived! We would then be able to tell how many days it is between the receipt of that document, the introduction of the Bill and the presentation of the document to the House. I am saying that I have a copy and the Attorney-General has a copy, but the rest of Parliament does not, the people of Victoria and the media do not have a copy, and you, Mr Speaker, do not have a copy. We are not able to make an intelligent decision about this Bill unless we have all the material on which to make the decision.

Honourable members do not have the psychiatric reports or the transcripts of the Mental Health Review Board. Honourable members know that when the research officer of the Social Development Committee sat in on the hearings of the Mental Health Review Board and then raised a question about whether she might discuss with the committee-an all-party committee of Parliament-what happened at the hearings, she was told that if she did it would be illegal and it would be a criminal act. I could read about it in the paper-although the name was not printed I could identify the case-but the Parliamentary committee was told that it could not have the transcript, and it was told that the research officer could not inform the committee what was going on in the hearing.

The decision on the appeal regarding that matter is currently reserved. However, that has not stopped the government from pushing ahead with the Bill. It is not going to wait for the Mental Health Review Board to make up its mind or for the Supreme Court to give its advisory opinion, which I understand is to be in May. The AttorneyGeneral has applied to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling about the scope of Parliament's mental health legislation, but the government is not going to wait for that. According to the government, honourable members do not want to know whether the man is mentally ill, whether he is disturbed, or whether he has an extremely antisocial personality disorder combined with dangerousness. That is a lovely phrase; it sounds like an incantation at the fireside of Joan of Arc! One is no longer a person; one becomes a case. One is no longer treated like a person; one is treated like a victim.

The second-reading speech states: Evidence given by a large number of medical witnesses to the Mental Health Review Board was to the

effect that Garry David is capable of carrying out his threats of the most bizarre acts of violence including multiple murders. All witnesses agreed there is a risk to the community if he is released-some put the risk as small, others put it as severe.

It is like reading from the transcript of one of the medieval courts in Spain. Is the risk small or is it severe, and who is to determine the matter? Instead of the inquisition determining the matter, it will be a Supreme Court judge.

The Supreme Court judge making the decision will be told by the legislation of Parliament that he is not bound by the rules or practice of evidence, he is not bound by the rules of natural justice and he is not bound to have the person named to appear by way of himself or the Crown. The judge is not bound to use the proper standards of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but is directed by Parliament to apply a separate test-the balance of probabilities-as ifit is a commercial action between two disputing corporations.


I have said the urgency is fake; I have said the government has had a long time to prepare itself for this. I must support that with some pieces of paper and some evidence. I now make available a letter from the Victorian Government Solicitor dated 7 December 1989. It is a memorandum for Mr Peter Harmsworth, the DirectorGeneral of Corrections. It is headed:

Corrections Act 1986, section 4 (2); Mental Health Act 1986, subsections 16,47, 53 and 93; proclamation of part of a prison as an approved psychiatric hospital; transfer of prisoner to that hospital; implications of proclamation and transfer on functions and powers of director-general.

The letter begins in the following terms: Request for advice.

1. My urgent advice has been sought as to the implications on your powers and functions if a proposal contained in an opinion by the Solicitor-General--

that is, Mr Hartog Berkeley, QC--· .. is implemented. In particular, the issues in respect of which you have sought advice are these:

Then the letter goes on.

The advice from the Victorian Solicitor-General was a marvellous proposition which was a really desperate flight of fantasy. The government was going to declare the prison hospital wing to be a psychiatric hospital and it was going to put this person in it, although he would be inside the prison, of course. Then the government came unstuck because the other people in that ward as voluntary patients would have to be made compulsory patients. So this whole exotic examination fell in a heap.

Mr Peter Harmsworth, the Director-General of Corrections, is a man about whom I can say that I do not know of any officer of government who has given more frank and direct evidence before the Social Development Committee. He has frankly admitted that the corrections system let down the person named in the Community Protection Bill; he has been absolutely straight and direct about that.

Mr Harmsworth has- been straight and direct about the fact that there was a media campaign to make it impossible for the person named in the Bill to be released and to return to the community. He has been straight and direct about the fact that some of the information leaked to the media was not even known to the person named in the Bill and must have come from senior departmental and Public Service officers who deliberately leaked information to the media to make the release of this man next to impossible.

That was going on at the end of last year. Sadly for somebody but happily for honourable members, a fourth page came with the memorandum of legal advice. It was faxed to electorate offices and contains the following statements:

a. the admission and involuntary detention of-

and then two words have been blanked out-· .. in G division under section 16 (3) (a) of the Mental Health Act subject to confirmation by the SolicitorGeneral;

b. the Attorney-

who, of course, was the previous Attorney-General--· .. to seek the DPPs advice on possible recourse to the criminal law resulting from David's threats to kill, and the Solicitor-General's confirmation that--

blanked out--· .. can continue to be held in custody during any appeals under section 118 of the Mental Health Act; and


c. the preparation of a submission by the Attorney-General for approval in principle, as soon as practicable, for legislation to detain dangerous persons.

Dr Napthine-What date was that?

Mr MACLELLAN-December last year.

Mr E. R. Smith-Which day in December?

Mr MACLELLAN-It was 7 December last year. What honourable members now know-what this memorandum perhaps inadvertently blew-is that the rush for the proposed legislation is utterly fake, utterly contrived, and utterly engineered. The government has sat-knowing that these decisions had been made all those months ago-and introduced the Bill at the time of its choosing, last week, asking that the Parliament rush it through this House the next day with another place being expected to do it, I suppose, at a more leisurely pace. Members of the government know they do not have the majority there; I suppose they took that into account. They were going to allow another place three days. Now honourable members in another place are going to have two days and this House will get what remains of this day, I suppose.

Honourable members know that the government knew that long ago. It sou~t the necessary submissions by the Attorney-General for the approval in principle of legislation to detain dangerous persons. Not only was the Law Reform Commission report suppressed but also the tactic was known by the government months ago; it was preplanned.

The crisis was deliberately engineered, so why should honourable members be surprised? Who would honourable members suppose might have engineered it? It was the person named in the document, the Solicitor-General, Mr Hartog Berkeley, QC, who has been acting as the Premier's personal hatchet man and Mr Fix-it man. He has managed to drag in honest and sincere people from the Solicitor-General's office; they have been running around telling departmental officers what to do. They have been trying by any means to keep the person named in the Bill in custody, whether it is by criminal charges or by finding a psychiatrist to say he is mentally ill. There is no end to the exotic ways the government will try to do it behind the scenes if it can.

Honourable members now know that the former Attorney-General apparently involved the Director of Public Prosecutions in the process and, in the course of doing so, clearly compromised the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The document clearly compromises the director's position. How will he be able to determine honestly and independently whether the prosecution should proceed if he has been involved in determining whether the prosecution should be laid? How will he review his own decision? What was he doing with the Attorney-General? What was the previous Attorney-General concerned about in the laying of criminal charges against the person named in the Bill? The answer was that anybody was to be involved, no matter how much it stretched the propriety of the situation, and the charges under sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act are not confident charges, if one can say that, but are more in the nature ofa backup to the opinion ofDr Grigor that the person named in the Bill is, in fact, mentally ill.

In case anyone gets the impression that the problem is in placing the man concerned in the mental health system, I point out that he is in the mental health system now and has been for a considerable time. I know the honourable member for Box Hill and other members of the Social Development Committee have strong left-wing, socialist left views that the mental health system should not under any circumstances be opened up to allow people with extreme antisocial personality disorders who might be dangerous--

Dr Vaughan-So does your party!

Community Protection Bill 10 April 1990 ASSEMBLY

Mr MACLELLAN-The government introduced the Bill.


845

Mr MACLELLAN-The honourable member for Preston assures me that it is a non-factional view, or apparently a cross-factional view. If that is a strongly held view I have to say the people concerned could not have read the Bill, especially clause 5 (1) (a), which states:

If, immediately before the application ...

that is the application the Attorney-General should make ex parte to the Supreme Court-

... is made, Garry David is a prisoner within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1986, he continues, by reason of this Act, to be such a prisoner; or ...

So, if the application can be made quickly enough, before the Mental Health Review Board comes down with its decision, the likelihood is that this man will be indefinitely detained as a patient under the Mental Health Act-and the very thing the honourable members for Box Hill and Preston most wanted to avoid is there.

They did not get a chance to read it that way. What they do not realise is that three options are offered in clause 5 (1). If one is a prisoner within the Corrections Act, one will be detained as a prisoner; if one is a patient within the Mental Health Act, one will be detained as a patient; and, if by some chance one is neither of those two, one will be detained as a prisoner. That is the final choice. One has three categories: prisoner, patient, or prisoner. But one cannot have anything else!

Now, why would we argue that we have to do something about Garry David? I have a personal view and my party is unanimous in the view that Garry David is nowhere near being ready to go free into our community. I think that view is probably almost unanimously held around Parliament, even on the basis of those inadequate little pieces of information that we have been allowed to see.

If we all share the view that Garry David is not ready to go into the community, what is the argument? The argument is the way we continue his institutional care. I choose my words carefully: I refer to his "institutional care". I say that he is not to be kept in prison for punishment. He has served his time; even under our silly rules he has served his time. So let us not think about putting him in prison for punishment. He is not mentally ill, and heaven knows whether clause 5 (1) (b) is going to allow him to be given compulsory treatment ifhe is a patient.

Mr Ross-Edwards-He is not certified.

Mr MACLELLAN-I shall stick to the word "mental" -I do not want to use the word "insane"; that is a criminal test. I think he is deeply disturbed, and that would be a common view. I shall not worry about the technical definition at this point.

As I said earlier, nobody bothered to tell Garry David-or is it Garry Webb; it does not matter because he ceases almost to be a person in this debate-that the Bill had been brought in. It seems that nobody bothered to ask him or his solicitor how they might view the situation.

I actually spoke to the solicitor after the Attorney-General said that he would not go ahead with the briefing if the solicitor was present. I had to take the solicitor outside and apologise to him and say that I would follow up matters with him later.


On 9 April 1990 I received, on letterhead from the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria, a letter addressed to me, a copy of which, according to my copy of the letter, had been sent to the Attorney-General. It states: Dear Mr Maclellan,

Re: The Community Protection Bill 1990

I act for Mr Garry David and refer to your recent conversations with lan Proctor, a solicitor employed by this commission.

You have raised the possibility that the Opposition may seek to have the Community Protection Bill 1990 withdrawn or its passage through Parliament suspended or that the Opposition may oppose the Bill in the Legislative Council, if Mr David were willing to enter into what you have called a "therapeutic community" which would be a new initiative funded by the government.

You have made it quite clear that a "voluntary agreement" would only be acceptable if there were some mechanism which could ensure that Mr David could not freely leave the therapeutic community.

Mr Leighton-Voluntary patients discharge themselves.

Mr MACLELLAN-This is the tragedy for the honourable member for Preston: he is so obsessed with the one system that he knows through his work, both as an industrial officer and in his private life, that he cannot examine the merits and the possibilities of a third way. What this is about is a third way, and what this State most needs is a third way-neither prison nor mental institution. If the honourable member cannot understand that, there is something terribly wrong with his understanding of what a crisis we face. We are being asked to overturn everything in our legal system, or everything in the mental health system. I am saying that that is not good enough; either way is not good enough.

I had the temerity to ask lan Proctor for a response in writing about the possibility of this man, Garry David, under the duress of having to stay there, entering into an agreement with us on behalf of the people of Victoria-that is, the government, the Parliament, and the structures of the State-to stay in a therapeutic community where, perhaps with years of care, we might be able to start to prepare the man to come back into society.

Mr Crockett's letter continues: I am instructed that Mr David is willing to voluntarily enter such a community on the understanding

that the "voluntariness" would have a degree of coercion.

Mr Leighton interjected.

The SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Preston will have an opportunity of expressing his views in his contribution to the debate.

Mr MACLELLAN-Mr Speaker, I welcome the interjection, the initiative and the comment. (To Mr Leighton)-I shall welcome your support-if you have the courage to give it-for a third way. If I have pirated your idea, I hope in your autobiography you will correct the record and claim it all for yourself.

The SPEAKER-Order! I ask the honourable member to address the Chair.

Mr MACLELLAN-I hope the honourable member corrects it by claiming all the credit for himself. However, if, between us, we could achieve this miracle, we could get rid of this obscene Bill we are asked to discuss and the obscene proposals we are asked to contemplate. Of course, it is not easy; it is not as easy as the first few paragraphs of the letter suggest. The letter states further:

However, before he would agree to such, he would have to be satisfied that there was a fair mechanism by which the element of coercion would be removed. Mr David points out that he has consistently said


that he would not be able to survive in the wider community if released straight to it and that he is certainly in need of rehabilitation.

The monster we are meant to be discussing-the witch of our witch-hunt-is telling us he is not ready to go out into the community, and we are too dumb to ask and we are too dumb to listen!

Mr E. R. Smith-And too arrogant.

Mr MACLELLAN-This government is too arrogant to explore the third way or to examine the opportunities because it wants to save the Mental Health Act or it wants to exploit the political opportunities of a fake crisis in respect of a fake proposal.

Parliament has an opportunity for using a third approach, apparently one that the honourable member for Preston claims to have thought of first. Parliament has the opportunity of publicly building upon the transcript otevidence of the Mental Health Review Board which will reveal that the honourable member for Preston first thought of this idea. Hallelujah to the honourable member for Preston! But for Heaven's sake, honourable member for Preston, do not just sit there saying, "I thought of it first"; do something-you are part of the government. The honourable member has the ear of the Minister; he should do something about it instead of just saying, "This was my idea". I do not care whose idea it is; what I care about is that Parliament ought not to have a Bill that is as obscene as this Bill being rushed through this place.

If the government is not willing to approach the issue on the mental health angle, it should examine it from a therapeutic community angle. No-one is suggesting that Garry David is the only person involved. The Sun newspaper will soon have a front page picture of the next person, the next and the next. I understand the second nominee might be before us already, tattooed to the waist, with no ears!

Mr Micallef-Do you want him in limbo?

Mr MACLELLAN-In his interjection, the honourable member for Springvale can only be describing the government's own Bill: it is providing for a limbo situation. I want him in a therapeutic community which is dedicated to the proposition that these people will one day come back to the community out of that sort of detention. That is what I am looking for, something that does not say indefinite detention for six months, six months and six months. There has been eight or ten years of that. We should use whatever skills we have-they may not be psychiatric skills, but perhaps lesser status skills-and possibly more effectively to try to prepare the victim to re-enter the community and not to be violent and not to be a perpetual detainee left to rot in some corner of a mental institution, or correction institution as they are now known.

The offer ought to be explored and the Attorney-General has a copy of the offer sent to him from the Legal Aid Commission solicitor representing the person named in the Bill.

In case people believe the charges in respect of sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act are not good enough, there is a fifteen-year maximum penalty for it! That would long exhaust the duration of the Bill, which will last only for twelve months and far less than that if the Opposition has its way.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia had a recent case before it, on 13 June 1989, of Thamm. The case revolved on whether a generalised general threat to kill came within provisions similar to sections 20 and 21 of the Victorian Crimes Act. The answer in that, case was "Yes, they do".

I direct to honourable members the legislation in other States on habitual or dangerous offenders. In South Australia the status is assigned at the time of sentencing,


not eight years later; in Queensland it is at the time of sentencing as part of the sentence, not eight years later; in the Northern Territory, it is at the time of sentencing that a person can be assigned to the status of habitual; In Tasmania it is at the time of sentencin~ that a person may be deemed a dangerous criminal; in New South Wales it is at the tIme of sentencing in addition to other penalties that may be imposed; and, in Western Australia, ,it is at the time of sentencing or in addition to other penalties or another sentence that may be imposed. Guess which government repealed similar le~slation in Victoria? It was the Victorian Labor government, in 1985 I believe. VIctoria could not have this type of legislation on the statute-book, but it is prepared, eight years later when the sentence has expired, to pass a special Bill naming a specific person which provides that that person may be detained. In other words, instead of making the decision at the time of sentencing when every other State and Territory claims it is legitimate, Victoria does it in reverse!

The supreme soviet of Victoria will wait until the sentence expires and then decide whether a prisoner will get out or be further detained. That will keep him on his mettle during his prison sentence! It is happy to bypass or override the mentally ill provisions along the way. The Bill reeks of the government's inability to deal with issues in a proper and contemporary way. It knew of the problem months ago. It knew of the problem of Garry David as soon as the information was leaked to the newspapers and became headline news.

The Bill reeks of the despair of the government; despair at never being able to prepare somebody like this man to re-enter the community. The despair is so pronounced that the government's only alternative is that he be incarcerated indeterminately and without the proper procedures of law or mental health review in a mental health institution or correction institution. This is the same government that says it will introduce an amnesia Bill, a Bill that says you shall not quote or requote material relating to offences committed more than ten years ago. That is what the then Attorney-General, now the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth, is saying. The present Attorney-General may introduce an amnesia Bill yet. Is the House to know when the self-mutilation occurred? Did it occur years ago or did it occur recently? I have to rely on the newspapers because the Opposition was not ~ven access to the Mental Health Review Board's transcript, the police reports submItted to the Mental Health Review Board, access to the prison documents forwarded to the board, or the psychiatric reports.

I have read that this man has recently undergone reconstructive surgery. That does not gel with the character of somebody who is self-mutilating. Perhaps there has been a change. Perhaps if the Opposition knew the dates of the bizarre behaviour it may be reassured about the more recent behaviour which appears to be constructive, sensible, more constructive, more sensible, or getting nearer to what the community wishes.

On the basis of events that happened years ago it is easy to paint a frightening, disturbing and concerning picture of something. We do not know, in the plotting and planning of the government to manoeuvre events for the crisis in which to introduce this Bill, whether we have not had a distorted picture painted of the person concerned. Certainly his own solicitor paints a different picture of him. So why not introduce an amendment to the Bail Act this week? Why not introduce an amendment this week to enable the release of the report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission so that we can all discuss the merits and demerits of amendments to the Mental Health Act designed to expand its scope to deal with people with extreme antisocial personality disorders who may be considered dangerous?

Why would we contemplate the mental health area? Perhaps it is to get away from the concept of punishment-or is it humane containment in the corrections fieldand to tap into the tradition of caring in the health field. Perhaps this man needs more


care than punishment. He has had eight or ten years punishment. Perhaps now honourable members and the community need to care enough, especially if we acknowledge that he will be held indefinitely, although subject to review. Care may be the answer.

At the same time, if we want to brush up our law and order policy and be tough, and say that we stand for safety in the home and in the street, perhaps we could amend the Crimes Act this week. We could tighten up the threat-to-kill provisions so that Parliament makes it clear that people who threaten to kill others, whether in the broad or the particular, should be liable to prosecution or to fifteen-year maximum penalties. Perhaps we could prescribe some minimum penalties and no remissions for such people. That would not be wrong.

But maybe, just maybe, Parliament, the Social Development Committee, the Labor caucus, the Opposition and National Party party rooms and the media are dancing to his tune by granting this man the one gift we can give him-the one final gift that we can ~ve to his obsessions or fantasies-a Bill aimed at him, an Act of Parliament, a special one for him.

In case the government is of the mind to take his name out of the Bill by amendment, as forecast by the Attorney-General and by the Premier on radio yesterday, I signal the Opposition's view that in another place it would put the name right back.

Mr Micallef-Why?

Mr MACLELLAN-Because the Opposition does not believe there has been adequate discussion about whether a detention Bill should be broad enough to catch all the other people who have not been named.

Mr E. R. Smith-Or the alternatives?

Mr MACLELLAN-Or the alternatives, the ones the government may have in mind. I cannot ima~ne who the government will make an ex parte application about next, but the Opposition is not prepared to give the government, in the terms of Louis XVI, carte blanche. He issued a piece of paper on which one could fill in the name of the person he wanted to have arrested. The Opposition is not prepared to give the government carte blanche to go out and grab a few people on orders for preventive detention and put them into care.

The Bill has an interesting provision which offers one further possibility: it provides for the court to order the person who might be subject to the order by the court to be detained in a mental institution or a prison or some other place of detention. Honourable members have not been told what the "some other places of detention" are, but I am sure they will be interesting institutions. If these institutions were responsible for the caring role of getting Garry David ready over a long period to return to the community, I would not quarrel with it; but I suggest the provision is not in the Bill for that reason. It is there because the government anticipates that a general detention of dangerous persons Bill will be passed within the next twelve months. Therefore, it will allow for the transfer of anyone under an order, as provided by this special Bill, to be transferred to the new institutions.

Mr E. R. Smith-What next? Apartheid!

Mr MACLELLAN-One might well ask such questions. The Bill is obnoxious and distasteful. It is introduced in a crisis that I believe is fake. The Opposition and the National Party in effect are being blackmailed by a deliberate process of the government into allowing the Bill to be passed. Why? The threat is that, if the Bill is not passed, Garry David might get out onto the streets and whatever he does will be blamed on the Opposition and National Party. For that reason the government has introduced a

Session 1990-28


distasteful Bill, and in the course of this week the government will have it passed. The government will have this man on its conscience. I would rather be on Garry David's death list than have him on my conscience, but he will be on the consciences of members of the government. They are responsible for the "honour" of introducing a Bill that will be passed by Parliament to allow the Attorney-General to make an ex parte application to the Supreme Court; it will allow the Attorney-General to pile up prejudiced evidence to overturn the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence, and to alter the standard of proof so that it moves from being proof beyond all reasonable doubt to a lower level. If members of the government want the honour of that legislation, they will have it this week.

Mr Micallef-Does that mean you are voting for it?

Mr MACLELLAN-No, it does not. It means the honourable member for Springvale and his colleagues will have the honour of introducing and passing such legislation. Members of the government will have to live with it; they will have to justify it. The government has introduced it, and may its members all enjoy it.

The honourable member for Box Hill will know that she has saved the mental health system from having these terrible people in its ranks. We cannot have these sorts of people in mental health institutions; heaven knows, they are not mentally ill. That is similar to the logic that, if the doctor says a person is suffering from incurable cancer, that person should be thrown out of the hospital because he or she cannot be treated. What about the caring role? The honourable member for Box Hill shakes her head. I do not know whether the honourable member is saying there is not a caring role.

Mrs Ray-No, I am not.

Mr MACLELLAN-I hope not. I believe there is a caring role and, prior to the honourable member for Box Hill coming into the Chamber, I raised the fact that there must be a third way of resolving this issue.

I hope we will search for a third way-as the honourable member for Springvale says-somewhere between the Mental Health Act and the Office of Corrections. That is exactly what I am saying is available for discussion.


Mr MACLELLAN-The honourable member for Preston says it was his idea.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! Then he is out of order.

Mr MACLELLAN-Of course he is. I am saying his idea should now be urgently explored to see that we get the third way rather than disgrace Parliament in the meantime. The government should amend the Bail Act so Garry David and people like him cannot get bail on charges of threatening to kill.

In evidence before the Social Development Committee, Mr Justice Vincent commented on the mental health situation and the possibility of amending the Mental Health Act. It is not unfair for me to paraphrase his remarks. He finds great trouble with the view that people who have such bizarre and disturbed behaviour as is described in association with the man named in the Bill are not mentally ill.

I think His Honour said that people who maintain that view are themselves maintaining a crazy view of the mental health regime and of the law. That remark comes from a Supreme Court judge who is the Chairman of the Adult Parole Board. Mr Justice Vincent is probably more familiar with the person named in this Bill than anyone of us because in his reviews of prisoner status and as part of his Adult Parole Board duties he has reviewed parole applications.


What is needed is a system whereby for some offences an offender is given prolonged parole supervision. Alternatively, we can follow the suggestion of the honourable member for Preston-which he is so anxious to claim credit for-of a therapeutic community base. It will cost money. For those who would say that, I say that keeping the man named in this Bill in gaol for another ten years would probably cost between $600 000 and $1 million. If there are two or three like him there could be some cost saving by putting them together, but I doubt that could be done in case their disturbances sparked one against the other. It may be that they have to be kept in isolation. I do not know.

All I can say is that, rather than trying to spook the Opposition and the National . Party into passing this obnoxious Bill this week, the government would do better to spend a little time exploring the suggestion of the honourable member for Prestonone which I happily adopt-that there is a need to look for a third way: neither corrections nor compulsory mental health care. The third way suggested requires the person concerned to abide by the rules. That does not give him much freedom, but maybe for the first time in years it gives him care.

I return briefly to the matter I mentioned earlier. This man, who has been in institutional care from the age of six years-he may have spent two of his 35 years outside institutional care-has been our responsibility. In earlier years he was the responsibility of the former Liberal government, and for the past eight years he has been the responsibility of the Labor government. The evidence says he has been getting worse, not better. He has asked to be put into H division because he feels safe and secure there. The place other prisoners regard as being the worst fate he almost identifies as home.

We wonder at our inability to contemplate releasing him into the community when we have done nothing to get him ready; we have done little to prepare public opinion and we have done little to prepare our social and legal systems for the challen$es that lie ahead not only in his case but also the cases of a handful of others like hlm in a community increasingly concerned about these issues. Unless we start to make the issues drive the responses rather than allowing the politics and plotting to drive the responses, we will never get the right answers to the problems we face.

As a member of the Opposition, I say with great sincerity to the new AttorneyGeneral that I believe he has an opportunity either to make or unmake his reputation on his response on this issue. If he goes in the direction sU$8ested by the Bill, I think he will be marked for all time as having disowned everythlng he has ever said about civil liberties. If he takes the third way suggested by the honourable member for Preston-you, Mr Deputy Speaker, said he suggested it wrongly because it was an interjection, although I think I caught the nuance of your remarks that it was wrong for another reason, in that it challenged government policy-I say that the AttorneyGeneral has a great chance to provide some leadership within his party.

This is an appropriate opportunity for Parliament to put aside, perhaps, the consideration of the murkier details of the Bill and start examining more positive aspects of how we might deal with people who themselves recognise they are not yet ready to go back into society because society has not done enough to help them get ready. Recognising that in themselves is the beginning of the solution to the problem which we face as a Parliament and as members ofParliamertt.

Mr ROSS-EDW ARDS (Shepparton)-The National Party supports the general thrust of this Bill. A basic decision has to be made by every member of this Chamber, and for practical purposes it is the first decision that has to be made. Does one support Garry David being put in custody for a certain period for the safety of the community, or not? That is the decision that has to be made first and foremost.


I am a lawyer by profession-not an academic lawyer, as all honourable members would agree-but a politician by occupation. This proposed legislation commits Garry David to custody for one year with the Supreme Court having review of the situation at the beginning and six months thereafter.

There is no doubt that the man about whom the Bill is concerned has shown extraordinary behaviour in recent times; no-one will question that. To the layman, he is mentally disturbed or mentally ill-if there is a difference between those expressions. He has inflicted on himself injuries too horrible to detail in thi~ debate. He has made threats to many individuals and to the community at large, and those threats must be taken seriously. They cannot be overlooked, and although it has been said, "It may not happen" -it may well happen!

Since last Wednesday, I have spent much time discussing this matter with the Attorney-General, with members of my party, and with lawyers. I have given the matter very serious thought, and my party has given it deep thought. It is easy to chastise the government and to say that the government is passing the Bill because the Minister is on the hit list-no doubt, senior ministers are on the hit list. Members of the community are on the hit list. Although we have a concern for an individualanyone in public life must take a chance of something happening to him or her-and for members of the community who are in danger, members of Parliament still have an obligation, and for the rest of this afternoon-and, no doubt, for half the nightthe Opposition will argue quite logically that this is a bad Bill and contrary to the legal principles that Parliament holds so dear.

However, the Liberal Party and the National Party will vote for the Bill in principle; they will support the general thrust of what is being done. The Bill must disturb all members of the government. When thinking about events in past years, I can imagine how government members would have debated this issue had they been in Opposition. I can imagine the speeches the House would have heard from the honourable members for Springvale, Sunshine, Melbourne and Clayton-I made a note of those honourable members because they are in the Chamber; they would have made terrific speeches!

Dr Napthine-Jean McLean!

Mr ROSS-EDW ARDS-And so it goes on. Of course, it never happens because honourable members opposite make one speech slanted one way while in government and another speech slanted in a different way when in Opposition-that is sad! They will support the government-as I will-but it will be against the conscience of many. My conscience is clear. What the government is doing in principle is correct under all the circumstances. I do not like the Bill; the Attorney-General does not like the Bill; but I will support the general thrust of the Bill. However, honourable members on the government side of the House will not have a bar of it on their consciences and today they will not say anything against it. The House will hear about the freedom of the individual, about civil liberties, and about the attitude of Amnesty International.

Honourable members on this side are sincere supporters of law and order. We are rather tough citizens when it comes to cracking down on law and order, and no-one could support that concept more than I. However, I support the general attitude on this occasion that the freedom of an individual must be restrained in the interests of the community at large.

Everything about the Bill, from a legal point of view, is wrong. I have been speaking about the practical aspects of the Bill but from a technical and legal point of view, the Bill concerns one man. It does not matter whether the Bill is worded in another way because it still concerns Garry David.


The Bill is almost unprecedented; so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the burden of proof will be changed. With the benefit of hindsight, more charges should have been made against Garry David if only half of the things he is supposed to have done while in custody are true. However, I can understand why more charges were not made; the warders and the nurses must have been sick to death of it in the finish, and said, "Why go through all those procedures when he is in prison for a long time? He is a hard person to handle; we would have to go through the rigmarole of charging him". With hindsight, he should have been charged.

Mr Lieberman interjected.

Mr ROSS-EDWARDS-Probably they were fearful, and I can understand that. I have great respect for prison warders, nurses and those who work in mental institutions.

The Bill should have been introduced last year; I have probably used that phrase hundreds of times since I have been in this place, but the Bill should have been introduced last year so that with a longer period of adjournment, all honourable members would have had more time to discuss the Bill and to introduce amendments.

The Bill was introduced last Wednesday and there has been little time for discussion. Last Wednesday, the Attorney-General-with tongue in cheek-said the Bill should have been debated on Thursday-he wanted to signal a sense of urgency, and he quickly agreed to debate the Bill today. I suggested that the debate be adjourned until today-not because I wanted to debate it today, but for the Bill to achieve its purpose, it must pass through both Houses this week because of the possibility ofGarry David being released later this month.

Over the years, on many occasions I have been faced with the government of the day hurriedly introducing Bills; quite often they have been badly-framed Bills but they have had to be passed in the public interest. As Leader of the National Pary for many years, I found myself in a difficult position because my party held the balance of power in the other place. Time and again the National Party had to make a decision on behalf of the Victorian public. Honourable members may smile but it is easy to vote against a Bill-to say, "It is a bad Bill, throw it out". Over the years, the National Party has had to balance what was in the best interests of Victoria. One usually voted in favour of a Bill which, in many ways, may have been bad but, on balance, was in the best interests of the public of Victoria.

That is the situation today. I could well be accused of being a bad politician for not opposing the Bill, and for not making more of it; I should be ripping into it saying, "Get rid of it", and opposing it. Had I opposed the Bill and adopted a hard line, from a practical point of view Liberal Party colleagues would have opposed it. In all conscience, I cannot do that ~ When one's time in this place is finished, one should look back and think one has done what one felt was correct.

Mr Lieberman-You do your best.

Mr ROSS-EDW ARDS-You do your best. An added strain has been imposed on me, and my party, to make decisions on matters about which there has been uneasiness from time to time. On this occasion I am confident that the three parties in this place will support the Bill in principle. I am glad if that is the situation because at least all honourable members will share the blame and responsibility for what is happening.

The Bill affects one person only, regardless of how it is worded. The Bill is contrary to accepted legal principles; it sets an unsatisfactory precedent for the future. However the objective is achieved, it will involve legislation contrary to principles.


If the Liberal Party were the government of the day and faced with such a situation, how would it have handled it? Would the Liberal Party have done it any differently? I should like to think that the National Party would have done it differently and done it earlier. A number of the suggestions raised by the honourable member for Berwick would have involved discussing ways of amending the Bill. Currently there is no alternative. Whatever happens, it will keep Garry David in custody for a time and twelve months is a minimum, having regard to the work that has to be carried out before changes in the law can take place.

To be honest with myself, I must accept the principle of what the government is doing. The prison warders, the medical staff and the medical institutions should be given praise. The public owes them a debt of gratitude because they have had to put up with what this person has subjected them to over the years. Garry David is only one of the many difficult persons in custody.

Often the problems of warders are debated in this place when problems arise in the prison system. They are subjected to criticism but one must remember that they are dealing with difficult people under difficult circumstances; they deserve the support and praise not only of this place but also of the community at large.

The National Party is not prepared to accept the responsibility of Garry David being set free. As an individual I am not prepared to have it on my conscience what he might do if he is released. I believe my attitude is shared by most honourable members in this place.

I hope further discussion will take place and a compromise can be reached. The National Party will be pleased to enter into any discussions and, if need be, change its attitude towards the proposed legislation, but it is not prepared to change its views on what should happen to Garry David. If the government and the Attorney-General, after having listened to the debate, are prepared to alter the Bill in some way they will have the cooperation and support of the National Party.

It is an interesting debate, one that I do not think this Parliament has experienced before. The circumstances are unique. It is a sad set of circumstances and Parliament is dealing with a problem that is distressing. One must have the interests of the community in mind. Although it is sad to go against the National Party's principles and traditions, it does not have any choice in the circumstances presented to it.

Mr LEIGHTON (Preston)-I support the Bill. In doing so I congratulate the honourable member for Shepparton on his contribution to the debate, which was in contrast to that of the honourable member for Berwick.

When I entered Parliament some eighteen months ago one could have said that the Liberal Party was a law and order party. However, the honourable member for Berwick has embarked on a brave new course, one of civil liberties. The government has a good record in the area of health and community services. If the Liberal Party, his party, had embarked on the same course within the corrections system we would have been better off.

Before turning to the specifics of the Bill, I shall respond to a number of matters raised by the honourable member for Berwick. The honourable member linked the period of the Labor government with Garry David's term in prison. Garry David has been in institutions since he was six years old. He had previously been released later in life by the former Liberal government and offended further after that time. The honourable member should not be blaming the Labor government; he should be debating the difficulties presented by people with antisocial personality disorders, and the difficulty of providing care and treatment.


The honourable member said that the Bail Act should amended. The Bail Act should not be amended for the same reason that the Mental Health Act and the Crimes Act should not be amended.

Dr Wells-Why?

Mr LEIGHTON-There are two reasons. It is primarily an issue of dangerousness. If we are going to detain somebody because of his or her dangerousness, we ought to be honest and do it up front. At least the honourable member for Shepparton did, but Liberal Party members did not.

The second reason is that in amending any of those other Acts we could cut across certain provisions and say that this proposal will apply only to Garry David; we could amend the voluntary or involuntary provisions in the Mental Health Act but apply those amendments only to this man. The danger is that if one widens the net it will affect not only Garry David but also potentially will affect 40 per cent of the prison population.

It is farcical for the honourable member for Berwick to refer to Nelson Mandela. If we do not pass this Bill, it will not guarantee that there would not be a Nelson Mandela in our prison system. Likewise, passing the proposed legislation will not bring Nelson Mandela into our prison system. I should have thought a far more fundamental test would be whether we have a totalitarian government; whether we should scrap things like universal franchise; and whether we cut across the separation of powers. If there are no laws available to a bad government it can certainly put them onto the statute book. Likewise, if we really wanted to go after Nelson Mandela, we could do so under legislation relating to crimes such as treason and murder.

Much has been said about the so-called sudden introduction of the Bill. That is nonsense. The Social Development Committee, of which the honourable member for Berwick is a member, has been grappling with such issues since June last year.

In January this year the Minister for Health made specific reference to coming to grips with this issue and to reporting to Parliament by 2 March. Despite some fifteen or sixteen meetings during that time the committee failed to report and I am not surprised, given the filibustering of members of the opposition parties on that committee. One would have thought that after fifteen or sixteen meetings to canvass those issues and with the full cooperation of the political parties the committee would have been in a position to put before Parliament some more substantial recommendations.

While I am speaking in that vein, certain Opposition members, including the honourable member for Berwick, also had access to the report of the Law Reform Commission. However, the honourable member for Berwick was clever enough not to state a position. I should ha"ve thought that he would have grave reservations about that report, and I wonder whether he cannot proceed without it being before Parliament.

The honourable member for Berwick also suddenly discovered therapeutic communities. As I pointed out to him by way ofintetjection, the Ha nsa rd transcripts of evidence of the committee hearings show that I was the first honourable member to introduce the concept of psychotherapeutic communities to the Social Development Committee when questioning some of the expert witnesses, "especially from the Office of Psychiatric Services.

I am not sure that the honourable member for Berwick even now understands what a psychotherapeutic community is or what its limitations are. A psychotherapeutic community is of benefit only to certain types of personality disorders, and it would have limited benefit in the case of antisocial personality disorders. The available


evidence suggests it is far more successful if patients or participants enter into contracts. The problem with Garry David is that that is the last thing the government is prepared to do.

Voluntary patients have, subject to one condition, an absolute right of discharge. Is the honourable member for Berwick suggesting that the whole concept of voluntary patients be scrubbed to accommodate one person? That is what I mean by net widening. The honourable member for Berwick also confused the caring role with that of providing treatment. The available evidence shows that persons with personality disorders do not respond to treatment within a psychiatric setting.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. It relates to one individual, Garry lan David, who is also known as Garry lan Webb. It provides for the Minister to make application to the Supreme Court for the preventive detention ofGarry David. If, on an application under the provisions of the Bill, the Supreme Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Garry David is a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public and is likely to commit an act of personal violence on another person, the Supreme Court may order that Garry David be placed in preventive detention. That preventive detention could be in a psychiatric hospital, a prison or another institution.

The Bill also includes the requirement that the standards and conditions available to Garry David be no less than those applying to any other person detained within the specific institution. The order can be for only six months at a time and, because the Bill will be sunsetted in twelve months, there can be only one effective renewal for a further six months. The Bill also provides for reports to be forwarded during the time of detention. The sunset period places the onus on Parliament, the government and the Social Development Committee to come up with more substantial recommendations about the more general issue of people considered to be dangerous.

Along with the honourable member for Shepparton and a number of government members, I have little joy in supporting the Bill and that support comes only after much soul-searching. We are not prepared to say that we would never under any circumstances detain in custody a person considered dangerous, but the honourable member for Berwick seems to be heading down that path. As I pointed out, this is a far more honest way of proceeding. If psychiatric services are not available to detain a person such as Garry David-and substantial evidence to that effect is availableand if we cannot apply provisions under the Crimes Act, we must look fairly and squarely at preventive detention. We must be prepared to do that in the open; that is the only honest way.

I shall refer briefly to the Mental Health Act because there has been considerable debate within the community about whether Garry David is mentally ill and should be treated within the mental health system. As honourable members would be aware, the Mental Health Bill was passed by Parliament in 1986 and was considered landmark legislation. I believe it is a good Act and any amendments that may be required to that Act are minor and are of the nature of amendments that are currently in another place.

One of the issues confronting the drafting of the 1986 Act was the protection of individual civil liberties and, at the same time, providing care and treatment to those in need who did not have the insight to recognise that need. It was a difficult balancing act and I believe we got it right. One important feature of the Act was that for the first time voluntary patients really became voluntary. In the past any voluntary patient seeking to leave a psychiatric hospital had to give three days notice. That is hardly consistent with the notion of "voluntary".


With respect to involuntary patients, a number of criteria were set out for the first time. They comprise two sets of criteria, both of which appear under section 8 of the Mental Health Act 1986. The first are what could be called the inclusion criteria: firstly, that a person "appears" to be mentally ill. That is because no attempt is made to define mental illness. I am not aware of anywhere in the Western World where legislation has successfully defined mental illness. So the first of the inclusion criteria is that the person appears to be mentally ill. The other criteria are: that a person requires immediate care and treatment; that a person should be admitted for his or her own health and safety or for the protection of the public; and that a person cannot receive adequate care and treatment in less restrictive circumstances.

As well as the criteria for admission there are exclusion criteria, which stipulate that a person cannot be admitted to a psychiatric hospital purely because of beliefs such as political or religious or-and this is one of the issues in this Bill-because the person has an antisocial personality. These various exclusion criteria do not exclude a person from having treatment in a psychiatric hospital if he or she is also mentally ill. An example would be if somebody simply had a religious belief that would not lead to the conclusion, under the provisions of the Act, that he or she was mentally ill and required treatment. However, if that person believed himself or herself to be Jesus Christ, believed he or she heard God talking and had various other psychotic symptoms, one would suspect he or she might be schizophrenic and could certainly be admitted to a psychiatric hospital. The same situation applies to antisocial personality disorder. Merely because one has this disorder that does not lead to one being admitted under the Mental Health Act. However, a person with that disorder who also has a psychiatric illness can be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

The issue of antisocial personality disorder-ASPD-is relevant to the debate because Garry David is believed to be within that category. A antisocial personality disorder is one of the personality disorders such as: paranoid, affective, borderline, narcissistic and so forth. This disorder was previously known as psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorder. It is estimated that in the general population 3 per cent of males and 1 per cent of females have ASPD. For the purposes of the debate, it is estimated that 40 per cent of the prison population have an antisocial personality disorder.

The nature of ASPD is that it is continuous and chronic in nature and that it has its origin in youth. Invariably such a person cannot tell right from wrong. He or she is unable to develop stable social, family and work relationships. Indeed, at times, such a person's behaviour can be hedonistic. Frequently such a person comes to the attention flfthe authorities either for truancyin adolescence or for criminal activities or the use of illicit drugs.

Health Department Victoria in a recent document described ASPD in the following way:

A central feature of the antisocial personality disorder is the absence of a capacity for guilt, loyalty and empathy. They are frequently described as 'affectionless' or 'feelingless' people who are indifferent to the rights, needs or sensitivities of others. Often, they impress initially with superficial charm but later are seen as manipulative and demanding.

Recently, Garry David has been certified as a borderline personality disorder. I shall not explore that particular diagnosis at length because it is an issue that the Mental Health Review Board must determine. I have difficulty distinguishing between the two disorders. I find it difficult to accept that the two disorders should be treated differently.

Some eminent persons have classed ASPD as mental illness. They argue that such a person's behaviour, to the ordinary person on the street, is so abhorrent and bizarre


that the person is believed to be mentally ill and should be treated as such, and that if such a person is not encompassed by the Mental Health Act the Act should be amended. I do not accept that view and it is not accepted by psychiatrists. Recently the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said unanimously that ASPD is not a psychiatric illness, and that has been supported by psychologists and psychiatric nurses. That is consistent with the legislative position and clinical practice of every other State in Australia.

Although the United Kingdom still has provision within its Mental Health Act for ASPD, in making use of that provision is flying in the face of expert advice provided by the Butler committee. In practice psychiatrists in that country do not treat ASPD as a psychiatric illness. Increasingly, modem psychiatric practice takes the view that ASPD sufferers are not psychiatrically ill.

Mr Lieberman-For what reason?

Mr LEIGHTON-For a couple of reasons. They do not have the features of a psychosis, that is, of major acute psychiatric episodes. A couple offeatures are missing: firstly, they do not suffer from thought disorder because of delusions or hallucinations and, secondly, they lack affective disturbances such as deep depression or manic episodes. However, ASPD sufferers do not respond to treatment when they are admitted to psychiatric settin~s. They do not respond to drugs and, by and large, they do not respond to psychiatnc programs.

Mr Lieberman-What about care?

Mr LEIGHTON-The problem with the Opposition is that it confuses care such as the provision of some sort of quality of life and programs and decent understanding with treatment in a clinical sense. There is a distinction and I am concerned about the failure of the Opposition to make that distinction, even after the work undertaken by the Social Development Committee on the Mental Health Act; and that attitude flies in the face of what the Opposition has been saying during the past three months.

People with ASPD disrupt and manipulate the situation in psychiatric hospitals at the cost of those who are acutely psychiatrically ill. I have had first-hand experience of this situation in an acute psychiatric setting at the Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital when a young adolescent was referred from Turana. There was a hi~ level of staffing and professionals who were well qualified and experienced, but withln two weeks most of the programs conducted by the day centre had been discontinued while the staff spent 50 per cent of their time in crisis meetings. That does not mean that the mental health professionals should not have a role in providing programs for people with ASPD. I should like there to be many more of those programs in the corrections system iffor no other reason than that the mental health professionals employed there are skilled in behaviour management.

If we were to amend the Mental Health Act to provide for Garry David, it would have to be Garry David alone. I have examined in some depth the various Mental Health Act criteria for such a situation. It would be necessary to cut across the provisions for someone who appears to be mentally ill, and ASPD sufferers are not considered to be mentally ill.

Another matter that is not understood is that, once a person is determined to be mentally ill and is admitted to a psychiatric hospital, he or she cannnot be detained indefinitely but is subject to review by the board after four to six weeks and must be reviewed at least every twelve months thereafter. It is possible for reviews to be undertaken every four weeks. Even if one were successful in having a person with such a disorder admitted to a psychiatric hospital, there is no way to be sure that that person is kept in hospital, and he or she would have to be discharged.


Before moving to the principles of preventive detention, I should briefly explore sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act, which need to be clarified. The various advice I have received appears to indicate some conflict as to whether threats to kill have to relate to an individual or whether both of those provisions apply to generalised or mass threats.

I also refer to the role of corrections. It is clear, even on the admission of the director-general, that the Office of Corrections failed to provide appropriate and adequate programs for Garry David. I was distressed to hear that at one stage during his time within the corrections system, because no-one knew what to do with him, he was lumped in with a group of intellectually disabled prisoners. That was not appropriate for him and, just as frighteningly, it was not appropriate for the continued care of the intellectually disabled prisoners.

If we cannot use mental health services or the Crimes Act and, despite the best or worst endeavours of the corrections system, at the end of the day the person is due for release and remains dangerous, the community is faced fairly and squarely with the issue of preventive detention. It is a matter of dangerousness, and at least the honourable member for Shepparton, unlike the honourable member for Berwick, was honest enough to spell that out. Those who oppose the Bill must be prepared to say that never under any circumstances would they detain anyone who might be considered dangerous to the community.

Nigel Walker writing in the British Journal o/Criminology summarises the arguments against preventive detention as follows:

1. Research suggests that it is not possible to define any group of violent offenders in such a way that a majority of members of the group is likely to commit further violence.

2. That being so, a policy of sentencing any defined group to precautionary terms of imprisonment will entail the unnecessary detention of the majority of its members. The unnecessary detentions will always exceed the ones which would have proved justified.

3. If on the other hand a policy of "no precautionary detention" were adopted, the members of the group who committed further crimes of violence would be fewer than those who did not.

4. So fewer mistakes would be made by a policy of "no precautionary detention".

As Mr Walker points out, that argument has two fallacies. The first is that it ignores qualitative differences between the extension of detention and the commission of violence. Those who argue that preventive detention is wrong because a person is detained not on the basis of something he has done but on the basis of what he may do assume that the basis of sentencing is retribution, and in doing so, they ignore the preventive element. The second fallacy to that line of argument is that, by implication, one is saying that it is morally wrong to take any precaution against something nasty ifit later turns out to have been unnecessary.

Jean Floud, who chaired an eminent British working party on dangerousness and criminal justice, puts it another way. She says that a small minority of the prison population is dangerous in that they present a continuing risk of violence to the community. She justifies a protective sentence on the basis of collective or communal protection by redistributing the risk between the convicted offender and the community. The test should be one of risk of grave or serious harm involving violence, such as death, serious bodily injury or serious sexual assault.

Bottoms and Brownsward, also writing in the British Journal o/Criminology, propose a useful test comprising three principles: firstly, seriousness-what type and degree of injury is in contemplation; secondly, temporality-including frequency and immediacy; and, thirdly, certainty-how sure is one that the person will act as expected.


Several other criteria and principles must be considered in preventive detention. They include the history of previous convictions, including violence, and the requirement that any application be heard by an independent and eminent tribunal, such as the Supreme Court, and that it be subject to review.

On those sorts of tests, I am prepared to say that Garry David meets the requirements of such a Bill. Honourable members cannot ignore his past violent and criminal behaviour as well as his continued threats. Although he may be a victim of the system, that must be weighed against the overall safety of the community. On that basis, reluctantly and with anguish, I come to the view that, as an interim measure, the Bill must be passed.

Mr KENNETT (Burwood)-I wish to enter the debate briefly. During the fourteen years I have been a member of this place I have never exercised a conscience vote, but never have I come as close to exercising that vote as I have with this Bill. I congratulate the honourable member for Preston for his contribution, particularly his articulation of mental illness.

By any measure the Bill is a disgrace. The system has failed an individual. I am not trying to apportion blame; it does not matter who the individual is, what matters is that there is an individual in society who is in a hopeless situation because the system has failed him.

Eight years after the individual was put in prison, he is about to be released. People have assessed him and decided that he is not ready for release and that he is a threat to the community. As a result, honourable members are now faced with this Bill. By addressing the proposed legislation, Parliament is indicating that it also is failing. It is not only that the individual has been failed by the corrections system over the years but also that Parliament has failed. Honourable members cannot prepare and have not prepared themselves to address either the Bail Act or the Crimes Act. We are here at the last moment to pass legislation that is totally abhorrent to all of us.

The Bill is unacceptable; it flies in the face of everything that a democratic society is about. In the past few days during which I have been addressing this matter, I have built up a lot of emotion about it. I feel so totally useless because, knowing that the individual had the ptoblem, knowing that he was due to be released and knowing that he still had problems in reassociating himself with the community, Parliament did not have the mechanism to address the matter in a more humane, tolerant and caring fashion. We now find ourselves with a Bill that uses a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut.

Mr Kennan inteIjected.

Mr KENNETT - The Attorney-General may find this funny, but I am bitterly upset about the Bill, and if I show that, so be it. The Attorney-General should be ashamed of himself.

Mr Micallef-Cut it out!

Mr KENNETI-It is all right for the honourable member for Springvale, but he came into this place with high ideals about the rights of individuals, and the Bill denies those rights.

Based on the small amount of information honourable members have had made available to them, there is no-one in this House who would not reach the conclusion that the individual is not ready for release, as he himself has admitted. However, that does not excuse us for doing what we are doing today. I did not appreciate seein~ the Premier of this State going public as he did earlier this week threatening the OpposItion that if it did not support the Bill it will, therefore, be responsible for anything this


individual does if he is released. What is the Premier asking? Is he hoping that this man will exercise the threats he has made to the community so that the Premier will be proved right and the Opposition wrong? What a depraved sense of judgment and tithing as honourable members are asked to consider the Bill!

The individual concerned recognises that he is not ready for release. On the scanty information we have before us, members of the Opposition agree with that. However, it does not become any Premier or individual to go around blackmailing members of Parliament to pass proposed legislation on the off-chance that the individual may put into action some of the threats he has made and prove one side of politics right and the other side wrong.

Where do we go when the Bill is passed? As I said, I have never before felt so close to exercising my right, which thankfully the Liberal Party gives me, to exercise a conscience vote. I shall not exercise that right because we are in a no-win situation. However, it is not right that the argument for passing the Bill is that, as the honourable member for Shepparton said, honourable members do not want it on their consciences if a certain individual is released and commits a crime.

Honourable members must make their decisions by weighing up the evidence put before us. No-one would like to have the proposed legislation on his or her conscience because no-one could be proud of what is happening in this place today. The Community Protection Bill represents the politics of hypocrisy, of indecision, and the failure of the system, both in addressin$ the needs of an individual in the care of the State who is, therefore, our responsibility, and in treating in a more humane way a problem being confronted by Parliament. With the introduction of a Bill such as this Bill, the flame of hope, the flame of our democratic system, the flame of the Amnesty International candle is well and truly snuffed out.

The honourable member for Preston may argue that the Bill represents the only honest way of dealing with the problem, by confronting it up-front and making a decision.


Mr KENNETT -The honourable member for Preston may argue that, but the Bill represents an acknowledgment that Parliament has not done something about the problem in the past. This failure is not something of which honourable members should be proud. We are addressing proposed legislation the like of which does not exist against any individual anywhere else in the Western World, so far as I am aware. If that makes the honourable member for Preston or the Attorney-General feel proud, so be it.

I do not feel proud of the proposed legislation. I am in a state of despair for the individual concerned and for Parliament which has admitted today that it has failed. Parliament has sadly and obviously failed. As honourable members were aware of the potential problem existing because of the threats made by the individual concerned, Parliament should have considered the provisions of the Crimes Act and the Bail Act and applied the appropriate provisions to the particular situation. Parliament should not single out an individual for consideration in such proposed legislation. Who can say that there will not be another case of threats being made against the community? All honourable members have been threatened. The Premier has been threatened, and because he is more fortunate than the rest of us he spent $1 million on security measures around his office. That is how the Premier responds to threats. Those of us who do not have that authority have had to accept the protection of the agencies currently in place to deal with the threats. Many people will have to deal with threats in the future. I invite honourable members to consider who will be the arbiter when


the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth citizen makes a threat and is subjected to similar proposed legislation?

Honourable members are dealing with a tragic situation which should never have arisen. The Attorney-General and the honourable member for Preston have said that the proposed legislation deals with the problem in the best way possible, by making a decision up-front. If the Bill is right, I ask the Attorney-General why 54 amendments will be moved in the Committee stage? There may be only three major amendments with the rest being consequential, but even so if the proposed legislation that honourable members are being asked to push through is right in detail, why will 54 amendments be moved? Certainly I have not had the time to address the amendments.

I am sad that Parliament has reached the stage where it is raising the white flag of surrender and admitting its failure to help those in need in the community. The Bill represents a recognition that, with all the resources available to Parliament, with the bureaucracy of government, and with time on our side, the only way that Parliament can deal with an individual problem is through initiating this kind of legislation. The Bill is the most draconian of its type that I have ever seen. I will be the first to support any tough law and order policy. My attitude has changed over the years: I was in favour of hanging but I am no longer in favour of it. However, I am still in favour of a tough law and order policy being put in place.

The proposed legislation has tugged at my heartstrings because it goes against everything that the government has been on about. It goes against what the AttomeyGeneral has been on about, and one need only read some of the speeches made by the Premier in recent times-particularly prior to his becoming Premier-to understand his views of the rights of individuals.

Certainly this individual has made threats which must be taken seriously. As he has said, no-one would want him to be released at the present time. However, it is not good enough for honourable members to think that the Bill represents the only way to deal with the problem. As I said, we may all go away tonight thinking that we have addressed the problems that the Bill is supposed to address. But we will not have done that. We have not addressed the problems of people in custody by ensuring that the same thing will not happen again.

Because it is so urgent the matter is being dealt with in Parliament before it has finally been considered by the Social Development Committee. Honourable members . should not be congratulating themselves but should be recognising that the community is sadly failing this individual and others and that Parliament has-as I said-raised the white flag of surrender. Parliament is indicating that it does not know how to look after society. The Bill is a reflection on Parliament as a whole and, more importantly and sadly, on the government of the day, which is just that: the government of the day.

The government has known about the problem and has been aware of the provisions of the Crimes Act and the Bail Act. Honourable members are debating proposed legislation of which we should all be ashamed.

Mrs RAY (Box Hill)-I put on the record exactly what Parliament has done in regard to addressin~ this issue. I agree with many of the remarks made about the fact that the CommunIty Protection Bill addresses a failure of our system but the opportunity has not entirely passed by Parliament to come up with a better way of dealing with the situation with which we are confronted today.

Honourable members have the opportunity of looking at other alternatives so long as the work of the Social Development Committee can continue. From the secondreading speech it seems that there is no intention to use the proposed legislation as


anything more than an interim measure. It makes provision for detention for six months with a possible further six months.

In June of last year the Minister for Health gave a reference to the Social Development Committee. The terms of the reference were as follows: ... to inquire into mental disturbance and community safety and report to Parliament within six months.

To identify the dimensions, scope and impact on families and within the community of violent or criminal actions by people evidencing seriously disturbed behaviour associated with mental illness, intellectual disability, acquired brain damage or personality disorder.

Honourable members can see that the terms of the original reference were wide. It continues:

To examine existing legislation dealing with such people.

To examine the role and relationship of agencies involved with both servicing the needs of behaviourally disturbed people and with providing protection and support to their families and the community, with particular reference to:

• the police, courts and correctional agencies;

• mental health services;

• disability services;

• community organisations;

• public and community housing;

• alcohol and drug services.

To make recommendations for action required to remedy any deficiencies or gaps in current policies, strategies and systems necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals as well as the community in general, including recommendations on legislative change if required.

One can only gasp at the fact that six months was the length of time allowed the twelve members of the Social Development Committee to undertake that work. Quite clearly that was an impossible task but we set about it with the intention of doing our best in that time.

On 22 January of this year a further communication from the Minister for Health was received. It requested that the Social Development Committee provide an interim report which dealt with the legislative changes required to respond to persons with severe personality disorders who mayor may not be mentally ill and who present a danger to our community.

It was an attempt to focus the committee's work from the broad terms of reference to the specific category of issues the Bill is attempting to address. Further, on 1 March the Minister for Health requested the committee, in the course of preparing its interim report, to recognise any form of legislative change and asked that draft amendments or draft Bills be included in the tabled report. This means that the Bill has been made necessary by the failure of the committee to meet its deadlines.

Mr Cooper-What is the connection between the committee and the Bill?

Mrs RAY-The committee has been unable to meet its deadlines; it was asked to report on this particular issue. The committee comprises members of all parties, and one can only make an explanation in terms of the complexity and difficulty of the issues. It does not mean that the committee cannot return to a consideration of its reference after the proposed legislation has been enacted, and I understand that to be the intention.

The Bill simply deals with the position outlined by many in the debate when there is a threat of danger to the community. The committee will be able to proceed to


consider a range of options that have already been brought to the attention of Parliament by the honourable member for Berwick, and it has already begun to explore those options.

I do not want to say anything more except that I intend to continue my commitment to the resolution of this situation, along with my Parliamentary colleagues, and I trust that that commitment will apply equally from all members of the committee, whom I commend for the effort and hours they have spent sincerely addressing the problems. The committee has failed so far in the time available to resolve the issues, but I believe the matter will be resolved in the context of community debate and this debate.

Mr JOHN (Bendigo East)-I congratulate the honourable member for Berwick on the case he put to Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party Opposition. I should like to add a few remarks from my own perspective, being a lawyer by training.

This is a Bill for one man. It is a short Bill of only sixteen clauses. Clause 1 (b) provides that one of its purposes is:

to provide for proceedings to be instituted in the Supreme Court for an Order for the detention ofGarry David.

The Bill provides for the detention of one person. It is a sad story. Honourable members have heard about the life of the person concerned, including the fact that he has spent most of it in one form of institution or another. He has committed some extremely serious crimes for which he has served time. He has mutilated himself while in custody. He has caused havoc to at least one family and virtually destroyed the lives of that family's members, the victims of the crime for which he was sentenced in 1982.

I practised in the law in general practice for about twenty years and during that period acted for or defended a number of offenders, some for serious crimes, but mostly for minor crimes. I observed and was acquainted with many people who committed serious offences and who have subsequently served sentences of imprisonment. I am aware of the treasured history of the legal system in this country that goes back not only to Australia's early settlement days but also far back through the centuries in the United Kingdom. Australia has inherited the British system of justice, albeit modified by statute.

It is a proud history which has evolved and which has ~ven people certain rights before the law. Those rights include the right to a fair tnal, the right to be treated equally with all other citizens before the law, the right to be represented and the right to certain rules of evidence. I submit that the lawyers on both sides of Parliament must be incensed and outraged by the nature of the method by which the government has seen fit to solve the problem It has with Garry David or Garry Webb, as he is also known.

The present Attorney-General, who is an honourable man with considerable experience in the law, must be having sleepless ni~ts over this Bill. One of the first jobs he has been given on taking over the portfoho is this measure-this appalling, outrageous Bill. He has been handed the poisoned chalice. The former AttomeyGeneral had sat on his hands for at least four or five months knowing this problem would eventuate. The government knew it could not back away from the problem and that it was dealing with a person who has expressed dangerous intent.

I shall refer to an article that appeared in the Sun of Monday, 11 December 1989 headed, "Life prison plan: Cabinet bids to lock gunman away forever". The first two paragraphs of the article by Shane Burke state:

The State government is secretly working on special legislation to keep one of Victoria's violent criminals in jail for life.

Community Protection Bill 10 April 1990 ASSE~1BL Y 865

State Cabinet has twice discussed the impending release of convicted gunman Garry Webb, who has vowed to go on a killing spree when freed from Pentridge next year.

The article appeared on 11 December last year. It is now April, and last week the new Attorney-General was handed the poisoned chalice. The former Attorney-General had all those details before him for at least three or four months and nothing was done. He bungled the case. He could have gone down the path of amending the mental health legislation or sections 20 and 21 of the Crimes Act.

An Honourable Member-Make it retrospective!

Mr JOHN-I take up the interjection. The proposed legislation is so bad that it makes retrospective legislation look quite good. It is an obscene Bill. It must concern government members that the government has introduced a Bill that allows for applications to be made to the Supreme Court ex parte when Mr David, or Mr Webb, is not necessarily to be present or to be told about the proceedings. The court is not bound by the rules of evidence so the court can have admitted self-incrimination-type evidence.

The Bill alters the standard of proof and reverses the presumption of innocence. Generally speaking, the rules of natural justice have been thrown out the window with this Bill. There is no reiteration or comment about the right of the subject, the victim, to be represented.

No mention is made of the subject's right to be informed of proceedings, to be given copies of documents or to be served with notices of any of those proceedings. Civil liberties lawyers are entitled to be outraged.

When the Bill is passed those $overnment members who belong to Amnesty International will have to reassess, In all conscience, whether they should belong to that organisation, because their actions of last week and this week are the sort of actions against which Amnesty International has been working all over the world. Idi Amin would have been proud of this Bill and it would have been a model in the Soviet Union at the turn of the century. Every tinpot dictatorship passes this type oflegislation, where all legal rules are thrown out the window.

I pay tribute to those nurses, prison officers and police who have to deal with dangerous criminals in mental health institutions and prisons. They are to be congratulated for their dedication and commitment on behalf of all of us.

The Bill should not have come before Parliament. It could have been done in another way; we could have acted earlier. The government has failed to take up the several other avenues that have been available for some months. The Bill is of grave concern to me as a person whose background and entire career path prior to entering Parliament has been in the law. I am concerned that the subject of the Bill, who was sentenced to' fourteen years imprisonment for a serious crime in 1982, is the subject of a measure that is being rushed through Parliament six years short of the time to which he was sentenced.

Government bungling and delay have meant that the community has not been properly and adequately consulted on all of the avenues, and have caused the deprivation of rights that we are seeing today. As the honourable member for Berwick stated, the Opposition is very reluctant to allow the Bill to pass but it has no choice because of the circumstances with which it is faced. It puts on record its outrage at the method by which this is being done.

Mr MAUGHAN (Rodney)-The Community Protection Bill is essentially about incarcerating Garry )?avid, who is a most unfortunate individual. He is aged 35 years, and has spent most of those years in prisons or psychiatric institutions. The community


must answer for the individual that it has turned out. Garry David has a history of violence. He has been convicted for attempted murder and is currently on remand on a charge of threatening to kill. He has a long history of violence and self-mutilation.

Garry David is best known for his well-publicised threats to the community, particularly threats to kill. The community is undoubtedly frightened of him. He suffers from a severe antisocial personality disorder and is undoubtedly very dangerous, but is he any more dangerous than many other people in the community? How does one assess dangerousness?

Some 3 per cent of males and 1 per cent of females suffer from severe antisocial personality disorders and between 15 and 40 per cent of the prison population suffers from these disorders. That means that, at any time, between IS and 30 offenders in prisons are potentially as dangerous as Garry David, and perhaps two or three of those prisoners face imminent release. Why are we so concerned about this one ihdividual? Is he any more dangerous than many others?

Mr Maclellan-The answer is that we do not know.

Mr MAUGHAN-We do not know. The United States experience shows that we do not have a good record of proving dangerousness. The United States passed laws to incarcerate people who were said to be dangerous. They were imprisoned in a place called Blaxtrom. The United States Supreme Court overturned the legislation because of its threat to civil liberties. When the 300 people who had been held in Blaxtrom because they were considered to be extremely dangerous were released, only six people who had been detained committed acts of violence towards the community. We have a poor record of assessing dangerousness.

The community is concerned about Garry David, not because he is dangerous but because his case has been well publicised. The media have had a field day, telling the community all the bizarre details relating to his case, which has created a great deal of fear. I have no doubt that the community does not want him released, no matter how telling the arguments for his release might be.

The proposed legislation is dangerous and creates a frightening precedent because it is designed to incarcerate a person who has already paid his debt to society; a person who may be found not to be mentally ill. He should be allowed to go back into society. I support the proposal of the honourable member for Berwick for a half-way house between prison and the community.

The government is to be condemned for having taken no meaningful action for the past ten years that Garry David has been in prison-leaving aside the earlier timeand for not preparing him for release. He is certainly not ready for release. The government has not handled the matter well. It has introduced a draconian Bill which flies in the face of civil liberties; a Bill that the Opposition has had only six days to consider. Very little evidence has been produced to support the measure-no transcripts or reports; just the community's concern that this fellow is dangerous; therefore, we must lock him up.

I ask: is this fair, when there are other people who are equally dangerous and the same sort of action will not be taken against them? I hope the same sort of action will not be taken against others. The government should first have exhausted all the options that were available to it. There are several options that have really not been explored to their conclusion, such as charges under the Crimes Act, charges for threatening to kill, and charges for violence. This prisoner could fave been dealt with in a number of ways rather than through this draconian measure.


In general terms, I believe David should be released, but not into the general community-certainly not, he is not ready for that-but into a therapeutic type of community, as suggested by the honourable member for Berwick. This is one option that should be seriously considered, although obviously there is not sufficient time in this case to do so. The implementation of such a suggestion is probably no more costly than incarcerating a person in prison or in a psychiatric institution. It is certainly far more humane. It is likely to be far more effective, and in many ways it is far less dangerous than the path that honourable members propose to take this evening.

The Bill poses a direct threat to our civil liberties. It is interesting that I, a member of the National Party, am defending civil liberties, when members of the government party, many of whom have made their reputations on defending civil liberties, are prepared in this case to forget all about civil liberties and pass this draconian measure to deal with just one individual. It is totally unfair to punish a person who is not really guilty of any offence. He has served his sentence; he has not been found guilty of a further crime, and yet honourable members are considering incarcerating him for a further period. It is certainly contrary to the well-established principle that the same laws should apply to everyone throughout the community. That principle certainly does not apply in this case, where one individual is being picked out and treated differently from others.

This is an obnoxious Bill. It is a measure that I do not support because I believe there are other alternatives that should be explored. As I said, it is a strange twist of fate that 1 should be more concerned about civil liberties than some members of the government appear to be in this case.

I observe that the Attorney-General is decidedly uncomfortable with this measure. I certainly feel uncomfortable about it; but, for very practical reasons, honourable members are obliged to pass this Bill, obnoxious though it is.

Garry David is not yet fit to be released back into the general community. There are no alternatives currently available to deal with the situation, and it is with a great deal of reluctance that I support the Bill. The bottom line is that I am not prepared to oppose the Bill and have the possible consequences of a subsequent community tragedy on my conscience. I find the Bill obnoxious. I find myself in a dilemma. I do not believe there is any other practical alternative and, therefore, it is with a great deal of reluctance and reservation that I support the Bill, on the understanding that it is a one-off, and in the hope that it will never have to be used as a precedent for similar legislation dealing with another person with like problems.

Mr COOPER (Mornington)-The Community Protection Bill is a measure that addresses itself directly to the situation of a man called Garry David, who is sometimes known as Garry Webb. Garry David is not a unique person. Having heard some of the speeches here today, one would believe he was unique, but he is not, and I shall address that a little later.

However, he has certainly achieved a unique position, not only in Victoria and Australia, but also, I believe, in the whole of the Western World-and certainly in all the democratic countries of the world-because he has been singled out in this Bill, which overturns all the principles of natural justice. That certainly makes him unique so far as this Parliament is concerned, and he is in that unique position because the government has failed to address an issue it has known about for a very long time.

My colleague, the honourable member for Bendigo East, mentioned the fact that the government has known since last November about the problems associated with releasing David into the community. My colleague understated the case; the government has known about the position facing the potential release ofGarry Davic1


into the community for some years. It has known about it certainly since he went on trial in 1982 for attempted murder, when he deliberately set a trap for the police.

He had gone to the Mornington Peninsula with the express intention of killing as many police officers as he possibly could. When he went to the Mornington Peninsula he could not find a police station, so he found a pizza parlour on the peninsula and created a disturbance at the back of it. When Mrs Zimbardi, the wife of the proprietor, came out, he shot her, rendering her a paraplegic, knowing full well when shooting her that the police would be called to attend the incident. When two policeman attended, Sergeant Lou Allain and Senior Constable Bill Liefting from the Mornington police station, he shot at them, severely injuring Senior Constable Liefting and just missing Sergeant Allain.

Sergeant Allain, having expended all the bullets in his revolver, grabbed Senior Constable Liefting's revolver, intending to pursue David down a lane where he had gone and was waiting fully armed to massacre whoever followed him down that lane. Fortunately for Sergeant Allain, before entering the laneway he checked the revolver he had taken from Senior Constable Liefting and, to his good luck, discovered that his colleague had expended all the bullets in his revolver, so he did not pursue David down the lane. Ifhe had not checked the revolver, he would have pursued a dangerous man-a maniac-down the laneway with an empty revolver, and he certainly would have met his own death.

David was captured later and admitted to police that he had gone out with the express intention of massacring police officers. He was duly tried and was convicted and sentenced in 1982 to fourteen years gaol for attempted murder.

As my colleagues in the Opposition have said, here it is, eight years later, and this man is potentially about to go back on the streets. That, in itself, is an indictment of this government and its attitude towards the penal system and the system of justice in this State. This man was sentenced to fourteen years gaol for an horrific crime, a crime that will live for the rest of their lives in the memories of the people directly aff'ectedbecause Senior Constable Liefting is a physical and mental cripple as a result of that incident, and Mrs Zimbardi is a paraplegic who knows that she will be a burden to herselfand her family for the remainder of her days. Yet, eight years later, because of the policies of this government, that man is potentially about to walk out on the streets.

The government has known about this man and his potential for years. What has it done about him during the time he has been in the gaols and mental institutions of this State? What has the government done about turning him back into someone who could be released? The government has done nothing, yet at the absolute last minute Parliament is presented with proposed legislation that turns on its head all the principles of justice in our society, and it is asked to pass the Bill.

Garry David has been examined by a number of psychiatrists. Last Thursday the Attorney-General arranged for members of the Opposition to be briefed so that they would be acquainted with some of the psychiatric evidence relating to the person named in the Bill, and the briefing told us why Parliament is dealing with proposed legislation that will keep this man out of society.

No-one argues that Garry David needs to be kept out of society, but the Opposition argues about the way it is being done. Some of the things this man has done to other people and to himself need to be detailed. The Director of the Office of Psychiatric Services spoke to members of the opposition parties last Thursday morning and told us that Garry David is a self-mutilator; there have been 80 episodes of self-mutilation. He has a record of excessive violence. He has attacked other prisoners and prison


officers. He has set fire to prisons and hospitals in which he has been placed. He has indulged, and I use that word loosely, himself in making a wide variety of verbal and written threats, including threats to kill the Prime Minister, the Premier and other public officials. He has threatened to conduct massacres-setting up ambushes in the Bourke Street Mall and massacring people. He has threatened to massacre people in St Vincent's Hospital. He has threatened to kill friends of his. He has threatened to kill fellow prisoners and has threatened to kill a wide variety of other people.

A report published recently in a paper states that he had sent a written threat to a broadcaster of a radio breakfast program in this city. He has been described as a person with an extreme personality disorder. On six occasions he has been assessed as psychotic, but on the basis of it being a short-term condition. He is not, in the strict terminology of the law, insane. The psychiatric diagnosis given to members of the Opposition is that he goes in and out of insanity, but he is not permanently insane. We were told that he is extremely dangerous and he is a person who will repeat this violence if allowed, and that he is the worst person of his type in the prison or mental health systems of this State by a long way. Those descriptions of him led my colleagues and me to agree that this man should not be allowed out into the community.

Unfortunately, he cannot be judged by the law, as it presently applies, as insane. However, I have to agree with the words of Mr Justice Vincent who, in evidence to the Social Development Committee, said:

I have great difficulty coming to terms with the concept that if somebody cuts his ears off and slices parts of hispenis off, tries to bum himself with petrol and wants to shoot people, he is not mentally ill. It seems to me that any definition of the role of psychiatric medicine that seems to exclude this extraordinary section of significant mental disturbance is itself crazy.

Mr Justice Vincent's words cannot be ignored.

I want to discuss matters raised by the honourable members for Preston and Rodney. The honourable member for Rodney asked why Parliament is dealing with this specific Bill when there are other badly disturbed people in the community.

Mr Baker interjected.

Mr COOPER-I am staggered by the interjection of the honourable member for Sunshine. Parliament is debating a most serious matter, but the honourable member believes it is amusing. I look forward to his contribution, because the House so far has heard from only two members on the government side and the Opposition wants to hear more government members justifying the introduction of the Bill.

Some months ago I had a conversation with Mr GeoffLapidos, a person well known in the prison reform area, who talked to me about the seriousness of these kinds of events. He said there are a large number of prisoners who go in and out of the prison system and who are clearly psychopathic and will commit crimes involving physical violence. He said that some of these people will commit crimes that result in death, and that most of these people, when they commit crimes, are not able to resist the urge to inflict some kind of physical damage on their victims.

One of the issues that seriously concerned Mr Lapidos is that these people come into the prison system and then go out the other end with no effort being made to address the problem or to try to give them some hope of leading normal lives at some stage. Mr Lapidos told me-nearly twelve months ago-that he was then supporting someone who had been released from gaol and who had committed a series of violent offences, by providing money, food, clothin~ and shelter. However, Mr Lapidos's resources were strained and he could not conttnue to support this man forever. When his resources ran out he believed the person would go out and commit more crimes that would result in physical injury to some people. He asked: when will someone


start doing something about this problem? The shame is that nobody has done anything about the problem. No-one has responded to his pleas, which he told me had gone on for a long time. These violent people have been ignored and society now has a number of these people who are known to the Office of Psychiatric Services and obviously well known to the Office of Corrections, yet nobody wants to address the issue.

One can probably suggest that Garry David has done one large favour for the Victorian community. After all the times people such as Mr Lapidos and others have raised these sorts of matters for the attention of the government and have been ignored, Garry David has made this a major issue in Parliament, and honourable members have the opportunity of addressing it. Not only can they address this Bill and its dreadful ramifications but also, before the debate concludes, they can hear what the government intends to do in the long term about addressing the problems of dangerous people who may commit further offences. What will the government do about it? Will the government do something dramatic and long term; or in twelve months will it introduce a generalised version that will not mention Garry David but will attempt to cover anyone else in his situation who can be locked up for a long period?

Will the government take the simple option or will it involve itself in some lateral or intelligent action on the issue? I do not wish to debate this kind of issue again. I expect the government to take a lead and to come up with a solution.

From the contribution of the honourable member for Box Hill it appears that the Social Development Committee is having difficulty coming to a conclusion so that it can make recommendations to the government on the action to be taken.

Mr Maclellan-No, the government members have all agreed.

Mr COOPER-Yes, government members of the committee have agreed to the introduction of this Bill, but that will not meet the expectations of the Victorian community. It certainly will not meet the expectations of the Opposition.

As the honourable member for Rodney said, members of the National Party and the Opposition will reluctantly, not oppose the Bill. Although the Bill is draconian, honourable members know the reasons for it. No-one on this side of the House rejects the basic thrust of the Bill: that this man is perceived to be a danger to the community.

Mr Maclellan-He isn't ready.

Mr COOPER-He's not ready to come out. He says so himself. It is clear from all the evidence that he is not ready.

What is the long-term objective of the government? Does the government plan to continue to reproduce Bills such as this when individual cases are brought to its attention-when they bubble up to the top of the septic tank-or will it take a longterm and responsible approach to solving the problem?

This is an appalling and disgraceful measure. There is no doubt that it meets a need, but it is a short-term need. One hopes the government will offer appropriate solutions to these sorts of people in future months rather than this type of measure. If not, not only does Mr David not have much hope for his future but also the government does not have much hope for its future.

Mr DICKINSON (South Barwon)-The Bill is creating considerable concern in the community because it is the second piece of socialist proposed legislation introduced into Parliament in recent days and it flies in the face of all that Australians hold near and dear.


A few years ago Donald Kelso McKellar sat along side me in this Chamber. During the second world war he fought for the freedoms of this country by flying in forty bomber raids over Nazi Germany. He knew what freedom was all about because at that time the Germans had lost their freedom. Liberty is very precious and it can be destroyed quickly.

If honourable members looked at the history books and read what took place in Europe in the 1930s they would discover that in Germany it was called National Socialism, and in Russia, under Stalin, it was called communism. Honourable members will recall the emotional beat-up and the trauma of that time when someone was charged with burning down the Reichstag-a mad Dutchman, they said. Within weeks the freedoms that were treasured by the lawyers, the judges and others were eroded. In one stroke of a pen all such things were taken away. No-one believed what took place in Germany could happen in a civilised country. They destroyed books, university leaders became frightened and leading thinkers fleed to other parts of the world. Many thousands of people came to Australia knowing what it was to lose their freedoms.

The Community Protection Bill is an example of socialism at its worst. It offends against history and the lessons that should have been learnt in the 1930s. What happened in National Socialist Germany and in Russia under Stalin? In that period the people judged the enemies of the State or community. How many people were locked away in hospitals? Lawyers in the 1930s were forced to throwaway their rule books in the name of social justice. It was all too late once the freedoms were gone. Lawyers and judges were strait jacketed into the system and it became an art form. The press was told what to tell the public.

There was little criticism except for one voice in the House of Commons in England, a man who was accused of being a warmonger because he predicted what would occur. That man was Sir Winston Churchill. The abuses went so far and then enough was enough. Little did Germany think that England would stand up for the people of Poland.

The victim in this Bill is not only Garry David but also the people of Victoria. Is Parliament today becoming a court of law in judging the hearsay and reports on this man to which honourable members are not privy? The other day I sat down with some of my colleagues and was briefed for some time by bureaucrats. They did not produce documents and we were told if we were shown such documents we had to swear we would not divulge their contents. What a load of nonsense. If Parliament is expected to act as a court of law, the defendant should be brought before the House so that honourable members can hear what is being said about that person.

The technique of Parliament being a court of law or a Star Chamber went out hundreds of years ago in British history. If this man is unfit to plead, let the doctors say so. Let us not railroad a person on what may be medically, at best, only a sick person's fantasy; otherwise we could start a new form of offence in Victoria and put a lot of people away under mental health provisions, as has occurred in Russia in recent years. Many psychiatric hospitals in the USSR are full of what I describe as political prisoners because of their alleged antisocial sentiments against the Russian government.

Over Christmas I read a book I Chose Freedom by a Russian engineer, Viktor Kravchenko, who fled to the United States of America during the second world war. The book was about that man's struggle in his search for liberty and freedom, living through a regime where the innermost thoughts of people were accountable to government, to nurses and to psychiatric hospitals. That is a terrifying concept.

Many of us cannot believe it could occur, but it did occur. The issue is not one man's alleged sanity or insanity but whether we sit in Parliament as a court of law so health workers, judges and solicitors can sleep easy on this case.


I believe the Bill is contemptuous. It denies a person's right to be heard. The preamble covers many issues. The Bill provides for preventive detention of Garry David by an ex parte application of the Supreme Court and it makes provision for Garry David to be detained, or continue to be detained, in a prison or psychiatric inpatient service under the Mental Health Act immediately on the filing by the Minister of an application to the Supreme Court.

It sets out the provisions that are applicable to the Supreme Court on an application for detention and allows the court to be fully informed on all matters that are relevant to the application and any order sought, and facilitates the court's function by giving the court the widest possible power to receive and obtain evidence without being restricted by the rule of practice. It provides for detention ofGarry David in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court and makes provision for him to be deemed to be either a security patient within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1986 or a prisoner within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1986. It provides that Garry David is not to be released or discharged from preventive detention except in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court.

Who in this Parliament is speaking for the victim? Historically witches were burnt or had trials by water or fire. The British legal system has come a long way since then. However, as I said, we lived through the 1930s and 1940s in Europe when the worst injustices were performed in the name of the State. One so-called mad Dutchman, who it is said burnt the German Parliament House, the Reichstag, gave the German government the pretext for enacting emergency measures unprecedented in this century. We all know about the holocaust that followed.

It was an emotional beat-up. The Cain government did an emotional beat-up on the firearms legislation prior to the 1988 State election. Some tragic incidents had occurred, but it was no grounds for a broad scale onslaught with the removal of firearms from thousands of people who had a legitimate reason for having them. The press got carried away with the whole matter.

Some Parliamentarians have been told that it is on their heads if they do not support the proposed legislation and this man is released to perform further crime. A gun should not be held at the heads of the legislators of Victoria.

Another example of trial by media is the Chamberlain case. Everybody had something to say about the case and sat in judgment like a village moot, and the sum total was a grave miscarriage of justice.

This Bill is nonsense-a bureaucratic bonanza and a welfare worker's dream. A recent socialist journalist, George Ginzburg, who was travelling with the Georgian State Dance Company when it visited Geelong, said that Australians may feel they have too many members of Parliament, while in Russia there are too many bureaucrats-64 million of them. We have only to cast our minds back 3 or 5 or 10 years to see 7 bureaucrats pointing the gun at another 3 doing the work. That country's socialist history we shall not forget.

In Parliament the Premier has described the government of Victoria as a socialist government. Eight years ago in Geelong I heard the present Prime Minister addressing a meeting. He said he was concerned about the 3000 families that controlled 60 per cent of the nation's wealth and that when he became Prime Minister he would remove the wealth from those families and give it to the rest of the people. Hundreds of socalled millionaires have faltered and tripped during this period of the Labor Federal government.


No standards are being maintained in this Bill, and I believe we are enshrining an awful precedent in a piece of socialist legislation-probably second only to another recent piece of legislation which failed to protect patients from a death sentence.

The honourable member for Balwyn went to great len~ths during the course of that debate to talk about people's rights in a Bill that was gOIng to terminate not only the power of an agent appointed by a patient, but that of the guardian appointed by the Guardianship and Administration Board. There is no patient choice in that case. It allows treatment to be refused with the intention of the killing ofa patient based upon a mere presumption. The refusal need not be based on knowledge of the patient's previously expressed wishes and generally held beliefs. That Bill gives a blanket of immunity to doctors and others whose paperwork was filled out properly. However, a doctor who treated because he had doubts about a refusal risked prosecution.

The Bill is an incentive not to ask questions. Today we have had to ask all the questions on how this came about and why the judges and medical workers cannot care for this person under the present system.

It is an ugly precedent to be passing a Bill concerning the fate of one person. That system went out hundreds of years ago in the British Parliament, and I believe there is a principle at stake which many of the journalists hiding in their rooms upstairs may not have cottoned on to. They may not have been born at that time, and society should learn the lesson of history otherwise it will experience the same problems again.

Thousands of people who have migrated to this country do not want to see their liberties challenged and eroded. It is up to us to put them above the tinkering of bureaucrats and people who have a philosophy of bringing down the Westminster system of government and the legal system that has developed over hundreds of years.

I cannot support such a piece of legislation in its present form, and I speak for the thousands of people who have yet to awaken to the reality of this ugly precedent that has been created in Parl~ament this evening.

Mr E. R. SMITH (Glen Waverley)-Numerous other people on this side of the House feel outraged that such a Bill has come in at this stage of our history. People have taken centuries to achieve the civil liberties and rights that we have today; people have fought wars over the fact that their civil liberties were at risk. Now this government is brin~ng in a Bill that has been described by many speakers as draconian. At the same tIme we are left with no alternative to keep secure a person who has been described by the government and its advisers as too dangerous to allow to return to the community.

As the honourable member for Berwick said, last week the Opposition attended two briefings by the government-a very secretive government which has, over the past few months, had the opportunity of coming clean and talking about solutions that would not have caused the outrage that this Bill has caused within the community.

I believe, as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker-I sat on the same committee as you in quite a number of places-that law and order within our community is something we must continue to preserve, but we must not go down the path like that represented by this Bill. The Opposition is forced into not opposing it because time has run out.

Last Thursday, Dr Peter Eisen described the condition ofGarry David. He said that there were a number of people whom he considered would be dangerous if they were released, and that over the years, in the experience of psychiatrists, such people could well be deemed to remain within the confines of the prison system. However, by comparison with those people, Garry Webb was streets ahead.


Mr Micallef-He can go straight to heaven.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Shell)-Order! The honourable member for Springvale is out of order and disorderly in his interjection.

Mr E. R. SMITH-It was said that Garry Webb is further ahead than any other person the doctors and the psychiatrists had ever met and that, in their opinions, there was no alternative but to retain this very dangerous man within the prison system.

Honourable members know that on 7 December, Mr Gordon Lewis, the Victorian Government Solicitor, sent a letter to Mr Harmsworth in which he gave the alternatives on the custody questions that were very much troubling Mr Harmsworth. The bottom line of the opinion was that G division could not be proclaimed as the type of institution that may be thought to be a solution to the problem, without jeopardising the position of other inmates; that alternative may well have been a means of allowing the others to be released. That was not a feasible solution to the problem.

The government knew about the problem at that time. The charge of a threat to kill, made on 24 December, was allowed to stand, and the government was treating the matter seriously. As one who has studied the case over a period of years it concerns me that offences had been committed by Garry Webb in prison, but he had not been charged.

I may well be corrected but, in all the lines of pursuit I have attempted to follow, no answers have been given. At no stage has the government taken Victorians into its confidence; it has merely said, "Trust us; we cannot let you know, for various ethical and legal reasons". The government has not given full reasons on that very crucial point. Commonsense tells one that if a person has been offending within the prison system as often as Garry Webb has, with such matters being brought to the attention of the authorities, charges should be filed.

Perhaps some prison warders or staff were not prepared to accept the personal risk to their lives or persons had they pursued the matter. Is it a lack of courage on the part of staff of the Office of Corrections, that that line was not taken? I am not sure about the answer; however, because the questions have not been answered and because no information has been given, the Opposition is left with no alternative but to conclude that the Office of Corrections was not prepared to file and pursue charges.

The 24 December charge of a threat to kill incurs a fifteen-year sentence. The charge remains, and Garry Webb has been remanded to appear on 18 April. In the meantime, the remainder of the story is well known; he was declared insane and taken to J ward. So many of those investigatory lines could have been pursued by the government.

As the honourable member for Berwick said, report No. 31 of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria discussed a similar matter about mental health. It suggested a solution that could well have been the answer in this particular case. Although that report has been referred to by previous speakers, it is worth repeating some of the remarks made. Reference is made in the report to section 8 of the Mental Health Act. The report states:

A person may be detained involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital if ...

Five possibilities are listed. It then refers to subsection 2 (I) of the Act and states that it does not prevent a person who has attained an antisocial personality disorder from being considered to be mentally ill.

That provision would fit within the category of Garry Webb's behaviour and could well give the government the solution for which it is looking. However, the government did not pursue that line.


For its own, I suspect, ideological reasons the government did not want to take on board the solution within that report. Although that report has not been tabled in this place, it is commonly available within the confines of Parliament.

The avenues that should have been explored were not explored. The first indication for the opposition parties that the Bill would be introduced came last week. The government did not take anyone from the community into its confidence, nor were there proper consultative processes. The government should be condemned because, had other avenues been explored, Parliament would not have been left with no alternative at the eleventh hour other than debating the Bill before the House.

The government should incur the wrath of the international community. Other honourable members have referred to members of Amnesty International having written about exotic places, as mentioned by the honourable member for Berwick. Now Victoria will be a laughing-stock throughout the civilised world because it is pursuing a line that is not worthy of Australia, and of those Australians who have for so long treasured the principles of civil rights and civil liberties, and who have inherited through common law those very same civil rights and liberties. They will be threatened within a single Bill about one person.

No-one who believes in law and order could possibly want to see, on the evidence presented to Parliament, the release of a person like Garry Webb. Further, as the honourable member for Berwick said, Garry Webb. does not believe he is a fit person to return to the community and, for his own reasons, wants to have a third altemativea secure place during which time he can be rehabilitated. I have very strong views about the punishments applicable for the crimes committed by Garry Webb.

Honourable members are here to express their horror at the withdrawal of those hard-fought rights, won over the centuries, and enjoyed by all. My criticism of the government is not so much about the Bill-and I am appalled by that-but rather, about the fact that the government did not involve itself in the matter from the time it was first raised in the media last October.

I declare an interest in this case. A friend of mine is one of those who I believe is at the top ofGarry Webb's list. I have spoken with him on the telephone about it and he realises the outcome of the Bill. Because of his civil rights attitudes he is now almost muted because he is frightened for his life. The provisions of the Bill should be condemned. At this late stage the government should be prepared to sit next week and pursue another option.

One of the propositions the honourable member for Berwick mentioned is the amending of the Bail Act and the Mental Health Act, which is a recommendation in the Law Reform Commission's report, which has not as yet been released. The government has a lot of dirty linen to hide. Why, last Thursday, did the government prevent Liberal and National Party members from seeing the transcript of the evidence, and the documents that were sought to enable members to come to informed opinions?

No wonder the Minister and members of the government are ashamed; they know that any person who is a believer in freedom and basic rights should have that freedom and those rights.

When the government was elected in 1982 it rescinded the legislative provisions relating to habitual criminals. That is not relevant to this Bill but those provisions would have led to an added sentence had they been available at the time. One does not think of those points until faced with the dilemma. If the habitual criminal provisions were available, they would have provided another option for the government to pursue.


The government knew last December what information the opposition parties and the ~eneral public required before support could be given to the Bill. The opposition parties do not oppose the Bill, nor do they support it; but the opposition parties oppose the principles contained in the Bill because they go to the very heart of our democracy, the way the State is run and the freedom that we enjoy in Australia.

I add my voice to those of other honourable members who are opposed to the provisions in the Bill. As a militant law and order person, I have no alternative but to support this draconian and outrageous proposed legislation.

Dr NAPTHINE (Portland)-The Community Protection Bill is obnoxious, unacceptable and clearly anathema to anybody who believes our society is free and democratic. The honourable member for Preston should be disturbed, as should many members of the government, about such legislation, which is in direct opposition to the beliefs of civil libertarians in Victoria.

It is reminiscent of the legislation of the Dark Ages about which the honourable member for Berwick spoke; le~slation under which, at the mere whims and fancies of kings, queens and dictators, citizens were beheaded and the like. It is reminiscent of the sort of legislation for which we, in a free and democratic society, criticise other countries, such as those in Eastern Europe, Russia and the dictatorships of South America and South Africa. We are at the forefront in criticising those regimes for their denial of natural justice.

In 1990 the Cain government professes to be caring and to uphold the freedom of the individual, yet clause 7 (1) (a) provides:

In determining an application under this Act, the Supreme Court is not bound by rules or practice as to evidence ...

That is an absolute and utter denial of natural justice. Clause 8 relates to the standard of proof required: ... on the balance of probabilities ...

It is not beyond reasonable doubt, it is on the balance of probabilities. That is a significant change from the standard of proof expected in criminal proceedings in this State.

The Bill does not relate to a criminal proceeding because this man is not facing any char~e, merely the assertion that he is dangerous. That is not an offence under our criminal justice system. We then have the intolerable circumstance that the proceedings can be ex parte. In other words, there is no right of representation, although I understand a foreshadowed amendment will correct that anomaly.

It is also possible that the person may not be told that the hearing is proceeding. Opposition members are extremely concerned about the provisions in the Bill that deny natural justice to the person concerned, irrespective of his history or his standing in the community. They are matters about which we, as an Australian society, are critical when they occur in other countries throughout the world.

The honourable member for Preston would agree that such things should not be tolerated in a free and democratic society. Clause 10 (2) of the Bill denies that sort of freedom:

If Garry David is detained in a psychiatric in-patient service under an Order under this Act, he is deemed to be a security patient within the meaning of the .Mental Health Act 1986 and to be in the custody of the authorised psychiatrist but sections 29,30,44,45,46,49,50,51 and 52 of that Act do not apply to him.

That has the effect that Mr David has no right of appeal and no recourse to review by the Mental Health Review Board. It is an absolute denial in any sense of justice or fair play for this person.


The sitting was suspended at 6.30 p.m. untif8.3 p.m.

Dr NAPTHINE-Before the suspension of the sitting I was addressing the Community Protection Bill-or should I say the Garry David Bill-and I highlighted the fact that the Bill is an absolute denial of natural justice.

The background is that in July 1980 Garry David was charged with the attempted murder of a woman and a police officer. In 1982 he was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment for those offences. He was on remand for two years prior to being sentenced. His sentence expired in February 1990 and the Bill relates to his impending release. We are now debating a Bill about the release of a prisoner because of the government's inane policy of automatic remissions. Garry David committed serious offences and has served only part of the sentence he was given. Because of automatic remissions his sentence expired in February this year.

While Mr David was in prison he was not a model prisoner and did not earn any remissions. Evidence from the Attorney-General is that in prison Mr David was involved in almost continual acts of violence, such as starting fires and assaulting police, prison officers and prisoners. He threatened to commit various kinds of violence, including multi-murders of police officers, staff and people treating him. He certainly was not a model prisoner or a prisoner who earned any remissions. Had the government not pursued its stupid policy of automatic remissions, it would not be facing this onerous task at the moment. MrDavidwould have been better off to have served a few more years of his original sentence. The Office of Corrections could then have instituted an appropriate program that might have given Mr David the opportunity of re-entering the community in a safe manner.

In examining the case of Mr David we must consider what has happened to him while he has been in prison. It should have been incumbent on the Office of Corrections to provide rehabilitation programs for Mr David so that he could have resumed a normal place in society. In answer to questions asked at the Social Development Committee, Mr Harmsworth, the Director-General of Corrections, said: ... it is by and large more the Office of Corrections' responsibility to develop these release programs and we started too late. That is the simple answer. We should have started two or three years ago with Garry. You have got a turnover of two or three thousand prisoners going through your prison in one year and, whilst we had knowledge of him, it was one of those things we put off and with limited resources dedicated to developing those programs that are needed.

The government failed to provide an adequate rehabilitation program for Mr David while he was in prison.

If it were true that Mr David committed all the offences alleged by the AttorneyGeneral in the second-reading speech, why were no charges laid with respect to those offences? Why was he not charged with arson if he was setting fires? And why was he not charged with assault? If those matters had been pursued in a proper and rigorous manner, the government would not have needed to bring in a Bill that denies natural justice and is anathema to the people of a democratic society. The government has failed not only Mr David but also the Victorian community. To ,et itself out of a problem it has created a Bill that is totally unacceptable in a free socIety.

The government has known about the problem. The Sun of 11 December 1989 reports:

The State government is secretly working on special legislation to keep one of Victoria's most violent criminals in jail for life ...

. . . a Cabinet insider said, "We have to strike the right balance with whatever we do and we have to act soon".


We have that information as well as the information referred to by the honourable member for Berwick, which was attached to a letter to Peter Harmsworth, DirectorGeneral of Corrections, from Mr Gordon Lewis, the Victorian Government Solicitor. The attached document refers to:

(a) the admission and involuntary detention of ... in G Division under section 16 (3) (a) ofthe Mental Health Act subject to confirmation by the Solicitor-General;

(b) the Attorney to seek the DPP's advice on possible recourse to the criminal law resulting from David's threats to kill and the Solicitor-General's confirmation that ... can continue to be held in custody during any appeals under section 118 of the Mental Health Act; and

(c) the preparation of a submission by the Attorney-General for approval in principle, as soon as practicable, for legislation to detain dangerous persons.

The government had known about the impending problem for many months. The Office of Corrections has failed Mr David over the eight years he has been in gaol. There has been a failure to prosecute Mr David for alleged offences while he was in prison and there has been a failure of the system of remissions.

Suddenly, in April we have a crisis and it is necessary to pass the Garry David Bill, or it will be on the Opposition's head if this man gets out and commits mayhem in the community. What absolute and utter rubbish. The government has orchestrated the situation deliberately. It has set out to create this situation to achieve its own ends. It is a connivance to force Parliament to consider the Bill, and is a promotion of the government's intention to enact further legislation for preventive detention.

Mr Kennan-How are you voting?

Dr NAPTHINE-The Opposition has spoken about the conspiracy, and I use the word advisedly. In his evidence before the Social Development Committee, when asked about the media publicity about Mr David, Mr Harmsworth, the Director-General of Corrections, said:

... I certainly believe there was the possibility of public servants communicating with the media. Some of the details given to the media were privy only to a dozen or so people. I was amazed when I read about it.

MR MACLELLAN: What was it all for; was it part of an "integrate Gary Webb into the community" program or, "Let's make it an impossible program"?

MR HARMSWORTH: I think the latter.

During the evidence given by Mr Harmsworth, the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Box Hill, when referring to departments examining the information, had this conversation with him:

THE CHAIRPERSON: Why were they examining it at that stage?

MR HARMSWORTH: There was a requirement by the Premier and Cabinet to give advice.

MR MACLELLAN: Was that before or after the publicity?

MR HARMSWORTH: It would have been about the same time.

THE CHAIRPERSON: It seems likely one sparked the other off.

It is clear that tilere has been a conspiracy to force the Opposition-

Mr Leighton-By whom?

Dr NAPTHINE-By the government to force the Opposition to consider the proposed legislation at short notice and not to provide the Opposition with adequate information.

When the Bill was introduced, little information was provided to the Opposition to assist it in its decision making. When the Opposition asked for the transcript of Garry


David's case before the Mental Health Review Board in which a decision has been reserved, it was denied that transcript, and when the Opposition asked for access to psychiatrists reports on Mr David they also were denied. When the Opposition asked for access to police and Office of Corrections information on Mr David, that was denied. It has been a conspiracy of silence, which has extended not only to the Opposition but also to the Social Development Committee, which was also denied access to the Mental Health Review Board's transcript.

When the committee's research officer attended the board's hearings and asked that she be allowed to report back to the committee she was advised that action would be illegal and that, if she did so, she could be prosecuted. Is that a fair and honest way for the government to act? Clearly that is not the case. There has been a conspiracy of silence.

Further evidence before the Social Development Committee--

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! I direct the honourable member for Portland's attention to the fact that he is quoting from the proceedings of the Social Development Committee, and I believe I am correct in saying that that report is yet to be presented to the House. I caution the honourable member that he is treading on difficult ground and that he should in no way divulge the committee's proceedings to the House before it has presented its report.

Dr NAPTHINE-Mr Deputy Speaker, the hearings were public hearings and they have been published.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! They may have been public hearinp but the committee's report has not been tabled in this House. It is purely a warnmg at this stage, but I suggest to the honourable member that he is sailing close to the wind.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-On a point of order, if the honourable member for Portland is quoting from transcripts of the public hearings of the Social Development Committee, those transcripts of evidence have been made available not only to the witnesses but also to the press and any other person who may care to make application to the committee. The transcripts have been quoted in earlier debate and in newspa~rs. There is no restriction on the quoting of that part of the evidence that has been gIven in open session before the committee.

If the honourable member for Portland transgressed upon the deliberations of the committee it would be improper, but I am sure he would not do so because he knows that he should not. If the honourable member restricts himself to quoting only the transcript of the open sessions where anyone was able to attend and listen, that is quite different from the position concerning the Privileges Committee where one can sit and listen but one may not report on the evidence. The committee hearings were open to anyone to attend and report any of the evidence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Norris)-Order! I uphold the point of order. I was merely expressing a warnin$ to the honourable member for Portland that once or twice he sailed close to the WInd.

Dr NAPTHlNE (Portland)-The government is hell-bent on introducing preventive detention legislation that will deny people their civil liberties. The Social Development Committee heard one witness, Or Neville Parker, who advised the committee that he had been sworn to secrecy and that he could not provide information that the committee required to help it in its deliberations. This IS the sort of operation that the government has undertaken.

It is important, when considering the preventive detention provisions contained in the Bill for the detaining of Garry David, to consider on what basis preventive


detention is perceived in respect of the future dangerousness of Mr David. Petersilia, in a study conducted in 1985 of predictions of future dangerousness of a high risk parole group found:

... our predictions ... were not very accurate. Until statistically-based predictions can be made more accurate, basing sentencing decisions on them would raise obvious moral and legal questions.

In 1987 Miller said: ... our predictions ... were not very accurate. Until statistically-based predictions can be made more accurate, basing sentencing decisions on them would raise obvious moral and legal questions.

In the United States of America in 1966 following the case of Baxstrom v. Herld, 967 patients in New York's two hospitals for the criminally insane were released into the community and transferred to regular hospitals. Results of a four-year follow-up study showed that only 16 convictions resulted from 240 people released to the community. The convictions involved a total of only 9 patients.

In 1977 Bottoms said that the best prediction of future dangerousness that can be achieved is a false positive rate of between 55 and 70 per cent. Bottoms argues that that means we must be morally prepared to lock up between one and two persons who will not be violent for every true positive detainee. That must be done in the full knowledge that those unknown non-violent persons are likely to be held for long periods.

In 1976 Monaghan highlighted the dilemma. He points out that that level of proportion of innocent detentions would be unacceptable in criminal trial by jury. He says:

We insist on a process that minimises erroneous confinement. How can this prized principle of jurisprudence be squared with the fact that where the prediction of violence is concerned, we are willing to lock up many to save ourselves from a few.

It is quite clear that the future prediction of dangerousness is fraught with danger. The concept known as the danger of dangerousness argues that governments that introduce preventive detention based on the future prediction of dangerousness sail very close to the wind. It gives them the opportunity of detaining all sorts of people, regardless of whether they be potentially dangerous, anti-government or anything else, such as someone like Nelson Mandela or many of the other activists around the world.

Earlier a member of the government interjected and asked what are the alternatives. I have not come here just to say that the Bill is no good; I have some alternatives that should be pursued. The first issue that should be pursued is the fact that Mr Garry David is currently on remand for an alleged offence against the Crimes Act. He has been charged under section 20 of that Act with threatening to kill another prisoner. It is my understanding that those threats were both verbal and written. Why does not the government proceed with that case?

The second point is: ifMr David has committed the offences alleged by the AttorneyGeneral, why not lay charges for arson and assault and then proceed with those charges? That is fair and reasonable and gives Mr David his day in court and his chance to be proven not guilty or guilty and be penalised accordingly.

The third point is that the Mental Health Review Board has not handed down its decision as to whether Mr David is insane. On 9 January this year Mr David was certified by Dr Grigor, and he has subsequently appealed against that decision. The Bill seems to imply that the decision of the Mental Health Review Board will be unfavourable to the government's position.

On 22 January 1990 the former Attorney-General asked the Supreme Court to make rulings on certain aspects of the Mental Health Act that are pertinent to the case,


particularly the definitions of "antisocial personality" and "appears to be mentally ill". Those definitions are extremely relevant to the case and the Supreme Court is considering them, with a decision to be handed down in May.

The government has an open opportunity to detain Mr David on remand under section 20 of the Crimes Act and to await the decisions of the Mental Health Review Board and the Supreme Court. Even then, the government can pursue the offences allegedly committed against the Crimes Act.

I understand that a further allegation has been made that Mr David recently threatened to kill an announcer of radio station 3A W. If that is true, why have not charges been laid? The government has completely and utterly failed to pursue the right and proper course of action so that Mr David can have a fair and just approach to his future. Instead, this Garry David Bill is a denial of natural justice.

The prediction of future dangerousness is found to be unreliable throughout the world, and yet the government is basing this and perhaps future Bills on that. I do not care who does the test or how it is done, the results throughout the world show that the prediction of future dangerousness is unreliable. The government will be locking up a lot of innocent people to protect the community from a few.

It is clear that, irrespective of the morality of the concept of preventive detention, it cannot be implemented without immoral side effects. Given the particular problems in predicting future dangerousness, it cannot, therefore, be implemented without an unacceptable number of innocent people or non-dangerous people being incarcerated. Dangerous offenders legislation should be rejected. The Bill is disgraceful and should never have been brought before Parliament.

Mr CLARK (Balwyn)-We live in sad times in Victoria. Over recent months the government has·shown that it is prepared to introduce a large number of Bills which infringe upon the basic rights and liberties of the citizens of Victoria. What makes the situation most distressing is that the government seems to do so without realising what it is doing to the State. The government's understanding of the system of law is so abysmal that it blunders in and causes damage to the system of law, hardly knowing what it is doing.

With the present Bill, blame must be levelled directly at the government. When I say the government, I mean the Ministers of the Crown rather than the backbench supporters of the government. It may be slowly dawning on backbench members that the government they support has drawn them hook, line and sinker into a Bill that should be an affront to anyone with a sense of civil liberties and the right and decent way of conducting law in Victoria.

The honourable member for Berwick has outlined to the House in great detail how the government has procrastinated on the Bill and how it has set up its own supporters so that they are faced with an intolerable dilemma. The government has no excuse for what it h~s done. I don't know whether the present Attorney-General is to be held responsible or whether the former Attorney-General or the Minister for Police and Emergency Services should be held responsible. However, the Cabinet has deliberated on the issue and has decided how to handle it. Therefore, the government must collectively bear responsibility for what it has done. I hope the backbench supporters of the government will learn a lesson from what has happened today and ensure that the government they support is never allowed to perpetrate such conduct in the future.

Honourable members are faced with the decision about what to do with the proposed legislation. I encourage the government and all honourable members to pursue the course of the third option as outlined by the honourable member for Berwick.

Session 1990-29



Mr CLARK-I refresh the memory of the Attorney-General: the honourable member for Berwick argued for an agreed continuation ofMr Webb's being kept in custody. I envisage that it could be by an agreement freely entered into by Mr Webb in consideration of the government's abandoning certain of its proposed courses of action against him, but an agreement that will be ratified by an Act of Parliament as many agreements are ratified when they need to be given legislative force.

As I said, it is one of the many possibilities of giving effect to the third option which would give Mr Webb some assistance and would not subject him to the exercise of the coercive powers of Parliament. I hope that that route will be taken to a fruitful conclusion.

If that is not possible, Parliament is faced with the dilemma presented by the Community Protection Bill. The fundamental choice really is this: do honourable members accept legislative measures that provide for preventive detention? I do not object to the principle of preventive detention. At least in concept it is an extension of other legislative and legal measures that allow for action to be taken in anticipation of a wrongdoing or of injury rather than waiting for the event and then acting upon it. On the civil side of the analogy is the injunction. Of course, Parliament is carrying this concept to the extreme in incarcerating someone to prevent possible harm. That is the major cause for concern about the Bill.

If the government is to endorse followin~ the route of preventive detention-which it seems to be doing by means of the Bill-lt needs to forget all the humbug it has been uttering in times past of putting aside people's criminal convictions when they have served their time, and that sort of thing. Ifit is good enough to have legislation'which restricts an individual on the basis of his or her past conduct or criminal convictions, it is good enough to allow a citizen to protect his or her private interests, having regard to the previous actions of the individual concerned. I hope that disposes of the humbug on that score to which the government has referred in the past.

I return to the point that I have no objection in principle to the concept of preventive detention. However, it needs to be surrounded by stringent safeguards. The questions that honourable members must ask themselves are: can one be convinced that this person is a danger to the community and is the person concerned going to get a fair trail? Is he going to have the issue heard fairly before a judicial tribunal that does not have a gun pointed at its head by virtue of the terms that the Bill contains for the hearing of any case?

If the Bill were passed without amendment, I should have grave difficulty in tolerating it. The Attorney-General has undertaken to ensure that Mr David will have the right to legal representation and to preserve, subject to certain exceptions, the rules of evidence. I am assuming that those changes will be made to the Bill.

If the changes are made, honourable members will be faced with a Bill which in clause 8 (1) charges the Supreme Court with determining-having heard all the evidence-whether this individual:

(a) is a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public; and

(b) is likely to commit any act of personal violence to another person.

The Supreme Court is charged with that responsibility on the balance of probabilities.

If the matters raised by the honourable member for Portland are correct, it may be that the Supreme Court will have difficulty in reaching that conclusion. Nonetheless that test will be applied by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines that Mr David meets these criteria, I have no objection to his being detained.


A number of other matters must be considered. Thankfully the Bill is subject to a twelve months' sunset clause; one would not want to rush into having it made permanent. In principle, the Bill is acceptable but many provisions are likely to need revision.

I turn to one aspect of the Bill which is highly objectionable and which should concern any person, particularly one with legal training or anyone in the community who has regard to the rule of law. The aspect to which I refer is, of course, that the proposed legislation refers to only one person. That is its greatest stickin~ point. The principle about legislation that applies to only one person is quite clear: If legislation is good enough to apply to one person, why should it not apply to all other persons in similar circumstances? Conversely, if Parliament is not prepared to apply the proposed legislation to all persons in a particular circumstance, how on earth can it justify applying it to one person? For that reason, if the proposed legislation genuinely apphed across the board it would not concern me.

However, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the notion of generalising the legislation in an artificial manner to remove references to Mr David but nonetheless to apply the provisions of the Bill in such a circumscribed manner that it is clear they apply only to Mr David, although not in so many words. Such a course would be artificial and phoney and honourable members would be far better off to retain the Bill in its present form. If the Bill were to be generalised properly, it would be improved. However, honourable members are faced with a Bill that refers to only one person and, as 1 said, that dilemma had been forced on Parliament by the government and the government must bear full responsibility for the outcome.

If one boils it all down, one can conclude that the proposed le$islation would be acceptable if it applied more generally. Therefore, even though it IS unjust in that it discriminates against Mr Webb and it raises grave doubts because the government is not prepared to generalise it, nonetheless in the circumstances I think it is acceptable.

I reiterate that I hope that the backbench members of Parliament who support the government will wake up to what is being done by the Ministers they support and will ensure that this sort of disgraceful legislation is never again brought before Parliament.

Dr WELLS (Dromana)-The Community Protection Bill is, as others have said in this House and outside, one of the most perplexing issues to come before Parliament for many years. It addresses a problem with which I certainly have the greatest difficulty.

I indicate from the beginning that in a very reluctant fashion I shall support the government's proposal. I do not wish to do that because I am of the view that Parliament is hurrying into solving a specific, extremely important, rressing and unavoidable problem but at a cost that is too high. Other ways exist 0 tackling the problem.

I do not rise tonight just to mouth the words already uttered by my colleagues who have prec~ded me. I hope to make some contribution to finding a solution to the problem, which challenges the very fabric of this Parliament.

Over centuries a body of criminal law has been built up in the Anglo-Saxon world. That law is precise, specific and extremely well tested by precedent and tradition and has stood the test of time in the great free democracies. That is what honourable members are talking about. It is all very well to rush in to try to solve a problem in the short term and in a sense to throw the baby out with the bath water. I refer to an article in today's Age, in which the following appears:

Arie Freiberg, a reader in law at Monash University, told the government's Social Development Committee in February: "One lesson to be learnt from legal history is that hard cases make bad law and


there is a risk that a hasty or ill-conceived response to one particular case on the periphery of the current law can seriously disturb a larger and well thought out structure".

In that very brief, pungent comment we traverse most of the major factors that make our job here today so difficult. Hard cases make bad law; hasty or ill-conceived responses to one particular case on the periphery of the current law can seriously disturb a larger and well thought out structure. Those words of very wise warning should counsel every member of this House and the other place to fight like the plague any thought of party politics. This is an issue that strikes at the very basis of independence of every Victorian. There is no room for party politics or party frolicking when we come to these sorts of issues.

It is necessary to recognise that in the pressing of the rights of one individual we are attacking, defending or destroying the rights of us all, not just now but for the generations who will follow until the law is corrected. There is no doubt in my mind, bringing to bear my full lifetime experience, that we have the potential tonight to make a bad law, and if we do it, there is no question that while this State is governed by a totally free, efficient ballot box, at election time we will sooner or later travel that ground again and reverse the errors that we commit tonight, if we do commit them.

It is necessary for the government to recognise certain major parameters in this debate. I do not say that on a party basis at all. I greatly regret finding ourselves here tonight trying to deal with something of immense importance, which has become bigger because of the proposed solution and because the government has failed to deal with it earlier, not just in earlier days, but in earlier months. Indeed, the government has had years of notice. It knew what would happen eventually when the person concerned came up for release. There were ways of dealing with this in a far more acceptable fashion that would certainly not destroy the body of criminal law. In some cases those ways might delay a later decision, but if it were delayed for a good many years that would be a valid approach offering a real potential for solution of a problem at an acceptable price.

We are faced clearly tonight with a situation where we are seeking the least horrible solution to the problem. There is no doubt the government is too late in the day to deal with this; it is, therefore, rushing. This is confirmed by its pathetic attempt at secrecy. It will not make available to the Opposition key documents and professional opinions which I believe the Opposition, whichever party it is, must have if it is to play its role in Parliament. There is no question that the government has not dealt with this matter efficiently in the sense that it has brought the Bill into this place very late in the day and is rushing it through.

Honourable members are awaiting at this moment a decision on the challenge by the defendant to his certification as insane. I see no sense in this debate occurring today prior to that decision. The decision would be taken and would operate within the full body of the relevant law of this State. It would not encompass controversy; it would solve the problem.

There would have been time later in the sessional period to deal with this matter. I understand the decision is imminent. Honourable members may well have approached this matter even later this week. We certainly need that decision. The government has been inefficient, and I say that not on a party political basis but based on the fact that it also missed opportunities when the person concerned was in gaol and committed further offences. He was not charged, yet other people are charged for much less serious offences. In fact, he has received a major remission of his sentence and came up for release in a relatively short period after being convicted of his previous offences, to which I shall return.


The inaction of the government has brought Parliament to crisis point in terms of long-term values, and although the Attorney-General may not appreciate it, it is a fact of life and history. There is a serious question as to what is the appropriate instrument to be used to solve the problem. It is clear from the history of other countries and legislatures, and other judiciaries, that we are almost certainly embarking upon the wrong course.

Let me for a moment concentrate on the nature of the problem, which is the question of Mr David's inability to live in society and to lead a normal life. It is clear that the person concerned is not capable of leading the life a normal person would lead in Victoria. He went to my electorate in 1980 with a gun seeking to destroy a policeman. Failing at that moment to find a policeman he shot a woman completely unknown to him; she is now a paraplegic. He then attempted to shoot a policeman who arrived on the scene. If those actions are found to be those of an acceptably sane person, I dissociate myself from that judgment. I find myself very much in sympathy with the view ofMr Justice Vincent, Chairperson of the Adult Parole Board, expressed in giving evidence before the Social Development Committee in October last year when he said:

I also have a great deat of difficulty coming to terms with the concept that if somebody cuts his ears off and slices part of his penis off and tries to bum himself with petrol and wants to shoot people, he is not mentally ill. It causes this problem about my perception of what is normal and what is not and I have said on occasions that it seems to me that any definition of the role of psychiatric medicine which seems to exclude this extraordinary section of significant mental disturbance is itselfcrazy.

If one talks, as I have done, with senior police in my area, one finds a practical, pragmatic judgment by people who are not professional psychiatrists but who deal with many offenders of all sorts that the man concerned does not fit within the normal bounds of sanity. I wonder whether we are looking at a situation in which the experts have departed from the practical realm of normal living.

I had tried to grapple with this matter myself leading up to the debate. I acknowledge the serious difficulty in deciding about the relevance of the definition of insanity, and I recognise that the experts attest to a fairly large body of evidence in support of opposing the inclusion of personality disorders in the definition of "insane". There is a divergence of opinion. Some psychiatrists consider that some personality disorders belong under that definition, and some consider that this sort of danger to society deserves to be included under that category as well.

I acknowledge there are others-quite a body of them-who consider that this particular personality disorder should not be included in the definition of insane. That is an important issue to settle. The problem we are dealing with is not the question of a criminal who has undertaken some criminal act and might do it in the future based on outright criminality; the problem we face is the unpredictability of the future actions of this person.

As a person with some knowledge of medical subjects but not trained as a psychiatrist, I find myself leaning towards that as being very cogent evidence requiring a judgment. The unpredictability of the person places our society at such risk. One has only to remember the Queen Street and Hoddle Street massacres to realise that in a very short period a person who for some reason or other under the stress of the moment loses sanity can wreak absolute havoc.

There is abundant evidence of Mr David threatening verbally and in writing to destroy people both in the general and in the specific. I understand that there is equally clear evidence that Mr David when under pressure descends into periods of insanity only to recover later, but during those periods of insanity it could be established that he is not fully responsible for his actions.


Definitions of insanity are broad and somewhat diverse, diffuse, even abstruse. We are in a dilemma because the experts have not managed to give us clear-cut definitions. I acknowledge that it may not be possible so to do, but the fact is that we have to go one way or the other, either towards pursuit and use of the Mental Health Act or towards the use of criminal law Acts.

A lot has been recorded about the definition of mental illness, which I had intended to pursue at some length. I shall quote one comment relating to section 8 of the Mental Health Act. In relation to one case, the Law Reform Commission of Victoria states:

People with personality disorders have been patients in this State's psychiatric hospitals for many years and we believe that if Parliament had intended that people with personality disorders were not to be regarded as having a mental illness for the purposes of this Act, it would have said so explicitly.

There is room for careful examination about the possibility of evolution in our definitions of insanity and other related areas, and what can be done to accommodate them in the law of VIctoria. I am sure government members would not contend for a moment that no further evolution in the law in Victoria is possible in relation to these personality disorders. It is a question that Parliament grapples with under extreme circumstances because of the work that has not been done elsewhere. I believe when the Bill is passed, as I expect it to be, all the government is getting is clear warning from Parliament that it must return in six months and, in the interim, do the work that has not been done now. The Bill is not acceptable and we should not continue in this way.

I reiterate what has been said by previous speakers: the current proposal of the government is objectionable because it strikes at the very basis in the broadest sense of freedom and equality before the law in this State.

The Bill negates the democratic principles for which we have fought down the years: of equality before the law and it rolls back the constitutional work done since at least the French Revolution in 1789. The rules of practice and of evidence are negated; the court may require any evidence; the standard of proof is changed dramatically to a balance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt; ex parte hearings are authorised in this case; and, most importantly, the reversal of the presumption of innocence until found gUilty is negated. They are objectionable provisions; the government could have avoided that path had it acted sooner.

I turn briefly to the possible options the government could have used to handle this matter. It has been pointed out already that with the further crimes committed by Mr David, had the government been efficient, this matter would not have arisen at this time; indeed, it might not have arisen for another five to fifteen years. That would be avoiding the main issue. Also, the government should be criticised because it failed to uphold the law in Victoria on the basis that the law is equal for all persons. Others have been charged with offences and have been detained over the past eight years, but this person was not, and that is a point that must be driven home.

There is capacity under section 20 of the Crimes Act to deal with this person. Although there is perhaps a potential problem in that he might be released on bail prior to conviction, that could be dealt with if care were taken with modification of the Bail Act.

These matters should be examined in a dispassionate atmosphere, away from this debate, but the government has not taken that course of action. The path it has chosen of introducing a specialist Bill relating to an individual person and based upon his being dangerous is one for which governments in the Western World have criticised other countries. Although it does happen to a degree in the United States of America,


the Butler report in the United Kingdom is a landmark report on this matter and serious criticisms were made about such procedures.

This attempt, which damages the criminal law, is not something to be upheld. Another possibility-and I put it as a serious possibility-is that we should be looking carefully at the definition of insanity, although I recognise that professional opinion is opposed to doing that at this time. The government should have examnined detailed judgments before it rushed this obnoxious Bill into this place. The Butler reports states that conditions which caused psychopathy could be dealt with by reviewable sentence, perhaps every two years after the initial sentence had been served, and those persons during that process would be assisted towards recovery. The government should have given more attention to that aspect.

It is fair to say that that approach is in line with what the honourable member for Berwick suggested. I recognise in the David matter that there is a real problem at this time and that legislators charged with practical responsibility in caring for society as best as is possible must examine this case somewhat differently from the way practising and academic psychiatrists might look at it.

I am not prepared to support even the mild risk of Mr David going free. It is for that reason that I reluctantly support the Bill, but in six months I will be one voice in this place that will have no sympathy for the government returning and wishinl to perpetuate not only a severe injustice to one person but also an injustice that strikes at the very heart of our democratic society.

The possibilities that I have raised have been mentioned by other honourable members.

One of my reasons for speaking on the Bill is to highlight a most important consideration, which is that we have not yet totally ruled out the possibility of action under the Mental Health Act. Ifwe look forward to evolution of our ideas in this area, conscious of practical restrictions in a democratic society., we may have to evolve further definitions of "mental illness~~ and "mental instabIlity" that will permit us to manage these people without striking at the base of criminal law. The proposed Act affecting one individual is unacceptable and impractical because another individual will be found further down the road. Equally, the idea of a variation to the Mental Health Act is a problem because it would have to be drafted carefully so as not to include in it people who should not be included.

The basic fact, in my judgment, is that we have been frogmarched to this point by a lazy, unaware government that now needs to take extreme action to solve a problem that could have been solved simply and acceptably. If the government introduces landmark legislation, Parliament should have the opportunity to debate a properly prepared report on the matters and should be given due time to consider the findings, instead of legislation being rushed through as it is being rushed through now. The government's actions are unacceptable. I hope that in the next six months the government will work hard and will come back and face up to its responsibilities as the government of Victoria.

Mr PESCOTT (Bennettswood)-I believe nobody in the House likes the Bill. The government has put itself in a position that it does not enjoy and has put the Opposition in a position that it does not enjoy.

Mrs Hirsh-We do not have to enjoy everything we do.

Mr PESCOTI -The fact remains that the problem has existed for some time. The name of Garry Webb or Garry David has been in the newspapers for a long time. I had hoped I would never see a legislative measure of this kind being introduced in


this State for the purpose of the imprisonment ofa citizen who has not had the benefit of the normal rules of justice.

The current Attorney-General is totally opposed to all the principles in the Bill. He did not want to introduce the Bill, but the change of positions and shuffling of seats on the deck means that he has to look after it. We have heard today that the government had planned amendments to extend the Bill beyond Garry David to the broader community. That law would have allowed the government to lock up people without fair trials.

This special Bill deals with one man that most of us have never met; a person who has been locked up in the system for years. He has been in the penal system for a long time and during that time he has not only got worse he has got "worser and worser"as they would say in English literature! He has gone not just from bad to worse but into the depths, and the government cannot control the problem.

The Office of Corrections has an appalling record. In the past eight years the system has done absolutely nothing for this man. We have heard arguments about whether he should be in or out of gaol and what psychiatrists have said about him. The proposed legislation is an indictment of the Office of Corrections and of the system.

Two hundred years ago this country was founded on the bad principle that the best way to get rid of criminals was to send them away.

Mr Micallef-Send them to Australia.

Mr PESCOTT -That is right. The honourable member for Springvale has worked out what I said! In the eighteenth century criminals were dealt with by banishing them. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the idea of rehabilitation was introduced so that criminals should learn how to improve and return to the community. Yet towards the end of the twentieth century the system is still trying to work itself out and is failing absolutely. We are trying to work out how to deal with a man that the system has not been able to help, and that is a terrible indictment of the system.

I hope the current Attorney-General will pledge to improve the penal system and to give to those who commit crimes an opportunity for the future. We have heard again and again that Garry David is not able to cope with the outside world. That is absolutely dreadful. The government is going backwards into the Dark Ages in exercising its role as the executive arm of government. Two hundred years ago rulersthat is what the government is-of many countries locked up people without justice, and in some countries today people are locked up without hearings and without being given the opportunity of having their say. Yet in the late twentieth century this government is locking up a man, because we are unable to cope with him, without giving him the benefit of the principles of justice on which the community is based.

I had the privilege to live in East Berlin. It was a privilege because in the eighteen months that I lived behind the Berlin Wall I got to know people in the community and learnt about their system of justice before the Wall was broken down.

I understood very clearly how dear our system was because I saw their system. I know of people who were locked up because they did not get a proper trial, just as I read in The Gulag Archipelago and other stories that have come from the Soviet Union. There is a system there which we do not want repeated in this State, and I was absolutely astonished to find that the title of this Bill was the Community Protection Bill.

Do honourable members know why the guards stood around the Australian Embassy in East Berlin? They did so to protect the East German community from the Australians. Does the House know why the Berlin Wall was built? According to the


official annals, it was to protect the East German community from the immoral West. It was a community protection arrangement; it was a system of protecting the community against something which they did not want to know about.

Fancy calling this a Community Protection Bill! It is a "Lock up Garry David Bill". Of course it will have the effect of protecting the community from this man. But what has the community done for him? What has this ~overnment done, in the time it has been in office, for those people who get into the cnminal system?

I have visited Pentridge Prison with the former shadow Attorney-General, Mr Chamberlain from another place, and I have seen the way people are taken into the system. I wonder how any of them get out and are able to live in the outside world again, just knowing what that system is. Here is a man who has spent more time than many In that system and it has treated him so badly that we have to have a special Bill to keep him in there. It is an outrage.

For the Attorney-General-who has a background in civil liberties-to be sitting here in charge of this Bill must irk him enormously. He has to be here to present to the people of Victoria a new system, which the government says will help the community. It does not help the community to say, "We have failed". We have failed with this man. But who is in charge of this State? It is not the Opposition; it would like to be in charge, but it is not. The government is in charge of this State, and the government has known of this problem for a long time.

The Liberal Party will not oppose the Bill because the government is in such a bind, but it wants the government to take it on notice and to act more swiftly' than it has done in the past so that the community is protected-as the name of the Bill suggestsand so that Garry David has an opportunity that he has never had before of going forward, not backwards, as has happened within our legal and prison systems. That is what the government should be deciding. I wonder, when people sit down and work out what should be done in the next six to twelve months, how many of them will say, "Let us start a system which actually launches this man into something more useful". This is what honourable members should be talking about.

The Opposition has had to give in to the passage of this Bill, the Community Protection Bill, but the government should never get away from the fact that the reason why we are doing this results from an absolute failing on its part. The Opposition hates this Bill, and, I believe, so do many people on the government side of the Chamber. The Opposition is thoroughly opposed to the amendments that are proposed. It is not just the question of what we do with this man in future; let us also examine the early release system. That system is no good. This man has committed crimes and is such a danger to the community that it has been necessary to introduce a special Bill, and yet the sentence that he received is not being carried out to the full extent because the current system allows him to be released at this point.

When we examine the reasons why we are debating this Bill, when we consider, as we have in the past fortnight, the decay of this government and, as one of the signs of that decay, the fact that it has the audacity to introduce a Bill like this, we realise it is the government's inaction in recent years which has caused this problem. I say it is a blight on this government that it will never live down. When the government has a little extra time, which Parliament will give it, I hope it will use that time so that it can look forward and do something positive, not only for this poor individual but also for all those other individuals who are stuck in our penal system and who have no hope under the current administration of the penal system. All I can say is: let us hope we do not have to debate this subject again in this place.

Mr MICALLEF (Springvale)-I support the Community Protection Bill. I had not intended to comment on it but, after listening to the last couple of contributions from


Opposition members, I felt I had to place some comments on the record. As a member of the Social Development Committee, which is currently looking into the issues surrounding the Garry David episode, it is rather disappoInting for me to note the level of the debate in this Chamber tonight. Obviously there was a problem. However, we ought to come to terms with that problem rather than trying to make cheap political points about civil liberties and so on.

I am sure all honourable members accept the fact that civil liberties belong to everybody within the community-to us, people in the community, as well as to Garry David, or Garry Webb, or whoever. We must come to terms WIth those issues. It is too easy to say the government has failed. It could be said that the community has failed. The community also includes Parliament, which is a very influential section of that community. Therefore, if the government has failed, Parliament has also failed, and we have a problem. What can be done in that siutation? We must come to terms with the issues.

Mr Richardson-You're shifting the blame, that's what you're doing.

Mr MICALLEF-It was disappointing to listen to some of the inane comments of honourable members opposite, who were saying that we have to broaden the definition of "insanity" and who were arguin~ against taking away people's civil liberties. I get sick when I see that sort of stupidity displayed. If the definition of "insanity" were broadened, many more people could be locked away and their civil liberties removed. However, the Bill deals specifically with one individual, o:r: a set of circumstances that relate to a very small minority within the community. Therefore, to talk about broadening the Mental Health Act to include antisocial personality disorders is completely anti-civillibertarian. It is sheer hypocrisy to argue along those lines.

The only comment from the Opposition with which I agree relates to rehabilitiation. Obviously the system has broken down. Had Garry Webb had the proper resources and treatment somewhere along the line, in the early days of his incarceration, there may have been no need to consider special legislatIon to deal with him. That is an important point. However, if we have failed in the past, we must now take note of the lessons of that failure and try to correct it to ensure that it does not occur in the future. That still does not take away the fact that we have a problem. I am very much one of those people who would like to see the system operate in a far more rehabilitative mode, which would enable a lot more to be done in the prisons.

One of the most disturbing experiences of my life was my tour of Pentridge Prison. I have been around quite a bit but it took me some time to get over that experience. Pentridge Prison is not an environment for rehabilitation. Governments, both present and past, must take part of the blame for the failure of the system to rehabilitate offenders.

We must come to terms about what we are going to do with Garry David. Do we let him go free with a question mark over his head, or do we respond to the community's obvious concern? The Bill gives a breathing space to deal with the problem. The Bill has checks and balances; it has a sunset clause which comes into operation in twelve months. The Bill provides also for a report after six months.

The Bill is not one that the government is proud of but it is necessary at this stage. I have heard honourable members who have spoken about a third way, but no-one has spelt out in detail how a new system can be set up to hold a person like Garry David. The Opposition has uttered sheer hypocrisy!

My membership of the Social Development Committee has influenced my position regarding Garry David. Ori$inally I took the view that many honourable members have taken as a civillibertanan, but I have come to the mind after listening to all the


evidence that something must be done to protect the community. The Bill is probably not the perfect option but it is the only option that I can see that we have available at this point. I believe the Opposition should come to terms with reality and examine what it is saying.

Mr LIEBERMAN (Benambra)-I shall not go through many of the comments that have been made by my colleagues on this side of the House except to say that, as a lawyer, I find the Bill impossible to accept. I do not sleep comfortably at night about it. The Attorney-General would understand why I feel that way, as I have spoken to him about the separation of powers that our democracy and our system of Parliament must preserve at all costs.

Clause 4 provides for the application of the Minister to the Supreme Court for Garry David to be placed in preventive detention. I have explained how I feel about that clause. I am sure the Attorney-General feels the same way as I do about Parliament placing him, as the Minister, in that position.

Clause 5 provides that Garry David is a prisoner even though he has not been convicted of any crime. Clause 5 (b) in part says: ... Garry David is a security patient within the meaning of the Mental Health Act ...

Even though he might not then be a person who has been diagnosed as being mentally ill under the law. Clause 8 provides that, if the Supreme Court-which is separate and distinct from Parliament-on the balance of probabilities finds that Garry David is a person who ought to be in preventive custody, and if it finds he is a serious risk to any member of the public and likely to commit any act of personal violence against another person, it may order that he be placed in preventive detention. I cannot argue against the principle that, if this person is a serious risk to any member of the public because he is likely to commit an act of personal violence on another person, Parliament must act so that members of the public are not placed at risk.

The Opposition has the dilemma of not being given any alternative to the Bill because of the way the government has handled the situation. I have a copy of the Law Reform Commission report No. 31, which deals with the concept of mental illness in the Mental Health Act. I understand the report has not yet been officially released and I thank the Attorney-General for making it available to my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berwick, and members of the Opposition. I have read the report as attentively as I could, and I was particularly pleased to note that the commission dealing with the matter was made up of such persons as His Honour Mr Justice Frank Vincent and Professor Louis WaIler, for whom I have a high regard.

I was formerly Assistant Minister of Health and acting Minister of Health for some time and I was also shadow Minister for Health, so I have had some experience with difficult issues such as this; but, as a lay person, I am not qualified to make determinations in respect of mental health. However, the Law Reform Commission report appears to provide light at the end of the tunnel, even though there appears to be the need for some refinement of its final recommendations.

On reflection, after the briefings that the Attorney-General made available last week I gave considerable thought to what I would do when the matter was debated. I considered the fact that my children live in Melbourne and how I would feel about the likelihood of an allegedly dangerous person triggering a massacre that was worse than that in Hoddle Street. I naturally would not be happy about that, and I concluded that I should say to the government that its procrastination and its failure to act and provide leadership have made it necessary for Parliament to deal with the Bill. However, after tonight there will be no second chance for the government. The


government must act and Parliament must ensure that it acts in a way that will mean that Parliament will not be faced with this situation ever again.

The basis upon which I speak is about the future and not the past. I shall refer to some of the comments made in the Law Reform Commission report because I believe it is incumbent upon every member of this Chamber not to waste a moment, while this legislation remains as a blot on the statute book, in arriving at an answer. The government must provide an answer in a short space of time to this unacceptable and impossible position in which it has placed Garry David and potentially other allegedly dangerous persons in this State.

When I read from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, I do so in the context that the government must come up with a better answer than what it has provided in the provisions of the Bill or else all the things Parliament is about and has been about since the colony was established and Victoria became part of the Federation are totally wasted because the things Parliament is about-freedom, protection of the innocent, presumption of people being innocent until proved guilty and people being given a fair trial-will be at risk.

Let there not be any doubt in the minds of anyone that it is the government's duty to introduce a proper solution to this issue. I recommend to the government that it take notice of people like Professor Louis Waller, His Honour Mr Justice Vincent and their colleagues on the Law Reform Commission, and act~

The Law Reform Commission was asked to report on the difficulties relating to section 8 of the Mental Health Act which in essence states: ... a person may be detained involuntarily in a psychiatric hospital if: the person appears to be mentally ill, the mental illness requires immediate treatment or care, the person needs to be detained for his or her health and safety or for the protection of the public, the person has refused, or is unable to consent to, the necessary treatment or care, and no less restrictive alternative to involuntary detention is available.

As you would know, Madam Acting Speaker, the problem is that what section 8 really means has been and is the subject of doubt. The doubt centres upon whether a person who has a particular form of personality disorder can be found to be within the meaning of the Act, or should in the view of some be found to be within the meaning of the Mental Health Act. Ifit is found that some people do come within the meaning of that section, steps can be taken to provide for their care-I emphasise, their careand also for the protection of the community, if they are a risk and likely to cause harm to it.

Professor Louis Waller and his colleagues on the Law Reform Commission have, after hearing the evidence and receiving submissions, recommended that an amending Act be introduced with a provision which says that in considering whether a person is mentally ill subsection (2) (I) does not prevent a person who has an antisocial personality disorder from being considered mentally ill. That is what the commission recommends should happen.

The all-party Social Development Committee is still examining and wrestling with this question and is about to make a recommendation on the issue. In the meantime, Garry David has been certified, to use the old expression, to be mentally ill, but that certification is subject to a review committee report not yet handed down. Apparently the weight of the psychiatric evidence, on the view of the law at present, is that it is likely the decision that he is mentally ill will be overturned. The same person has been charged with an offence under the Crimes Act, that of threatening to murder another person, which has not yet been brought to trial. If convicted of that charge he could face a sentence of up to fifteen years imprisonment.


Garry David may apply for bail and Parliament up to now, in its wisdom, correctly has said that the question of whether bail should be granted, because of the separation of powers that is essential in the Westminster system and our democracy, should be decided by the courts and not by Parliament. It is clear from a reading of the Bill that, when examining its application, it overrides that situation. In fact, the Bill says, in effect, it does not matter whether the person is entitled to bail. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Bail Act the person shall be held in custody the Attorney-General makes an application under the provisions of the Bill. The application of the Bill has horrendous implications for Parliament and for Victoria.

The Bill will pass because the government has put everyone in Parliament in a position where they cannot do otherwise than vote for it. However, in doing so Parliament is trampling on all the principles that it is supposed to support and which the members of Parliament took an oath to support and sustain, and even strengthen. I say to the government because its members have the privilege of being in government at the moment, instead of being arrogant and ignoring the laws, government members have an obligation to resolve the issue.

Mr Kennedy-I t is ridiculous nonsense.

Mr LIEBERMAN-It is not nonsense at all.

Mr Kennedy-In every other way you oppose civil liberties; you oppose these laws all the time.

Mr LIEBERMAN-Honourable members have heard the interjection demonstrating the arrogance of the government and the reasons why it should not govern for much longer. I thought I had made it plain that the government has created a situation which cannot go on for longer than is necessary and that it must achieve a proper review of the law and the change in the law that is obviously appropriate.

The review of the law was so obvious that the government referred the issue to the all-party Social Development Committee, of which you, Madam Acting Speaker, are a member, seeking a resolution of the issue that the government should have addressed earlier.

I am revolted when I read the Law Reform Commission report. I acknowledge it is not the current Attomey-General's fault, but the report of the commission has been on the desk of his predecessor, who is now the Minister for Planning and Urban Growth, for some considerable time. The only reason that I have a copy of the report is because the Attorney-General gave it to the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berwick, last Wednesday. The report should have been released as soon as it was received by the government. Why did the government not release the report? The reason is because the government is so divided by its factional groupings that its administration is paralysed and it is prevented from making decisions in the interests of the people.

Dr Vaughan-It is not a good report anyway.

Mr LIEBERMAN-The honourable member for Clayton says it is not a good report. He obviously has had the privilege of having it in his possession for some time and no doubt he has been able to consult with people in his caucus and with people in other areas and he has made a judgment about it. Parliament and the people of Victoria have been denied the opportunity of making a similar judgment. So much for the arrogance of the government, which believes if it has read the report its judgment is the one to apply and no-one else's! How arrogant! It is a sign of decadence, no doubt about it.


The Attorney-General must introduce a Bill that reacts in some way to the recommendation of Professor Louis WaIler and his colleagues on the Law Reform Commission.

When one reads the document which is essential reading for every member of Parliament, one sees that one of the problems in determining whether a person with a personality disorder is deemed to be in need of care-I emphasise the word "care"because he is mentally ill is the resource argument. Those involved in psychiatric care in mental hospitals say that if they must treat and care for people with disorders in the current conditions, the money available to care for schizophrenics and so on will be dissipated and there will not be enough money. People working in such institutions are also concerned about their security.

The argument about whether Garry David needs care-again I emphasize that word-is muddied by the argument between the various factions looking for a larger share of the Budget to run their particular operations.

What an indictment of the government. I know how you feel, Madam Acting Speaker, and I would like to hear your opinion of the report. You may have some views that would change my view of Professor Louis WaIler's recommendations! I want to hear your opinion, and so do the people of Victoria. You, Madam Acting Speaker, as a senior member of the government, have not told the Parliament or the people of Victoria what you think about the report.

Why has the government introduced the Bill and, in the first week of his new portfolio, put the Attorney-General in the position of handling it? It is not good enough; it is not acceptable, and that is why the Opposition has made it clear that it expects the government to provide in a short time its solution to the problem so that this Bill will cease to operate.

Mr F. P. Sbeeban-Are you supporting it?

Mr LIEBERMAN-The honourable member for Ballarat South knows very well that the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. Does the honourable member want me to go through it again?

Mr F. P. Sbeeban-Y ou are pathetic.

Mr LIEBERMAN-The Opposition is not opposing the Bill because the government, through the Attorney-General, informed the Opposition that this man, Garry David, would walk free-I use the expression because the honourable member for Ballarat South has called across the Chamber for an explanation-unless the Bill is passed. Further, the government told the Opposition that it had evidence to establish that the man was a risk to the community. I cannot go further than that.

Dr Vaughan-This is a disappointing performance.

Mr LIEBERMAN-Garry David is facing a criminal charge of threatening murder, and I could very well prejudice his trial if I go on further. If the honourable member for Ballarat South wants to make more interjections across the Chamber, I suggest that he ask the Attorney-General for advice.

I cannot be more plain: the government has created the problem for Garry David, Parliament and the community, and it has an obligation to remedy it urgently. Until such time as it does that, because of the way the. cards were dealt by the government, Parliament has no choice but to allow the Bill to be passed. It is not the Opposition's Bill, it is the government's Bill, but, by God, the Opposition will be pressing the government every day from now on to ensure that it heeds the words of Professor


Louis WaIler. If the government does not agree with them, it should come out and say why without delay.

There are clearly more people in the community who have personality disorders and who may very well, unfortunately, constitute a risk. The Opposition is not going to go through passing Bills such as this every week while the Labor Party remains on that side of the House. Without embarrassing you, Madam Acting Speaker, I understand that you are a member of the Social Development Committee.

Mr F. P. Sheehan-You ought to be called to order for that!

Mr LIEBERMAN-Why? The honourable member for Ballarat South has the right to call a point of order. He should tell the Acting Speaker what the point of order is.

What does the government expect of the Social Development Committee? Does it expect to operate without the Law Reform Commission report being made public and without the Social Development Committee being able to hear the views and comments of the community and interested people? That is inexcusable. The document should be released immediately so that all honourable members can be assisted in obtaining comments and advice about that report from experts and people who are not in this place.

Mr RICHARDSON (Forest Hill)-I commence by establishing quite clearly my opinion that everything about this Bill is abhorrent. My father and the fathers of many other honourable members in this place and thousands of families outside Parliament went to war to prevent this sort of proposed legislation becoming the law of the land. Australians have died to prevent laws of this kind becoming the laws of Australia. Here am I, the son of a returned serviceman, an elected representative of the people in the Parliament of the sovereip' State of Victoria, speaking in the House on a Bill which typifies everything for whIch my father and all those other fathers fought, and, in many cases, died to prevent.

I do not believe the government has any sinister intent; I believe it is simple incompetence. The government has had plenty of time to address the matter of this unfortunate individual, the damage he could do and the possibility of his taking lives if he were walking free in the community. It has had plenty of time, but it has done nothing until the very last moment. The only thing the government could think of was the introduction of a good, old-fashioned Bill of attainder. I shall always think of the Attorney-General as the last of the Tudors: the ghost of the Tudors walks in Parliament-he is Henry VII revisited! There is no difference between this Bill--

Mr Kennedy-This is the Chamber, but you are no star!

Mr RICHARDSON-I pick up the interjection of the honourable member for Bendigo West, not because it was worthy but because it was unworthy ofa debate on a matter as serious as this. I also place on the record that the great fat slob is sitting up there giggling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Ray)-Order! I think I shall call that unparliamentary language. Will the honourable member return to the Bill?

Mr RICHARDSON-A Bill of attainder was a Bill initiated by the king against an individual. For example, if King Henry VII was concerned that His Grace the Duke of Broadmeadows was to be a problem politically, His Majesty would cause to be brought into Parliament, sitting in Westminster Hall, a Bill of attainder which would be debated, and, following the carriage of that Bill it would become an Act of attainder which would declare His Grace the Duke of Broadmeadows a traitor, and that individual would then be taken to the Tower Green and executed.


There was no trial. There was no hearing of proper evidence. There was prejudiced speech-making; and there was a predetermined decision. That is exactly what this Bill is. Earlier I said I did not believe the government had any sinister intent in introducing this measure, but what a dreadful precedent it establishes. Let us imagine that this government or some subsequent government does develop a sinister intent. Here is the precedent. Here are the rules by which a government can identify individuals. If the Opposition's information about likely amendments is accurate, the government will introduce amendments with a broad brush which would apply to any member of the community who was identified as someone to come under the Act when the Bill was passed. When that happens we are really heading for the situation described in The Gulag Archipelago.

This is the Bill of attainder. This is the Gulag Bill. This is the Nicolae Ceausescu Bill. This is the East German communist Bill. This is Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union; it is all of those things, all of those places that have suppressed human rights so disgracefully for so long.


Mr RICHARDSON-I find it distressing that there is catcalling from the government benches. There was also a pointed interjection from the honourable member for Shepparton which surprises and disappoints me. I should have thought he would know better. That is what is wrong with the Bill: it could have been drafted by Ceausescu himself.

Mr Ross-Edwards interjected.

Mr RICHARDSON-Why don't you shut up? It could have been drafted by any dictator in any totalitarian State anywhere in tbe world. Yet the Bill is being brought into the Victorian Parliament. We are not in Moscow. We are not in Prague. We are not in one of those closed totalitarian societies. This is Melbourne, Victoria. This is the Victorian Parliament. -

I remind the dimwits on the other side of the House, and particularly the giggling member for Bendigo West, that Adolf Hitler came to power by perfectly legitimate Parliamentary means. Having achieved that goal it was this sort of proposed legislation that enabled Hitler to launch the holocaust. And that is what is wrong with the proposed legislation. .

It surprises, disappoints and distresses me that all this silliness is coming from the other side. The fact is that alternatives could have been explored by the government. Now these alternatives cannot be explored because the government has-left the matter too late and the Bill is the only option it has. But why has it been left so late? The ~overnment had all the information. It even had the individual against whom the Bill IS addressed in its custody for years. It has had the facilities to do something about this problem. But at the last minute the government suddenly recognises that this person is perhaps about to walk free.

The proposed legislation is not necessary. The Gulag Bill has been introduced, but workable alternatives could have been explored in the time available. Those alternatives must be explored over the next few months.

The Opposition will not oppose the Bill because its understanding is that, with all its limitations, unless the Bill passes in time, there is a possibility of death and serious injury to many people in the community. That is what the Opposition has been told and it must accept the government's word in good faith. The Opposition has no alternative, but I advise the Attorney-General and all the silly people on the government back benches that never again will they be permitted to get away with something like


this Bill. I hope this blight on this great Parliamentary institution will never again be contemplated by this or any future government. The Bill is the greatest blight that could have been put upon the Parliament of a democratic society.

Tonight is an important night, a black and sombre night, and it depresses me greatly. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but my failure to oppose it is an act of great reluctance on my part.

Mr COLEMAN (Syndal)-The Bill gives a new slant to what we have come to understand in this State as social justice. We have an understanding of natural justice; we have an understanding of criminal justice; and now we have an understanding of what social justice is about. One can be drawn only to the conclusion that if it is necessary to draft a Bill that provides the State of Victoria with the power to encapsulate in legislation the application of a law that is singularly directed at one person, we have failed as a community.

The Attorney-General's second-reading speech refers to the fact that this person has been exposed to the whole thrust of government institutions since he was six years old. The second-reading speech carries not only the rider of what this unfortunate person has been exposed to but also a categorisation of his father. I find that repugnant.

However, I invite honourable members to put that to one side. The fact is that since this person was six years old, for a period of 29 years, this State-all of us collectivelyhas had the privilege of destroying him. Now the government, bereft of any other idea on how it might attack the situation, is forced into the position where it introduces a singular Bill into Parliament. The situation is such as no educated society should have to tolerate. At the best of times it might be excused if the society did not understand its implications but on any consideration of its implications it should not be tolerated.

Clause 4 provides the Minister with the power to apply to the Supreme Court for the person to be placed in preventive detention. In other words, Parliament is taking upon itself the role of determining the fate of this person. I invite honourable members to consider what is available to allow Parliament to take on that role. Do we have any evidence at all, except what is contained in the second-reading speech? The answer is: none whatsoever-no evidence!

Honourable members know about reports that are suppressed, for whatever reason. The Social Development Committee-established by Parliament-was given terms of reference in June of last year. Today, in almost June of this year-that is, almost twelve months later-the committee has not issued a report. The current situation absolutely pre-empts whatever the committee will say. There is no point in the committee sitting any longer because the government on its own determination has said, "This is the Bill. Don't issue any report; we don't want a report any longer; bring in the Bill!"

The Bill represents an abrogation of the committee system of this Parliament as honourable members understand it. In June of last year the government considered it pertinent to request investigation of the broad-ranging terms of reference-which you, Madam Acting Speaker, read into H ansard. That was one thing. You informed us also that in January of this year the Minister for Health wrote to the committee again, trying to confine the terms of reference. You informed us also that the committee has not been able to issue a report; honourable members are debating the issue tonight without the benefit of having the report of the Social Development Committee.

Madam Acting Speaker, the Bill brings into question the reputation of the Social Development Committee. It is an indication that the government cannot wait while the committee deliberates on the matter; the government is concerned to deal with the matter in haste. It is driven by what I perceive to be a bureaucratically difficult


situation brought about by what can be described only as connivance. One need only take some files from some government departments to realise that if the first decision is wrong every subsequent decision is wrong as well. I invite honourable members to consider how many tImes they have taken out files and found that the first decision was wrong and that subsequently everybody involved tried to protect his or her hide and things were hidden and difficulties mounted up.

The situation being debated tonight is one in which the government has presented no evidence to support the Bill.Where is the evidence that supports all this? It is not available! Honourable members know that highly qualified people have examined the case and they are not prepared-or the $overnment is not prepared, or collectively both are not prepared-to release for public scrutiny the records of the misdemeanours that they say warrant the proposed legislation.

The Opposition accepts that this person has a criminal record. I invite honourable members to consider whether that SItuation is any different from the one that applies to any other person who has been through the penal system in this State. Of course they all have criminal records!

What is different in this situation is that the State has been charged with the responsibility of protecting this person since he was six years old! One can only be drawn to the conclusion that we have made a horrible mess of what has been the State's responsibility.

At the end of the day, Parliament is, in effect, saying: we give in; we don't allow him the due process of the law as is provided to everyone else resident in this State; we don't allow the cases in the courts to run their course so that we can say that he has survived the legal processes or he has a conviction.

Mr F. P. Sheehan interjected.

Mr COLEMAN-That is what the government is, in effect, saying tonight: we doubt that the charges are going to stand. The honourable member for Ballarat South does not know what I am going to do and I do not know what he will do when the vote is taken. Suffice to say that it should be open and he should be able to vote as he thinks fit. It is not ~ood enough to say that the same principles apply in the British system and in the Insh system. There are plenty of precedents, but if one reads clause 8 and puts it into the Irish context--

Mr F. P. Sheehan-Have you become the Irish spokesman here?

Mr COLEMAN-I have not become the Irish spokesman; but if one draws the obvious conclusions from clause 8 one finds a remarkable similarity between the two forms of justice.

Putting that to one side, this State has had the responsibility-for better or worseof actually directing and ~iding the life oftbis person. Through the proposed legislation the government is, in effect, saying: we admit we cannot go any further; we admit defeat.

The Bill is an indictment of the government. It is an indictment of the Parliamentary committee structure because the government recognised a problem would arise and it confined the terms of reference. The Social Development Committee has been unable to assist honourable members in their deliberations today.

Cause 4 (1) provides: The Minister may apply to the Supreme Court for an Order under this Act that-

the name of the person-... be placed in preventive detention.


I invite honourable members to consider clause 8 (1) Which provides: If, on an application under this Act, the Supreme Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,

that-

the name of the person-(a) is a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public; and

(b) is likely to commit any act of personal violence to another person

the Supreme Court may order that-

the name of the person-... be placed in preventive detention.

I purposely leave out the name mentioned in the clause. If one leaves out the name of the person, the clause has another significance altogether. Are honourable members to say that the Bill might be tailored to fit a range of people in the community? Are we to say that on the application of the Minister it will be found that there is any number of people who will fit the categories listed? Are there people who present: ... a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public; and

(b) (are) likely to commit any act of personal violence to another person?

One does not have to use much imagination to think of a range of people who might fall into that category, so by passing the Bill we would be providing the AttorneyGeneral with a power actually to direct the Supreme Court. What is the likely response of the Supreme Court to that? What is its method of compiling the sort of evidence that is required to prove that? We do not know; it is not explained.

There is a power for supervision in the Bill that the Supreme Court is goin$ to take on direction from the Minister. Is it the case that Victoria has a judiciary whIch is so entranced with the government that on the application of the Minister it IS ,oing to lie down readily and accept the direction? Let us hope it is not the case. If it IS the case, the Bill is not required.

Do we live in a society which is under the direction of the government and in which the judiciary and the government are not separated? That is a situation none of us wants to be in. I suggest that the basis on whIch the Bill is constructed and has come into the House, and its intent, is one that jeopardises what we in this society perceive to be a fair go. That is what it is all about.

Is this Bill a fair go for Garry David? Will the legal process which is available to him be allowed to run its course? Perceiving there might be some problem with that, we come in here and construct a mechanism-I use the word "construct" looselywhich prevents him from having adequate access to the course of the law. I have to say that it is unfortunate that you, Madam Acting Speaker, as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, have taken the Chair during the debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Ray)-Ifthe honourable member wishes to refer to the honourable member for Box Hill, that is how he should do it.

Mr COLEMAN-I thank you for that direction, Madam Acting Speaker, but it does not detract from the situation that we find ourselves placed in. The government recognised that the all-party committee, which had a government majority, had a problem and it sought its advice. One would have thought that with a government majority there might have been a resolution within the time frame which was proposed. I am not privy to the matter, but one can only assume that the government members are not united on this issue and that there is a divergence of opinion. It is not possible for the government to force through a report which supports what the terms of reference have sought.


Honourable members who are not of the law but who have some understanding of social issues find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.

For some ten xears I had the privilege of chairing a voluntary organisation which had the responsIbility of caring for more than 60 wards of the State. They are not dissimilar to the person at the centre of this debate, in that somebody else has been put in a caring role; somebody else has assumed the decision-making role of a young person.

However, so far as I am aware, not one young person who came within the ambit of the organisation with which I was assOCIated found himself in a situation such as this because there was a caring aspect and because the supervision which was provided was such that if there were problems, they were addressed.

Honourable members of this House oUght to reflect on what would be required for a six-year-old put into institutional care for 29 years to obtain some attention for himself. They should also think about their own children, the demands they place on their parents, the considerations they require and the self-respect that goes with that consideration. If it is not there, one can assume only that In growing up they are deprived of what is termed "love".

I shall hazard a guess and say that the person named in the Bill might have had 60 social workers-60 people-who may have influenced the way in which he might deal with life. The longer he IS kept in an institution, the longer he will be denied the chance to make his own decisions and the more dependent he will become on the system of restriction which actually provides him with the opportunity of making himself known.

Notwithstanding the fact that when he is released from some sort of protective care he explodes all of the training he might have had, the fact is that he is a very deprived person. One can only hope that in consideration of future treatment of people such as this, we are not presented with this sort of legislation because the concepts which are written into it are abhorrent.

There is no member of this House who, if he or she examines clause 8 (1) with the particular person's name extracted, cannot be appalled by the intent of It. I do not want to be a member of this House if there is a subsequent Bill which says what is in this Bill.

The process has not acted quickly enough if the solutions which are provided are those that honourable members are faced with tonight. The honourable member for Berwick has provided us with some sort of escape route, which partly encompasses the intent of clause 11. It says:

Insofar as is consistent with the other provisions of this Act, if Garry David is detained in accordance with this Act, he must be provided with standards and conditions of care or treament that are no less than those provided to other detainees in the psychiatric in-patient service, prison or other institution of detention in which he is detained.

Where is the way out of that clause? Given the history of this case, what is provided in that clause to assure the community that there is a remedy? The clause states that this person is to be provided with no less than what is provided to other detainees in psychiatric in-patient services, prisons and other institutions. What is being offered to this person by the Bill is an addition to the 29 years of institutionalisation that he has already undergone-no better and no worse.

The honourable member for Berwick has suggested another way. If the community thinks there is a better way to handle the matter, should Parliament not also be considering the questions of another way-new legislation; a new method of treatment?

Qause 11 offers more of the same, which is somethin~ the government knows about. What is offered by the honourable member for BerwIck is a way forward, whereas

Community Protection Bill 10 April 1990 ASSE~BL Y 901

what is offered in the Bill is more of the same. No member of this House would say that the person concerned should have more of the same. We are in general agreement that what Garry David has had done to him is wrong, but the government does not suggest a way out. If there is an indictment of the way this matter has been handled it is in the fact that, provided with the opportunity and with all the knowledge the government has, it will not release all the reports in its possession. The public and the Opposition have not been allowed access to those reports and, given that situation, the best the Opposition can do is to say that the person concerned will get more of the same.

The Bill is an unsatisfactory solution and one of which no-one in the government can be proud. Government members cannot be happy with the Bill. As I said earlier, it puts a new side on social justice because if this is what social justice is all about it is no wonder Labor governments are in trouble. It is not social justice; it is the sort of justice of which not many honourable members have had experience because it occurred 45 years ago. Honourable members know the import of it, the intent of it, and those of us who have been inside a prison and heard the door shut are in no doubt that the retraction of freedom occurs from the moment the button on the door is pressed and it goes click. One is fully aware that there is no way out.

The only way out is to ftght,and I put it to the House that, notwithstanding all that has happened to the person concerned, that is what has happened. He has been deprived and desensitised since he was six years old. He has known only one thin$the fight-and the harder he· fought the harder· the bureaucracy fought against him. The result is a broken person who is completely destabilised and who does not have a foot in either camp. He does not know what is right and what is wrong, and he has been left with only the things personally available to him. He is bereft of any of the measures other people may use to assess which way is forward and which way is backwards; they have been stripped from him by a succession of people who adVIsed him one way and then the other way. He is bereft of any mechanism in his own mind to determine what is right and what is wrong, and all that is left for him is to kick out at whatever there is to kick against.

The Bill is an indictment of all of us, and one can only be drawn to the conclusion that the provision of some sort of therapeutic system that is not provided in the Bill is the only way that we as members of Parliament representing the people of Victoria can adequately leave this place tonight and say that we have at least addressed the problem, because if we do not do so we will go home in the sure knowledge that the person concerned is actually being committed to a further term of what he has had previously with the same outcomes.

Mrs WADE (Kew)-I shall commence my remarks by reading the first two sentences of the Attorney-General's second-reading speech, which states:

As elected representatives of the people of Victoria, we have a responsibility to protect the safety of Victorians whenever and wherever possible. If horrendous threats of violence are made by any person, and if it is believed that the person making those threats can and will carry them out, we must take all possible steps to protect the public.

That is what is called sharing the blame. As elected representatives honourable members must decide whether to vote in support of the Bill. However, the government has responsibility for the Bill and if it was found necessary to introduce legislation to this House it was the government's responsibility to do so in a timely fashion. Yet the proposed legislation has been rushed in at the last minute, and honourable members have been told that it must pass through both Houses of Parliament this week.

The government has known about Garry Webb for many years. The second-reading speech reveals that Garry Webb, or Garry David, has a long history of crimes of


violence. His conduct in prison has involved almost continual acts of violence, including starting fires and assaulting police, prison officers and prisoners. He has threatened various kinds of violence, including multiple murders, particularly of police, prison officers, staff and people treating him. Honourable members have been told that the threats have occurred over the whole period of his imprisonment, which totals about eight years. We have also been told at briefing sessions about various acts of self-mutilation, which are said to be relevant to the belief that the proposed legislation is necessary.

I point out that Garry David is not alone in the category of self-mutilation. During 1989 cases of self-mutilation totalled 50 in Pentridge Prison, 95 in the Metropolitan Reception Prison, 38 in Fairlea Prison-which has been the subject of a recent report to the government-and 6 at Sale Prison, totalling 189 cases.

The government has not only heard about the record of Garry David over his period of imprisonment and the offences he committed prior to his going to prison, but also over the past twelve months there has been considerable publicity in newspapers and on television about Garry David. It has been suggested in the Chamber tonight that the government has released the information over a period. I do not know whether the government has done so, but if it has it appears to have done nothing else; it appears to have released the information on a bit-by-bit basis and appears not to have turned its mind to legislation in a timely fashion.

The government has not used mechanisms under the Mental Health Act as recommended by the Law Reform Commission, nor has it introduced proposed legislation to amend the Crimes Act by extending the provisions of section 20 and 21 concerning threats of violence. No charges appear to have been laid for the activities carried out by Mr David or alleged to have been carried out by him while in prison, yet one would have expected that starting fires and assaulting police, prison officers and prisoners would have led to charges that may have resulted in an increased sentence, but no action was taken.

Mr Maclellan- He got four years offhis sentence.

Mrs WADE-In fact, he had four years taken offhis sentence.

Finally, the government has not introduced proposed legislation to deal generally with the situation ofa person who is likely to be a significant threat to the. community, such as a dangerous person's Bill; instead, honourable members have been faced with a panic on the part of the government to have the Community Protection Bill passed this week.

Parliament has been set up by the government. It is being forced to make a decision without the proper time in which to consider the issues, and it is being forced to make the decision on the basis of television coverage, newspaper reports and rumour.

The Opposition has been told in briefing sessions that the government has based the Bill on reports made by psychiatrists to the Mental Health Review Board. The Opposition has been referred to a transcript of the hearing by the board, but that transcript has not been made available to it. Apparently the government has reports made by departmental psychiatrists but none of that information is being made available to the Opposition; yet, it is being asked to make a decision on the basis of rumour. The government is saying to the Opposition, "Trust us, believe us; the Bill is necessary" .

Last week I turned my mind back to a proposal to introduce a Bill to deal with a particular person, namely Allison Thorne, whom I believe was a member of the Australian Labor Party; at least, she described herself as a member of the socialist left.


On that occasion I was aware of information given by the government to the Opposition and because in that case I presided over the proceedings of the Equal Opportunity Board I was aware of the true situation. The proceedings were totally misrepresented to the newspapers and to members of the Opposition. The information provided to the Opposition and to the media by the Premier and other Ministers involved can be described only as a pack of lies. Therefore, I am very doubtful about accepting the information put before the House by the government in this Bill.

The Opposition is confronted with a situation where it has been asked to pass the Bill only on the basis of the government's statement that Garry David poses a significant threat to the community. The government has refused to make his psychiatric and other reports available to the Opposition. The Bill is directed at only one person in the community; that is a repugnant proposition.

In his second-reading speech, the Attorney-General states: It is a fundamental principle of our society that a person may not be deprived of his liberty, except as

punishment for the commission of a crime or for the purpose of care and treatment of a mental illness.

It is absolutely fascinating that the Attorney-General should make that statement when introducing the Bill because it goes against the principle in a way that has never been experienced in Australia and, even worse, when honourable members are not provided with any information on which they can base decisions about Garry David's potential to harm others in the community.

Alternative scenarios have been put forward by the press and other interested organisations in the community. The House has been told there is no need for the Bill because Garry David will be found to be mentally ill under the terms of the Mental Health Act, and that he will be able to remain in a mental health institution. However, my understanding as a result of the briefing provided by the government is that that is not necessarily the case, and that the government beheves Garry David will not be found to come within the provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The Victorian Council of Civil Liberties has referred to the provisions of section 20 of the Crimes Act. It has said that the Crimes Act provides ample protection to the public if that is considered necessary in respect of Mr David or any other potentially dangerous persons. Section 20 provides that:

A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another person a threat to kill that other person ... is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for fifteen years.

As a result of the departmental briefing, I have been led to believe by the AttorneyGeneral and his officers that there is grave doubt that Mr David will be convicted of the offences with which he has been charged; that the provisions in the Act may not apply; and that the witnesses are unreliable. The Opposition is placed in a difficult position. It cannot put its own decisions on this matter into operation; it is not the government, and it cannot decide what appropriate treatment or rehabilitation should be made available to Mr David. That is a matter for the government.

The honourable member for Berwick has referred to what he calls a third way: there should be an agreement by Mr David with the government for him to remain in custody and to obtain appropriate rehabilitation in those circumstances. The honourable member for Berwick has been told that Mr David is not ready to return to the community. However, the Opposition does not know whether it is possible to negotiate successfully on such a proposition. The Opposition has no understanding that the government is willing to negotiate such an agreement.

Now the Opposition is in the position of having to decide between the rights of the community to live in safety and the rights of Garry David. It must decide that, not on the basis of what it would like to do, but on the basis of the Bill before the House. The


Opposition has to take into account Garry David's previous behaviour, which I have already referred to, and as it is detailed in the second-reading speech. It has to take into account the reports that supposedly have been made by various psychiatrists, as referred to in the second-reading speech. That is about all the Opposition has to rely on.

The Opposition has been invited to judge Mr David on the information that his father is a criminal and on the basis of what the Attorney-General has said in his second-reading speech, when he states:

Evidence given by a large number of medical witnesses to the Mental Health Review Board was to the effect that Garry David is capable of carrying out his threats of the most bizarre acts of violence including multiple murders. All witnesses agreed there is a risk to the community if he is released-some put the risk as small, others put it as severe.

The Bill provides for some safeguards for Garry David. In some respects it has some advantages over suggested amendments to the Mental Health Act because the Bill provides for a certain amount of publicity. The proceedings will not take place in private; so far as the Opposition is able to understand it, the proceedings will be in open court, and not in a closed court. I should not be surprised to find a provision in the Bill that the court should be closed to the public but so far as I read it, such proceedings will be open to the public. I would like to be assured of that by the Attorney-General, so that these proceedings cannot happen behind closed doors.

The Bill provides for a hearing by the Supreme Court. The government assumes that the Supreme Court will find that Garry David cannot be released. The relevant provision in the Bill is stated in clause 8 (1) and refers to the Supreme Court being satisfied: ... on the balance of probabilities, that Garry David-

(a) is a serious risk to the safety of any member of the public; and

(b) is likely to commit any act of personal violence to another person-

It may well be that the Supreme Court may not be able to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that that is the case. What will happen in those circumstances? Parliament may be presented with another Bill-but that would be unacceptable to the Opposition.

I have some concerns about the Bill. There is no guarantee of legal representation for Garry David and I should like to see that inserted in the Bill. I understand some amendments will be moved; I have not yet seen such amendments but I hope they will include such a provision. Also, I hope they may include a provision for service of notice of the proceedings on Garry David prior to any hearing taking place. Such a provision is not contained in the Bill.

On balance, in the interests of public safety the Opposition is reluctant to oppose the Bill. However, I refer to the Attorney-Generals' second-reading speech, in which he states: It-

That is, the government-is also concerned to provide protection for the community from Garry David without allowing the

proposed legislation inadvertently to apply to any other person. For this reason the government has decided that the Bill should apply only to Garry David.

It is difficult to take the view that legislation should apply only to one person in the community. If the Bill is appropriate for Garry David, one has to ask whether he is unique in the community or whether the Bill should not also apply to other people. If


it is appropriate to apply to Garry David it is appropriate that it should apply to other people in the community who pose a greater or as great a risk as Mr David.

On the whole, I would have preferred a Bill that applied to all dangerous persons; a Bill that had been drafted with care that provided appropriate safeguards to protect the community from all dangerous persons.

Although the Opposition would prefer not to have such a Bill, it is even more inappropriate to have a Bill applying only to one person in the community. Nevertheless, I was somewhat horrified to learn at a late stage today that the AttorneyGeneral was proposing by way of amendment to delete all references to Garry David so that the Bill on its face would apply to all members of the community who may come within its terms.

Given what the Attorney-General said in his second-reading speech, it is clear that the Bill has been drafted with the particular circumstances of Garry David in mind; it has not been drafted in the circumstances of providing protection to the community from other persons who might be dangerous. It is inappropriate to delete the references to Garry David without making other changes to the Bill and without having appropriate time in which to consider provisions for a general Bill and introduce it in that form. In those circumstances the Opposition could not support the proposed amendments.

The Bill should not be transformed into a general Bill at this late stage. The actions of the government and the Attorney-General in proposing to do so are to be deplored and should be resisted.

Mr HAYWARD (Prahran)-This Bill is an indictment of the government and is an admission of failure by the government and the system. The Bill incorporates provisions that are abhorrent to all concepts of civil liberties. I had the interesting and sometimes unhappy experience of living for a number of years under a very repressive regime in the Philippines, controlled by the late President Marcos. The provisions in the Bill are like those used by President Marcos on an everyday basis and are characteristic of a dictatorship-those are the types of provisions that the government, which professes to have regard for civil liberties, is introducing now.

I am sympathetic towards the Attorney-General. I have had the same privilege of serving in two Houses of Parliament at the same time as the Minister, and I have heard the Minister on numerous occasions mouth words supportive of civil liberties, and I believe he did so genuinely. I believe the Minister throughout his whole career in politics and before has had a genuine regard for and has supported the principles of civil liberties.

Sadly, one of the characteristics of politics is hypocrisy. The Attorney-General must feel very much the hypocrite tonight, when he has to handle a Bill such as this, which is contrary to everything he has said and has stood for throughout his life.

The Bill is an indictment of the system, which has already produced many people similar to the person in question. We must not be under any misconception about this man being a lone case. Other people in our institutions today are not as bad as this man but they come very close to him in evil intent. This man did not get into this situation on his own. He has lived most of his life under the control, guidance and supervision of government institutions. He may have started off with unfortunate characteristics, but those characteristics were entrenched, accelerated and expanded through his involvement in the system. As I said a moment ago, there are many people who are very close to this man in evil intent.


What will we do? Is there to be a Bill to effect the containment of each of these men, or does the government have a more sinister plan in mind for a later occasion when it will try to make more general the provisions that it is introducing regarding this man? The most disturbing aspect of the Bill is what it says about the system, about how many Garry Davids are being created in the system.

The most shocking indictment of the State is the way it supervises and supports wards of the State. I have spoken with many people in Community Services Victoria and other organisations about the way wards of the State are supervised and supported.

Officials at Community Services Victoria readily admit that they do not know where half the wards of the State are in Victoria. Community organisatIons are quick to say that half the homeless children who come within theIr ambit are wards of the State. The government does a shocking job in looking after those who are under its care and supervision. In this particular instance Garry David is the manifestation of that. The Bill is an indication of what the system does to people and raises concerns about what the system is doing to people at present. Wards of the State who should be in proper care are kept in institutions, sometimes not properly supervised. There are wards of the State in the Baltara Reception Centre who have been left there for years; they do not receive proper supervision and during their time in institutions their criminal tendencies are accentuated. There are situations where wards of the State have been released into transitional units and have behaved in a disastrous and dangerous manner.

For instance, in the western suburbs of Melbourne about a year ago a ward of the State was released from an institution into a transitional unit and, sadly, raped one of the community services officers who was working in that institution.

Only a few months ago some wards of the State who had come from an institution and gone into a transitional care unit in a northern suburb of Melbourne held a female worker at knife point, robbed the security cupboard and escaped in a Community Services Victoria vehicle. The department's response to this was to shut down the transitional care unit. No real effort was made to bring in proper measures to deal with the situation. Abhorrent though the Bill before Parliament is, the real worry is the failure of the system which, in turn, raises concerns about the continuing dangers for the community. The community cannot afford these types of situations and the community will pay dearly for them in many ways.

The current situation could have been avoided by proper action being taken by the government. This situation has arisen today because of the government's nonsensical automatic remissions. Without those automatic remissions this man would continue to remain in prison for a number of years. The government has allowed the situation to get out of control and we are now faced with an allegation by the government that, unless the Bill is passed, this man will be released and will be given the opportunity of doing all the dreadful things he has threatened to do.

The government stands condemned not only for this ridiculous and deplorable Bill but also because it continues to allow the system to operate in such a way that it will probably produce more of the type of Garry David who will create problems for our community in the future.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-I shall not reply to the many points made except to come to the key issue which is the so-called third way. A number of suggestions were made about the solution of this problem. I was surprised that one suggestion made was to amend the Bail Act.

What is required is a holding operation for the next twelve months or so to enable the community, the parties and Parliament to give proper consideration to the various


reports that are to hand, such as the Victorian Law Reform Commission report and the Social Development Committee report.

The Social Development Committee report needs cooperation by all parties so that it can be tabled and adopted. If that cooperation is not forthcoming, the process of finalising the report will be slowed and we will not have the benefit of it. The Bill does not pre-empt the report of the Social Development Committee.

It is all very well for honourable members to complain about measures in the Bill. We are all unhappy about having to legislate in this way. The fact that the so-called third way-or whatever the solution is-is elusive is demonstrated by the fact that despite hours of debate not one speaker has put forward a coherent and clear solution. The best we have had is a so-called third way, but that has never been spelled out and we need the time that this Bill will give us to work out a possible appropriate solution and that will come only after we have had the opportunity of examining the reports of the Social Development Committee and the Victorian Law Reform Commission.



Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.

Clause 4

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-I wonder whether the Minister would be game enough to tell the Committee why the Bill provides for ex parte proceedings as opposed to some other form. Is the Minister prepared to give undertakings that the parties against whom orders are sought will be advised of the ex parte applications; that counsel will be provided to appear for them at applications; that they will be kept informed of the progress of any applications that are made, or are ex parte applications merely a device inserted in the Bill to avoid publicity? Is the honourable gentleman prepared to say whether ex parte applications will automatically be held in public so that members of the public who might be interested in attending can do so or whether the court may order that they be heard in camera, especially when evidence provided for in other sections of the Bill might be presented at the hearing?

Mr KENNAN (Attomey-General)-Clause 4 must be read in the context of the whole Bill. The amendments circulated make it clear that nothing is intended to affect the right of a person before the court-if the honourable member for Berwick had read the Bill he would understand the relevance of my remarks-to be represented and to cross-examine witnesses.

In some circumstances it may be difficult to bring a person before the court, in which case the ordinary Supreme Court procedures would apply. We have confidence in those procedures and we make it clear by the foreshadowed amendments that there is nothing in the Bill that is intended to affect the right of a person to appear, to be represented or to cross-examine witnesses.

It is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide whether proceedings are held in camera. Nothing in the Bill in any way affects the usual proceedings of the Supreme Court in that respect.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-It would have been more reassuring if the AttorneyGeneral had indicated that it was the intention of the government to apply for a case to be heard in camera but no indication along those lines was given. The Minister has not addressed the question of where a 29-year-old man who has had only two years


out of institutional care since the age of six years will get the money to be represented by counsel.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Norris)-Order! The time for me to report progress under Sessional Orders has now arrived.

Progress was reported.

The SPEAKER-Order! The time appointed by Sessional Orders for me to interrupt business has now arrived.

On the motion ofMr ROPER (Treasurer), the sitting was continued.

The House went into Committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion was resumed of clause 4.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-In view of the extraordinary nature of the proposed legislation, I ask the Attorney-General to indicate whether the government would guarantee to a person in respect of whom an application is made access to representation by counsel and the funds necessary for that, either through legal aid or the appeal costs fund. I want to ensure that anyone proceeded against will be represented by legal counsel.

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-Legal aid would be available if the person wished to have it.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 5

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-I ask the Attorney-General to indicate whether, under clause 5 (1) (b), Mr David would continue ofbe a patient within the meanin$ of the Mental Health Act prior to a decision being made by the Mental Health ReView Board on an application that has come before it. In other words, if the Mental Health Review Board decided that Mr David is not mentally ill, what status would he have? Would he be subject to compulsory treatment as a patient under clause 5 (1) (b)? Would he continue to be a patient within the meaning of the clause, unless the Supreme Court otherwise determines, irrespective of the fact that the Mental Health Review Board may determine that he is not mentally ill?

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-The honourable member assumes an intention to make an application before the Mental Health Review Board. The honourable member's premise is wrong.

The clause was agreed to, as was clause 6.

Clause 7

Mr KENNAN (Attorney-General)-I move: 1. Clause 7, line 40, omit "is not" and insert "except as otherwise provided in this Act, is".

2. Oause 7, line 40, omit "or" and insert "and".

3. Oause 7, page 3, after line 24, insert-

"(3) Nothing in this Act affects the right of Garry David in proceedings before the Court to appear or be represented and to cross-examine witnesses.".

The amendments are intended to make it abundantly clear that, with the exception of the matters set out in relation to the courts, there IS no intention to go outside the ordinary rules of practice as to evidence. Nothing in the Bill will affect the right of


Garry David in proceedings before the court to appear or be represented and to crossexamine witnesses.

It was never suggested seriously that the Supreme Court, by virtue of the Bill, even without the words of the amendment, would have excluded the ri~t of the person to appear or be represented and to cross-examine witnesses. In the I1gbt of what I think are the most extraordinary aspersions cast upon the Supreme Court during the debate today it has been necessary to move the amendment, because various Opposition members have harped on the theme that the Bill will remove natural justice. They have assumed that the Supreme Court would conduct itself in a way that would deprive a person of those ordinary rights.

The government is confident that the provision is superfluous because it has absolute confidence that the Supreme Court would apply the rules of natural justice, but, in the light of the sledging from Opposition members, it has introduced the amendment. In doing so, I place on record that the government has absolute confidence that the Supreme Court would have observed the rules of natural justice in any event.

Mr MACLELLAN (Berwick)-The rather arch effect of the Attorney-General was rather spoilt by the fact that the amendment was prepared before the Attorney-General heard what any Opposition member had to say about the Bill, so it was not moved in response to any sledging or disreputable comments about the Supreme Court that the Attorney-General seems to have fantasised about.

The amendment was prepared to cover the severe embarrassment of the government that Opposition members, members of the legal fraternity, media commentators and members of the public have commented upon the phrase. The government introduced the proposed legislation last week and it was not offensive then and the AttorneyGeneral has tried to dilly it up with this amendment, which makes only the first line less offensive. That is a problem with which the government will have to deal.

The Opposition does not oppose the amendment. It makes the Bill look a bit better. It may make no difference to the practice of the Supreme Court in determining an application. It is perfectly ridiculous for the Attorney-General to try to persuade the Committee that he is introducing the amendment only to accommodate criticisms made by the Opposition, when he knows that the amendment was drafted well in advance of the debate today. Of course, I was earlier accused of lying.

The amendments were agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 8 to 15.

Clause 16

The Committee divided on the clause (Mr Norris in the chair). Ayes 44 Noes 38

Majority for the clause

AYES Mr Andrianopoulos MrBaker Mrs Barker Mr Batchelor MrCain MrCrabb Mr Cunningham Mr Dollis MrEmst MrFordham

6

NOES Mr Austin Mr Bildstien MrBrown MrOark MrColeman MrCooper MrDelzoppo Mr Dickinson MrGude MrHayward

91 0 ASSEMBLY 10 April 1990

AYES MrsGarbutt MrGavin MrHamilton Mr Harrowfield MrsHill Mrs Hirsh MrJolly MrKennan MrKennedy Ms Kirner MrLeighton Mr McCutcheon MrMcDonald MrMathews Mr Micallef MrPope MrsRay MrRoper MrRowe MrSandon MrSeitz Mrs Setches MrSheehan

(Ballarat South) MrSheehan

(Northcote) MrShell MrSimmonds MrSpyker MrThomson MrTrezise DrVaughan MrWalsh Mrs Wilson

Tellers: MrCole MrSercombe

NOES MrHeffernan MrJasper MrJohn MrKennett MrLea Mr Lieberman MrMcGrath

(Lowan) MrMcGrath

(Warrnambool) MrMcNamara Mr Maclellan MrMaughan DrNapthine MrPerrin MrPescott MrPlowman MrReynolds Mr Richardson Mr Ross-Edwards MrSmith

Adjournment

(Glen Waverley) MrSmith

(Polwarth) Mr Stockdale MrTanner MrsWade MrWallace MrWeideman DrWells

Tellers: MrElder Mr Honeywood


ADJOURNMENT State Bank Victoria-Australian Tourism Commission publication-Bank charges

Victorian Economic Development Corporation-V /Line land in Cobram-Public housing in Traralgon-Dietetic outpatient clinics

Mr ROPER (Treasurer)-I move: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GUDE (Hawthom)-I direct to the attention of the Treasurer the loan benefits of employees of State Bank Victoria. Last week, I raised the question of loans that had been granted to the assistant general manager of the bank of$250 000 at 3 per cent. I challenge the Treasurer to inform the House. about the accuracy of that statement. I have no doubt as to its accuracy because of the existence of those details. I have noted that the acting chief executive of the bank, Mr McAnany has indicated that he would examine this area, but he has not denied the existence of the loans.

Another matter relates to a loan of $10 000 for swimming pool repairs which Mr McAnany has been reported as saying was untrue. I challenge Mr McAnany and the


Treasurer to come clean! Mr McAnany may not have received the money as a maintenance payment, but there is no doubt the money was received by him as a part of his personal expenses. I invite the Treasurer to pay close attention to the personal expense accounts ofMr McAnany and other executives of the bank.

Last week, I gave the example of a loan for $250 000. I understand there has been some review made of my comments, but the Treasurer, for whatever pUl"J>C?se, has chosen to be silent. He should look not only at the officers relief fund, which was a managed fund to which I referred last week, but also to other processes by which senior officers employed by the bank received loans.

As a further example, a loan was provided to an employee in the computer section of the bank for a new Mitsubushi Magna motor vehicle that he purchased. He received that loan at the incredible rate of 1 per cent interest! If that was not sufficient to attract the attention of the Treasurer, I invite the Treasurer to also examine the housing loan for $90 000 that the same person obtained at 6 per cent interest. It is clear there has been a cover-up in this bank over the loans made to senior officers, and it is time the Treasurer took a close personal interest in those matters.

The Treasurer, in response to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition today, said that it was normal practice for investigations to be made of State Bank procedures. I put to the Treasurer that the contrary is the truth and that it is most unusual for the State Bank to employ a private investigation agency to undertake a review of the senior executives. No less than twenty interviews have been conducted with senior officers and former board members of the bank and I invite the Treasurer to inform the House when was the last occasion that a private investigation agency was called in by the bank to undertake that sort of inquiry; has a report been made; is the board aware of the report; and does the Treasurer have the integrity to table the details of that report in Parliament? If not why not?

Mr W. D. McGRATH (Lowan)-In the absence of the Minister for Tourism, I ask the Premier to direct to the attention of his colleague a publication of the Australian Tourism Commission Australian Holiday Guide 1988-89 Japanese edition, which is made available to Japanese students coming to Australia. The magazine contains ten pages relating to Victoria. It appears the material is compiled by the Victorian Tourism Commission and is sent to the Australian Tourist Commission for insertion in the publication, which is an Australia-wide publication.

Father Francis Marriott, the parish priest of St Therese's in Bendigoz has been involved in the coordination of visits of Japanese students and he has dIrected my attention to a photograph in the publication. The Victorian section contains tourist information about the penguins at Phillip Island, Ned Kelly's Museum, Australian Football League football, and so on. The particular photograph to which Father Marriott has drawn my attention is an alleged photograph of three nuns who have lifted up their skirts showing their legs. Not only is the photograph a send-up of women, but also it is a send-up of a Catholic religious order.

The honourable member for Wantima, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the sitting the other night, expressed concerns about a cartoon on the front page of the Herald. It appears the government has double standards when a government publication uses thiS material. The government should adopt a standard of fairness for publications issued by government organisations and not just refer to isolated incidents that are of concern to it.

Father Marriott wrote to the then Federal Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Graham Richardson, expressing his concern before writing to me. In his letter to me dated 9 April, Father Marriott says:

It was the first thing the Japanese chaplain asked me about when he arrived and it was pleasing to me to at least show him that I was trying to have some action taken.


Briefly, all students were given this booklet by the appropriate travel/trade/government-sponsored bureau in Nagoya. The administration was amazed that we would allow such a parody of what, to them, is a precious national religion. I am sure that a government-sponsored publication in Japan, advertising Japan, would not permit such ridicule of their national religious belief.

Greetings for a happy and holy Easter.

Publications like this in government documents do nothing to raise the status of women.

Mr Micallef interjected.

Mr W. D. McGRATH-I would expect that sort of interjection from the honourable member for Springvale. I ask the Premier to take up my concerns and those of Father Francis Marriott with the Minister for Tourism and, through his colleague, the Federal Minister, to ensure that photographs such as those I have described do not appear in government publications designed to publicise the tourist potential of Australia.

Mr CUNNINGHAM (Derrimut)-I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs in another place, and I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs to pass on my concerns to his colleague. I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to reject any fresh attempts by the banking industry to introduce service fees or yearly fees on credit card holders.

Honourable members are aware that previous Ministers for Consumer Affairs have strongly opposed the introduction of service fees for credit card holders. In fact, Victorian Ministers for Consumer Affairs have been most vocal in opposing this added cost to bank customers. The imposition of this fee would impact particularly on low income earners, who are already suffering from access charges recently introduced by banks.

Last year, the ANZ banking group introduced access fees and the Commonwealth Bank introduced a $1.50 a month fee on accounts with a balance less than $250.

I am not criticising individual banks because one of the banks I deal with in my electorate-the Commonwealth Banking Corporation-provides an excellent service and the staff are hard-working, dedicated people.

My concern with the banking industry generally is that it has had good years of profit. Last year the Westpac Banking Corporation posted a profit of $971 million. Over the past four years the ANZ Bank has increased its profits from $200 million to $400 million with an average increase of20 per cent a year.

Banks quote the 90-day bank bill as the cost of financing their credit operations. The current cost of 90-day bank bills is approximately 16 per cent. The interest rate on Bankcard is approximately 23 per cent, a difference of some 6 to 7 per cent. Credit card interest rates defy the law of gravity. The law of gravity says that what goes up must come down, but that does not apply to Bankcard interest rates. When Bankcard was introduced in 1974 its interest rate was 19 per cent and market interest rates were below that figure. The interest rate is currently 23 per cent, which is again higher than the market rate. Some low income earners use credit cards to juggle their budgets and any further imposts on those people causes problems for them.

In closing I shall read a poem written by one of my constituents typifying the problems of Bank card borrowers. It is called "Easy Money":

It is easy to borrow from Mondays to Fridays,

All you need is an address and good bona fides.

Different banks, different cards, all say "easy money

Come take me, I'm yours-I'll make every day sunny".

Adjournment 10 April 1990

You are tempted, you think of the fridge that's broken down,

And the husband who's shot through to see a new town.

He's left you with debts-way, way over your head,

And with three little kids to tuck into bed.

You succumb to the bright coloured cards made of plastic.

You'll be cool-nothing rash, won't do anything drastic.

Too late you discover, you've jumped in too deep,

So you weep, and you worry and you struggle to sleep.

The man at the bank says that you'll be okay,

But he might have to take your 'lifecard' away.

"C'mon now!" he says, "there's no need for tears,

Just relax-pay us back-for the next fifty years".

I acknowledge Bill Bums of Melton for the poem.

ASSEMBLY 913

Mr STOCKDALE (Brighton)-I direct to the attention of the Treasurer a matter concerning the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. The relevant facts are set out in a statutory declaration, and I seek leave to have that incorporated in H ansard as the basis of the remarks I address to the House.

Leave was granted, and the statutory declaration was as follows: STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, ERNESTO EMILIO CESTER

of "Pine lands", Potts Rd., Skye, in the State of Victoria do solemnly and sincerely declare:

INTRODUCTION

I. When Fantasy Farm went into Receivership in 1988, I made an appointment with Mr. Robert Fordham in order to point out the significance of that company in terms of maintaining a viable independant poultry operation in Victoria. Mr. Fordham said he understood, and undertook to have Max Currie contact me, in order that my family could be invited to seek to purchase the business.

2. During initial meetings with Max Currie, I asked him directly what he thought the "ball-park" value of the business was. Mr. Currie suggested $7 million. At that stage we asked for information and data relevant to the business in order that we could prepare projected financial statements and other budgets for the purpose of gauging the worth of the business.

3. Mr Currie kept me informed as to where our bid would have to be pitched if we were to win the purchase of the business. As discussions progressed, the figure I was given kept rising; in turn I was informed that the VEDC's exposure had risen to over $11 million, and therefore the price the VEDC sought was in the region of this amount. At that point I had the belief that the business could not support the level of funding required, or indeed that the business was worth anything like the price being asked. I expressed my concerns to Mr Currie.

RE-ZONING

4. When the apparent asking price became that high, Max Currie introduced discussions on the issue of a re-zoning of the Warrandyte property. He indicated that the reason that the asking price for the company had become so high was to cover the VEDC's debt. He indicated that such a high price, if we were to pay it, would recover the VEDC's debt, as well as provide an avenue for my family to acquire the business. His commercial justification for such a high asking price was that a re-zone of the Warrandyte property would enable the purchaser to reduce the debt substantially, and in turn ensure the viability of the business.

5. Several discussions took place between myself and Mr. Currie (and others) whereby the common theme was "re-zone". As a result of these meetings, I was firmly of the belief that a re-zone of the Warrandyte property would be forthcoming as a matter of course. I formed this belief on the basis of Mr. Currie's assurances, his position, and his apparent means to make such assurances (see below).

At one meeting between myself, Max Currie, Ray Rickard, and others, held at the VEDC boardroom, I distinctly recall that when it was pointed out to Mr Currie that he might not be able to undertake to ensure

Session 1990--30


a re-zone of the Warrandyte land, he was most emphatic in informing all present at the meeting that it presented no problem for him, as he would be able to exercise his influence over his contacts within the Government to make good his undertaking. He referred to it as " ... merely the stroke of a Minister's pen .. ".

6. During a telephone conversation with Mr. Currie, whilst I was at my Heatherton Road office in the company of another officer of the firm, Mr. Currie informed me that as a result of his discussions with Mr. Fordham, he could assure me that a re-zone of the Warrandyte land would be forthcoming.

HEN QUOTA

7. While negotiations were continuing, during conversations with John Spark and Max Currie, I was categorically assured of the VEOC's ability to transfer the Hen Quota to a purchaser of the Company. I said that it was not possible because it was illegal. John Spark said he knew that legislation would be passed in State Parliament which would permit the transfer, because he had seen the "paperwork" which would permit the legislation and the transfer. I assumed that his assurance must have come from the relevant ministers.

8. In our continuing negotiations, Mr. Marc Pruden (our legal representative), suggested that $1 million should come off the purchase price if the quota could not be delivered. When the State election was called, we became concerned as to the delivery of the quota, fearing that legislation would not be passed.

(On taking over the business, we had problems getting payments from the VEB for our eggs, because apparently the Quota was not in the company's name. Our General Manager at that time, Mr Leong Lee, rang John Spark, who said he would resolve the problem. Leong Lee then told me that Spark said he would fix it. Subsequently, we had no difficulty receiving our funds from the VEB directly into the Chubby Chick Pty Ltd bank account.)

9. After completing all discussions, and after Max Currie had indicated that all assurances and undertakings given by him for, and on behalf of, the VEDC and other Statutory bodies and their ministers could and would be fulfilled, he then dictated to me what substance an offer should contain, and how it should be presented, to ensure that we would be the successful purchaser of the business from John Spark (the Receiver Manager), and the VEDC. Accordingly, I proceeded to put an offer together in conjunction with my solicitor, and upon completion, forwarded it to the relevant parties.

10. Some time after, we were informed that our offer for the purchase of Fantasy Farm was successful on the terms, conditions, assurances, and undertakings as outlined in the ,points above. Our solicitors proceeded to deal with the Receiver Manager and his solicitors, and VEDC solicitors, to prepare the relevant documents for consumation and settlement of the purchase of Fantasy Farm.

GENETIC STOCK

11. At the time we presented our submission, we offered the service of our Veterinary Surgeon and our Farming Manager, free of charge and whether our bid was successful or not, to the Receiver Manager, so as to ensure the security and well being of the vital genetic stock at Fantasy Farm. This offer was not accepted. Furthermore, my Solicitor and I repeatedly requested that we be allowed to inspect the vital genetic stock at the farms (such stock being intrinsic for successful breeding and hence successful trading operations of the company) prior to assuming control of the company, yet were repeatedly denied access.

12. Via the process of time, investigation has revealed that the vital genetic stock was not transferred to the purchasing company, and that at no time did the VEDC make myself or the purchaser aware that this crucial stock was not available prior to the purchase being effected, this despite our steps to attempt to ensure the security of the genetic stock.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Provisions of an Act of the Parliament of Victoria rendering persons making a false declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury.

Declared at Ringwood Police Station

in the State aforesaid, this 10th E.CESTER

day of April 1990

Before me-STEVE PI TT

Rank-Constable No. 27578

Mr STOCKDALE-The matter concerns the Fantasy Farm investment, a highprofile failure of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, and the

state bank victoria - parliament of victoria · state bank. i make it clear to him that the...

Documents